Harrison's Reports (1928-1928)

128 HARRISON’S REPORTS August 11, 1928 Columbia Substitutions “RANSOM” (June 7) : The original title of this one is supposed to be "San Francisco.” Though no author was given in the 1927-28 campaign book, “San Francisco” was described as society-underworld spectacle. The finished product is an ordinary underworld melodrama ; nothing spectacular about it, but the story unfolds in San Francisco. For this reason it cannot be declared a substitution. You have to accept it. "THE WAY OF THE STRONG” (June 19) : In the campaign book it was stated that this picture would be founded on a story by Octavus Roy Cohen, whose book deals with, to use the exact language in the announcement, "a girl who had everything that money could buy but yearned for something money couldn’t buy.” The finished product is described in the press sheet as an underworld melodrama, and says in a heading that the "Exploits of Famous New York Gangster Furnish Background for Gripping Motion Picture.” This press sheet gives no author. This proves conclusively that it is a story substitution. I may be able to see the picture this week in a threatre. If I do, I shall watch the introductory title closely to see what author is given credit for the story. Watch the review for the information. But 1 am sure that it is a substitution, for the omission of the author’s name from the press sheet does not seem to be accidental. “BEWARE OF BLONDES” (July 1) : The 1927-28 campaign book described this as a picture to be founded on a story by Pierre Dumond, "who . . . knows his blondes !” The press sheet does not give the author’s name evidently in an effort to hide it from watchful eyes. But you can always find it in the introductory title. It is there where 1 shall look for it when 1 see it, if it is shown in a theatre here. It is no doubt a substitution. “SAY IT WITH SABLES” (July 13) : The annual campaign book described this as a story by Dorothy Howell, “whose screen stories for past Columbia Successes,” to use the language of the book, “have meant profits at the box office.” The finished product, however, has been founded on a story by Frank Capra and Peter Milne. It is a story substitution and you don’t have to accept it. “VIRGIN LIPS” (July 25) : The campaign book stated that this picture would be founded on a story by Jack Lait, “Nationally Known Syndicate Writer and Playwright. Author of ‘Help Wanted,’ ‘One of Us,’ ‘The Boy Friend,’ and other famous plays and stories.” The finished product, however, is by Charles Beahan. Such being the case, it is not the picture you bought, and therefore you are not obligated to accept it. Metro-Gold wyn-Mayer Substitutions “FORBIDDEN HOURS” (780) : For analysis of this picture read footnote in review printed on page 1 19, issue of July 28. "THE COSSACKS” (842) : Not a substitution. “TELLING THE WORLD” (810) Haines No. 4: Not a substitution. “FOUR WALLS” (835) : Not a substitution. “WAR IN THE DARK” (883) : Read the review in this issue. “HER CARDBOARD LOVER” (829) : Not a substitution. Universal Substitutions The Universal program was analyzed completely in the issue of June 30. The following information may be added, which has been obtained by a closer study : “MIDNIGHT ROSE” (A5701) : This picture was sold Mary Philbin and has been delivered with Lya de Putti. "STOP THAT MAN” (A5707) : The original title of this one is supposed to have been “The Girl Show” ; but the two titles do not belong to the same story for the reason that “The Girl Show” has been described by the Universal campaign book as follows: “Life with the Follies of the Tank Towns! — A wrestler who meets all comers!— Atmosphere, jazz, heart beats, and laughs in a sure-fire for entertainment. A William Wyler production with All Star Cast” ; whereas “Stop That Man” has been founded on a story by George Hobart, and has nothing to do with jazz, being a story in which Arthur Lake got himself and his policeman brother in trouble by posing as a policeman himself. (See review on page 50, issue of March 31.) Pathe Substitutions This program was analyzed completely in the issue of June 30. There is nothing more to add. Warner Bros. Substitutions The Warner Bros. Program was analyzed completely in the issue of June 30. There is nothing more to add for the reason, as said in the June 30 issue, that Warner Bros, sold merely titles and the finished product cannot be “pinned down.” It is a bad state of affairs when a producer hasn’t the courage to say what stories he is going to put into pictures. He wants to leave the door open so that he may foist on you any junk he sees fit, and to withhold any good pictures that he may accidentally produce. Know what you are buying ! Don’t buy a cat in a bag ! F B O Substitutions As said in the issue of June 30, I have not been able to discover any substitutions in this company's 1927-28 product. 1 expect to scrutinize it more closely this week. In the meantime, if you have been notified by them of any change of title, inform this office at once; it will furnish the clue. Paramount Substitutions As said in the issue of June 3o, I have not been able to discover any substitutions in this company’s program. F B O NO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST Last year F B O sold 18 Gold Bonds and 12 Master Showmen. They did not make any so-called Specials. This year they are selling 24 Gold Bonds. They have no Master Showmen. Instead, they are selling 6 Specials. Last year they cried themselves into your hearts by telling you that they were a small concern and needed help. And you, in order to give a "little fellow” a “lift,” booked their pictures and paid them more money for them. I felt sympathy for them myself. The 1927-2S product did not come up to the standard of the 1926-27. And nobody knows what they will turn out to be this year. “Gang War,” thought a good picture (but not great), does not mean that the other product will come up to the standard of this one : One swallow does not make a summer. But this is not the important fact : Last year they begged those of you that bought their product to permit them to allocate the prices themselves. And you, good-heartedly, permitted them to do it. They then piled up most of the money on the Gold Bonds, putting low program prices on the Master Showmen. This year they have taken the prices for the Gold Bonds as a basis, and are asking an increase over the fictitious prices they themselves created. They have no Master Showmen this year to lighten your burden by putting small prices on such a brand. Instead, they are selling you six Specials, demanding prices that are not demanded even by the biggest of the producer-distributors. And we all thought that F B O being little fellows, needed a lift. And we gave it to them. Which shows that you dare not be a good-natured fellow towards the sellers in this business. If you do, you get the worst of it in the end. And I admit that I was as guilty as any of you in thinking that they needed a “lift,” being little fellows. I have often cautioned you not to permit the exchangemen to allocate your prices, pointing out the danger to you. 1 even cited an instance where Paramount allocated the prices on the Menjou pictures, the case being that of an exhibitor on Long Island, and afterwards they used the fictitious prices they created for the Menjou pictures for that exhibitor to ask him twice as much the following season. Don’t let them do it again ! Allocate vour own prices ! * * * While talking about F B O, we might just as well talk also about its step-sister — Pathe-DeMille (now Pathe). Last year, they sold you 26 DeMille Master Group and 10 DeMille Specials. Of the Master Group they have delivered onlv 18 ; they have announced that they will not make 8 out of the total 26. The following are the pictures that they will not make : “He’s My Man,” “In Bad with Sinbad,” “Such is Fame,” “Free and Easy,” “The/ New Yorker,” “Self Defense,” “Heart of Katie O’Doone,” and "What Holds Men.” Now, it is nothing unusual for a producer now and then to be unable to make a picture or two because of unforseen conditions. But when a producer makes only sixty-nine per cent of the product, it is down-right bad faith. And arbitration boards should cancel the entire contract should ( Continued on other side)