Harrison's Reports (1931)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION TWO HARRISON’S REPORTS SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1931 Vol. VIII No. 17 A RECAPITULATION OF THE SUBSTITUTIONS Since the issue of January 24 the substitution facts of each picture were given in a footnote in the review. This article contains all the substitutions from the beginning of the season to this day ; they were compiled in one article for your convenience. All future substitution facts will be indicated in the reviews, as before. Several exhibitors have asked me if they are obligated to accept a picture in which there has been a substitution of story or of prominent star. No exhibitor is compelled to accept such a picture, for the reason that it has not been produced in accordance with the specifications contained either in the contract or in the work sheet. At this time let me make the following remarks : some producers sold their 1930-31 pictures with either meagre description or no description at all, with the result that they were able to deliver anything they saw fit ; it was impossible for you to define most of such pictures as substitutions. Just look over your records and see how many of the undescribed pictures delivered to you had any merit ; you will find out that you could have done without most of them. It is different, of course, in the case of the star pictures ; you are not buying stories, but stars. But when you buy pictures on their promised quality, you should demand some description of them. Harrison’s Reports hopes that this year you will demand a greater description of the pictures you buy. If any producer should offer you mere titles, you should pay him the same prices as those you pay for the cheapest product you buy. Do not let the salesman influence you by smooth talk into paying bigger prices; just remember the prices you paid for such pictures during the I930-3J season and the kind of pictures you received. It is my opinion, in fact, that it would be better for all those of you who have not strong competition to leave alone any pictures that are not described adequately; you may buy them after they are produced and shown, when you will know what their quality is. * * * Columbia Columbia has had no substitutions so far. But it has promised you three Barbara Stanwyck pictures and so far it has delivered none, even though it has produced one with this star — “Ten Cents a Dance.” Some exhibitors insist that “Ten Cents a Dance” is their picture, because in the Work Sheet for the 10 “Proven Specials” (Form S-13-E) the following is stated in a note : “Barbara Stanwyck will appear in one of the Proven Specials. Lionel Barrymore, who directed ‘Madam X’ and ‘The Rogue Song,’ to direct the first Barbara Stanwyck.” Since every one of the 10 Proven Specials except “Lovers Come Back” has been produced, and since none of them contains Barbara Stanwyck, it is evident that “Ten Cents a Dance,” which has this star, and was directed by Lionel Barrymore, was to be “Lovers Come Back.” Even if Columbia intends making one Barbara Stanwyck to deliver for one of the 10 Proven Specials, by the time it will be ready to deliver it the warm weather will have set in and the benefit you will receive will not be as great as it would be if it delivered it now. Columbia is harming your interests also by its delay in making the two Giant Stanwycks it owes you, “Virtue’s Bed” and “The Miracle Woman.” It is my belief, in fact, that its executives are trying to deprive you of all three Stanwyck pictures. You should write to Jack Cohen, 729 Seventh Ave., and demand to know when his company is going to make these pictures for you. If he should not give you a satisfactory answer remember the fact when the Columbia salesmen come around to sell you their 1931-32 product. First National Pictures First National has had no substitutions this year. Neither has it had any pictures that amounted to anything. Since Warner Bros. Pictures bought the controlling interest the quality of its product has sunk to a dangerously low level. Bear this in mind when the First National salesmen come around with their 1931-32 product. Fox I asked Jimmy Grainger, General Sales Manager and Vice-President of Fox Film Corporation, to inform me, for the benefit of .many Harrison’s Reports’ subscribers, who put up the question to me, whether his company intends to deliver the three Gaynor pictures he sold them and he replied as follows : “Regarding the matter of Janet Gaynor’s pictures. You undoubtedly are aware that Miss Gaynor has undergone recently a very serious operation, which made it impossible for her to continue her work at the studio, and forced her to take a long rest. ... In view of the fact that Miss Gaynor was ill and not able to work we naturally had to produce other pictures which we felt had box office merit.” The three Gaynors were the greatest inducement to those who bought the 1930-31 Fox product; it is, therefore, a blow to them not to receive these pictures. This paper does not know what the legal rights of the exhibitors in this matter are, but it does know one thing, that they are not obligated to accept any other pictures in place of the three Gaynors. “Oh, For a Man !” : The story is the same, but not the star : Charles Farrell was promised in the contract but Reginald Denny is being delivered. “The Man Who Came Back” : Only Charles Farrell was promised in the contract; but the finished product is delivered with Janet Gaynor in addition. This is naturally giving the exhibitor more than he bargained for. “Men on Call”: The Work Sheet promised a story by Tom Geraghty, and since the finished product has been founded on a story by James K. McGinnies it is a story substitution. “Once a Sinner” : “Luxury” is supposed to have been the original title. But the contract stated that the picture would be founded on “My Lady’s Dress,” by Edward Knoblock, and since the finished product has been founded on a story by George Middleton it is a story substitution. “The Seas Beneath” : In the contract, production number 222, which is the number given to the finished product, was attached to Gaynor No. 3 ; and since the finished product is being delivered with George O’Brien it is a star substitution. “Girls Demand Excitement” : The contract stated that this picture would be founded on the Colliers’ Weekly story by Joseph Hilton Smyth and Porter Emerson Browne and since the finished product has been founded on a story by Harlan Thompson it is a story substitution. “Don’t Bet On Women” : The production number of this picture is 220. On the contract, this number was attached to Gaynor No. 1. It is, therefore, a star substitution. “Body and Soul” : The production number is 225. On the contract, No. 225 was attached to “Movietone Follies of 1931,” which was described as a musical extravaganza, and since the finished product is not such a picture it is a theme substitution and you are not obligated to accept it. But because no star was promised in the contract and the finished product is delivered with Charles Farrell you will get more than you bargained for if you will accept it. “Not Exactly Gentlemen” : “No Favors Asked” (246) is supposed to have been the original title, but the contract stated that the picture would be founded on “The Great K. & A. Train Robbery,” by Paul Leicester Ford, and since the finished product has been founded on a story by Herman Whitaker, it is a story substitution. “The Doctor’s Wife” : The production number is 228. On the contract, No. 228 was attached to “The Spider.” But “The Spider” was to have been founded on the stage play by Fulton Oursler and Lowell Brentano, and since “The Doctor’s Wife” has been founded on an original story by Henry and Sylvia Leiferant it is a story substitution. “The Spy” : According to the contract, “The Spy” was to be founded on a story by S. N. Behrman, and since the finished product has been founded on a story by Ernest Pascal it is a story substitution. ( Continued on next page)