Harrison's Reports (1932)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.60 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusively to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1,1019 / PEnnsylvania 6-6379 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XIV SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1932 N^5 LOW SALES TACTICS Fairfax, Minnesota, is a town of one thousand and sixty inhabitants. That is what the Federal census of 1930 said. A. M. Inman conducts a theatre in that village — the Topic. I don’t know just how many nights a week he runs but I doubt if, under business conditions that prevail just now, he is open more than three nights a week. If he runs three nights a week, the greatest number of pictures he could use in a year would be about one hundred and fifty. The total number of feature pictures produced a year in the last few years is around four hundred, and since he can use only about one hundred and fifty he must naturally leave about two hundred and fifty unplayed. In other words, he cannot satisfy all the producer-distributors. Had there been no block-booking, he could choose a few of the best from each distributor and thus buy pictures from all, but the most he can satisfy now is three or four distributors. Among the distributors Mr. Inman was compelled to leave unsatisfied was Columbia. But Columbia would not have it that way — it was not to be left disappointed ; its illustrious President, Joe Brandt, felt that since Mr. Inman, like Mohammed, could not go to the “mountain,” the “mountain had to go to Mohammed.” And no sooner did he conceive this idea than he proceeded to make Mr. Inman go to Columbia. What are the means he adopted? He broadcast a form letter to the people of Fairfax telling them that the reason why they do not see Columbia pictures at the Topic is because they have not asked Mr. Inman to book them, and that Mr. Inman would be glad to book them if they would only speak to him. Talking about sandbagging! I have written to Mr. Inman telling him that the people of Fairfax ought to know the real reasons why he is not showing Columbia pictures, and lest he should be too busy to frame a form letter himself, in order to help him, I took the liberty of framing it myself. Here it is : “Dear Mr. (or Madam) : “I understand that Mr. Joe Brandt, President of Columbia Pictures Corporation, has sent you a letter informing you that the reason why you do not see Columbia Pictures at the Topic Theatre is because I do not know your wishes in the matter and that if you would speak to me and ask me to book them I shall only be too glad to do so. “This is, of course, not the real reason why I am not showing Columbia pictures ; having conducted this theatre for a long time I am thoroughly familiar with your wishes. In booking pictures, therefore, I always try to book those that will appeal to you most. The real reason is this : “The pictures are sold to us before they are made. Each summer or fall the salesman comes to us with printed matter describing a small number of them ; most of them are not described at all. “Seven of the Columbia pictures were described ; some of them are the following : “ ‘THE ARTIST’S MODEL,’ to be founded on the Cosmopolitan Magazine short story by Rupert Hughes. According to expert opinion, the plot is very weak, and so it will not make a good picture, but Columbia decided to make a picture out of it because of the fact that the heroine poses in the nude. “ ‘ZELDA MARSH,’ the Charles G. Norris novel : The heroine contracts an illicit love affair. The material is gloomy and sordid and not a wholesome entertainment. “ ‘BLONDE BABY,’ the novel by Wilson Collison. It is a coarse book and it deals with sex. Some of the dialogue in it is the rawest ever printed. “ ‘THE HALF WAY GIRL,’ the novel by Hawthorne Hurst. It is a filthy story, and some of the dialogue is vile. “These are a few of them. And I am sure you will agree with me that I have done the wisest thing a self-respecting theatre manager could do when I did not book the Columbia pictures. “I admit, of course, that Columbia has good pictures, too. These I would be only too glad to book if Mr. Brandt would only let me choose the ones that I would not be ashamed to show to you and to your children. But he will not let me do it. Ask him 1 His address is 729 Seventh Avenue, New York, N. Y.” This form letter, with some modifications, may be used by exhibitors in all other towns where Mr. Brandt may have broadcast the same form letter as he broadcast at Fairfax. SCRAP THE HAYS CODE OF ETHICS! I wish Mr. Hays had never formulated his famous Code of Ethics, for in the pre-code days a producer felt certain personal responsibility for the filth he put into his pictures whereas now he cloaks himself with this Code and commits nothing short of “grand larceny” or even “murder.” Some of these days you will receive for showing, or will see in another theatre, the Paramount picture “No One Man,” and you will recall these words and will justify me for having expressed them. In the opening scenes, a young maid is shown lying on her bed in hysterics and saying to her mistress that she thought she could “get away with it” seeing society belles taking liberties with young men, but that she had found out she could not, implying that she had been seduced and that she feared the consequences. Her mistress tells her that the liberties society girls take are merely in talk and, after comforting her, assures her that she will “see her through.” Towards the end of the picture this maid gives birth to a baby. In another situation Paul Lukas, who takes the part of a doctor, is shown telling Cortez, husband of Carole Lombard, to give up drinking and to put an end to his obeying his sexual impulses because he had a bad heart and might drop dead any minute unless he carried out his instructions. Cortez, who knew that Lukas was madly in love with Lombard, thinks that the doctor had conceived the heart trouble so as to keep him away from her in order to enjoy her himself. A few scenes later Cortez is found dead in the room of Juliette Compton, his “flame,” and the causes of his death will not escape even children of twelve. Is there no shame at all in the producers of pictures whether under or outside the Hays Code? Don’t they feel any responsibility when they make lust so attractive to young women and children? Why should they keep on judging the rest of the country by the few among those in their narrow circle ? I wish some exhibitors would take the Hays code and, after modifying it to bring it up-to-date so as to cover cases that were not foreseen by this code, introduce it in the legislatures of all the states with a view to putting it on the statute books as part of the criminal code. It is one time Mr. Hays could not work against its adoption, for he would have no reason to give for fighting his own brain child. MILITARY POLITENESS IN USHERS Nothing can irritate an intelligent person more than the sight of an u.sher acting with Prussian military precision. Politeness and courtesy towards customers are, of course, a requisite, but heavy boot militarism is out of place in a democratic country. Manifestly the heads of some producer circuits do not understand human psychology, and the others ape them ; they, no doubt, say to themselves, “If so-and-so has adopted this system it must be right 1”