Harrison's Reports (1933)

4 HARRISON’S REPORTS January 7, 1933 wood; secondly, to entrust production in competent hands ; thirdly, to turn every theatre back to individual exhibitors; and fourthly, to create an open market for pictures so that he who is willing to pay the price may have a particular picture or pictures. The first cannot happen, for as I said about a year ago those who have had the authority to remove production from Hollywood have big investments there and are unwilling to put them into jeopardy. The second can happen, but who is going to do it when those who are in power do not, in most instances, know what drama is ? The third is now happening and will have to happen whether the producer theatre owners like it or not. The fourth is unlikely, unless Bill S. 3770 is made into a law, for it is almost impossible to convince the producers that moving the goods quickly is economically essential for the success of the business, for the person who makes pictures will then be able to get his money in a short time instead of waiting two years to do so. In the days of the General Film Company, pictures were considered “Commercial” after sixty days ; that is “junk.” Today some of the producer-exhibitors ask ninety days protection. At that time the producer would get eighty-five per cent of his money back in ninety days. Today, it takes one year or more. The consequence is that the producer is compelled to “hock” himself to get money enough to complete his production program. You cannot, of course, compel the producers to remove production from Hollywood, nor can you force them to hire competent persons to choose the material and skilled producers to make pictures out of it ; and it is not necessary for you to bring pressure upon them to divest themselves of the theatres they own, for they are already doing it. But you can bring about an open market for pictures. This you can do by working for Bill S. 3770, and Re.solution S. 170, both on the Calendar of the Senate, awaiting action. Get back of these two measures and save your investment ! Do not listen to the advice of those who, either through lack of understanding, or because of self-interest, are urging you to fight them. They are the only measures that can help the industry, if anything can. LOEW’S REDUCING ADMISSIONS BUT IS MGM REDUCING YOUR RENTALS? In Kansas City and in Providence the Loew theatres have reduced their prices, for matinees, to 15c and 25c, and for evenings, to 25c all over the house. The exhibitors in those territories are up in arms as a result of this action on the part of the Loew executives ; they point out to the fact that, if they, too, should reduce their prices to meet the situation created by this move, they will be unable to meet their film rentals, which were adjusted in accordance with the old conditions. The move on the part of the executives of the theatre department of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is a serious one and every independent exhibitor should take it into consideration, for this may become general among the producer circuits, just as it has become in Providence, where the RKO and the Publix theatres have followed the Loew move. If you are one of those who have been afifected by the lowering of prices by the circuit theatres you should demand an adjustment of your film rentals with all the companies with which you have contracts. THE RADIO CITY THEATRES According to the signs, the Radio City theatre projects of RKO will he a complete flop, for the reason that the theatres are not situated centrally, the prices of admission are too high, and the cost of operating them is too big. Many exhibitors have wondered how the Music Hall, with sixty-two hundred seats, can be operated successfully as a vaudeville house when the centrally located Palace, with an established reputation of years and with the cost of operation low, could not be so operated ! The influence the erection of these theatres will have upon the picture business in New York City is destined to be extremely detrimental in case the Music Hall cannot l)e operated profitably as a vaudeville house, for in all probabilities it will be turned into a picture house, with a low admission price, in which event the receipts of almost every other picture theatre in Greater New York will be affected. The erection of these two theatres was a blunder which its promoters did not realize. What effect it will have upon the fortunes of several people, time alone will tell. All its sponsors can now do is pray. QUACK REMEDIES According to statements in the trade papers, the producers are planning to combine their distribution department so as to effect economies. Combining the distribution departments is but a quack remedy, for the savings from such a move will not be enough to cover the losses occasioned by the waste in production. Since the sales forces of each distributor will have to be kept intact, the most that can be saved from the merging of the physical distribution will be fifteen per cent. This will hardly be enough to cover part of the waste in production, and will equal the losses the exhibitors will sustain by the chaos that will be created when the films of the different companies are shipped from the same place. There will be shipments missed, and consequently dark houses. There will, in fact, be times when shippers will not be able to locate films. I have had experience with shipping of film and I have some idea of the problem ; I was assistant manager of the General Film Company in San Francisco, at the time this company bought the Novelty and the Turmer & Dunken Film Exchanges. Let the producers stop kidding themselves. They know where they can save money but th.ey are not attacking the problem in that spot. A CORRECTION In the September 24 issue of Harrison’s Reports I reviewed the Columbia picture “The Last Man.” In a footnote at the bottom of the review it was said that the picture was a substitution. The statement that it is a substitution is correct. But the facts are somewhat erroneous. Here are the correct substitution facts : “The Last Man” is replacing 2025 which is listed on the contract as “Gentlemen For Sale.” No author’s name is given but in the w'orksheet it is described as follows : “Gigolos— gentlemen! for sale to the ladies. Dealers in romance, but ‘just a gigolo’ and this is his romantic, dramatic story :” Since “The Last Man” has nothing to do with gigolos it is a theme substitution.