Harrison's Reports (1940)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March J, 1879, Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $15.00 R««m1«19 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 nwm IO" Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor K,S^SPa"1 ?BTC A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Australia New" Zealand! Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe Asia .... 17.50 Ug Editorjal policy. No problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 it>c a copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXII SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 1940 HERE AND THERE I ASKED BILL RODGERS, of MGM, whether advancing the admission prices for "Boom Town" meant an advance also in the percentage that Metro will demand from the exhibitors, and he said "NO!" As a matter of fact, he said, the number of percentage pictures for this season's product is not even by one picture greater than last season's number: so is the case as to the number of pictures for each classification. To find out whether the public will stand for higher admissions on "Boom Town," Loew's, Inc., is making tests in several spots throughout the country. "After all," Nicholas Schenck said, "an important question is at stake which is whether we can afford to repeat the process of grouping outstanding stars in one picture (Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Claudette Colbert, Hedy Lamarr) such as we have done in 'Boom Town.' The results in revenue alone will determine this." Commenting on Mr. Schenck's statement, Jay Emanuel, publisher of The Exhibitor, (Philadelphia, Washington, New York and Boston), said partly: "In short, Metro, determined to make up its foreign losses in some manner, is facing the issue squarely. . . . "Metro . . . takes the stand that increased revenues should come not from higher percentages, but from greater earning power of the pictures." The other major companies should take a leaf from the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer book; they should try to increase their revenue, not from increasing the number of their percentage pictures, but from bigger admission prices. In order for the exhibitors to be able to charge higher admission prices, however, it is necessary for the producers to make pictures that will stand such an increase. Can they do it? On that rests the answer whether they will be able to recover from the domestic market what they have lost from the foreign market. "Ballyhoo" alone is not enough to make a picture great; it must be founded on a great story. * * * RECENTLY IT WAS ANNOUNCED that Harry Brandt, the New York exhibitor who never lets an opportunity go by to attack the Allied leaders, has gone into production; he has made a deal with RKO for the distribution of the two Charles Boyer pictures that he is going to produce. You might be inclined to remark that Harry Brandt should have stuck to his last: being an exhibitor, what does he know about production? For this reason, he should have decided to remain an exhibitor. But this is a crazy business. When the announcement was made that Jules Levey, formerly sales manager of RKO, was going to become a producer, many of you might have remarked: What does Jules Levey know about making pictures? He is a distributor, and should have remained a distributor. And yet his first picture is proving to be a great success: "Boys from Syracuse" is breaking records already. And to spite the doubters still more, Jules has announced that he has bought "Hellz a I'oppin" for $200,000. I have heard it said: "Why should he have paid so much money for a stage play that has no story? It is just a collection of vaudeville sketches!" I myself have said often that t ho best stage production that was ever put on Broadway is not worth for the screen $200,000. I have seen so many $200,000 stage productions flop on the screcnl No. 33 But what difference does it make really what is paid for a story if it has the values? It is true that, what Jules Levey is buying is, not a story, but a title and a reputation; at the time of writing this editorial, "Hellz a Poppin" has had its 822nd run on Broadway. In all probability, Jules will spend perhaps another $200,000 to have a story written around the title, and may be another $400,000 for producing the picture. But if the picture should click, $400,000 spent on the purchase and preparation of a story is not too much. Unfortunately, pictures for the stories of which $400,000 is spent do not always "click." Coming back to our friend Harry Brandt, we may say this: Since this is a crazy business, Harry may surprise us, just as Jules Levey has surprised us. The difference, however, is this: If Jules should make a "bloomer," there will still be exhibitors who will want to book it just to help a new producer, and with the hope that he might produce another "Boys from Syracuse." Your first picture had better be good, Harry! GEORGE SCHAEFER HAS SURPRISED many an industry wiseacre. When he took charge of RKO, the company hardly had money enough to carry on production; today, RKO has more pictures than it can handle. As a matter of fact, Schaefer is turning down offers for releasing agreements on pictures, because he has already the number he wants. If the consent decree should be signed and block booking is confined to no more than five pictures at a time, sold after being made, RKO will suffer less inconvenience than any other company with the exception of United Artists, for Schaefer has almost adopted the unit system of production, and the pictures of each unit can be sold as a group. In no instance, it seems to me, will there be more than five pictures produced by a unit; it looks as if four will be the limit. Harrison's Reports has been advocating the production decentralization for many years. It is the only method by which the quality of the product will improve. Let each unit be responsible for the quality of pictures it produces, and let each such unit participate in the profits: if the pictures make profits, it is not more than right that the members of each unit — stars, cast, director, producer — should receive returns commensurate with their knowledge and efforts. This paper hopes that George Schafer will not stop at this point; lie should carry the unit system all the way. * * * WARNER BROS., according to my reliable information, has spent $1,900,000 on "The Sea Hawk." One million and nine hundred thousand dollars on a picture nowadays is a lot of money to spend and this paper hopes that the picture will click for the benefit, not only of the producer, but also of the exhibitor. But before a producer can get so much money back from a picture with a reasonable amount of profit, it is necessary for the exhibitors to increase their admission prices. An exhibitor wrote me recently that pictures gained their popularity because of the low cost of the entertainment, and he objected to increasing the admission prices. What the exhibitor lias said is true; unfortunately, that was at a time when the most massive picture did not cost more than $150,000 — there were no unions to hold the producers by the throat, and the characters did (Continued on last page)