Harrison's Reports (1940)

Entered tn Bieend-eUuia matter January 4, ltti, at the peat efflee at New fork, New York, under the aat of March 1, 1679, Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $15.00 P/w™« 1«19 Harrison's Reports. Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 ft(wm 1014 Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Spaln if™ 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 ng Edltor,a, Poncy. No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 6i>c a t-opy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXII SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1940 No. 36 HERE AND THERE IN AN EDITORIAL headed "Shoot Square !" appearing in the August 24 issue of his organization's house organ, Harry Brandt, the New York exhibitor, takes the distributors to task for writing long-term franchises with the affiliated circuits, in an effort to thwart the spirit of the consent decree before it is signed. "The evasion of responsibility," says he partly, "evidences, in most cases, a lack of good faith. . . ." I wonder whether Harry Brandt knows what "Shoot Square I" means. Last week he showed at his Globe Theatre, on Broadway, this city, the Monogram feature "Boys of the City" ; but he showed it under another title, "The Ghost Creeps." I understand that efforts were made to induce him to state in his newspaper advertisements, and in his lobby display, that the picture was released nationally as "Boys of the City," but with no success ; Brandt insisted upon showing it as "The Ghost Creeps," without any indication to those who would pay their money to his theatre's box office to see it that they might have seen it in some other theatre under its right title. By showing it as "The Ghost Creeps," Harry Brandt did not "shoot square" either with the other exhibitors or with the moving picture going public. What would a person feel if, after paying his money to the box office of a theatre to see "Boys of the Streets," he found that he had already seen it somewhere else as "The Ghost Creeps"? There is no doubt in my mind that Harry Brandt adopted that title for only one purpose — to "cash in" on "The Ghost Breakers," the Paramount picture, which is making a success. If I am right, then Harry Brandt failed to "shoot square" also with Paramount. Some one ought to send to Harry Brandt a letter explaining to him the real meaning of the phrase, "Shoot Square 1" Incidentally, "Boys of the City" is not a ghost picture that those who have it booked can "pooh-pooh" ; it is a good picture — perhaps not as good as "The Ghost Breakers," but good enough to form part of the program of most major companies. You should advertise it as a meritorious production. * * * WHEN I SAW "Young People," the Twentieth Century-Fox picture with Shirley Temple, I was not impressed much with the story — it made a picture that will please pretty well those who will see it, but no more; what impressed me greatly was the work of the little actress, Shirley Temple. If Shirley Temple does not draw today the crowds that she once drew, it is not, in my opinion, her fault, for she has lost not a bit of her spark or of her acting ability, and least of all her charm ; it is undoubtedly the fault of those who chose the stories for her. A poor story can do an actress more harm than three good stories can do her good. "The Blue Bird," in which Miss Temple appeared as an ungenerous child, certainly did not help her retain her hold on the public. Such was the case with some other of the stories given her before "The Blue Bird." Recently it was stated in the trade papers that Joe Pasternak was negotiating with Miss Temple's parents for a picture to be released on the Universal program. I don't know how much the negotiations have progressed, or if there is any chance for Mr. Pasternak to obtain her services now that she has started to go to a regular school, but if her school-going will not interfere with occasional work in moving pictures, I hope that Joe will get her, for if there is a producer on the Coast who knows how to handle children, Joe Pasternak is certainly the one; or at least one among the few. If the Temples should chance to read these lines I hope that they will be influenced enough to close an agreement with Mr. Pasternak for at least one picture a year. Miss Temple's retirement from the screen has left a void that no other little actress can fill. * * * SPYROS SKOURAS, addressing the managers of National Theatres convening in Los Angeles, assured those who might volunteer for military service, or are drafted to it, that their jobs will be waiting for them upon their return, provided they shall have been discharged honorably. In addition, he said that employees of National Theatres must be 100% Americans — no other type of employees will be tolerated. This is real Americanism ; it is an expression of gratitude for the opportunities the United States offered to him, an immigrant. If every one who has come to the United States from other countries feels as Mr. Spyros Skouras feels, there will be no chance for Fifth Columns and the like. * * * BREAKING UP THE BLOCKS of pictures into groups of five or fewer, to be sold after tradeshowing, takes away some of the curse from block-booking, and entirely from blind-selling; but if the protests that are now sent in to the Department of Justice on the ground that there is no cancellation provision are heeded and the exhibitors are given the right to cancel one out of each group of five pictures, it will be a blessing for the entire industry, except for those who don't know how to make good pictures. Whatever the outcome of these protests, let us bear in mind that the industry cannot continue the present selling system ; it will mean bankruptcy in the end. * + * THAT THE AUTHOR, the screen-play writer, the unit producer, and the director, in addition to the leads and the supporting cast, should be mentioned on the introductory title, it is understandable — they deserve all the credit they can get for making the picture, no matter whether it is entertaining or boring; but why should the hair dressers, the costume makers and the like be given credit? I venture to say — and I am ready to wager on it — that not a single picture-goer remembers who is the designer of the hairstyles, or of the gowns, or of the decorations, of any of the pictures that have been produced since the motion picture came into being. In almost every picture credit is given, in addition to the author, screen-play writer, director, producer and cast, to the : cameraman, writer of the musical score, chief recorder of sound, art director, associate art director, designer of set decorations, of special effects, of gowns, of men's wardrobe, of hair styles, director of montage effects, and of the film editor. Some of the pictures add even other names. Why this array of names when no one remembers who they are, or how much they contributed towards the production of the picture? The showing of these names on the screen requires at least one minute, or ninety feet of film, worth about $1.50. How much is the cost of preparing the writing, whether printed or written by brush, is another matter, but when you count the number of films released each year the waste must be enormous. The introductory titles should Ik reduced, for the purpose, not only of saving money, but also of sparing the public of its attention to matters in which it is least interested. The public wants to know who are the stars anil who arc in the cast. The director and the author are, of course, of interest to many picture-goers. Even if they were not, they are entitled to a place on that title. But who cares who designed the costumes, or who employed the comb to fix some woman-player's hair, or who prepared the clothes that are worn by the mcn-plnyers?