Harrison's Reports (1942)

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 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $15.00 P~>iri 1 «1 9 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 nwm 1014 Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor rr^Rrf^n' Spai" 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 ltg Editoria, policy: No problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 35c a copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXIV SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1942 No. 46 The Warner Newsreel Is Welcome — After the War The current announcement by Warner Brothers of its intentions to enter the newsreel field has become a subject of much controversy within the industry. There are many persons who feel that an additional newsreel would serve no useful purpose, and that, be' cause of present film conservation, such a project would be out of tune with the times. Latest reports have it that the Warners will issue this newsreel some time during January, and that, thereafter, they will put out releases three times a week. They are now busily engaged reconditioning the Vitaphone Studios in Brooklyn, N. Y., where the newsreels will be produced, and they are negotiating with top newsmen and radio commentators to take over the work of editing and of commentary. Company officials have stated that the project would not require an extra WPB allotment for raw film stock, since they will have such film available as the result of a planned reduction in the number of feature pic tures that they produce normally. Harrison's Reports means to recognize the right of Warner Brothers to issue its own newsreel. It is the only one of the five major companies without a newsreel and, in view of its vast theatre holdings, it can readily be understood why this company desires to issue a newsreel that will bear its own trademark instead of the trade-mark of its competitors. And no one can blame a company for utilizing its assets to the best advantage. In normal time this project would be considered an enterprising move — one to be welcomed by the industry; the competition of an additional newsreel would be a challenge to all other newsreels to better the quality of their product or fall by the wayside. And a better quality newsreel would ultimately benefit the exhibitor. But these are not normal times, and we are not operating under a business-as-usual policy. Because of present conditions, Harrison's Reports cannot see any justification in the attempt of Warners to expand into a new field, particularly since such expansion would require the use of vital manpower and materials, the shortage of which has compelled others in the industry to curtail their expansion, and even reduce their normal amount of business. Further evidence of Warners' poor judgment is the fact that they intend to use for a newsreel the film they will save by a reduction in feature pictures. Today there is no material so vital to the industry as film, and because of its shortage drastic cuts in production have already taken place. Why then waste valuable film on a newsreel that would, for the most part, be a duplication of coverage by the existing newsreels? Although Warners plans to devote its newsreels mainly to the war effort, this paper fails to see how they can accomplish anymore than the five established newsreels, all of which are closely cooperating with the government on its war efforts. The exhibitors certainly do not require an additional newsreel. As it is, they do not have sufficient play dates to take care of the existing newsreels, and a good number of the exhibitors are paying for newsreels that they never use. In these times when the survival of business is the greatest problem facing the industry in all its branches, Warner Brothers should think twice before launching a project that would further reduce the dwindling supply of cameramen, technicians, materials, and equipment, the use of which will add nothing to the war effort or to entertainment, and would only serve to throw a greater burden on an already overburdened industry. To repeat, the exhibitors do not need another newsreel at this time or, for that matter, at any future time so long as they have five of them from which to choose. What they do need is features, and the Warners' plan to cut their schedule of feature productions so as to have enough film for a newsreel is deplorable. The shortage of raw film stock has already compelled the industry to produce a smaller number of features than it did a year ago, and it is reasonable to assume that, until we win the war, further reductions will be necessary. Why then reduce an allimportant item before conditions compel such a reduction? Unless the producers can supply the exhibitors with the necessary amount of product required for the operation of their theatres, they will find the exhibitors going out of business in ever increasing numbers. And for every exhibitor that is forced to close his doors there will be one less outlet for the producers' feature pictures, as well as his newsreel. With less outlets the producers will attempt to raise even higher the already high film rentals and percentages, and if these go much higher the producer will soon find themselves with even fewer outlets. Because of existing war conditions, and in the best interests of the industry, Warner Brothers should abandon, at least for the duration, their proposed newsreel, and wait for a more propitious time — when competition of a new newsreel would be welcomed.