Harrison's Reports (1943)

Sintered 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 Rftrttn 1 R1 9 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 rvoum *oia Publisher Canada 16.50 NeW York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 » x. -n <. ■ c • Prpnt RHtain 15 75 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 ^^^^ Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 ibc a copy Columns, if It is to Beneflt the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXV SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1943 No. 2 We Must Plan Int( The motion picture industry has started off the new year by having its use of raw film stock trimmed an' other seven percent by the War Production Board. Under the new ruHng the major producers are ordered to reduce their use of film to approximately seventy-five percent of the amount they used in 1941, while the smaller producers must cut their film consumption to approximately eighty-seven percent of the amount they used during that same year. This ruling does not come as a surprise to the industry; it was inevitable. That future rulings may reduce even further Hollywood's allotment of film, seems also inevitable. It is for that reason the producers should begin to change their scheme of things NOW. They must apply intelligence to their future production plans, in order that every foot of film be used to the fullest advantage, and in order to prevent a product curtailment from creating havoc within the business. Many persons, particularly those in favor of single billing, will advocate a reduction, or even the elimination, of so-called "B" pictures as the first step in product curtailment. Such a policy, however, may prove to be more harmful than beneficial, because of its possible ruinous effect on thousands of exhibitors who depend on "B" product for their existence, and on whose existence the producers and distributors are equally dependent. This condition was deftly explained by Mr. Herbert J. Yates, head of Republic Pictures, who, discussing an anticipated shortage of product, had this to say in a letter published in the November 1, 1942, issue of this paper : "During the 30 years I have been active in the motion picture industry, I have always understood that 'A' theatres were established to play 'A' pictures plus added attractions: shorts, famous bands, stage shows, etc.; that 'B' theatres were established to play 'B' pictures — single or double bill, as well as subsequent 'A' pictures. I think it is fair to say that a larger part of the public depends on 'B' theatres than 'A' theatres. The pattern of the entertainment of each group of theatres, as well as of their audiences, is as different as day and night, and the range of admission prices is fixed accordingly. "I believe the important industry executives will agree with the following conclusions: (1) That no large studio could profitably exist unless it made 'B' pictures and could not remain in business if it did not have 'B' pictures as a secondary market for 'A' pictures. (2) That no 'B' theatre could exist without 'B' pictures — single or double bill. (3) That it would be advisable to continue to depend on the public to decide whether it wants 'B' pictures — single or double bill, give-aways, chance games, contests, etc., thrown in as extra attractions. There is a vast difference both as to quality and price of entertainment, and it seems ligently to Survive to me that considering the prosperity of the industry over a long period of years, now reaching an all time high, that the public has already made its decision; and it would be unwise to tamper with that decision." This paper is in full agreement with Mr. Yates' statement. Moreover, it sees no point in a curtailment of "B" pictures so long as millions of feet of film could be saved by the complete elimination of short subjects, other than those sponsored by the Government. A halt in the production of short subjects that contribute nothing to the war effort would serve a two-fold purpose— that of saving precious film for a more worthy purpose, and that of allowing more time for the exhibition of Government shorts. The curtailment of feature productions should not be undertaken until all other means of saving film have been exhausted. Hollywood must take into consideration the fact that the number of features required each year by an exhibitor is controlled by the size of the community in which his theatre is located, and the type of audience he caters to. For example, a large first-run theatre in a metropolitan area may require no more than twenty to twenty-five features each year, by reason of its extended runs and transient patronage. The second-run exhibitor, however, with a theatre in the same metropolitan area, but in a neighborhood section, may require a change of program once or twice each week; first, because of his limited patronage, and second, because the extended run enjoyed by the first-run theatre had milked the product to the extent that the second-run exhibitor could not hold it at a profit for more than a few days. The lot of the subsequent-run exhibitor is much worse; often he requires a triple change of program each week. To repeat Mr. Yates' remarks, "No large studio could profitably exist unless it made 'B' pictures and could not remain in business if it did not have 'B' theatres as a secondary market for 'A' pictures." It is for that reason the producers and distributors should protect this outlet by planning their every move intelligently, so as to assure the continued operation of every theatre, large or small. As it is, the exhibitors are having enough trouble because of fuel oil and gasoline rationing, depleted house staffs, and shifting populations. Let us not add to their burden. We must remember, however, that the producers' responsibility for the judicious use of raw stock does not end with their elimination of subjects the public can do without. There is still the matter of "assemblyline" production methods in which pictures are ground out to meet the demands of the release schedule without regard for their careless preparation or worthless stories. But that is the basis of another topic, based on personal observations while in Hollywood, and which I will discuss in the following issue.