Harrison's Reports (1946)

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 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.60 M v i on m v Publisher Canada 16.50 INew York N' *• P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Jtg Editorial 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. XXVIII SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1946 No. 49 THE CASE OF THE REISSUES —AND THE REMEDY There is a difference of opinion as to the effect the reissuing of pictures is having on the business. Some exhibitor leaders contend that too many re' issues will cause the public to rebel. On the other hand, some of them believe that the reissues serve to relieve the shortage of product. But the opponents of the reissues assert that the shortage of product is the result of the producers' holding back a large number of pictures, not only to create a market for reissues, but also to release them at a later date on higher rental terms, as well as to compel the exhibitors to give current pictures longer playing time. Harrison's Reports does not wish to enter into this controversy by espousing either point of view, but it does wish to make a few observations for the benefit of both these opposed schools of thought. The release of reissues is a matter of economics: As long as these bring the distributors great returns, in some cases even greater than those from the same pictures when they were released the first time, the distributors will continue releasing them, regardless of exhibitor complaints. Are reissues harmful to exhibition? Unless reissues are advertised clearly as either "return engagements" or "revivals," and unless they are founded on very well known either novels or stage plays, they cannot help doing considerable harm, for most people do not remember the titles of pictures they had seen years previously and, years afterwards, when they go to see a reissue and find that they had already seen that picture, they become chagrined. They could, of course, ask for the return of their money, and no exhibitor could refuse to refund the price of the ticket to a complainer if he values the public's good will, but most such persons feel too embarrassed to demand a refund, and they leave the theatre holding a grievance against the exhibitor. As to the contention of some exhibitors that the distributors are holding back new pictures to release them at a later date for greater profits, I believe that such a contention is debatable as being wholly true. In the opinion of this paper, the reason the distributors are holding back pictures from early release is owed in a large measure to the fact that production in Hollywood is, at the present time, uncertain, and they wish to have a backlog to fall back on in the event conditions compel them to call a complete stop to their production activities for an indefinite period. The strikes due to jurisdictional labor disputes have not only slowed up production, but also increased the cost greatly, as well as doubled and even tripled the number of days formerly required to complete a picture. As pointed out by Mr. Darryl F. Zanuck in a recent trade press interview, pictures that were once produced in forty-five days now require one hundred and even one hundred and twenty-five days, thus not only adding to the cost, but also creating a shortage of technicians and of studio space. Studio space is, today, at a premium, and the remedy does not alone lie in the building of new studios. Old studios have a great store of old sets, which, when used, serve to cut down the production cost of a picture to a considerable extent, but new studios lack such an advantage. The exhibitors might just as well reconcile themselves to the fact that the studios are no longer in a position to produce the number of pictures they formerly produced, chiefly because of the lack of man power, both of technicians and of artists. When a picture takes twice and even three times the number of days formerly required to produce, such a picture ties up the technicians that much longer, with the result that a shortage of technicians is automatically created. The doubling and tripling of the length of time required to produce top pictures has brought on another evil: Since the production costs have gone higher, a producer, in order to recover the cost with a profit, finds it necessary to include in the cast a greater number of well-known players, whose marquee value serves as some measure of insurance on the box-office returns. This situation has in turn created a shortage of stars, and with such a shortage the cost of star names has gone up tremendously. For instance, a second-rate artist, who three years ago was getting, say, thirty thousand dollars for a picture, now demands one hundred thousand dollars, and even more. And even if a producer should be willing to offer such an amount, he finds that the artists are unavailable : The top pictures absorb them all. A partial remedy lies in the elimination of the double feature. Harrison's Reports has never taken a stand either for or against double features, for it felt that this was a problem that each exhibitor had to determine for himself. Many exhibitors feel that, with the top pictures milked dry by extended playing time in the firstruns, they are dependent on double features as a means of drawing patronage. On the other hand, many exhibitors believe that, without the double feature, Hollywood would be compelled to stop producing sixty-minute "turkeys," and there would then be enough money-making pictures to take care of all the exhibitors. Whether you are or are not in favor of the double feature's elimination, sooner or later the reduced number of pictures will compel you to give it up. For this reason you will, if you are wise, begin now to educate your patrons to accept single features, gradually at first, but speedily afterwards. Don't wait until the gun is pointed at your stomach before you begin a single-feature policy. By that time you may be compelled to darken your house frequently.