Harrison's Reports (1948)

4 HARRISON'S REPORTS ing it out as "bait" for the exhibitor to sign up for the next season's program, or took it out of the program and sold it as a special. If any exhibitor doubts this statement, we have the facts. They tried to pull the same stunt in Australia once, with a big circuit, but when the circuit head suggested to the Columbia branch manager that the contract be cancelled, Columbia beat a hasty retreat. ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD According to press dispatches from London, J. Arthur Rank, the British film magnate, admits that he has lost almost nine million dollars in production. When Mr. Rank embarked upon production, the English people hoped that, in time, he would be in a position to compete with the American producers abroad, and that the English pictures would turn out to be as good as the American pictures, if not better. It is clear enough from mathematical reasoning alone why those hopes did not materialize. The Amer' ican producers, for example, with more than sixteen thousand theatres in the United States, find that the income from the domestic market is, in the case of multi-million dollar pictures, insufficient to meet the cost of production. Consequently, they became panicky when certain of the foreign markets, because of economical reasons, were closed to them. How, then, could the English hope that Mr. Rank, with only about four thousand theatres in Great Britain and about three thousand in other parts of the world, could make production profitable, particularly since most of his pictures did not match the quality standard of the American pictures, and since they cost almost as much as the American pictures? If Mr. Rank and the other British producers could increase their take from the American market, they could, in all probability, show a profit instead of a loss on production. But to do so they will have to devote their time to making better pictures, the kind that will attract the rank and file in this country, and not only the intelligentsia. There is no denying that pictures such as "Henry the Fifth" and "Caesar and Cleopatra" are artistic masterpieces and win critical acclaim, but they appeal to comparatively few people, with the result that the American exhibitors cannot afford to book them. It has often been stated in these columns that the American exhibitors are not particular about where a picture comes from, as long as it will attract customers. But even if the British producers should make good pictures, it is not enough; they must see to it that the pictures are exploited properly. On a long-range program, they will have to make their stars known to the American public, and must see to it that they do not employ provincial English, either in context or pronunciation. After all, if they want American dollars they must cater to the wishes and the whims of those who have the dollars. Nationalism has no place in business, at least it should not have so far as the two English-speaking peoples are concerned. While British production is having its difficulties, British exhibition is not having an easy time of it either. It has been reported that, as a result of the lack of new American pictures, shipment of wheh had been stopped when the British Government imposed the seventy-five per cent confiscatory tax on them, the receipts of the British theatres have fallen off by twenty-five per cent. The British Covcrnment leaders should give this matter some serious thought so that they may modify their views on the confiscatory tax, for without American pictures the income of the theatres in Great Britain may fall off much more than that, with the result that many of them may be compelled to close their doors. These Government leaders should give some thought also to the fact that, if the American theatre-owning producers can once again do business in Great Britain on a compatible basis, the British producers will have a greater opportunity to secure play-dates in the affiliated circuit theatres, thus enabling them to offset their production losses. NO CONCEALED ADVERTISING IN FEATURE PICTURES To quash a rumor that the Hollywood studios were considering selling advertising in feature pictures, Y. Frank Freeman, of the Paramount studio, and chairman of the board of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., issued the following forceful statement recently : "Not only is no such plan contemplated; it will not be permitted by an member studio, and every precaution will be taken to see that no inadvertent free advertising of commercial products enters motion pictures." Harrison's Reports believes that what Mr. Freeman has said is absolutely true. But, as this paper has frequently pointed out, there have been cases where commercial articles were plugged in feature pictures, without the knowledge of the studios. How is it done? There are in Hollywood agents who represent many national firms. The job of these agents is to approach, either the producer, or the director, and influence him, either through friendship or by making him a present, to plug his article, either by a close-up, or by a dialogue line. It was stated in these columns a few years ago that one of these representatives induced the director to change the dialogue, from scotch, to bourbon. Perhaps a case of bourbon, at a time when that whiskey was not so plentiful, did the trick. You no doubt have seen a close-up of a watch, displaying the brand name. It certainly was no accident that that close-up was inserted; some one put it there deliberately. What was the consideration? A beautiful diamond-studded watch of that trademark? A typical example of concealed advertising can be found in the United Artists' picture, "Intrigue," currently in release. Considerable footage is devoted to a sequence at a bar, in which several of the characters fondle a pinch bottle, used exclusively for Haig and Haig scotch whiskey, and talk at length about how fine a drink it is. They do not, of course, mention Haig and Haig, but when the bottle is set down on the bar great care is taken to make sure that the label, which can be seen plainly, faces the audience. It is as blatant a piece of concealed advertising as this writer has ever seen. It is heartening, however, to have a person of Frank Freeman's prominence assure the exhibitors that his organization will do its utmost to see that no surreptitious advertising is inserted in the pictures made by its members."