Harrison's Reports (1948)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post offlae at New York, New York, under the a*t 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. 16.50 M v l on m v Publisher Canada 16.50 1New 1 ork ^u> 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 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. XXX SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1948 No. 6 BOX-OFFICE MEASLES You don't have to be told that business is bad — you feel it at the box-office. Don't let any one make you believe that a depression has set in — such is not the case; pictures are doing poor business because their quality is poor. And the proof of it is the fact that good pictures draw big crowds. Is there any cure for the poor quality of pictures? I hardly think so; when you see pictures produced by persons whose only qualification is political connection, you can hardly expect the betterment of picture quality. But how about those who have had experience at produc ing pictures? Let us take just one example — "The Sign of the Ram," produced by Columbia, which is reviewed elsewhere in this issue. Here is a case where Columbia had a wonderful opportunity to make an outstanding production, one that could pull the picture-goers into the theatres by droves, for they had in the lead an actress who was a natural — Susan Peters. You undoubtedly remember that Miss Peters was shot in the spine by an accidental discharge of a gun while hunting with her husband, an injury that has left her without the use of her legs. The newspapers of the nation were full of stories about the brave fight Miss Peters carried on to escape with her life. Columbia's idea of putting her into a picture was excellent. All they needed was a good story with which to rekindle the public's interest and stir their emotions — a story that could have been a reproduction of the gallant fight Miss Peters put up. Such a story would have been a natural at the box-office. But what did the Columbia executives do? They gave her a story that is an atrocity for any occasion and any actress, let alone for this occasion and Miss Peters; she is presented as an invalid confined to a wheel chair, a benevolent tyrant without character, who subtly tries to wreck the lives of different members of her family, whose devotion to her knew no bounds. Miss Peters, a capable performer, has a personality that is naturally appealing, the kind that can easily win an audience's sympathy. It is, therefore, unfortunate for her, and unpardonable for Columbia, that her screen comeback is marked by one of the most unsympathetic roles imaginable. Columbia has missed a great opportunity, not only to make a handsome profit for itself, but also to help the exhibitors, too, make such a profit. When one sees an opportunity such as this missed, how can one hope that the quality of pictures will improve? GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE ON DIVORCEMENT A BOON FOR PRODUCTION Nothing but absolute divorcement of theatres from production-distribution will satisfy the Department of Justice. This was revealed in the preliminary brief that was exchanged recently with the defendant distributors in the New York equity case. The Department wants also a ban on cross-licensing of pictures for a ten-year period while the long-range divestiture is carried out. The opinion prevails that the courts will eventually rule for theatre divestiture. Though ownership of theatres has brought millions to the theatre-owning producer-distributors, it has now brought them headaches, the kind that nothing short of divestiture will cure. For instance, how many millions have the producers lost as a result of the Hollywood jurisdictional strike? And how many more millions will they lose? And yet the jurisdictional strike could have been settled in a very short time were it not for the fact that one of the disputants threatened to pull the projectionists out of the affiliated theatres throughout the country if the producers gave in to the other side. The same fear, no doubt, compelled the producers to give in to every demand of the union, no matter how exorbitant, thus bringing about the high cost of labor in Hollywood. Those who visit Hollywood are filled with tales of jurisdictional limitations. A switch cannot be turned on and off unless the proper union man does the work. Recently I mentioned in these columns an instance where a union man turned a switch on and off twice in three days, an operation requiring only a few seconds. He occupied the rest of the time sitting down, either playing cards or watching the others work. In another case the script required that a rope be pulled to tumble a library case and spill the books. The books and the rope were all in place but there was no action. When the director asked the reason for the delay, he was told that no one else but the proper kind of union man (a stunt man) had a right to pull the rope. "Have you sent for this man?" the director inquired. "Yes!" he was told. "Then why don't you go ahead and have some one else pull the rope as long as we are willing to pay the right man?" Another union man pulled the rope so that the work might proceed. But all this delay cost the producer considerable money, for every member of the crew — cameramen, electricians, grips, gaffers, directors, stars, supporting players and every one else required on the set were being paid while the stunt man was on his way to pull the rope to throw the library case down. One could fill volumes with similar jurisdictional nonsenses, which will leave no doubt that they are tolerated by the producers only because of the fear that the unions, if bucked, may pull the projectionists out of the affiliated theatres. When the producer-distributors are compelled to give up their theatres, they will no longer be bothered by this threat. Hence, there will undoubtedly be a liberalization of jurisdictional rights, for the unions will be unable to blackjack the producers into capitulation. The elimination of such ridiculous work division will undoubtedly contribute to a reduction in the cost of production. Today the union members are getting a full day's pay but they are not doing a full day's work — they are deliberately lying down on the job. When they learn that they can no longer blackjack the producers with the threat of a projectionist strike, and when they are fully aware, as they must be now, that the foreign market is practically lost and that pictures must be produced at a cost that can be recouped in the domestic market, they will be willing to be fair and reasonable. And that is all that is needed to start production humming again.