Harrison's Reports (1949)

84 HARRISON'S REPORTS May 21, 1949 BILL RODGERS TAKES EXCEPTION LOEWS, INCORPORATED Broadway at 45 th Street New York 19, N. Y. May 11, 1949 Mr. P. S. Harrison Harrison's Reports 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York 19, N. Y. My Dear Pete : My attention is called to an article of yours in the first column, page 76, issue of May 7th, and next to the last paragraph reference is made to the failure of distributors to recompense exhibitors for losses they may suffer in connection with poor business on hit pictures. I know that you do not mean in this article to infer that adjustments have not been made by Metro' Goldwyn'Mayer wherever conditions warrant it and one reading your article, unfamiliar with the situa' tion, can easily be under the impression that the terms remain the same whether the business is good or bad. This you know is not a fact so far as we are concerned. My kindest regards. Sincerely, (signed) W. F. Rodgers * # * Dear Bill: I did not mean to imply that Metro-Goldwyn' Mayer has not been granting adjustments whenever one of your pictures did not take in enough money to leave the exhibitor at least a small profit. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and my statement was misconstrued. What I wanted to say is that, to my knowledge, no distributor has ever reimbursed an exhibitor when his picture did not cover the exhibi' tor's house expenses, by coming forward with a check, except, of course, in cases of charity where the exhibitor was faced with the possibility of having to shut down his theatre unless he obtained substantial relief from the distributor. I must confess, Bill — and confession is good for the soul— that there was a certain touch of facetiousness in my controverting Bill Wilkerson's theories on what is a proper attitude on the part of the exhibitor towards pictures that flop at the box-office. I feel sure that, were Wilkerson an exhibitor, he would be holding views entirely different from those he now holds. It is easy for an amateur to pronounce judgment, but very difficult when he has to foot the bills. Very sincerely yours, P. S. Harrison SYNDICATED THEATRES, INCORPORATED Franklin, Indiana May 11, 1949 Mr. P. S. Harrison Harrison's Reports 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York 20, N. Y. Dear Pete : In Harrison's Reports for April 23, 1949, page 68, I read the reprint of a letter written by Darryl Zanuck of Twentieth Century-Fox and directed to you. Mr. Zanuck's letter shows his ignorance of the exhibition market for he states that "Our films for the past several years have been consistently the best." If that statement is true, how does it happen that in the Allied survey, "What the Public Wants to See," under "High allocation pictures played during 1948, which 10% or more of the responding theatres reported as doing the poorest business," Fox won first and second place with CAPTAIN OF CASTILE and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT? They ranked sixth with LADY IN ERMINE. Mr. Zanuck talks of production costs, giving this as an argument for increased film rentals. Doesn't Mr. Zanuck realize that the exhibitors have been faced with ever increasing overhead in the form of higher labor costs, equipment replacement costs and film rental demands all the while being squeezed with lower box office returns? During the war, the exhibitors were unable to replace equipment that was being used up at a much faster rate than could be depreciated under the existing rules of the Internal Revenue Department. Now that equipment is available the costs are three and four times what they were in 1940-41. Just one item— seats. In 1941 we could buy a good all-upholstered seat for about $5.50. Today we buy comparable seats and have to pay $21.00 to $22.00 per seat. On the other hand production, with a very favorable charge-off rate on production of 50% the minute the picture is completed, made many pictures during the years of the Excess Profits Tax, charged off immediately 50% of their costs, built up their backlog of pictures, increased their hold on the throat of the exhibitors' business, and ducked a big portion of the Excess Profits' tax by not releasing the pictures until after the Excess Profits' tax law was repealed. Frankly, I am sick of hearing of Hollywood's problems as long as they sit in their ivory towers making no effort to explore their market through the exhibitors and their own sales departments. In no other line of business does production ignore the retailers' opinion of what the market wants as do the producers of motion pictures. In no other business is the sales department relegated to such a lowly position in the scheme of production. Mr. Zanuck and the rest of his kind skip blithely from Los Angeles to New York to Miami and the Riviera, using these metropolitan and play areas for sampling public tastes. They forget that this great motion picture business was founded and built on mass appeal to the tastes of the common man. Fortunately, with the advent of divorcement in our industry, the economic laws of supply and demand will work and weed out those that seclude themselves from the public's tastes. To Mr. Zanuck, if he intends to retain a dominant position in the industry, I say: Get out and talk to the independent exhibitor who is in constant touch with the public. Attend a few exhibitor conventions and find out what the motion picture market can use. No more can a producer lean upon his company's monopoly to pull one of his arty mistakes out of the red. That day is gone. The exhibitors have already gone to work to save their theatre business. Mr. Zanuck and Hollywood must do the same if they are to continue in the scheme of things to come in the industry. They can't do it by saying the exhibitor has to pay more for film for the exhibitor can't pay more for film, he is already paying way too much. Yours very truly, Syndicate Theatres, Inc. (signed) Trueman T. Rembusch Secretary 'Treasurer