Harrison's Reports (1949)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March Z, 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 v L ?n 1M V Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew Iorlc zu» *« p g HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 17.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.60 Itg Editorial p0iicy: 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. XXXI SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1949 No. 38 A CRAFTY APPROPRIATION OF THE EXHIBITORS' SCREENS For many years, as most of you know, the exhibitors have condemned the practice of concealed ad' vertisements in motion pictures sold as pure entertainment because it is an imposition on both the public and the exhibitor. The exhibitor knows from experience that a patron who pays an admission price at the box-office does so for the privilege of seeing an entertainment only. When an advertisement is "slipped" over on him, he feels that he has become the victim of an advertising stunt, and rightfully resents it. And the exhibitor, too, feels that he has been taken advantage of, for when he finds advertising injected into a picture he had bought for entertainment purposes, it means that the producer has appropriated his screen without paying for the privilege and without regard for the resentment that will be felt by the audience. Because of the strong objections by the exhibitors, the major studios and most independent producers now take extreme precautions to make sure that advertising plugs for commercial products are kept out of their pictures. As a result of their vigilance, it is seldom that such ads show up. When they do get into a picture, the chances are that a property man, without the knowledge of the producer, slipped the commercial article into a scene at the last moment, and that the producer did not notice it until after the picture was completed. By that time, in most cases, the producer finds it impossible to eliminate the advertising plug unless he re-shoots the scene, a process that would be either too expensive or impracticable. Needless to say, the person who works for a production unit and who succeeds in sticking a brand article into a scene is compensated handsomely by the manufacturer's representative. Hollywood is loaded with such representatives who make a business of getting free plugs for the articles they represent. In view of the fact that the exhibitors are always ready to pounce on any producer who permits an advertisement to slip into his picture, even unintentionally, it comes as sort of a shock to learn, from a news report in the September 12 issue of Daily Variety, that Lester Cowan, the independent producer, is a defendant in a damage suit filed against him by the Grucn Watch Company, which charges that he pulled their advertising material out of his picture, "Love Happy," and replaced it with advertising plugs for the Bulova Watch Company. "Gruen," states the Daily Variety report, "claims its original pact with Cowan provided only that it furnish the producer with certain sets, in return for which it would get the plugs. Watch company later was asked, it's alleged, to put up additional coin for advertising. When it balked Cowan re-shot the watch sequences, subbing Bulova." Harrison's Reports is not concerned with the relative merits of the litigation between Cowan and the Gruen Watch Company. But, assuming that the report is accurate, it is concerned with the blatant disregard that Cowan has shown for the rights of the exhibitors and their patrons in deliberately entering into a contract with a manufacturer to advertise his product in a picture that is being offered to the exhibitors and the public as pure entertainment. It means that the exhibitor who shows the picture will have his screen appropriated as a billboard, not only without payment, but also to the displeasure of his patrons. "Love Happy," which stars the Marx Brothers, and which is being distributed through United Artists, has played several engagements recently, but it has been withdrawn from release indefinitely because of, to quote a United Artists spokesman, "financial difficulties." The picture has not been made available to the trade press for reviewing, despite this paper's request that it be shown, not only because of the several engagements played, but also because of the trade paper advertisements urging the exhibitors to book it. Consequently, this paper is in no position to state just how much of a plug Bulova watches are given. According to information on hand, however, the picture features a Times Square chase sequence, in which Harpo Marx is pursued along roof-tops and through huge electrical advertising signs on Broadway. It is obvious that such a sequence lends itself to advertising plugs for other products, and it is reasonable to assume that, if other products are advertised, they have been inserted for a consideration, such as reported in the case of the Bulova and Gruen watch companies. A full report on this picture will be made as soon as the picture is made available for reviewing. Meanwhile, Harrison's Reports suggests to the exhibitors that, before buying the picture, they insist that the distributor include in the contract a clause guaranteeing that the picture will not contain any advertisements, either concealed or sponsored, and that, if such advertisements do appear, the distributor will be liable to the exhibitor for a certain sum of money, generally in accordance with the rates charged by the exhibitors whenever they show sponsored advertising reels.