Harrison's Reports (1949)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 11)21, 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. 16.50 N v I, «>n M V Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew 1 ork w 1 • p. S. 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 17.50 Itg Editorial p0ijcy: 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, NOVEMBER 26, 1949 No. 48 THE REAL CAUSE OF THE BRITISH MOVIE INDUSTRY'S COLLAPSE Many opinions have been expressed as to the causes of the British movie industry's collapse, but the real cause has really been overlooked. A few years ago this cause was given in these columns — the lack of sufficient theatres in Great Britain and its dominions to support a movie industry independently of the United States market, particularly since the picture-going public in those countries has become accustomed to the pictures produced in this country and demands them. The British movie industry has to have an American market. Unfortunately the British pictures, with few exceptions, did not measure up to the demands of the American picturegoers. And for this reason the American exhibitor would not book them. The few good pictures that J. Arthur Rank sent to the United States have either brought or will bring him a lot of dollars. "Hamlet," "Henry V," "Red Shoes" and "Great Expectations" are among the British pictures that have grossed exceptionally well in the American market. One of the greatest mistakes made by the British industry is its failure to properly publicize its stars in the United States so as to popularize them. Some good British pictures failed to go over here for no other reason than that the American public was unacquainted with the players. Laurence Olivier, James Mason, Vivien Leigh and Robert Donat, for example, have no trouble in drawing patrons to the box-office; the American people know them and like them, and as a result go to see the pictures in which they appear. One other cause of the failure has been the fact that the British industry's leaders, particularly Mr. Rank, tried to improve their position the wrong way; they persuaded the British Government, first, to impose a seventy-five per cent confiscatory tax on the earnings of American pictures, and then to impose an unreasonable quota on the number of American films that could be shown in the British theatres, in addition to restricting the amount of dollars that the . American distributors could draw out of England. As to the first, the American distributors were able to overcome it by placing an embargo on the shipment of American pictures to Great Britain. As to the second, they countered by refusing to book their pictures on the same bill with a British picture. The English exhibitors showing double bills were not sold American pictures unless they agreed to show two of them on the same bill. The effect of such an agreement was to stop the arbitrary classification of top American films as "B" productions so that top money would go to a weak British picture. Thus the quota hurt the British industry more than the American distributors, because, with poor British pictures in the main to fill the playing time of the British theatres, and with fewer American pictures to attract the British public, the theatres took in less money at the box-office and, consequently, paid less to the British producers. If the British industry leaders should stop playing politics with their movie industry and get down to business, making pictures acceptable to the American market, they will have better luck, for, so far as the American exhibitor is concerned, he does not care where a picture comes from so long as it will attract patrons to his box-office. As a matter of fact, nothing would suit the American exhibitors more than to look to the British producers as a dependable source for box-office product, because the more competition there is for their playing time the better their position. So long as the British producers fail to exploit their stars in the United States, and so long as they persist in influencing their Government to impose restrictions on American pictures, the British movie industry is going to suffer. Not until they realize this will there be any hope for them. The statement made to me several years ago by the head of a big affiliated circuit still rings in my ears. He said: "The British theatres cannot get along without American pictures." His statement has proved true. SCARECROWS Some trade papers fear that Divorcement will bring about a shortage of product. Why should there be a shortage of product because of Divorcement? If anything, there should be an increase, for Divorcement will serve to encourage independent production. Under the old system, the pictures produced by the major producing organizations were, by reason of backscratching arrangements among the theatre-owning producer-distributors, given preference in playing time, in length of engagements, and in terms, over the pictures made by the independent producers. With Divorcement, there will be a free and open market, and the independent producers will have a fair opportunity to book their pictures in the main centers of population upon terms and conditions equal to those of the major producers. If there is a shortage of product, it will be, not in quantity, but in quality. But there has always been a shortage of good pictures, of which the industry can never produce too many. Perhaps Divorcement will bring about an improvement in the average quality of the product; when the major producers will no longer depend on a set number of bookings in their own theatres and those of other producers, no matter whether their pictures are good or bad, they will realize that their survival depends on the making of better pictures. As a matter of fact, it will make no difference whether a picture is produced by a major company or an independent producer; the deciding factor will be entertainment quality, and the good pictures will get the greatest number of bookings. Consequently, there is bound to be stiffer competition in the production end of the business, and such competition should result in better pictures. In the opinion of this paper, there is no danger that there will be a serious shortage of product. All the exhibitor has to do is to exercise care in the selection of the pictures he books. If he should do so and the poor pictures remain unplayed, every producer will realize the necessity of improving the quality of his pictures if he is to remain in business.