Harrison's Reports (1950)

Entered as second-class matter January -1, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1S?9. 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 Wew 1 ork *u> n 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 Ug Editorial Poiicy: 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. XXXII SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1950 No. 15 LET THE DISTRIBUTORS STOP PENALIZING THE EXHIBITOR FOR HIS SHOWMANSHIP WORK Speaking at the 20th Century-Fox Showmanship meet' ing in Dallas on March 23, Colonel Harry A. Cole, national Allied leader from Texas, had this to say, in part: ". . . You all know hundreds and thousands of instances where exhibitors refused to do any showmanship work whatsoever, where the result is a very small return to their individual net profit and a very large return to the profit of the distribution branch, and where the almost immediate result is future increased film rentals obviously stemming from the showman's own investment and work. Many ex' hibitors (and I know scores of them) have openly stated that they deliberately kill such results rather than attempt to get more dollars into the box-office. The profit motive has been eliminated (or reversed) in their case, and why should a man invest his time and money to get more dollars into the industry without retaining for himself a fair share of such increase?" What Colonel Cole said at that meeting is only too true, as the distributors very well know. An exhibitor knows that, if he puts a picture over in a big way, his film rentals will go up, not only with the company whose picture he has exploited, but also with other companies, who learn of the exhibitor's success through the grapevine method, which unfortunately prevails in the industry. Accordingly, he refuses to put extra effort behind the exploitation of a picture. And yet this attitude can be reversed. The exhibitor can be induced to put more showmanship behind the meritorious pictures he books to boost receipts, without being penalized afterwards. How? Several years ago Mike Vogel, the man whose brains overflow with original exploitation ideas, submitted to the general sales manager of a major film company a plan whereby the sliding scale could be adopted in reverse. That is, starting from a certain point of gross receipts, and a certain point of percentage, the exhibitor's percentage of the take increases as the receipts keep increasing so that he is offered an incentive to work, instead of assuming the attitude that Colonel Cole so well described at the Fox Showmanship meeting in Dallas. But what did this general sales manager say to Mr. Vogel? The plan, being radical, would destroy the existing order, and he could not undertake to submit it to his company. The present system of the sliding scale whereby the more the exhibitor takes in the more he pays is illogical. In any other business, just imagine what the customer would say to the manufacturer if he was asked to pay more for the goods he was about to buy than another customer who bought one-quarter the quantity! Perhaps at the time Mr. Vogel submitted this iconoclastic plan to the distribution head conditions were lush and no one would want to take the chance of disturbing the prevailing order of things, but conditions are now different; we have television to contend with, and a new sales system, one that will induce the exhibitor to roll up his sleeves and go to work, virtually dragging people into the theatre, is needed; it is, as a matter of fact, essential. What company will be farsighted enough to institute the Vogel plan of a sliding scale in reverse? AN ABLE DEFENSE SPOILED Published in the April 1 issue of The Saturday Review of Literature is an article by Samuel Goldwyn in answer to the criticism of American motion pictures by Norman Cousins, vice-president of the Saturday Review corporation. Mr. Cousins' criticism was occasioned by the type of some of the American pictures that are sent abroad; he feels that they discredit America by "distorting American life." Mr. Goldwyn's defense is able and impressive. Part of his article reads as follows: ". . . should any one (whether Governmental or intra-industry) have the right to decide whether certain of our motion pictures be chosen or re jected for export to foreign countries on political instead of on strictly entertainment grounds? "If on a political basis, 'distortion' can become anything with which one may disagree. . . . "It is difficult for me to see how any American can be a party to a political basis for selection or rejection of motion pictures for export — or of books — or of magazines — or of newspapers — or of any other product which stems from a literary idea. Today we may have one foreign policy, one propaganda theme; but tomorrow we may have another! Who is wise enough to decide which is right? Must the Congressional opposition accept our foreign policy or be 'distorters'? . . ." Mr. Goldwyn sets forth a number of other sensible arguments against restricting the type of pictures that may be sent abroad when the decision is made on a political, and not on an entertainment, basis. Of course, certain phases of Mr. Goldwyn's arguments may be controverted, but on the whole his defense, in answer to criticism made by a person who is not connected with the motion picture industry and who speaks only as an amateur, is able and convincing. But the benefit the motion picture industry derived from Mr. Goldwyn's article in the Saturday Review of Literature has been nullified by his article, "Television's Challenge to the Movies," printed in the Sunday magazine section of the March 26 issue of the K[ew Yor\ Times. In that article Mr. Goldwyn discussed the possible effect of television on the movies. "America's motion picture industry," he said, "is faced with a powerful and rapidly growing contender for the public's leisure-time attention — television. The speed with which television has captured the public interest confronts Hollywood with an immediate challenge. "The extent of that challenge was summed up for me recently by a New York banker. Discussing the small-loans department of his bank, which grants loans up to $300 without security, he said: 'Applicants for these loans must fill out blanks explaining why they want the money and how they plan to repay it. The majority of present-day applicants write "television set" as their reason for borrowing. Regarding payment, they state: 'We will save the money by cutting down on the number of times we go to the movies each week!' "Hollywood must face the facts squarely. Television, which in the beginning was little more than a gimmick used by tavern keepers to induce patrons to linger over another drink, is today a lusty hilli>n-di>llai -baby— and growing like Paul Bunyan. The public has invested almost a billion dollars in at least three and a half million home sets. And more than 70 per cent of tli.U amount has been spent m the last (Continued on bac^ page)