Harrison's Reports (1955)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States . .,15 00 New York 20, N. Y. ^^Pu^eT8' InC" U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 fUDiisner Canada • • • • • 16-50 A Motion picture Reviewing Service P S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Great Britain ............ 17.50 Established July 1. 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia 17.50 its Editorial PoUcy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial ~ . „ ..,„ 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. circle t-*bu A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVII SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1955 No. 51 MORE TOA LIP SERVICE In an analysis of the court victory won last week by the industry in connection with the Government's 16mm suit against most of the film companies, Herman M. Levy, general counsel of the Theatre Owners of America, points out that Spyros P. Skouras, president of 20th Century-Fox, made some significant comments on the position and value of the small exhibitor while testifying at the trial. "All of us know," states Levy, "that for years distributors have been wailing about the excessive cost ot servicing the small exhibitors.' They have claimed that it is an unprofitable segment of business for distributors; that they obtain 80% or 90% of their revenue domestically from the top 20%, or so, of the theatres in the country. These are the types of statements exhibitors and exhibitor leaders have been given for years on almost every occasion when relief has been requested for the 'small exhibitor.' " Levy then states that Skuoras, in his testimony, pointed out that the adoption of a general policy of quick distribution of motion pictures to television, omitting the values of re-makes and reissues, would definitely cause the small theatres in the country to close their doors. Skouras added, according to Levy, that the margin of profit ior the "small theatre" is, at present, very small; that the impact of television on such theatres was great; and that if it were not the admission tax reduction many more theatres would have closed. In response to the question: "How would the closing of small theatres affect your revenues?" Mr. Skouras replied: "Very substantially, to the point that we would be in the red." "In other words," states Levy, "Mr. Skouras admitted that without the revenue from the small theatres his company could not profitably distribute its pictures. To the best of my recollection, and 1 have been representing ex= hibitor interests since 1933, that is the first time that a public statement ot that kind, from a distributor head, has come to my attention. Mr. Skouras is to be congratulated for his candor and sincerity, And now is the time for all other distribution company presidents to revaluate their opinions of the position of importance of the 'small theatres' to their companies and to the industry, to recognize their sad plight, and to offer major relief. Up to this point all that the 'small theatre' owner has been confronted with is demands for prohibitive rental, untenable conditions of licensing and callous indifference to his welfare and continued existence. He is the 'forgotten man' of the industry." Harrison's Reports agrees with Mr. Levy that Spyros Skouras should be congratulated for his candor and sincerity in pointing out the importance to his company of the revenue that comes from the small theatres. But this paper believes that Mr. Levy, too, should be congratulated for admitting that the small exhibitor is in need of "major relief," and that he is still confronted with "demands for prohibitive rental, untenable conditions of licensing, and callous indifference to his welfare and con tinued existence." From the "do nothing" policy followed by Mr. Levy's organization in treating with this problem, one would think that it did not exist. His acknowledgement that it does exist is, in effect, an admission that the so-called "friendly negotiations" carried on by the TOA to secure relief from the distributors have been unavailing, and that its claim that it has received encouraging reports from the field indicating an "easement" of film selling policies is just so much bosh. UA CONTINUES ITS FORWARD MARCH In a progress report made at a trade press conference last week, Arthur B. Krim, president of United Artists, stated that his company anticipates a world gross of $55,000,000 for 1955. In 1951, when the present management took over the affairs of United Artists, the gross income was approximately $18,000,000. This figure rose progressively to $28,000,000 in 1952; $36,000,000 in 1953; and $44,000,000 in 1954. The 1955 figure of $55,000,000 not only represents a new high in the history of the company but exceeds by approximately $5,000,000 the gross predicted by Krim earlier this year. For 1956, Krim, after an analysis of the company's forthcoming product, predicts a gross income of $65,000,000. Since the record shows that he is not given to wild predictions, it will come as no surprise if that figure, too, is exceeded. As it has already been said in these columns, the steady and remarkable progress made by United Artists since the new management took over in 1951 is welcome news to the majority of exhibitors, for it means that their support has not only served to keep the company in business but also to reestablish it as a primary and dependable source from which to expect a continuous flow of product. The company is now releasing an average of three to four pictures a month and intends to continue this rate throughout 1956. A rather revealing statement made by Krim was that the salaries of himself and his associates, including Robert Benjamin, William J. Heineman, Arnold Picker and Max E. Youngstein, were not only the lowest in the business comparatively but are the same as when they took over the management in 1951. He stated that none of the executives have taken out of the increased grosses any dividends or special emoluments other than their regular salaries, and that all profits have been sunk back into production, with the result that the company today is financing wholly practically every picture it puts into release, and that it has approximately $40,000,000 invested in production. Mr. Krim and his associates have a right to be justifiably proud of their record of accomplishment, and they deserve the plaudits of the exhibitors, not only for a job well done, but also for their faith in the industry's future, as exemplified by the re-investment of their company's increased earnings in more and better product.