Hollywood (1938)

Man Sktitkid Hollywood 1 Association of New York, decided to wage a one-man battle on the picture industry. In the first place, he denies that he and the exhibitors he represents are waging a "battle." "We are in love with the picture business," he says emphatically. "It has given us everything we have. And we are not trying to destroy stars. We are not trying to beat down star salaries, when they bring money into the box-office. Any star is entitled to as much money as he or she can get, provided the cash customers come to the theatre. But we are trying to see that stars who no longer make money for us are not used against the box-office. After all, it is the theatreowner who created the star in the first place. It may be the producer who actually signs the pay check, but it is the nickels and dimes and quarters and dollars that go through our box-offices that really pay that salary. We are the final paymasters, and because of that we think we have a right to complain when a star's salary is all out of proportion to the money that star brings into our houses." | To understand the complaint of Harry Brandt and his fellow exhibitors, it must be remembered that major studios sell a year's product, usually 52 features, in advance to theatre operators. The theatre man has the privilege of cancelling about ten percent of those films, if he does not wish to play them, but the rest he must pay for, whether he plays them or not. This system is called "block-booking," and has many advantages and many disadvantages. An advantage is that it allows the owner of a small house to book a year's pictures without maintaining an expensive book ing office. It also saves him from sharp competitive bidding from his neighbors for the more important films. A disadvantage is that the theatre owner may have to play, at high cost, a picture that was intended for a super-special by the producers, but which, after the investment of a million or more dollars, has proved to be something less than a smash hit. | It also should be remembered that no producer deliberately sets out to make a picture that is going to lose money, that no producer deliberately tries to lessen the value of his contract stars by making poor pictures. The show business always has been one of immense gambles, immense rewards, immense losses. No one can estimate in advance just how a film will be received. That is why so many harsh words were to be heard about Harry Brandt for many days after the bright Monday morning when his first advertisement appeared in The Hollywood Reporter. | Joseph M. Schenck, chairman of the board of Twentieth Century-Fox, dismissed the whole matter with "Ridiculous! How can any exhibitor, on the basis of what a film does at his theatre, know how it goes generally? He has to have more information than his own boxcffice receipts to gauge the drawing power of stars. Statements of that kind don't do the business any good, and they harm those who make them. They boomerang." It is interesting to notice that Mr. Schenck's indignation is quite impersonal, since none of the stars mentioned by name are on the Twentieth CenturyFox contract list. [Continued on page 55] He called the people whose famous faces adorn these pages "Poison at the boxoffice" and started a fight that is apt to rage all year. Then he started a campaign for single bills. Unless you understand what is behind this fight, you don't know what is going on in Hollywood's inner circles