The Exhibitor (1955)

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.

THE COSTS OF NEW TECHNIQUES While a paper read ])y Loren L. Ryder, head of engi¬ neering and reeording at the Paramount Studios, at the recent seini-annnal meeting of the SMPTE has heen emotionally and scatliingly flayed Ijy equipment manu¬ facturers for a slighting and inaccurate reference to them, it would he unfortunate if tlie resultant furor covered, or distracted from, more sage ohservations that have substantial merit. Ryder pointed out, for example, that while “adduced from Department of Commerce figures, the approxi¬ mately 20,000 theatres” of the nation “show a net” an¬ nual profit of $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 in 1954, the money spent last year on the new wide-screen, on the new regular and anamorphic lenses these screens made necessary, on the new and larger power and light sources needed to put an adequate picture on greatly increased screen areas, and on stereophonic sound, amounted to well over $30,000,000. Naturally there is no way to check his arithmetic, and he may he off a million here or there, hut if he is even nearly correct, his oliservation that some industryites “forget that the object of the motion picture business is to make money” is a dilly of understatement. It looks as though we all gave one solid year out of our lives for equipment that in some cases is rarely used. Ryder estimates that 5,000 theatres made the expen¬ sive installation of magnetic stereophonic sound. There is no questioning that this was a stride forward in tech¬ nical improvement. Even those who didn’t install it will agree that magnetic stereophonic is far, far superior to single track optical sound. But would Ryder he shocked if we told him that except at 20th Century-Fox, it is extremely difficult, if not impossiljle, for most theatres to get a magnetic stereophonic print on even a big picture? It would certainly seem that, while equipment manu¬ facturers and 5,000 exhibitors were willing to put out the dough for a forward step, the produeers “chickened out” when faced with the increased print cost. So it would seem that at least some of I954’s profits were thrown right into the ash can. We’ll he a lono; time gettino; it hack! QUOTE OF THE WEEK A very jiowerful defense of the motion picture indus¬ try, and of the service it renders, and the responsibility it has, marked the speech of Dore Schary, head of pro¬ duction for MGM, before the annual convention of the Audit Bureau of Circulations in Chicago recently. We particularly like the following industry self criticism: “In the area of public relations we encourage addi¬ tional attacks by sidestepping current ones. In sticking our necks in the sand, we get clobbered on the keister. In trying to avoid the storm, ive slip down the drainpipe. For a mighty, grown-up industry doing close to tivo billion dollars’ north of business each year all over the GRIN OF The following yarn was observed in a “column” in one of the New York City daily newspapers recently, and we think it hears reprinting: “The fellow leaving the movie theatre looked over the line of males waiting to purchase tickets to view the picture, ‘Naked Amazon.’ Brushing against one of the world, we often act like the frightened owner of a corner drugstore tcho is afraid a hoodlum ivill throw a rock through the ivindow.” . . . and: “Possessing the most powerful medium in the world — the image — with a magnificent record of public accom¬ plishment, we still manage to picture ourselves to the public as a small boy drawing dirty pictures on the back fence. We have helped this nation groiv and have given it reputation — good reputation — all over the world — and still try to curry favor in the obsequious manner of a small-time ivard heeler.” Wow ! THE WEEK standees, he whispered: ‘What a surprise you’ll get in¬ side. That Amazon is no woman, you know, it’s a river.’ As the line quickly thinned to two, the ticket taker cried out: ‘Another gloom spreader’.” Well, anyway, there isn’t any river named “LADY GODIVA!” Jay Emanuel A JAY EMANUEL PUBLICATION. Founded in 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philcidelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York: 229 West 42nd Street, New York 36. West Coast: Paul Manning, 9628 Cresta Drive, Los Angeles 35, California. Joy Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhaigh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Arnold Farber, Physical Theatre editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 per year (52 issues); and outside of the United States, Conada, and Pan-American countries, $5 per year (52 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Entered as second class matter at the Philodelphia, Pennsylvania, post office. Address letters to 246-48 North Clarion Street Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania.