The Exhibitor (1957)

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.

MOTION PICTURE 2, 1957 NUMBER 7 WHEN IS A KEY RUN NOT A KEY RUN? Some pretty interesting history will he made, re¬ gardless of which way the Federal courts decide the current suit hy the operators of 15 Philadelphia area theatres against Paramount’s sales methods on “ 1 he 4 cn Commandments.” What must he decided is whether a “road show,” or other special engagement policy, can he continued or forced past the high admissioned first run, and into a second, or possibly even third or fourth series of high admissioned neighborhood runs that ignore all estab¬ lished distribution policies, before any picture’s normal release to all theatre customers. Paramount arbitrarily divided some 40-odd theatres into five lists; advised that after 30 weeks in a first-run they would only accept a total of five second-run theatre dates; invited the for¬ merly non-competing and non-bidding theatres in each list to hid against each other; and specified various minimums ranging from $7500 to $3000 that would he con¬ sidered from respective lists. The theatremen complain that this is carrying the “road show,” or other special engagement policy, too far in an obvious effort to gouge the public through the perpetuation of a high admission scales; that the policy of large divisional lists would establish competition between theatres that are actually miles apart, and where even Paramount in the sale of all of its other pictures recognizes true competition does not exist; and that the whole idea is just a gimmick to maintain higher prices through the arbitrary imposition of unreasonable clearances and therefore of a planned scarcity. Hearing on a temporary injunction, to prevent Para¬ mount from selling “The Ten Commandments” in the affected area until the merits of their case can he heard and decided, is scheduled for June 11 (the day this issue is due to enter the mail) so a milestone may he passed, one way or another, before these views get wide readership. Some interesting speculations are these: 1. If a film distributor can shatter all industry rou¬ tines and policies, and can dictate such a planned fivelist scarcity in one large city, on one large picture, why can't he reduce similar limitations to four lists, or three lists, or two lists, in any city or town, and on any picture with any stature at all? And if one company can, why can't every other of the 10 national distributors do like¬ wise? And why couldn’t a series of such restrictive lists result in slowing national distribution to the point where at least some of the public would he deprived of an opportunity to see a particular picture for a year or more after its big city first runs? 2. Can a film distributor legitimately institute com¬ petitive bidding for his pictures, from lists of theatres he has selected and classified himself, demanding mini¬ mum guarantees that he knows will eliminate many of th ese very theatres through sheer inability to do that kind of gross in their particular neighborhood or area? Can this competitive bidding tool, that was awarded to theatremen by the courts as a means of breaking up alleged monopoly and as a means of widening a market, he appropriated hy distributors to tighten a market and to create a monopoly of the-big-theatres-in-big-areas ca¬ pable of maximum grosses, regardless of their ownership? 3. Admitting that any motion picture is a privately owned property, and that its owner is entitled to ask any price he wants for it in any one locale, so long as he does not discriminate or favor one potential purchaser over another, does this also give the owner the right to tear up, discard or change at will, the entire distribu¬ tional system of a national industry, that has been estab¬ lished and recognized even hy him for a period of 40 or 50 years? In other words, are so-called “first-runs,” “move-over-runs,” “second-runs,” “key-runs,” etc., actual segments of our distributional system, or are they ephem¬ eral lines to he observed hy distributors on one picture and to he pushed aside on whim and ignored on another picture? 4. And there even seems to he the Federal Anti-Segre¬ gation law involved. The way we hear it, in separating Philadelphia into five divisions or lists of theatres, one list was restricted to the so-called “colored” theatres, and the minimum demand from this latter list was the lowest. No so-called “white” theatres were in this list. No so-called “colored” theatres were in any other list. And the so-called “colored” theatres in their particular list cover a substantial chunk of Philadelphia real estate, in some cases being closer to “wJiite" theatres than to other “colored'' theatres in the same list. In making up such a list, isn't Paramount recognizing segregation and actually practicing it? In their bidding letter Paramount made a good case for their need to make special rules that would permit a profit on such an expensive picture. As the lines are drawn, it must he decided whether that need is sufficient to justify the rules selected. Is cost of production the controlling factor governing admission scales, film prices, and all industry routines and policies? Exhibition, production, and distribution may find farreaching influences in any decision that is made. Jay Emanuel A JAY EMANUEL PUBLICATION. Founded in 1918 Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated Publishing ofFice: 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York: 229 West 42nd Street, New York 36. West Coast: Paul Manning, 8141 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles 48, Cal. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel KonecofF, New York editor; William Haaaocx, Physical Theatre and Extra Profits aepartmental editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Caaes, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 per year (52 issues); ana outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries, S5 per year (52 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Entered as secona class matter at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, post office. Address letters to 246-48 North Clarion Street. Philadelphia 7. Pennsylvania.