The Exhibitor (1959)

41 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry Founded in 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 248-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd Street, New York 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 8141 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles 48, Calif. London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; M. R (Mrs. "Chick") Lewis, associate editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Tom Werner, Physical Theatre and Extra Profits departmental editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: S2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries, $5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Second class postage paid at Phila¬ delphia, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia publishing office. VOLUME 62 • NO. 10 JULY 15, 1959 THE "LADY” When the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court, constituting the highest legal authority in the land, were in agreement that the Regents of the State of New York could not deny a license for the showing of “LADY CHATTERLEY’S LOVER,” a celebrated case became history. Rut, in a case where no dissent was filed, there were no less than seven opinions resulting from the judges’ efforts to express their different views. This single fact furnishes some indica¬ tion of the complex considerations involved, and of the differ¬ ences of opinion that were not resolved. Contrasted to the judicial wisdom and divergent views of such an august body, a board of six elderly ladies and a police commissioner had no difficulty at all banning the showing of “ANATOMY OF A MURDER in the great city of Chicago. To this latter board, it was all very simple and no problem at all. Black was black, white was white, and “Freedoms” or “Amendments” are something that only apply in racket investigations, or Fourth of July speeches. AND THE LAW Such are the nether poles of censorship as they apply to our industry. Fortunately, the judicial seems to be arriving in time to cut the heroine loose from the railroad tracks before the train driven by dictatorial police chiefs or vote¬ getting district attorneys cuts her in two. But the average theatreman shouldn’t just relax and believe that he has a license to play anything or everything that will make a buck. There are many things that are normal and moral and legal in themselves, that would be lewd and indecent if ex¬ hibited in public. And there are many feature films being imported into domestic distribution channels today that could not receive the judicial protection that was accorded LAD4 or “ANATOMY.” The theatremen who play such junk can be arrested, can be jailed, and can be fined. So don't look on the recent Supreme Court decision as a dropping of all bars and restrictions. It isn t! And the smart theatreman will still be governed by good taste and good judgment, in choosing his screen entertainment. THE VOICE OF THE TURTLE The old saw that “ Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it” can be applied to more than the weather. Many theatremen, both inside and outside of the¬ atre associations, have expressed their belief that in the solv¬ ing of exhibitor problems there are too many resolutions, and too much parliamentary procedure, but not enough concrete action. In other words, too much “talk” and not enough “do.” Out in Kansas City, a year or so ago, Howard E. “Jamey” Jameyson proposed that theatremen pool a substantial invest¬ ment and actually buy stock in the film producing companies that are our supply sources. It was his thought that such action would promote exhibition’s interests by providing it with a voice and an influence as stockholders. So he invited a small group of friends to join with him, and $100,000 was subscribed. Motion Picture Investors, Inc., was chosen as their corporate name. The first year has now ended, and a 15 percent stock divi¬ dend has been distributed to all M.P.I. members. But, more important, this trial run has proved what can and can t be done. So President Jameyson has announced the next giant step. A drive will be started to increase the fund to $2,000,000. J. Robert Hoff, president of the Ballantyne Co. of Omaha, is taking a six month leave from his company to sales manage the effort. Home offices will remain in Kansas Citv, but other surrounding areas in the midwest will be opened with resi¬ dent managers in each. As the idea spreads, the voice of M.P.I. , like “the voice of the turtle,” should be heard louder and louder in industry corporate meetings, “throughout the land.” From all of this, it certainly would seem that they are “doing something about it” at M.P.I. OLD MOVIES AND TV AUDIENCES The lack of selectivity and of quality demanded bv TV audiences is best proved bv some recent statistics published in the TV trade press. With between one quarter and one third of all TV’s hours in the major centers devoted to old movies, it seems that many are repeated and re-repeated, in some cases as many as 15 times. In the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, for example, each averages close to 190 old movies per week, or just short of 10,000 old movies per year. Over and over they go, with only the headache powder or liver pill commercials changing, and evidently their audiences continue to watch. From this it seems safe to draw some conclusions. First: While large enough audiences will continue to look at the same old features over and over again, there shouldn’t he the same demand for our post-1948 product. Why give them anything newer? Second: Such a TV audience can’t be considered a theatre potential for the}' will obviously look at the same show over and over again, due only to its availability and to its price. In other words, for free they’ll buy anything. And Third: Such repetition, not only of old movies but of old TV shows, should drive an ever increasing number of the intelligent, with the money to pay, back to the movies if for no other reason than to see something new, and fresh, and different. Since the beginning of “talkies’ there haven t been enough old movies made to satisfy such a voracious appetite. One day, TV will need to get down to repeating the old TV shows only. When that time comes the real competition between movies and TV will begin.