The Exhibitor (1959)

MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR October 7, 1959 UNSOLICITED • The letters from readers which appear on this page are not solicited. MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR does nof suggest questions to readers in order to provide a flow of letters. From WASHINGTON, D. C. I cannot afford to let go unchallenged such gross inaccuracies as those passed along by your "confidant” concerning film damage in military theatres ("LETS TURN THE SPOT¬ LIGHT ON MILITARY PRINTS”— issue of Sept. 16, 1959). In all fairness I feel that the exhibitors are entitled to hear the other side of the story. Although I cannot speak for the Navy since they have their own motion picture service, I can speak authoritatively on film damage in Army and Air Force theatres. This is one of many areas where extreme care is exercised to assure that our actions do not in any way jeopardize commercial exhibition. We recog¬ nize the necessity and importance for the proper care in the handling and projection of motion picture films and we have an en¬ viable record with regard to damage. Over the past five years the number of film damage claims has averaged less than one a week (49-2 per year) and only about half of these proved to be valid claims against the AAFMPS. Taking into consideration the number of per¬ formances which are held in the Army and Air Force theatres throughout the United States, 200,000 annually, the amount of film damage pales into insignificance. The damage might also be related to the 1,400 odd prints which are in circulation weekly to the 350odd Army and Air Force theatres in the United States. It appears that military print damage is being used as a convenient excuse for failure to provide proper service to ex¬ hibitors and the facts do not support the case. In those instances where damage does occur, replacement footage is ordered with the print being returned to A-l condition. The basic issue here is not one of film dam¬ age but one of the military motion picture releasing arrangements. This matter is under discussion between the Department of Defense and a special committee of the Theatre Own¬ ers of America. The committee, however, has not been very active and in an effort to avert a stalemate, the AAFMPS has been endeavor¬ ing to work out an acceptable solution to all parties with several of the distributing com¬ panies. The entertainment motion picture is the principle morale stimulant to the man in uniform. It is patently unfair to accuse the serviceman with "bad press” and not concede that he may also be responsible for favorable word-of-mouth advertising. I am sure that any exhibitors throughout the country who are in an area where military installations have been inactivated would be pleased to again be the beneficiaries of the military patronage that was theirs while the military theatres were in operation. This is not a one¬ sided issue — the AAFMPS is not in competi¬ tion with commercial enterprise. Patronage eligibility regulations of the armed services are designed to protect the rights of the com¬ mercial exhibitor, and such regulations are strictly enforced. Should some exhibitor know of an instance where such is not the case, the matter would be thoroughly investigated and corrective action assured. It may be pertinent to mention that it was through the intercession of the AAFMPS dur¬ ing World War II that film footage credits were obtained from the War Production Authority, thereby assuring prints in sufficient quantity to take care of commercial require¬ ments as well as military requirements. It is my suggestion that if your "confidant” has a case, he refer it to the Department of Defense or to the Theatre Owners of America and not resort to distortion of the facts in the press. ROBERT E. QUICK, Chief Army & Air Force Motion Picture Service EDITOR'S NOTE: We agree that there are usually two sides to any con¬ troversy, and we are happy to carry Air. Quick's rebuttal. Forty-nine prints a year does seem to he sizeable film damage, particularly ivhen these are all relatively new prints of shows that have not yet played the nation’s commercial outlets. May we hope that the particular T.O.A. committee will become more active. The Original Dawn-To-Dusk Show? Back in 1930, MOTION PICTURE EX¬ HIBITOR reproduced the accompanying ad as an example of bushel-basket showman¬ ship that it believed to be ruinous to contemporary business. An interested sub¬ scriber, Phil Swank of Downingtown, Pa., has now forwarded it to us, with the com¬ ment: “The idea is the same but the price is different. Some place between then and BIGGEST SHOW IN THE WORLD! 6-Hour Show at the CASINO, Lancaster and Haverford Aves. SATURDAY MATINEE, SEPTEMBER 19 Bring Your Lunch and Stay All Day! 1. Free 5<f bar of candy. 1. Free money R to $1. 3. Pictures of the Spanish War. 4. Laughs and Flashes. 5. 1st Feature "Human Cargo." 6. Kiddies' Stage Show. 7. Loads of Fun with Uncle Marty. 8. Free Prizes to Lucky Winners. 9. Serial "Burn 'Em Up Barnes." 10. "EZ" Contest— Free Gifts. Courtesy Weissman's Drug, 4008 Lancaster. BING CROSBY Crooning in "KING OF JAZZ" ALL FOR 1 0 < — BE EARLY ~ 6-Hour Show! BRING YOUR LUNCH WE'VE GOT THE DESSERT now we developed such equally silly and suicidal methods as: Children-under-12 FREE! $1.00-a-carfull! and 6 Features Dusk-to-Dawn! Think we’ll ever wake From ALBANY, N.Y. Please don’t knock CENSORSHIP as you have been doing in the past. If this continues, you can count me as an ex-subscriber. Sorry, but that’s it! ARTHUR F. BOYCE, State Inspector N.Y. State Censor Bureau EDITOR'S NOTE: Hm-m-m-m! Guess that’s right. From OTTAWA, KANS. I read with interest and some annoyance the letter in your Sept. 16 issue from "AN INTERESTED INDUSTRYITE.” I do not know whether I am an exception to the general rule but when this writer states that, "Whether circuit or buying com¬ bine, they don't want their individual com¬ ponents coming to Film Row, or even talking to distributors, where they might upset deals or bookings,” I must state emphatically that this has not been my experience. I own and operate a small town theatre in which we bid for product against one of the large circuits. I therefore use the services of a booker or combine. I make a trip to Film Row at least once every 10 days, and if any¬ one thinks that I am not on top of things, or that I do not have the final say when it comes to booking and buying, they are mistaken. Indeed, it is only through the closest working relationship with my booker that we are able to compete at all. I have never seen or heard my booker say anything that would indicate that he would like me to stay in the background. Let’s be realistic about this. The day of un¬ limited pictures from which an exhibitor could choose is past. The day when an ex¬ hibitor could sit in his office and line up film salesmen and then take his pick is finished. And how a small exhibitor can book and buy in a bidding situation, without spending half his time on Film Row, is beyond my under¬ standing. Booking combines were not formed because the small exhibitor had extra money to throw around. They were formed of necessity and in some cases a desperate necessity. They were formed because of men like Samuel Goldwyn, who don’t give a tinker’s damn about the small theatre. Is it modernization and streamlining to close exchanges? And in who’s interest of economy is it? Certainly not the exhibitors, who must withstand the extra and added film delivery charges. Is it modernization to make less pictures, to sell the old ones to television, and then to close the exchanges? Strange isn’t it that companies such as 20th Century-Fox, who recently announced a large production schedule, and United Artists, who this year released more pictures than ever before in their history, are not crying. There is a lot wrong with this industry; but, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong that good features in sufficient numbers can not cure if the exhibitor gets off his can and does at least as much promoting as the local department store. S. CHARLES MORISE Tauy Theatre EDITOR'S NOTE: There is some pro¬ vocative thinking here. But there are still many Buying and Booking Services that would prefer that their theatre clients stay out of all contact with Film Ex¬ changes. From DENVER, COL. Keep up the good work! You’re doing great! R. S. BRIGGS, President Tower Theatre Co.