The Exhibitor (1959)

41 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry o2ifno!«eC^ ,n Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd [;®w 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 8141 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles 48, Calif. London Bureau: Jack MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay 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; 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 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia publish¬ ing office. VOLUME 63 • NO. 3 DECEMBER 2, 1959 A LESSON IN GOOD TASTE Referring to our editorial “COMMENTS ON A CHANG¬ ING WORLD’’ (issue of Nov. 18), which ended with the hope that “taste, rather than prudery, will rule our filmed tongue,” a subscriber draws our attention to the 20th-Fox picture, “BELOVED INFIDEL,” and to the advertising and publicity campaign that launched it. It is his contention that many strong themes can be told in modern motion pictures, and many forceful ads can be written about such strong themes, IF a generous degree of good taste and a respect for public sensibilities are observed. This 20th-Fox picture is the frank and intimate story of an illicit romance between famous writer F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hollywood columnist Sheila Graham. Handled clumsily, or shooting for sensationalism, it is the kind of theme that could cause no end of headaches. Rut as produced and directed it has earned some very pleasant and acceptable reviews. It is also interesting to note that the reviewers themselves were conscious of the inherent hazards and actually applauded the “taste” that was exhibited. In the New York dailies, for example, Wanda Hale (Daily News) and Paul Beckley (Herald Tribune) actually referred to and used the word “taste” in their praiseful comments. Other critics such as Justin Gilbert (Mirror), Irene Thirer (Post), and Alton Cook (World Telegram) referred to “taste” without actual use of the word itself. All of this is reflected in turn in the 20th-Fox ads. The same outfit that handled the even more sensational “BLUE DENIM” theme with such dignity and restraint has very cleverly sug¬ gested the illicit love affair without recourse to the sex over¬ tones for shock copy. A review ad carried in the New York newspapers last week actually spotlighted the two “taste” re¬ ferences mentioned above, as an assurance to the public at large. As we go to press, the success or failure of “BELOVED INFIDEL” will depend on the holiday weekend. But, whether it does business or not, it will not reflect discredit on itself, or on the industry. “Taste” in production, and “taste” in mer¬ chandising, stamp it as a legitimate piece of entertainment deserving the interest of the public, rather than a hit-and-run carnival sideshow aimed at the “fast buck.” We needn’t be prudes. And we needn’t be sex-sationalists. Integrity and “good taste” should be our guiding lights. BLUSHES! To the best of our knowledge, and from the printed record, ROCK HUDSON and DORIS DAY were first given national recognition as “boxoffice champs,” “stars of the year,” or “names that mean most at theatres” in their respective clas¬ sifications, as far back as August, 1957, in the Annual Laurel Awards issue of MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR. At that time, their choice was not a capricious “grab bag,” but resulted from a carefully tabulated national poll of theatre executive opinion. So we are happy to note that numerous A STUDY IN Coinciding as it did with the T.O.A. Convention in Chicago’s Hotel Sherman, the speech of Mayor Daley before the annual dinner meeting of the Chicago Better Business Bureau, could be reason to make one quietly ill. Here was the titular head of the second largest city in the U.S.A. Here was the “boss” politically and economically of the police department and of all law enforcement agencies. And this was a time when Jack Mabley of the Chicago Daily News and William J. Gleeson of the New World (Catholic weekly) were publishing a continuing series of articles charging or¬ ganized vice, hoodlumism, indecent shows, prostitution, and a host of other evils in his fair city. A federal grand jury con¬ ducted by a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General was busily engaged in probing such matters. And Virgil W. Peter¬ son, former FBI man and operating director of the Chicago Crime Commission, had thrown the dare in the public press that: “ Rampant vice cannot take place in a district without the police knowing about it.” later polls, conducted by theatre owner groups and by other trade papers, continue to confirm this M.P.E. “first”. Most re¬ cent were the selections of ROCK HUDSON and DORIS DAY as the “Stars of the Year” by the Allied States Association of M. P. Exhibitors, after “a secret poll taken among its members.’ Ben Marcus, general convention chairman of Allied’s coming Miami Beach convention, will present them with awards. So, once again, the honest and industry-wise leadership of M.P.E. has been proven by subsequent events. We are pleased! HYPOCRISY This was the condition, and this was the climate, into which the mayor elocuted: “On our newsstands and in many of our stores we see the most suggestive and obscene types of magazines and paperback books. We see motion pictures inviting our children to see the ‘ screens first blood bath in color.’ And nearly every prime hour of television time features a crime production . . . But the problem belongs to every businessman, to our spiritual leaders, and to each and every citizen . , .We must give our utmost attention ... to making sure the outlook of our youth stems from a strong and healthy civic attitude and moral responsibility.” Quick to lay “the problem” on the door step of anyone except the mayor himself and his police, his speech is some¬ how reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin’s great imitation of Hitler’s passionate harangues. It probably sounded good— but what did he say? But, once again, “the movies ” and not “the butler ” did it! And “Hizonor” chooses to forget the “strippers” and joints.