The Exhibitor (1960)

42 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry ii«und»d In 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office; '748-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office; 8 East 52nd wreet. New York 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 8141 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles M, Calif. London Bureau: Jack MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhaigh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; M. R. (Mrs. I'Chick") Lewis, associate editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New iferk editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: (2 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 said at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia publish¬ ing office. (VOLUME 63 •. NO. 18 MARCH 23, 1960 THE BATTLE NOBODY WINS I One of the more unfortunate signs of a troubled business s the eontinuing practice of e.xhibitor under-reporting of posses on percentage films and the resulting unpleasant and smbarrassing legal wrangling. Sargoy and Stein represent distribution in such legal ac;ions, and the 30 years we have followed their activity have Drought only one court loss, to the best of our recollection |(and that one was on a “fluke”). The guilty exhibitor will point to unconscionable film * rentals to explain away his crime (stealing is an ugly word, but what else can it be termed ) . The industry conditions that ijforce men who have made their mark in business and civic I liiffairs to dishonesty are to be deplored, but this is no excuse. iH Even more surprising, perhaps, is the fact that after exposiing them, distributors continue to sell the chiseling exhibitors, in any other line of endeavor, such turnabout would be unichinkable. Universal Pictures at one time refused to sell film to such ihn exhibitor for a year. Knowing his situation, his probable gross, his expenses, the (Ihonest theatreman makes the best deal he can for a film and still keep his economic head above water. Having done so, be sometimes watches the picture go to someone else whose iiigh percentage offer is more acceptable to distribution. A man with a lifetime in the business generally knows an .inrealistic bid when he hears one. Still, we have been told Dy exhibitors whose honesty can not be doubted that they pave time and again been the middle man in such deals, Daught in the squeeze of dishonesty and greed. You would think the experienced distributor would be just as apt to recognize an unrealistic bid. This doesn’t always seem to be the case. The exhibitor who couldn’t possibly stay alive living up to the contract he has “won,” resorts to under¬ reporting. Enter Sargoy and Stein; exit another chiseler. The most unfortunate aspect of the whole untidy situation is that these generally are not dishonest men. With a lifetime of effort devoted to his business, it is understandable that he can rationalize under-reporting into simple business strategy. We repeat that this is no excuse for dishonesty, but it is true, nevertheless. It is a common practice now to demand 40, 50, or even 60 per cent terms for pictures that can’t possibly perform that well at the boxoffice. Demands for double playing time, double weekends, no review, and other sales gimmicks, un¬ less justified by exceptional quality, are just as discouraging for the man seeking to keep his business and integrity at the same time. Add to that distributor favoritism to selected cir¬ cuit customers at 25 per cent and holdovers at no cost at all at the expense of smaller accounts, and the picture is clearer still. We have seen evidence of this in no uncertain manner. Who’s the winner when such practices as forced bidding in situations where bidding is suicidal become fact? Is it the distributor, with his other eye on a pot of gold at the end of a TV rainbow? It seems to us that more realistic live-and-letlive policies could only add to his films’ playing time and grosses. High-pressure sales terms equals bitterness equals dis¬ honesty. That seems to be the equation of the times. The men who should be leading this industry to its greatest days, at times seem to be pushing it toward its bleakest days. So Sargoy and Stein keep busy and run up an imposine: list of legal victories. Let’s hope that future historians won’t look back at this troubled time and say, “They won every battle, but lost the war.” The dishonest e.xhibitor can’t win. The shortsighted dis¬ tributor can’t win. Against odds like that, cooperation makes awfully good sense. But doesn’t it always! FOOT-IN-MOUTH DEPARTMENT Every so often, a producer at a press conference con¬ cerning a picture that is little more than a possibility will attack theatremen in an effort to garner industry headlines ind a little extra personal publicity. The attack alwavs is the same— the phvsical appearance |)f theatres discourages attendance and exhibitors are more I interested in selling popcorn than in showing films. The loosely organized exhibitors are forced to take this criticism without reply since no one bothers to check the iccusations. The truth is that, like most sweeping general¬ izations, it is unjustified and untrue. Certainlv, there are theatre operations that are sub-standard. There are also producers whose fast-buck efforts are no credit to the industry. Neither group is indicative of the (entire motion picture world. Some research will prove that theatre improvements in the past few years have taken place at a record pace, both in first-run operations and neighborhood houses. The record shows that 75 per cent of the conventional theatres do not operate their own concessions. They receive a simple per¬ centage of concession business. They do not keep inventories; they do not furnish the labor; they do not purchase supplies. These men are in show business, not in the food business. The public wants a place to buy a snack to enjoy with the show, and the theatre provides it as a service. The headline seekers have never operated theatres. Thev know nothing of the problems of the exhibitor. The next time one shoots off his mouth about theatre operation, flood him with letters to prove how little he knows.