The Exhibitor (1960)

42 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry Foundad In 1918. Published waakly by Jay Emanual Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 246*248 North Clarion Straat, Philadalphia 7, Ponnsylvania. 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: Jack 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; 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, 55 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 64 • No. 3 JUNE 8, 1960 AS ONE CATHOLIC WRITER SEES MOVIE ADS This isn’t the first time that we quoted liberally from the weekly by -lined column by John Fitzgerald, in the largest circulationed of all Catholic papers, OUR SUNDAY VISITOR. And we don’t expect it to be the last, for we find that he faces most problems with a great deal of basic honesty, real¬ ism, and common sense. We do want to share with our readers the following pertinent portions of his column as published in the issue of that paper that was sold in church vestibules across the nation under date of May 29. His headline read: “LET’S CLEAN UP WHAT ADS?” .... And followed: “ Every so often voices are raised in healthy howls. ‘ Let’s clean up the movie ads!’ Every so often we need some voices raised in the cause. Yet , without turning in my card as a decent-red-blooded-all-American-anti-Communistpro-Deo-et-pro-patria partisan who seeks to do good and avoid evil and who loves little children arid animals , 1 venture to ask timidly . . . Why is it only the movies that get it in the neck whenever the citizens feel civic minded? “It isn’t that I’m crusading for distasteful and degrading movie ads, but that I’m merely asking: ‘Are we cleaning the stall and neglecting the stable?’ ” And again: “The movies aren’t the only ones who offend. Why not criticize some of the other phenomena on our Ameri¬ can scene? For example, the newspapers. Journalism is grad¬ ually turning from a profession into a mere fob. Fewer seem concerned with truth and honest reporting and criticism and more seem concerned merely with what will sell papers. There seems to be no such thing as a ‘family ’ newspaper in the secular field any more. “Let your youngster pick up the paper and what will he find? The child is exposed to rape, adultery and all sorts of crime and perversions. “ Certainly this is part of life and certainly we cant have a sinless literature about sinful people. But notice the proportion. Things are expanded and elaborated on not according to their worth but according to their entertainment value. Morn¬ ing newspapers traditionally ‘ inform ’ while evening newspapers traditionally ‘entertain.’ Yet the silly shenanigans of insignifi¬ cant ‘celebrities’ (as distinguished from truly important people) are played up, and world events are tossed into the background at the first divorce, nightclub brawl, etc. At times like these newspapers can do us all a great service by putting their news into proportion and helping us develop balanced values. And here is still other of Mr. Fitzgerald’s pithy paragraphs: “So much of advertising is phony, English and Logic teachers could have a field day analyzing different ads grammatically (Better than What?) The half-truth, the non-sequitur and the total lack of facts, sense and honesty in the advertisements we see in our newspapers and magazines make TV, newspapers and magazines responsible for a lot more than foul film ads. “Let’s protest film ads, sure . . . whenever they mislead, in¬ sult or offend. But also protest some of the other advertise¬ ments that do likewise. Let’s train our children not to fall for tricks of grammar and logic, false and vague claims of un¬ scrupulous manufacturers, etc. Compared to some of the other ads around today, the movies are far from the greatest of¬ fenders in truth, in quality and in quantity. “If ive’re going to clean up the stable as well as the stall, let’s not kid ourselves that the only offensive ads are those for films. There’s much around us in the world of advertising that could use some hard scrutiny.” As usual, Mr. Fitzgerald has worthwhile views and expresses them well. Would that some of the less thoughtful and less able mayors, chiefs of police, heads of veterans groups, etc.— who grab for political gain or phony headlines by whipping the movies— might become regular readers of his column. It might be well to let your newspaper publisher see this one. THAT "DAISIES" From informal reports gathered around the Film Curbs, the Memorial Day weekend grosses did not measure up to expectations. Of course, there were exceptions, and MGM’s “PLEASE DON’T EAT THE DAISIES,” with Doris Day and David Niven, was an outstanding one. For the probable reason of light comedy in these days of U-2’s and collapsing Summits, that “DAISIES” in the third, fourth, and fifth weeks was still doing first-week business. And it didn’t seem to matter whether metropolitan first-run or smaller town. Here’s to more “DAISIES!” WHY IS A CENSOR A CENSOR? On the letters page of this issue will be found a shocking disclosure from Baltimore. If all of the recorded facts are correct, the governor of the State of Maryland wouldn’t seem to have much respect for that state’s Censorship laws, or for the type of people who administer them. We note this state’s laws specify “the members of this Board should be well qualified to act as Censors.” Now can someone list the “qualifications” that make such members “well quali¬ fied”? As the immortal Bard said: “There’s the rub!”