The Exhibitor (1960)

43 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry Founded in 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office; 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd Street, New York 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 454 S. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, Calif. London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhaigh, 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, $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 publishing office. Volume 65 • No. 7 JANUARY 18, 1961 THE MOST EXPENSIVE From time to time, when an article in a newspaper comes to onr attention that makes a telling point about some phase of this wild and wonderful business of ours, we have turned our editorial column over to it. Today, we are reprinting some of the comments of Elinor Hughes, byline columnist for the Boston Sunday Herald. She is on the receiving end of much of the publicity material emanating from Hollywood, and her views echo those ex¬ pressed on this page before: New York and Hollywood some¬ times concern themselves so much with saving a few pennies in field salaries that thev cost themselves untold thousands of J dollars in lost publicity space. Take it away. Miss Hughes: “Having been on the receiving end of releases from Hollyivood for more years than Vni going to count, 1 find that there are customs and habits involved that 1 not only fail to under¬ stand but also have come strongly to resent. “For one thing, ivhy is it, tohen the going is tough, tvhen it takes an increasing amount of effort to persuade the public to go to see motion pictures, that the high command, either in New York or California, decides to economize by firing the local press agents and trying to run publicity campaigns from either of those two lofty but not always well-informed citadels? “Gentlemen, I say it not humbly but with growing anger, you don’t know what you’re doing. You may save a few dollars on a weekly payroll, but you lose good will, you lose the care¬ fully built up channels of communication between the news¬ paper editors and the local representatives, and you are quite apt to try merchandising campaigns on your product that treat Boston like Chicago or Portland, Me., like Miami, Fla. . . . “When films need the extra push, there should be more rather than fewer people on the job; the personal touch is much more welcome than the hard-sell, long distance style. Any good newspaper editor knows that, and film producers should, too. . . . “How often have you, as readers of this and other papers devoting space to motion pictures, heard that so-and-so has I spent $12,000,000 or maybe more turning out the greatest \ spectacle of all time. . . . “Wouldn’t you, as se7isible people, assume that when such A RICH LIFE The death of MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR’S general manager, Paul J. Greenhaigh, has oeeasioned a flood of phone calls and letters of sympathy to this office from those persons in and out of the motion picture industry who numbered themselves among liis friends. It will be impossible to acknowledge each one, but all such material is being forwarded to the Greenhaigh family, and on behalf of them we thank you all for your kind thoughts. It is a diffieult task to write finis to a career and a life as rich and rewarding as Paul Greenhalgh’s— as rewarding to SAVING OF THEM ALL vast sums have beeii poured out to obtain star performers, build magnificent settings, travel all over the world and hire 10,000 troops from Spain to stage a battle scene, that some small sums of money would be e.xpended on good stills for the newspapers? Especially when you know that old saying that one good picture is worth a column of type? “You’d be surprised. “ ‘Exodus,’ for example, is a spectacular picture ivith a very fine cast. You should see me trying to find stills that can fit newspaper requirements. 1 am given pictures of vast crowds of people, panoramic views of ships and mountains and cities but only incidentally of actors. “‘The Alamo,’ a film of similar scope and also with an out¬ standing cast, is sent on its travels with an almost equally poor kit of pictorial material; and I’m sure it’s no secret that even for ‘Ben-Hur the pictures were only so-so. ‘Spartacus,’ from Universal, a studio that in good times and poor knows the value of good glossies, has done well by the papers and vice-versa. And finally, to turn from the big spectacle to the more modest but noteworthy films, most of the pictures sent to us on ‘The Entertainer,’ the new Laurence Olivier film, showed the star’s face either in darkness or hidden by his hand or just plain out of focus. “Motion pictures have to be made and then sold; good pub¬ licity men and materials are the best sales implements I know. The film producers should follow Universal and Columbia and see that the newspapers receive the wherewithal to tell the public about their product. Bemembcr, we cannot use what we do not have.” There is the bulk of a column by a working newspaper columnist, whose gripes indicate a real willingness to assist this industry in getting the story of the many fine new films to the reading publie. We agree with Miss Huglies that for a company to do less than its absolute best to accomplish this difficult task is busi¬ ness suicide. Dollars not spent in this vital area are not saved but are instead lost forever, along with thousands— even millions— more. Multiply this one columnist’s complaint with the thousands who must be grumbling throughout the countrv about the same situation, and you get a small idea of just how much free publieitv is being thrown away. REMEMBERED those who were privileged to know him well as it was to him. Personally and professionally, he was first a gentleman. He was devoted to this publication and to the industrv which it tries to serve. He, as mueh as anyone, was responsible for its rapid growth and always expanding service to the industrv in general and exhibition in particular. We knew him, we liked him, we’ll miss him. All who were privileged to be Paul Greenhalgh’s friends are better human beings for the experienee. It’s hard to say goodbye.