The Exhibitor (1964)

The Trade Paper Read by Choice-Not by Chance Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in September by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 109 Market Place, Baltimore, Md. 21202. New York field office: 1600 Broadway, Suite 604, New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, 818 S. Curson Ave., Los Angeles, Calif. 90036. London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.: Albert Erlick, editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 ^er 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 apolication. Single copy 25<. Second class postage paid at Baltimore, Maryland. Address ell official communications to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. Volume 72 • No. I JULY 15, 1964 THE HIGH COST OF BEING INVOLVED Not Too Long Ago, the newspapers were full of the story. A woman was murdered in a pleasant residential area, while 38 neighbors listened to her screams for help and did nothing. No one wanted to become involved. The story shocked the nation, but it shouldn’t have. For too long, any observer of the social and business scene could see that involvement was becoming a dirty word in the minds of too many people. People who don’t have the guts to go after their oppressors get what they deserve— still more oppression. It brings to mind the motion picture, “HIGH NOON.” The big scene was not the one where the fearless sheriff took his dangerous walk down Main Street to meet the villains, while terrified townspeople peeked through drawn curtains. The real drama took place when the sheriff asked for help and no one wanted to become involved. Too many men behave like mice. Too many chronic complainers run when the chips are down. Make no mistake, runners are doomed to keep running forever. How about the motion picture industry? How many theatremen are involved in the fight to put an end to blind bidding and other ethical and business abuses? How many are con¬ tent to let the other fellow do his battling for him? An honest answer to these questions might well point to the reasons progress in these areas is so slow and painful. Much credit is due both John Rowley, TOA president, and Jack Armstrong, Allied president. They and their respective committees have been successful in reaching an agreement with all but one of the major distributors on the elimination of blind bidding. Everyone agrees the practice is unfair and undesirable, and still it lingers. Before distributors agree to eliminate blind bidding, they insist that all companies aban¬ don the practice. This is a fair solution to the problem. What will happen, however, if there is a lonely holdout? What does exhibition propose to do about it? Will theatremen sit on their hands? Will they refuse to become involved while theatres close and a great industry deteriorates? No one ever stubbed his toe while he was standing still. But no one ever moved ahead that way either. The world is blessed most by the doers, not the talkers. MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR recommends most strongly that exhibitors put themselves on record in this struggle by indicating that they will not book the pictures of any company that stands in the way of a solution to the blind bidding problem. The time has come to put up or shut up. The price of be¬ coming involved may be high, but the price of remaining on the sidelines is infinitely higher. Like it or not, everyone is involved. DETERIORATING COMMUNICATIONS Once Upon A Time, the studios took time out to evaluate the names of newcomers being considered for important film roles. If the name was difficult to pronounce, or didn’t have that certain something, it was changed. When we read some of the names featured in today’s film advertising, especially those of the “international” stars, we wonder how many ex¬ hibitors will be using them in their ad copy, or what percent¬ age of the public has ever heard of them? Chances are if it was the exhibitor’s duty to look after this important “detail,” a loud cry would go up that “All exhibi¬ tors do is open the doors of their theatres.” This problem is a small-timer, however, when compared with others. Too often, criticism of exhibition for doing a poor selling EXAMINING THE In London, England, barebosom cocktail dresses are cur¬ rently being offered in dress shops for about $15. Newspapers reports are also suggesting that a major British dress manu¬ facturer will market a black crepe sheath with the bodice job is blindly made by people who have never taken the trouble to go out into the field to see what exhibitors are do¬ ing. It’s little wonder then, that an exhibitor with a picture to sell is told “The producer is not desirous of a coop campaign on this picture.” Ninty nine-out-of-a-hundred times the exhib is stuck with a boxoffice clunker at a unsurious 50 per cent contract. In fairness, we must mention that there are some directors of advertising who make it a point to learn as much as possible about what’s going on in places far removed from the home office ivory tower. Unfortunately, it usually stops there. There is much too much noise, and much too little com¬ munication. "BARE" FACTS scooped out below the bust “just for a giggle.” We’re eager to see what effect these latest “barelook” de¬ velopments will have on the do-gooders, especially since the fad, for once, can’t be blamed on the movies!