The Exhibitor (1965)

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 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 apolication. Single copy 25«. Second class postage paid at Baltimore, Maryland. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. VOLUME 73 • No. 15 MAY 5, 1965 OUR 47th YEAR DOUBLE-BARRELLED STATESMANSHIP At last, all the talk about the evils of blind bidding has 3een translated into impressive action, and exhibitors every¬ where owe a hearty “thank you” and a vote of confidence to Jim Velde, United Artists vice-president. It remains to be seen whether UA’s courageous and lonely decision to eliminate blind bidding will prove successful. A large part of the responsibility for its success belongs to exhibi¬ tors. If they give UA an even break by refusing to tie up important dates widi other companies via the blind bidding route, then it can be assured that other distributors will follow the UA example. If, on the other hand, theatremen try to get die edge on their competitors and further the suspicion and distrust that are too prevalent in the motion picture industry, then the noble UA experiment will fail. Exhibitors will have no one to blame for that failure but diemselves, and the buying and selling of film will continue to take place in a business jungle where not even the strong will survive. Everyone seems to agree that blind bidding is an industry evil. Now Jim Velde has taken a bold step toward eliminating tiiat evil. He needs industry support, and the wise exhibitor will offer that support wholeheartedly. Another provocative statement by Velde should also be of interest to theatremen, particularly those in bidding situations. Suicidal bidding has probably been responsible for more theatre closings than any other single cause. Now Velde says that UA will consider other methods than bidding in situations where all competing exhibitors agree that bidding should be eliminated. It adds up to a double-barrelled example of industry states¬ manship on the part of United Artists. Last week, we said that UA was throwing nothing but boxoffice naturals. Well, they are now throwing business naturals as well. Jim Velde has gone a long way toward generating the kind of mutual respect that the motion picture industry needs if it is to grow and prosper. We hope his experiment is a resound¬ ing success and the first step in a campaign to improve rela¬ tions between all industry factions. BUYERS AND SELLERS OF DIRT In a recent issue of Motion Picture Daily, Martin Quigley, Jr., editor and publisher, wrote an editorial, “BEWARE THE FAST BUCK.” It is a well done, pointed discussion of the harm that the relatively few “fast buck” operators are causing every legitimate exhibitor in the country. There was a time when such operators were a nuisance only, but under today’s conditions, they are in a position to do seri¬ ous damage to the entire theatrical industry. We have editorialized on the same subject many times. If the motion picture industry is to maintain a favorable image in the eyes of the public, then increased screen freedom must be accompanied by increased screen responsibility. The exhibitors who ire guilty of pandering to the lowest public tastes are responsible only to the dollar sign. Their greed is comparable to someone crying fire in a crowded theatre under the guise of freedom of speech. We have just witnessed a situation that is upsetting, to put fit mildly. A first-run theatre in a large city played a well-made, tasteful film. It received excellent reviews as honest adult entertainment. A nearby theatre, also a regular first-run situ¬ ation, booked a piece of trash, cheaply made and blasted by the critics like no other film in the history of the theatre. What was the result? The tasteful film withered at the boxi office and died, with the total gross not even covering adver¬ tising expenses. The piece of trash, backed by only a modest advertising budget, outgrossed its competitor by more than three to one. We don’t know what the answer to this problem is. We do know that it will take the industry a long time to recover from the black eye given it by a theatreman who was willing to trade his good name for a quick profit. The politicians and the so-called moralists don’t have the answer eidier. The answer must He in a mutual sense of re¬ sponsibility on the part of the motion picture industry and the public. Both must turn their backs on the industry “out¬ laws” who trade in filth for the sake of a fast buck and on that element of the public who make such tripe profitable. As long as the public will buy dirt, someone will be around to sell it to them. That is an unpleasant but unassailable fact of fife. However, the public must not judge every theatre by the few that deal in dirt, just as the theatreman must not judge all moviegoers by those who wallow in dirt. We agree with Mr. Quigley that “ there will be a day of reckoning.” Let it be remembered on that day that the respon¬ sible elements of the motion picture industry and the respon¬ sible elements of the public are on the same side of the argu¬ ment. There are laws to protect the community against tasteless trash, and there are courts to implement those laws. If arrests and jail sentences are the only way to curb those who have so little regard for themselves and the industry they claim to serve, then let there be arrests and jail sentences. Let no one be confused into the mistaken notion that by defending the fast-buck grabbers, he is defending freedom of the screen. True freedom demands a sense of responsibility. Those who do not share this sense of responsibility, whether they be exhibitors, distributors, producers, or theatregoers, rep¬ resent a real danger to their industry' and their communities. We ask only that public opinion turn its wrath against the proper culprits.