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, Audit London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.: Albert Erlick, editor; George Frees \ Bureau Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; lJrcuiatic 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 25c. 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. 23 JUNE 30, 1965 OUR 47th YEAR OLD CENSORS NEVER DIE We hante all heakd the saying, “Old soldiers never die.” Well, it appears that old censors are even harder to get rid of than old soldiers. Censorship in Pennsylvania has had more ups and downs than the busiest elevator. Recently, in the wake of Supreme Court rulings, the Pennsylvania censor board, a thoroughly political operation since its inception, died another of its many deaths. Nonv, legislators are trying to breathe new life into it again. It appears that politicians never learn a lesson from history. They are generally far more interested in votes and headlines than in good sense or the Constitution. On the one hand, they spend thousands of dollars trying to attract new business to the state. On the other hand, they do their best to extract every possible dollar from those same businesses. Political censorship in Pennsylvania has always placed a heavy financial burden on the motion picture industry. Industryites were for years in the ridiculous position of financing their own murders, to put it bluntly. When the courts finally ended 41 years of political censorship, the industry had been bled to the tune of $6,500,000. Distributors sued for a return of these unfair fees, but the courts ruled against them. We recall with regret that Pennsylvania was among the first states to promote film censorship. It was the brainchild of a legislator who also represented the liquor industry, and he became the chief censor and a source of considerable harrassment for the industry. We recall a motion picture named “PROHIBITION,” produced around the time prohibi¬ tion was being discussed seriously. There was nothing in the picture that was even remotely censorable, but the chief censorproceeded to chop it to ribbons. After the cuts were made, the distributor had nothing. How do we know all this? We were the area distributor. An observer might think that the almost unbroken series of decisions against film censors in recent years, with the latest involving the Maryland and New York laws, might signal the end of political censorship. We are not that naive. Despite the laws that exist to protect the public from pornography and the ability of the courts to enforce those laws, politically moti WHIRLWIND IN Trying to keep Joe Levine in one place is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. This whirlwind of energy and show¬ manship blew through Philadelphia last week spreading good cheer and excitement all through town. The occasion, of course, was “Harlow Day,” and members of the industry joined a theatre full of fortunate members of the public at a screening of the Paramount-Embassy hit. Make no mistake, “HARLOW” figures to be a boxoffice champion. Carroll Baker has never been better or more beautiful than she is in this portrayal of Hollywood’s tragic love goddess. She is supported by a fine cast featuring Red Buttons, Angela Lansbury, Martin Balsam, Raf Vallone, and Michael Connors. vated forces will continue to fight for the right to decide arbitrarily what all of us should see and read. Philadelphia lawyers are regarded as something special in the legal profession. We have discussed the proposed new cen¬ sorship ordinance with some of the best of them and have not talked with one who feels that it can survive a court test. We are unalterably opposed to political censorship in any form. The marketplace of ideas must be open and free. Those who would try to poison that marketplace should be punished. That is what laws and courts are for. However, ideas that are stifled by a board of three men setting themselves up as pro¬ tectors of the public’s morals or guardians of the public’s taste have never enjoyed the freedom of that marketplace. The great majority of motion picture distributors and ex¬ hibitors have no desire to circumvent the law. They are honorable businessmen making an important contribution to society and to their communities. It is the lowest fringe of the motion picture industry that panders to the lowest fringe of the motion picture audience in pursuit of the smutty dollar. To saddle the entire industry with the evils of political cen¬ sorship in an effort to destroy these parasites is comparable to shooting flies with a cannon. Political censorship is another attempt to find easy answers to complex questions. It can’t be done. The finest legal and moral minds in our society can’t agree on what is obscene. One can hardly expect a group of political appointees or politicians’ wives, mothers, and cousins to do the job. Consider the case of “THE PAWNBROKER,” an admittedly fine film produced with impeccable taste. In one instance, it is condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency out of fear that its use of nudity will cause a harmful trend. At the same time, the Episcopal Church in California heartily endorses it in its entirety. Who is right? Only the open marketplace of ideas will determine that. Censorship isn’t the answer, but the politicians won’t let censorship die. They will resurrect its bones until the Supreme Court states unequivocally that prior censorship of motion pictures is unconstitutional. We hope that day is not far off. PHILADELPHIA Joe’s production is lush and tasteful, and audiences will delight in the backstage view of Hollywood’s glitter and glamour. Following the screening, we joined Joe at lunch where he told more than a hundred theatremen all about “HARLOW” and its fantastic $1,250,000 campaign. He was ably assisted by Paramount’s Joe Friedman and Charles Boasberg. The happy marriage of Levine and Paramount has resulted in boxoffice blockbusters, and the future promises even more. “HARLOW” is a worthy successor to “THE CARPET¬ BAGGERS,” and Joe Levine has solidified his position as the industry’s foremost showman. Paramount and Joe are both to be congratulated.