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 3110 Elm Avenue, Baltimore, Md. 21211. 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 MacCregor, 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 application. 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 74 • No. 10 OCTOBER 6, 1965 Our 47th Year A MOVIE FAN LOOKS AT A CRITIC Harry Golden publishes America’s most unique newspaper, the highly personal Carolina Israelite. His column, “Only In America,” is syndicated in many newspapers throughout the country, and he has also written several best-selling books. He is warm and wise, and he also happens to be a movie fan. The following column is reprinted from the Philadelphia Bulletin and Bell-McClure Syndicate. Bless you, Mr. Golden, for reminding us all— even those of us in the motion picture industry— just what the movies really mean. Mr. Golden writes : Judith Crist, the estimable movie reviewer for “ The Herald Tribune ,” now appears regularly on the “Today” Show. Every day in her column and every week on television Judith tells a vast audience what movies dismayed her yesterday. I am afraid that many of these readers and viewers take her seri¬ ously. Unsuccessfully, Hollywood moguls, as they like to call themselves, have prevailed upon Judith with special pleas and s'ljecial trips to softpedal her rather stern opinions about what a good movie ought to be. But Miss Crist does not have a nation-wide following because she can be bought or flattered. Her prose is excellent. Her insights are often valuable and inspiring. But I do not think she understands movies. In fact, l challenge the whole idea of movie criticism. It is one thing to sit in a dark room with two or three of our colleagues watching 60 million Americans who go to the movies once a week or once a month or three times a year. I started at the beginning. I have been going to movies for 55 years. I watched Louise Fazenda and Bronco Billy Anderson, and saw them succeeded by Rudolph Valentino arid Pola Negri, and saw them succeeded by James Cagney and Jean Harlow, and they by Rock Hudson and Sophia Loren. One of the truths 1 have learned through this life-long ex¬ perience is that movies were never meant to be edifying. In¬ deed, there’s enough edification in this world including news¬ paper columnists and critics. What the movies always guarantee is relaxation through anonymity . That is why the movie I saw last night, whatever it was, did not annoy me. Over my lifetime I have seen only one truly bad movie, the only movie that ever really annoyed me, and that was “ The Five Little Peppers Grow Up.” It is possible that Miss Crist, sitting in the projection room with pad, pencil and deadline, misses the truth that some of the truly bad movies are still joyous occasions. One of the fondest memories I have is that of the late Sir Cedric Hardwicke, of all people, that brilliant English actor, in a movie with the title, “The Invisible Man Returns.” Why Sir Cedric Hardwicke was miscast l have no idea unless it teas that Claude Rains had refused to return after inaugurat¬ ing this improbable series. Sir Cedric spent the narrative chasing the invisible man and finally had him cornered with a loaded forty-five above a coal shute. He took careful aim with his automatic. Up in the balcony, someone shouted, “For heavens sake, don’t shoot him! Shoot me!” Everybody laughed. And as we piled out of the movie ivhen “The End” flashed the whole audience realized we had had a moment of enjoyment. Miss Crist must learn that nothing relaxes a man like a movie. Often, in the middle of the working day I leave my desk and perambulate over to the Visulite Theatre up the street from my office. I do not look at the posters, don’t even worry what’s playing . When the cashier says, “The movie has already started, Sir,” I reply, “ Don’t worry dearie, I’ll catch on. That’s what the movies are for. COOPERATION OR CANNIBALISM? We have commented many times on the curious ability to cut their own throats displayed by various elements of the motion picture industry. This seems to be a general condition, not restricted to exhibitors, distributors, or movie-makers. Although we know these elements exist, it is something of a shock each time they show themselves. Last week, we were speaking to a legislator of the State of Pennsylvania. The discussion centered on the recent law repealing amusement taxes throughout the state (with the exception of Pittsburgh), effective Jan. 1, 1966. He told us of an exhibitor (who shall mercifully remain nameless) who approached a member of the State Legisla¬ ture after he had been turned down by a local zoning com¬ mission in a bid to construct a drive-in theatre. The exhibitor, § anxious to receive favorable consideration and a reversal of the zoning ruling, suggested to the legislator that the area would benefit greatly through the revenue obtained via the admissions tax. At the same time, this exhibitor’s fellow industryites were waging a back-to-the-wall battle in an effort to eliminate the onerous tax. We can understand that greed and personal gain can be powerful motivating forces, but this theatreman’s selfish, unbusinesslike approach to a problem vitally affecting his entire industry is a shining example of what’s wrong with the world of motion pictures. It seems to us that the merger of theatremen into a single organization came not a moment too soon. We hope the new association wins the support of all exhibitors and that selfish¬ ness and greed take a back seat for good. The industry will move ahead only if theatremen every¬ where pull in the same direction. Otherwise, the world be¬ longs to the cannibals.