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 25e. 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. 16 November 17, 1965 Our 47th Year THEIR AUDIENCE DOESN'T EXIST It is only human to long for easy answers to complex questions. All of us are guilty of this desire to over-simplify our all too complicated lives. With that introduction as an apology and well aware that the answer is not as simple as we make it sound, we’d like to expound again on the ever¬ present question, “ What’s wrong with the critics ?” A good friend recently visited us at the office for purely social reasons. He’s a rising young accountant, already a partner in a well established firm. He’s a college graduate, with a post-graduate degree as well. In short, he’s a very intelligent professional man. It has been said that everyone has two businesses— his own and show business. Our friend had a gripe about the world of entertainment. It specifically dealt with the legiti¬ mate stage and not motion pictures, but he made it clear that he considered it applicable to films as well. The previous night, he and his wife had treated them¬ selves to dinner and a show out on the town. According to our friend, they sat in the theatre and howled at a bright and clever comedy. Everybody else howled, too, and when it was all over, they left the theatre happy and well enter¬ tained. Then he read the newspaper reviews of the show he had enjoyed so much. To put is mildly, the critics tore the comedy to pieces. They indicated without mincing any words that they considered it an insult to the intelligence and that only morons and out-and-out buffoons could possibly enjoy it. To our friend, the whole thing smacked of a personal in¬ sult. He and his wife had enjoyed the show enormously, and he knew very well that they were neither morons nor buffoons. On the contrary, they were intelligent, knowledge¬ able young people who had gone to the theatre in the hope of having a good time and who had been well entertained. Onr friend put it this way: “7 may be wrong, but I think most of the people going to the theatre and to the movies are like me. Just who are those critics writing for?” We have seldom heard it put quite so simply, but it struck us that he was putting forth a very good question. Just who are they writing for? Most of them certainly are not writing for their readers, who, for the most part, are men and women like our friend and his wife. They are not writing in the hope that their words will elevate the medium they criticize. If that were the case, they would be far more constructive in their ap¬ proach. It seems, rather, that they are writing for their reputation and for acceptance by the “in” crowd that delights in pun¬ gent wit and a sharp tongue. Naturally, they can coin the cleverest phrases and attract the most attention by attacking a piece of work instead of praising it. We’cl like to see every producer and distributor make the critics see films along with a general audience. Let them get a feel for what the people they are supposed to be reaching consider to be good entertainment. Just check your own records. How many pictures have been carved up by critics, only to do big business and please large audiences everywhere? It is not hard to find examples of cases in which the views of many critics and the final judgment of the motion picture audience differ sharply. In the same manner, it seems that many of these same critics go into throes of ecstasy over films that are greeted with a decided lack of enthusiasm by the public and die at the boxoffice. Consider the case of Warner Bros, sleeper, “Spencer’s Moun¬ tain,” family entertainment which was greeted with a big ho-hum by most critics. The public decided to see for them¬ selves and turned the film into one of the year’s biggest hits. On the other end of the movie scale, consider the wondrous 20th-Fox musical spectacle, “The Sound Of Music.” Many critics sneered at it for being too sweet and sentimental. What happened? Audiences everywhere took the film to their hearts as they have seldom done in the history of motion pictures. When all the figures are in, it is sure to be one of the biggest successes of all time. As it stands now, too many critics are writing for an audience that just doesn’t exist. SEYMOUR POE BATTLES BIGOTRY In announcing Seymour Poe’s selection for this year’s Human Relations Award given by the Anti-Defamation League, division chairman Benjamin Melniker hit it squarely on the head when describing the reasons for honoring 20th Century-Fox’s extraordinarily able executive vice-president. Melniker pointed out that Poe is a product of New York, “a man who has worked his way up the ladder to his present pinnacle of success. In his rise, he has learned about all facets of life and of people, and of the compassion so sorely needed in this troubled world.” Just as our industry today is no longer isolated and inbred, so Seymour Poe is truly an international individual, one who thinks in terms of the world and its problems and needs, and how to solve them. The Anti-Defamation League, in its ever-expanding aid to the socially under-privileged and in its fight against the bigoted, needs men like Seymour Poe to help carry on its praiseworthy program so that the infamy of intolerance can once and for all be obliterated. Poe’s fabulous success with the reorganization and face¬ lifting of his company has been more publicized than his participation in the eradication of bigotry, but he has worked just as hard and as diligently for the latter. Therefore, we salute the ADL for its wise choice this year and pray that the organization’s goal of $4,584,000 is reached. The world will be a better place for it.