The Exhibitor (1966)

The Trade Paper Read by Choice-Not by Chance Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in SeptemDer oy Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 3110 Elm Ave., Baltimore, Md. 2121 1. 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 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. CHANGING ADDRESS? Please send old and new address. If possible include address portion of old mailing wrapper. Volume 75 • No. 1 February 9, 1966 Our 48th Year VIEWS FROM A CRITIC OF CRITICS The Miami Beach Daily Sun, in the issue of Jan. 28, de¬ voted a large part of its amusement section to an interview with actor Kevin McCarthy, appearing at a theatre in the resort area with Shelley Winters in “Two For the Seesaw/’ McCarthy, a highly intelligent, outspoken performer, de¬ scribed himself as “ a critic of critics and backed up his stand with some interesting and provocative statements. It seems that a theatrical reviewer on another paper had termed his performance in the stage production as “ tired .” She continued, “He went through all the proper stage business and did not miss a cue. But there was no rapport between Mr. McCarthy and his audience until the play was nearly over.” The reviewer added, “It is, I suppose, extremely difficult to play opposite an actress of Miss Winters’ brilliance. Therefore, Mr. McCarthy does deserve some praise for showing up at all.” It was McCarthy’s contention that the reviewer had over¬ stepped whatever bounds should be established for a critic. She may speak for herself, but when she speaks for the entire audience, she is treading on very thin ice. She is trying to make her own personal reaction fit everyone in the audience, and that is impossible as well as unfair to the performers and the production. This is criticism at its most stupid and inane, and yet such criticism abounds in newspapers and magazines today. We are glad that Mr. McCarthy was allowed to vent his justifiable anger openly. Many performers have conditioned themselves to pay little or no attention to reviews and reviewers. This is admittedly hard since performers feast on praise and applause and are understandably sensitive to a cutting remark. McCarthy quotes a theatrical giant, Paul Muni, who told him once, “Never read the critics. If you must, have someone cut them out for you and save them. Read them six months later and you’ll see hoic inconsequential they are.” Mr. Muni gave the young actor some excellent advice, but it isn’t easy to ignore these raps. Fortunately, Mr. McCarthy’s bad notice was balanced by raves in other papers. Reviewers certainly have the right to their opinions, as does every other individual. It is the gratuitous insult and the wise¬ crack designed to cut that bother Mr. McCarthy and us too. When the critic forgets that his or her views are the views of just one man or one woman, and do not necessarily represent the audience as a whole, then he oversteps the bounds of legitimate criticism. When he adds to a review, “If this one succeeds, I’ll be very much surprised,” he is giving nothing worthwhile to his audience. Who the devil cares whether or not he’ll be surprised. To those who would rather tear down than build and would rather crack wise than honestly review, we recommend Mr. McCarthy’s views as “a critic of critics .” The newspapers themselves are far from blameless. In no other industry do they accept your advertising dollars and then pick your brains out in their editorial pages. When one critic delights in something and another hates it, the wide divergence is an indication that the work or the individual performance might have merit. Let the newspapers and the critics label these reviews as the thoughts of a single individual, and let the critics refrain from speaking for everyone in the audience. Mr. McCarthy put it quite well, “. . . no rapport with the audience. What she meant was no rapport with her. Where does that leave the other reviewer who gave me an excellent review?” Something might be accomplished if the Motion Picture Association or the National Association of Theatre Owners were to get together with newspaper publishers and talk some common sense. When a reviewer gets a reputation for blasting film after film that the public supports at the boxoffice, his qualifications for his job are doubtful. Meanwhile, thanks to Kevin McCarthy, “critic of critics.” BRAINS OR COPY-CATS? Do we have brains in the motion picture industry or just a lot of copy-cats? The question isn’t as frivolous as it sounds, and the answer could be very important to every theatreman. It is amazing the way a new sales gimmick dreamt up by one company will spread like wildfire throughout the industry. Suppose company A decides to sell all percentage pictures with a specified floor; company B starts turning bids down one after another, forcing competing theatremen to rebid the same film two, three, or four times; company C changes selling policies established over a period of many years. Before many months have passed, the new “gimmicks have made the rounds and are considered general practice throughout the industry. Again we ask, do we have brains or copy-cats in the industry? It appears that the Justice Department is satisfied that there is no hint of collusion even though these gimmicks are adopted by one company after another. The reasoning seems to be that as long as all companies do not institute the changes at the same time, all is well. Perhaps everybody does arrive at the same answer independ¬ ently, but it is certainly peculiar that so many of thq, new ideas adopted in a wholesale manner neither favor nor benefit the exhibitor customers involved. It may not be collusion, but it sure is a puzzlement.