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 September by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 10 McGovern Ave., Lancaster, Pa. 17604. 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 Koneq:^, 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 Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Ad¬ dress 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. 14 May 11, 1966 Our 48th Year A RECIPE FOR DESTRUCTION We hope all readers will understand that, although the two advertisements reproduced on our cover come from Tren¬ ton, N.J., drive-ins, the problems discussed here are not con¬ fined to any single geographical area or to outdoor theatres alone. Rather, the ads are symptoms of an industry-wide con¬ dition of chaos and confusion that threatens every thinking person in the motion picture world, distributor and exhibitor alike. i We selected these particular ads for comment because they I were sent into our office by several subscribers, all acting inde1 pendently. These gentlemen asked the question, “Where will ; it stop?” We have said over and over again that many exhibitors demand first-run status as soon as the first shovelful of earth is turned over for a new theatre. Who can blame them after seeing the type of theatres that have been moved up to first-run status. As we see it, the problem lies in great measure at the feet of film company legal departments who refuse to become engaged in the effort to maintain order in clearance and playoff pat¬ terns. In many cases, they overrule their sales departments in this regard. When a theatre treats fine films — this industry’s life blood — ■ cheaply, why should the public act differently? Take two top features and double bill them day and date with another theatre playing them as single bills, and the “nice, constructive exhibitor” is bound to get hurt. Slap them into a drive-in as part of either a four-feature or dollar-a-carload show or both, and you have a fine recipe for destruction. It is unfair competi¬ tion, pure and simple, but everyone seems to be afraid to take a stand against it. Some observers claim that a “different breed” of patron attends drive-ins and that they are really not in competition with indoor theatres, regardless of their run. Others point out that competing drive-in operators are usually at loggerheads and will do everything they can to scratch each other’s eyes out. That may be, but the industry as an industry is the real loser. Everyone knows that film companies employ far fewer salesmen today than ever before. It’s not hard to see why. Any honest film salesman would cringe at some of the sales practices employed today. The big problem today isn’t salesmen, it’s bookings — and most must be approved by the home office. We have heard the observation that drive-ins could let the public in free and not really suffer — since the fabulous conces¬ sion business will generally bail them out. That argument fails to consider the fact that the films on the screen must draw the crowds. Four films and a dollar-a-car may be a fine way to grab a fast buck, but it is no way to build a lasting respect or enthusiasm for movies or theatres. Unless operating conditions are cleaned up and exhibitors refrain from carving up one another, the havoc and chaos sure to come will leave the in¬ dustry a shambles. Stop and think ! When was the last time a di.stributor went into court to fight a case in which he felt a move-up in run by a particular theatre was unjustified? Naturally, everybody wants to be a first-run. If it’s okay for the other guy, why not me? So the Trenton story is told over and over in territory after territory. A downtown theatre finds itself playing a single fea¬ ture day-and-date with a drive-in advertising two-three-four features at a dollar-a-car. Unless distribution takes a stand (and legal departments develop a backbone), this business is headed downhill in a hurry. Another sign of the times is the second ad reproduced on our cover. It concerns a triple feature so “adult” in nature that the titles can only be given over the telephone. That’s the kind of thing guaranteed to give the entire industry a large black eye. We can’t help wondering whether the theatreman responsible has the slightest bit of pride in himself or in the motion picture industry. We also note that the same advertisement calling attention to the triple bill of dirty— oops, we meant to say “adult”^ — features also announces a wonderful kiddie play¬ ground. The drive-in might have had the good taste to drop this reference while advertising the fast-buck trash on the screen. We’re probably old fashioned, but we recall fondly a time when a film could be openly advertised in a family newspaper without embarrassing the theatre or the publisher. But that was yesterday. We repeat, this isn’t a Trenton problem and it isn’t a drive-in problem. It’s an all-industry problem, and time is running out. A PARABLE FOR OUR TIME A PROPHECY WAS REVEALED to a king that the crops of the coming harvest were cursed and “whoever eats of them will go mad.” The king gathered his wisest counselors to discuss the best way of meeting the forthcoming calamity. If they ate the 5 food, they would go mad. If they didn’t, they would starve. Which should it be — madness or death? ^ The king decided that there was no choice but to eat from the cursed crop. However, he noted that there was still enough food left from previous harvests to save a few citizens. He told them they had a very important job. “When we have all lost our senses, you will cry out, ‘My brothers, my brothers, remem¬ ber that you are all mad’.” This industry has eaten of the cursed crop of blind bidding, unfair competition, and chaotic patterns of clearance and play¬ off. Where are those among us with the sense to remind us that “we are all mad”?