The Exhibitor (1966)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

The Trade Paper Read by Choice-Not by Chance Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 10 McGovern Ave., Lancaster Pa. 17604 ,.New M °cV' rv Pennsyiva s . 604 New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, R^S ctrsonAve Los Angeles, Calif., 90036, London Bureau: Jock MacGregor 16 Leinster Mews, London W 2 England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.: Albert Erlick, editor; Mel Koneco , New York editor ^Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscr pbo^s $2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada °nd Pan-American coun¬ tries S5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Single copy 25// S$econd class postage paid Pat Lancaster Pennsylvania Address all official common, cat, ons to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. CHANGING ADDRESS? Volume 76 • No. 15 Please send old and new address. If possible include address portion of old mailing wrapper. November 23, 1966 Our 48th Year LOOKS LIKE SARGOY & STEIN WOULD STARVE IN ENGLAND From time to time, we have found it interesting editorially to compare certain practices of the motion picture industry in the United States with our counterparts in England. While no one would be rash enough to state that the industry in England has no problems comparable to those that beset theatiemen and distributors in the United States, they do seem to go about solv¬ ing their difficulties in an atmosphere of mutual respect that is hard to find on this side of the Atlantic. In a recent issue, we editorialized on the subject of exhibitoi under-reporting and its effects (“HOW TO GET RID OF SARGOY AND STEIN”— Nov. 2 issue). We were surprised by the amount of reaction that editorial stimulated in England, and we have selected excerpts from letters and comments that . indicate some further differences in the manner in which the motion picture industries of the two nations conduct then affairs. First and foremost, the practice of under-reporting is no¬ where near as widespread in England as here. While a few cases ) may have been handled privately, it is a long time since one came into the open. There is general agreement among our English correspondents that in an established case of under¬ reporting, all members of the Kinema Renters Society ( which means all the major distributors plus a lot more) would imme¬ diately stop trading with the culprit. One English distributor remarked that with so well knit an industry, such cases could be averted before they happened as exhibitors and distributors know each other pretty well. In | England, adjustment of terms can be obtained pretty quickly if a picture is a real flop. Most distribution companies are cooperative about this in one way or another. RANDOM I A quick look at a large list of upcoming features indicates : that exhibitors will be attempting in coming months to sell a lot j of pictures with very strange titles. To an exhibitor, the title of a film is apparently a lot more important than it is to a producer and distributor. The theatre’s phone rings constantly, and the single most important question is “What’s playing?” Some producers like clever titles, offbeat titles, and far-out titles. Unfortunately, the great majority of theatregoers are no¬ where near as clever or far-out as the producer, and conse¬ quently, they stay away in droves if the title is meaningless to them. Other producers fall in love with a book a best seller, they call it. Now a best selling book may have sold as few as 20,000 copies, and that doesn’t make much of a dent in the Another difference is the manner in which the smaller, weaker theatres are handled. In England, some theatres are on what is called “small exhibitors terms.” This is an official list maintained by KRS, and those theatres pleading hardship and having their accounts and running expenses inspected by ac¬ countants can be registered. Our information is that they pay 25 per cent film rental terms or better if they can get them. Generally, small theatremen seem to be treated with a good bit more consideration in England. The impression is that with relatively few theatres operating, most distributors would sooner keep one open than have it driven out of business. In England, unlike the United States, a little of something is considered better than a lot of nothing. A further point stopping under-reporting in England is that exhibitors have to make returns to the government to support their Eady Fund payments, and excise inspectors can call to look at the books. The KRS also has inspectors who periodically spot theatre employees with their hands in the cash register. Indeed, circuit and independent exhibitors sometimes invite such inspections and contribute a share of the costs. One English distributor remarked that problems revolving around rental term adjustments and other relations between exhibitors and distributors in England can be solved in days, whereas in the United States, it can take months before these differences reach New York and the proper person. Here, it seems, is the single most important factor which dif¬ ferentiates England from the United States. There is continuous contact between buyer and seller in England, along with an understanding of the other fellow’s position. It is a wise man who can learn from another's example. THOUGHTS moviegoing audience. If there are any doubts about a book title, the best notion would be to retitle the movie and add “Based on ‘Who Pushed John’.” Years ago, we were involved with the film version of a best-seller, “In His Steps.” The picture laid an egg until we changed the title to “Sins of the Fathers.” Then it took off like a rocket. Someday, a smart producer will seek theatreman opinion on titles before it’s too late to make a change. On an entirely different subject, we note that NBC’s Tuesday Night At The Movies telecast Universal’s “Wild And Wonder¬ ful” on the same night that the same film was playing a sub-run house in Philadelphia. We can't help but wonder if NBC in¬ tends to sue the exhibitor for violating clearance.