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 "™ct: J.600 Broadway, Suite 604, New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, Curson Ave., Los Angeles, Calif., 90036, London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.; Edward Emanuel, vice-pres.; Albert Erlick, 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 °£. ° i lca,'on' Single copy 250. Second class postage paid at Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 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 76 • No. 24 February 1, 1967 Our 49th Year BREAKING OUT OF THE VISE How MUCH CAN exhibitors themselves do to solve what they consider to be their most pressing problems? The question takes on added significance as it becomes evident these prob¬ lems will not be tackled effectively by forces outside exhibition. Exhibitors, both privately and through their organizational spokesmen, have long maintained that the most serious prob¬ lem they face is the shortage of quality product that puts the¬ atres at the mercy of a seller’s market. The product shortage seems to be at the root of many other exhibitor complaints. Bidding procedures are unfair, it is said, because no theatre can afford to say no today. Blind bidding persists because desperate theatremen must fill their screens or close their doors. Trade advertising declines because there is no need to try to sell something to a man who has no choice other than to buy whatever is available. The more thoughtful showmen are not content merely to bemoan the fearful conditions. They seek a way out of these difficulties. If there is a serious product shortage, they reason, let exhibition take a direct hand in the production of quality features. It is not a new idea, but it is certainly a persistent one. Such reasoning has given rise to several abortive attempts at exhibitor-sponsored film production. Until now, they have been remarkably unsuccessful efforts. ACE Films, now a pain¬ ful memory, was launched with grandiose plans and contrib¬ uted practically nothing to the product flow. Currently, Na¬ tional General is involved in production, with its initial ven¬ ture, “THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM,” an excellent beginning. This circuit has other irons in its production fire as well, and exhibitors will benefit from each of them. However, the NGC venture hardly represents an effort by exhibition generally. The question remains — can exhibitors add materially to the flow of playable features to their screens? Past efforts have been hampered by inexperienced personnel with insufficient knowledge about production. This naturally brings up the consideration of production subsidies — some manner in which a small percentage of each dollar coming in to theatre boxoffices is earmarked for future productions. While the notion may well be foreign to the United States, it is in wide use elsewhere. In England, for in¬ stance, the Eady Fund is considered justifiably to be one of the most potent incentives to film production in the world. It is administered by the government, and the question remains as to whether is could be operative on a voluntary or unofficial level. Harry Brandt has suggested a sensible plan to NATO for added production, and the industry awaits developments with interest. Indeed, we are faced with a host of questions, and the an¬ swers will determine whether the motion picture theatre indus¬ try remains on dead-center or advances in relation to the na¬ tion’s population and economic growth. There are those who see the future of the theatre business in this light — all but a relatively few de luxe houses playing a relatively few de luxe films are doomed. Production will gear itself to television — pay or free — and theatres will be around for those few super-spectacles that just won’t fit on the tele¬ vision screen or for “adult” fare not suitable for tv. That is certainly a frightening look at the future from a theatreman’s point of view, but it is not necessarily an unrealistic one. We are engaged in an industry, not a charitable endeavor. When it becomes uneconomic or impractical to service the na¬ tion’s theatres, they will cease to be serviced. It behooves ex¬ hibition, therefore, to take whatever steps it can to guarantee its own future, and an active participation in the production of films for theatres would seem to be a logical beginning. While we are loaded with questions, we don’t claim to have the answers. We can only hope that these long-range consider¬ ations are high on united exhibition’s current agenda. Certain facts are available to exhibition. Certain statistics are relatively common knowledge. We know, for instance, that approximately 45 million bodies inhabit theatre chairs or drive-in spaces each week. We ought to be able to ascertain with reasonable accuracy how many quality features it would take to relieve some of the pinch from theatre operation. There should be some way in which these facts can be put together and a plan of action formulated so that pictures, which otherwise would not be made, are added to the indus¬ try’s production schedule. The notion of forfeiting part of the theatre gross to subsidize production is repugnant to many industryites, but the alternatives are even more fearful. Dabbling in production on the part of a small segment of the entire ex¬ hibition community will never take the place of an all-exhibi¬ tion effort. Can exhibition make such an effort? Can the ma¬ chinery be worked out so that 20 or 25 or however many films are needed can be added to the available supply? Can years of talk be translated into action? These are the life-and-death questions that face each exhibi¬ tor today. These are the problems, and whether or not they are solved will determine whose idea of the future of the entertain¬ ment industry is correct. The road this industry is traveling is a long one, and whether or not it has a turning depends on how directly we are willing to face the facts of economic life. What goes up may have to come down, but what goes down will not come up without a giant-sized boost. Exhibition must provide that boost. No one else can do it since blind bidding and product shortage definitely benefit distributors.