Motion Picture Herald (Sep-Oct 1935)

34 by "BUNNY" BRYAN Manager, Pantheon Theatre, Chicago My recent article (Motion Picture Herald, August 10th) concerning the inevitable problem coming when giveaways fade, has brought some interesting reactions to my desk, reactions from exhibitors, producers, projectionists and publicity men. In fairness to everyone concerned, we believe it worthwhile to pass along the high spots of these comments. A Coast exhibitor, after roundly condemning giveaways, says in part: "I believe we are right on the threshold of a cycle of socalled unusual films. . . . 'Sequoia' clicked almost everywhere. It received the backing of the women's clubs as well as many more ticket-selling controls." "An Arkansas projectionist writes: "I have a stunt that is free from all lottery taint, yet just as interesting," and the beauty of it is, we believe he has the germ of an idea with box office possibilities. A producer says: "You have hit upon one of the things the industry badly needs, a getting away from the eternal sex; an opening up of a field hitherto only slightly touched." A Middle Western exhibitor writes, "I'm with you one hundred per cent when you say, 'We must give them diversion of a different kind.' . . . I've played several unusual pictures recently, pictures we would have considered having very little general appeal just a few years ago and because the public is right now in a receptive mood for something different and because we went out and sold them intelligently, always bearing in mind Lem Stewart's old slogan, 'Does It Sell Tickets?', we mopped up at the box office and obtained plenty of favorable patron comment." Centuries of Publicity A publicity executive puts it this way : "The trouble with so many exhibitors and executives in these days of banker-controlled showmanship is our very natural tendency to over-emphasize advertising costs, because they are controllable, and then sit back and lay out a routine campaign which, of course, brings back only routine returns. . . . Giveaways have been clicking because of the several centuries 'advance' given games of chance. How can we expect satisfactory grosses from our pictures unless we give them complete and comprehensive advertising and publicity treatment? And so the comments continued, the interesting part being that, while many of the exhibitors had been or zvere us'mg giveaways, all seemed to feel that they would run their course and we must be readying something , something in the zvay of entertainment, to take their place. We agree heartily with the exiiiliitor who MOTION PICTURE HERALD points to "Sequoia" as an example of the draw of the unusual films. We played "Sequoia" at the height of the giveaway craze and stood 'em up plenty opening day and came right back the following day without a giveaway and did considerably above average business. We have already mentioned the excellent results obtained from Captain Craig's personal appearance along with his unusual picture and are hoping some producer will give us in the very near future another picture that will warrant the same treatment we gave "Sequoia" and "Sea Killers." While, naturally, we are primarily interested in the box-office of any attraction, the patron comment and goodwill generated are certainly very valuable. We know that unusual pictures bring new faces, many of whom become regular or drop-in patrons. We know that unusual pictures with their diversified story and treatment are welcomed by our regulars as a tonic after the cut and dried stories embodied in so many of the programmers. Says It's Up to Producers Insofar as routine campaigns are concerned, there is real food for thought. When one is riding the crest of the wave, one is inclined to become fat and careless. I do not believe any seasoned showman considers giveaways as entertainment, notwithstanding their acknowledged draw at the box-office. After all, the picture is still the thing. All things otherwise are only supplementary. If we are dispensing entertainment, we must sell and sell strongly and intelligently. We cannot just sit back and say, "What the H — ! We're going to load the house anyway, so why burn up any extra energy and money in a ticket selling campaign?" We are in the motion picture business, a business built upon keeping on our toes, and brains allowed to lie dormant The writer is and has been for many years in show business because he likes it, gets a kick out of it. Years ago, as a newspaperman, we were constantly planning for the future. As a circus press agent and motion picture publicity man we thoroughly enjoyed the newspaper and other contacts made and the results anticipated and usually obtained. Today, as one of the several thousands managing theatres and selling shows, after years of floor work and standing on the front, years spent, in part, in watching the smiles of anticipation on the patrons' faces as they approached or entered the theatre, we believe the motion picture industry's contribution to the public has been priceless. We feel that the opinion of the exhibitor, the man who comes in daily contact with those buying the products of the studios, is very valuable to the producer and the financier backing the production. That's why we are groping and seeking, before it may be too late, an intelligent solution to the problem, "What next after giveaways ?" It seems to me it is up to the producers now. September 14, 1935 Screen diversion as a steady diet was suggested in the August IQth issue of the Herald by "Bunny" Bryan, manager and publicity director of the Balaban and Katz Pantheon theatre in Chicago, in answer to his own question: "What are we going to do after the novelty of giveaways has worn off?" From exhibitors, producers, publicists and even projectionists have come varied reactions, all of which Mr. Bryan has consolidated into the accompanying article, which he sums up with the thought that it now is up to the producers. Court to Rule on Pathe Examination A motion for examination before trial will be heard in the New York county supreme court September 16th before Justice Charles B. McLaughlin in a stockholders' action brought by Pat Casey against Pathe Exchange, Inc. Counsel for Mr. Casey will seek the court's permission to examine Frank Kolbe, president of Pathe Exchange, and Robert W. Atkins, executive vice-president. He will request an order compelling them to produce all records, account books and agreements at the time of examination. This is an action in discovery and inspection to determine the assets and all of the business transactions of Pathe. Mr. Casey's affidavit explains that the examinations are sought to show that Robert R. Young dominated and controlled Stuart W. Webb and Mr. Kolbe during the time each occupied the official position of director and president of the defendant corporation ; to show that Robert R. Young was in command of the defendant corporation and constantly supervised and directed its program and policies; that Robert R. Young, at the same time, held an obscure official position in the management of the corporation; to show that during 1933, 1934 and 1935 and a considerable period of time prior thereto, the defendant acted under the direction of Mr. Young and conspired with him to the extent of causing waste of the defendant's assets, violating their duties and wrongfully suffering acts to be done in such a manner as to result in the squandering of the defendant corporation's assets. Sues Columbia Over Royalties on Series Samuel J. Joseph, attorney for Harry Levey, has filed in the New York supreme court an application for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain Columbia Pictures Corporation from paying Rex Film Corporation any monies or royalties due on the "Voice of Experience" series of shorts. A hearing is set on the application for September 13 before Judge Hofstadter. Other defendants listed are Voe Pictures Corporation, M. Sayle Taj'lor, known as the "Voice of Experience," Elmer A. Rogers, general manager of Rex Pictures, and Benjamin K. Blake, production manager of Rex. Levey claims he first approached Mr. Rogers and Mr. Taylor and sold them the idea to make the shorts. Giveaway Solution Up To Producer^ Says Exhibitor Need of "Different" Films Pointed in Reaction to Bryan Article I