Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Feb 1942)

26 MOTION PICTURE HERALD January 17, 1942 Critics' Curse is Cold at Box office says Mayer Here, again, is the managing director of the Rialto theatre, situated at New York's busy Times Square corner, in his frequent pixie mood and lively skepticism. His theatre is one that is unlikely ever to gain or lose by attention of any sort from the critics of the metropolitan press, anyway — so Mr. Mayer is free to have fun, and does. Some critics have been invited to discuss this discussion, and if they do this may be a serial. — The Editor. By ARTHUR L. MAYER It becomes increasingly apparent that the trouble with the motion picture industry is that we do not have enough bad pictures. By bad pictures, of course, I mean the ones the critics do not like — pictures, for instances, such as "Shanghai Gesture," "Sundown," "Hellzapoppin'," and "The Wolf Man," which have been breaking box office records in New York during the past few weeks. Wanda Hale in the Daily News expressed the unanimous opinion of her confreres when she called "Shanghai Gesture," "the most awful piece of boredom that has come out of Hollywood in twenty years." It may have bored the critical fraternity, but it broke the box office record of the Astor Theatre. About "Sundown," Ted Strauss of the Times wrote, "ridiculous is the word for this trumped up tale — so much banal nonsense." Banal nonsense must be what the public craves because the Criterion, also, established a new all time high. About "The Wolf Man," Archer Winsten of the Post wrote, "It smacks more of a Hollywood charade than of horrors." The Rialto, long famed as the house of horror, should hereafter become the citadel of charades for "The Wolf Man" piled up the year's outstanding gross. "Hellzapoppin" which was included by the New York Times in its list of the year's ten worst pictures did a heavenly business at the Rivoli, but a few moderately favorable newspaper comments were no doubt responsible for its failure to establish a new house record. The reluctance of the public to heed the Nestors of the newspapers is no new development. Only a few months ago, another Astor presentation looked like a Hyde to the reviewers and a Jekyll to the picture fans. For four successive years, Shirley Temple, whose adolescent charms failed to stimulate the hardened arteries of the critics, was selected by the exhibitors as their most popular star. For the past three years, Mickey Rooney has been the champion at the box office and poison to the press. The Critics Circle selected as the prize winners for the past four years, "Citizen Kane," "Grapes of Wrath," "Wuthering Heights," and "The Citadel." Only one of these, "Grapes of Wrath" placed in the exhibitors' annual list of best box office bets. The other three failed to even be included in the top twentyfive of their year. It is unfortunate but undeniable that artistic masterpieces such as "The Long Voyage Home," or progressive social documents such as "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" failed to return their original negative cost from their domestic distribution, while comedies such as the Abbott-Costellos, homely family dramas such as the Andy Hardys, and westerns such as the Gene Autrys made fortunes for their astute producers. I have, personally, been connected with four documentary productions, all of which were greeted with critical accolades, and not one of which ever returned a fraction of its original cost to its producers. On the other hand, during the past year, I have helped to produce a group of independent pictures, every one of which was mercilessly mangled by the press, and not one of which will fail to return a profit of over 100 per cent. It would almost appear, indeed it has been the experience at the Rialto Theatre over a period of many years, that box office receipts are in inverse ratio to the approval of the press. The question inevitably arises — does the motion picture public not read reviews with any confidence in their reliability — does it not read reviews at all — or does it not read, period? The answer will, of course, vary for different theatres. At a house like the Globe, for instance, the reviews are too sophisticated for the patrons, while at the Plaza, the patrons are too sophisticated for the reviews. The star system of predigested reviewing was evolved to eliminate this element of sophistication as well as time. Under its far from tender ministrations, superlatives, either good or bad, are generally credited with affecting theatre grosses. Four stars boomed "Boom Town" to colossal receipts. But several years ago, no stars at all created an equal rush to see the film version of "Sanctuary." The Paramount was packed by regular folks (not jitterbugs in those happy ancient days) to see if any picture could be so bad. The superlative theory, however, fails to explain the overwhelming success of "It Happened One Night," one of the greatest pictures of all times, which the News greeted with a two and one-half star review. It would appear that fine pictures do a fine business neither in response to nor in spite of reviews, but because the public with uncanny instinct senses and appreciates their merits. I am not trying to be smart when I saythat our New York critics are too smart. Movies are a mass art and must be judged by men and women whose pulses beat in rhythm with the heart of humanity. Geniuses like Chaplin and Disney were known and adored by the public long before they were discovered by the intelligentsia. Our critics, bless their kind souls and their eager minds, are both too social minded and too art loving to look at pictures the way the average fans look at them. In their judgment of movies, they are greatly impressed by ideological or esthetic merits, while the public, to whom they address their admonitions, is interested solely in entertainment. They are inclined to be overly impressed with technical experiments and photographic virtuosity. A good example is their enthusiasm for "Citizen Kane," which left most picturegoers either bored or puzzled or both. Writers for the New Republic or the New Masses may well be justified in appraising pictures on the basis of social content or conformity with Marxian determinism. The daily press, however, caters to millions unhampered by advanced artistic or economic theories. If its reviews are to be of value to readers, as well as to the producers and exhibitors of motion pictures, they must be in harmony with the tastes and the standards of the American peeople. Critics Select 'M^ind' as Best David O. Selznick's production of Margaret Mitchell's novel, "Gone with the Wind," was selected as 1941 's No. 1 feature release by American motion picture critics and reviewers in the 20th annual Film Daily "Ten Best Pictures" poll. Four hundred and fifty-two ballots were cast for the production, distributed by Metro Goldwyn Mayer, in the coast-to-coast contest, and the picture finished with a 39-vote lead over its nearest competitor. A total of 548 critics and reviewers participated in the voting. The remaining nine features in order of their selection follow: "Sergeant York," "The Philadelphia Story," "Citizen Kane," "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," "The Little Foxes," "Kitty Foyle," "The Great Dictator," "Meet John Doe" and "Blossoms in the Dust." Hays Requests AMPA Dinner Postponement At the request of Mr. Will H. Hays, the Associated Motion Picture Advertisers in New York has decided to postpone until a later date the dinner scheduled for March 6, 1942,. in honor of Mr. Hays' 20th anniversary as president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America. In a letter to Mr. Vincent Trotta, president of AMPA, Mr. Hays expressed his appreciation and his desire that "when the dinner is held, it be not a personal tribute but a recognition of the real significance of the art-industry's purpose to make certain the establishment and maintenance of its self-regulation, based upon intent and accomplishment that warrant that trust."