Motion Picture Herald (May-Jun 1947)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher TERRY RAMSAYE, Editor Vol. 167, No. II mSdEM June l4' 1947 "MIRACLE on 34th STREET" ONE of those once-in-a-lifetime pictures has come along with "Miracle on 34th Street", that slightly mad fantasy about Santa Claus, Macy's and Gimbel's. Mr. William R. Weaver, our Hollywood editor, went forthrightly at it by opening his review with: "There haven't been any pictures like this before. ..." Quite so. And along with that have come special problems, meaning opportunities, in exploitation that haven't been before, either. Publicity-wise, there has been hell-to-pop ever since Mr. Charles Schlaifer got himself in the middle promoting attentions from Mr. Macy on the one hand and Mr. Gimbel on the other, with all manner of consequences in the expansive department store areas of the daily papers, up to the point where the customer is now not sure whether Macy is selling Gimbels or the Roxy theatre is selling them both. Anyway, the customers have been made amazingly aware and considerably amused. We are rather used to having pictures well praised by catchlines from the reviewers, but now the National Retail Dry Goods Association is off in a whirl of dust telling its several thousand members about it all. The department store feels utterly institutionally glorified, about to bust all the buttons off its vest. Also, the fever took the 34th Street Midtown Association and the president of the little borough of Manhattan just like a Commercial Club drive in Omaha at Aksarben time. A hometown carnival in midtown. * * * * SPEAKING of exploitations, there is also occasion for some attention to the performance for "New Orleans" in, as you will remember, coincidentally, a city called New Orleans. Inevitably, the picture presented some neat little problems all its own for that special city, notable for some of its special civic prides and foibles. What one can do about a motion picture there is considerably circumscribed by tradition, custom and firmly set and uniform newspaper motion picture policy. Results somewhat extraordinary were achieved when Mr. Charles Reed Jones took himself and Mr. Jules Levey's picture outside the well-worn grooves to the phonogragh record trade and its shops, the music critics, the columnists, the book pages, the radio and sports writers, and even down into the old town's night clubs from the Absinthe House to the Pink Elephant. The wave of specialized attention demonstrated the merit of the flank attack. Actually, the basic merit of the devices rests on that unfailing formula of helping the other fellow do his job — with your own plant. STAR SYSTEM RETURNING from a sojourn in Britain, Mr. Howard Dietz is quoted as observing that there is a decided fight against "the star system" over there but that the rise of star personalities is "a natural result of good pictures". That is a restatement out of the adventures of the rising British industry of the long, long experience of all showmanship. Mr. Dietz, with his years of MGM, is in particular position to be emphatic about it. None has had more experience with the stuff and substance of stardom — acquired, discovered, created and built. To be sure, the public makes the stars, but it must ever elect them from the screen with its glorifying presentations. The rise of appealing personalities is inevitable, irresistible. Among British manifestations especially observable on this side just now are James Mason, Laurence Olivier and Deborah Kerr. And of them it may be said that their fame tends to rise above the appeals of the pictures in which they have appeared. Stardom is like that. It has a sort of velocity of its own. People like people. People remember people, better than they remember plays. The star system is not a system. It is as fundamental as gravity. Now, and forever, the first question js: "Who's in it?" BABY SITTERS WANTED ENCOURAGING and increasing interest in the motion picture is reflected in the annual poll of its readers by the Woman's Home Companion, big, comfortable and conservative journal. The respondents have found less to disapprove, more to approve on the screen, in comparison with prior years. If one accepts the women's report, only in three per cent of their homes does the husband choose, the picture show. Generally it is decided in family consultation. Their considerations are type of picture, stars and review judgments, in that order. They rate 72, 70 and 64 per cent on the scale. It is of interest in this immediate period that one-third of all the persons answering indicated that costs affected attendance. Thirty-two per cent mentioned box office prices, and four per cent complained of the price of baby sitters. Incidentally, I I per cent complained that they could not get baby sitters anyway. Surprising interest in newsreels was indicated among the women. Fifty-five per cent of them voted for news pictures, as compared with 34 per cent last year. Apparently, the younger they are the less they care for the news, the older the more. Under 26 years only 46 per cent want the news, while up over 46 years 70 per cent are interested. Fifty-eight per cent of the readers say they want colour; 5 per cent want black-and-white, and 37 per cent say they do not care. The demand for "cleaner pictures" is off from 14 to 8 per cent, and the call for more pictures for children is down from 7 to 5 per cent. There is, perhaps, a particular significance that the approval of the newsreel considerably exceeds the indicated interest in documentary subjects. This suggests that the women can enjoy entertaining facts and events but have less fancy for being informed. The pleasant over-all deduction seems to be that the screen is doing quite as good a job among the customers as reasonably could be expected. — Terry Ramsaye