Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1956)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, EiUtor-in-Chief and Publisher Vol. 202, No. 2 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor January 14, 1956 Carping Criticism Recent expressions on this page have come in for critical attention from such widely divergent publications as the New York Times and the Motion Picture Exhibitor. It is a source of some satisfaction that the distinguished film critic of the Times, Bosley Crowther, and the veteran theatre operator and part-time publisher, Jay Emanuel, read the editorials in The HERALD. It is a source of some regret — and confusion to their readers — that these two gentlemen apparently “read as they run,” with hit and miss results. The two criticisms of The HERALD editorials have this much in common : both Messrs. Crowther and Emanuel have sat down at their typewriters seeming to defend Eric Johnston but quite obviously to assail the publisher of The HERALD. Mr. Emanuel has attacked the publisher of The HERALD for alleged intransigence with respect to the Production Code. Mr. Emanuel is particularly aroused about the narcotic provision of the Code. If he had been aroused some weeks earlier, he would have noted that the publisher of The HERALD — on this page — urged that the Motion Picture Association deal forthrightly with the issue, making a change in the Code provision but maintaining reasonable safeguards. This, for Mr. Emanuel’s belated information, is precisely the same position held by Mr. Johnston and the members of his executive staff. The HERALD has repeatedly pointed out over the past two decades that the Production Code involves two sets of provisions — those dealing with basic principles which are unchangeable and those dealing with matters of policy. These latter are subject to revision, addition and elimination as need indicates. Two years ago The HERALD on this page called for ending the ridiculous ban on the use of the words “hell” and “damn.” That action was taken. The HERALD believes that sooner or later the outright ban on the mention of narcotics will be dropped. The subject needs to be handled with reasonable safeguards. Mr. crowther is perturbed that The HERALD objected to certain statements made at a press conference called recently by Mr. Johnston in Hollywood. One point criticised was the comment by Mr. Johnston that occasioned a wave of “industry depression” headlines in newspapers across the country. Mr. Crowther said that Mr. Johnston’s statements were true. The HERALD had no dispute with Mr. Johnston on the facts about business in the Fall of 1955 being appreciably below that of the same period in the preceding year. The point was whether any useful purpose was served by the president of the Motion Pic ture Association proclaiming such a state of affairs to the nation’s press. It is to be doubted that Mr. Crowther really disagrees with The HERALD on this issue. He is too astute a student of film tastes to overlook the psychological factors involved in theatre attendance. The public loves a winner. Few people want to attend unpopular pictures in uncrowded theatres. In this there is nothing unique about motion pictures. The same situation prevails in all show business and to some extent in all business depending on widespread public support. The New York Times itself is quick to proclaim significant gains in advertising and copy sales. It does not rush out and make a great display of statistics reflecting the inevitable periods of less than satisfactory progress. The HERALD does not expect unanimous approval of its editorial positions. If that occurred it would mean that the expressions were as spineless as jellyfish, of which there is an abundance in the motion picture trade press. However, it is to be hoped that in the interest of diminishing confusion that writers who venture to comment on editorial expressions familiarize themselves with the true positions taken before rushing into print. ■ B ■ UA Promise & Performance The new management team at United Artists has now completed five years with a record of outstanding accomplishment. When the group took control in February, 1951 it was confidently predicted on the record that Arthur Krim, Robert Benjamin, Matthew Fox, William Heineman and Max Youngstein would rescue the company from its long standing difficulties. Both the speed of the recovery and the subsequent expansion of UA business have been remarkable. Five years ago an editorial on this page welcoming the “New Deal for UA” pointed out that the industry needs a strong and prosperous company offering distribution and financing facilities to independent producers. The new group, which has changed only with the addition of Arnold Picker and the recent withdrawal of Mr. Fox, faces the next five years with confidence that the excellent mark set thus far will be surpassed. The world gross of UA rose from $18,000,000 in 1951 to an estimated $55,000,000 for 1955. Within the next years the figure is expected to reach at least $75,000,000. The company’s releases for 1956 include an unexcelled galaxy of popular stars, cast in important story properties. The UA management team has earned the right to look bright-eyed to the company’s future. — Martin Quigley, Jr.