Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1956)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY , E.Jitor-in-Chief and Publisher Voi. 202, No. 8 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor February 25, 1956 Blow the Whistle IT is time for a halt to the practice of using negotiations with the Production Code Administration as a take-off for publicizing pictures. Not infrequently the producer — not the PCA — leaks word about a word or a scene being cut. This is a highly irresponsible procedure. Recently some producers and distributors have adopted the questionable procedure of seeking press attention for their films in connection with their real or imagined dealings with the Production Code Administration. The alleged negotiations are often not in good faith and intended only as a springboard to notoriety. The Production Code system is a voluntary one. If some producers do not wish to submit their pictures, that is their privilege. If they have disagreements with the PCA staff and seek compromises or appeal decisions, that also is their privilege. However, there is an absence of good faith when pictures which are obviously in violation of the code are submitted just for the sake of publicity. Equally to be deplored is the opening of films without code seals and then seeking such approval to get press attention for subsequent runs. Although there are naturally disagreements about certain applications of the code and about appeal procedures, virtually all the members of the industry are in favor of the Code system. This fact was again emphasized Sunday in Hollywood at the discussion sponsored by the Motion Picture Industry Council held at the Academy Awards theatre. Negotiations with the PCA — real or imagined — should not be publicized as a means toward publicity that hurts the industry. Group Buying Responsibility The new National Association of Film Service Organizations, headed by Sidney Cohen, can be a constructive force provided it helps its members become increasingly aware of their individual and collective responsibilities. It was logical and inevitable that the growing number of buying and booking groups would form their own trade association. Especially during the past few years many exhibitors have turned over film buying to an outside organization. Some theatre owners have felt that, despite the decree requirements of buying picture-bypicture and theatre-by-theatre, a group can secure somewhat better terms. Others have felt that, while there may be no saving in rentals, a buying service might be able to get better availabilities than an individual. Whether either viewpoint is correct is debatable. One of the problems resulting from buying services is that some of their exhibitor clients adopt an “absentee ownership” attitude. Having turned over the vital tasks of buying and booking to others, some theatre owners have been tempted to neglect other phases of theatre operation. Such an attitude may prove fatal to the welfare of all concerned. Membership in a buying service is certainly no excuse to neglect showmanship or to lose interest in product and industry happenings. The managers of buying services— in their own interest as well as that of their clients and the industry as a whole — have the duty to instill in all members enthusiasm for showmanship, a desire to maintain physically each theatre and an alertness about product and industry events. In the long run, buying services cannot prosper if their customers are in financial difficulty. ■ ■ ■ CinemaScope 33 The acclaim of customers and critics following the opening of “Carousel”, first picture filmed in 55mm CinemaScope, has demonstrated that the advance claims were fully realized. The promotional campaign, directed by Charles Einfeld. Twentieth Century-Fox advertising and publicity director, was the company’s most extensive since “The Robe”, two and a half years ago. One extraordinary result was an editorial in the New York Daily News on February 20th which said in part, “Speaking just as a movie customer, we’d say the new gimmicks are worth whatever they cost. . . . Hollywood is fighting back (against TV) with all its considerable skill, and we’d say that ‘Carousel’ is a highly entertaining, and winning, first round.” The large negative, four times the standard 35mm size, makes it possible for the 35mm release print to project a large screen picture as clear and sharp as anything thus far achieved. While as The News put it — “The plays still the thing, of course”, good material plus fine techniques add up to record box office receipts. ■ ■ ■ ^ Quote of the Week: “You must play good, wholesome, clean product or you are going to do irreparable damage not only to yourself and your theatre, but to all people engaged in your business, because unfortunately we are usually judged by the few who are not conscious of their obligation to their communities.” — Horace Adams, president of Independent Theatre Owners of Ohio in his keynote address to the National Allied Drive-in Convention. — Martin Quigley, Jr.