Motion Picture Herald (Jul-Sep 1956)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY. Editor-, n-Chief and Publisher Vol. 204, No. 4 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor July 28, 1956 COMPO and the Tax Bill THE Council of Motion Picture Organizations, led by Robert J. O'Donnell, chairman of the tax committee, and Robert W. Coyne, special counsel and member of the COMPO steering committee, has done splendid work in its current campaign for admission tax relief. The record this year is particularly noteworthy because, in contrast to prior campaigns, the effort this year was carried on by a relatively small number. In fact COMPO’s 1956 tax drive met with a strange apathy and even veiled hostility in certain industry sectors. This makes the success the more praiseworthy. At this writing it is too early to know whether the King bill which passed the House of Representatives by voice vote on July 21 will be approved by the Senate in its rush for adjournment. Even if the Senate also passed the measure, it still risks the possibility of a Presidential veto. Nevertheless the progress made in the cause of additional tax relief for theatres is of great value. This year, as in the previous campaigns, COMPO faced the strong opposition of the Treasury and of the Administration. The first COMPO-supported tax bill, The Mason bill, was vetoed in August, 1953 by President Eisenhower. But this made possible the passage of a similar bill in March, 1954, in advance of any over-all consideration of the tax structure. History may repeat itself. COMPO has again demonstrated its value as the only all-industry organization in being. ■ ■ ■ Entertainment at Its Best CERTAINLY at this late date it should not be necessary to cite evidence to prove that a good motion picture is mass entertainment at its best. No media can really compete with the hit motion picture for bringing entertainment to millions. Nevertheless it is always pleasant to be able to mention successful films that have basic appeal. At the present time several motion pictures are winning tremendous acclaim: these include “The King and I,” “Moby Dick’’ and “Trapeze.” It is important to note that each of these three represents a different type of attraction. “The King and I” in CinemaScope 55 is a perfect screen version of Rodgers & Hammerstein’s musical. Fans and critics alike agree that in all respects it is superior to the play. “Moby Dick” brings to the screen in authentic detail and great excitement an American classic novel. “Trapeze,” filmed in Paris, has an international flavor starring two Americans and one Italian. Moreover it brings the highpoint of the circus — the aerialists in dramatic closeup. The status of the theatrical motion picture need never be doubted when the studios at home and abroad turn out product with the appeal comparable to these three. They were made for the theatrical audience. They represent an investment, individually and collectively, that would be unthinkable for television. They are of such pictorial quality that no television presentation may be seriously compared with them. Good motion pictures are and will continue to be your best entertainment. Lessons from the Circus SOME small town exhibitors have become unduly alarmed at the suspension of the Ringling Bros. Circus and other smaller circuses this season. It is not correct to judge that there is any close similarity between the economic problems and outlook of a circus and those of a theatre. In the view of John Ringling North — and who should know better? — the circus failed because of cost, labor and transportation problems. While each of those three has a bearing on theatre operations, they are not of major significance. The theatre’s fundamental problem is that of getting a sufficient gross. The circus had reached a point that, even with good audiences, the operation was not financially sound. If through some magical formula the circus could solve its pressing financial problems, the road ahead would still be a difficult one. Unlike the infinite variety of entertainment possible on a motion picture screen, the circus is limited in scope. That is, it is limited today when the youngsters do not get the thrill their parents and grandparents got from the sight of elephants and horses and trapeze artists and clowns. The children of today, of course, are missing something but their thrills are of a different order in this age of atoms, jets and space stations. Another factor of importance is that many of the best circus acts have appeared week after week in television shows. Children have been able to see all the circus they want in their own homes. The real lesson for the motion picture industry to take from the plight of the circus is a renewed dedication to make dramatic stories of universal appeal and capitalize on the theatre’s facility of providing mass entertainment. THERE ARE MOUNTING SIGNS that the product shortage— at least in the most acute stage — will soon be over. During the first six months of 1956 the Production Code Administration approved 165 features. A year ago the comparable figure was 156. More significant as a portent of things to come is that at present there are fifty-one pictures now before the cameras in Hollywood. A year ago there were only thirty. — Martin Quigley, Jr.