Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1956)

cjCetterd to the ^J^lercilcl On " Disjointed Presentation ” The editorial viewpoint expressed by Martin Quigley relative to the importance of audiences seeing pictures from the beginning, titled “Disjointed Presentation,” as published in The HERALD September 22, elicited immediate comment from a number of industry leaders. Several were published last week. Reactions of other readers are presented herewith: To the Editor: When I read the editorial, “Disjointed Presentation,” in The HERALD of September 22, I was wondering whether I had had a dream about the subject matter or whether someone had been making notes of a conversation I had only the other day with Red Silverstein. Your editorial is almost a literal duplication of a speech I made to Red, including the reference to the nickelodeon days. It is therefore needless for me to say that I agree with it wholeheartedly. I believe there is only one additional point I made and that is with reference to television competition today. I pointed out to Red that in order to wean people away from their television sets it was necessary to make movie-going a “nightout.” Dropping in to a movie theatre any time at all, I noted, was like passing a shooting gallery and taking a few shots at the clay pipes. If the motion picture theatres were able to run their shows more like legitimate theatres, i.e., fixed performances and perhaps even reserved seats, I believe the public would be more likely to get the “night out” feeling. There are some countries in the world where this is done. South Africa, Australia, Uruguay, and I know from my own experience that motion pictures in these countries are of far more importance in the minds of the public than in those countries which run continuous performances. I think your editorial touches upon a most important idea for improvement in our industry. — ARTHUR M. LOEW, President, Loew’s, Inc., New York. To the Editor: I read with great interest your editorial, “Disjointed Presentation.” It is a most constructive and informative article. In my opinion a start in the right direction would be for the exhibitors to at least put in the time or times the feature picture or pictures are presented on their screen. I know from personal experience that I must telephone the theatre to secure this information, which should be available in my local newspapers. You have made a very salient point. Let’s hope that the industry will give allout support to such a necessary, progres sive reform. — HERBERT J. YATES, President, Repu,blic Pictures Corporation, New York. • To the Editor: The editorial, “Disjointed Presentation,” is excellent and makes a lot of good sense. Hope we can somehow, some way, find a practical solution to have patrons view motion pictures from the beginning. — MITCHELL WOLFSON, Wometco Television and Theatre Company, Miami, Fla. To the Editor: It is a provocative and stimulating article and I intend to discuss it with my people at an early date. — WALTER READE, JR., President, Walter Reade Theatres, Oakhurst, N. J. • To the Editor: I think the producers in Hollywood, individually and collectively, would kiss you, if they had the chance, for such a fine constructive piece of criticism. (Editorial in The HERALD September 22, on “Disjointed Presentation”). I go to the movies for entertainment — I pay to go. I always like to see what time the feature starts; sometimes I can find it, sometimes I cannot. I think that’s the answer you would get from a very large percentage of the audiences. — A. E. DAFF, Executive Vice-President, Universal Pictures Co., Inc., New York. • To the Editor: In answer to your letter of September 18 respecting an advance proof of the editorial to appear in the September 22 issue of Motion Picture Herald, I must report AN OPEN FORUM The Letters to the Herald columns are always open to our readers , whose opinions relative to the industry and its problems are welcome at all times. This is an open forum for anyone who has the interests of the industry at heart. that the economics of continuous performances or “grind” operating policy seems to argue against what certainly is an experienced and well presented case. We generally advertise the schedule of performances and do what we can to recommend patronage attendance for complete features but this business of making money, especially these days, would appear to take precedence of necessity. — GERALD SHEA, Jamestown Amusement Co., Inc., M. A. Shea Theatrical Enterprises, New York. To the Editor: In these days of stringency nothing would be more salutary than a return to old-fashioned showmanship on the part of the exhibitor. The distributor can break his back raising the quality of the pictures and spend enormous sums in advertising, but when you get down to basic facts, it is the exhibitor who has primary contact with the public and it is his show window that makes the product attractive to them. — GEORGE WELTNER, Paramount Film Distributing Corp., New York: To the Editor: You raise a point which I doubt many exhibitors, myself included, have given thought to. It has become a habit over the years both to ourselves and our audiences that we took it for granted coming into a continuous show at any time was completely acceptable to the public. Perhaps in view of the many present competitive factors for the public’s time and particularly the popularity of television, the point you raise is a good one. I should like to study it, talk to my various executives including my men in the field, managers and advertising men and then form some conclusions on the subject. In the meantime, you have brought up something provocative and that is good. — SAMUEL ROSEN, Stanley Warner, New York. • To the Editor: We have been giving this considerable thought in the past few years, and have not been able as yet to find an answer to the problem. In any event, I want you to know that I entirely agree with you that something should be done. — J. R. VOGEL, Loew’s Theatres, New York. MOTION PICTURE HERALD, Marlin Quigley, Editor-in-Chiel and Publisher; Martin Quigley, Jr., Editor; Charles S. Aaronson, Managing Editor; Floyd E. Stone, Photo Editor; Vincent Canby, News Editor; Ray Gallagher, Advertising Manager; Gus H. Fausel, Production Manager. Bureaus: Hollywood, Samuel D. Berns, Manager, William R. Weaver, Editor, Yucca-Vine Building, Telephone HOIlywood 7-2145; Washington, J. A. Often, National Press Club; London, Hope Williams Burnup, Manager; Peter Burnup, Editor; William Pay, News Editor, 4 Bear St., Leicester Sq. Correspondents in principal capitals of the world. Member Audit Bureau of Circulation. Motion Picture Herald is published every Saturday by Quigley Publishing Company, Inc., Rockefeller Center, New York City 20. Telephone Circle 7-3100; Cable address: “Quigpubco, New York", Martin Quigley, President; Martin Quigley, Jr., Vice-President; Theo. J. Sullivan, Vice-President and Treasurer; Leo J. Brady, Secretary. Other Quigley Publications: Better Theatres and Better Refreshment Merchandising, each published thirteen times a year as a section of Motion Picture Herald; Motion Picture Daily, Television Today, Motion Picture Almanac, Television Almanac, Fame. 8 MOTION PICTURE HERALD. OCTOBER 6. 1956