Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1956)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher Vol. 205, No. 4 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor October 27, 1956 More Prophecies of Doom A FEW years ago many of those dubbed “prophets of doom” were in the ranks of production and distribution. A few in Hollywood and in various levels of distribution talked for publication about the glories of subscription television and about the number of theatres they predicted would close. Such predictions were widely criticized on the ground that they harmed the public relations status of the industry and were gratuitous coming from men who did not own theatres. In recent weeks two leaders of exhibition have solemnly predicted that 6,000 additional theatres would close. Each of the two speakers is an experienced operator of large exhibition interests. Each of them surely knew that the newspapers would — as they did — emphasize the large figure of closings and give little or no attention to the assertions that better theatres would replace a substantial number of those closed. It must be that these two important exhibitors were badly advised. Predictions that 6,000 theatres will close can serve the ends only of a newspaper headline writer looking for a sensation. For example, the unsensational New York Times headlined the latest down-beat industry predictions as follows — “Drop Predicted in Film Theatres — Executive of chain expects end of 6,000 conventional theatres in next 3 years.” Nowhere in a newspaper story written for the box office patrons is there room for the explanation, known in the trade, that many theatres that have closed and many more that will close are obsolete. Executives of no other American business make headlines out of the number of outlets closed as a result of obsolescence, changing population and other factors. The number of drug stores, for example, that close each year substantially exceeds the number of theatres that close for similar reasons. HOW many of the theatres which have closed were over-age and maintained in operation only because of the abnormal conditions during and immediately after World War II? How many theatres in operation today are more than thirty years old and are long since completely depreciated? How many theatres are situated in areas whose character has shifted fundamentally in the past decade? Everyone in the business knows that there are fundamental reasons for closing of theatres that have nothing whatsoever to do with the present and future prospects of the theatrical exhibition industry. On the other hand few members of the public understand this situation. They attribute closings almost wholly to the inroads of television. The worst way to build attendance is to make present and potential customers think the industry is dying. As a concluding word on this topic it might also be pointed out that there not only are the grave reasons outlined above why predictions of 6,000 theatre closings should not be made but the figures themselves are subject to serious question. The exhibitors or those who advised them on the content of their talks apparently were working from exaggerated figures of total theatres in operation. If one realistically examines the market today, there is no basis for an assertion that 6,000 more theatres will close. Since the end of the war 5,000 to 6,000 have already closed. Numerically the present total, give or take a relatively small percentage, will be needed to adequately serve the growing population of the United States in driveins and regular theatres. In current operation there is less than one theatre or drive-in for approximately 12,000 population. In view of the fact that there are several thousand small communities of under 10,000 population that can support a theatre, the over-all seating capacity of the exhibition plant does not seem to be out of line. Let exhibitors who have theatres they want to close (or new ones built) go ahead; let’s leave the other fellows’ theatres alone. Vogel of Loew’s THE selection of Joseph R. Vogel to fill the position of president of Loew’s, Inc., was a splendid choice. It was an open secret in the trade several years ago that he was the man Nicholas M. Schenck thought best qualified to succeed him. However, at that time when the separate operations for Loew’s Theatres were being established it was felt necessary for Mr. Vogel to head that branch. In the past several executives from exhibition have set an enviable mark after transferring their activities to production and distribution. Mr. Vogel comes to his new responsibilities with qualifications that match those of the others who have made a similar transition in their prime field of activity in the motion picture business. The management team that Mr. Vogel heads is the strongest possible Loew’s, Inc., could assemble. Arthur M. Loew, new board chairman, will continue active in the field in which he pioneered as president of Loew’s International. Moreover, Mr. Vogel and his associates in active operation of the company will be able to draw upon the experience of Mr. Schenck, who has accepted the newly created position as honorary chairman of the board. Leopold Friedman, general counsel of the company since 1921, has been named the new president of Loew’s Theatres, guaranteeing a continuation of the policies which made and have maintained the Loew circuit in its leading role in American exhibition. — Martin Quigley, Jr.