Motion Picture News (Mar-Apr 1923)

■Motion Picture News The Independent Producer WE find a great deal of interest in the fact that Samuel Goldwyn is back in the field — as an independent producer. Whenever this forceful individual moves he moves in a considerable way. He has resolutely pioneered in the past and he is pioneering now in that he is throwing all his resources into the pot of independent production. We find it, we say, interesting. For one thing it is convincing, practical encouragement to the independent producer everywhere. A man who has been through the mill of large industrial organizations now sees fit to produce independently with an entirely new conception of the present and future structure of this field. And this move upon his part together with the new plans of other prominent executives is pretty clear and convincing proof to us that this industry is on the eve of a new era. And that era is the one we have consistently hoped for and tried, in our own way, steadily to point to — an era of fewer pictures, better pictures and longer runs. It was the fashion several years ago when production upon an ambitious scale was planned to have it led by and dependent upon a national distribution machine. It was thought necessary to have this machine actually precede and therefore completely dominate productrbn. Today, at last, the picture is the thing. The scheme of production starts in and of itself. It isn't designed to feed a machine, it isn't made with break-neck haste to meet distribution demands and to the end of supporting distribution. It takes the time, all the time and the independent thought, the creative effort and the unsparing devotion that good production must positively have. The result — inevitably — is fewer, much fewer pictures, but much better ones, the kind the public is so evidently demanding today. And this new scheme of things is going to reorder the motion picture map. Mr. Goldwyn is not the only experienced leader who has seen the light. But his weight is going to give impetus to the new order and in the interest of the whole industry, its health and true growth, we welcome it. Fairbanks, Pickford, Et Al. FROM the West Coast comes the news of an association of the screen's leading stars, the stated object of which is to secure fair prices from the exhibitor. This broad proposition, of course, deserves details. Undoubtedly those exhibitors are referred to who use local control to lower prices to the breaking point. And still more details will be forthcoming. So serious a move as this would not be entered into without reason. But the question that will occur immediately to everyone is: just what is a fair price? Is it what the producer considers a fair price; or what the exhibitor considers a fair price? Are these two viewpoints ever the same? What does determine a fair price? The answer, of course, is percentage. There can be no other. A percentage arrangement whereby the producer gets so much guarantee for his production investment and the exhibitor gets so much for his theatre investment; and after that — let us say — an even break on the remaining proceeds. Good-will — the reputation of the producer and the reputation of the exhibitor — will also figure. So, too, will advertising — to be paid for out of the proceeds of the picture. But it is simple enough. Two reasonable men, each alive to their mutual interests, can get together on this basis. If they can't, there is no basis that ever will be satisfactory. Percentage playing — let us say it again with the same emphasis we laid upon it five years ago — is inevitable in this field where no standardization of product and conditions and no fair flat rental price will ever therefore be possible. Wm. A. Johnston. Vol. xxvii MARCH 10, 1923 NO 10