Motion Picture News (Nov-Dec 1925)

Volume XXXII ALBANY, N. Y., AND NEW YORK CITY, November 28, 1925 No. 22 What is a Motion Picture Profit? TELEGRAMS have been sent to Mary Pickford and Charles Chaplin by the Theatre Owners Chamber of Commerce of New York, protesting against the distribution merger of United Artists with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Monopoly is mentioned and it is pointed out that the very selling situation which caused them to form United Artists, namely, to get their pictues sold by themselves and not coupled with those inferior pictures pretty sure to result when many are made, is now to be repeated. Well, let us see. This distribution merger, as we understand it, is physical only. United Artists will do away with its exchanges and thereby save a large item of distribution expense. We believe that exhibitors themselves are opposed to the excessive duplication of exchange overhead, and will welcome this saving of middlemen cost. United Artists product will not be sold by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, any more than Famous Players now controls the selling of Harold Lloyd productions. There is every indication, in fact, that United Artists will increase its selling department. There is now a much larger program to handle. Another thing: Industrial situations have greatly changed since Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, D. W. Griffith and Charles Chaplin withdrew from their affiliations in order to sell their product through and by themselves. They felt at the time that the prices their pictures deserved were cut because they were used to sell other pictures. But very shortly they found their prices affected by another condition, namely, the control of cities and sections by chains of theatres. This has been a supreme issue with them for several years. In some places they had to hire halls to get their pictures shown. They have threatened right along to build theatres of their own. Mavbe they wanted too high prices ; maybe only those necessary to foster the high type of picture so greatly demanded by first class houses. That subject is too involved to discuss here. But the fact remains that the issue facing United Artists right along has been the general one of producer versus theatre control. And it is also a fact, regardless of just why this merger was made, that certain theatre-controlled cities today will now give United Artists product a much better reception than before, and wholly because they don't want Loew theatres to build next door to their profitable palaces. All of which is perfectly natural. But that's the issue today, not the tacking on of weak pictures to good ones. One of the exhibitors I most respect is E. V. Richards of New Orleans. His firm has built and run fine theatres in a large section of the country, giving the public better service than they had before. It is a fine piece of business construction and a credit to the industry. He said to me the other day:"You talk a good deal about the theatres making excessive profits. You feel that the producer is getting the worst of it. But don't you realize that better theatres are just as necessary as better pictures? Shall we have these better theatres built out of theatre profits or producer profits — or what profits?" Well, this is true: but just what is a motion picture profit? Today, and generally, it is what you can get. True of producer, true of theatre. It is what you can get, regardless of any other consideration. It is blind greed. And just as long as this blindness prevails there will be motion picture trade warfare. And a lot of hypocrisy!