Motion Picture News (Sept-Oct 1916)

October 28, 1916 MOTION PICTURE NEWS 2655 Open Booking or the Program — Which? — III Majority of Exliibitors in Michigan Favor the Program, But See Menace to Their Interest in the Sudden Shifting of Stars to Other Companies After the Theatre Is Pledged to Use a Certain Service — "Up to tlie Exhibitor to Decide," Says Kunsky; "Open Booking Inevitable Development" — Ingersoll By Al Thornburg THE more I talk with exhibitors and exchanges throughout the State of Michigan the more I am firmly convinced that the open b oking policy is feasible, logical and practical only with a few week-stand theatres and on possibly two or three nights a week of theatres that are playing a policy of daily change. Where you find an exhibitor who does favor open booking, he will admit when you corner him that he would not want it seven nights a week but for one or two nights, three nights at the most, out of each week. The open booking policy is not one that even exhibitors have asked for, but a policy that has really been forced upon them by the new method of distribution. Exhibitors seem unanimous in saying this — that if manufacturers continue to take their best stars off the regular program or if the stars themselves leave the regular program to form individual companies they are going to force many of the exhibitors out of business; for one thing they are going to disorganize the entire motion picture industry, for a second thing, they are forcing exhibitors to establish an open booking policy. Exhibitors would much prefer to have the stars stay on the regular program — because they can see no advantage to the exhibitor to have the stars on individual programs, which cost considerably more. Another thing, the individual star program is simply a case of getting all the exhibitors in one town together to see who is willing to pay the most for it. The writer has talked with numerous exhibitors who say they have kept away from the exchanges that are exploiting individual stars because at the present high film rentals they would not book them for the simple reason that they cannot bring any greater profit to the theatre than a good picture at a low rental on the regular program. Open Bookings Not Favored The writer can say frankly, and only after a thorough investigation, that the open booking policy or the policy of putting out stars on individual programs, is not meeting with the approval of the majority of exhibitors. They do not like the idea at all — but many of them are signing up for fear that their nearest competitor might sign up for the service. And another thing, the stars themselves who are forming individual companies are being " panned " by exhibitors because they feel that the stars are getting all the money out of the motion picture business, and that if anything the exhibitor is getting less of it than he formerly did because of the competition and the increasing cost of doing business. When exhibitors ask the exchange managers of these individual producing companies why they have to pay more, invariably they get this response : " We have to pay Miss So-and-So four times what we used to. In other words, the exhibitor is really the goat. As one exhibitor said : " The stars are getting immensely rich on the exhibitor, while the ex hibitor, if anything, is making less money than ever before. Why don't the stars and the producers do something to increase the profit of the exhibitors, because surely if the exhibitor does not make a profit he cannot stay in business." This article has been written from the standpoint of the smaller exhibitor, and those in the outskirts, more than from the standpoint of the large downtown theatres in metropolitan cities. These large theatres have things pretty well their own way and can do things that the small exhibitor and the outskirt exhibitor cannot do. What John H. Kunsky Says " As I see this proposition, it's really up to the exhibitor himself to decide. If he thinks he can't make money by an open booking policy, he should make all program bookings, but on account of the increasing number of film productions being put on the market and the uncertainty of the business itself, the uncertainty as to how long stars are going to remain with the old companies, exhibitors themselves are really in a quandary, and unless they have a few open nights they will not be able to book the big pictures that are being sold off the regular program. With some of our theatres we have found the program booking policy to be very successful, although during the past few months there has been a tendency to open booking just because new stars were springing up right along and we had no assurance as to how long stars who were box office attractions would remain on the regular program. " The action of Many Pickford, Clara Kimball Young, Kitty Gordon, Norma Talmadge and others to form companies of their own has naturally put a scare into the regular program booking. If we knew positively that certain stars would remain on certain programs, then we would go out and select our program and feel assured that we would get those stars by signing up with certain producers. The chaotic state of things for the past few months and the constant rumors of changes, mergers, etc., has kept the exhibitor constantly on edge, and you can hardly blame him for favoring the open booking policy, but keep the stars on the regular programs and exhibitors will forget open booking. " Since adopting the open booking policy for the Barden, Empress, Liberty and Royale Theatres, we have done better business than we did with program bookings. Nevertheless, I do not want to advocate an exclusive open booking policy for all houses ; it's up to each exhibitor to find out what is best for his particular locality. Exhibitors might find it better to split their week in half, running program booking one-half and open booking the remainder of the week." Speaking for the larger cities, Mr. Kunsky contends that there is really a field for both methods of booking — the program and open booking. Some theatres will find the program more successful, while there are unquestionably houses that can do better business with maintaining a strictly open booking policy. He reiterates that it is really up to each exhibitor to study his locality and retain which ever policy that seems to work out most satisfactorily. Both policies unquestionably have their good and bad features. Comments by Frederick IngersoU " The open booking poUcy is to my mind the inevitable development of the motion picture industry," says Frederick Ingersoll, of the Knickerbocker Theatre, the big East End house. I don't mean to say by this that programs are to disappear but I do infer that the picture manufacturers, including some who oppose the plan, are primarily responsible for it. " The ideal in picture theatre management— the residential district house — would be for the manager to arrange for seven releases each week on seven programs and to sit back and have the output of the world's best studios with the best actors and the best plays. The trouble is a manager can't do it. Actors do not remain with the same companies. Producers do not make a consistent program of releases that stand up with each other. Sometimes the vehicles employed are unworthy of the stars. They may fall down on direction or photography. I have just cancelled one program because every other picture made by this corporation is notoriously weak. " Stars are leaving the big companies and are being used for special releases, in some instances the officers of the program companies being interested in these special features. In other words the drawing power of these stars is so great that these producers feel they can make more money. This naturally compels the house manager to leave a few days open each week, else he has no place for Mary Pickford, Clara Kimball Young and others that are coming out with special releases. He must have the features made independently of the program if he wishes to hold up the theatre standard. And the special releases are pictures he would play. It's better to spend more for Mary Pickford than to pay less for a regular release and not give satisfaction. " Personally I regret the open booking policy or that we have to come to it, but there seems no way out. Every little while some program release is a suggestive picture that can't be shown to women and children. We must pay for it, according to contract, but we go into the open market for a substitute. With poor and weak pictures I am compelled to take the same course. The program makers have their side to this and I know that good pictures must be assured of a good market, yet, eventually, the time will come when the program people will permit the house manager to eliminate some of their releases from his program because of local conditions, without charging him for it. In other words pictures may be very success