The Philadelphia Exhibitor (1935)

THE PAGE EDITOR'S Vol. 17, No. 1 January 1, 1935 Speed for Some THE SPEED with which various fac® tions of the industry combined to check free shows scheduled by the Standard Oil Company only serves once more to call at¬ tention to the contrasting pace used in settling internal problems. When a common foe arises, party lines vanish. Once the victory is achieved, all factions within the business renew their squabble. The Philadelphia EXHIBITOR Circulating in Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey and Delaware. Issued on the 1st and 15th of each month by Jay Emanuel Publications, Inc. Publishing office, 219 North Broad Street, Philadelphia. Branches at 1600 Broadway, New York City; Washington, D. C. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, advertising manager; Herbert M. Miller, managing editor. Subscription rates; $2 for one year, $5 for three years. Single copies, 15c in Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey and Delaware. Publishers, also, of THE NATIONAL EXHIBITOR of Washington and THE NEW YORK STATE EXHIBITOR. Official organ of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey and Delaware. Address all communications to the Philadelphia office. No one can defend free shows. Their competition is destructive. It is interesting to note, at this time, the comment from Chester B. Bahn, motion picture editor, Syracuse Herald, leading New York State daily, and a friend of the business. Bahn points out that while the stopping of the free shows is to be com¬ mended, what about the free things given away by theatres through various methods, premiums, give-aways, commercial tie-ups, etc.? What is unfortunate is failure of the Big News of the Year WITH 1934 already recorded as completed and the annual review process becoming the order of the day, what, indeed, was the big news of the year? The Fox-American Tri-Ergon case; competition of free shows; MPTOA; Allied; Code Authority’s trouble with zoning; TIME’S entrance into motion pictures; the Legion of Decency — all of these held the headlines. What earned the premiere place and why? industry’s groups to settle their own dif¬ ferences, which, in the final analysis, are costing the business much more than any free show competition. Profits on One Side _ IF ONLY ONE producing or distribut® ing company had shown an increase in profits, that would not be news. But when a great majority of them re¬ lease balance sheets and profit and loss statements which show great improvements over previous periods, it becomes a matter for editorial attention. Would a survey of exhibitor profit and loss sheets show the same percentage of profit increase? From reports it does not seem possible that such examination would indicate the same proportion. Is the condition of the independent exhib¬ itor better at the present time than a year ago? It is to be doubted. To what, then, can the increase in pro¬ ducer-distributor profit be credited — Sav¬ ings in production, lesser negative cost, slashing of salaries? None of the last has been achieved to any great extent. Summing it all up, then, it must be con¬ cluded the profits result because sales poli¬ cies of the distributors have remained at the same level as 1933 or higher, while business conditions for the exhibitor have not improved. The producer, therefore, gets more while the exhibitor holds his own or loses ground. 20% Cancellation WITH ED KUYKENDALL, president, * MPTOA, making another public-trade announcement of his desire to fight for a 20% cancellation clause, exhibitors wonder what the next step will be. The 10% privi¬ lege has worked out well in a lot of cases, but there are still some situations whereby through evasions and other devices the exhibitor has been deprived of the right coming to him under the code. Kuykendall hasn’t divulged how he in¬ tends to bring a showdown on the 20% idea, but in it he is certain to have the sup¬ port of the majority of theatremen through¬ out the country. qjuuaa Big news of 1934 in the motion picture industry was the rise of the Legion of Decency, the Catholic boycott on salacious films. Because of its scope, its effect on the industry and its final results in production, distribution and exhibition — first place in trade newsdom must go to the drive of the Catholic church against ob¬ jectionable pictures. The drive had the following effects: (1) It directed front page attention to the presence of any objectionable pictures; (2) It caused the organization of a new production censor system with Joe Breen as head; (3) It led distributors to allow a blanket can¬ cellation of any pictures which might be found objectionable by organizations or community groups (4) It cut into grosses of pic¬ tures; (5) It caused a change in Hollywood production toward a new type of picture; (6) It made the individual theatre community¬ conscious as it never was before; (7) It served notice on the indus¬ try that there would be a permanent checking body, the Legion of Decency, blocking increase of any objectionable shows; (8) It made the business a target not only for sincere crusaders but also enemy-reformers; (9) It shook the foundations of the business from the very top to the very bottom; (10) It started a movement which may yet result in threatened federal regulation. Because of the above, No. 1 News of 1934 was the drive of the Legion of Decency. Well, he made it anyway.