Showmen's Trade Review (1945)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

October 13, 1945 SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW 43 No. 8 — A Continuing Scries of Reports by Experts on Problems of Vital Importance Effect of Construction Costs on Postwar Building; Economy of Installing Third Projector Top Topics On Council Agenda STR THEATRE ADVISORY COUNCIL C. B. AKERS GRIFFITH THEATRES K. F. ANDERSON W. S. BUTTERFIELD THEATRES W. H. APPLEGATE, CENTURY CIRCUIT W. B. ARMSTRONG GOLDEN STATE THEATRES E. E. CLEVELAND WESTERN MASS. THEATRES DICK DICKSON NATIONAL THEATRES EMANUEL FRISCH RANDFORCE AMUSEMENT CORP. ME FOX INTER HERMAN R. MAIER WARNER BROTHERS CIRCUIT HARRY MOSCOW1T2 LOEWS INCORPORATED L. PARMENTIER EVERGREEN THEATRES SAMUEL ROSEN FABIAN THEATRES FRANK D. RUBEL WOMETCO THEATRES R. SCHM1D MINNESOTA AMUSEMENT CO CLAYTON TUNSTILL MALCO THEATRES R. VAN GETSON BALABAN and KATZ CORP, JULES S. WOLFE FAMOUS PLAYERS CANADIAN Theatre owners and the executives of theatre circuits are businessmen and therefore the vital matter of costs arises as a most important factor in connection with the scope as well as the general character of theatre renovation and new building that is to take place in the theatre field within the next year. The big question with theatremen who have plans set for extensive improvement to existing properties as well as blueprints for entirely new structures is "how much above prewar price levels will building and equipment costs go?" So far the whole thing is something of a guessing game, but here and there a fairly accurate index may be found and upon such the members of STR's Theatre Construction and Maintenance Advisory Council have made some approximations of the increases that may be expected to prevail in the earliest stages of the postwar production era — once such gets under way. The estimates are not such as to create much beaming of countenance on the face of any theatreman who expects to build and equip a theatre in 1945 and 1946 for what he could have built and equipped it in 1941. If there are any such in the audience, we recommend that they hold their hats — because the most conservative estimate for new building puts the increase over prewar levels at not less than 25 per cent. That's for construction. The rise, as indicated for work in some sections of the country, is likely to go up to a feverish 40 per cent above prewar costs, so some of the council members think at any rate. On equipment, the rise will not be so sharp, but, to paraphrase Mercutio's remarks about the wound he gets dueling in "Romeo and Juliette," while the rise in equipment costs may not be high as Mount Everest, it will prove to be a pretty steep hill for many and many a theatre owner. The consensus puts the approximate increase over prewar equipment costs at approximately 20 per cent. (One of the major factors of costs in this item, of course, is the installation, which requires labor — and labor will be paid far higher wages than prevailed in 1940-41.) Judging from the Council discussions of construction plans, there has been very little delay in getting postwar plans into work due to uncertainty as to what new materials would be available or adaptable to theatre construction uses. On the contrary, the delays are basically caused by the lack of general building supplies, equip ment and manpower. A member, in discussing his problems said : "Our biggest bottleneck at the moment seems to be textiles and upholstery materials. Also the shortage of lumber has changed some of our building methods." Another member cites the difficulty of obtaining materials for the renovation of theatre fronts, such as metal poster cases, etc. Air conditioning equipment is high on the list of items needed to complete projected plans. A number of members expressed interest in finding out what improvements will be available in the sound system field and are reserving decisions as to extent of sound equipment replacement they will OK until more detailed information is available. While discussing projection and sound, we popped a question about the wisdom and economic value of installing a third projector in the average booth of the smaller independent theatre, or of keeping an extra projector mechanism as a spare for emergencies. As might be expected, there was a considerable difference of opinion on this subject. Almost half the council members expressed the belief that a third projector in the average theatre was not only desirable but that the practice would rapidly increase in popularity as the proper way to equip a theatre. To fairly present both sides of this nip and tuck controversy we offer the following quotes, both pro and con : "By all means! A third projector is good insurance and in the long run will not cost any more except, of course, the initial investment. Projection equipment is the heart of any theatre and should be protected as much as possible." "We have over 50 (exact number deleted) operating theatres in our circuit and in no case do we have three projectors in a projection booth. In most cases we have spare intermittents and main drive gears as precautionary measures for emergency in event of breakdowns. My personal belief is that the small independent can operate with two projectors as satisfactorily as our circuit can." These two opinions seem to state the views of both sides. All the Council members, of course, do advocate the importance of having an extra head quickly accessible should the need arise. Some suggest standardization of equipment in towns where several houses can share the cost of a spare mechanism.