Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1949)

SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, December 3, 1949 By Way of Explanation Theatre Video Sees Answers In Football By BILL SPECHT (News Editor) Post mortems on the World Series theatre television showings up to now do not seem to have added much to the sum total of what exhibitors are trying to find out about televising big events, but post mortems on the more recent telecasting of the Notre Dame football games seems to be providing a key to some very interesting answers. For the third week of these showings last Saturday at the American Theatres' Pilgrim in Boston, and the first of the butting and battering games at Fabian's Brooklyn Fox, displayed results which dovetail neatly. At the Boston house, the management was all grins. It not only sold out the house at regular admissions, admitted 250 standees which is the maximum number permitted by the Hub City's fire department, but turned away over 500 more. For the first game, the management reported a "good" house, but one which was far from a turnaway. Equally interesting is that while the first football telecast at the Pilgrim was satisfactory as far as attendance is concerned to the management, the second week's had built up and the third had sold out. Apparently word got around that the football telecasts were good and worth seeing and since the 'Pilgrim did not do any extensive advertising, that old factor in show business that can make you or break you — word of mouth — must have done the trick. Comparison Now take this showing made by the Boston Pilgrim and compare it with the Brooklyn Fox and more interesting facts may be deduced. The Fox barely got under the wire with the game — its first football broadcast — last Saturday. Negotiations with DuMont for the right to broadcast were apparently held up to the last minute with the question of price being a hurdle. When both sides got together, it was too late to do much advertising, so the Fabian house practically opened its Notre Dame game cold. The results were that attendance was better than the usual for Saturdays but far from a sellout. The indication is again that an important factor in connection with these large-screen telecasts is not only the initial advertising done by the house and the proper time to do a job with it, but the build-up that is given by patrons who saw it and talk the event up until others hear that the show is good and want to see it too. Regular Admission Incidentally in both houses the Notre Dame game played at regular prices as an added attraction to a double feature. Going Up Admission taxes reported by the U. S. Treasury Department for October, 1949, which reflects the amounts paid at the box-office in September, totalled $35,072,207, or well above the $32,136,111 collected in the same period of 1948. The latest report also showed that the taxes paid by Mr. and Mrs. America during this September were almost equal to those which thev paid in August, 19<8, w'r.ei the take was $32,237,207. 13 Justice Dept. Gets Poison' Report Charging Higher Admission Demand National Allied Wednesday filed a report with the Justice Department in Washington, D. C, which was said to indicate that Columbia or its employes had demanded increased admission in connection with engagement of "Jolson Sings Again." Allied General Counsel Abram F. Myers, when queried about the report, refused to say how many exhibitors had submitted complaints of the alleged pressure made by Columbia in what, if proved, would be a violation of the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the Government anti-trust suit that a distributor may not fix an exhibitor's admission prices. The Allied action is apparently in reply to Columbia General Sales Manager, A. Montague's repeated denials that his company sought any increased admissions and his challenge for exhibitors to produce proof, first sent to the National Allied convention in Minneapolis, (STR, Oct. 29, p. 5). The Allied complaint followed one made by Theatre Owners of America Executive Director Gael Sullivan and General Counsel Herman Levy to the Attorney General in Washington. At the time the TOAites discussed specific cases and promised to furnish documented evidence. Big 3 Seek Divorce Escape In Anti-Trust Suit Proposals The Big 3 — Warner Bros., 20th CenturyFox, Loew's (MGM) — this week formally presented to the New York federal statutory court their proposed decree in the Government antitrust suit which, if accepted, would enable them apparently to escape divorce of exhibition from production and distribution. The proposed decree would also enable these theatre-holding defendants to acquire theatres without court approval, in order to replace those lost by "physical destruction, conversion or nontheatrical purposes" or through expiration of leases. And in apparent line with the thought that, divorce may be avoided, it would enable any of the Big 3 to rent films as they saw fit to theatres in which they had a proprietary interest or indirectly. This clause, Section V, reads : "Nothing contained in this decree shall be construed to limit, in any way whatsoever, the right of each distributor-defendant to license, or in any way to arrange or provide for, the exhibition of any or all the motion pictures which it may at any time distribute, in such manner, and upon such terms, and subject to such conditions as may be satisfactory to it, in any theatre in which such distributor-defendant has a proprietary interest, either directly or through subsidiaries." Divorce Escape The divorce escape clause appears in the third paragraph of Section IV of the Big 3 proposals — a section whose first two paragraphs set out to provide for separation of exhibition from production-distribution. Paragraph 1 of this section calls upon the Big 3, within one year after the decree is handed down, to furnish a plan for divorce and give the Justice Department six months in which to object. Paragraph 2 calls, upon the Government to furnish a divorce plan within a year after the decree is handed down and gives the Big 3 six months to object. But Para(Continitcd Page 14) Trade Sees ^Curley^ Censor Fight As Slated for U. S. Supreme Court Possibility that the Motion Picture Association of America-sponsored fight against Memphis censorship would be carried to the U. S. Supreme Court if the Tennessee high court upholds a lower court decision against United Artists and Hal Roach in the "Curley" case was seen in trade circles this week. The possibility gained the strength of a nearcertainty when a spokesman for the MPAA, which is backing the ''Curley" fight, in answer to a question, asserted that the law permitted an appeal direct to the U. S. Supreme Court from the state Supreme Court. The "Curley" case, filed by United Artists and Hal Roach after Alemphis Censor Lloyd Binford had banned the film because it showed white and Negro children together, lost out wrhen the court questioned the right of United Artists to sue on the ground that it was not a corporation licensed to do business in Tennessee. The court also, according to a spokesman for the MPAA, which is backing the fight, upheld the validity of the censor ordinance. The MPAA spokesman added that the original petition in the suit had challenged censorship among other reasons, as being violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution. A news story in Showmen's Nov. 26, had credited the "Lost Boundaries" case, and attacking censorship in Atlanta, as being the first to invoke the constitutional amendments. Pa. Censors Appeal Video Knock-Out Pennsylvania's censor appealed to the third U. S. Circuit 'Court of Appeals this week against a federal court decision which knocked out their power to censor films used over television. The issue was raised by Pennsylvania video stations when the censor board attempted to extend the pow-ers it new has over films shown in theatt-ps to tho^e shown over television. As a result, Federal Judge William H. Kirpatrick ruled that the censors' action encroached on the powers of the Federal Communications Commission. The issue of the right of films to freedom from censorship under constitutional provisions for free speech was not raised, as they have been in the "Lost Boundaries" suit against Atlanta censorship.