Variety (September 1952)

incrvnES TV Hot f rime Irritant’ Continued from page 5 .i — ^ accepted in the home, even as radio.” Harry Arthur, of the Fanchon & Marco circuit, has these. opinions on the question of v’deo: “I believe that our business Ij suffering from causes that are more fundamental than TV . . . people would still patronize motion picture theatres, if they had the money, in pref- erence to TV. although TV will always have its plactv perhaps to a greater extent than radio. TV could not compete with motion pic- tures theatres if we had personali- ties comparable to the ones we had in the past - say, 25 yeari ago, and of course 25 years younger— and if admission prices were dras- tically slashed so they would still be the cheapest form of exitertain- ment.” Robt. Selig Boesn*t Fear TV Robert W. Selig, assistant to the proxy of Fox Intermountain, thea- tres, with GHQ in Denver, nois'd: *‘So 'far, this area, ranging in the great inter-mouncain sector all the A^ay from the Canadian line to the Mexican border, has not fully felt the impact of television. It is here: but it is here only in part. “We have • tried to study and J benefit by the experience of others in anticipation of televisiop. We are not fearing it nor are we run- ning from it. \7e Intend to meet it head on, using it to our advantage where we can; and vigorously com- peting with it at the same time. “We have what we believe will be an effective, hard-hitting cam- paign which will draw a sharp com- parison between the advantages of a viewer of television and a viewer of a motion picture. . . , “Certainly, in our thinking about television must be large-screen tel- evision, third dimensional pictures, new pnU’on .services and comfort, fresh approaches to advertising and exploitation and, of course, coii- tinued improvement of product to mnke movie attendance more ex-- citing and compulsory.” More concerned about the en- croachment of TV is Edwin Silver- man, of Essaness Theatres, who writes from Chicago: “The time when the public will have digested the novelty of TV home entertain- ruent is quite distant, if not a wispy mirage. This is due to the fact that the convenience of TV in your liv- ing room, plus man’s natural lazi- ness, overrides the lack of quality. Not many share my opinion, but I am convinced that if, by utilizing Eidophor or some similar system, the motion picture theatre provides sufficient big events, including sporting .events, we will help gross- es nationally (and Hollywood will simultaneously benefit as will big league baseball, prizefight promo- tion, or any other source from which boxoffice entertainment ema- nates). Remember, home TV coast- ed along for years until that added something—sports—came into the home. We have to use the same formula to entice them back to the theatres. The public still likes mo- tion pictures. This is pfbven by their patronage of drive-ins, which is akin to modern packaging of a commodity in any other line of business.” B. 0, Ruined by Trade Practices, Claims Selig On Wie subject of quick playoffs, Selig says: “I believe that most of our own trade practices are de- stroying or disturbing business as much as television. Particularly do I refer td the shortened availabil- ities, which means the continual encroachment on first-runs and which destroys the rental possibili- ties for the distributors and profit possibilities for the first-run thea- tres. .“I also believe that the accelerat- ed liquidation, which brings about the creation of dozens of day-and- date subsequent run availabilities In the community, destroys the boxoffice potential of a given pic- ture because there is no choice for the public. He either sees that picture or he sees nothing.” The subject of “middle-grade” films drew this comment from Snaper: “The solution, as to mid- dle-grade films, is perhaps a mest di"'ficult one to distributor and ex- hibitor—^where to play them and how to play them. We used to be able to bolster them with give- aways, gimmicks, bingo, etc. These no longer are successful in many areas. The obvious answer is to play them and duck.” According to F&M’s Arthur, "the trouble with the vast quantity of the middle-grade filfns is that they are the wrong subjects. We should get back to the fundamentals of entertainment—escapist^ if you are to call it that. We should make many more low-budget pictures with pronHsing personalities who can graduate into big films. I do not think they have to make bet- ter pictures or bigger ones. By and large the average is about the same as it always has been, if you would eliminate the problem, propaganda and the psychiatric pictures , . . Great impetus can be given the business by major studios making jnany more “B” pictures; comb the highways and byways for new, young and fresh talent, and pre- sent them often.” Fox Inter-Mountain, according to Selig, uses the middle-grade pix to advantage. “We use these pictures,” he said, “with other activities, such as car giveways (we now are giv- ing away three automobiles in every one of our territories on the midweek changes), cash clubs and special events which we create for the midweek change.” ^ ‘Streamline’ Only Helps Distribs—Snaper On distrib streamlining, Snaper says that consolidation of dis- tributor facilities will be to the benefit of the distributor, net the exhibitor. “I do iiot think there is much to ‘streamlining’ distribution,” Arthur asserts. “The amount that could be sav^d is infinitesimal compared to what can be saved in the studios.” R. B. Wilby, of Wilby-Kincey Theatres, writes from Atlanta: “Distributors have ceased to be wholesalers and become retailers, specialty salesmen. Their costs are catching up with them, so they talk of pooling part of their business to reduce those costs. And it will prob- ably work as long as there is the present shortage of pictures and the Seller's market. But* I am not so naiver after all of these years as to expect exhibitors to share in any savings.” Silverman and Fox Inter-Moun- tain’s Selig see some possibilities in streamlining, but make no com- ment* as to the possibilities of sav- ings for exhibs. Selig: “We think that the consolidation of backroom exchange facilities by all companies would be a great Step forward in reducing expense and improving efficiency. We see no reason for this not to go forward at once since it would not create any unem- ployment problem, but on the other hand would consolidate a function which need not be spread over many exchanges.” ‘Impossible 5’ to ‘Maybe’ On Pic Selling by Mail Question of selling by mail brings comments of “impossible” to “maybe.” Snaper: “Selling by mail—^impossible!! A basis not re- quiring regular calls by salesman is already being used by some com- panies in specified areas. The sales- men today don’t call on exhibitors regularly. Many accounts through- out the country are not called on for periods of months, and some- where difficulties exist between salesman and exhibitor, the months stretch into years. It is my sincere belief that the contact and relation- ship of salesmen-exhibitor that has been lost in the past few years has been harmful. If salesmen had the right to make a deal with the ex- hibitor without the necessity of having homeoffices, contract de- partments, clerks, etc., send them back for another $2,50, much time, money and effort would be saved. However, as to the business of any savings- by distribution to the bene- fit of the exhibitor customers, please, how naive can we be!” Arthur terms the idea of mail- selling as ineffective. “One thing,” the F&M exec declares, “that kept the exhibitors on their toes in by- gone years was the constant visits by film salesmen full of enthusiasm and their terrific sales talks. The film salesmen inspired and imbued the exhibitor with a desire to go out and exploit and advertise his pictures to get the most out of .them. “The concentration of selling in the homeoffices, making nothing but officeboys of the local repre- sentatives, ,who do most of their contacting by telephone or mail, has gone a long way toward bring- on lethargy on the part of all c,\hibitors. “They ought to get some of the oldtime style salesmen and put P^iEiff them out on the road, calling on the exhibitors, talking to them, pepping them up—not sit in^.the offk« and call the exhibitor on'the telephone and ask him how much he wants to bid for Joe Palooka’s latest opus.” Silverman reveals that it seems to him “that a great deal of selling of marginal accounts can be done by mail.” He was successful with direct-mail campaigns way back in the days of Select Pictures. “Fur- thermore,” he notes, “the distribu- tor has ascertained that with bid- ding the salesman. does not have to call, but ‘the postman will ring twice’ if* the exhibitor wants the picture.” Studio Salaries Still ‘Excessive’—Silverman Comments by the exhib toppers on other aspects of the business are as follows: Silverman: “The entire business, whether it be stockholders or key personnel, must cut the cloth to fit the pattern of a new amusemept era. Good entertainment will con- tinue to pay off, but because ours is a volume business, it can’t stand steady losses with which it has been confronted. Therefore, it is my guess that the big studios will be in dire straits unless they offer the possibility Of participating profits to those who are entitled to it, in return for decreased original capital investments. The business can no longer stand excessive salaries, whether represented by exhibitors or production salaries, and last, but not least, feather- bedding.” Arthur: “Another anti-film box- office irritant is the cost of baby- [ sitters. You will remember bg^c I theatres became so high-toh'e^ii^ snooty, they welcomed children in arms and children with their pa- rents, but during the war years, it was discouraged. .In fact some theatres put up signs saying ‘babies in arms not admitted,’ and charged high and sometimes adult prices for children.” Wilby on Advertising ’Wilby: “We simply need to cause people to think they want to see more pictures than they now think they want to see. And that, of course, is advertising or exploita- tion, or what you will call it. “Not very long ago I had occa- ,sion to look at the picture pages of most of the large papers ^in the country. In almost every case they were a conglomeration of posters, with unconvincing smart - alecky ‘catch-lines’ running up to about 22 words. I'do not think that that sort of things creates very much de- sire to see a picture. So the thea- tre is dependent upon the desire created either by the mass pub- licity preceding the release (“Quo. Vadis,” “Greatest ShcAv,” etc.) or just by the known salable values (star, well-known story, and what not). And that leaves an awful lot of them unsold. “For my own part I think that good copy, whether for radio, newspapers or television, can help more than any other one I:hing.” Disney — Continued from page 7 ~ —- He hopes thus to take advantage of the successful group he gathered together for his first pix, instead of seeing them scatter after each film and running into difficulty engag- ing top talent. ’ Thus he left in England Perc Pearce, his American aide, who was in charge of production of “T.I” and “Ro_bin Hood” and who is performing’a similar chore on the next three. Lawrence E. Wat- kin .wrote the scripts of “T.I.,” “Robin Hood” and “Sword and the Rose,” and is now doing “Rob Roy.” Ken Annakin, who directed “Robin Hood,” is likewise doing “Sword” and wiU do “Rola Roy.” Production crew is similarly being held for all the pix. Immediately after completion of “Rob Roy,” Disney will start on “20.000 Leagues Under the Sea,” to be made in live-action in the U, S. It will be done partly at the studio and partly off the coast of Florida or the Bahamas. •Meantime, the. studio is working^ on three animated features. “Peter Pan” will be released next spring; “Lady and the Tramp” in 1954 and “Sleeping Beauty” in 1955. Incidentally, “Lady^ and the Tramp” is a story of life seen through the eyes of dogs. “Lady” in the title is a cocker who falls in love with an unpedigreed “tramp.” Wednesday, Seplcmbei* 10, 1952 i-| ., ii ii in.-r i mmiiiririm»ni >i i iiii n i »n iii t rt i mnurninn-'iTTifmr Par-DuMont Findings Filed Continued from pase K tory or agreement between the “A” and “B” directors and a long history of delegation of power to Dr. DuMont and Paul.Ralbourn to work as a team on important com- pany affairs. Raibourn’s activities in DuMont, according to the brief, show that he has been “an active and dynamic influence in DuMont’s financial and other affairs.” Bureau pointed out that Raiboum is DuM’s chief finan- cial officer with responsibility to see that funds, securities, receipts and disbursements are properly handled. Bureau also asserted that Rai" bourn’s power in supervising DuM’s financial operations “pene- trates, by his direct participation, or by his supervised delegation.-of his duties, Into every aspect of the company’s affairs.” • Finally, the brief states, “although Paramount’s competitive ventures in the TV field have generated acrimony and extended negotiations looking to- ward an end of their DuMont rela- tionship, the fact remains th'at Paramount and the DuMont group are still firmly wedded. Unless Paramount takes over the election of all the members of the ‘board by a successful proxV contest, or conversely relinquishes its pre- ferred position as a stockholder, this relationship . . . will continue.” Until the control issue, which has been pending for nearly four years, is resolved, neither DuMont nor Par will be permitted their full complement of five TV sta- tions—the limit allowed one own- er by the FCC. DuMont now has three stations and Par one. DuMont, through its counsel, Roberts & MeInnis, told the Com- mission that it is Class A stock (of which Par holds 2.8%), which con- trols the company, chooses its president (Dr. Allen B. DuMont) and elects five of Its eight direc- tors. Leadership of Dr. DuMont, the company declared, has converted Class A stockholders into “a co- herent force” in support of the DuMont management. DuMont’s brief pointed to a(i- missions by Par prexy Barney Balaban, in testimony at the hear- ings, that he has been unable to influence Df. DuMont’s policies on dividends, financing and expendi- tures. It further asserted that Dn DuMont was never subservient to Par’s wishes, even when it was a small company. And today, it added, DuMont is actively com- peting with Par in the manufac- ture and development of electronic equipment (Par holds a 50% inter- est in Chromatic TV Labs, which is developing the Lawrence Tri- color tube) and in distribution of TV programs. In Los Angeles, it pointed out, DuMont has a TV af-‘ filiate which competes with Par’s video outlet, KTLA. DuMont’s Reasons DuMont’s findings gave the fol- lowing reasons why Par’s three directors cannot exercise control over the DuMont board: 1. Dr. DuMont makes sure no meetings are held without the Du- Mont majority present. 2. Par has been unable to in- fluence policies which Dr. DuMont was determined to invoke. 3. Paul Raiboum, Par member, on the DuMont board and DuMont treasurer, relies on compaoy audi- tors and does not Sign checks. 4. Board determines who shall write checks and usually selects Dr. DuMont or Stanley Patten, vee- pee, a duMont man. 5. DuMont’s future plans for broadcasting expansion are inde- pendent of Par. 6. DuMont doesn’t need Par for financing future expansion and doesn’t need its consent. 7. TJnder Securities Exchange Commission policies, veto powers held by Par over changes in the corporate charters do not consti- tute control. 8. Par’s right to solicit Class A proxies does not give it control on basis of the FCC approval of CBS- Hyti'on merger and purchase of Crosley by AVCO. 9. Minority representation on the bo ard has never been con- sidered" control by PCC in regula- tion of telephone companies. Finally, DuMont argued, no single right accorded Par gives it any influence whatever in control- ling DuMont policies; therefore ag- gregate of these influences are not controlling. Contrasting Par’s relationship with theatre subsidiaries in pre- divorcement days with its intere.st in DuMont, brief asserted that Par owned 50-100% of voting stock and elected at least half of directors of the theatre companies. It further declared that while Par determined dividend policies of theatre sub- sids, it was unable to get DuMont to pay a particular dividend in 1951 and was unable to stop Du- Mont from issuing 250,000 shares of Class A stock in 1950, which provided DuMont with $5,650,000 of worldng capital. Brief quotes Dr. duMont as re- lating that Balaban, prior to join- ing the DuMont hoard, “pleaded for the same kind of affiliation or partnership relationship” he had with his theatre associates and that Balaban “lamented” Dr. DuMont rejection of a partnership slalus. itaising Coin Via Stock, Loans Paramount’s brief, filed through Arnold, Fortas & Porter, while acknowledging that Par has power to vetoamendments to DuMont charter, pointed out that “A” di- rectors, without amending the charter, can raise several million dolors by issuing stock already authorized and additional sums through loans. “Thus,” brief declared, “Para- mount could not prevent DuMont from applying for- construction permits for additional stations or from carrying out any other pres- ently contemplated expansion.” As to its right to, solicit “A” proxies, brief admitted that Par “could conceivably gain control of DuMont” by such solicitation bt^ this possibility of a change in vot- ing control “is a danger faced by the management of any corporate licensee whose stock is widely dis- tributed.” But anyway, the brief asserted “it Is' unlikely that Paramount could wean away .any of Dr, Du- Mont’s associates or many of the stockholders whose votes they cast. It is generally conceded that suc- cessful management cannot be de- feated in a proxy fight.” . But “even if control could be exercised in some manner,” brief argued, “the fact Is that it has not been. Paramount has not solicited proxies and does not intend to. It has approved every recommenda- tion that Dr. DuMont has made to amend the certificate of incorpora- tion to authorize issuance of addi- tional stock. Paramount’s ‘‘B’* directors lost each of the three dis- putes that have arisen between the “A” and “B” directors. Pointing to the Commission’s contention that actual exercise of control is not necessary if the “right or power” to control is pres- ent, brief concludes that “this way may be true where control actu- ally exists” but doesn’t apply to a situation “where affirmative steps must be taken by a person before he even acquires the power.” In the DuMont situation, brief argues, "Paramount does not ex- ercise any power of control and cannot have such power unless it takes affirmative action such as engaging in a proxy fight, purchas- ing more Class A stock, etc. Un- less and until such things occur. Paramount has no power to con- trol DuMont even if it should de- sire to do so.” ‘Uncle Tom’ '• Continued from page 3 • - ■ ‘ illegally making use of its version of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” made in 1927. A musical background was added to the pic shortly a^ter th# introduction of sound, U said. Charging that Underwood had duped the film from an old print, U said that Underwood had added a narrator who read the titles. Film outfit claimed that Underwood had removed all U credits and had added instead “Howard G... Under- wood presents ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’ Produced by Howard G. Under- wood, Copyrighted 1950.” U also pointed out that an addi- tional title claimed the film was the original production made at a cost of $500,000. Actually, the filmery said, the pic cost more than $2,000j0p0. Strange aspect of the case is that the film has been showing in hun-- dreds of theatres and drive-ins and has been doing tremendous biz, often outgrossing many present- day pictures. Following issuance of the writ, the marshall seized the prints in Underwood’s garage. They will remain impounded pend- ing a hearing on U’s rooiio t ‘’o" a permanent injunction and damages.