Variety (January 1957)

Wednesday, January 9, 1957 Fifty -fir tt ptfifeHSfY Anniversary PICTURES ''1 ‘CRYING NEEDS’* "-MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY Looking Abend) 1957 And Bejiond Adjustment to TV 1$ Biggest issue By FRED HIFT There are several conclusions — some painful, others optimistic— to which the motion picture indus¬ try has come regarding television during the past year. They break down, roughly, into the following: (1.) The bonds, economic and otherwise, that tie the film biz to its electronic com¬ petition are a lot stronger than had originally been suspected. (2.) Television is competi¬ tion — but only up to a point; after that, the competitive strength of the theatres by far outdistances the homescreen. (3.) TV as competition al¬ most takes a backseat to some other factors having a bearing on the new Amercan way of life, i.e., the move to the sub¬ urbs; credit buying, the bid for the entertainment dollar. (4.) There are questionable values in the use of tv as a pro¬ motional medium to sell theat¬ rical motion pictures. When video first arrived on the serine in strength following the war, the film industry's pose to¬ wards the new medium was one closely resembling contempt. If there were producers who had no¬ tions of flirting with the new out¬ let, the thought of exhibitor re¬ sentment soon dissuaded them. Thus the British had their day, and the air was swamped with their pictures, old and new. Here approximately is the situa¬ tion as it exists today: All but two of the companies — Paramount and Universal — have sold their entire pre-1948 libraries to television, either outright or via leasing arrangements. Almost si¬ multaneously, the quality of the "live” tv shows has dropped appre¬ ciably, and — by the looks of it — the medium has been almost sur¬ rendered to Hollywood. Already there is talk that the post-148 film crop also may be heading for the tv stable. Negotiations with the various guilds are under way. But the production studios, which collected many millions from these sales, aren’t standing still. The stages are busy with films made specifically for televsion, an enter¬ prise started quite early by Screen Gems (Columbia) and later adopt¬ ed in force by such companies as 20th-Fox and Warner Bros. ] _ Shortage At the exhibition end, the “short¬ age” of top attractions has turned the business into something of a seller’s market. The theatres, re¬ luctantly but realistically, have rec¬ ognized that there was nothing they could do to prevent the dam from breaking, particularly once the RKO library had set the pace. And theatremen’s thnking has gone even further. After all the shouting about sub¬ scription television, an Oklahoma circuit is now planning to wire some 4,000 homes in Bartlesville, Okla., and to provide them with new films on a continuous basis. In other words, simply an extension of the theatre seat into the home. How far, the question is asked, is it from there to toll-tv? There is no question at all that the impact of television is one of the strongest contributing factors to the decline in theatrical admissions and to the shape of things to come, i.e., a drastic shrinkage in the ex¬ hibition plant, with the accent on the big firstruns offering the “big*' pictures. ] _ Medium of Mediocrity _ | As Elia Kazan put it very aptly just recently: “Television has taken over as the medium of mediocrity. Now it is up to motion picture to survive with bold, challenging themes.” This is a course clearly indicated by much of the upcoming ^r-oduct in a Hollywood falling in¬ creasingly into the reaches of the’ independents. It is recognized that there are some things television simply, can¬ not do. Certain of the “big” films currently in release — films like “Giant” and “The Ten Command¬ ments” — are unlikely to ever ap¬ pear on the home sets. These are the kind of attractions, tailored for color and huge screens that will ac¬ cent their scope, which will con¬ tinue to draw audiences to the firstruns wherever they may be. These, and the “offbeat” subjects — like “Baby Doll” — which tv neither could nor would present. In that sense, there are those who feel that tv may have done the screen a favor; certainly it has sparked a new kind of creativity and imagination in a medium that (Continued on page 66) Exhibitors Less Neurasthenic Now By HY HOLLINGER Whither Allied States, whither Theatre Owners of America? Du the two exhibitor trade as¬ sociations get together or remain apart? And where stands their “ factory supply ”? The chapter and verse of state¬ ment and counter-statement of the past year would make a weird hodgepodge. But in just such terms of contradiction and oscillation has the shifting tale of conflicting viewpoint been written in this journal. Although there were hopeful, signs at the year's end for a settle¬ ment of the breach between dis¬ tribution and exhibition, 1956, for the most part, was marked by bit¬ ter name-calling and recrimina¬ tions between both segments of the industry. With the industry facing its toughest challenge from tele¬ vision and adverse economic fac¬ tors, the tempers of both factions of the film business exploded on more than one occasion. Each arm of the biz blamed the other for the woes at the paywindow. The theatremen were charged with failure to promote properly on a local level. The distributors were raked for their alleged unfair trade prac¬ tices, involving high rentals, prod¬ uct and print shortages, gimmick rental terms, long-running pictures, and the blockbuster-Only policy. | _ Senate Hearings _ [ The conflict between the warring factions culminated in the nowfamous hearing before the Senate subcommittee of the Select Com¬ mittee on Small Business. Both ex¬ hibitor leaders and film company officials came to Washington armed with evidence and testimony to discuss the problems of the mo¬ tion picture industry. The exhibs called on the Government to inter¬ vene. The film companies defended their actions, asserting that these were dictated by economic condi¬ tions and sound business princi¬ ples and that they had no desire to harm their customers. Except for Harry Brandt’s Independent Theatre Owners Assn., the exhib¬ itors of the nation on this occasion presented a solid front. The Senate hearings which con¬ sumed four days— -March 21, 22 and May 21, 22 — resulted in 760page report, full of statistics, affi¬ davits, and testimony. The report tended to discount the complaints of the theatremen. The Senate hearings neverthe¬ less brought about two concrete results. It indirectly served to win the theatres the -support of Con¬ gress in relation to reducing the Federal admissions tax by exempt¬ ing admissions up to 90c. It also aided in calling to the attention of the Small Business Administra¬ tion the plight of many of the country’s small theatres. As a re¬ sult, the SBA amended its rules whereby theatres would be eligible for loans for theatre. improvements. The hearings left the film com¬ panies in a bitter mood. They felt they have been made the “patsy” for the industry’s troubles and they (Continued on page 66) Orderly Releasing Of Pix Essential By EDWARD L. HYMAN (Vice-President, American Broad¬ casting-Paramount Theatres ) In the past several years we at Paramount Theatres have been be¬ laboring the need for an orderly distribution of quality product throughout the year. Perhaps many have thought us extremely repeti¬ tious, arid even tiresome! But we are confident that we are right and that the crying need is for orderly distribution. The necessity has been so apparent to us that we have kept repeating our thesis in the hope that it would eventually fall upon listening rather than deaf ears and that something construc¬ tive might emerge. In this past year we finally did make progress. Early in the year Leonard Goldenson and I an¬ nounced our 10 Point Program and the wide publicity and endorse¬ ments by all segments of our in¬ dustry convinced us. that we were on the right track. We thereupon set out a follow-through program in which we put forth a tremendous amount of missionary work in or¬ der to make the plan a reality. It did bear some fruit in the past May-June period in that pictures of quality like “The Searchers” and “The Man Who Knew Too Much” were made available. In the period from Thanksgiving to Christmas we will . have played triple “A” features like “Giant,” “Oklahoma,” “Friendly Persuasion” and “Love Me Tender.” | No Gaps in Theatres, Too | However, our work is not done. In the case of these pictures, we urged all exhibitors to put forth' extra efforts in the campaigns and to conceive and consummate ad¬ vertising and exploitation beyond the normal. This was done by many exhibitors. We agree, . and we have continuously stated, that the distributor should not be asked to take all the responsibility for the orderly no-gaps distribution we seek. Complete cooperation among all segments of the industry — pro¬ duction, distribution, and exhibi¬ tion — is absolutely necessary. Our 10-Point Program has, from experience, boiled down to Two Points — (a) The Orderly Distribu¬ tion of Quality Product Through¬ out the Year and (b) The Rebirth of Showmanship — and from the standpoint of the exhibitor, the Rebirth of Showmanship is a fac¬ tor to which he can contribute in order to make the plan a success. Furthermore, this contribution of showmanship should come from the local level. Here is what we mean: _ | Early Strategy Essential | In the first place, we feel that exploitation and advertising campagns for pictures should be con¬ ceived and begun far in advance of release. We have had too many examples of fine quality pictures coming into town unheralded and winding up with results that were undeservedly low. The public must be made, aware of the pictures that are coming and the earlier and more constantly, the better. Leon¬ ard Goldenson has been the fore¬ most advocate of commencing pub¬ licity and exploitation when a pic¬ ture is conceived so that the pub¬ lic will have a continually mount¬ ing interest in the picture up to the date of its release. However, we fully realize that the job of produc¬ tion and distribution is extremely difficult and complex and we also realize the many problems which are obstacles in the way of achiev¬ ing this kind of exploitation and advertising. But we cannot disregard the tre¬ mendous benefits to be derived if our ideal can be accomplished. We have only to look at some of the most recent examples of this kind of pre-selling. (“The Conqueror,” “Trapeze,” “Giant,” “10 Command¬ ments,” etc.) This is where the exhibitor’s co¬ operation on a local level can be invaluable.-* As we have stated, the first order of things in our busi¬ ness is the production of a pic¬ ture and its scheduling for distri¬ bution. Somewhere along this line, and as early as possible, every ex¬ hibitor must do everything possible to help the picture on the local level. We certainly don’t court in this the usual lethargic campaigns we have been experiencing in the past several years. We mean an all-out effort for every picture of quality with every showmanship trick being used. We mean co¬ operation among exhibitors in every local area both from the standpoint of the exhibitor who plays the particular picture and from the standpoint of all such exhibitors on an institutional basis. Who is better equipped than the (Continued on page 66) Birthrate Booms New-Era ‘Parks’ By KAY CAMPBELL Los Angeles. Capitalizing on the booming birthrate of recent years, four ma¬ jor Southern California play¬ grounds — Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel, Marineland, and Corriganville — are racking up record rev¬ enues. Although the eldest of these is a mere 30-months-old, they have grossed an estimated $20 mil¬ lion on a combined investment of approximately $30 million. Taken together, these are a phenomenon with a challenge to pictures. Designed to lure not only the young but the young in arteries, natives as well as nomads and with admission prices pegged to a low scale, the attendance and payoff have spiraled far beyond the in¬ vestors’ wildest dreams. Disneyland opened its 160-acre Magic Kingdom with $17 million worth of attractions and distrac¬ tions July 18, 1955, with an added $2 million last year. Since that date, more than 5,500,000 persons have paid for admission, rides and souvenirs with the total take esti¬ mated at $12,580,000. Boxoffice figures reached a new high last Thanksgiving weekend with 70,000 paid admissions, ranging from 90c for adults to 50c for children. Jack Sayers, who resigned from Look Magazine to assume post of ' manager, has a staff of 700, ding Casey Jones engineers and real live Injuns who add color to Frontierland, Tomorrowland, Adventureland, Main Street and the Plaza. All the junks, gondolas, and rickshas in other parts of the globe have no more breathtaking juveappeal than the horsedrawn streetcar, the jungle , river cruise, or Dumbo the flying elephant. The maximum capacity for rides per day was 98,000; expansion has upped this figure to 197,547 — a peak hit and maintained every weekend last summer. | Food Profit Large | The various food concessions ranging from ice cream parlors and candy stores to large restaurants have an added annual take of more than $2 million. Disneyland Hotel, where young¬ sters not only are welcome but are the ruling sovereigns, made its debut July 1955, but the formal opening was held August ’56. The estimated take to date on this $10,000,000 Wrather-Alvarez enterprise is $1,545,000 — with a sellout week¬ ends and during the 130 days of summer. Kids under 1 are free; rooms are so arranged that parents and two youngsters may share a room for $9 per diem — including private lanal and TV set. Gardens, orange groves (30 acres), swim¬ ming pools, sandpiles, shuffleboard courts, and cascading fountains are thrown in for free. Trained nurses are in attendance at the IndoorOutdoor nursery; and a private tram transports guests to and from Disneyland and meets all heli¬ copter flights. Accurate figures are not avail¬ able for the Gourmet restaurant (Continued on page 66) Italy’s Dreary Fihn Outlook By ROBERT F. HAWKINS Rome. The year 1956 has been one of crisis and readjustment in the Italian Film Industry. The crisis, which saw the . failure of several important companies, including Minerva Films and Diana Cinematografica, as well as the production stoppage of other big outfits such as Documento, Lux, and others, was triggered by the overlong de¬ lay in passage of the protective film legislation, without which the Italian industry has shown it can¬ not live. But the crisis is now felt to have been inevitable, and due more to unrealistic planning, ris¬ ing prices and debts which finally reached the point of no return. The consequence has been some serious thinking in terms of re¬ trenchment and general belt-tight¬ ening, and, though many and seri¬ ous problems remain to be solved, industry officials now hope that the worst has passed and that things will soon again be looking up. For Italy continues to be a profit¬ able market, especially for Yank product, which this year reinforced its dominant boxoffice position with a percentage of the total take varying from 60 to an unprece¬ dented 80%. Allround gross for 1956 is estimated in the vicinity of $180,000,000,. with U.S. cut top¬ ping the $100,000,000 mark. Only a very slight dip is expected in the total number of spectators (some 5-10 million tickets less sold), so that, while for the first time in years no progress was made, the situation has at least remained stable in the face of rising costs, tv, crises, etc. The big news of the year, to¬ gether with the sharp rise of tele¬ vision (see separate story), has been the drop in boxoffice power of the Italian film. With the ex¬ ception of the hybrid “War and Pe^ce,” no worthy successor to previous years’ “Don Camillo” or “Bread, Love, and . . .” as yet ap¬ peared on the scene. Consequently, local producers have become disoriented, with few knowing exactly what market to aim for or what type of picture to make. Situation is exemplified in the recent split of a previously successful production partnership: that of Carlo Ponti and Dino DeLaurentiis, now both on their own. While Ponti was in favor of many smalland medium-budgeters aimed mainly at the Italian market, DeLaurentiis favored few large-bud¬ geted “epics” on an international scale and primarily intended for the American market. Surprising fact is that despite the crisis and the resulting produc¬ tion slowdown, the year’s produc¬ tion total will very probably hit 130 features, about half of them in color. This is only 20 below last year’s figure and easily tops the “quota 100” mark set as an ideal twelvemonth total by ANICA, Italy’s industry association. A large percentage of this inflationary total is this year made up of films made strictly for local consumption, but the future trend appears to be to¬ wards fewer, less costly, “better” pictures — and co-productions. ] _ More U.S. Deals _ _] While co-production and collab¬ oration pacts with France, Ger¬ many, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Great Britain, Argentina, and oth¬ ers have all been renewed and re¬ inforced during the year, 1957 should also show an increase in joint Yank-Italian projects. To this effect, Titanus Films has recently signed a five-picture deal with 20th Century Fox (the same studio has already made “Men and Wolves” for Columbia release; and “The Monte Carlo Story” for (UA) and is talking with Metro on another (one-picture) pact. Ponti is tied to Columbia, while DeLaurentiis has worked with Paramount and may (Continued on page 66)