Variety (February 1959)

Wednesday, February 4, 1959- ttijSiETT PICTURES STARS LOOK DOWN ON FLOPS By $6,000,000 Washington, Feb. 3. Cash dividends paid by film com¬ panies during 1953 fell almost $6,000,000 below 1957 total, pre¬ liminary figures disclosed by Com¬ merce Dept. Sunday (1) disclosed. Last year, publicly reported cash dividends added -up to $21,424,000, according to preliminary figures. Revised and final ’57 total was $27,350,000. - During month of December, div¬ idends came to $3,354,000, com¬ pared to $4,123,000 dhring same month a year earlier. December dividends for both years, with the ’58 amount first and the ’57 listed second, are as follows: Allied Artists Picture Corp., $12,000 and $14,000; Amer¬ ican Broadcasting-Paramount Thea¬ tres, $1,118,000 and $1,123,000; Consolidated Amusement Co., Ltd., of Hawaii, $104,000 and $140,000; Official Films, Inc., none and $133,000; Paramount Pictures Corp., $900,000 and $986,000; 20th Century-Fox, $1,047,000 and $1,- 058,000; United Artists Corp., $168,000 and $147,000; United Art¬ ists Theatre Circuit, $5,000 and $5,000; and Universal Pictures Co., none and $517,000. Unadorned Eyed By Seal, Duchess Ava Stretches Conch & MPAA Code United Artists and the Adver¬ tising Code came to a parting of the ways—again—this week over the ads for “The Naked Maja” which show Goya’s portrait of the Duchess of Alba reclining in the nude. In the picture, the Duchess is played by Ava Gardner. Although the painting appears in the film itself, the Code in N.Y. said it had no place in the ads. Another objection involved an il- lustra,tiqn :i §ho#ing Anthony Fran- ciosa and Miss Gardner In a clinch on a couch. After considerable discussion, UA told Ad Code administrator Gordon White, Monday (2), that it would- go ahead with the ads as planned, whether or not this meant refusal of the Code seal. Theoret¬ ically;'the withholding of ad ap¬ proval by the MPAA could mean withdrawal also of the bhsic Code seaL Latter already has been given to the UA release. This is the second time within a few months that UA tangled with the Code on ads. In Decem¬ ber, the Code refused to okay some of the language in the “Anna Lu- casta” ads. That problem was straightened out. T&ven if the ad code seal is with¬ hold, UA appears to be fully de¬ termined to go ahead with the reilease of the film, though such action is likely to have serious reverberations among . the other companies, all of whom fight daily, with White over the approval of ad! campaigns. TjORSE’S MOUTH’WOWS 1 ROYAL FILM GALA \ London, Feb, 3. Royal Film Gala attended by Queen Mother and Princess Mar¬ garet hailed “Horses’ Mouth’’ as best “Command” entry ever. Na- tinal dailies' critics endorsed this view with rave notices. Brief stage interlude featured Max Bygraves introducing British, American and Continental stars. Maurice Chevalier was given an ovation after singing “Louise.” Gala netted over $56,000 for in¬ dustry charities. Arthur Krim, Lau-. ren Bacall, Juliette Greco and Sir Alec Guinness were among those presented to Royal party. Valerie Harper, dancer .in the film "Rock, Rock, Rock,” signed for the upcoming Broadway musical, "Dastry Rides Again.” : Brigitte Leads Yank Importers ; But Where ? The foreign film business in the States is finding itself on. the horns of a dilemma. With its eyes firmly on the bright star of Brigitte Bar- dot and the dollar, it has come to a fork in the road and must now decide in which direction to proceed. Being essentially schizophrenic in nature, traditionally confused by the fine line between “art” and “exploitation,” which they theip- selves have drawn, the independent distributors would like to go off in both directions. But killing two flies with one stone isn’t an every day kind of trick. Since the war, the indies have lived, and some have prospered on the “art” film from Europe. The major newspaper' critics have contributed to the popular image of “art” by praising as such many Continental pictures which ap¬ peared offbeat in America; i.e., Hollywood terms. Until fairly re¬ cently, the outlets for such films were limited and the pictures ca¬ pable of “breaking out” constitut¬ ed a small minority. Since the advent of Mile. Bar- dot, and - the drop in the availa¬ bility of the American product, the indies have been able to widen their horizons via the socalled “commercial" pictures . from Eu¬ rope. Dubbing is on tthe rise and the indies now talk of “volume” bookings. The accent is on the sex¬ ploitation film and “art” has be¬ come a byproduct. It’s been clear for some time that the foreign film biz is being split by its desires to (1)^ maintain a certain integrity by importing films with artistic merit, and (£) shoot the works on sensationalism and “volume.” This has irritated the critics, who’re important in that area, and it has raised con¬ siderable questions for both dis¬ tribution and the theatres. * The indies say that reviewers have gotten into a rut, determined¬ ly measuring all imports against the yardstick 'of “art.” Frequently this -results in bitter disappoint¬ ment since these films are designed for commercial purposes. Many houses have been exper¬ imenting with imports of one kind or another. But they’ve been hung up on the difference between New York and the rest of the country. Pictures that do well in Gotham aren’t necessarily 1 -of appeal else¬ where. Out-of-N. Y. theatres need at least 52 pictures a yejar which, if they’re to be consistent, means they have to mix up all types of foreign films. The question is: Will the public go for the mixed diet? “There obviously is room for sex and exploitation films from abroad,” Edward L. .Kingsley of Kingsley-International, who’s been' handling two Bardot pictures, said last week. “At the same time, the public' will stand still for them only so. long. Exhibitors must give the ’good’ films a chance, even if it’s a losing proposition once in a while. Everyone has to suffer losses sometimes, its the nature of this business. But it’s the only way tqi stay in business until that win¬ ner comes along.” Public gets stung many times, Kingsley opined, and in the for¬ eign field it seems willing to be misled more often than with Holly, wood pix. “But the type of exploi¬ tation now connected with Euro¬ pean pictures is bound to take its toll and people are going to catch on to the ’desperation’ ads sooner or later. How long can the ‘cheat¬ ers’ stay alive?” , Problem is that the image of the foreign film in New York differs vastly from its perspective 'else¬ where. Here, partly under the pres¬ sure of the critics, an attempt is made to please the sophisticates who’ll appreciate what Europe tells of itself in its films. Out of New York, the accent is purely on sex. Artistic pictures get about 50% of their revenue from-New York, and sometimes more. Filins like “Gervaise,” “Pather Fanchali,” “Captain von Koepen- ick,” “Porte de Lilas” and others have done impressively at their N. Y. showcase and have failed to draw throughput the country. Occasionally, as with the Swedish “The Seventh Seal,” this procedure may be reversed, but not often. One circuit was in effect formed in smaller cities where the Bardot pictures cleaned up. When it came to booking some of the better im¬ ports, the public stayed away. “There’s no anticipating the mar¬ ket. The only thing we know is that, for the most part, the for¬ eign ‘art* film is limited and it’ll stay that way. But exhibitors would make a terrible mistake to discard it for the sake of exploitation product,” said Kingsley. He. added that, in 1959, the impact of dubbed pictures would, for the first time, be strongly felt. “It’s true that the commercial houses, as a rule, will still book a reissue rather than an import if they need product, but that’s grad¬ ually breaking down. We have a Fernandel picture, ‘Man With a Raincoat,* which we’ve dubbed and on which we’re shooting strictly for volume. Many others have done likewise. Of course, a lot of good films are going to be ruined that way, being dubbed just to get wider bookings.” Indies are complaining that it’s tougher now than ever to find a “good” foreign film. In part, this is due to Europe’s own conscious¬ ness of “limited” art vs. the com¬ mercial potential of exploitation product But the taste differences are highly unpredictable. v “He Who Must Die,” a pronounced success at the Beekman Theatre in N. Y. right now, died in France and was rated zero for the U. S. On the other hand, many pictures suc¬ cessful on the Continent failed to make a dent in the States. This inconsistency has brought gray hairs to the indies who have to decide whether to plunk down high guarantees to French producers who, in turn, have been stung in the past by selling for peanuts films which, eventually, turned into high grossers in the States. Denver Post Forgets Free Distribution Periodical Via Screen Audiences The most recent effort to start a special publication, devoted com¬ pletely to films, for distribution free in the nation’s theatres ap¬ pears to have stalled. The Denver Post, which had hoped to enter the field, has notified Robert W. Selig, head of the Fox Inter-Mountain Theatres, that “softness iti the-na- tional advertising field” has forced it to abandon the project for the time being. First revelation of the project, to be known as Movie Parade, was made at Theatre Owners of Amer¬ ica convention in Miami Beach last October and was received by . ex¬ hibitors with considerable fanfare. It immediately won the endorse¬ ment of the convention^ Halt of the Denver Post plan marks the third abortive effort during 1958 to commence a publi¬ cation for gratis distribution in film houses. Two other groups had visions of publishing programs for film, theatres similar to the legit theatre’s Playbill One was known as Showbill and the other as Screenbill, but neither got off the groqpd. Meet Fidel Castro A threereel color subject on Cu¬ ba’s Fidel Castro, made by Cuba- cclor, the Cuban newsreel com¬ pany, has been acquired for U. S. release by Bruce Balaban. Balaban, Who owns all but the Haiti and Cuban rights to-the foot¬ age, said last week he planned to edit it down to one or two reels, depending on local theatre needs. Maria Schell in N.Y. to do tv. ‘Volume’ of Overseas Rentals Called Illusory; Real Key Must Be Trofits Stocks’ Total Value Amusement ^tocks as of the end of January had a total trading value of $116,829,528 on the New York Stock Ex¬ change. The group was ahead of such other industries as the building trade, leather and its products, office equipment, real estate and textiles in terms of the market value. [Cuba Stops Coin For Time Being . Revolutionary government in Cuba has put a stop to remittances of dollar earnings of imported mo¬ tion pictures, according to a letter sent by Antonio Garcia, Allied Artists’ rep in Havana, to the home- office. He added he was confident remittances would be resumed after the new regime has had the opportunity to check on foreign- origin money accounts. Garcia’s letter, datqd Jan. 17, also related that the new govern¬ ment set Jan. 29. as the date for the beginning of a duties import on* imported pictures. Heretofore they’ve been duty free. . John Sturges off to Burma, Thai¬ land and Cej’lon to prepare for the location filming of Metro’s “Never So Few” with Frank Sinatra. By FRED HIFT Ate the American film com¬ panies abroad putting too great an emphasis on volume and gross rather than on net receipts and remittances? Some executives says this is so, and they blame a number of sup¬ posedly short-sighted industry poli¬ cies overseas on this very fact What’s more, they say, the accent on volume has tended to obscure some of the more unpleasant facts of the foreign market where ris¬ ing costs have reached the point where a re-evaluaton of the entire overseas operation is in order. “We’re so busy running up bill¬ ings abroad that it’s literally a case of not seeing the woods for the trees,” ' commented one foreign exec in *N. Y. last week. “When you do a volume business, and billings are high, it looks good and you seem to justify your existence. Ac¬ tually, our net figures don’t look so good and more small films lose monev than arv of the companies are willing to admit.” Argument ties in with the Euro¬ pean conterition that the U. S. dis¬ tributors are shipp 5 ng in films which, by the very nature of the changing market, can’t make out On the books, these pictures do, of course, help pile up volume and billings. It’s only when all the costs are assessed and added up that the losses become apparent. By this time, however, the local of- j fice has made a good showing, j Aded to this is the odd fact that,. in some territories, the Yank out-1 fits actually get more licenses than they can profitably cover. That’s in | turn due to the shrinking produc¬ tion volume. However, the com-' (Continued on page 18) ‘INSURE 1 A FILM By GENE ARNEEL While resentment among the employers (producers and the stu¬ dios) against the hired .help (ac¬ tors) has grown markedly In past year because of top demand tal¬ ent’s soaring remuneration ideas, the key question that has come to the fore in Hollywood is, "Hpw much is a name performer really worth?*’ The answer is elusive—indeed, probably impossible. But some provocative if inconclusive clue* as to the boxofflce value of some of the top thesps can be found in matching the casts of pictures of a relatively recent period against the b.o. tally. . Among the conclusions (and con¬ flicts) that can be recognized are these: The “good” picture is bol¬ stered commercially by name lures rather than unknowns but the pro¬ duction commonly regarded as sec¬ ond-rate hardly is more likely to click because of the same names, instead could lose more money for the producer because of out- of-pocket costs of those names. Names usually help big ones are not a requisite for blockbuster revenue. Consider these contradictory- seeming cases: (1) The star power in Walt Dis¬ ney’s “Old Yeller” was limited to Dorothy McGuire, Tess Parkrer (in a small part) and yet this ap¬ parently minor-league entry will wind up with over $5,000,000, and probably closer to $6,000,- 000, in domestic distribution in¬ come—meaning strictly blue-chip profit for producer Disney. (2) Tony Curtis and Burt Lan¬ caster were In the leads but this was not enough to lift “Sweet Smell of Success” out of the red¬ ink. (3) Columbia’s “Seventh Voyage of Sinbad,” starrinn Kathy Grant, is currently a blockbuster at the b.o. (4) Universal's “Time to Love and Time to Die.” It was regarded by the company's exec echelon, at the outset, as fine drama and wham money-maker but the disappoint¬ ment is now ascribed to absence of qames. (5) “Merry Andrew” had the popular Danny Kaye as top banana and yet the domestic gross for the Metro feature was only $1,350,000. (6) John Wayne, a name to be reckoned with in anybody’s popu¬ larity poll for many years, lacked sufficient star null to bring the period spectacle, ‘The Barbarian and The Geisha,” out of the defi¬ cit class. (7) A disappointment to United Artists was “Run Silent, Run Deep,” though Lancaster and Clark Gable were teamed. These are but a few pictures in relation to the totrl number which had the aforementioned and many pther top salaried actors on the marquee and i which nonetheless missed the boat to profitsville. It’s a matter of common sense that the star sells some tickets and in numerous cases, with the aid of hangup exploitation cam¬ paigns, hypoes a feature which is generally rated good but not out¬ standing. But the list of flops makes It clear that the luminaries out Hol¬ lywood way are not miracle mak¬ ers. Yet, some independent produ¬ cers, in quest of financing, have found the banks turning a deaf ear on them unless they have a good star or two in the package. Samuel Goldwyn recently ac¬ cused certain segment? of the in¬ dustry of committing economic hari-kari, namely the stars (and their agents) who want to hit a jackpot with every picture they make, and the management exec* who accede to the “insane” de¬ mands. Italian producer Dino DeLau- rentlis, in New York last week, said amen to this but added, the actors may ask us for excessive money “but they don't carry guns.”