In working out a table of points for the different 1928-29 two-dollar pictures in an effort to help you determine what each of such pictures is possibly worth to you, I used as a basis the rentals you paid for The Big Parade or for What Price Glory. Since the week of June 9, when the first half of this article was printed, I have had talks with many exhibitors of this zone and have had correspondence on the subject with exhibitors from different parts of the country; and as a result of the information that I have received as to the present business conditions and as to what the prospects hold for the 1928-29 season, I have come to the conclusion that the rentals paid for these two pictures are too high for you to use as a basis as to what you should pay for the 1928-29 two-dollar pictures. The rentals paid for Seventh Heaven should be a fairer basis.
Accordingly, if you paid for Seventh Heaven, say, $500, then $250 maximum should, in my opinion, be a good price for you to pay for Street Angel; if you paid $100, then $50 maximum should be the price. Half of what you paid for Seventh Heaven, then, should be the 100 points of Street Angel.
For convenience, let us reproduce the table, which appeared in the issue of June 9:
Street Angel 100 P
Four Sons 70 P
Sunrise 35 P
Mother Machree 45 P
Abie's Irish Rose 35 P
Uncle Tom's Cabin 70 P
The Man Who Laughs 90 P
Tempest 125 P
Two Lovers (Small Towns 35P) 50 P
Ramona 70 P
Gaucho 50 P
Drums of Love 25 P
Wings 150 P
Tenderloin 25 P
Glorious Betsy 45 P
Trail of '98 100 P
Fazil 85 P
The Lion and the Mouse (Without Vitaphone) 40 P
King of Kings ??
The pictures on the table from Street Angel to The Man Who Laughs were analyzed in the issue of June 9, where the reasons that prompted me to give their points or percentages were printed.
Tempest, with John Barrymore; United Artists: This picture opened well at the Embassy, this city, and continued showing strength despite the warm weather. It played to capacity business the first weeks and nearly capacity up to this time. Mr. Barrymore's fame, coupled with the excellence of the production, makes this picture a good bet.
Two Lovers, with Ronald Colman and Vilma Banky; United Artists (Sam Goldwyn): This picture made a poor showing at the Embassy, this city, where it played a few months ago. Although the Embassy has less than 600 seats, it did not fill them. The matinees, in particular, were a sorry sight. The picture is not bad; but it is a costume play, and appeals only to the high-brows. It is not for the masses. In the first table I gave this picture 50 points. Although a 50 point classification is fair for the big cities, I fear that is too high for the smaller places; 35 points should, in my opinion, be fairer.
Ramona, with Dolores Del Rio; United Artists: This picture showed good strength in the first few weeks. The first four weeks it averaged $37,000. The second four weeks it declined, no doubt because of the warm weather. ($40,000 a week for a good picture at $2 prices is not extraordinary for the Rivoli Theatre where "Ramona has been playing, for this theatre has 2,100 seats.) The picture was withdrawn last week. It is a good bet if a fair price is paid for it, even though it is a heavy entertainment. 70 points for the big cities is not too high a classification, although small cities may reduce this classification considerably on account of the depression that now prevails.)
Gaucho, with Douglas Fairbanks: I fear that even 50 points is too high for this picture. At the Harris Theatre, this city, it made a very poor showing. It opened big, drawing $19,000 for the week. But it kept on declining, taking in only $4,500 the closing week, which was the ninth week of the engagement. It is apparent that the fame of Mr. Fairbanks drew them the first weeks, but could not hold them because of the poor quality of the picture as an entertainment. As said in the review last year, the picture is excellently produced, but the diseased character they use throughout the picture makes it repulsive. They have cut down the scenes where this character appears considerably, but they could not eliminate him entirely because his presence is demanded by the story. I fear that for small towns even 50 points is too much.
Drums of Love, produced by D. W. Griffith; released by United Artists: The box office failure that Drums of Love made at the Harris Theatre, this city, where it played last year, can be rivaled only by Abie's Irish Rose; only that Abie's Irish Rose is a good entertainment, and it will take better in smaller cities, whereas Drums of Love is not, and is less suitable in the smaller towns than it is in the big centres. The engagement was to be of six weeks' duration, and the theatre was so rented. But it was withdrawn the fourth week, United Artists paying the rent of the theatre for the full six weeks. The first week, it took in $9,000; the second, $6,000; the third, $4,500; the fourth, $3,500. If it had been kept on the board for as long a run as other two-dollar pictures were held, I fear that "Drums of Love would not have taken in even the price for the electricity. The name of Mr. Griffith drew fair crowds first; but it could not hold them, because Drums of Love is not a good entertainment even for the highbrows, let alone for the masses. The 25 points have been given as a tribute to Mr. Griffith, and not because the picture, in my opinion, deserves it from the box office point of view. If the name of Mr. Griffith means anything to your box office, you may pay twenty-five per cent. of what you are going to pay for Street Angel, which price should, as said, be one-half of what you paid for Seventh Heaven; if not, use your own judgment.
Wings, Paramount: The following are the receipts of this picture in the first eight weeks:
Tenderloin, with Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel; Warner Brothers: The points given to this picture are 25. Such a classification is fair for those that have no Vitaphone installed. Those who have Vitaphone can afford to pay a much higher price. How much higher, I cannot tell. At the Warner Theatre, this city, it fell flat, despite the Vitaphone. But my information is that throughout the country this picture has eclipsed The Jazz Singer. I have had an exhibitor friend of mine tell me that Tenderloin drew more for him than did The Jazz Singer. Exhibitors that have no Vitaphone, however, should be very careful in buying pictures that have made a success with the Vitaphone. The Jazz Singer fell flat without the Vitaphone, and Tenderloin, will, in my opinion, fare worse, for the reason that Tenderloin is, without the "voice," a mediocre program attraction, whereas The Jazz Singer is at least a good picture even without the Vitaphone. The Vitaphone is a new thing, and its real influence dates only from The Jazz Singer; therefore it is difficult for one to tell at this time how much it's influence should be rated. Exhibitors that have a Vitaphone should be better judges.
Glorious Betsy, with Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel; Warner Bros.: As said in the review, Glorious Betsy is a very good picture; only that it is a costume play. At the Warner Theatre, this city, it made a better success than Tenderloin; but not so that anybody has noticed it. It is difficult, however, to tell how it is going to perform in the interior. For those that have no Vitaphone, a 45-point classification should be more than fair; but those that have Vitaphone have to use their own judgment as to what it is worth to them.
Trail of '98, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer superspecial: I fear that the 100 point classification made of this picture is a little too high. Not that the picture is bad, but that there are many things that work against it. For instance, pictures with Alaska as the locale have been done to death; dozens of them have been made from James Oliver Curwood stories. Of course, none of the Curwood story pictures can even approach The Trail of '98 in magnitude; yet the public has been surfeited with this kind of pictures. I understand that Metro-Goldwyn have abandoned the idea of roadshowing it. It is my belief that big town theatres can play this picture to a profit if they should charge their regular prices of admission; it has been advertised so strongly that I am sure it Will draw. Those of exhibitors that are situated West of the Rocky Mountains, in particular, shouldlare better than those situated East because the story is closer at home- to the people of the West. Small town exhibitors must use their judgment as to what prices they should pay for it. In my opinion, such exhibitors can safely pay a price based on 50 points in comparison with the 100 points of Street Angel.
Fazil, with Charles Farrell; Fox: I made the prediction in the issue of the 9th that Fazil which was at that time in its opening week at the Gaiety, would make a success. Well, it did in the opening weeks. I understand that it drew as good as Street Angel, despite the smaller seating capacity of the Gaiety as compared with that of the Globe; but lately it has fallen off considerably. It was noticed that the majority of those that went to see it were old women and young flappers. The picture is considerably sexy. For this reason, the classification of 95 per cent is very fair for the big cities. Stimil town exhibitors, however, may not be able to afford a price on that basis. Some of them may not even be able to show it unless Fox "prunes" it considerably. In such an event, the life will be taken out of it. My suggestion to those who contemplate buying it is either to see it themselves or to wait to see how it took in other cities outside New York City.
The Lion and the Mouse, Vitaphoned Warner Bros. subject: This picture is good either with or without the Vitaphone. But without the Vitaphone it is worth only about 30 per cent. of what it is with the Vitaphone. In the opening weeks it drew good crowds. But it has declined since, until now its business is only fair. It is my opinion that without the Vitaphone, it should be given forty points. In other words, if you should pay $100 for Street Angel you should pay only $40 for The Lion and the Mouse. Those who have Vitaphone have to use their own judgment.
King of Kings: It is hard for one to judge a religious subject from the box-office point of view. This picture did not draw well in this city; I think that its average for the entire engagement, which was pretty long, was around $5,000. At this figure it lost considerable money. But I have been informed reliably that it has drawn well on the road. It is my belief that this picture is better for the small towns than it is for the big centres. Exhibitors with a custom consisting chiefly of religious people should do well to book it. It will help them by creating a good will among the religious people, and may go a long way towards lifting some of the prejudice that exists among such people against motion pictures.
Reducing the points to dollars, you should pay for these pictures as follows:
Seventh Heaven $200
Street Angel 100
Four Sons 70
Sunrise 35
Mother Machree 45
Abie's Irish Rose 35
Uncle Tom's Cabin 70
The Man Who Laughs 90
Tempest 125
Two Lovers (small towns, $35) 50
Ramona (small towns, $60) 70
Gaucho (small towns $35) 50
Drums of Love (hardy a small town picture) 25
Wings 200
Tenderloin (without Vitaphone) 25
Glorious Betsy (without Vitaphone) 35
Trail of '98 (small towns) 50
Fazil (not a very good small town picture) 50
Lion and the Mouse 40
I have tried to give you as accurate an account of how these pictures have performed at the box office in this city as possible, my desire being to help you without being unjust to the producer. It has been the habit of producers in the past to take flash-light photographs of the crowds on the opening nights waiting to get into the theatre, then reproduce them in the trade papers, thus leading you into believing that such crowds attended all the performances during the entire engagement. If they do not use these methods, today, they at least fill the heads of their field representatives with wild stories as to how much these pictures drew; and the field representatives, naturally taking their word for it, go to you and ask three or four times what these pictures are worth. And often they get it. What I have presented to you are facts, which you may take or reject, just as you see fit. If you want to put your neck to a producer's noose, it is none of my business; when I gave you the figures and tried to be as accurate as it is humanly possible, I did my duty. The rest is up to you.
Of course, your conditions may vary; therefore, YOU have to adjust the information I have given you to your conditions. If you are "coining" Money now, there is no harm in Your paying a little more than these figures tell you that you should pay; my chief object is to protect those that are either breaking even or losing money; that is, those that cannot afford to base their film rentals for these pictures on the fantastic figures the producer-distributor representatives present instead of the actual figures. Don't forget that a house may look crowded and yet not have taken in half of the business-capacity money; when the picture does not draw they have a way of "papering" a house that defies detection. That is why I have relied on inside information. Other information is deceptive, just as is the tables of comparative receipts that the film salesmen or the distributor executives show you. This is not the time for any one of you to make mistakes. Don't rush! Remember that one of the sales "tricks" is for the salesman to "rush" you before you get a chance to think. That is how you often regret afterwards the price you promised to pay even five minutes before. If they should use such tactics, or if the film salesman should happen to be an orator and uses on you arguments that you cannot offset, just stick by MY figures as the maximum you are willing to pay. Tell him that since you went by the information that I gave you in the past and did not regret it, you will be satisfied again to go by the information that I am giving you now; tell him you are sure you will not regret it.
P.S. Harrison, "Two-Dollar 'Hits' and 'Flops,'" Harrison's Reports, July 7,1928, pages 105, 108.
© 1997, David Pierce, on editing and revisions (if any)
Return to the Silent Film Bookshelf Home Page