Two-Dollar "Hits" and "Flops"

As in former years, the producer-distributors will again use their so-called two-dollar pictures to help them, not only to sell their program stuff, but also to "jack up" the prices. For this reason it is necessary for you to know how these pictures performed at the box office in this city and in other cities where they have been shown, so that you might not be left at the mercy of the producer-distributors' representatives, who will no doubt present you with fictitious figures, such figures being what their Home Offices will have furnished them. Accordingly, I am keeping in close touch with such pictures, with a view to presenting you with actual figures, or with figures that are as nearly accurate as is humanly possible for one to obtain through independent sources.

This week I present you with the information that I have been able to secure of pictures that have so far been shown in this city and in some cases in other cities.

In order to furnish you with a foundation on which to stand in determining what price should be fair for you to pay for the different two-dollar pictures, I am pressing into service What Price Glory and The Big Parade.

If we should assume that you paid $1,000 for What Price Glory or for The Big Parade, then a good price for you to pay for Street Angel should, in my opinion, be $500.

Let us now give The Street Angel 100 points and give the other two-dollar pictures the points they, in the opinion of this paper, deserve by how they performed at the box office in comparison with The Street Angel:

According to this schedule, if instead of having paid $1,000 for What Price Glory or The Big Parade you paid only $200, then you will naturally make up your mind (provided you accept the opinions expressed in this editorial) to pay for the Street Angel only $100. With this as a basis, you should pay $35 for Sunrise, $125 for Tempest, $25 for Drums of Love, $45 for Glorious Betsy, and so on.

Let me now give you the reasons that prompted me so to classify them

Street Angel, Fox, with Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor: Street Angel is doing well at the Globe Theatre, this city, where it is playing. According to my information, not obtained from Fox, in the first two weeks it grossed nearly capacity, which is $16,000. But it fell off with the opening of The Man Who Laughs, which is yet playing at the Central Theatre, next door to the Globe. The Globe has 200 more seats than the Central. Since it opened, Street Angel has averaged $9,000. It is a good picture, and the kind that can hold out on a long run without dropping perceptibly but also without increasing perceptibly. Under normal business conditions, this picture ought to have played to capacity houses for several months; under the conditions that prevail now, the business it is doing may be considered very good. In the small towns it ought to do well if it should be exploited in the different key cities as it is being exploited in this city. if so, exhibitors paying fifty per cent. of what they paid for What Price Glory or for The Big Parade would be paying a good price for it. It is an extremely well made picture; it was reviewed on page 63.

Four Sons, Fox: This picture closed its engagement at the Gaiety last Sunday, after a run of 16 weeks; it opened February 13 and closed June 3. According to my private information, obtained from independent sources, in the first eight weeks of its engagement this picture averaged $10,000. During the week ending May 26, $6,800 were taken in. The closing week was around $6,000. To make it look big, many free tickets were given away. People willing to pay cash had to be turned away that week. Its average in the 16 weeks was around $7,500. So 70 points for this picture is a liberal classification. In other words, if you should pay $100 for Street Angel, then $70 should be a very good price for Four Sons. It is a good picture, well enough, but its production is not as high class as that of The Street Angel, and hasn't big names in it. The story is not as smooth, and much of it is illogical. It is, nevertheless, a good entertainment. You will find the review on page 39.

Sunrise, Fox: In the issue of March 3, under the caption "Flops and Hits," I printed the following about this picture: "Sunrise has been given a forced run in this city. It is reported that in Newark, at the Fox Terminal, it drew big crowds; but it is reported also that it is 'dying' in Detroit. It is an extremely artistic production but it will no doubt appeal to a limited number; the rank and file will hardly care for it." As a result of this statement, James R. Grainger, General Sales Manager of Fox Film Corporation, wrote me a letter complaining that my statement was wrong and not fair to the picture. He asked me to call at his office to show me the figures so that I might get the facts. (I printed this letter in the issue of March 17.) I called at his office and was given by him a table of figures showing that Sunrise averaged in the 28 weeks of its engagement a figure between $7,500 and $8,000 a week. I have now been informed that those figures were padded, and that the correct average of this picture has been between $4,500 and $5,000 a week. At such a figure as the average, Sunrise has not made a "Broadway Hit," as the Fox advertisement asserts. The opening day was for the trade. The second day it drew 1,500; the third day it drew about 1,600; the fourth about 1,700. But it started sliding from that day on, until the last few weeks it was pitiful. The closing week was about $3,000. The house seats 1,033. At the $2 scale, it can gross $18,000 a week. At the average of between $4,500 and $5,000, the picture must have lost a fortune. The weekly expense for advertising was not less than $3,500 and in the opening weeks more. With normal advertising in the newspapers this house cannot be run for less than $10,000 a week. The rent alone is $4,500 a week. In Detroit I don't know what it took in the first three weeks but I do know that the fourth week it drew only $5,300. The Fox salesmen were asserting that it drew $10,000; but $5,300 is the correct figure; they bank weekly in that city and I have been able to get the correct figures for that week.

Fox claims that in Newark it drew big business $20,000 the first week, in a "dump," as they call Fox's Terminal, in that city. I have no independent figures, and so I cannot say that the figures given me by Fox are wrong. But I do know this, that my secretary was in that theatre Sunday afternoon, the opening day of the fifth week of the engagement, between the hours 2:30 and 4:00 o'clock, and has reported to me that there were about fifty persons downstairs; she did not observe how many there were in the balcony. When she came out of the theatre at 4 o'clock, two other persons came out with her. I have no figures of the business for this picture in other cities. As I said in the review, which I printed in the issue of October 1, 1927, on page 158, Sunrise is one of the most artistic pictures that have ever been produced. But it is too gruesome for the average picture-goer. Its theme is unpleasant; it deals with a hero, who, for the sake of a prostitute, with whom he was infatuated, decides to murder his wife; but he changes his mind. It is a wonderful study of the inner workings of the human mind. But it is a picture chiefly for the intellectuals; the masses will not, in my opinion, care for it. So 35 points should be a fair classification for this picture for the small towns. The big town exhibitors have naturally seen it and have decided what it is worth to them; it may not hurt them to pay at a higher classification. But they are the judges.

Note: As I was writing this, I received a letter from Jimmy Grainger, General Sales Manager of Fox Film Corporation, who wrote it from Chicago, challenging my statements made in last week's article, entitled "Fox Overstatement." He gives me $7,854 as the average receipts of Sunrise in its 28th week engagement at the Times Square. He gives me also figures for Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit, and other cities, as well as names of exhibitors, to whom I might apply for correct information. The next figures that I shall accept from Jimmy Grainger or from any one else either connected or not connected with the Fox organization will be those of my accountant, Mr. H.M. Horton, former professor of Mathematics in the DeWitt Clinton High School, this city, provided they allow him to examine their books, without any restrictions. No other figures will do. In the meantime, I stand by my figures, which I have obtained from reliable sources.

Mother Machree, Fox: This picture was opened on March 5 at the Globe, this city, and after five weeks (April 9) it was transferred to the Times Square and stayed there until May 27, when Dawn started its engagement. In the five weeks at the Globe, it grossed less than $5,000 a week. At the Times Square, week ending May 27, it took in $3,200. The previous week it took in $3,100. On the entire engagement at this theatre it averaged $3,200. These figures are accurate; they have not been taken from any other paper. As I said in the review, Mother Machree is the best mother-love story that has ever been filmed. But it is not a two-dollar picture, as the receipts prove. At regular prices of admission it ought to draw well and satisfy them, particularly in neighborhoods where the Irish element predominates. It will require much exploiting to draw people in, but it is sure to please them. I am sure that 45 points for this picture is a fair classification. In other words, if you should happen to pay $100 for The Street Angel, $45 should, in my opinion, be more than a good price for Mother Machree. This may, however, be noted. that it is a very good small-town picture, and not a good big town, in contrast to Sunrise, which is, in my opinion, a better big town picture than a small town.

Abie's Irish Rose, Paramount: In my ten-year career as a reviewer, I have not known another so-called two-dollar picture to make as complete a failure at the box office in this city as has Abie's Irish Rose, which Mr. Jesse L. Lasky, one of the older producers in the business, dared call "the greatest picture Paramount has ever produced." It was pitiful to see the slim crowds that have been going to the 44th Street Theatre, where it is playing. If you had shot a cannon ball at them, it is doubtful if you would hit any one. In the first three weeks of the engagement, it grossed $4,545.75. Last Sunday, June 3, only $40 was taken in at the matinee. The producers plan to take it off in two weeks and try to fit it with synchronized music. In other words, they will have the characters talk whenever this will, in their opinion, strengthen the picture, and fit the remainder with photomusic. The business capacity of this house is $21,000. It has grossed this amount in the old days with Griffith pictures, in the heyday of Griffith's popularity. The cost of running this house is tremendous: $4,500 for rent; $3,500 for newspaper advertising, anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 for orchestra, and at least $2,000 for house attaches, cleaners, ushers, electricity, stage hands, not to mention billboard advertising. The total expense could not be less than $11,000. At this rate the picture has cost the producers for this engagement a fortune. It is my belief that if this money were spent in a national advertising campaign, particularly in the "Saturday Evening Post" and "Liberty," the results would have been many times more beneficial to you than the New York showing. The trouble with this picture is the fact that there have been at least five Abie's Irish Rose made in some form or other. As a result, the "edge" has been taken off on this type of pictures. The picture is not bad. On the contrary, it is very good. The fitting it with "voice" and photomusic may help it considerably. But this has to be proved first. I believe that a 35 point classification for this picture as things now stand is fair.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, Universal: This picture opened November 4, 1927, at the Central Theatre. The first and second days the receipts amounted to $1,850.25. The first day most of the house was occupied by the trade and other invited guests. The receipts for the first eight weeks were as follows:

The average for the first eight weeks was $11,188.47. It is one of the most deeply appealing pictures that have ever been produced. Under a different title than Uncle Tom's Cabin, it ought to have made a record, for the reason that every one of those who have seen it has been raving about it. Yet in my opinion it is not as good a big-town picture as Street Angel, for the reason that Uncle Tom's Cabin has played for years in all kinds of places in stock, and has been produced on the screen two or three times, although no other version can approach this version. But it should prove an excellent picture for small towns. You are sure to please one hundred per cent. of those that you will attract.

The Man Who Laughs, Universal: This picture opened at the Central, this city, on April 27. These are the receipts for the five weeks that it has so far played:

The average for these five weeks is $13,432.00. As I said in the review, it is a wonderfully produced picture. Mr. Veidt does better work in it than Lon Chaney has ever "dreamed" of doing. He is a real artist. I also said that, although it is a wonderfully made picture, it is gruesome. But after all it is the public that passes judgment on a picture. And the receipts in the first five weeks show that the public goes to see it. It is manifest that Victor Hugo's name is an attraction. The Man Who Laughs, however, in my opinion is a better picture for the big cities than it is for the small towns. Street Angel is good also for the small towns; it should have a better appeal for the masses. For this reason I believe that, although The Man Who Laughs is outdrawing The Street Angel, still 90 points is a fair classification. In other words, if you should pay $100 for The Street Angel, $90 should, in my opinion, be a fair price for The Man Who Laughs, except in the big cities, where a bigger price than Street Angel might be paid. After all, my greatest care is for the small exhibitor; for the big exhibitor can protect himself by seeing the picture for himself and deciding what is a fair price for him to pay, whereas the small-town exhibitor hasn't that advantage, and must necessarily depend on outside information.

(This article will be concluded next week.)

P.S. Harrison, "Two-Dollar 'Hits' and 'Flops,'" Harrison's Reports, June 9,1928, pages 89, 92.

© 1997, David Pierce, on editing and revisions (if any)

Return to the Silent Film Bookshelf Home Page