Boxoffice-September.1989

1 ommcrce
—
OPENING CREDITS
THE
Buying Fever - Part II
CONSEQUENCES OF the recent conglomeration fever
that has stricken the motion picture industry (at both the
distribution and exhibition ends) do not necessarily auger
well for this industry. As we mentioned in last month's
Opi-ning Credits, the loss of such production and distribution
entities as New World, Atlantic, Spectrafilm and Vestron can
only mean less available product for American screens.
Despite what one may feel about the quality of those companies'
products, their disappearance from the scene means that
theatre-owners will now have to rely more and more on the
major studios for theatrical product. In this summer of booming
boxofRcc, this may appear to be an attractive option. But
uh.ii about next year, when fewer films reach the market?
W'hrrc will independent theatre-owners turn when they find
thai they have difficulty competing with their larger siblings
(the top 10 North American theatre circuits own almost onehalf
of the nation's screens, giving them unprecedented buying
clout)? Certainly not to the independent distributors, who
have typically filled empty screens with money-making,
though not blockbuster, films. There simply won't be as much
independent product available: there has already been a drop
in the number of independently distributed films in 1989;
according to trade paper Daily Variety, U.S. -made independent
films "are down 25 percent compared to each of the past
two years."
Equally disturbing is the consolidation of production 'distribution
with exhibition. Although the recent studio screenbuying
binge has abated, the entry of four major studios ( Paramount,
Columbia, Warner Bros, and Universal) into exhibition
now means that almost 20 percent of America's screens are
owned, in part, by those people who make and distribute films.
The studios claim that these circuits are not given any favoritism
when it comes to playing the parent company's product,
and that may be true. But clout is clout, and the studios have
not had a great track record when it comes to dealing with
exhibition. For example, witness the recent demands by some
studios for a portion of ancillary theatre revenues, such as
screen advertising; the demand that discount ticketing be discontinued;
the raising of percentages on sub-run product; the
lack of inic support for low-grossing theatres.
As the major corporations take over more of the motion
picture industry, there will be less room for the independents
(Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., Universal and 20th Century
Fox, of course, are all gigantic corporate conglomerates
which also control TV and cable stations, home video labels,
book publishing and record companies).
What is at stake here, more than just the ownership of
pieces of property or product, is the control of the means of
distribution of the information and entertainment that America
and other coimtries have come to relv upon. In a recent
article in The Nation (April 12, 1989) titled "The Lords of the
Clobal Village," Ben H. Bagdikian, a noted press critic and
retired dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at U.C.
Berkeley, took a lengthy look at the consequences of placing
such control in the hands of a few corporations. "A handful of
mammoth private organizations have begun to dominate tinworld's
mass media. Most of them confidently announce lli.it
bv the 1990s they — five to ten corporate giants |includin,t;
Time Warner Inc
,
Bertelsmann AG, News Corporation Ltd,
which includes 20th Century Fox, Hachette SA, Capital Cities/
ABC, Paramount, GE/NBC) — will control most of the worid's
important newspapers, magazines, books, broadcast stations,
movies, recordings and vidcocassettes. Moreover, these planetary
corporations plan to gather under its control every step in
the information proc(^ss, from creation of 'the product' to all
the various means by which modern technology delivers
media messages lo the public. 'The product' is news, information,
ideas, entertainment and popular culture..." This control
is insidious, Bagdikian goes on to say, because these corporations
"exert a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and
that affects populations larger than any in history,"
a power that shapes "the information on which so many
people depend to make decisions about everything from
whom to vote for to what to eat." This 'power,' Bagdikian
states, prefers products that are "commercially safe, generic,
|and| all-purpose."
We are thus facing an era in which fewer hands control
more of what we see, hear and read, a future in which theie
may well be less of a diversity in entertainment and cultural
options for the American (and international) public. Is it possible
to forestall this seemingly inevitable future? Bagdikian's
solution goes right to the heart of the free enterprise system.
According to Bagdikian, the mass communication/entertainment
industries today are being undermined by a lack of
free enterprise. "No small group of organizations is wise
enough or unselfish enough to provide most of the news, information,
scholarship, literature and entertainment for a whole
society, let alone most of the world. That can come only from
a large number of organizations in a field not dominated by a
few, with a variety of newcomers free to enter and compete
whenever and wherever existing media fail to reflect the realities
and aspirations of people's lives." For Bagdikian, one
answer is new legislation aimed at "insuring adiversity of
choice in the media |by setting] limits on how many media
outlets one person or one megacorporation could control."
How does all this relate to independent exhibition? Films
are not merely products to be bought and sold; they represent
a treasure house of cultural information for our society. Yet
with the recent shuttering of distribution and production outlets
and the loss of independent theatre screens, this cultural
heritage is falling into the hands of a very few.
There may be an inevitable juggernaut of conglomeration
rolling over exhibition, but there are still opportunities to forestall
the bleak future. The most powerful opportunity is a
joining of independent theatre owners in a grass roots inovement
to keep independent exhibition alive, to stand together
powerfully, using legislation or economic might, to help prevent
Bagdikian's dismal predictions. In place already, of
course, are the many regional exhibitor organizations around
the country, such as NATO of Califomia; also on hand is the
revitalized National Association of Theatre Owners. A bright
spot for independents is the recent appointment of Tim Warner
as head of NATO of Califomia and chairman of NATO
ShoWest. Warner has been a staunch supporter of independent
exhibition, and we hope that in his new position of power
he will continue to fight for the survival of grass roots exhibition.
Another good omen is the "new" team at NATO: president
William Kartozian and executive director Mary Ann
Grasso, who during their short tenure, have already made the
national organization more responsive and alert toward the
needs of the industry. Boxoffice strdngly supports Warner.
Kartozian, Grasso and others who endeavor to keep independent
exhibition truly independent. What they need now, of
course, is your voice and support, Harley W. Lond
In this Issue
THi.s ISSUE OF Boxoffice features several new additions
whii h will help us better serve the industry. First ami
toicmost is the inclusion of a new department, Entcrtnm
»u:ni Data liu: 's Const to Coast Boxoffice Siinuna)-y. These figures,
compiled for Boxoffice by EDI, track boxoffice grosses
in a new way. In addition to the familiar list of top ten national
grossers, these charts track the top ten limited release films as
well as the top ten releases (by screen average) for six important
national exchange areas: LA., N.Y., Dallas, San Francisco.
Chicago and Washington DC. The first set of charts appears
on page 43; for those unfamiliar with EDI, we'\c iirolilcil tincompany
on page 12. In addition, we've added irK .is( il.iics
(when available) to our Feature Charts, Tiatlns ,iiul Siu,,k /'i,
views departments, and we've expanded our R,thir l>i;^