Given that there were approximately 15,000 cinemas operating in the U.S. during the mid- 1930s, and that most fi lms received between 2,000 and 10,000 bookings, it is clear that the dataset-sample for this pilot study is a highly select one.7 If includes reports from just
104 cinemas, and only 14 per cent of the fi lms (134 fi lms) in the sample have more than twenty bookings, while 55 per cent of the fi lms (533 fi lms) have ten or fewer bookings. Hence, questions as to the validity of the sample should be addressed. On what basis can a survey of cinemagoing practices and preferences at such a small sample of cinemas be said to represent the cinemagoing experiences of Americans more generally? The answer lies in the fact that the cinemas in the sample represent a large proportion of the fi rst-run sector of the exhibition market.8 The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc.
calculated that in 1941 there were approximately 450 fi rst-run cinemas in cities with over 100,000 inhabitants, and so the sample represents approximately one-quarter of the cinemas in this sector.9 These cinemas were at the top of the exhibition hierarchy. They tended to be
located in the most populous areas, typically on the main streets of city centres, and they tended to be the largest cinemas. They played fi lms fi rst, they played them exclusively (within their area), and they charged the highest admission charges. As this profi le suggests, they were not entirely typical as cinemas and they had some distinctive exhibition practices; for example, they were more likely to have live entertainment and less likely to have double bills. However,
the size and scale of this market, and the large number of patrons that it drew, make it an important one to examine and understand. In regard to cinemagoing preferences, the fact that Variety focused its reports on this sector of the market is itself revealing. These showcase cinemas provided the fi rst test of a fi lm’s popularity before it went on to subsequent runs (the ‘second-run’, ‘third-run’ ‘and so on) in cinemas that tended to have fewer seats, to charge less for an admission, and to be located away from the main streets and in outlying neighbour- hoods or small towns.10
The pattern of popularity experienced in the set of fi rst-run cinemas and reported in
Variety would not necessarily be replicated exactly in the lower orders of cinemas. Sedgwick’s
study of cinemagoing in Britain during the 1930s noted distinctive patterns of preferences between metropolitan and regional audiences, and in particular between audiences attending cinemas in London’s West End and those attending cinemas in Brighton and in Bolton. It was noted, too, that the lower-order cinemas exhibited fi lms not seen in the higher-order tiers.11
Maltby’s study of American cinema audiences also suggests that the notion of a single undifferentiated audience is a misleading one, and that audience preferences were fragmented along class, gender and geographical lines. The divide between rural and metropolitan tastes is said to have been particularly pronounced, with a wide gap existing between the preferences of metropolitan audiences attending fi rst-run cinemas on Broadway and those of provincial American audiences.12
Yet the reports in Variety do not promote the notion of a single, homogenous audience, and they came from much further afi eld than Broadway and New York City. The cities in the data sample include the fi ve largest cities in the United States (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and Los Angeles) and also much smaller cities such as Birmingham, Indianapolis, New Haven, St Louis and Tacoma. All regions of the country are represented, and in fact divergent tastes are readily apparent in the data. Nevertheless, the fact of local, regional and other distinctions in taste is not suffi cient to explain the overall level of popularity of a fi lm. Or, to put it differently, fi lms that were the ‘hits’ of their day needed to perform extremely well across the fi rst-run sector, and it is apparent that, for the greater part, those fi lms that did so were also relatively popular amongst audiences attending lower-order cinemas. This can be demonstrated with reference to the studio ledgers unearthed by Glancy and Jewell.13 Among
the fi gures reported in the Eddie Mannix (MGM), William Schaefer (Warner Bros.) and C.J. Trevlin (RKO) ledgers are ‘domestic earnings fi gures’ that represent the sum of all exhibition revenues received by these studios for each of their fi lms. These revenue fi gures included all earnings accrued by the studios from every stage of exhibition and throughout all regions of the United States and Canada. An analysis comparing the Variety dataset grosses and the ledger grosses for all MGM, RKO and Warner Bros. fi lms released in this period, indicates a very strong correlation between the: two sets of fi gures, from which it is possible to conclude that, in the vast majority of cases, fi lms that proved popular in the fi rst-run market were similarly popular across all exhibition sectors.
The issue of the validity of what was reported in Variety should also be addressed. Were the fi gures reported each week truly an accurate measure of the gross earnings of fi lms? That question simply cannot be answered with absolute certainty. However, there is an apparent emphasis on accuracy in the reports: projected grosses were reported in each weekly issue and then followed by confi rmed grosses in the following week’s issue. Furthermore, and as argued elsewhere, some confi dence can be taken by the fact that the trade treated Variety with respect. It told a story about the relative and absolute popularity of fi lms that accorded with the experience of those whose livelihood was bound up in the fi lm business. This is most important, because without such veracity it seems highly unlikely that Variety would have continued to serve as the industry’s principal trade publication.14