record cinema attendances

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by Mr Dean I've also concluded that the record UK figures in 1946 are unlikely to be surpassed on a per capita basis.

I've got some quotes about possible reasons for this on one of my sites somewhere. The gist of it was that in the immediate post-war years there was a short term increase in personal affluence in Britain - however there was little in the way of goods to buy, so people spent their 'surplus' money on entertainment. The analysis was primarily based on theatre but said it would apply to all 'Box Office'.

The anecdotal example was that people would go to the local venue of their choice, but if it was full, they'd just go somewhere else and watch whatever was on instead - just for something to do. As goods became more available in the shops, so people started being more selective about what they spent their money on. As TV came in, this trend was exacerbated as you say. Post-war austerity (bread became rationed, which had never happened during the war, I believe) tends to suggest to us nowadays that everyone was fiscally poor, whereas this article implies this 'austerity' was more of larger global economic dislocation that didn't necessarily mean that people were short of cash - just short of things to spend it on! I'll leave that debate to the Economists but this idea may have some bearing on that short-term boom in cinema in the immediate post-war years you have noticed.

The article did quote some 'boom' figures for theatre that were also in decline after 1945-48......

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I've got some quotes about possible reasons for this on one of my sites somewhere. The gist of it was that in the immediate post-war years there was a short term increase in personal affluence in Britain - however there was little in the way of goods to buy, so people spent their 'surplus' money on entertainment. The analysis was primarily based on theatre but said it would apply to all 'Box Office'. The anecdotal example was that people would go to the local venue of their choice, but if it was full, they'd just go somewhere else and watch whatever was on instead - just for something to do. As goods became more available in the shops, so people started being more selective about what they spent their money on. As TV came in, this trend was exacerbated as you say. Post-war austerity (bread became rationed, which had never happened during the war, I believe) tends to suggest to us nowadays that everyone was fiscally poor, whereas this article implies this 'austerity' was more of larger global economic dislocation that didn't necessarily mean that people were short of cash - just short of things to spend it on! I'll leave that debate to the Economists but this idea may have some bearing on that short-term boom in cinema in the immediate post-war years you have noticed. The article did quote some 'boom' figures for theatre that were also in decline after 1945-48......

It was often that the goods just weren't available rather than the people didn't have the money to spend on them. For quite a few years after the war, most consumer goods were designated "for export only" to earn some precious foreign currency. Individuals might have had some spending money, but the country was bankrupt having put itself in hock to pay for the war

Steve

[ChristineCB]

Hugo, these figures will be a great discussion point. Thanks.

Mr.D, Moor, Steve - more excellent points on this.

I should consider how many films I see now. During the '90s, I often saw more than 400 newly-released films a year in theatres, for year after year. And maybe five or six films on TV or video each week. 600 total? Perhaps.

This year, I've probably seen 150 or so films in theatres, but only a few dozen (30? 40?) new films, and everything else have been classics and festival fare. And our home-video watching is probably a handful per week.

And among our film-going circles, I think this is a consistent percentage - one new film in a theatre every few weeks, but 4 or 10 old films during that same time period. Listening to picnic chatter, our local film festival organizers are very interested in either getting additional festivals going, or expanding the time-frames. And the hosting theatre owners, strangely enough, don't mind it at all. "Yes, I can afford to make more money" seems to be a pervasive attitude.

The theatre experience is alive and well, I believe. The monsterplexes don't seem to get it, though, or their distribution agreements are such piano-wire garrots that they can't give audiences what the audiences really want to see. It's a shame - those great sound systems were SO excellent with updated audio-tracks, but lower-quality films still bore me.

[vaggmk1938]

Looking at the public profile of those responding to this thread, I do not think many of you were of cinema-going age in the 1946-1957 period.

I was. I was born in 1938 in Palestine and then lived several years in the Sudan, coming to live permanently in Yorkshire in 1947. Going to the cinema was FUN. Going to the cinema was an event, particularly in those really drab years of rationing, and privation. The winter of 1946/1947 was one of the worst on record, and probably the cinemas were warmer than most people’s houses. There were also children’s special showings on Saturday mornings—maybe the weather and the children’s hours tended to inflate the figures?

During this period we had in Harrogate:

1. An Odeon (with a Giant Wurlitzer organ that rose from the front of the “orchestra pit”, with miraculous changes of colour!)

2. A Gaumont with a fairly decent “café” serving teas and “high teas”—real china, albeit rather thick!

3. A Regal—next door to my mother’s hairdresser where I was allowed to go alone (having been planted in an aisle seat and put under the watchful eye of one of the usherettes) while she was primped and permed!

4. A little independent called, I think, “The St. James” where, in the days of silents, my mother and aunt used to take their dogs—my grandparents were very strict and anti the new craze for films so the two young women (born in 1901 and 1903) would walk into town, some 2 ½ miles each way, giving as their excuse, the necessity of exercising the dogs. I cannot imagine how they got away with it, but they did, and the dogs behaved very well, so I am told.

I am sure there were more cinemas than these, I seem to remember that there was a Scala, but don’t recall where it was. They all showed a feature length film; a second feature, often a mystery, or comedy, or travelogue; a cartoon and a newsreel. There was at least one lighted intermission during which an usherette with ice-creams (Walls, I recall) and cigarettes would patrol the aisles dispensing goodies. One could go into the theatre at any time during the showings which were continuous, so the really keen could seen a film round twice if they wanted. I think there is only the Odeon left now, and it is a multi-screen venue.

The advent of television—many buying their first sets in order to watch the Coronation in 1953, probably had an adverse affect on cinema attendance—but the level of comfort and excitement diminished and it got warmer, and we had other things to do with our money!

[clitheroekid]

The Saturday morning pictures at the Odeon, Morecambe (1963 - 1966) were always a riot!

[Mr Dean]

Originally Posted by vaggmk1938 Looking at the public profile of those responding to this thread, I do not think many of you were of cinema-going age in the 1946-1957 period. . . . They all showed a feature length film; a second feature, often a mystery, or comedy, or travelogue; a cartoon and a newsreel. There was at least one lighted intermission during which an usherette with ice-creams (Walls, I recall) and cigarettes would patrol the aisles dispensing goodies. One could go into the theatre at any time during the showings which were continuous, so the really keen could seen a film round twice if they wanted.

I certainly wasn't visiting the cinema in 1946-7, but I was a pretty frequent visitor by 1957 with three cinemas in walking distance from my house.

You make an important point about the length of a show, signalled by the use of LCP (Last Complete Performance/Programme) in the ads for the cinema. The LCP (i.e. two features, newsreel, cartoon etc.) would start at around 7.30 pm and punters would get 3 hours of entertainment. With clever programming, the 'A' feature would play 3 times a day (the B feature only twice), so the cinema might expect three paying audiences, even if they did wander in at different times. Compare that with today when a multiplex might get 4 audiences a day for a standard feature and 5 audiences for some shorter films. Looked at this way, it seems amazing that cinemas could get the 1946 admission numbers on just 3 audiences. Allen Eyles' useful books on the various circuits such as Gaumont, Odeon, ABC etc. reveals that 1,000 plus seater cinemas were often full for every showing (including afternoons) of popular films such as The Cruel Sea in 1953. Nowadays, I can go to afternoon screenings in a multiplex and rarely see more than a handful of people.

[ChristineCB]

V, a most wonderful tale, thank you for it. I hope you'll add more and more; your posts on the B&W films and the color-type films you've found is always wonderful too, but giving this time period some REAL history is what I love most. Thanks!

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by vaggmk1938 The winter of 1946/1947 was one of the worst on record, and probably the cinemas were warmer than most people’s houses.

Another very pertinent point perhaps. Reading around the subject, I recall a tale of a coach-load of theatre-goers who became stranded on the Yorkshire moors bya sudden blizzard on their way home from a theatre-trip to one of the big cities - I think it might have been Sheffield. Their lives were literally saved by neighbouring villagers who took them in and their fate was pretty much unknown to their relatives for a day or two..............



For myself, My older brother I were sent to Saturday morning pictures every week. It must have been 1959/60. We lived in one rented room with my parents, with access to the kitchen and outdoor privy of the owners house. My mother would occasionally be invited 'upstairs' to watch TV with her landlady after we'd gone to bed. Looking back, we were evidently not affluent by todays standards but mum and dad found the spare cash to give us a cinematic treat every single week. I can remember 'Flash Gordon - if he was the one who used to say 'Shazam!'....... My 'clearest' movie memory was 'Swiss Family Robinson'. I could only have been 3 going on 4!!

[Moor Larkin]

Don't seem to have an edit function on this Thread so I'll have to add an addendum.

When I was four we were rehoused to one of the sparkling new garden suburb council estates that were being built. So, from our inner-city one room lodgings, we moved to a two-bedroomed 'maisonette' flat.

The problem was that the nearest cinema was miles away, so the only other film I remember going to between then and 1970 was 'Zulu'. The days of walking round the corner to the local flicks were over for me. That must have been happening all round the country in the 1960's........

[ChristineCB]

Moor, would you increase your big-screen attendance if they showed more classic films? (I assume location and easy access would also be large considerations.)

My 400-a-year-plus new films during the '90s had something to do with "filling up idle time" and "nearby theatre locations". For the most part, I hardly saw classics offered except maybe a handful in any one locale.

I don't know if I'd double my theatre-going today (from, say, 100-150 films a year including 75% classics at easy-walking-distance theatres, up to the 200 or more films just because I've got a lot better things to do - idle time doesn't really exist these years for me.

But while I've said that for these years of marriage, it's strange to see we can find plenty of time if the film is good enough. Hmmm... gee - why is that?

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Mr Dean Can you say where you found this claim? This has certainly been a good Summer for admissions, but the claim seems very exaggerated. Total admissions in 1946 were actually 1.6 billion -- more than 8 times what they are now. Most of these stories about the popularity of going to the cinema in the UK take 'Year Zero' to be 1984 when admissions were at their lowest in the UK and the industry has often made the point that the cinema is more popular than at any time since the early 1970s.

1.6 billion in 1946? That is interesting.

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I've got some quotes about possible reasons for this on one of my sites somewhere. The gist of it was that in the immediate post-war years there was a short term increase in personal affluence in Britain - however there was little in the way of goods to buy, so people spent their 'surplus' money on entertainment. The analysis was primarily based on theatre but said it would apply to all 'Box Office'. The anecdotal example was that people would go to the local venue of their choice, but if it was full, they'd just go somewhere else and watch whatever was on instead - just for something to do. As goods became more available in the shops, so people started being more selective about what they spent their money on. As TV came in, this trend was exacerbated as you say. Post-war austerity (bread became rationed, which had never happened during the war, I believe) tends to suggest to us nowadays that everyone was fiscally poor, whereas this article implies this 'austerity' was more of larger global economic dislocation that didn't necessarily mean that people were short of cash - just short of things to spend it on! I'll leave that debate to the Economists but this idea may have some bearing on that short-term boom in cinema in the immediate post-war years you have noticed. The article did quote some 'boom' figures for theatre that were also in decline after 1945-48......

Hmmm...thank you for filling in the rest of the story!...

I was recently looking over the numbers for the most successful films in the history of Britain in terms of the number of tickets sold. Many of them were to be expected.

But I also found a film called Spring in Park Lane at #5, just below Star Wars! I have heard of Anna Neagle, who I know had a large following in Britain for many years - but I didn't know she was that popular. Another film with her called The Courtneys of Curzon Street is #19.

Also, just below Spring in Park Lane I found The Wicked Lady and The Seventh Veil at #9 and #10. All of these fims were made between 1945 and 1949 - corresponding with the extraordinary attendance figures. So I was able to make sense of the numbers: they fit exactly with your comments.

[silverwhistle]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I can remember 'Flash Gordon - if he was the one who used to say 'Shazam!'

"Shazam!" is associated with Captain Marvel. According to Wikipedia's page on him:

The first filmed adaptation of Captain Marvel was produced in 1941. The Adventures of Captain Marvel, starring Tom Tyler in the title role and Frank Coglan, Jr. as Billy Batson, was a twelve-part film serial produced by Republic Pictures in 1941. Often ranked among the finest examples of the form, its release made Captain Marvel the first superhero to be depicted in film. Whitey Murphy, a supporting character in the serial, found his way into Fawcett's Captain Marvel stories, and elements of the serial's plot were later worked into DC's The Power of Shazam continuity. The Adventures of Captain Marvel (which, ironically, was originally pitched to National Comics as a Superman film serial) marked the first appearance of a comic book superhero in film, predating Fleischer Studios' Superman cartoons by six months.

It's quite likely the serial was still being screened in the '50s.

[Frank63]

Being retired, I always visit the cinema during the day rather than evenings and quite often there's only me and a few others in, somtimes only me. I often wonder how this can pay, the £5 entrance fee would hardly cover the cost electricity used and if it's the ' Monday Classic' then they only raise £2:50 per person and they throw in a cup of tea and a biscuit.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Frank63 Being retired, I always visit the cinema during the day rather than evenings and quite often there's only me and a few others in, somtimes only me. I often wonder how this can pay, the £5 entrance fee would hardly cover the cost electricity used and if it's the ' Monday Classic' then they only raise £2:50 per person and they throw in a cup of tea and a biscuit.

The answer is that it doesn't pay. You probably have a very nice (and charitable cinema manager.

I know a few places where they show the films they like whenever they can, but then they have to show the Hollywood blockbusters as well to pay the rent

Steve

[orpheum]

Being semi retired i often go the cinema on mid week afternoons for about £4.75 at my local multiplex.There are rarely more than a handful present.The number of staff on duty seems to be minimal.The main box office is closed.I would imagine that the only time these shows are profitable is when the kids are on holiday.