Appendix 2.2: PGz KWz MPH; Annual assessments of UK box office
Billings, nevertheless, was not averse to considering gimmickry
of any kind which helped in the business of selling tickets, as
a glance at the Kinematograph Weekly’s annual review categories
will demonstrate. But he did urge caution on his readers,
prudently reminding them to consider the quality of the film's
content as well as its packaging: 'by and large it's the story
rather than the camera that matters' (KW 13/12/56).
In addition to the monthly and annual reviews KW regularly ran
special features with the same basic intention as the reviews -
to attempt clarification of a rapidly changing market that was
clearly mystifying to many of its participants. An article in
1954, for example, 'How the money comes and goes', attempted a
breakdown of finance in the industry over a ten year period (KW
16/12/54 p4-5). Fifteen items, given graphically, cover amounts
paid over the ten year period in tax, Eady levy, rentals and so
on, concluding with the crucial 'net totals to exhibitors' and
the ominous 'TV sets in operation'.
Despite the insistence on story rather than camera or stars as
the most vital element in a film's appeal at the box office, the
popularity of named stars was one of the most consistently noted
indicators of success: categories for 'most popular and
consistent stars', 'best individual performance' and 'most
promising newcomer' appearing in each of the 16 years noted for
this correlation. The only other categories to appear with such
regularity were the 'biggest box office attraction' and the
distributors' award 'best output' which appeared in every year
except 1958 when, to paraphrase Billings, the going was too even
to name a winner.
The only simple observation to be made concerning the methods
used to compile the KW listings is that the same individual, Josh
Billings, was responsible for them from their inception in the
1930s until 1962 when Bill Atria took them over, following the
forms established by Billings. He never announced details of his
methods and though I can assume that his criteria 'best',
biggest', 'most successful' were generally related to the money
making record or potential of the product his assessment of 'best
individual performance' is less clear. He periodically claimed
to have viewed all the films listed, and on this ground he rates
as the most consistent and accessible contemporary audience
member, at the least. Reading between the lines of his chatty
prose which accompanied each annual survey it seems that he
relied on word of mouth information from exhibitors and
distributors, as well as on his personal assessment of each film.
He complained, sometimes, about the lack of 'voluntary'
assistance from distributors' publicity departments despite the
fact that 'we have been frequently quoted and just as frequently
condemned' (KW 19/12/46 p47). Essentially he claimed to present
an annual summary of box office performance based on his
familiarity with the trade and which was as impartial as
possible: 'my observations are entirely free from bias or axe
grinding' (KW 15/12/47). When his assessments concerned
relatively clear items such as the output of a single
distribution company ('best output') or the relative success of
re-issued films ('best re-issue'), or simply the most powerful
96