box office numbers?

[Mike Gebert]

I don't think you can make a simple inflation adjustment because the business is so different now-- bigger US population, overseas markets, home video, etc.

What's meaningful to me is: $3.5 million would be less than the biggest hits of the 20s. $10 million would be right up there with them. I feel pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in that range.

[Harold Aherne]

Oh, I looked at the number too quickly--$2,122,772,277.23 would be the adjusted figure for $60 million.

My math teachers would agree that my math generally made no sense.

-Harold

[drednm]

my math has never been good either....

I did find an article on NYTimes from 1965 today about Epoch and Raymond Rohauer and lawsuits that were filed to open the records. It talks about multiple copyrights on BOAN, secrets deals with Griffith, etc etc... but I couldn't find any followup article or results. Looks like Rohauer and Thomas Dixon's widow were looking for old monies owed them. They had tracked down the last-surviving Aitken brother who was living in Wisconsin. In 1965, Epoch was still listed among active NY corporations.

This would have been several years before Variety supposedly examined Epoch's books, so I assume something was found. The $50M figure is mentioned yet again in this article.

[T0m M]

For whatever it is worth, here are the lists from the Biggest Money Pictures article, as reported by Variety, June 21, 1932.

Silent Films:

Birth of a Nation (Griffith) $10,000,000
The Big Parade (Metro) $6,400,000
Ben Hur (Metro) $5,500,000
Way Down East (UA) $5,000,000
Gold Rush (UA) $4,250,000
Four Horsemen (Metro) $4,000,000
Circus (UA) $3,800,000
Covered Wagon (Par) $3,800,000
Hunchback of Notre Dame (U) $3,500,000
Ten Commandments (Par) $3,400,000
Orphans of the Storm (UA) $3,000,000
For Heaven's Sake (Par) $2,600,000
Seventh Heaven (Fox) $2,500,000
What Price Glory (Fox) $2,400,000
Abie's Irish Rose (Par) $1,500,000

Sound Films:

Singing Fool (WB) $5,000,000
City Lights (UA) (Sound) $4,250,000
Golddiggers of Broadway (WB) $4,000,000
Wings (Par) (Sound) $3,600,000
Sunnyside Up (Fox) $3,200,000
All Quiet On The Western Front (U) $3,000,000
The Jazz Singer (WB) $000,000
Whoopee (UA) $2,600,000
Cockeyed World (Fox) $2,600,000
Hells Angels (UA) $2,500,000
Welcome Danger (Par) $2,100,000
Desert Song (WB) $2,000,000
Virginian (Par) $1,900,000
Palmy Days (UA) $1,900,000
Cocoanuts (Par) $1,800,000
Cimarron (Radio) $1,750,000
Trader Horn (Metro) $1,750,000
Love Parade (Par) $1,500,000
Animal Crackers (Par) $1,500,000
Frankenstein (U) 1,400,000
Monkey Business (Par) $1,400,000
Why Bring That Up (Par) $1,400,000
Smiling Lieutenant (Par) $1,300,000
Feet First (Par) $1,300,000
Morocco (Par) $1,300,000
Dracula (U) $1,200,000

[Bob Birchard]

Well Ok.... BUT

Schickel reports that Epoch, the film distribution company founded to distribute BOAN reported in 1917 that after all the various runs of BOAN the film receipts stood at $4.8M (Variety estimated $5M in 1977 after delving into the topic). Epoch's returns from states' rights distributors was only 10%. Hence pushing total box office to around $50M.

I think you're assuming that the states rights percentages are not included in the $4.8--and I don't think you can assume that.

Also, Epoch had shareholders and would have had to report to shareholders--at least until they bought up all their interests--which they eventually did.

$4.8 for a picture in the Teens with a 1921 national reissue is HUGE. only a handful of silents racked up film rentals anywhere near this figure--and you can count them on the pitching hand of Three-Finger Brown--The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur are about the only others that were in the same ballpark. TBOAN may well be the picture with the highest attendance in the silent era--but ticket prices were considerably lower on average, so the gross income would have been less per ticket holder. One can adhust for inflation, as the new book "George Lucas's Blockbusting" does, but it still only presents a partial picture.

I wouldn't trust Schickel's math skills--they're probably on a par with mine. Also, Griffith and his publicity folks often exagerated for effect; for instance claiming "Itolerance" cost $2,000,000 when it actully only cost a biy less than $500,000.

[Bob Birchard]

Is there a source for box office numbers for films of the 1920s and 30s?

Cost and gross rental figures for all of Cecil B. DeMille's silents can be found in my book, "Cecil B. DeMille's Hollywood," and there are also figures for a few other silents by other filmmakers sprinkled in.

The new book "George Lucas's Bolockbusting" (to which I contributed) also has figures for a number of silents--both real and adjusted to 2005 dollars.

[drednm]

again, the $4.8M figure was posted by Epoch in 1917 based on road show events and the general distributions by which Epoch earned 10% of receipts.

[Bob Birchard]

again, the $4.8M figure was posted by Epoch in 1917 based on road show events and the general distributions by which Epoch earned 10% of receipts.

$5,000,000 I can believe; you cited $50,000,000

[Mike Gebert]

To me, the most interesting fact to be gleaned from those lists above is how well Lubitsch did at the box office in the early 30s. The claim is often made that his pictures only made money in the cities and were money-losers overall. Apparently they made a LOT of money in the cities, though.

[Jack Theakston]

I don't think you can make a simple inflation adjustment because the business is so different now-- bigger US population, overseas markets, home video, etc.

Which is exactly why I don't put much stock into these "most grossing" lists. The economics today compared to 1915 or even 1939 is apples and oranges.

In the days of exchanges, you'd roll off 200-250, maybe 300 domestic prints of a title and bicycle them around after the first run, for two to three day engagements at each neighborhood theater.

Today, it's not unusual for there to be 2,500 prints of a film struck for opening day because most multiplexes in the country has to book it for at least one of their theaters. And the average run of a film is three weeks as opposed to three or four months. The turnover has to be faster now.

[Mike Gebert]

The new book "George Lucas's Bolockbusting"

There's a fine Freudian slip...

[Bob Birchard]

In the days of exchanges, you'd roll off 200-250, maybe 300 domestic prints of a title and bicycle them around after the first run, for two to three day engagements at each neighborhood theater.

Today, it's not unusual for there to be 2,500 prints of a film struck for opening day because most multiplexes in the country has to book it for at least one of their theaters. And the average run of a film is three weeks as opposed to three or four months. The turnover has to be faster now.

while this is true, you have to look at the total number of potential seats to be sold, which remains about the same--more prints in more venues all at once today--fewer prints in theaters over a much longer period of time--more like 18 months before a picture fully played out. So the available seats probably hasn't changed that much.

[drednm]

$5,000,000 I can believe; you cited $50,000,000

No.... what I've been saying is that the 1917 Epoch financial report said receipts for BOAN were $4.8M..... Schickel and other sources have extrapolated this figure, based on Epoch's return of only 10% on gross receipts, to $50M. If Epoch only got 10% and posted $4.8M.. This part is simple math.... it's the extrapolation that's fuzzy.

[Bob Birchard]

$5,000,000 I can believe; you cited $50,000,000

No.... what I've been saying is that the 1917 Epoch financial report said receipts for BOAN were $4.8M..... Schickel and other sources have extrapolated this figure, based on Epoch's return of only 10% on gross receipts, to $50M. If Epoch only got 10% and posted $4.8M.. This part is simple math.... it's the extrapolation that's fuzzy.

Perhaps I'm being dense. I see what you're saying now, that 10% of $48,000,000 is 4.8, but it completely ignores the manner in which the film was distributed. In the first place, the sub-distributors, paid an up front fee, or guarantee against that 10%--so, to deal in round numbers, one regional distributor might have paid $100,000 for territoirial rights, and never grossed the million it would take to go into percentage; or to put it another way, the first $100,000 in gross receipts would not be subject to percentage. Also, Griffith and Epoch were roadshowing the film themselves, and likely took all the best venues, and we don't know what their deals with the individual theaters were (or at least I don't, I've never gone through the Griffith papers). So what were the deals made with these roadshow theaters? Four wall? Fifty-fifty--costs of the top? 90%-10% with a "floor"? $60-%40? I would hazarad a guess that at least 50% (and probably more like 60%) of the reported $4.8 (and are these gross or net receipts?) came from Epoch's own roadshow companies and therefore would have been based on a much higher percentage going to Epoch.

So the 4.8 figure would more likely be broken down as something like:

Roadshow income $2.4

Sub-distributor guarantees $1.2

%age overages $1.2

making the gross income to the sub-distributors (assuming they were reporting correctly, and there was probably a mechanism for auditing their incomes) something more like $12 million than fifty million.

[David Pierce]

For whatever it is worth, here are the lists from the Biggest Money Pictures article, as reported by Variety, June 21, 1932.

The article that Tom quotes from is reprinted here:
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/boo ... #April1997

David Pierce

[linquist]

I know this is an old string but I had a few comments.
First of all, the original question was never answered, at least not adequately. While the train of thought quickly jumped tracks and discussion centered on the accuracy of BOAN box office grosses, what was asked involved gross and net statements that are made about individual movies. Periodically, Nitratevillains post box office or receipt numbers, not rounded, but specific, down to the dollar and cent, when discussing financial information about certain movies. These numbers appear in a number of other places such as books or movie articles and such detail suggests a fair amount of financially intimate knowledge. This applies not only to sound but silent movies. That's pretty old info. Assuming that the posters, authors and columnists are not just making up numbers to fit their cause, where are these grosses coming from? Studio records? Variety magazine estimates? The AFI? How accurate are these numbers? Are they as cooked as they are now? Or did the studios show a more reasonable sense of accounting than they do now?

Also, without wanting to stir the BIRTH OF A NATION pot again, I just wanted to add a little historical sense to the BIRTH OF A NATION social situation.
I don't know how heroic our country felt after the Civil War. We fought a war to keep the Union together. Lincoln said that he would or would not free slaves according to the need. African-Americans slowly slipped from the days of the Emancipation Proclamation to the segregation of Plessy vs. Ferguson in 30 years. Any sense of humanity that may have sprung from that war disappeared as we closed our collective eyes to segregation. By the 1880's, we were ignoring race issues all together. Thomas Dixon's trilogy, which included THE CLANSMAN, was a best seller. At that time, we became lost in a haze of antebellum sentiment that lasted until past World War One. There were plenty of songs and books that spoke to this deluded sentiment and they were popular. The 1910's were heavily susceptible to this fantasy as we came upon the 50th anniversary of the Civil War. Broncho Films took advantage of that in 1913 when they released a number of Civil War movies in preparation for the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg. (Look how much press the 150th anniversary got last year.) Thomas Ince topped it all off with his GETTYSBURG movie which conveniently played in Gettysburg during the great reunion in late June of 1913. BIRTH OF A NATION as an idea, was not a bolt out of the blue like STAR WARS, it was a view that validated what we thought at that time. As I see it, it was not just Griffith's tribute to his ancestors but was supposed to be a gift to an America still caught up in this delusion of mammies and massahs.
A lot of what happened during the release of the film can now be found in the Media History Library. While censorship boards in a few states did try to have the movie banned, people really did flock to this film over and over again. We, as a country, were so wrapped up in this antebellum dream that we did it all over again with GONE WITH THE WIND, the only other movie with a box office record to approach BOAN. It ain't pretty but it goes a fair amount in explaining why BOAN was such a huge hit.

[misteranalog]

In 1901, average family income was $769, or about $2 per day,
which was the price of a $2 first run movie ticket to The Birth of a Nation in 1915
Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1901.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank

As far as inflation goes:
$1.00 in 1915 has the same purchasing power as $23.08 in 2013
Source: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank

A first run ticket to Birth of a Nation cost $2 in 1915, which converts to $46 in 2013,
about a day's take-home pay for a minimum wage worker today.

As regards box office receipts:
$10 million in 1915 works out to $230 million today.
$50 million in 1915 works out to one billion, one hundred and fifty million dollars today.

[Bob Birchard]

The reason that these sorts of comparisons don't work is that ticket prices are based on what the traffic will bear, not annually adjusted to reflect inflation. So, in 1930 90 million people went to the movies weekly, and the annual ticket sales amounted to $750,000,000. That calculates out to 468,000,000 tickets sold and an average ticket price of something like 16 cents. In 1915 the average ticket price would have been somewhat lower, but let's just assume for the sake of argument it was 16 cents. If today's dollar is worth 23.08% more than a 1915 dollar, and ticket prices were 16 cents on average, then in inflation-adjusted dollars the average ticket price today should be roughly $3.70, and we know that's not true.

The average ticket price in 2012 was $7.96 [up 3 cents from 2011]--something more than double what an inflation-adjusted ticket price based on the hypothetical .16 1915 ticket price would pencil out to.

So, and I realize these are very rough calculations, and may or may not take into account the multiple reissues in widely different situations and ticket prices over nearly 60 years of theatrical distribution, if TBOAN made $4.8 million at a .16 average ticket price, roughly 30 million people would have seen it. At a 2012 ticket price of $7.96, the total box-office take would come out to something like $238,800,000.00 in 2012 dollars. That seems like a not unreasonable figure--Though I freely admit that it is a purely hypothetical one

[boblipton]

Not to mention, Bob, that in 1915, people usually paid for a program that included a feature and several short subjects. By the 1930s, when 90,000,000 went to the movies weekly, there might be a double or even triple bill, newsreels, etc.

Bob