MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LIBRARY Scanned from the collection of The Museum of Modern Art Library Coordinated by the Media History Digital Library www.mediahistoryproject.org Funded by a donation from David Sorochty Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/filmbulletin195725film BULLETIN o?py ANUARY 7, 1957 Business-wise Analysis of the New Films Revieivs: HREE VIOLENT PEOPLE MAN IN THE VAULT EDGE OF THE CITY FULL OF LIFE HE GIRL CAN'T HELP IT SLANDER )N'T KNOCK THE ROCK SUN FOR A COWARD THE WRONG MAN KING AND FOUR OUEENS CRIME OF PASSION A LOOK INTO 57 WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR MOVIE BUSINESS 'Baby Doll'— The Picture & The Principle o D D 0 This is THE TOUGHEST YOUHG GENERAL IN THE U.S.ARMY I l/\//?y c/o f/?ey c<9// /?/'m 'Tronpanfs'r Susan Hayward and Kirk DougL and it's the laughiest war-of-the- w.th PAUL STEWART . jim BACKUS • Written by ROLAND KIBBEE and ALLAN SCOTT • Pro *: e having a "Top Secret Affair s since comedies grew up ! ?ACKIN . MILTON SPERLING Supervising Producer . Directed by H.C. POTTER PRESENTED BY Warner Bros. COLOR by DE LUXE and Guest Stars JULIE LONDON RAY ANTHONY BARRY GORDON AND 14 ROCK N' ROLL HEADLINERS! Screenplay by FRANK TASHLIN and HERBERT BAKER Produced and Directed by FRANK TASHLIN Aewpoints JANUARY 7, 1957 ' VOLUME 25, NO. I A Look into 9 57 What does 1957 hold for the mo- tion picture industry? While only a rash soothsayer would undertake to provide a precise answer, for the movies never have been — and cer- tainly not in the unsettled half- dozen years past — a precise busi- ness, sufficent solid evidence is at hand to draw certain conclusions. The atmosphere in which we enter '57 could hardly be termed wildly enthusiastic, but it might aptly be described as one of subdued, some- what nervous buoyancy. The harsh competitive experience we have undergone since 1950 has taught this volatile business to curb its exuber- ance. To the contrary, as a matter of fact, the whiplash of television chastened some among us far too much. Imagining themselves for- ever pursued by the long, dark sha- dows of antennas, film and theatre leaders alike fell to issuing the most dire predictions. We were teetering, they told us, on the brink of oblivion. Happily, the spectre is now not as frightening as it once was, and the entire industry appears to be adjust- ing its thinking and its operations to meet a formidable, but not neces- sarily destructive, competitor. The movie industry's morale is higher — and with good reason. After the stimulation afforded our business by the technological revolution in latter 1953 and throughout 1954, a worrisome slump struck in the last third of '55. It lasted through much of last year. But, the Fall of '56 brought a most hopeful turn in our fortunes: the now traditional post- summer drop in business was far less severe than anticipated. Certain things have become clearer and they provide cause for encour- agement. Theatre business in 1957 will assume a degree of stability; the level will not be as high as we desire, but neither will it dip as low as we once feared. Outstanding pictures will perform sensationally; average pictures will realize better grosses than in the past two years. The basis for these predictions is simple: there is plenty of evidence in reports from many sources that the public aware- ness of movies-in-theatres is rapidly reviving. And one of the factors supporting this trend is the gradual- ly recognizable diminution of TV's once unyielding hold on the public. It is inevitable that a steadily in- creasing section of the population will build up resistance to tele- vision's weak points — confinement, smallness, the bombardment of ad- vertising, etc. Movie attendance in 1957 will grow in converse ratio to that inexorable decline in TViewing. We say with complete confidence that the cycle of public interest, which sometimes moves quite im- perceptibly, is turning our way. Millions of people, suddenly having their memories refreshed, via tele- vision, on the wonders of motion pic- tures, albeit old ones, are bound to start going out in increasing num- bers to taste some of the new prod- uct showing in theatres. The signs all point to a larger out- put of films in '57. 20th Century-Fox has led the way with an announced program of some fifty-five features, and, we believe, the other studios will be forced to step up their pro- grams, lest Mr. Skouras rake in a BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trad* Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publi- cations, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 123? Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Duncan 6. Steck, Business Manager; Marvin Schiller, Publication Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 522 Fitth Avenue, New York 34, N. Y., MUrray Hill 2-3631; Alt Dinhofer, Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, S3. 00 in the U. S.; Canada, S4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS: $5.00 in the U. S.; Canada. $7.50; Europe, $9.00. disproportionate share of the theatre dollars. More pictures means more choice for exhibitors, more variety in theatre entertainment for the pub- lic, more boxoffice "sleepers", more new stars and creative talent, more revenue for the industry at large. Yes, 1957 is a year loaded down with promise for this wonderful in- dustry of ours. Print Duntuyt* It is more important than ever to our entire industry that every means of effect- ing logical economies be utilized. To that end. we reprint below this recommendation on preserving prints from the bulletin of Allied Theatre Owners of Indiana. During the last few months there has been increasing complaint about scratched and damaged prints. At the very least, such prints impair the finest picture presentation that every theatre is striving for and no amount of investment in booth equipment can produce a satisfac- tory picture from a bad print. ATOI's Equipment committee has been studying the problem and re- ports that much of the damage is traced to large sprocket prints being run on small sprocket equipment without proper adjustment. Thea- tres with small sprocket equipment must be very sure that pad idler rollers are correctly set. In the past an adjustment anywhere from ll/2 to 3 times the thickness of the film did no harm, but the small sprockets must be set exactly double the thick- ness of the film. It is also important that if the projectionist hears a heavy patch go through the machine that he make an immediate exami- nation to determine if the film has jumped off one side of the sprockets. There is no other way to know if the film is riding on top of one sprocket and the heavy patch can easily make the film jump out of the sprocket. Also, with the small sprockets it is more important that take-up tension be properly adjusted. Many theatres carry too much drag against the small sprocket. Film BULLETIN January 7, 1957 Page 5 WHO WILL BE THE NEXT VICTIM OF THE MAGAZINES? M-G-M brings America the FIRST inside story of how the scandal magazines operate! Millions of people get secret thrills from their lurid pages. Who spills the first hint of crime or illicit love? How is the "research" done? How are people forced to become "informers"? It's all revealed in "SLANDER"-sensational, hard-hitting, no-punches-pulled dramatic dynamite! M-G-M presents VAN JOHNSON ANN BLYTH STEVE COCHRAN SLANDER co-starring MARJORIE RAMBEAU • RICHARD EYER wrttrn b> JEROME WEIDMAN - SVSK Diiected by ROY ROWLAND * Produced by ARMAND DEOTSCH (Available in Perspecta Stereophonic or 1 Channel Sound) 1956: CASSANDRA'S YEAR. Back in antiquity there lived an unfailing prophetess named Cassandra. Now, in those days the prophets specialized. Her particular cup of tea leaves, it seems, turned out to be foretellings of gloom. According to mythology, Cassandra might have gone about scaring mankind's wits out through the ages had she not needlessly provoked the ire of the god Apollo, who decreed that henceforth Cassandra's utterances be treated with utter derision. This injunction in no wise impaired the eventual accuracy of the fallen she-seer; it impaired only the opinion of her listeners. Cassandra proved an active spirit in bearish 1956. And moviedom proved equally active in honoring Apollo's shut- ear mandate. Industry leaders, plagued with their own dis- tresses, showed little patience with the dire forecasts of 'gloom merchants", as they were termed, who seemed bent on contributing no more than carping criticisms, or at best, unsure reforms. Cinema leaders erred, however, in confus- ing their Cassandras. Three, four and five years ago, those who came to bury moviedom rushed in with hidden motivation, and for the most part represented interests alien to the film industry's good health. 1956's Cassandra utterances issued largely from elements financially and spiritually tied to moviedom, and whose desperation had grown so immense as to pro- voke an uncivil outcry. A roll-call of industry criticisms would turn up authors of such eminence as to fill a Who's Who: notable Wall Streeters, retired cinema leaders, im- portant stockholders, plus a coterie of professional indus- try commentators. Their common beef : moviedom is clear- ly not attuned to the times. That the public goes along with the foregoing is evident in the diminished earnings of most all film producers — and the large film exhibitors. The stock market which reflects to a rough extent a company's economic standing, is pre- pared to second the proposition. Note the year-long pat- tern of Film BULLETIN'S Cinema Aggregate below: Film BULLETIN Cinema Aggregate* FINANCIAL BULLETIN By Philip R. Ward A more incisive study of moviedom's fall from grace may be had by observing the year end figures of the Cinema Aggregate since 1953. 1953 1954 1955 1956 Film Companies < year end) ( gain or lot I I I % l78'/2 +60% l58'/2 -11% I 30 7/s -17% The itre Companies md) (gain or loss) 22% 40% 37 31 'A + 77% - 8% - 1 5 % FILM COMPANIES THEATRE COMPANIES "Composed of carefully selected representative industry issues. Thus in a gap of three short years, industry fortunes have assaulted, crested and descended the Matterhorn. If 1954 proved the year of achievement, it also proved, perforce, the year of maximum attunement to the tides and rhythms of that time. Moviedom was on fire in '54 as the result of that mighty technical renaissance sparked first by ill-starred 3-D, then CinemaScope. It was a wonderful year of change, of novelty, of flexibility and advancement. But, too soon the industry settled back into a rut. O Creeping into nearly every Cassandra utterance of the past 12 months has been found a chilling fear of movie management's stiff-necked insensitivity to change. The expression takes various forms, but in most cases deals directly with stratification in economic spheres such as overheads, salaries, costs of production, physical plant, etc. But the danger invades the artistic sphere as well. Here, too, are found practices as fossilized as any in American industry. An executive of a leading New York money house told Financial Bulletin that movie management inertia in matters of routine industrial progress establishes the film business "in last place among domestic industries with an investment of a billion dollars or more." In the realm of day to day improvements, filmdom does practical- ly nothing, continued the spokesmen of this banking firm, who went on to contrast steps taken by film companies with those by industrial organizations at large on the sub- ject of heightening consumer acceptance. "The whole damn industry is asleep at the switch!" was his comment. And this from an institution which once underwrote, in part, three major production companies. 0 Even more discouraging is the disenchantment of small market investors generally. Purchases of movie industry securities within the past six months by these elements can only be surmised by study of volume transactions. They obviously have run abysmally low. It is becoming more and more difficult to find a continuous market in movie shares, reflecting, of course, a marked lack of inter- est by the general public. The danger is growing that unless moviedom awakens to the demands of its share- holders and creditors it will find its customary sources of capital flow as dried up as a west Texas water hole. Film BULLETIN January 7, 1957 Page 7 Wh9t They'te hiking About □ □ □ In the Movie Business □ □ □ THEATRES THE BIG MONEY. The recent snatchback by Associated Artists of "The Maltese Falcon" a week before it was scheduled to be shown on TV as part of the 152-picture package of Warner films leased by Associated to WCBS-TV points up the fact that the big money for films still lies in theatrical exhibition. Associated had in- cluded the film in the $152,000 deal with the station but had wisely included a clause which permitted it to recall a limited number of the leased films and substitute others. A subsidiary of P.R.M., Inc., a corporation backed by Canadian investors, Associated decided at the 11th hour to hold out this valuable property in order to remake it for theatrical distribution. This last-minute display of good sense highlights the sickening dissipation of valuable properties in the wholesale allocation of films for TV con- sumption. The fact remains that exposure of a movie to the millions of TV's non-paying viewers completely blots out its worth for future production. "The Maltese Falcon" was one saved from this fate. How many other multi- million dollar grossing properties, however, will be tele- vised into obsoletion? O STUDIO EXEC ON BLOCK. Production head of one of the major film studios (his position has become increasing- ly nominal of late, anyhow), will probably be set adrift within the next six months. The caliber of the product from that company deteriorated sharply during '56 and he has had little success in tying up personalities who mean something at the boxoffice. Another factor giving impetus to talk about the exec's probable exodus is increased behind-the-scenes string-pulling by the front office to direct studio operations, making the studio man a chief in name only. 0 TITLES AND BOXOFFICE. A reawakened awareness of the age-old problem of tagging films with "titles that sell" is pervading motion picture ad-pub executives. Stimu- lated by Sindlinger studies correlating the importance of proper titles to the effective merchandising of pictures, celluloid marketing execs are taking a hard look at titles in an effort to make sure that the tag of a picture conveys a definite idea as to the story line and that it can be inte- grated into the over-all selling campaign. The latter factor, too often overlooked in tabbing a picture, is frequently be- hind what might otherwise be deemed inept titling, giving a peg to a campaign that can mean the difference. One of the leaders in this field is Bob Taplinger, Warners' adver- tising-p.r. chief, who is a red-hot advocate of title research. Recent WB changes include "The Sleeping Prince" to "The Prince and the Showgirl" and "Melville Goodwin, U.S.A." to "Top Secret Affair". Among pictures opinion research execs have tabbed as being weakened by poor titles: "Friendly Persuasion" and "Death of a Scoundrel" — which is being prefixed in the ads with the words "The Loves and . . ." outside the title quotes. 0 PRIME TV TIME FOR FEATURES. While none of the networks have yet succumbed to the apparent draw of feature films to a point where they will set aside the prime 6 to 10 o'clock evening time for the big old ones on a regu- lar basis, the growing popularity of the better features, plus the huge influx into the TV market of major product in the past year, is hewing away at the nets' opposition. They're eyeing with no little uneasiness the huge upsurge in audience ratings where independents like KTTV in Los Angeles, with a 52-picture per year package from MGM, show a "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" between 8 and 10, and sweep to a rating greater than the combined ratings of the three network affiliates for the same period. The nets realize that once the ace in the hole they have over the indes, live shows, is trumped by old Hollywood film offer- ings, they're going to have to scratch for ratings and spon- sors. And if it means getting the better pictures, even at a fancy figure, to hold their sponsors, odds are there'll be more feature films on prime time segments. Movie people are viewing the movement of the oldies into the big time with mixed emotions, even some film executives, who feel that they may have tossed too much film into their deals with TV. Exhibitors, too, evidence mingled reactions. There are those who feel that anything that keeps people at home is bad for their business ; others see a rosier side : the oldies, they believe, will give TViewers an appetite for the new pictures. Moreover, the better ones, having been seen by a large percentage of audiences, will free 'em for an evening of going out — to the movies. 0 GAMBLER TODD CASHES IN. They're ALL talking about Michael Todd's latest gamble that paid off — and handsomely — for the showman par excellence. Not only is "Around The World in 80 Days" doing capacity business around the country, but it has walked off with as many honors and kudos as there are stars in the lavish produc- tion— and that's a real bounty. Movie polls, critics polls, magazine polls all name "World" as one of the top films of the year, one of the best of all time. A good deal of the success can be attributed, of course, to Todd's astute sense of showmanship both in the casting and in the exploitation of the film. But of even greater importance is that he has returned the use of "entertainment" in the true sense of the word to the picture medium. There are no lugubrious morals drawn, no heavy mixtures of sex and sadism. Mike Todd has simply re-enshrined the god entertainment where it properly belongs — in the movies. Page 8 Film BULLETIN January 7. 1957 ^Baby Doll"— Picture & Principle by LEONARD COULTER There is no lack of adherents on both sides — those who tell you firmly that "Baby Doll" adds nothing to Holly- wood's lustre, and others who insist with equal fervor that it must be ranked with the very finest films ever produced in this country. But artistic merits aside, its appearance has raised a hullabaloo of excitement and controversy never before accorded a motion picture. It is not our desire, nor is it the point of this discussion, to judge if this film is a worthy subject to become a cause celebre in the annals of the motion picture industry. The issue we have at hand goes deeper than the question of whether this is a good or a poor film. The purpose here is to examine the storm that has been blown up around "Baby Doll", to ask why it was raised and how it may affect the movie industry. At the outset, let it be remembered that the picture was not released by Warner Bros, until it had passed the acid test, it had received a Production Code seal of approval. Occasionally, films fail to win the Code Seal because of their salacity, vulgarity, brutality, lewdness or other ob- jectionable characteristics. But on none of these counts had exception been taken to "Baby Doll". It was passed "fit for human consumption", as it were. Now, if the MPAA Code had been invented by some group of greedy, grasping businessmen willing to exploit filth on the screen for the sake of a "fast buck", it would not have been surprising to find the Church protesting that it offered the public inadequate moral protection. However, the Code under which the Motion Picture As- sociation has worked for many years, was written by, and ever since has been sustained by, a group of Catholic churchmen. That group has defended the Code against scores of attacks from independent producers who from time to time have rebelled against its restrictive clauses. Moreover, the incumbent Code Administrator, Mr. Geof- frey Shurlock, is himself a Catholic. "Baby Doll", a film which, as we have noted, received the Administrator's approval, has been subjected to the most intense and broad attack by the Catholic Church. It has been condemned by Francis Cardinal Spellman as "evil" and "immoral". He has forbidden Catholics to see it "under pain of sin". In view of the Catholic authorship of the MPAA Code it would appear that the Cardinal-Arch- bishop of New York's condemnation is tantamount, indeed, to a condemnation of the Motion Picture Association and its voluntary scheme of self-regulation and censorship. That is why the current controversy over "Baby Doll" has unusual significance, and why the film industry needs to ask itself a very serious question : is this the beginning of a new attempt by a certain section of the church in the United States to sabotage the existing Code of voluntary censorship and replace it with a more rigid set of rules based on a purely sectarian outlook and philosophy? What The Critics Thought Admittedly, "Baby Doll" depicts a sordid lot of people, deals with decadence and lust, and its principal characters are devoid of uplifting qualities or motives. All the critics made this point. Bill Zinsser, in the New York "Herald-Tribune" referred to its gusts of rage, twinges of passion and waves of jealousy. But he added, "It is often argued that stories of this kind should not be told on the screen. The question is one of taste and ethics, and opinions on the subject vary widely. Obviously, different moviegoers will read different meanings into 'Baby Doll'. Without attempting to judge the moral values of the film, this reviewer believes that the intent of the author and director was artistic, not porno- graphic." He calls it an "unusually good film". Alton Cook's verdict in the New York "World-Tele- gram" was that the picture "ranges through ferocity, mad- ly unrestrained comedy, leery teetering towards seduction and an infrequent touch of faint pity ... It is a striking achievement in acting, writing, and direction, presenting an unhappily doomed group for whom little compassion is expressed." And Archer Winsten's "New York Post" review re- ferred to the picture's demonstration "of Southern back- country degredation at its worst, or close to it." This cross-example of professional opinion indicates beyond doubt that "Baby Doll" is about as unedifying a film as has ever come out of Hollywood. Yet, despite all the criticism of the type of character it depicts, the film has been acclaimed by many highly competent critics as a work of art. And that brings us precisely to the real issue in the cur- C Continued un Page 13 J Rim BULLETIN January 7, 1957 Page ? "Three Violent People" ScuUeu 'Rati*? OOO Lively, if familiar, western well-produced in VistaVision and Technicolor. Charlton Heston, Anne Baxter head cast. Charlton Heston is rigged out in western duds and six- gun in this VistaVision-Technicolor outdoor melodrama produced by Hugh Brown for Paramount. He lends rugged masculinity to his role of a rancher, who hastily marries saloon dancer Anne Baxter and reacts violently upon learning about her shady past. Miss Baxter makes the gal first lurid then exceedingly repentant. Tom Tryon is his one-armed, black sheep brother. The screenplay by James E. Grant deals extensively with Miss Baxter, giving this more than usual western interest for the fern trade. In addition, "Three Violent People" has enough he-man antics (dealing with land-grabbing carpet-baggers) to keep outdoor fans happy. Direction by Rudolph Mate neatly blends words and deeds. Dance-hall girl Miss Baxter sets out to marry proud Texas rancher Heston, returning from the Civil War. She neglects to mention her past when they hastily marry, and she falls deeply in love with him after they return to his ranch. Tryon, Heston's brother, wishes to dispose of the land for quick cash offered by carpet- baggers Forrest Tucker and Bruce Bennett. Miss Baxter is recognized, and the gang makes certain Heston learns of his wife's past. Heston throws Miss Baxter out, learns she is with child, makes her return until after she gives birth. Tryon joins the gang, wants to shoot it out with Heston who refuses to draw. Bennett's gang arrives and Miss Baxter saves her husband's life during the gun battle. Con- vinced of her love, Heston takes her back. Paramount. 100 minutes. Charlton Heston, Anne Baxter, Gilbert Roland, Tom Tryon. Produced by Hugh Brown. Directed by Rudolph Mate. "Gun for a Coward" ^cuutete, batata Q Q Plus Sagebrush action drama about young man opposed to vio- lence. Well-balanced cast, color, CinemaScope plus factors. This William Alland production for U-I is blessed with Eastman color, CinemaScope and a well-balanced cast. Fred MacMurray stars as a hard-working rancher who raised his two brothers but neglected his girl, Janice Rule. Jeffrey Hunter is the lad taught to believe in reason rather than violence by his mother, Josephine Hutchinson. Dean Stockwell is the rowdy kid-brother. Director Abner Biber- man builds tension steadily in revealing the MacMurray- Hunter-Rule triangle. Hunter backs away from fights and is stamped as a coward. He and Miss Rule are in love, but they cannot bring themselves to tell MacMurray who has courted her. Finally, Hunter reveals his feelings during a cattle drive to Abilene. Rustlers stampede the herd while MacMurray's away. Hunter orders the men to retreat to a canyon where fighting chances are best. Hunter rides off without hearing his brother, Stockwell, tell the men to stay and fight, and when Stockwell is killed, Hunter is blamed. MacMurray attempts to take Hunter's part in a saloon gunfight, but the latter turns on him and they brawl. Mac- Murray, realizing his kid brother is a man, joins him and the cowhands in tracking the lost herd. Universal-International. 88 minutes. Fred MacMurray Jeffrey Hunter Janice Rule Chill Wills. Produced by William Alland. Directed by Abner Bibcrman. "The Wrong Man" %CC4utC44 O Q Plus Tense Hitchcock suspense meller. Highly realistic, but overly grim, treatment of mistaken-identity drama. "The Wrong Man", latest Alfred Hitchcock suspense melodrama, maintains an air of harrowing suspense and agitation all the way through. The famed producer-director tells the true-life story of a Stork Club musician who was mistakenly "positively" identified as a holdup man in straightforward, documentary style, recording it all in stark black and white exactly as it occurred at the very places it happenend. As a matter of fact, it is this very factuality that robs "The Wrong Man" of some of the pop- ular Hitchcock flavor and entertainment value. It lacks sufficient dramatization for general audiences. Henry Fonda is the distraught, bewildered victim, and Vera Miles plays his wife who blames herself for the misfortune and becomes a mental case. Their performances are of high caliber. Screenplay by Maxwell Anderson and Angus Mac- Phail moves somberly, unrelentingly, with austere econo- my of dialogue. The Hitchcock signature is ever present in the constant concern for revealing details. Bass fiddle player Fonda needs money for Miss Miles' dental work, and attempts to borrow against an insurance policy. A girl identifies him as the holdup man who previously robbed the company. He is booked, later released on bail. Fonda attempts to track witnesses to verify his where- abouts, discovers they have died. Miss Miles blames her- self for the circumstances, becomes emotionally depressed, is taken to a sanitarium. A mistrial delays things further, but the culprit who resembles Fonda is finally caught. Fonda is freed, his wife recovers, and they move to Florida. Warner Bros. 105 minutes. Henry Fonda, Vera Miles, Anthony Ouayle Harold J. Stone. Produced and directed by Alfred Hitchcock. "Man in the Vault" SuttHete RattKa Q Q Crime melodrama about youth led astray is mildly engross- ing. Absence of names will relegate it to lower-half billing. "Man in the Vault" (RKO) provides passable entertain- ment for undiscriminating patrons who thrive on action melodramas. Lacking any marquee names, it will serve best as a supporting dualler. The story is treated in routine manner by director Andrew V. McLaglen, who injects some suspense during the scene in which Campbell tests his keys in the deposit box and exits with the money. Karen Sharpe plays a poor-rich girl, Anita Ekberg appears briefly as a party girl, and Berry Kroeger is a stereotype hoodlum. Ballad entitled "Let the Chips Fall Where They May" brightens one scene. Burt Kennedy's screenplay has Kroeger planning to rob a safety deposit box. He offers Campbell $5000 to produce a duplicate key. At a party Campbell meets wealthy Miss Sharpe and falls in love with her. When Kroeger has him beaten up and threatens more of the same to the girl, Campbell goes through with the robbery. Miss Sharpe convinces him the $200,000 must be returned, but rival thief Paul Fix trails him. Kroeger and Fix cross paths and die in a gun battle. Campbell returns the money to police, and retains the love of Miss Sharpe. RKO. 73 minutes. William Campbell, Karen Sharpe, Anita Ekberg, Paul Fix. Pro- duccd by Robert E. Morrison. Directed by Andrew V. McLaglen. Page 10 Film BULLETIN January 7, 1957 "Full of Life" g