Chapter 5
Dimension Pictures
Portrait of a 1970s’ independent
Ed Lowry
Late in 1971, Variety announced the formation of Dimension Pictures, a small film
company which intended to produce films budgeted at around a quarter of a million
dollars for the booming exploitation market.1
The principal partners in this venture were
Lawrence Woolner, a low-budget exploitation producer since the mid-1950s; Stephanie
Rothman, a young woman who had already begun to attract attention as one of the few
female writer—directors working in Hollywood; and her husband Charles Swartz,
producer of the three films Rothman had directed since 1966. All three partners had left
Roger Corman’s independent New World Pictures (itself barely a year old) to go to work
for themselves. Dimension was to provide them the opportunity to make their own lowbudget
features while turning a healthy profit from the same lucrative drive-in audience
targeted by New World.
The recognition and exploitation of this specialized audience outside the main-stream
of Hollywood production, distribution and exhibition, was hardly new to the 1970s.
Certainly during the 1950s and 1960s, this stratum of the industry had been profitably
mined by companies such as American-International Pictures and Allied Artists, which
distributed cheaply produced or cheaply purchased films to a sectionalized market:
primarily the ‘youth’ audience that attended drive-ins to see ‘schlock’ science fiction and
horror films, and low-budget movies exploiting topical subjects in such newly molded
sub-genres as beach party musicals, Hell’s Angels’ films and hippie drug-culture movies.
Tacitly acknowledging that television, not cinema, had become the true mass medium of
the period, these independents filled a gap left open by the majors, focusing on a target
audience instead of the public-at-large to which Hollywood had traditionally appealed.
By 1970, successful AIP producer—director Roger Corman felt secure enough about
the stability of this target audience to form his own production and distribution company,
New World. The market seemed to be expanding: the number of drive-in screens had
increased steadily since 1963, 2
and the establishment of the ratings system only two
years earlier had introduced the possibilities of appealing to a sizeable audience interested
primarily in films rated ‘R’ for nudity and violence. Corman’s move also took place in
the wake of Easy Rider’s phenomenal success, when the Hollywood majors had begun to
eye with some interest the very youth market that was Corman’s speciality. After a few
abortive attempts to reach this audience via small ‘counterculture’ films, the majors
turned their attentions toward milking bigger profits out of fewer films, focusing on the
‘blockbusters’ that came to symbolize Hollywood in the 1970s. Between The Godfather
(1972), which surpassed all box office records back to Gone With the Wind (1939), and
Star Wars (1977), the biggest blockbuster of the decade, the number of features released
by national distributors decreased by 40% (from 312 in 1972 to 186 in 1977.3
During the
same five years, box office grosses for Hollywood films increased inversely, with the top
ten grossing films of 1977 amassing $424 million in contrast to the $123 million
accounted for by the top ten films of 1972—an increase of nearly 345%.4
Where nine
films had grossed over $10 million each in 1972, some 28 films topped the $10 million
earning mark in 1977.5
Meanwhile, production costs for the average film during that
period more than doubled, from an estimated $1.9 million in 19726
to around $4 million
in 1977,7
and by 1980, that figure more than doubled again, to about $8.5 million for the
average film.8
Such increases are far greater than the national rate of inflation, and
represent a trend among the majors toward the increasing concentration of capital in
fewer, more profitable productions.
Never before had such an enormous gap existed between Hollywood’s majors and its
independents. While the six majors had become broadly diversified corporations (in the
case of Columbia, Twentieth Century—Fox) or subsidiaries of still larger conglomerates
(as in the case of Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount, United Artists),9
such
independents as Dimension, New World and Crown International were personally owned
businesses or partnerships. Producing fewer and fewer films themselves, the majors
concentrated on the distribution of independent productions; but these independents had
little to do with the low-budget fare of the exploitation market, and even less to do with
the small films of the so-called New American Cinema of the late-1960s. Instead, they
represented money from within the system employed by major producers with direct
links, or at least distribution agreements, with the major companies. Thus, despite the
increase of independent production, the six majors still dominated the market, accounting
for 90% of box office earnings while producing only one-third of the films rated by the
MPAA; this left the other two-thirds to compete for the remaining 10% of receipts.10
These are the trends responsible for what has been termed ‘the notorious product
shortage of the mid-70s’11
which left exhibitors with fewer films than ever to show, and
tended as never before to delineate ‘specialized audiences’ as the province of the
independent companies. Here, outside the mainstream industry, existed a limited, highly
competitive, but potentially profitable market characterized by its own types of exhibition
(mainly the drive-in and, by the 1970s, the inner-city movie theatre) and its own, mostly
R-rated sub-genres (the softcore nurse/teacher/stewardess film, the women’s prison
picture, the graphic/erotic horror movie, the imported kung-fu actioner, and the whole
range of blaxploitation). Dimension played a key role in the development and
exploitation of this market during the 1970s.
The major stockholder of the fledgling company, Lawrence Woolner, had entered the
movie business as owner of a New Orleans drive-in during the late 1940s boom in
outdoor theatres. By the mid-1950s, he, like other regional exhibitors, had become
involved in advancing money for the production of low-budget features which he could
eventually exhibit. In 1955, he formed Woolner Brothers Pictures with his brothers
Bernard and David, and co-produced Swamp Woman, Corman’s third film as a director.
Moving to Hollywood, Woolner continued to co-produce low-budget exploitation fare
such as The Human Duplicators and Mutiny in Outer Space (both 1965); and in 1970 he
became a partner in Corman’s New World Pictures, serving as President in Charge of
Sales and Distribution.12
By the end of 1971, he had left with Rothman and Swartz, two
of New World’s most talented personnel, to form Dimension.
Contemporary american independent film 36
A veteran of exploitation films since the mid-1960s at AIP, Stephanie Rothman was
the first woman to receive a Director’s Guild Fellowship, which was granted her while
she was studying film as a graduate student at the University of Southern California. In
1966, she began working on a variety of projects at AIP, and was given her first chance
to direct with a beach party spoof called It’s a Bikini World, produced and co-scripted by
Charles Swartz. She and Swartz served as production executives on Corman’s last AIP
film Gas-s-s-s (1970), and left with him to begin New World. It was Rothman who
directed and Swartz who produced one of New World’s first releases, The Student Nurses
(1970), a soft-core comedy of manners that initiated one of the new company’s most
successful sub-genres. Within the next year, they had made a second film for New World,
The Velvet Vampire (1971), an R-rated erotic horror film centering around a female
vampire in a hip southern California setting. As partners in Dimension Pictures, and the
company’s only in-house talent, Rothman and Swartz intended to continue producing the
kind of commercial exploitation films which they found personally interesting, and to do
so with even greater speed and less interference than they had encountered at New
World.13
Charles Swartz, as Dimension’s Executive Vice President in Charge of Produc-tion,
and Stephanie Rothman, named Head of Project Development, were central to
Dimension’s initial plans to produce five low-budget films during 1972.14
By February of
that year, Dimension claimed to have three films in production. The first was a horror
film, The Twilight People, directed by another AIP and New World veteran, Eddie
Romero, and shot in the Philippines. The second was a women’s prison camp film, first
called Sweet Sugar and later Chain Gang Girls, produced by Swartz in Costa Rica. Nonunion
labor costs in such Third World locales more than made up for the expense of
location shooting. The third film in production was actually a Mexican ‘pickup’ (that is, a
film to which Dimension had purchased the US distribution rights) called The Sin of
Adam and Eve which was partially re-shot and completely re-dubbed by Dimension.
Such pickups quickly expanded the company’s list of projected 1972 releases to fifteen.15
The remainder of the year also saw the releases of Group Marriage, the first
Rothman/Swartz film made for Dimension, and of the company’s first genuine hit The
Doberman Gang, co-produced with its writer—director David Chudnow’s independent
company Rosamund Productions.
By August, Dimension estimated a first year’s gross of $8–10 million on an initial
investment of only $1.5 million. By November, Dimension’s success served as the best
example of new trends in low-budget production for Hollywood Reporter’s Ron
Perinington in an article entitled ‘Indies Taking Up Slack Where Majors Left Off.’
Noting that 30% of playtime in the major US exhibition circuits was occupied by
independent productions, he quoted Woolner’s prediction that the percentage would soon
reach 60%. The majors have lost control,’ Woolner proclaimed boldly, ‘to the extent that
we can come in and demand and get preferred playing time.’ Woolner accounted for the
fact that Dimension was already ‘in the black’ with a weekly cash flow of $150,000 by
pointing to the company’s low operating expenses: ‘What we do for $300,000, a major
couldn’t duplicate for $700,000 because of overhead. We do not allow one nickel to be
wasted in production.’17
Dimension pictures 37
Figure 5.1 A star in The Doberman
Gang (Chudnow, 1972). Courtesy of
Rosamond Productions/Kobal
Collection.
Woolner’s remarks at the end of a first, successful, year indicate a sense of pride in
what independent production, and Dimension Pictures in particular, represented in terms
of creativity (the ‘quality’ of the company’s first-year product notwithstanding). ‘Majors
today are hiring independents to produce pictures for them,’ he comments, ‘but they will
never give a guy the freedom to make a picture in the way he wants…. We give people
freedom to make pictures as they see it.’18
A somewhat different, but related, sense of
accomplishment can be seen in an earlier Hollywood Reporter article devoted to
Rothman, entitled ‘Dimension Pictures Opens Up Opportunities for Women.’ Here
Rothman declares that ‘a concerted and unprecedented effort will be made to locate and
hire qualified women in areas of filmmaking in which they are rarely if ever found.’19
Rothman’s statement, indicating a policy which she and Swartz seem to have followed
enthusiastically, and Woolner’s claims regarding creative freedom, highlight two of the
frequently noted ‘progressive’ aspects of low-budget production which have drawn
attention to the exploitation film. Unburdened by a corporate bureaucracy entrenched in a
traditional studio hierarchy or by a need to appeal to the broadest possible audience, the
exploitation film has served historically as a back door into feature filmmaking, offering
young talent the opportunity to create and even to innovate, albeit within severe
restrictions of budget and subject matter. Certainly Rothman has drawn attention from
quarters that might normally eschew exploitation films as such—from the Sunday
supplement of the local newspaper, where she was treated as a successful professional
woman with feminist inclinations,20
to the pages of Screen where her films were heralded
as potential guide-posts toward a feminist discourse within the commercial cinema.21
The
desirability of viewing the exploitation film as an alternative to mainstream cinema
capable of mounting a critique of prevailing film practices and dominant ideology must
Contemporary american independent film 38
however be weighed against its simultaneous and consistent exploitation of talent, of
women’s bodies, and of violence as commodities. Not only does the exploitation film
tend to adhere to the basic economic and representational practices of dominant cinema
but in certain respects it intensifies them as a direct result of the often debilitating
financial concerns bred on Poverty Row.
One of those concerns for Dimension involved its difficulty as a small producer in
distributing its releases. Supplying a market outside the concerns of the majors, most
independent exploitation films were distributed by regional exchanges. These subdistributors
most often handled films from a number of independent companies and
exercised complete control over the bookings a film might receive. Despite Woolner’s
claims to the contrary, Dimension, as a new company selling a low-budget product, had
less chance of demanding good bookings than a company with an established record or
an inherently desirable slate of films (those with major stars or major national
advertising). In addition, regional distributors were notoriously careless in the handling of
prints (which represented a sizeable investment for a small company) and equally
notorious for their slowness in paying rental percentages to the company owning a film.
These practices could wreak havoc for a small company such as Dimension. Finally,
regional exchanges generally received between 20% and 25% of the rentals paid by
exhibitors, and that, too, was a major consideration for a company that did not waste a
nickel.22
If Dimension were to continue producing films and releasing pickups, it would have to
follow the lead of New World by setting up its own exchanges, asserting some measure
of control over playdates, promotion, prints and cash flow. Therefore, at the end of 1972,
Woolner announced plans to establish distribution offices in six of Dimension’s key
markets across the country: New Orleans, Charlotte, Memphis, Dallas, Minneapolis and
Salt Lake City. These exchanges were to be jointly owned and operated by the General
Film Corporation, a small film company owned by Don Gottlieb and Arthur Marks, a
former television producer—director who had turned to the production of R-rated
exploitation films.23
Seeking a stake in distribution seemed both a logical and a wise way
to invest the profits of Dimension’s first successful year. Southern markets, where driveins
operated year-round, were essential to the company’s ambitious production plans. By
March 1973, Dimension had opened three exchanges—in New Orleans, Dallas, and
Memphis—but stopped plans for further expansion. And, although Woolner still
proclaimed his intentions to open offices in ‘every exchange center in North America,’24
subsequent exchanges announced for Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, and Atlanta never
seemed to have materialized.25
A major consideration in this respect is the high cost of distribution; for, while
company-operated exchanges may give a producer more control, the expense of setting
up such a network and of promoting films may far outweigh the advantages. It was
estimated in 1975, for example, that a minor distributor like Allied Artists, with only 12
exchanges, ran on a yearly overhead of $3 million, and that it required over $12 million
in annual rentals to support even this small network.26
No matter how prosperous
Dimension was by 1973, it could hardly guarantee yearly rentals of that magnitude (with
rentals representing only a percentage of grosses), especially based on a slate of only
eight or so low-budget releases.
Dimension pictures 39
Although 1973 saw the success of Rothman’s Terminal Island and of The Daring
Dobermans, a sequel to the first doberman hit, several of Dimension’s eight announced
releases for the year were pushed back to join the 15 films slated for 1974.27
Nevertheless, Dimension enjoyed an unprecedented popularity during the mid-1970s, a
result, as Hollywood Reporter’s Will Tusher slyly asserted in 1974, of ‘the fact that even
clunkers are clanking the cash registers at the box office.’ In fact, this prosperity
corresponded quite closely with the fall-off in product from the majors. At a time when
mainstream Hollywood was seeking bigger profits from fewer films, Dimension was
discovering that profits were to be made by filling the void with quantity rather than
quality. ‘Pictures that are not supposed to get money are getting more than they should,’
Woolner commented happily in 1974, announcing an unprecedented $6 million budget
for twelve 1974 releases and plans for 16 exchanges by the year’s end.28
Supplying
product for this ambitious expansion into distribution would be a main concern for
Dimension during the next several years; and though the additional exchanges were never
realized, the release schedule was pursued in earnest. The company projected 25 new
releases for 197529
and another 40 for the next two-year period, a release slate surpassing
any of the majors except for United Artists.30
Woolner sought product wherever
available, from the pickup of foreign films such as the Italian film Diary of a Female
Prisoner (1974) to the independently produced American documentary on the 1930s
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? (1975).31
As for in-house production, two Rothman—
Swartz films, The Working Girls and Mama Sweetlife, were planned for 1974,32
but only
the former was completed and released. By 1975, Rothman and Swartz had withdrawn
from their partnership with 3 and left Dimension. The precise reasons remain unclear,
although Rothman later expressed her disappointment at finding it impossible to make the
kinds of films she wanted in such an environment.33
In the period following the box office successes of such films as Walking Tall (1973),
White Lightning (1973), and Macon County Line (1974), Dimension co-productions
during the mid-1970s included a good many imitative backwoods sex-and-violence films.
Among these were the commercially successful Dixie Dynamite (1976) and Gator Bait
(1976), the latter produced and directed by the husband-and-wife team of Fred and
Beverly Sebastian whose 1972 The Hitchhikers, a soft-core crime comedy shot in the
California desert, was one of Dimension’s first releases. In addition, ‘blaxploitation’
films made up an important part of Dimension’s 1975 output, including such titles as
Boss Nigger, Tough, Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde, and Black Shampoo. Reporting a ‘steadily
increasing market for black films in all parts of the country,’ Woolner signed Steve
Krantz, producer of the successful black film Cooley High, to a non-exclusive threepicture
deal.34
It might be noted that the trends toward R-rated action films with rural settings, on the
one hand, and ‘blaxploitation’ on the other, corresponded rather closely to Dimension’s
main target audiences: the southern drive-in crowd in the first case, and the inner-city
movie-goer in the second. The decade-long rise in the number of drive-in screens prior to
1974 (at the moderate rate of about 26 per year)—a trend upon which Dimension’s initial
success had been partially based—underwent a major reversal in the mid-1970s with the
startling loss of some 387 screens in 1976.35
Rising real estate values in the suburbs
which had grown up around the drive-ins had begun to make it more lucrative to sell the
property than to show films there.36
In addition, the propagation of suburban multiplex
Contemporary american independent film 40
theatres, which corresponds historically to the decline in drive-in screens, had begun to
compete for neighborhood audiences.37
Increasingly in the 1970s, major urban areas
(where most movie-going took place) were dominated by a few large theater chains,
which tended toward the exhibition of mainstream Hollywood fare.38
As a result, the bulk
of Dimension’s revenues during this period came from towns of 100,000 or less.39
If suburbanization had taken its toll on one of Dimension’s major outlets, it had also
contributed to the economic decline of formerly prestigious downtown theaters, which
indirectly created another exhibition site for exploitation films. As the demographics of
many inner-city areas shifted toward a larger minority population and lower income
levels, downtown theatres often gave up trying to attract suburban audiences, choosing
instead to book double bills of exploitation films to appeal to neighborhood patrons.
While such theaters provided important venues for Dimension, they hardly constituted an
expanding market, as such theaters tended to close throughout the decade. Urban renewal
and the gentrification of such neighborhoods, of course, simply reversed the
demographics upon which the appeal of Dimension’s films were based.
By the end of 1976, it had become clear that if Dimension were to continue its
expansion, it would have to find new outlets for its product. In a November issue of
Variety, Woolner complained about the ‘lack of cooperation from theater exhibitors in a
shrinking market.’ Decrying their lack of ‘showmanship,’ he added that exhibitors were
‘destroying themselves with the high admission prices they are asking today. If a
distributor or producer doesn’t create box office excitement, there isn’t any, because the
distributor…won’t spend money to help a film.’ In response to these difficulties,
Dimension announced plans to enter the production of features for television,
emphasizing the type of exploitation fare with which the company had succeeded
theatrically. By offering percentages of potential European theatrical releases of such
films, Woolner hoped to attract major talent to such projects.40
Dimension’s theatrical plans were expanding as well, with a record $12–$15 million
budgeted for 1977–78 releases.41
By mid-1977, the company would announce that it was
enjoying its best year ever. ‘We are on the brink of becoming a very important source of
product,’ Woolner proclaimed. ‘The independent is important to the exhibitor…
Dimension, Corman, and Crown. We are the three biggest independents.’42
But being one
of the biggest was still no guarantee of stability. ‘We gamble with our money,’ Woolner
said proudly. ‘We are not a stock company, and we do not go to a bank.’43
In fact, since
Dimension could offer no guarantee of major distribution agreements for its product,
bank loans were virtually unavailable to the company.44
Having shifted with the market once again, Dimension’s biggest releases of 1977 were
horror films: Kingdom of the Spiders, a film about a town overrun by tarantulas, and the
company’s first production budgeted at over $1 million;45
and Ruby, one of the films
produced by Steve Krantz, starring Piper Laurie (fresh from her comeback in Carrie) as
the owner of a drive-in haunted by a bloodthirsty ghost. After director Curtis Harrington
was fired from the film, Stephanie Rothman was persuaded to complete it.46
The result
was Dimension’s biggest hit ever, grossing more than $16 million.47
Spurred by this new property, Woolner was anxious to change Dimension’s image to
fit its newfound status as ‘the fastest-growing independent.’ Plans were made to move the
company offices from a highrise on Sunset Blvd. to a 20,000 square-foot building
providing room for the creation of a department to produce advertising trailers. Woolner
Dimension pictures 41
also felt that it was time for Dimension to turn from quantity to quality in its releases,
promising that ‘even greater selectivity than has been exercised in the past will be used in
deciding on a product pickup…. We want to give exhibitors better features—on a
growing scale.’48
Such changes seemed necessary if Dimension were going to compete
for bookings in the multiplex theatres, especially in light of the rise in overall film
production beginning in 1977.49
At the Cannes Film Festival the following year, Dimension officially announced its
intentions to move from low- to medium-budget films, with three films planned, each in
the $3 million range.50
None of these projects was ever completed, nor did Dimension
begin its production of television features. Although the company’s expansion on every
front, envisioned by Woolner as an aggressive response to an unpredictable market, was
exactly the sort of gamble Dimension had taken again and again with great success, such
actions could hardly be supported by a single hit like Ruby. They required a steady influx
of capital which Dimension’s sporadic release schedule could not provide.
By mid-1979, Dimension was cited in the first of a series of lawsuits that would spell
the end of the company. The $1.6 million suit involved Saber Productions, co-producers
of Dixie Dynamite, which charged that Dimension had violated the terms of its
distribution agreement on the film and had lied regarding a deal to sell rights to another
company.51
In July 1980, Steve Krantz also filed suit against Dimension to recover
$125,000 awarded to him in a settlement by the American Arbitration Association
involving the release of Ruby.52
Three months later, Dimension itself decided to sue
David Chudnow and Rosamund Productions for $350,000, claiming that Chudnow had
not paid Dimension its complete percentage for his re-use of footage from the doberman
films that they had co-produced.53
The suit seemed to be a last-ditch effort to postpone
what by then seemed inevitable—a declaration of bankruptcy. Citing Dimension as the
latest in the falling market for independent producers, Variety announced in February
1981 that the company had filed for bankruptcy under the provisions of Chapter VII,
reserved for businesses ‘hopelessly in debt.’54
The brief ten-year history of Dimension Pictures provides an excellent indication of
the ups and downs of the independent film company struggling to survive the 1970s
outside the mainstream of Hollywood production and distribution. While Corman’s New
World Pictures is most frequently cited as the prototype for this particular niche of the
industry, it is usually chosen for its exceptional qualities: its prominence as the largest of
the independents, its foray into the distribution of foreign art films, and Corman’s
virtually mythic role as the architect of the postwar exploitation film and talent scout for
the New Hollywood. Dimension Pictures, it seems, may tell us far more about the
marketplace itself. A production company formed to take advantage of the early-1970s
boom in the exploitation field, it sought to gain control of its market by expanding into
distribution. On the one hand, it proposed an ambitious production slate heralded by
claims of creative freedom, while on the other hand it filled its release schedule with
cheap foreign pickups and low-budget co-productions aimed at exploiting whatever
trends were current. Buoyed by success in an industry climate more unstable than anyone
suspected, Dimension attempted to make the leap from the shrinking exploitation market
into the fringes of the mainstream, only to find itself faced with financial demands which
few but the majors could meet.
Contemporary american independent film 42
The demise of Dimension Pictures marks the end of one of the 1970s’ most interesting
sub-chapters of film history: the one involving the exploitation film as a kind of
alternative system flourishing in the gaps left open by the Hollywood majors. By the
beginning of the 1980s, an increased uniformity in exhibition practices had enabled the
majors to consolidate their control of distribution to the extent that those gaps had begun
to close.
Notes
1 Daily Variety, 28 October 1971.
2 National Association of Theater Owners, Encyclopedia of Exhibition (1979):42.
3 Gary Edgerton, ‘American Film Exhibition and an Analysis of the Motion Picture Industry’s
Market Structure, 1963–1980,’ unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts,
1981:50.
4 James Monaco, American Film Now, New York: New American Library, 1979:35–8.
5 Edgerton: 74.
6 International Motion Picture Almanac (1976):42A.
7 International Motion Picture Almanac (1978):34A.
8 International Motion Picture Almanac (1981):36A.
9 Monaco: 33–7.
10 Douglas Gomery, The American Film Industry in the 1970s: Stasis in the “New
Hollywood”,’ Wide Angle, 5, 4 (1983):53.
11 Monaco:40.
12 International Motion Picture Almanac (1977):308.
13 Terry Curtis Fox, ‘Fully Female: Stephanie Rothman,’ Film Comment, 12, 6 (November–
December 1976): 46–50.
14 Daily Variety, 28 October 1971.
15 Hollywood Reporter, 16 February 1972.
16 Hollywood Reporter, 28 August 1972.
17 Ron Pennington, ‘Indies Taking Up Slack Where Majors Left Off’. Hollywood Reporter, 1
November 1972.
18 Ibid.
19 Will Tusher, ‘Dimension Pictures Opens Up Opportunities for Women,’ Hollywood
Reporter, 1 June 1972.
20 Kit Snedacker, ‘Movies,’ California Living (supplement to the Los Angeles
HeraldExaminer), 20 September 1970.
21 Pam Cook, ‘Exploitation Films and Feminism,’ Screen, 17, 2 (Summer 1976): 122–7.
22 Lee Beaupre, ‘How to Distribute a Film,’ Film Comment, 13, 4 (July—August 1977): 48.
23 Allen Rich, ‘Joint Exchange to Solve Distribution Woes,’ Hollywood Reporter, 1 December
1972.
24 Hollywood Reporter, 26 March 1973.
25 Daily Variety, 18 June 1973; Hollywood Reporter, 8 August 1975.
26 Beaupre: 48.
27 Daily Variety, 1 October 1973.
28 Will Tusher, ‘Box Office Bulge Inspires $6 Mil Spree on 12 Pics,’ Hollywood Reporter, 10
January 1974.
29 Daily Variety, 21 April 1975.
30 Cobbett S.Steinberg, Film Facts, New York: Facts on File, 1980:84.
31 Daily Variety, 21 April 1975.
32 Tusher, ‘Box Office Bulge.’
33 Fox, ‘Fully Female,’ 50.
Dimension pictures 43