Business screen magazine (1946)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

EXPO CONTENT continued a lesser degree in San Antonio and New York, most of the use of multiscreens was similar to staging a fashion show with giraffes instead of girls . . . it's a great technical achievement, but a little exasperating to watch. Sure, people do really see things faster, and get more information this way, but it is usually with some degree of discomfort . . . the annoyance of catching merely a flash of something you'd like to see a little more of ... or of swiveling eyes or your entire head to try to catch what's going on at the sides or behind you. When the screen is covered with trivia . . . " Company is People," it really doesn't matter if you miss a lot of it. But when the subject is important (and it should be for that Company or that Nation to spend the money on it, and for an audience to spend its time watching) then, careful thought should be given to the fine old principles of montage, as they were developed back in the days of Griffith and Eisenstein. Whether you're using one screen or several, it still makes sense to build from an establishing shot to details. In fact, often the greatest strength of a multi screen is to be able to hold the establishing shot while the details come on, as opposed to the rigid time sequencing of one-shot-after-another imposed by a single screen. But most multi screens at Expo were a disconnected scramble. The great exceptions were the cohesive presentations of the aforementioned Netherlands and the Suntory Company. This is not to say I'm against innovation. I saw some fine examples of experimental projection. Among these were two not-quite-fully-realized efforts in the French Pavilion. The first was a movie projected on a bas-relief of a full size automobile. Technically it was imperfect, but you could see the possibilities of showing the various color choices, as well as X rays showing the interiors and the machinery. Also unsuccessful, but very interesting, was projecting the filmed face of a singer on a massive three dimensional bust of her. The sculptor had the foresight to do her with eyes closed, so there was no conflict between sculpted and projected eyes. But the mouth movement was less successful, for as she sang, her teeth showed, and, bending over the curve of the statue's lower lip, unhappily made the poor girl look like Bugs Bunny. At Expo '67 Czechoslovakia broke new ground by projecting on moving shapes, some of which were revolving open-work globes. In this Fair, with Teutonic over-thoroughness, the Germans used a series of globes to project upon. But in addition to turning, these globes proceeded around a wavy track on walls and floor. It was a marvel of registration and a trial to the eye. One of the more spectacular examples of true multi-media was at the Rainbow Pavilion. Starting with a light show, it proceeded to smoke billows, rings and waterfalls and a smoke "Adam and Eve," to a beautiful movie about Japan. And, when a Geisha began to dance on the screen, lo there was a live Geisha on the stage, dancing in perfect synchronization with the screen. Mixing human and projection is nothing new, but the Japanese Sumitomo Group expanded the idea, using the famous Takeda Puppet Troupe, "live" on stage, and switching, where appropriate to the story line, to the same puppets, hugely magnified, on a wide screen. And while most of the projection was on ceilings or walls, there was some on floors. In a cute try, the Scandinavians managed, more often than not, to project messages onto viewers rather than onto the cards that were handed to them at entry. Italy and China both had wells to look down into. The Italian one permitted you to at least stand in a way that you could see the film right side up, but the Chinese presentation was in the center of an open shaft and you proceeded downwards on a helical path, seeing the film upside down fully half of the time. Film doesn't need words, does it? There's a school of thought that a good film can be judged by turning the sound knob off. If the story still comes across, you've got a good film. Possibly. Film should be visual, and should move. But the idea has limitations. It only works when the film can portray emotions by acting ... or when the symbols used are universally understood (which cames dangerously close to cliches) ... or when the audience has foreknowledge of the plot (opera-goers who don't speak Italian). But the subject that demands explanation is harder to understand without words. If you want to experience the ultimate in frustration try watching Japanese television and try to figure out what's happening just from the screen action. To get around the language barrier the Japanese presentations at Expo did one of two things. They used English titles on the screen when the track was in Japanese (or in exhibits, printed English captions), or they resorted to the broadest of the universally understood symbols. In the Gas Pavilion, it was slapstick comedy. In other instances, they used broad comparison . . . for example, to cut from racks of fish drying in the sun to bikini clad sunbathers ... or that old standby of comparing animal actions to human. I came away re-convinced that words, even if but a few, are still necessary to prime the audience . . . to explain . . . and to convince . . . and that an all music track, be it Vivaldi or rock, can only work in an extremely limited area of communications. I did appreciate Expo! From the foregoing, the reader might get the idea that I thought Expo was a bomb and a disappointment, because I reported so many things that (in my opinion) didn't make it. Far from it. You had to be there to be caught up in the excitement of the showmanship, and it was only careful note-taking and analysis that revealed how thin the content often was . . . and that too often the idea was slave to the technical effects. Yet it would have been unrealistic to report that everything had been just great. And such a report would have been less than useful. So I've tried to suggest the pitfalls and areas for improvement, as well as applaud those shows I honestly thought were outstanding. Besides, as soon as the next World's Fair is announced, I'll be packing my bag to go. I love World's Fairs. • 24 BUSINESS SCREEN