Business screen magazine (1946)

fiere is a inonient in almost every film [)r(HlLicer's life when ht be called the Madir of the Year Award." f eceives what mi«;l [.' uppociicil to he three men wlio fin charge, three men I was lo with. We niaile all the basic ions, and we were in complete cnient. Kvcrything begun swimiily. ut things happened. Normal igs. like those that occur in any mess. One of the men left the - -ii/ation; a new man joined our He had different ideas. And \ou, they were good ideas. He ^:itimate objections to some of ings we had done, objections I'fi the organization's policy. We .igree. for he was right. No one M> impolite as to point out that h . objections were the sort of thing ti the producer could not have vi\\ri about and that should have settled within the organization production of the film had but. believe me. that was what iliinking. • iowever, the damage could be re n .il We changed direction imme .ind threw out a lot of the stuff ;v ii.id shot. Money and time had Iv 1 wasted, but now we were on the n 1 track. )iiiing the production. I was care fi lo submit progress reports to my th i angels. As Stan and OIlie used 1 told them what I was going then I did it. then I told them ' I had done. Li^guard Needed hings continued swimmingly. But K were soon to need a lifeguard. Sith the film completed, we arI .1 for the first screening, and I learned who was to be there, i tally let out ^ solitary shriek, the bubbling cry ,')f some strong swimmer in his agony . . . I'Byron. no mean suiniiiier hiniselt. i.e wrote. |-or 1 learned that a whole platoon >' new people were going to be I) ught in to judge the film, people *o had had nothing to do with the pijcct until this moment. I was also sr'led to learn that i>ne of my three n/n was somehow not on the comfttee that was charged with this proill;tion and would not even be at the !;eening. He had simply been somec.' with the organization who was iniV-sted and had felt that he had somet,ng to offer. Being outside the Loiiipaii). 1 liail not known this an-J had naturally accepted his "suggestu>ns'" as orders. It had been he who had suggested that I make a trip to Ohio and get the cooperation of a certain city there to illustrate a point in the film. I had dutifully gone to this city and had enlisted the help of practically the entire community — mayor, police force, you name it — for this particular sequence. Little did they know they would all wind up on the eiittingroom floor: if it"s any consolation to them, I wound up there myself on this job. Nobody Wins 'Em All If. as a film writer-producer, you feel you're good at your chosen profession, you've got to learn to accept the bitter truth that nobody wins 'em all. If you've got a lineup of top 'name" clients, many of them repeaters, and a list of awards that fills a printed page, you can assume that \iiu know what you're doing. But there is a moment in almost every film producer's life when he receives what might be called the Nadir of the Year Award. You know you've been awarded this particular trophy when the sound of the projector stops at the first screening for the client and is followed by total silence. It is a special silence. For it was not that they didn't like the film; it was obvious that the production quality was excellent. It's just that these people had very tlifferent ideas on this particular subject. And they began questioning — not so much the film as the basic assumptions on which the film was made, f'or the producer, sitting there exhausted after a year and a half of hard work, it is startling to hear that the film should not be aimed at the general public at all: it should be produced solely for a numerically small group of "influentials." Which means that of course the entire approach is wrong: it should be a nutsand-bolts technical film. Another man at the .screening emphatically states that such a film is not needed at all for this purpose. All that is required is a man standing there with a flip-chart with the relevant facts and figures on it. This, after a year and a half of work and the expenditure of almost forty thousand dollars! These men were not out to spoil any soup. They were honest, concerned men. and thev had the best interests of their organization at heart. It was simply that a basic error had been made, an error that is made so often in film sponsorship. If you are going lo give someone the power of life and (.leath over a film, do not leave him out of it till the thing is conipleteil. If one individual had been appointed the "film man" at the beginning of this project, he would have — or should have — made it a point to learn the views of his peers. He would have made certain that agreement had been solidly reacheil on the basics. It it had not been reached — and given the disparity of views at the screening, 1 am included to believe that it would not have been — then the organization should definitelv not go ahead with the lilm. Forty Thousand Clams A lot of money could have been saved, for, speaking of soup, almost li>rty thousand clams went into this particular chowder — and not one single relea.se print was ever made or distributed. I suppose I should not complain. I was paid for my work; suffering was not financial. But this sort of thing happens so often that it's worth spelling out the ways to avoid it. If you're planning a film, keep these points in mind. ( 1 ) Appoint one of your people as liai.son with the producjr you choose; do not send the producer around to ten or twenty peopL who have varying, and ultimatel\ confusing, views on the subj.-ct. with the result that he really n.'ver knows who, precisely, he is working for. (2) Make sure that all of you — everyone in your organization who will be concerned with this film — are in agreement on the basic issues and that you will therefore back up \our film man in his decisions. If there is disagreement on the basics, ilo not go ahead with the project until agreement is reached. (3) When the film is completed, do not send it around the company for the opinions of others who have not been previously invoked or consulted. When the film is shown to t)thers. it should be as a fait accompli, a completed motion picture-you're not looking for ways to "improve" it. Any quality restaurant, even the large ones with a lot of cooks working in the same kitchen, can turn out good soup. It's just a matter of knowing how. Sptember/October, 1971 21