The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

if, THE CINE-TECHNICIAN March-April, 1953 in an average week were based on crime. Eight hundred major crimes were performed in that period." ' ' Soap Operas ' and similar cheap romantic novelettes have practically monopolised the afternoon radio, and when the American Broadcasting Company recently booked space in New York newspapers to boost them, it used these headlines: ' Take Those Pyjamas Off Kate,' and ' Wife Finds Hubby in the Arms of Steno.' " Reynolds News (18th May, 1952) published some scenes from a sponsored programme for teenagers showing a girl being thrown alive into a furnace and a terrified female being bound and hanged. Reynolds News commented: " Ninety murders and seven stage-coach robberies were committed on U.S. television screens in one area one week. One hundred and ten people were murdered on New York TV programmes in one week; during the same period, in addition to non-fatal sluggings and shootings, people were killed by fists, electrocution, curare darts and — just to add a modern domestic note — refrigeration. The whole with a background of ear-shattering, blood-curdling screams. Why this incredible overweight of nightmare TV? Because, U.S. television officials explain, ' Crime shows are surefire with the public ' and ' they cost so little to produce and, therefore, sponsors like them.' " Jack Gould, a supporter of sponsored television, makes an appeal to sponsors to improve the situation in the New York Times (19th October, 1952): " Let's face it; television is getting pretty bad. . . . The medium is heading hell-bent for the rut of innocuity, mediocrity and sameness that made a drab in blatant jukebox of radio. . . . Look at the television giant this season. Morning, noon and night the channels are cluttered up with eye-wearying monstrosities called ' Films for Television,' half-hour aberrations that in story and acting would make an erstwhile Hollywood producer of ' B ' pictures shake his head in dismay. Is this the destiny of television; a cut-rate nickelodeon? " He criticises: " Absurd and incredible little charades that would be hooted off the stage of the high school auditorium. What of the endless procession of crime thrillers, that supinely worship at the throne of 'action' as a substitute for characterisation and suspense? . . . "And the children's programmes? Is there no surcease from the nauseating trifles whereon the younger generation sing the praises of cereals and candy bars? Are these programmes to be the sole measure of the child's inheritance of the riches of the library and the treasures of the art? " What's happening to television is a slow paralysis of its living organs. Now that the medium is fully accepted, the gentlemen who in paving the bills have decided to be content with the handful of programme formulae that bring predictable results." i I i The Harmful Effects of Commercially Sponsored Television: On 6th September, 1952, Stanley Burch. New York correspondent to the News Chronicle wrote the following : " American children are leaving television sets to scream in their sleep and bury their heads under the pillows, says the journal of the American Medical Association. These are ' common reactions to crime and horror shows.' it says. A psychologist's survey shows that 76 per cent of the children who look in show increased nervousness, 85 per cent suffer ' sleeping disturbances,' 94 per cent have their fears increased five-fold and 51 per cent bite their nails. They also suffer from lack of appetite, difficulties at school and increased irritability. ' Habitual exposure often produces callousness to the suffering of others.' " The journal calls on the TV industry to face all this and avoid programmes dangerous to children's health. A sample of a week's TV in Los Angeles disclosed 852 major crimes, and innumerable saloon brawls, sluggings and assaults of a minor nature." There has indeed been a great public outcry in the United States over the past year from parents and educationists — so much so that the House of Representatives has had to take action. The Times Washington correspondent (13th May, 1952) wrote: " The House of Representatives today adopted a resolution ordering the commerce committee to conduct a full investigation to determine the extent to which radio and television programmes contain immoral or otherwise offensive matter, or place improper emphasis upon crime, violence and corruption. . . . " The resolutions were sponsored by Representative Gatherings who said that in one week programmes between 6 and 9 in the evenings had contained 91 murders, seven stage-coach robberies, and many other crimes." An investigating committee may have some results in the way of " cleaning-up " the most degraded and offensive items. They cannot, however, be expected to do much in the way of raising the level out of its mediocre rut. The deficiencies of which Jack Gould complains will presumably remain; they are part of the penalty for commercially-sponsored television, whatever negative steps are taken merely to prohibit what is most offensive. The theory that the U.S. citizen is inherently of a lower cultural standard than the British may be flattering, but it is absurd. The fact is in both countries that when it comes to advertising, particularly of mass-consumption goods. Gresham's law works; bad money drives out good. It may be argued that such " toney " film productions as are commissioned for the big companies are examples of what advertisers ran do in the line of non-obvious advertising (e.g., the Ans'lo-Iranian film which took the place of the banned Central Africa Federation broadcast). But these are not films designed for the mass market, put across in an expensive medium, constantly interrupted as each advertiser's time runs out. It is not the deliberately squalid which is most to be feared, but the dreary mediocre degradation of taste. Whether or not the " Weekly (Overseas) Mail" and its rival "Reveille," or the new "Daily Sketch" (in place of the respectable "Daily Graphic"), which is now the "Daily Mirror " writ large, are as " bad " as some of the examples quoted may be doubted. But the thought that the sort of people in charge of these publications should be in charge of television is more than somewhat disturbing.