Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

tewpoifits MARCH 19. 1956 / VOLUME 24, NO. 6 nftt* Gin ai % The Dwarf A crucial phase of the movie inustry's promotional efforts was ointed up the past week or so when wo pieces of film entertainment ere displayed on television within ghteen hours. One, "High Tor", as a movie produced specifically television showing; the other, ichard III", was made for theatri1 exhibition. Both represented major efforts in leir fields. "High Tor" was a TV spectacular" starring Bing Crosby nd Julie Andrews, produced on a 300,000 budget, high for an hour nd a half on TV. "Richard", prouced by and starring Sir Laurence Hivier, was in the multi-million dolir category typical of important lms today. Both were well publized and eagerly awaited. "High Tor" was pitilessly 1amasted by the critics (and the public, >parently, as well, for the Trendex ting dropped six points during the ourse of the show) ; "Richard" surived its Shakespearean handicaps, he little screen for which it was not lade, the long three hours, to win nde acclaim from public and press is superior entertainment, i Pause to consider the contrasts ffered by these two offerings. (High Tor" must be regarded as one jf the biggest film-for-TV projects ver attempted, yet it was a pale nitation of the average major moon picture made for the theatre creen. "Richard III", on the other and, was a superb film-for-theatre roduction that proved how much etter a movie is on a theatre screen. Pause, consider, and then ask: Is ne movie industry capitalizing on ie vast superiority of its product ver that of its chief competitor for ne public's time? And what has it one to point up that vast chasm etween the entertainment values of kie two media? Certainly it is a tenet of merchandising that a vendor who has the best product should sell the superiority of his merchandise over others, particularly when price is a factor. Mere parroting "Movies Are Your Best Entertainment" is hardly the dynamic promotion necessary to put across our industry's sales pitch. This is not a problem that is limited to any one division of movie business. Because it affects everyone in it, from the biggest producer to the 300-seat small town theatre operator, we believe it is high time the entire industry give serious thought to an intensive institutional campaign specifically aimed at throwing into sharp focus the entertainment superiority of the giant movie as opposed to the TV dwarf. Our situation demands this kind of initiative. Stilt* of Hi rift rig ft is Bosley Crowther, motion picture editor of the "New York Times", in a recent Sunday column dispensed some keen observations on the effects and implications of the sale of old films to television. We believe the following passages from Mr. C.rowther's comments make important reading for all members of our industry. — Editor's Note. None of the many indications of creeping changes in the film industry that have popped up in the past few months, ranging from the retirement of veteran personnel to the much more significant evolution of a system of independent unit production Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7. Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Duncan & Steck, Business Manager; Robert D. Lauder, Publication Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 522 Fifth Avenue, New York 36, N. Y., MUrray Hill 2-3431; Richard Bretstein, Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: OH?. YEAR, $3.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS: $5.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $7.50; Europe, $9.00. of films, have been quite as pointed and disturbing as these arrangements for handing over to TV the whole inventories of old pictures of major companies.*** This sudden appearance of a seeming mania on the part of old-established companies to unload their vaults of valuable heirlooms to a competing entertainment industry — in short, to cash in on the stuff of their birthrights while the prices they will fetch are fairly high — is something a quizzical observer should not rashly or hastily judge. Some of these sales may be caused by desperation, by a secret need for corporate funds. Some may be the result of calculations that an outsider knows nothing about. But a purely objective rumination on what this unloading indicates leads the considerate observer to two dark and depressing thoughts. The first is that the men who manage the movies — some of them, anyhow— have little regard for the basic qualities and the potentialities of the best of their old films.*** The second thought is that the movie industry, for all its set-up of splendid theatres, its long-time command of public interest and its techniques of salesmanship, has never devised a system for keeping its old and distinguished films within easy and periodic reach of a public that would like to see them over and over again.*** The fact that the TV promoters are willing to pay considerable sums for the movie industry's heirlooms is an indication that they, at least, believe there is a public that will sit and look at them, even on small screens in probably mutilated form. Is there a subtle forewarning of the crumbling of the mighty film structures in this seemingly reckless disposal of the very stones on which they were raised? There is reason to suspect that there may be. This is an age of change. Film BULLETIN March 19, 1956 Page 5