Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1956)

. . . time, that is, to adopt the techniques which give the theatre screen performance utmost impact and conviction . . . and to equip for the exploitation of those techniques as a new standard of the art. To balance the natural advantages of home television, motion picture theatres — if they require frequent attendance of a majority of the population to prosper — must look attractive, be comfortable. Modernization in style, facilities and location is urgently needed. But prerequisite to an economically sound program of general modernization is a decision of the industry really to elevate the art to its full potentialities, then to activate that decision in the establishment of a technical system offering exhibition some certainties to build on.—G. S. experimenting with various improvements in production, in film processing, in film size, in lamphouse, projector and even in lens design. They are highly concerned with the technical problems which have besieged the exhibitor, but unfortunately their research has taken various and ofttimes diametrically opposite directions. We now have 35mm film with the small positive frame area of .368-squareinch as recommended by VistaVision, and the larger positive frame area of .652-square-inch as recommended by CinemaScope. We have film with two distinct sizes of sprocket tooth perforations. We have film with four types of sound recording— one track optical, one track perspecta, four track magnetic, and a combination of all three. We have film with and without anamorphic compression. We have specialty film such as Cinerama, with three 35mm strips; and Todd A-O with 70mm film at 30 frames per second. We also have the possibility of CinemaScope 55mm and MGM 65mm positives. The exhibitor, having received this spate of non-standard film product, has proceeded to equip his theatres for its exploitation. Since there are possibly over 15,000 indoor and outdoor theatres in the U.S., it is quite conceivable that some of this equipment not only was chosen unwisely, but is being operated poorly. A great number of exhibitors who went to the expense of installing excellent new equipment, now have good grounds for their complaints that most of this expensive equipment, especially for magnetic stereophonic sound and CinemaScope, are practically useless most of the time because the producers will not take advantage of the new media and the distributors are cutting corners on the number and availability of proper prints. The producers and distributors in turn contend that this condition results mainly from the fact that the majority of the smaller exhibitors have been recalcitrant in making any type of conversion which, since it would benefit the entire industry, would eventually bring benefit and relief to themselves. All the above discussion would lead up to the conviction that the only solution to the crisis now facing the industry is a unification of thought and of action on the part of every section of the industry. It is evident that certain changes and certain standards must be made in the film processes and in theatre equipment if we are to have and to uphold a high-fidelity policy. It is absolutely imperative that such changes in film and in equipment be evaluated thoroughly by engineering and executive leaders from production, distribution, manufacturing and exhibition. Now, if ever, is the time for upperlevel conferences to work out, implement and enforce comprehensive longrange planning for the future of the industry. The creative and technical processes which we now have in chaotic variety, burdening the industry from studio to theatre, must be guided toward standardization. That should not mean, however, adoption of a simple, narrow, rigid sys tem which does not permit the medium to cope with special situations and to adapt itself to developments of the future. From experience of the past several years it should be possible to settle upon a basic technique of cinematography and sound without falling back into a compromise with the old channels which are now being copied by the television industry. PROGRESS-BUT HOW MUCH? During the last two years there has been a tendency among exhibitors to resent and reject many of the changes and improvements which have been proposed. An example of this lethargy was the slow-down of magnetic stereophonic sound installations, and the refusal to convert projection equipment to the use of the new small-perforation film. As a result, the producers and distributors are practically abandoning the recording of full four-track stereophonic sound, and they may even be reducing the production of pictures in the full-sized CinemaScope process. Their reasons are quite simple: the costs of production required for the anamorphic larger film area are higher, the expense of making and distributing so many different types of prints is greater —and the exhibitor is not too critical! They point to the assertion of exhibitors, that the public is unaware and unappreciative of high-fidelity sound, and that subject matter on the screen is much more important than picture dimensions —and even color. It is just this pessimistic and defeatist line for reasoning which has brought the industry to the present impasse. We cannot afford to hinder or to strangle artistic and technical progress. It has become our very life-blood and it is the only thing which will permit us to win over our competition. POSSIBLE STANDARDIZATION What, then, are some of the principal fields in which this beneficient, progressive standardization should take place? After three years of field experience, it has been proved that full-range stereophonic magnetic reproduction is vastly superior to single-track optical sound. True, more technical care is required in magnetic equipment maintenance, but the results now obtained and promised in the future are entirely worth it. All theatres should convert to the use of magnetic film. Most of us are familiar with the improvements in picture quality brought about by using larger-than-print negatives and optically reduced prints. The ( Continued on page 26) BETTER THEATRES SECTION II