Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1961)

Eric Johnston Answers 10 Basic Questions on The U. S. Film Industry -Present and the Future ERIC JOHNSTON On Monday, April 10, in the grand ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, the industry will pay tribute to Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Ass’n of America, in recognition of his 15 years service as head of that organization. Boxoffice, in a series of 10 questions, has invited Mr. Johnston to review the high points of that 15-year career and to present his views on a number of basic problems which confront the U.S. film industry at home and abroad. Q. What do you consider the most important achievement of your administration? The recognition of the motion picture as a full and equal partner among the popular arts and the communications media. It has been so recognized in law, despite that persistent gadfly — censorship. It is recognized by our companion media — and even by our critics. This recognition was elemental. Without it, the motion picture was shut out of the main stream of American intellectual life. It was tolerated because of its fascination. Its bedfellow was condescension. When I came to the Association, the damning accusation was: “Hollywood is a body set off by a 12-year-old mind.” We have come far since then. Some critics say too far. Perhaps, but I suggest there is a good balance, a good range in Hollywood production today. There are some excesses, from the infantile to the adult, but we have earned our place among the leaders of the popular arts. We have demonstrated we can accept the responsibility that accompanies recognition. Q . What goals which you set for the industry 15 years ago are still to be attained? In a sense all goals are still to be attained. I hope we shall never reach the point where there are no more far horizons. If there is one place where we could profit from more constant effort, it is in the area of heightened responsibility in all branches of the industry. We have an unparalleled medium in our hands. We demand, and justly, that it shall be free. Freedom is not a passive term. It is active. It makes demands on us. It requires at all times the best we can give. It obliges us not to deal in a product that degrades the inherent dignity of man. No law ever devised can turn the shoddy into the respectable. Dignity comes from the inside, from the inner man — not from exterior sources. We are in this business to make money. And why not? But I hope we aren’t in this business just for the fast buck. If we are, we haven’t long to go. The public, sooner rather than later, stops paying the fast buck. I hope we’re in the motion picture business because we consider it our life’s work, because we want to lead long and honorable lives — lives that will cause our fellowmen to respect us for the contributions only we can make. Q . Censorship threats on a wide front present a serious problem to the industry. What problems do you see confronting the industry in its self -regulatory machinery, where the independent has become a major producer and many of the film companies operate, to a considerable extent, only as distributors and merchandisers of this product? A f\. The motion picture production revolution has swept aside many landmarks, many concepts, procedures and practices. It has brought a host of new ones as well. And a revolution — like the turning of a wheel — can move forward or backward. In my opinion, it has moved upright and steadily forward in Hollywood’s adherence to the Production Code. In this respect there is no difference between a major studio and an independent — big, medium or small independent. Producers see the wisdom of the Code. They know its value. I know of none who questions it. Naturally, at times there are arguments over interpretations. Who loves the umpire? But fundamentally the independent producer is as loyal to the Code as anyone else. This expression of loyalty has been one of the most gratifying aspects of my years in the business. It does not follow that censorship threats come from a breakdown in self -regulation. Too often, they stem from a breakdown in the fibre of individuals and groups who have turned away from the risks and privileges of personal responsibility. They seek safety instead of challenge, group security instead of individual liberty. In my youth, a primitive period to the psychoanalysts, there was an expression: “Let George do it.” And we scorned the man who did. There lies the threat of censorship. There lies the threat to freedom — in all things. With exhibitors in an increasing number of cities establishing their own rating and classification services, is the Motion Picture Ass’n actively considering such a program? A #*. The Motion Picture Ass’n nas no plans to establish a classification system. It would have, I think, precisely the opposite effect of what its advocates contend it woud have. Some people complain now about too many “adult” films. The number would zoom under classification. Adult films would really become “adult,” if not “adulterous.” Look at the experience in England. X-classified pictures have jumped in a few years from a handful to 99 in 1960. That’s a whale of a proportion of all films shown in England. It is causing a big uproar over there. I don’t want that record here. So I oppose industry-wide classification. And I oppose it by law, too. I fail to see what special gift of omniscience that politically-oriented censors might possess to divide up the public in segments and tell each segment what it could or could not see or hear or read, and why single out the motion picture? Let us make available information to tell the public honestly what’s in our pictures and then let the public make up its own mind. Q . The Saturday Review, Time and several other publications have been reporting, with apparent relish, the death of Hollywood because of an increase in overseas production by U. S. companies. From your conferences with studio executives, what can you report on the Hollywood of tomorrow? If the publications you mention are dining with relish on Hollywood’s obituary, they are indeed subsisting on meager fare. Hollywood is very much alive and healthy. It has vigor and verve. It is robust and flourishing. Certainly, studios and independents have gone abroad to produce. There have been good and convincing reasons. But this hasn’t hurt Hollywood. It hasn’t even hurt employment, and it 16 BOXOFFICE :: April 3. 1961