Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1954)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

IN REVIEW ROBERT MONTGOMERY PRESENTS WELL NOW, it seems that the term co-existence is much in the news these days and it might be time to raise the question whether tv and those broad, panoramic classics which have been appearing rather frequently on the nation's tv screens can co-exist. With Robert Montgomery's two-part telecast of The Hunchback of Notre Dame just completed last week, it might not be amiss to ask whether the 17-in. or 21-in. tv screen is the proper vehicle for presenting the characterpacked, action-packed, scene-packed classics of those who wrote in the grand manner (Shakespeare, Fielding, Dickens, Tolstoy, Bennett come to mind). Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is a huge, rambling story of dozens of characters in the rowdy, teeming, fetid Paris of the Middle Ages. Each character is delineated over dozens of pages and the tone of old Paris is communicated to the reader over dozens of chapters. How fared Mr. Montgomery in his presentation of this classic? The telecast of the Hugo work was made in two parts, each running one hour and separated from each other by seven days. The essence of medieval Paris was distilled in five scenes (the square in front of Notre Dame, the court of the Provost of Paris, the inn of the beggars, the hovel in which the gypsy dancer and her poet lived, and the belfrey home of the bell-ringer). The characters were projected in short scenes with much of their background amplified by Mr. Montgomery's between-the-acts narration. Thus, the saga of Quasimodo — which in the novel is fleshed with the myriad details of great writing — seemed episodic and one-dimensional on the picture tube. That may be the limitation inherent in tv. It cannot paint the sweeping canvases of the great classics. The picture tube is not large enough; the time allotted not long enough. Viewing the Montgomery production as television, however, we would say it was tv of a very high order. Within the confines of the medium, Mr. Montgomery managed to tell the story of the misshapen bell-ringer with artistry and with some of the great compassion which is the soul of the Hugo book. Robert Ellenstein was splendid as the hunchback. To one whose picture image of Quasimodo is that of the late Lon Chaney, Mr. Ellenstein's characterization implied a humaneness that overshadowed the physical grotesqueness of the portrayal. Bramwell Fletcher as Frollo, the archdeacon of Notre Dame, was successful in inducing an element of compassion to serve as a counterpoint to the ugly brutality of the city, the mob and the nobles. Hurd Hatfield as Gringoire, the poet, grew in his part so that his portrayal of the physically weak but noble in sentiment versifier attained stature. We were somewhat disappointed in Esmeralda, as played by Celia Lipton. Where was this wanton gypsy whose attractions so fatally inflamed her three suitors? Miss Lipton in her characterization seemed more bland than fiery. The other portrayals must be described as adequate. Staging, settings and camera work were more than adequate and in some scenes showed inspired creativeness. There's no question that torture was an accepted form of justice in those days. But, we were somewhat shaken at the showing of the use of the vise on Esmeralda, and for what seemed so long a period. Undoubtedly, any classic performed on tv is going to have an audience. Just the fact that it is a classic is bound to attract those who feel they must see it. It is good that in those which have been attempted the calibre has been high, regardless of medium shortcomings. Adapted from Victor Hugo's novel, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," by Alvin Sa pinsley. Production costs: Estimated at $40,000 per program Sponsors: S. C. Johnson & Son through Needham, Louis & Brorby (Part I); American Tobacco Co. through BBDO (Part H). Executive Producer: Robert Montgomery; Production Supervisor: Joseph W. Bailey; Assistant: Hank Coleman; Director: Norman Felton. Scenery: Syrajala; Makeup: Robert O'Bradovitch; Costumes: Jane Burroughs; Casting: Doris Sharp. Cast: Robert Ellenstein, Hurd Hatfield, Celia Lipton, Mary Sinclair, Scott Forbes, Tom Duggan, Bramwell Fletcher, Fred Worlock, James Milhollin. Origination: New York. THEY STAND ACCUSED THAT old standby in the realm of unrehearsed courtroom dramas, They Stand Accused, has been dusted off by the DuMont Television Network after a two-years' absence and revived with the acknowledged advantage of a commercial sponsor. The case aired on the Nov. 1 1 stanza involved an alienation of affections suit, in which an architect sued a woman, an intimate friend of his estranged wife, for attempting to break up his home. The uniqueness of this series lies in the fact that viewers are treated to a full-hour courtroom trial during which no scripts are utilized, either by the principals, portrayed by professional actors and actresses, or the attorneys, played by Chicago lawyers. The case is completely ad libbed — the commercials are not. The revival of Accused has been achieved with only moderate success, due largely to uneven camera work, but that is not to say that the ingredients are not there. Also, in this particular case, the professional actors, notably Lee Phillips as the architect, were too articulate and their testimony too pat to ring true. Picturewise, the camera work might have been improved with better closeups of the prosecuting and defense attorneys trying their cases before the jury. When properly executed, there is nothing more dramatic and compelling. On the other hand, it was entirely adequate in closeups of the women in Mr. Lang's life as one after the other took the witness stand. The commercials, on behalf of Lanolin Plus lipstick, shampoo, skin cleanser and other products, were tastefully delivered throughout the hour. Production costs: $9,000. Sponsor: Consolidated Cosmetics Inc. (Lanolin Plus products) through Frank E. Duggan Adv., Chicago Network: DuMont Tv—Thurs., 7-8 p.m. CST Produced by: Leslie Urbach Associate Producer: Richard Von Albrecht Directed by: Sheldon Cooper Written by: William C. Wines Announcer: Jim Bannon Cast: A. Bradley Eben, Lee Phillips, Mina Kolb, Toni Gilman, Mary Staver, Matthews Steinberg, Erritt Graham, Harry Christian Origination: Chicago CAPITAL FILM LABS, INC. Formerly McGeary-Smifh 1905 Fairview Ave., N.E., Washington 2, D.C. i. ' Broadcasting Telecasting November 22, 1954 • Page 15