Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1958)

THE POSITIVE CASE FOR TV FILM Film's Harris challenges live's Susskind On credit side: flexibility, latitude, cost "Live television has become restricted to parlor, bedroom and kitchen . . . it gets pretty dull." The speaker: Leslie Harris, taking issue with producer David Susskind's outspoken partisanship for live tv [Opinion, Dec. 30, 1957]. Mr. Harris, vice president and general manager of CBS There seem to be three sides to the debate on whether it's better to do a program on film or do it live. Some say film is better, some say live, some say each has certain advantages. Where do you stand? It depends on the program, the circumstances, the type of presentation. You feel there is room for both? I definitely do. What kind of program do you think is better on film? Can I reverse this a little? I think the latitude of film is much wider than for live broadcasts, so I would prefer to say what kind of program I think is best live. A variety program. I would never suggest that a variety program be put on film. For instance, Ed Sullivan or Perry Como. How about Frank Sinatra? I think Frank Sinatra made a serious mistake going on film. The spontaneity of a Sinatra, the impact or the rapport between the singer and his audience, can best be preserved live. I make no case for film where a personality such as a Sinatra or Dinah Shore or that type of entertainer is concerned. Not only do I think a variety show should be done live but a musical show, generally speaking, is better if it is done live. How about a dramatic show? I think film is superior for a number of reasons. There is no question that a dramatic show can be done live extremely well, but there are definite restrictions generally speaking, the artistic performance eras begin to roll, and we've got a show! This isn't good. And I think that's why the proponents of the live television dramatic show say the live show is better, simply because the actors have had more rehearsal. That I can't argue with. / think perhaps you and Dave Susskind are closer together than I thought you would be, because he was talking throughout in terms of 2V2 and 3 days of production for a film show. Well, it's not adequate; there's no question about it. Why can't there be a longer period for film? Because, in the first place, the scales between the live actors union and film actors union are different and the entire cost factor, technically speaking, is much higher on film; so if you have two weeks' rehearsal to do a film show as opposed to a live show, the cost would probably be twice as much. I think I'm being conservative. Does this mean that film can never replace live in television? 1 don't think it's good for film to replace live. There should be room in television for both. I don't think there should be any arbitrary standards or evaluations as to whether film should replace live or live should replace film. Both of these media are necessary and important for television. It becomes a question of which is the most acceptable or which can be utilized to the best advantage. Let's build a case for film. Let's tell our readers the type of program you Television Film Sales, presents the case for film in this recorded interview with Broadcasting. Mr. Harris has touched a lot of industry bases in his 42 years. While still at Washington Lee U. he spent summers announcing at WDBO Orlando, Fla. His first job after school was with WOR New York as an announcer, followed by a stint as station manager at WQAM Miami. In 1941 he moved to CBS, in the production department, left there to become radio director of Benton & Bowles. He later joined NBC as program director of network radio; then joined Colgate-Palmolive as head of radio-tv. After a time in independent production with producer Bernie Schubert, he returned to CBS. is better if it's on film. There is certainly a wider latitude insofar as sets and locations are concerned. The possibility of error is less. The chances of a better performance are improved on film. Now I have to cushion all these with some negatives. The problem with film today is there is too much rush and not enough money. If we are to do a film in three days as compared to a live dramatic which possibly has two weeks' rehearsal, obviously the film show is likely to suffer. Where the problem arises is to equalize the costs of film and make them comparable to a live show and at the same time benefit from the better values that can be realized in a film show. The trouble is that with a film show today, most actors walk into the studio, the cam think best on film, the advantages of film. I think the analogy between film and live is very similar to the theatre and the screen today. In the theatre — the live theatre or live television there obviously are limitations. For instance, you can't do a successful western show in a theatre. Conversely, you can do a tremendously good western on film. Now whether we say the western dramatic form is the essence of art or not, the fact remains that a western is probably the most popular form of entertainment on television today. Westerns have been tried live and they have been dismal failures and will probably remain so. Obviously, the show that demands outdoor shots, change of locale and action has Page 120 • January 13, 1958 Broadcasting