Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1958)

to be done on film. Live television today, in my opinion, has become restricted pretty much to parlor, bedroom and kitchen. Everything is interior and it gets pretty dull. I How do you expand your horizons? You have to go to film. Today, in all the studios we've made, Americans are traveling and they're reading books that deal with adventure, out-of-doors life. We find more interest in that type of thing. Ten years ago in radio if we did a soap opera where the locale was Paris, nobody listened. But today people want to see these things, and the most successful motion pictures in the past eight or 10 years included "Three Coins in the Fountain," a travel show; "Roman Holiday," another travel show, and Katherine Hepburn's "Summertime." In effect, what they did was to take a dramatic show and super it over a travelogue. The only way you can possibly do that in television is on film. Apart from this, I think that film, properly used, displays an actor to better advantage. One of the assertions made was that there is really nothing distinguished about any filmed tv program. Is this true? Of course not. There is something distinguished about Gunsmoke, whether you are a western fan or not. It's a damned welldone film. I think a great many film series have distinguishing characteristics. I can't point to / Love Lucy as a great artistic achievement, but certainly from the popular acceptance, a series like Lucy is fine entertainment. If we are to compare television film today and, say, some of the really great motion pictures, such as "The Ten Commandments," obviously no comparison can be made. But this is strictly a cost factor. If we had the same amount of money to spend on television, the quality situation could be pretty quickly corrected. This is an economic problem. Do you think the viewer knows when a show is on film? Absolutely not. We've made a number of studies. They cannot tell the difference between live and film and, more important, they care less. This is an academic factor What would the average film show run? Around $35,000 for a half-hour show. And the same show live? Closer to $45,000 or $50,000. And if we go into the hour extravaganza, then we are really in the big money. For instance, many of the extravaganzas today, such as these recent anniversary shows where the cost is running up to $300,000, could have been done on film probably better — and cheaper — but the question then is whether the actors would be available for film. Remember, the personalities involved are a big factor today. A great many top personalities will go live but they do not want to go on film, because they know that film is going to be around for the next 10 years. I think if most advertisers or producers had their choice, they would prefer to go film because obviously the future holds more for film than it does for live insofar as covering costs. Would you say live shows on the whole are more creative than film shows? Not a bit. I don't see why. There we get back again to the basic problem that a film show must be done in a very short period of time and the director doesn't have a great deal of time to be very creative. But from the standpoint of sets, of acting ability, the way an actor responds to a camera and an audience, there isn't a great deal of difference. Marlon Brando is probably better on film today than he was on the stage. He certainly was not a big name on the stage until he became a film star. The same goes for a great many other people. Is the film director confined to the sound stage? We talked about outdoor shooting. Is there actually a lot of outdoor shooting? Oh, there is a great deal of outdoor shooting. I think it's becoming more and more popular. In our series, The Gray Ghost, for instance, I would say 90% of the action is out-of-doors. And in Gunsmoke, series like that, certainly 80% or more is out-ofdoors. How about the situation comedy? Well, most are on film: Eve Arden, Our Definitely, and more important, a way for the producer, because it makes the film available to the advertiser for considerably less than he would have to pay if there were not the possibility of repeating. By going into syndication? Going into syndication, or even for that matter, being rerun on the network. Lucy is being rerun on the network today and is getting ratings almost as high as it used to in its heyday, and this is six years later. That's pretty good. What I am trying to determine is whether there are advantages to films that a live program couldn't give an advertiser. The advantages of film to an advertiser, I think are tremendous. For instance, if he has any regional problem, obviously he can't go for a live show, he's got to go for a syndicated show or a regional show. Also something to bear in mind for the future is the foreign market. American advertisers today, such as Lever or Colgate or General Foods which have foreign interests, undoubtedly are going to think in terms of shows also being seen in these areas. There have been inquiries as to whether American shows cannot be shown in England or Italy. Advertisers in the United States who have programs on the network quite often ask if we will provide the same show in the Latin American market and we are doing so more and more. How much of your market is now in the foreign area? Twenty-six per cent. We think that will grow to probably 30% or 32%. It's spreading out all over, and obviously film is the reason. Now NBC is even talking about offering kinescopes of its spectaculars overseas. We haven't gone that far yet; but if that day comes, then we are talking about the large spectacular really on film. Another factor would be that they could reduce their costs by selling them overseas. I think we've got to think in terms of tape for the future. Certainly it's a time-saver and it takes the pressure off studios in a great many cases. So what we will have in effect is a live show on tape. Do you think tape will to any considerable extent replace film? insofar as the average viewer is concerned. Basically what they are looking for is a good show; it entertains, it educates, it amuses. Carrying that one step further, do you happen to know what percentage of. say. the top ten or top twenty are film and how much live? Only three of the top ten are not on film. Gunsmoke is No. 1 — that's film. The Lucy special, Wells Fargo, Danny Thomas, Jack Benny, Cheyenne and Wyatt Earp. Only Sullivan, Como, and Jerry Lewis are live. What about the cost of film? From an advertiser's point of view, isn't it cheaper for him to buy a film show in the long run? Definitely, yes. Broadcasting Miss Brooks, Ozzie and Harriet and the Danny Thomas Show. To set up a situation comedy show using the devices they use live would be an almost impossible task. I don't believe there is a single situation live, is there? No, I was trying to remember one. What about the advantages of reruns on the syndicate itself? Reruns definitely. If it's a great show, it deserves to be seen again. With today's rating base spreading out, if 30% of the people saw it the first time, potentially 70% of the people in this country have not seen the film, plus the fact a great many shows are enjoyed by people who have seen them before. This is a way for the advertiser to recapture OPINION I rather suspect it will. It's less expensive. Yes, but only because it eliminates laboratory costs. Otherwise the costs are pretty constant. You haven't made any plans to use tape yet? None at all. But isn't it true film shows repeat the same thina over and over again, while in the live show we can extend the scope? I don't think that's true. The stereotype format, live or film, is generally due to the time factor. By that, I mean the tendency of advertisers to wait until the last moment before they sign the contract on the pro January 13, 1958 • Page 121