Business screen magazine (1946)

The "Creative" Film How well does it serve the client? How important is It in 1973? by LEER. BOBKER Over the past decade, as the art oi lilm has reached maturity, much hp-sersice has been given to the entire question of "creativity" vis-a-vis the sponsored film. Many sponsors and producers, happih entrenched in a quicksand of financial success, were still holding fast to a convenient philosophy that the are of filmmaking, as evidenced in such landmark films as McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Garden of the Finzi-Coniinis, Shame and Clockwork Orange has no real or justifiable place in what they imagined to be an entirely different field. "We're not in the entertainment business," they testily argued and went back to their illustrated lectures and didactic celluloid manuals. Indeed, a major film consultant or "counselor" in New York has built a highly successful business on the expressed philosophy that art has no place in the sponsored film. Prior to the mini-recession of early 1971, this debate was largely academic. Those who felt that "creativity" and filmmaking were inseparable (a small minority of the industry, unfortunately) worked at their craft and carved out personal and particular reputations while the "big business" boys of the field built studios, played at being Hollywood producers and delivered to the leaders of American business the most dreadful films ever made. Since prosperity was the motivational force, no one during the late 60's even slopped to evaluate these films or to investigate audience reaction. However, when the financial ax fell in 1971 and the sponsored film was deemed an expendable luxun,'. the question of "creativity" became a focal point for many agonized budget reappraisals. "If . . .", the iconoclast asked, "all the millions, yes, millions of dollars, that had been spent on sponsored films were really doing their job, why was the sponsored film now being universally deemed an expendable luxury?" The casualty list in early 1971 among the major producers of 22 those straight no-nonsense, non-creative disasters, shocked the whole industry. TTie small high-quality, highly creative producer fared much better. The reason was relatively simple. Under the pressure of impending financial catastrophe (depression, that dirty word never used by R. Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors), the leaders of the American business community had begun to look at the films they had been buying . . . and they were horrified. The standard "sponsored" film producer, faced with cutbacks and cancellations of a product he thought would be in demand forever, and having nothing in the way of talent to fall back on. simply folded up. Then, due to the election year necessity of shoring up the economy by whatever means necessary, we were, as they say in the Bible, "all saved". But nothing ever again would be the same because that word "creativity" was once again spoken aloud. As the stock market now breaks through 1000 with a vcneeance and the rosv glow of favorable forecasts emana from the glass towers of our comme cial centers, there is no hysterical rus to get back to producing those awfi films again. Quite to the contrary, th day of the straight sponsored film probably over. Few, if any, top execi tives of major corporations will toda accept the dull lecture, the formu film, the stolid narrated tranquilize As with all change, the sins of the pa will linger on for a few more years » the person of those remaining produi ers who won't or can't make an artist creative film. Firms like the film cor sultant company mentioned earlier wi go on digging up (and it's quite a excavation) clients who are still wil ing to accept the "nothing" film bu by and large, a major revolution h; been accomplished. Today — the intelligent client se one standard for his film investment-i and it is creativity. He has learned ih; it is the only criterion by which h film in\estment can be measured. I Lee R. Bobker Is a teacher, author, film maker, and president of Vision Associate in New York. BUSINESS SCREE