The Exhibitor (Nov 1938-May 1939)

SPECIAL FEATURES 25 HOWARD DIETZ SPEAKS On Movie Audiences, Critics, Foreign Films, Crime Films, Pictures Glorifying War Among Other Things And Offers Some Solid Arguments Worthy of Attention from Every Industry Member (Editor’s Note — Howard Dietz is advertising and publicity director for Metro Goldwyn Mayer as -well as being a literary light in his own right. These remarks constituted an address before the National Board of Review recently. Because they are constructive they are herewith reprinted. Reaction of readers is invited.) A PRESS AGENT enters timidly into discussions at a National Board of Review meeting. In fact a press agent enters timidly into any discussions anywhere, since there has grown up the general idea that he is trying to sell a gilded brick for pure gold. But the press agent has come to know that the gold brick business based as it is on a lie could not survive beyond the hit-an-run stage. Now the movies, themselves, have gone beyond the hit and run stage and their survival rests entirely on their essential position in society. The growth and popularity of the movies in the last ten years furthers the belief that the movies have fulfilled a desired function. This function, the role of the film in society, has been subject to most severe and interesting criticism, its severity and interest having multiplied as the movies have improved. I am confident that when the movies arrive at that golden age of merit, which producers dream of, there will then be an avalanche of disapproval. This is not said scornfully for this is as it should be. Critic, Artist Not One For, the critic and the artist are not comfortably at one with the popular taste. The critic and the artist run against the stream thus forcing the public to question its own taste and ultimately improve it as the critic and artist go on to the next best thing. But certain of the implications of the artist find a paradoxical position when dealing with the popular movie. Consider, for example the medium of satire. Satire is only effective when it is criticising something that is popular. Satire is not a successful method for making a movie because the author of necessity must take to task that which the public passionately likes. If I cannot make my point of view crystal clear, let me at the outset make it at least visible through isinglass. Having been engaged in the business of films for over 20 years, my approach may be regarded as the organic approach, observations made through long association with an industry from its architectural through its structural stages. Certain things have happened which preclude doing certain things suggested. Certain phobias have developed at the same time, which are in reality a myth. This must not be construed as an apologetic role for Hollywood. It is rather a realistic a tempt to apply the advice of criticism, to explain the rejection of what often seems like very good advice. Every generalization about films includes a parallel generalization about audiences. When Mr. Archibald McLeish, or Mr. John Howard Lawson, or Mr. Howard Barnes, or Mr. Frank Nugent, or the late Harry Alan Potamkin or the Bureau of Propaganda Analysis demand a certain type of picture, they are presupposing a certain type of audience for it. Most of their demands have been exciting, properly idealistic but they often ignore the role of the film in contemporary society. Indeed, it is difficult for any individual to be reconciled to the point of view that the box-office while not exactly final in its valuations, must nevertheless play its democratic role somewhat in the manner of the ballot box. Starting from scratch, an essential error is made in the very use of the phrase, ' the movies.” The movies like a prism contain every color of the rainbow. One cannot readily generalize about the movies without running into many exceptions. One might just as well generalize about "printed matter.” Each year the critic in these generalizations is confronted with so many of these exceptions that it would be better for the critic of films to adopt the position of the critic of other arts and only discuss the exceptions if he has to round out a theory. Four Criticisms Aside from various attitudes toward taste and the cliche (bad taste and the cliche prevailing in the majority of all popular amusements, literary or otherwise) there are a few specific kernels of criticism which comes through. They may be listed as follows: The movie producers underrate the audience; all social problems involved in a film are brought to a solution when the boy meets the girl; that the crime problem is treated in the films as if it is solved when the criminal is caught; that There are several other considerations we will touch on when we have briefly made comment about these four points. Under Rating Masses There is no evidence to show that the movies underrate its mass audience. In fact it can be well demonstrated that the growth of the film in the last ten years, during which time it has doubled its audience, would rather suggest that the public is not only getting what it wants but more of the public are getting to want it. Each member of the public is also a critic even if he does not appear in print. The biggest force for the acceptance or rejection of a film or of any idea is propaganda by word of mouth. Not only in the United States but in foreign countries, where 73 per cent of the audiences attend Hollywood films, we find a growing public acceptance of the films as the movie makers make it. Had the movies underated the intelligence of its audiences, these audiences would have rejected them long ago. This does not mean that the movie should not improve for the essential discussion in every story conference in Hollywood revolves around this point. Can Hollywood keep the vast audience that it has gotten by continuing to give it the same thing that it got it with? In other words, is a mere switch of background enough? Must the same story be told again or must it be told differently or is there a new one? That Hollywood is attuned to this problem and has made its own gradual improvement in its work must come under the head of progressive attitude rather than a static one. Indeed they find that when those who revolt against the conventional film attempt to lift it from its moorings and to make a work aspiring to be a unique result of a unique temperament, Hollywood finds that these careful students completely overlook the speed of graps of the average audience. Plot points are developed too slowly. This too is a Dart of the intelligence aside from themes. Number 1G of a Series: THEODORE J. FRIEDMAN Manager, STRAND THEATRE, Suffern, N. Y. "Thanks for a swell and very helpful trade paper. It is not often that the true qualities of human interest and education are combined in one publication. I find that the improvements you have made place you on the top of the list. Textbooks were the foundation for my education, during my school days. I can justifiably say that your paper is just as important and helpful to the theatre man of today. Congratulations and carry on the good work!” Nearly every Exhibitor reads THE EXHIBITOR! AN INVITATION Throughout 1 93 9, expressions of praise, comment, criticism or suggestion from our many Exhibitor Friends will be carried in similar form in every issue. W,e welcome the expression of every reader and will use them in the order in which they are received. February 22, 1939