Film Culture (1957)

vision today, a number of young people—who were unable to attain opportunity in the motion picture field —have delivered a vitality and excitement and a contribution to the dramatic form of television which is not being matched in motion pictures. I believe that some of the things which I see on television today, dramatically speaking, and in terms of performance, direction and script, are far superior to the contributions we are making, at least in terms of what the final total impact of a piece of material is. Now, the challenge of television, on the other hand, has prompted the motion picture industry to look to its laurels and to strive to make better films. I think this has been accomplished to some extent. I would hope that it is not accomplished entirely and only by the size of the screen. Now that television has helped increase the quality of movies, do you think the race will continue? I don’t think there’s going to be any race now. You have two giant media, and I think that the coming together and the interchange of talent will be more and more pronounced as time goes on. Further than that, it becomes very obvious that the motion picture producer is becoming also a television producer so that you will have the same talents, the same glories and the same shortcomings in both fields. This brings us to a very poignant question. What will make people go to the movies if that is so? Well, what difference does it make whether people go to the movies per se. Naturally, the exhibitor is concerned about that. In many ways the distributor also is concerned. But if the marketing of motion picture films is to be on this screen of this size in this place whether it be a palace, a small theatre, or a large screen in the home—what difference? We are making material. We are telling stories. We are trying to tell them well. I am not enough of an expert on the distribution of films to tell where they will be screened and shown. I feel that ‘there will always be a motion picture theatre. I hope that there will be if only because I like the idea of there being a special place where a special thing may be screened for criticism or reception, but I don’t know whether that will continue. Would that mean that when you make a film it really makes no basic difference to you whether it is released on television or in a motion picture theatre? I didn’t say that. When I make a big film like The Pride and the Passion, | would not be too happy about its being screened on television screens at the present time. Simply because there is the vastness of the subject, the color (which is not yet widespread in television) , the stars and their stature, etc. I would like to have very special circumstances surrounding the screening of this picture. I speak more of the possibilities of the future when color does prevail in television, when the screens in the home or in special sections of the home or: in community screening places in buildings—whatever ‘the situation—become compatible to the screening “of larger-scope films. It is not completely satisfactory today. Everybody has an opinion on almost everything these days in terms of the future. I would rather reserve my opinion and say this: I hope that the world will stay at peace so that I might continue what I like to do: the making of pictures. I’m quite willing to let the place where they will be shown take its natural course. I think people will look at pictures in the places where they are most comfortable and enjoy them most. FRITZ LANG Do you think that the current trend to shorter shooting schedules is caused by the competition of television? Some things are very hard to say. On the one hand, business is bad, and it is getting worse every year. Partially, of course, it’s the competition of television. But maybe the reason is also that we don’t experiment enough in Hollywood—but again, that is a question of money. An independent can’t really experiment very well, because if he makes one bad picture, he is set back for years and years. A major studio could experiment, but they don’t want to take the risk. It wouldn’t be a risk—I don’t know why they don’t take it and experiment. Film is art, it’s the art of our century. Some people say it is just an entertainment industry, and in industry you don’t experiment. To me it is both; I think it 1s an art which has become an industry through the mere fact that it is of such wide appeal. Do you think that experiment, then, is the thing which would make motion pictures emerge from this competion victoriously? In other words, the seeking of new frontiers, the breaking of new ground, the use of new talent, new stories? I think the last thing you said is very important: new stories, but not new plots—there are very few plots, as somebody once wrote. What matters is how the characters are developed. What I try to do is to make pictures about modern people and modern problems. We have to get out of a certain rut into which we have fallen. I think we have to try to make pictures about the problems of our own days. That is the first step. JOHN HOUSEMAN Do you feel that the American motion picture indus™ try 1s today using material which would have been considered box-office poison twenty years ago? That is undoubtedly true. And in that respect I think 5