Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

(Continued from Page 5) This is near-sighted selfishness larded with ingratitude. Any exhibitor who thinks thus has too quickly forgotten the tireless work done by many who profited but little from the results of the last excise tax fight. Certainly the latter are now entitled to the support of those who seem to have little or nothing to gain in the present campaign. As a matter of fact, we urge selfishness by all exhibitors, but not the myopic selfishness displayed by the "I've got mine" group. Let them consider the long-term benefits that will accrue from an industry healthy in all its organs. A sound stomach soon begins to deteriorate if the gall bladder isn't functioning properly, and exhibition can be sound only if all of exhibition is sound. So let us have a benevolent, farsighted selfishness in this new tax campaign. While it is true that one segment will benefit, it also true that a victory will redound to the ultimate good of the industry at large. Hi* tv to Use TV To Sell Movies? For a long time the general industry attitude towards film "breaks" on TV was that they were all for the good; that, in effect, Hollywood had nothing to lose, everything to gain, just from having their product mentioned — and better, previewed — over the small-screen medium. In an audience of millions, it was presumed, the TV plug would attract a substantial number of people who might otherwise bypass the movie. Legitimate advertising, in the form of spot announcements, was acknowledged to be good selling, and particular enthusiasm was felt for programming arrangements whereby a film would be presented (as on the Sullivan show) to the public as entertainment. But recent weeks have brought forth some questions about the efBicacy of methods employed to exploit movies via television. It is now being asked in some quarters whether the showing of clips from films on TV — the easiest and most widely accepted device — might not be of more harm than benefit. The doubts have come from several sources. A survey by film statistician Sindlinger in selected southwestern areas revealed the surprising information of an inverse relationship between frequency of TV plugs and theatre boxoffice returns. Some delegates to the recent National Allied convention in Cleveland said that the clips "more often unsell than sell new product". George Sidney, president of the Screen Directors Guild leveled a scathing attack against showing film clips on TV, calling them a "deterrent to theatre business". In the face of such criticism, it is certainly pertinent to examine the problem. The sensible attitude — and that adopted by most industry advertising executives — is that rejection of the whole idea of selling film by showing clips on television would be foolish. The corrective for past or present errors lies in the care and skill taken in the preparation of material to be presented. Scenes from theatre films to be shown on the television screen demand a reduction in size, from the dimensions of the wide CinemaScope screen to approximately 21 inches. Involved also is the loss of color, and general diminution of theatrical effect. Some compensation must be substituted for this loss — knowledgeable selection, editing, and selling. In questioning a number of film advertising executives about this problem, Film BULLETIN found most thinking centered around a middle-of-the-road position : don't discard the device, but use it intelligently, sensibly, and imaginatively; ill-used, it may well be harmful. Several of the authorities questioned compared such TV exposure to ordinary newspaper advertising, drawing the simple inference that bad clips are as ineffectual — or actually as negative — as bad ads. But, like newspaper ads, TV clips can't be ignored: not with that potential audience! United Artists' advertising chief, Roger Lewis, for instance, located the fault in planning failure. To be effective, he said, the material must not consist of a hodge-podge of bits of scenes (what George Sid ney called a "feeble imitation" of the theatre trailer), but rather, of a series of "effects", designed specifically to draw immediate attention to them. Mr. Lewis pointed out that Ed Sullivan — whose show, for obvious reasons, so frequently figures in discussions of this sort — is no longer content to use a series of clips, but requests special sequences — "behind the scenes" scenes filmed on location (like "The Pride and the Passion" in Spain), or featurettes supplemented by personal appearances (like Stanley Kramer's discussion on "Not as a Stranger"), etc. The keynote of these diverse approaches is clearly planning, showmanship, ingenuity — directed towards an integrated effect. The trick is to find a "gimmick" to be able to suggest a film's appeal, without necessarily presenting it literally. Because a theatre spectacle just can't be done justice to in a TV clip, it is necessary to convey the ingredients. Lewis says plans for such material should be undertaken while the film is in actual production. Affirmation of the potential value of TV exposure, to the need for appropriate content, and to aiming material at specific segments of the audience was voiced by Martin Michel, TV-radio director for 20th Century-Fox. He agreed that the idea ol the clip was still valid, but emphasized that it had been put to bad use in the past. Michel said that a complete scene, communicating something of entertainment value, is "without question" superior to a trailer-type sequence. The danger of failure — of choosing bad clips — was succinctly phrased by Universal's Jeff Livingston, who remarked: "If you don't put your best foot forward, people in their living-rooms become critics." Livingston underlined his company's awareness of the dangers in plunging headlong into indiscriminate use of clips on TV. Admittedly, this is a problem. So great a potential selling medium must be treated seriously and with caution. It is worth expending time, money and talent to properly exploit movies on TV. Certainly, it would be unwise to employ the medium haphazardly. This is a challenge that smart showmanship can and must meet to good advantage. Page 6 Film BULLETIN April 16 1956