Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

New Blood* New Ideas Needed To Cure Our Ills9 Meet Competition dustry, it seems, is the introduction of new blood, and young, fresh talent. This is because the "old hands" continue, in too many cases, at the helm. Their way of doing things persists. Innovation is frowned upon simply because it does not conform to the established ideas "upon which our industry was founded." Phooey ! One result of this "closed mind" attitude is that youngsters with vision and enterprise — writers, actors, directors and technicians — have been by-passing Hollywood in favor of television. The vitality of TV today stems from that unpleasant fact. And now, when the film business needs new blood more than ever, it finds it cannot attract enough of it. Newcomers Scared Off The familiar cry, "You can't do that", or "You musn't do this" has scared the youngsters off. And yet, because of the huge sums of money lavished on many pictures today, and the financial responsibilities which are borne by those at the top of the Hollywood tree, who can challenge successfully these wealthy and powerful gentlemen with their childlike faith in the old order? These things are not easy to write about, because there do exist, even at the top, a few visionaries who have never become stultified; by and large, however, except for this tiny handful of big and forward thinkers, Hollywood is dominated by men who have literally become slaves to a system to which they wish everybody and everything to be utterly subservient. The trend of thinking; at the top during the past few years is fairly typical of their outlook. When things began to look bad the industry's leaders applied the only solution they could thing of : spend more money ; make bigger, more lavish, more spectacular films. Let's convulse the public by sheer extravagance. Let us spend millions instead of thousands — not only on the film, but also on the publicity. Pull out all the stops. We've done it before. We can do it again. And so began the cycle of high-budget pictures which has brought so much trouble in its train : exhorbitant demands by stars, requests for participation deals, concessions here and concessions there and — inevitably — fewer films at the disposal of exhibitors, and at ever-higher rentals. Money No Black Magic Of course there was another factor which inspired that crazy policy — the belief that television would be crippled by pictures which were so splendiferous that the new medium just couldn't afford to match them. What happened? You know the answer to that question as well as we. The public was impressed — but only momen tarily. The almighty dollar quickly lost its old black magic. In thousands they stayed home to watch, on their TV screens, shows which cost only a fraction of those playing at their neighborhood theatres. They ignored the superduper-collossals mounted in Hollywood in favor of the low-cost, but highly imaginative and true-to-life "Marty". Yes, it used to be true that vast expenditures and costly exploitation schemes impressed people; but that was in the "good old days" before the human imagination was atrophied by "modern improvements" like the hydrogen bomb and multi-billion dollar Federal budgets. Familiarity breeds contempt, and the long-suffering public, whether we like it or not, is as contemptuous as it could be about the cost of a picture — if not downright suspicious of any movie which involves prodigious amounts of money. There must be a catch in it somewhere, they reckon. Messrs. Ross and Hornblow are probably wrong in believing that the future lies with the independent producer. The film, in spite of competitive forms of entertainment, is still the preferred medium to the great masses of people all over the world. And the industry, being world-wide in scope, necessarily requires highly efficient, fully organized business machinery such as can only be provided by important major production units with vast physical and financial facilities at their command. But if their views are based on a conviction that the major studios, as a whole, are being choked and stifled by an Old Guard tradition, and are reluctant to accept the challenge of our times, then we must, to that extent, agree that it is time for change. And changes are bound to come — changes in the methods of making motion pictures, exploiting and exhibiting them. Changes are coming in the conception of what Mr. and Mrs. Public desire in movie entertainment and what they will put out their hard earned dollars to see. Changes are coming in the mode of selling films to exhibitors so that their initiative is encouraged rather than stifled. Changes are coming in the whole attitude of an industry that must learn to respect its audience by producing a calibre of movie that meets the growing intellectual capacity of the American people. Changes are coming, too, in the whole economic structure of a business that once ruled the roost as the premiere purveyor of popular entertainment, and must now meet a most formidable competitor. Coming is the need for an approach toward the making and merchandising of motion pictures on a basis of content rather than cost. Money doesn't spell glamour, as once it did. Maybe it's just that that Herbert Yates of Republic sniffs in the smog-laden California air. Maybe that's what some of the tired old-timers in this business have begun to sniff, and why they have started to move toward the exit. FILM Bulletin June 25, 1956 Page 7