Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1962)

Viewpoints AUGUST 6, 1962 / VOLUME 30, NO. 16 Pay "TV Promises ami Performance If there is one word that best capsules the hard labor pains of pay television, it is promise. Ever since the late Commander Eugene F. McDonald, Jr., the master propagandist of Zenith, tried to foist feevee on the Chicago citizenry, the pay-asyou-see strategy has been centered on this slogan: promise them anything, but give them garbage. Thus far, the promises have been gradiose; the delivery, much less. The results are a matter of record: three experiments — Chicago, Palm Springs and Bartlesville — all failed for lack of the unique programming that was held out as bait to entice subscribers. Paramount's Telemeter test in Etobicoke appears to be fizzling fast for the same reason. RKO General's Phonevision in Hartford is fighting to stay alive by bullying the film companies into supplying the only worthwhile entertainment it seems prepared to offer its charter members. Having promised subscribers the brightest stars in the show business firmament, the Hartford sponsors are falling far short of what even the most conservative observers expected would comprise the first month's bill of fare. RKO General president Thomas F. O'Neil's bright prediction of "a broad fare of theatrical production, Bolshoi Ballet, first-run motion pictures, adult and children's educational programs" looks more than slightly tarnished after a month of subsequent-run movies, and little else. This is how it always goes in the feevee game — the blandishments of the promoters are a-glitter with promises of quality and culture; the fulfillment is a program made up almost entirely of motion pictures compressed onto a screen a fraction the size on which they were intended to be shown. Philip F. Harling, the tireless opponent of feevee, charged last week that "pay-TV to date has done nothing but supplement free television, 'but at a price.' " The latter phrase referred to FCC chairman Newton Minow's opening-night statement that pay-TV is not justifiable if it merely replaces free video, "but at a price." Harling, chairman of the Joint Committee Against Pay-TV, cited some damning statistics to prove that while Phonevision in Hartford was presenting a total of 13 feature films to its paying subscribers during the first month of operation, the numerous commercial TV stations whose signals reach the city were offering in the same period a total of 547 films, in addition to scores of programs of cultural interest which Hartford residents could view free. He also challenged the statement made last week by John H. Pinto, head of programming for Phonevision, that "we do not and never did intend to ask distributors for first-run pictures at this time." Mr. Harling declared, "This statement is in direct contradiction to the sworn testimony of Thomas F. O'Neil . . . before the FCC. Mr. O'Neil announced it was Phonevision's intention to present first-run motion pictures, because, he said, any other films would not have the 'box office attraction' to win paying subscribers." The feevee foe termed such films as "Pleasure of His Company," "Rome Adventure" and "The Errand Boy" BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Berne Schneyer, Publication Manager; Max Garelick, Business Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 550 Fifth Avenue, New York 34, N. Y., Circle 5-0124; Ernest Shapiro, N.Y. Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, $3.00 in the U. S.; Canada. $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS, $S.00 in the U. S.; Canada, Europe, $9.00. (three of the pictures offered by Phonevision) "a far cry from what Mr. O'Neil told the FCC would be the programming which would open new entertainment vistas for the residents of Greater Hartford." As a contrast, Harling pointed to the wide variety of movies, many of recent vintage, Telstar, Paris circuses and Berlin ice shows, Shakespeare, Harry Belafonte, jazz concerts, sculptors, artists, MIT scientists, Sophia Loren and Billy Graham — all available to Hartford residents on free TV w ithin the past month. "What can pay television possibly present that would match such a free array of talent and subjects?" asked Harling. International Telemeter, Paramount's pay-as-you-see arm in Canada, likewise painted beautiful programming pictures while laying the groundwork for its experiment that started two and a half years ago. There was auspicious talk of "premieres" and "first nights", of "high quality entertainment" unheard of on free TV. The propaganda from Telemeter was that "basic programming for the West Toronto system will consist of the latest and best motion picture features." But the bill of fare offered to pay-TV subscribers in Etobicoke has been, in the main, movies, with only an occasional theatrical attraction. As much as the towering operational expenses and the competition from free TV and movie houses, pay television is being stifled by its own unrealistic aspirations. Jack Gould, respected video critic of The New York Times, who once sang the paeans of pay-TV, reof pay-TV actually has been greatly harmed by the exaggerated publicity claims with which it has been plagued. Certainly for some time it is going to be idle to talk of presenting an evening of the Metropolitan Opera or a Broadway hit in the home. It's simply not in the economic cards." That, we say, sums it up quite well. Film BULLETIN August 6, 1962 Page 9