Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

AN IDEA FOR THE WILL ROGER HOSPITAL ... LONG MOVIES ... MANN TO SOVIET FILM MAKERS Mr. Ned Depinet sounded a major chord when he told the annual meeting of the Will Rogers Hospital that it was a fine public relations vehicle for the industry. It is too bad that the million dollar quota needed to accommodate the Hospital's program for the next year must depend mostly on public fund raising. The collections in theatres, plus the money realized by the Christmas certificates, is certainly a means of carrying the Hospital's story to public and industry alike. However, this is no more than an emergency method of raising the needed money. What is required is a systematic fund raising mechanism that would operate on a year 'round basis and not be confined to acquiring funds to sustain the institution. I suggest to Mr. Depinet and his confreres (who deserve much credit for their sincere efforts) that an attempt be made to do a spectacular telecast through which commercial sponsors would pay at least one half-million dollars for the privilege of backing a good show and assisting a most worthy cause. Wouldn't it be possible to get star entertainers to participate in this one annual telecast so that the package would be sold to sponsors? The Hospital is for show folks in all its branches and a performer who gave his services for such a telecast would be helping those who benefit from the hospitals' services and research. Everyone involved — performers, sponsors, the network and all of showbusiness — also would enjoy a fine public image through this participation. When is a motion picture too long? I ask this question because a number of very good pictures are assailed on the basis of their running time, and even producers and directors, after first showings, conclude that the human tochus can only endure an arbitrary interval. It is odd that the paying public is seldom questioned about how long it thinks any given picture should keep them in a theatre. When I pays my dough to attend the cinema, I am not concerned how long I will sit, only with how long I will be entertained. It seems that we have reached a point in our civilization (said he smilingly) when we become subservient to the clock and when we consider that acceleration is the panacea. In this supersonic age, we see how fast we can get to a given point and give very little thought why we are going or what we will do when we get there. We sometimes shy away from a good mi Jroeo ADAM WEILER book because it contains over 300 pages, not caring whether its 600 pages might be extremely enchanting. That is why some wag said that David O. Selznick not only deserved great credit for producing "Gone With the Wind", but also should have received laudation for having finished the book. The gentry who operate baseball exhibitions have been concerned with ways and means to speed up the game, overlooking the fact that the average fan is ab initio so bored that he doesn't give a damn whether he sits in the park way past supper time. It's the same when the folks go to the movies, especially in these days when they only occasionally attend. We know from experience that the double feature is favored by most paying customers and, speaking as an allegedly showminded citizen, I don't mind sitting four hours to view two features if the}' have entertainment values. If I were an exhibitor, I would make a point of selling the idea that my show was a long one and challenge the potential patron to find a better way of spending four or five hours. Of course, before doing this I would make sure that the patron would have a comfortable seat and not one that, as I have found out, can rupture the base of any good sturdy spine. But the main point of this essay is to point up that the time element is perceived only in inverse ratio to the quality of amusement that is inherently in the subject matter. No creative author sits down and declares that he must write a novel that will take only two hours to read. And certainly a creative picture maker should not have to calculate that exhibitors prefer pictures that run no more than two hours. Actually there are no rules or guide lines to govern this matter; anymore than there are formulae governing the selection of subject matter. The best, and generally the most profitable pictures, are those that are made, not according to the taste of others, but those that reflect the personality of the persons who make them. Recall the charm of the Lubitsch genre and, contemporarily, consider the elan and extraordinary work of Billy Wilder. It should be kept in mind that a seven course dinner can be either dull or delightful, depending not only on the quality of the cuisine but on those who are sitting around the table. Some of our enjoyment of the foreign pictures is due to the empathy we have for the craftsmen who create them. We think that Fellini is clever mainly because we see in him a spirit that lies dormant in most of us and is there to be awakened. It would be difficult to tell a good picture maker that he must do a job by watching the clock. I am reminded that one of the longest operas, "Parsifal", seems to go on and on without abridgement. And we still read Dickens, Tolstoi, Anatole France and Dumas, none of whom could be accused of brevity. Abby Mann, a sensitive and capable screen writer, displayed exemplary courage when he told the Soviet film artists, according to the Associated Press, that "an artist, if he is to create out of his heart's blood, must be free to assail any institution, any status quo, any sacred cow, and let the chips fly where they may." Mann, who was speaking at the Moscow International Film Festival, received most enthusiastic applause and endorsement. Could it be that those who make Russian films have reached the point where the ideological straightjacket is pinching tighter than before and their reaction indicated a desire to make pictures about which they personally feel strongly — and to hell with the Marxian doctrine? Our course, Mann did not exonerate our own system and made it clear that the artist has problems under the capitalist system by declaring, "We have followed the dictates of our countries — their sentiments and their cliches." I presume that Mr. Mann, despite certain strictures confronting the production of motion pictures in the U.S.A., was really feeling comparatively free to do what he pleases in his own milieu. He told the Russians to join their Western colleagues in trying "to drive the slaves out of ourselvev This metaphor could aptly be applied to the Soviet industrv, but what it means in the Hollywood context is not so clear. Did Mr. Mann mean that he has become a "slave" to emoluments in contrast to the RusM.ms becoming slaves to dialectics? Film BULLETIN July 22. 1943 Page II