Harrison's Reports (1951)

52 HARRISON’S REPORTS March 31, 1951 sponsibility is to the man and woman of the American family — who, if you asked them, cannot tell you exactly what they prefer for Entertainment. They can only tell you if they enjoyed — or did not enjoy — a film, after having seen it. The responsibility for selecting the type of film entertainment we believe they want and will like, is the prime obligation and duty of the theatre manager. How good a theatre manager he is, i.e., how good a judge of entertainment he is, within the limitations of the film available for shouting — is manifested by his theatre s grosses week in and week out. “Your article refers to movie fans as ‘popcorn munching film addicts . . . living in a dream world all their own,’ implying that they are a particular and somewhat peculiar small group set apart from others. This is completely erroneous thinking — and if I may say so, constitutes rather snide thinking, implying a superiority attitude entirely unbecoming of one whose job rests upon serving the public. That is your job — and my job — so perhaps it might be worthwhile to ascertain just what the public really is. “The ‘dream world denizens' you refer to, who weekly look to us for their entertainment — actually are composed of the PUBLIC. They are the self-same people who swamp the newsstands when headlines proclaim ‘Yanks Wipe Out Korean Red'; who cast only awry glances at a newsstand when headlines proclaim troubles for our soldiers in Korea. They are the self-same people who throng the streets to see a parade; who flock to the ballpark or gridiron to thrill to an exciting game; who flock to department store sales, and who find much more enjoyment listing to Jack Benny, Fibber McGee and Molly, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, than in hearing a broadcast of a ‘forum' or ‘discussion' program which aims at ‘the better things of life.' These people are you — and me — and all of us; in other words, they are ‘just, plain every-day people' — and they are the ones to whom we are responsible to interpret correctly what they like and do not like — regardless of whatever personal entertainment preference we may have. “Let us switch, for a moment, from films to newspapers. Each is a medium of communication for the People. Perhaps one of the finest newspapers is the New Tor\ Times— worthy of every accolade which can be heaped upon it. Yet, the circulation of this paper, as compared to the Daily or Sunday circulation of the Sfew Tor\ Daily Jsfews, makes it appear that the News is a far better paper than the worthy Times. Does this mean, therefore, that the News is a better paper? Certainly not! But it does indicate indelibly what the general public prefers in the way of newspapers. Granted, it might be much better were the general public to overwhelmingly prefer the New T or\ Times to the Daily News — but after all, the best judge as to what is preferable and what is not, insofar as the general public is concerned, is the general public itself. “Your newspaper enjoys a remarkably fine reputation among the newspapers of America, but it, too, reflects in its pages that which its readers wish to read. That’s why you feature two pages of comics each day; why you feature eight or ten pages of comics each Sunday; why your Magazine Section is filled from top to bottom, with story material designed to interest the general public. To say the least, this latter material can hardly be opined ‘great literature.’ I might even refer to it as you referred to some film productions, i.e., ‘formula trash,’ but regardless, it does fill the need and the preferences of your readers — the general public itself. “Hypothetically, let us imagine a new policy for the Post-Dispatch, wherein the management opines that only astutely scientific and deep articles, written by college professors and world-recognized scientists, and that only authors such as Aldous Huxley and other equally brilliant and literate writers, are to handle the feature and newsdesk chores; that all comic supplements, ‘formula trash’ and the like, henceforth are to be banned. YOU know what would happen to your newspaper. It would probably be acclaimed the finest and most literate and ‘top quality’ newspaper in the world, but its circulation would quickly drop to a mere nothing, and within a short time, you would be out of business. “When Mr. and Mrs. Public visit a movie, they do so for ENTERTAINMENT. They do not come there to think, or to be educated or to be faced with grim realities of everyday living problems. They want to get away from those very things, and to enjoy themselves, to laugh, to have a good cry over a ‘four-handkerchief’ picture. They want to forget their problems of everyday living. “Believe me, if we forget this, and endeavor to foist off upon them ‘higher standard' pictures, ‘adult’ pictures, ‘better’ pictures, propaganda films dealing with ‘isms,’ racial tolerance, disease and grim ‘real-life,’ they are disappointed and so indicate by staying away for awhile. When you — and your fellow newspaper film critics the nation over — consistently tout for films such as ‘The Bicycle Thief,’ ‘No Sad Songs for Me,’ (a film about cancer) and perhaps the French trilogy ‘Marius,’ ‘Caesar,’ and ‘Fanny,’ you are asking the film industry not only to completely forego its responsibility to its millions of entertainment-hungry fans; you are asking it to commit virtual industrial suicide. “There most certainly IS a place in the film industry for such fine films as these, but it is a small place. They should be made at low budgets, for showing to their relatively small, appreciative audiences, in small, low-overhead theatres, thereby netting a reasonable, if low, profit. But to expect the entire film industry to comply with your suggestion that we ‘elevate our standards,’ and make and show films of this type in overwhelming preponderance to other films we \now are preferred, is utterly unsound. “Just for the record, ‘The Outlaw' in my opinion was an outstanding, and highly entertaining western adventure film, regardless of whether or not Jane Russell was in it. True, she figured perhaps too importantly in the advertising of it, but that is pardonable; she does have beauty and charm. “On the other hand, ‘No Sad Songs for Me', which you complained had been advertised ‘weakly’ and secondarily to an action film, is a Columbia film dealing with a heroine dying of cancer. A film production of dramatic excellence, it has proved itself woefully weak at every box-office in the nation, thereby constituting a perfect example of just what the public does NOT want to see. It was a competitor theatre which featured this film secondarily in its ads, but I assure you, had we played the film in our theatres, we should have advertised it similarily. “You have seen fit to tell us how to go about the execution of our jobs. Therefore, I venture an opinion to you as to how you might better go about the job of handling your own assignment: — I humbly suggest you — and all your fellow newspaper film critics — comment upon films hereafter from the viewpoint of the general public for whose benefit, purportedly, your write, and that you cease your measurement of cinema entertainment in terms of your own entertainment likes and dislikes. After all, there are many who go into ecstacies over caviar or some other succulent dish calling for an ‘educated’ taste. But there are many millions who prefer bean soup, or ham and eggs, or pork roast. “In summation, I should like to remind you that the primary purpose of motion pictures is to ENTERTAIN the mass audiences of the world; the primary purpose of newspapers is to INFORM the mass public of the world; the primary purpose of schools is to EDUCATE and UPLIFT the mass public of the world. The latter two objectives are not our primary functions, but inasmuch as films do manifest an influence, subconsciously, upon the peoples of the world, we should do all in our power to represent Right and Wrong as being what they are, even as newspapers should edit news stories and feature editorials in line with accepted standards and good ethics.” HIRAM COLLEGE THEATRE Hiram, Ohio March 12, 1951 Harrison's Reports 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York 20, N. Y. Gentlemen: May I have an extra copy of the February 3 issue? I have placed mine in the hands of a college English instructor whose class is about to study the writing of reviews. The article on “Criticizing the Critics” will be made a basic part of that work, and I am sure that it will bring a good deal of common sense into the study of that subject. Incidentally I am going to suggest that the class study a few of the Reports’ reviews as examples of candor and honesty as well as inclusion of all the “angles” in judging a picture. Naturally this technique would not do for the newspaper review in all cases, but it is a useful approach. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Lawrence C. Underwood