Harrison's Reports (1954)

54 HARRISON’S REPORTS April 3, 1954 MORE ON MISGUIDING THE EXHIBITORS (Continued from bac\ puge) “You discuss CinemaScope, Spyros Skouras and stereO' phonic sound, but my question was not concerned any of them. All that I sought to learn from you is this: What has Paramount offered to exhibition in VistaVision to deserve the glowing endorsement of you and your board, as well as high praise for Paramount s magnanimity' “Since I too, have seen a demonstration of VistaVision and have bUn able to form an opinion of what it means to exhibition, let us analyze what you have to say in your letter about the process. You say: I see only what I see, and I have seen countless improvements in projection techniques in my 39 years in the business. In my humble opinion, Pete, VistaVision is far superior to Cinemascope. . . 1 • u “It is apparent to me, Harry, that you are making t e same mistake that other exhibitor leaders have made in that you describe VistaVision as being competitive to CinemaScone In your case the mistake is even more glaring, tor, unhL some of these other leaders, you have seen Vista< Vision demonstrated and should, therefore, know what the process entails. “After pointing out that you have seen countless improvements in projection techniques' in the 39 years that you have been in the business, you go on to describe VistaVision in glowing terms. From what you say, there can be no question that VistaVision, as you see it, is a projection technique. And that is where you are all wrong. “Since you have not enlightened me, Harry, permit me to enlighten you. VistaVision is not a projection technique in any way, shape or form. To call it that merely adds t the misconception that already exists in the minds of many exhibitors— a misconception that is giving them unwarranted hope of being able to offer their patrons a startling new wide-screen process that will not only be competitive to CinemaScope but also will require no investment in new equipment. “VistaVision, Harry, is no more than a photographic technique, one that provides a better quality picture when projected on the screen in that it has less fuzziness and grain. The size or the shape of the picture projected has absolutely nothing to do with VistaVision. A release print of a VistaVision picture is of the same dimensions as all conventional release prints — 35 mm. When projected by the exhibitor in the conventional way, the result is a conventional size picture in the standard aspect ratio ot 1.3 3 to 1. Like any other conventional picture, a VistaVision picture can be projected in wide-screen form. But to do this an exhibitor will require the usual wide-angle lens, special aperture plates and, of course, a wider screen. It is not possible to project a VistaVision picture in wide-screen form without this extra equipment. “-phat you are laboring under a misapprehension as to what VistaVision can do is indicated in the third paragraph of your letter, where you compare it with CinemaScope. There is no question in my mind that you make the comparison because, at the demonstration, you saw clips of VistaVision pictures projected in anamorphic form and in aspect ratios similar to CinemaScope. In order to accomplish this. Paramount had arranged with the Tushinskys, owners and inventors of the SuperScope anamorphic process, to convert the clips you saw into anamorphic or so-called 'squeeze' prints, which were then projected on the screen through the SuperScope variable anamorphic lens. In other words, Harry, the size and shape of the pictures you saw at the demonstration were made possible through the Tushinsky SuperScope process, and cannot be attained by VistaVision itself. What SuperScope did for the VistaVision pictures you saw, it can do for the pictures of any other studio, no matter what kind of a camera is used to photograph the picture. “To put it quite simply, the praise that you and your board of directors have heaped on VistaVision belongs to SuperScope. “VistaVision, Harry, is a fine technical advancement in the field of photographing moving pictures, and credit certainly is due Paramount for passing on the benefits of its research and development to the industry as a whole, but before you laud Paramount for making it available 'without selfish gain' and without any one 'having to pay royalties, you should first establish if Paramount has a process that has been or can be patented, for unless it owns or can own such a patent, it is not giving up anything that, if used by others, could bring it royalties. And if it had patents, who would pay the royalties? The exhibitors? Not on your Ufe! It would have been the producer. To my knowledge Paramount has not filed a patent application on VistaVision, and the reason for it may be that the process is not patentable. Consequently, Paramount's magnanimity in giving the process to the industry is just so much hot air. “As to your hailing VistaVision as a 'gift' insofar as the exhibitors are concerned, there is no need for me to make any comment, for I have already shown that there is nothing about VistaVision that will enable the exhibitors to show pictures either in wide-screen or anamorphic form without the purchase of special equipment. “What is really amazing about your letter, however, is your admission that you and your board had endorsed VistaVision before seeing it and without knowing what it was. How can you expect the members of your organization to have faith in the judgment of you and your board when you admit that you endorse processes without first examining them to learn what they are and how they might benefit the exhibitors? “I give you credit for one thing — for your sincerity in admitting that you endorsed the Paramount 'gift' without knowing what it was. But I cannot give you any credit for wisdom. You are supposed to be a clear-headed business man and yet you proceeded to do something in a most unbusiness-like way. “In taking issue with you on your endorsement of Vista« Vision, it is not my object to underrate the value of that process as a photographic technique; my purpose is to present to the exhibitors information that will guide them and enable them to determine whether what is offered to them will benefit them or not. “As to CinemaScope, it is not necessary for me to present any facts about that process, for CinemaScope pictures have been playing long enough to enable each exhibitor to determine for himself whether to install the system or not. If he believes that the cost is prohibitive, that is his right and privilege, and he can determine that without any further guidance from Harrison's Reports. By the same token, it is not necessary, as you suggest, for me to give some of my 'very fine advice and counsel to Spyros Skouras.' It is his right and privilege to insist on how his company's CinemaScope pictures must be presented in the theatres, and whether or not he is doing the right thing in resisting exhibitor opposition to his demands is something that he can determine without my advice and counsel. The important thing to remember about the battle between Skouras and the exhibitors is that he cannot force his pictures on them, while they in turn do not have to accept them. And let us not forget that, while many exhibitors are opposed to Skouras' adamant stand, there are many others who are squarely behind him. It is not a matter of united exhibitor opposition; their opinions are divided, even among the exhibitor leaders. “As is your right and privilege, Harry, you have been in the forefront in battling against Skouras' demands concerning CinemaScope, but in your zeal to combat him I fear that you have unwittingly embraced VistaVision in a manner that is harmful, for the wording of the glowing resolution passed hy your board, coupled with your own subsequent laudatory comments, which were publicized widely in the trade papers, have served to add to the misconception that VistaVision is a wide-screen projection process; that it is competitive to CinemaScope and that it will cost the exhibitors nothing. This misconception serves to give many hard-hit exhibitors false encouragement, which is something that they can do without in their present predicament. “Knowing you as I have for many years, Harry, I am confident that it was not your intention to misguide the exhibitors. And lest Paramount use your board's endorsement as a means to demand stiffer terms from the exhibitors on VistaVision pictures, you should either rescind the resolution or issue a statement that would inform the exhibitors clearly that VistaVision is no more than a photographic process and that VistaVision pictures cannot be shown in wide-screen or anamorphic form without special equipment, as erroneously indicated by you and your board. “Very sincerely yours, “P. S. Harrison"