Harrison's Reports (1954)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Austraiia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.60 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVI SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1954 No. 18 THE NEW YORK DEMONSTRATION OF VISTA VISION Paramount demonstrated its VistaVision process at the Radio City Music Hall in New York on Tuesday morning of this week before an attentive audience of some 3,000 industry and press people. A screen measuring approximately 70 feet wide by 39 feet high was utilized for the demonstration, and the audi' ence saw two specially'prepared reels that showed the com-, parative values of conventional photography and VistaVision photography, as well as selected scenes from several forthcoming pictures that are being shot with the VistaVision camera. In the comparisons made with pictures that were shot with a conventional camera, there is no question that the VistaVision photography was of a better quality in that it is sharper and has more clarity. But whether or not VistaVision offers better photography than it is possible to obtain with an anamorphic camera could not be determined, for no comparison was made with a picture photographed in that process. Speaking at the demonstration, Loren L. Ryder, Paramount’s head of research, stated that exhibitors will be able to play all VistaVision pictures in any aspect ratio from 1.33 to 1 to 2 to 1 but that Paramount is recommending that they be presented in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio, if possible. He made it clear that, though Paramount will provide anamorphic or “squeezed" prints to those exhibitors who desire them for projection through an anamorphic expander lens, such prints will be supplied only in an aspect ratio of 2 to 1 because of Paramount’s firm belief that an aspect ratio exceeding 2 to 1 does not make for the best presentation. Whether or not Paramount is right in its opinion of what constitutes the best aspect ratio is also a matter of conjecture, for no true comparative test of a 2.55 to 1 anamorphic print as against either a 2 to 1 “squeezed” print or a standard print in a ratio of 1.85 to 1 was shown at the demonstration. This observer mentions a “true" comparative test because at one point in the demonstration Paramount did show a dance scene in a 2.55 to 1 ratio as compared with the same scene in a 1.85 to 1 ratio, but this test was misleading in that the 2.55 to 1 scene was not an anamorphic shot and was confined to a proportionately smaller screen area than that used to show the 1.85 to 1 scene. In this respect it should be pointed out that Paramount resorts to the same misleading method in connection with photographs of a dance scene in an elaborate VistaVision brochure that is being made available to all exhibitors. In the center pages of this brochure. Paramount shows the same dance scene in aspect ratios of 1.33 to 1, 1.85 to 1 and 2.55 to 1 and asks the exhibitor to compare the size and shape of all three pictures. That the picture with the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio is far more impressive is understand< able when one considers that Paramount devotes an entire page to that picture, while it devotes only about one-fifth of the opposite page to the pncture in the 2.55 to 1 ratio. The comparison is so obviously unfair and misleading that one cannot help but wonder why Paramount dares to insult the intelligence of the exhibitors. At a press conference that followed the demonstration, this writer, after noting that Paramount failed to demonstrate a “squeezed" print in VistaVision, asked Mr. Ryder if there was any specific reason for the omission. He explained that the reason for the omission was that Paramount "did not want to add to the existing confusion.” Questioned on whether or not a “squeezed" print in VistaVision has the same clarity and sharpness as a standard VistaVision print, Mr. Ryder admitted that the “squeezed” print has a tendency to show “some loss of definition.” Barney Balaban, Paramount’s president, revealed at the press conference that “White Christmas,” the Irving Berlin production starring Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, will be the first VistaVision picture to be made available to the exhibitors and that it will be “pre-released” on or about October 15. This would indicate that, outside of selected key houses in large cities, VistaVision pictures will not be available to the majority of exhibitors until early in 1955. As this paper has pointed out in previous references to VistaVision, the process is without question an important technical photographic improvement, the net effect of which is to reduce the grain and fuzziness that exists in pictures that are photographed with a conventional camera. It is, in other words, nothing more than a photographic technique. But from the manner in which Paramount is ballyhooing the process, one might get the impression that it has developed a new and revolutionary method of screen presentation that will startle the movie-going public. Perhaps the best way to clear up this myth is to point out that, aside from the sharpness and clarity of the photography, anything that an exhibitor can do with a VistaVision picture in the matter of screen presentation he can do also with any conventional picture that is put out by any other studio, for all are now composing their pictures in a manner that provides for wide-screen presentation. It should be borne in mind that, though VistaVision offers better photography, the improvement over the fine conventional photography that exists today is not so marked as to make much of a difference to the general run of moviea goers. Most of them, in fact, will not even notice the difference. In short, VistaVision, though a fine photographic technique, will mean little if anything to the box-office, for it does not have the new and exciting impact of either CinemaScope or SuperScope, let alone Cinerama. * * * Accompanied by President Ben Marcus and General Counsel Abram F. Myers, National Allied’s “watchdog committee,” consisting of Wilbur Snaper, Sidney Samuelson and Irving Dellinger, issued the following statement after attending the VistaVision demonstration: “We are agreed that this morning we enjoyed the finest wide-screen presentation of motion pictures from the standpoint of definition and clarity that we have thus far seen. “In addition to the superior quality of the pictures we were pleased by the emphasis placed by all speakers on the exhibitors’ option to play VistaVision pictures with the standard optical sound for which all theatres are equipped or with the new Perspecta sound, with which the prints will be compatible, in the uncontrolled discretion of the exhibitors. “Another feature of the demonstration that greatly impressed the Allied men was the compatability of VistaVision with the standard projection equipment now in use and its flexibility in accommodating the picture to the size of any screen now in use or which may be installed.” The committee added that it will prepare and forward a full report to the Allied regional units. Harrison’s Reports hopes that the committee, in preparing its full report, will take into consideration not only the technical advantages that is offered by VistaVision in their opinion, but also its value to the exhibitors from a box-office point of view so that they may be in a position to judge the equity of the rental terms that will be asked of them in connection with VistaVision pictures.