Harrison's Reports (1948)

Entered as ee«o«d-elase matter January 4, 1921, at the post offiee at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.60 M v , . N v Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew IorIC zu» «• »• p. s. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 1T.I0 Ug Edltorjal p0iicy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, If It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXX SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1948 No. 16 WILL THE BRITISH AVOID THE PITFALLS OF CONCEALED ADVERTISING? Under the heading, "Rank Plans to Plug British-made Goods on Theatre Screens," the April 2 issue of The Holly wood Reporter published a significant news item in which it is stated that J. Arthur Rank, in a further move to build favorable dollar balances for Great Britain, is spearheading a project to utilize films as a medium of commercial exploitation of British manufactured and consumer goods in the world market. Quoting an unnamed Rank spokesman, the news item states that the Rank Organization has established a special department to work out arrangements with British manufacturers for the loan of products that will fit into a particular picture, and also for the exploitation of these products wherever the picture is shown. In view of the fact that the Rank pictures are shown also in the United States, the American public may now be compelled to view also British advertisements. No one can blame the British for desiring to utilize their films to exploit British goods, for it is generally conceded that American pictures are perhaps the greatest medium for the exploitation of American goods in the different foreign markets. But before going ahead with this project, Mr. Rank, as well as other British producers who may be inclined to follow his lead, will do well to give the matter close study so as to avoid making the same mistakes that some of the American producers have been making all along; otherwise, the British producers will incur the resentment of the American picture-going public just as have the American producers. The important thing for the British producers to remember is that the products they wish to exploit must be shown in a manner that will add either atmosphere or realism to a story without in any way being either a subtle or obvious plug for the manufacturer of the product shown. For example, no one can have any objection to the use of either a modern electric stove to enhance the setting of a kitchen scene, or a television set to dress up a modern living room set, or even a new type of vacuum cleaner if a house-cleaning sequence is part of the story, but nothing will make a picture-goer more hostile than to have these articles appear in unnecessary closeups in order for the brand names to be visible, or to hear the characters in the picture work the brand names into their lines. For instance, if a character in a cafe scene should ask the bartender for scotch, it would not be objectionable since scotch is a British product; but, if that character should ask for a specific brand of scotch, then the spectator has a right to feel antagonistic, for he will feel that he is having advertising thrust upon him after he had paid an admission price to be entertained. One of the more recent examples of such blatant commercial advertising will be found in "Arch of Triumph." Just think of it! Here is a picture that cost Enterprise Studios more than four million dollars to produce, yet it contains commercial advertising — it plugs Chesterfield cigarettes. The producers may argue that the plug was put in to create proper atmosphere by indicating that pre-war Paris in 1938, which is the picture's background, was short of American cigarettes and that they were obtainable only as a luxury item. While such a condition probably existed, the fact remains that its exclusion would not have detracted one iota from the picture's atmospheric values, nor would it have hurt the story's dramatic values, for it had nothing to do with the plot. But even if the producers felt that the cigarette shortage should have been worked into the story, why couldn't the characters have merely referred to American cigarettes rather than to "Chesterfields"? No matter how you look at this plug for Chesterfields, which is mentioned in the picture several times, it is manifest that it was inserted to advertise the brand to the American public. It is a flagrant disregard of the rights of, not only the movie-goer who pays his money at the boxoffice to be entertained, but also of those who own the screens — the exhibitors. It is just this sort of thing that Mr. Rank and other British producers must prevent in plugging British-made products lest they invite an avalanche of adverse public opinion. WHEN WILL THE HOLLYWOOD UNIONS OPEN THEIR EYES? Hardly a day goes by without one company or another announcing plans for the production of pictures abroad. MGM and 20th Century-Fox, to mention only two, plan to produce five pictures each in England alone. And in addition to present and proposed production activities in Great Britain, other major and independent producers are either producing or planning to produce pictures in France, Italy, Sweden, Australia, Mexico, and Canada. The main purpose of the producers in starting production in these different countries is, of course, to utilize their frozen funds there. But will this do the Hollywood unions any good? Of course not, for every picture produced abroad means so much less work for the Hollywood artists and technicians. To alleviate the drain of badly needed American dollars out of the different countries is not the only reason that is prompting the American producers to shift some of their production activities abroad; the behaviour of the Hollywood unions has been a motivating factor, too. Featherbedding — that is, the practice of paying for workers whose services are neither used nor needed, and slowing down on the job, to mention but two of the abuses, have run the cost of production so high that a producer finds it almost impossible to make even an ordinary picture at a cost that will reasonably insure the return of his investment. And these abuses hit the independents more than the majors, for the terms demanded of them are as stiff, and in many instances stiffer, than those demanded of the majors. Unless the union leaders instruct their members to speed up the work and do a man's job for a man's pay, the producers will have no alternative but to increase their production activities abroad. The consequences will be that jobs in the Hollywood studios will get scarcer and, with fewer men in work, the power of the unions will diminish. The sooner the unions decide to change their policies and encourage the producers to remain at home, the sooner they will see the day when Hollywood will again be humming with production activities.