Harrison's Reports (1950)

68 HARRISON'S REPORTS April 29, 1950 permit television, but when they did, they found to their great surprise that attendance figures jumped to the highest totals ever! Instead of hurting the sports world, television had actually proved helpful through the added publicity it gave! "So far as I'm concerned, television is not THE entertainment medium. When the novelty of this new medium wears off, as it is bound to do in time, television will settle down to being just another one of the media of entertainment, taking its place with films, legitimate shows, radio and sports events. I believe that television has its rightful place in this over-all entertainment picture, and when it attains this rightful place, we shall find that we have no more worries about the competition it offers than we have today about radio. I believe that as each individual medium of entertainment is strengthened and made more profitable, each of the others must inevitably become stronger and more profitable in turn." RKO NOT PRODUCING SHORTS FOR TELEVISION MARKET In last week's issue, under the heading, "Another Boost for Video Competition," this paper commented upon a story that appeared in April 19 issue of weekly Variety, which reported that RKO-Pathe, the subsidiary producing company making shorts for RKO Radio distribution, has switched to a new technique in producing shorts, "with an eye on the television market." H. J. Michalson, president of RKO-Pathe and short subject sales manager for RKO Radio, writes to this paper that the report in Variety was "completely unfounded and untrue." "RKO Pathe and RKO Radio are not producing shorts 'with an eye on the television market,' declares Mr. Michalson. "Both of these companies are producing and distributing outstanding short product with an eye single to the motion picture theatrical field, have always done so and will continue to do so. I personally believe that RKO has delivered to the motion picture theatres the finest of short subject entertainment in great variety and it is my earnest hope that future deliveries of short subjects to the motion picture theatres will be as signally successful." As to Variety's report that the company is now turning out all its shorts with two sound tracks, one of which omits the musical background in order to make them marketable for television, Mr. Michalson adds: "There is a production practice, not exclusive to RKO alone but rather common in the industry, that you should be aware of. In the course of shooting the narrator's voice for the mixed sound track containing music and sound effects, that voice is separately recorded on the disc. The purpose of the disc recording is a protection device against damage in the laboratories during the course of developing and printing. These discs are regularly destroyed after they have served their insurance purpose. The practice, by the way, antedates the advent of sound." Harrison's Reports is indeed glad to correct any erroneous impression its subscribers may have about RKO producing shorts for television as a result of last week's article, and it wishes to commend the company for the definite stand it has taken in confining its product to exhibition in motion picture theatres only. Such a stand recognizes that the sale of the same subject to a competitive medium like television serves to undermine the business of the exhibitors who, in the final analysis, make it possible for the producers to remain in business. SAMUEL GOLDWYN PRODUCTIONS, INC. 1270 Sixth Avenue New York 20, N. Y. April 24, 1950 Mr. Pete Harrison Harrison's Reports New York, New York Dear Pete: You've built a fine reputation over many years as an editor beholden to no one and as one of the industry's most acute observers. That's why I was surprised to read in your April 15th issue your heated objection to my recent article in the New York Times Magazine, "Television's Challenge to the Movies". I've always known you to be fair, Pete. That's why I'm sure you will allow me equal space for my reply. You ob jected that the article, "has the tendency of placing the motion picture industry on the defensive, insofar as the public is concerned, and of making the public look upon picture entertainment a6 the loser to television — having surrendered to it". The article was in no wise "defensive". I don't think now, nor did I ever think that Hollywood need be fearful of television. They need us more than we need them. We producers have the "know-how" to make great visual entertainment. You question my having gone to the public on this issue of Television vs. The Movies. I have gone to the public because I find the public listens. It's an indirect, but a sure way of reaching exhibitors. They refuse to heed me otherwise because they consider me opposition. What they fail to note is that I am the "Loyal Opposition". I am pleased that you liked my Saturday Review of Literature piece defending Hollywood films abroad. I undertook it as a job of industry public relations. I have received letters of commendation, which I'd like you to see, from laymen all over the world, from editors and even many members of the government and Congress. Except for your own comments, I nave not received one letter from anyone else within the industry. Do you still ask why I don't go to the industry, instead of the public? The point I tried to make in the New York Times is that television is a challenge to which we are not closing our eyes. It is a threat which we can't make disappear simply by waving a magic wand. Unless we are fully conscious of what is going on and guide ourselves accordingly, television can not only be a challenge, but could pass us by. We must face squarely the fact that the public has invested close to a billion dollars in 3,500,000 video sets in the past couple of years. If you persist in thinking that it is a mistake to let the public know we are concerned about TV, you've overlooked the fact that most of the public already has an exaggerated view of our situation if they've read a Hollywood column, heard a commentator or seen a newspaper or magazine in the past year. The modern-day public is much too well-informed to be fooled by pretending we're not concerned. We'd be merely fooling only ourselves. I've talked for years about another problem, double bills. I have been resented by exhibitors because they say the public insists on them. Now look at what has happened recently. At a recent Chicago "showmanship convention", a number of exhibitors suggested that the time had come to stop the double bills. Look at the comparative strength of business in Texas where Karl Hoblitzelle and Bob O'Donnell have never permitted duals. Ask New York's Harry Brandt why he states double features are giving the public "movie indigestion". Look at the attached resolution from a powerful New York community group asking my help in ending double features. There is no sense in talking directly to the industry. First, we producers are not an "industry". Entertaining the public is primarily an art. The tragedy is that the "industry" is taking the money and the "art" is slowly starving to death. It disheartens me when I read even the major companies' statements for the last year. Metro made an overall profit of $3,000,000 but lost $1,000,000 on production. 20th-Fox with the most successful product, earned a meager $3,000,000 on $94,000,000 of film rentals (suppose just one big picture had flopped?). Paramount made how many times the profit on its theatres that it did on production. All the gambling in this business is being done by the producers — and they're not getting enough return to merit gambles that will keep theatres stocked with fine films. As the friend and guide of the theatre owners for so long a time, Pete, it would be tragic if you didn't point out the facts. Don't let them forget that TV can pay Bob Hope $40,000 for 90 minutes. And an offer of $500,000 has been made for one single performance of "South Pacific" on television. We producers must compete with that. As for your statement, Pete, that I had better start making good pictures, I'm sure you didn't quite mean what you wrote. I started to make good pictures 37 years ago and I've never stopped. My one aim has always been to make fine pictures and I think my record speaks for itself. It's rather discouraging, though, when you talk scornfully about my next two pictures, "Our Very Own" and "Edge of Doom". They haven't even been trade-shown and will not be released before August. Is that fair, Pete? Perhaps you wrote what you did in the heat of temper. I'd rather think that. Sincerely, SAMUEL GOLDWYN