Sponsor (July-Sept 1961)

SPONSOR ASKS: WHY HASN'T TV PRODUCED A GABLE, I A COOPER, OR A VALENTINO? Those replying to this week's question are: • Thomas W. Moore, ABC TV, New York • Jack Perlis, public relations consultant, New York • Rollo Hunter, Erwin Wasey, Ruthrauff & Ryan. New York • David V. Sutton, MCA TV Film Syndication. New York • Lawrence H. Kanaga, General Artists Corp., New York Thomas W. Moore, v.p. in charge of tv programing, ABC TV, New York In its own right, television has produced stars of the magnitude of the great film stars of yesteryear. But As entertainment forms change, so must standards of impact and popularity to realize this fully, one must realize that as entertainment forms change, so must standards of impact or popularity. At his television heights, James Garner — the original Maverick — has been seen and idolized by more people in this country than Clark Gable ever was. In a mere 13 weeks, the television series star receives more exposure than the average motion picture star ever does. In 39 weeks he is seen by an audience greater than most top stars ever receive. Such stars as Robert Conrad, Gardner McKay and Edd Byrnes receive fan mail running into thousands of letters each week. During personal appearances they are mobbed with the same enthusiasm that once greeted Valentino. The audience, the fan mail and the crowds are the same today as they were in the golden days of the motion picture. But in television, it has taken personalities less time to reach this popularity summit. Instead of being seen several times a year, the television star is seen once a week. He blooms, blossoms, flourishes much faster than did his motion picture counterpart. There is, of course, always the chance that he may also flounder much faster. But I do not believe that enough evidence is in yet to firmly commit oneself to that fate. Television, for all of its rapid development, is still a very young medium. As a builder of stars we can say it is only eight years old. The number of great motion picture stars developed during these past eight years is minimal. But there are indications that many acting talents developed by television during this period will enjoy envious careers. For example, Eva Marie Saint, a graduate of television, is one of the screen's finest actresses. Steve McQueen and James Garner are both embarked on promising motion picture careers. And I am convinced that Efrem Zimbalist. Jr., of 77 Sunset Strip will be one of Hollywood's highest ranking motion picture stars in the years ahead. The list of television personalities who make the leap to what might be termed legendary stardom will, I am sure, increase as the years progress. Jack Perlis, public relations consultant specializing in broadcasting, New York A great star is of course an illusion. A star to the public is not a flesh and blood individual but a sort' At home you cant deify a postage stamp. You feel superior to the 21 -inch screen of super-creature. For illusion to exist, however, certain conditions must be present. One of the pre-requisites of illusion is size. F The movie star on the screen i larger than life, contributing to hi or her deification by the audience Charlton Heston was a popular, at tractive actor on tv, but his magii came through only via movies. Yoi can't do Ben Hur on a 21-inch screen The volume of sound in the theatre i: a factor, and this, coming from < giant screen, helps make stars god like. The scope of the screen and th< booming sound have a brainwashing effect on the audience. Movies wen our dream stuff; tv is closer to real ity. Mass reaction enhances illusion Seeing an actor in the theater, yoi see him not as an individual but as one of a large group of people. Mo! psychology takes hold. The individ ual loses his identity and becomes part of a mob. People in a mob thini as one, and you're swept along ir mass adulation of a star. Theaters were built like cathedrals and shrines, a fact which contributed to the god bit. And the darkness ol the theater contributed to the aura of mystery which must surround a star ... an ordinary mortal cannot be a star. At home, you can't deify a postage stamp. You feel superior to the screen. You're away from the atmosphere of fellow sycophants — a wor< shipful atmosphere. The average tv audience is two or three people. Gone is the group reaction. The actors are reduced to tiny figures performing in a pedestrian living room. So the capacity for creating a legend is lost. Movies stars are seen only two, three times a year. Tv's repetition makes the personality too familiar to the audience; destroys that all-important mystery aura. Tv is too common an experience. Furthermore, tv is free. You can't be mesmerized by what you get free. You tend to look down on it. But there's no reason why tv must produce a super star. Tv's area doesn't have much overlap with the movies. Movies do best with the dream stuff; tv, with reality and im 40 SPONSOR 10 JULY 1961