Sponsor (July-Dec 1952)

Radio ■5 „.«»»."»,. "»"•"' S-S 6r 5o/> Foreman I t's amazing how little you can get away with on television. Exposed to the TV camera, the slightest tinge of phoniness is not only apparent but becomes magnified to a degree where it annoys even the most insensitive viewer and militates against his enjoyment of the program or belief in the commercial. Those who went through radio will recall only too well the horrible dialogue which all too often slides by in the medium. You find this kind of copy at its ultimate worst in those so-called dialogue commercials — the kind in which two women talk about a product in the most unnatural and noncolloquial terms. . ."Oh, Ethel, whatever have you done to your hands? They have that soft-assilk-look." And then Ethel answers: "I'm applying new Bloop Hand Cream daily and twice on Sundays, Mary. You should try it too. And also use it on the children in the bath. It's homogenized!" Somehow this palaver isn't too bad when just heard. At least it gets by when a good actress delivers it. But put these same words in the mouths of two actresses and place them in front of a TV ( or motion picture) camera and their unbelievability becomes hideously apparent. The fact that nobody talks this way is readily obvious to anyone — including a 10-year-old. For example, I've seen rny own kids wince at some of the dialogue in commercials, especially at the phony wordage delivered l»v youngsters about breakfast foods. So, I'd say if seeing is believing, what is seen belter darn well be believable. The political convention, as a case in point, showed this off to great advantage. The inquisitiveness of the TV camera at these spectacles, ferreting out the supposedly hidden asides, the unpleasant and irrelevant gestures of the speakers, visualizers in plain view, the inattentiveness of the audience, the glaring visualization of the miffs in the speeches — all this served to point up ineptitude and buffoonery far more than radio ever does. Another case: Because so many people came up to talk to him, Governor Dewey wasn't able to pay attention to Representative Joe Martin's talk. The camera dwelled at great lengths on Mr. Dewey during this part of the Republican Convention, so at the end of Mr. Martin's address when we saw the Governor politely applauding, it became a stark bit of business. Then there's My Little Margie. I've heard a lot of unfavorable comment about this film show whieh is, as you know, the / Love Lucy replacement. Actually, the program is basically sound. The two central characters are essentially sympathetic. But where the show does fall down, and falls down miserably, is in the lines the two players have to deliver. Neither Charles Farrell nor Gale Storm can |>o»ibl\ get away with the phony dialogue, the cute phrasing, and those gags that try so hard. Nor could Alfred Lunl and Lynn Fontanne. If, many weeks ago. somebod\ had red-pencilled these scripts mereilesslv, I think the situations would have held up well, hence we'd be liking the two people in the program rather than shying away from them. I've a sneaking suspicion that the dialogue is written by radio writers. It has that glib audio-only sound to it. And for some reason, as I said, you can get away with it on radio. Evidently, this bear that we have by the tail — television -is not only the fabulous thing we know it to be but a real beast when mistreated that makes it very dangerous to have around the house — for program writers and commercial writers alike. commercial reviews TELEVISION sponsor: Clorets agency : Dancer-Fitzgerald-Sample, Inc., N.Y.C. procram : "Date with Judy" The commercial format for this show is sound though somewhat undistinguished, sure-fire though a trifle commonplace. A top quality announcer, one of the few g«nts who can convey conviction without nervousness, Allyn Edwards, delivered a very straight opener which ended with the utual close-up of the product. The middle break was a slightly longer opus with no holds barred — a young couple kissing, a jingle and some simple animation that made graphic the sources of offending breath. This latter category included garlic-y salad and heavy smoking, as well as an implication of the evidently verboten word whiskey; this last idea is put across to the hard drinking set by a line drawing of a tall glass and the not too cryptic words — "tell-tale beverages." Edwards was on camera all by his lonesome again at the third commercial and again was intimate without being cloying, hard-selling without being overbearing. I'm about 98' '< for this format, but, as I said, I still miss some gimmick or visual trick or gadget to make the product name or its main theme of kissing-sweet breath register more firmly. 40 SPONSOR