Variety (April 1961)

INTERNATIONAL Wednesday, April 26, 1961 ii i i iT KCTAHKKKARRKGNNGRRRNH Rise of Cheap ‘Significant’ U. AANA By: CXORON BACHMANN iocnocKKC While attention has. been upon the “bjockbuster” of asserted multi-million dollar cost fn Hollywood, and overseas, there has simultaneously been developing in the United States a generation of newcomers who have been turning out inexpensive “significant” films about which VanriETy and other journals, have already reported. From Europe has meantime come recognition of this “tentative renaissance of filmmaking in the country of its origin.” (Nor should it be forgotten that the so-called “New Wave” in France was inspired by an American) The new-type of films with which this article is concerned were miade, all of them, by non-name directors. These may be mentioned; “Shadows,” $40,000. “Private Property,” $60,000. “The Savage Eye,” $65,000. “Fhe Shoes,” $50.000. ~ “Pull ATy Daisy,” $20,000 “The Connection,” $167,000. “Guns of the Trees.” $10,000. “The Sun of Jesus,” $23,000. “Satan in High Heels,” $90,000. “Jazz on a Summer’s Day’? $210,000. (To which may be added, all clearly under $100.000 budget each, “On the Bowery, % “Weddings and Babies.” “Don Peyote, ” “Killing Time” arid “Come Back, Africa.”) Some comments on the foregoing surge of fresh viewpoint and talent offers a challenge to many of the enshrined convictions held in the Hollywood studios today. Put it this way: Over the years, there have become established in the film industry certain traditions, which by virtue of sheer age have turned into axioms. The simplest of these are (1) it takes a lot of money to make films; (2) it takes a pre-sold property io sell films. either star-wise or story-wise; (3) it takes professionalism of long standing to turn out marketable product; (4) you have to give the public what it wants; (5) you must protect your investment by a network of safeguards, preferably. by using ideas that have worked before; and ‘6) it takes a long and tortuous time to “break into films.” There are others—for the moment these will suffice. -_ The new “significant” American films are breaking most of the established axioms. They do not deal in budgets of such properties as to constitute creative hazards. They do not deal in ideas or actors who in themselves would guarantee boxoffice. They are made by peopie often no closer to production techniques than a 16m camera. They do not set out to “entertain.” And they are not eonservative in approach to any of the estabHshed film-maker-to-audience routes. And despite these revolutionary departures, these films sell, garner good notices, win awards, and stand up to artistic standards. Clearly then, we are not dealing with a temporary or partial sidestream, but with a major change in the entire process of making and exhibiting motion pictures. It is absolutely essential that the industry be aware of what is happening, why it is happening, and haw it is happening, in order to be able to adjust itself to the new situation. It is quite conceivable—although not proven—that in this adjustment may lie the future of American films and the future of the men who make them. Ideological and Scciological Backgrounds Contrary to what is generally assumed, war does not unleash previously shackled creative forces. The generation which survives it generally seeks to rebuild that which has been lost, rather than establish new worlds. It. does, however, create upheavals in physical existence, which in turn level established hierarchies in the arts. It is from this equalization and the stimulus it provides the immediate post-war creative movements spring, and Italian neo-realism or French existentialism are therefore the channeling of defeatist-conservative tendencies into creative channels, rather than ground-breaking in themselves. It takes about 10 to 12 years for a post-war generation to give way to a new wave of talents, and thus nothing exciting has been happening in films between. 1939 and 1957. Today we are faced, in the new significant film makers, with people whose roots are culturally post-war. They are Not concerned with the past fread: guilt) or with future (read: fear). but with present (read: life). They are able to question freely, and to make their own truce with their own time. For the first time we find that movements exist in all the arts which are truly neu. truly searching, truly concerned with reality and the essence of existence. Objectivism in literature, expressionism in painting, “alienation” in theatre—all point towards a coherent stylistic surge In the 60s. No wonder that the cinema follows. ; Must We Worry About Things Like That?. Indeed. ves. One of the most important aspects of the ehange that is occurring in all strata of cultural life is that audiences tend towards the need. to be involred, to be part of what is occurring, rather than simply be “shown.” It is simply no longer enough to distract. to take the spectator “away from his daily worries.” to force him to negate all that which is brewing in him in favor of a dull insipid escapism. The tables have turned: to “give the audience what it wants” may very well mean to give them something they dont know they want at all. but. which meets their true divection and wishes ‘in a realistic manner. Therefore film makers must be aware of cultural trends; they must be sophisticated in relating their product to their viewers’ create within the current of the times, within the needs and demands of an époch bursting out of a two-decade ereative void. In short. they must be “with it.” The new significant American film makers are. One of the commonest reactions one encounters in discussing the new significant films is “I have never heard of this title.’ In the reluctance to accept them -as fact simply because their circulation to dat# is limited Jies buried part of the most deep-rooted problem of adjustment. It is frue that many of these films have had only limited circulation to date. Many of the ones mentioned at the head of this article have not even been Teleased yet at the time of this writing. Nevertheless they 4re tremendously important—and experience of the ave ‘sulting intellectual needs; they must: (President, “American Federation of Film Societies) saddest nature has shown again and again that to wait. is to lose. Despite their nascent state, these films repre sent the American ripple in a. world-wide cultural. de velopment, and as such they must be heard. The films. of which we speak deal. thematically with’ everyday people in everyday situations, heightened perhaps by abstraction and stylization, but essentially as: true to life as cameras can convey. "In story-construction they have left. far behind the theatrical derivation. rein‘ the tension-climax-resolution type of plot. Rather, they pose problems, and offer no solutions except those the viewer. can think of himself. ‘Most of them. deal with young people, almost invariably ‘in situations of adjustment (relatively speaking) to a world they did - not make: Some, like, “Private Property,” exploit contemporary life cunningly for effect, thus: falling between the ‘chairs and cheating themselves. Others tackle truth head on, finding it. often changing under their very hands in the film making process itself and adjusting to this in the production. Not: all are successful, often a good ‘intention is. more evident than ability, as for. example in “The Savage Eye.”. There are no historical spectacles among them (although this is not to imply that historical subject matter could not lend itself to “significant” film making, as has heen proven often), no subjects that are not in some way derived from life. “Shadows,” one of the best ones so. far, deals with two Negro brothers and their sister, and their relation to the jazz night scene of contemporary New York. We follow them for a few days-—a love affair, a fight, much wandering in the streets—vignettes of life seen with a sensitive, selective camera eye, no photographic tricks, no studio shots, not a fake note in the film. “The Connection,” soon to be released and undoubtedly the most significant American film to date. (certainly the most ‘unique, creative American film work since “Citizen Kane”), deals with dope addicts in a New York. loft—a few hours on a weekday afternoon, the: waiting for the man who brings the heroin, its’ administration, the void. that follows. No climax, no resolution. “Jazz on a Summer's Day.” related mostly in: style, reports . on the Newport Jazz Festival—“reports,” that is, in that lost sense of the word which implies the creating of a unity between the shown and the person seeing. “Weddings and Babies,”: more traditionally “dramatic” inasmuch as .a story line. is drawn and resolved, deals with a photographer and. the: girl he lives: with, their daily life, their dreams, the. texture of their existence. “Pull My Daisy” concerns that sterile offshoot of the. contemporary creative surge which has been . termed “beat.” It is an objectivist film, an anti-film in the sense of being non-Freudian, an afternoon in a railroad brakeman’s home. Poets, domesticity, words related to life without the intervention of the mind, beer, cockroaches, . jazz... ‘Clearly, the. subject. matter of these significant films, as well as the manner in which {ft is approached, differ radically from the coneept of “popular entertainment.” This is a fact which must be accepted a priori: there is ‘no possibility whatsoever of working on material which. will be partially new and Partially traditional. The result of such stylistic compromise can only taint the product: to the extent where. neither the old-style moviegoers nor. the new sophisticated audience will go to see it. It is a difficult nut to swallow for anyone used to standards that seem ta have worked, in.some measure at lJeast, for close to sixty years. But consider. these facts: Who Makes These Films? “My Daisy” and. “The. Sin: of Jesus” were made by Robert Frank.. the photographer, the first with the aid of Alfred Leslie. the painter. “‘Conncetion” was made by Shirley Clarke, formerly a documentarist, based. on a play hy Jack Gelber. “Jazz on a Summer's Day” was made by. Bert Stern. another photographer. the work of: John Cassavetes, the actor. “Guns of the Tres” is by Jonas Mekas, a film critic. “Satan,” “Peyote,” “Killing Time.’ “Shoes” and “Property”: are the first «. featuie. films. respectively, of Jerald Intrator (short film prouucer)}, Harold Humes. (novelist), Richard Hilliard «short film producer). Ernest Pintoft ( cartoon film maker). and Leslie Stevens (theatrical Mriter-producer), “On the Bowery” and “Come Back, Africa’ were made by: inde pendent film’ maker Lionel Rogosin. “The Savage Eye” by Sidney ("The Quiet. One”) Meyers, and “Crime and Punishnient, USA"—the. only one. among these films which has seen. wide : general distribution—by the Sanders Brothers,.who previously won an academy award for their theatrical short; “A Time Out of War.” Who are these. people? Are there any traits they share? Do they constitute a “school” of film making, or possibly. an American “New Wave?” I have talked to all of them, and while they do share. certain basic ideas, their similarities are mainly on the. level of a common background in-a common society, rather than on a personal level. ‘They do, however, share certain attitudes toward film making, attitudes which should be listened. to. as they may well constitute the future production criteria. Some of these can be formalized as follows: ‘A. They believe in film as a form of personal expression. Similar. to.workers in other arts, they consider film as individual creative work. In the majority of cases: they fee] it’s a director’s medium.,: certainly that the director is the -one most important .central influence. Some will go as far as saying that, sure it’s a group effort, being, after all, basically a technical craft, whith cannat be ‘mastered by one man 4alone, but they ‘will nevertheless consider the.director’ the: creator. are known as the work of individuals. They reject the interference of producers and ‘front offices” in. deciding what is to be put on their screens, insisting instead that creative freedom be total, and willing to accept the respon ‘sibility that’ goes with‘ this: freedom. They. further believe that the low budget makes this creative freedom possible, and thus it constitutes not a limitation but an essential creative element. , B. They are interested in making films first, money second. The majority -of these. film makers would: be. making films .whether they were making money at it or not. -None is oblivious to the ‘concern for financial ration 4 ot spl ae & ‘their needs. ‘production. ° “Shadows” is. are diame In fact, all these films. ality, but their prime aim ‘fs doing what they know to do best and love mest, and this attitude cannot help: but show up in the passion their . films: ‘engender in audience They have reversed the basie structure of the indus for their films, by havirig first decided to make ‘films, and. then seeking methods to bring their aims about, rathey. than attempting to make a pile and choosing film ‘making. as a method for. it. Thus,: distribution and. exploitation for.them primarily are methods for continuation of work, roads to get the financing: for their next film..in’ many cases Jong: planned... and scripted before the first is fins ished. In this way they. can’ remain relatively aloof from the commercial aspects, which enables: them te: de. vote themselves almost wholly to their creative work: On the other hand, their maturity. of approach is’ seen in the: . fact that they are aware of distribution problems: and" have begun to form units to: cope with them. | Cy They are involved people. . ; In. many cases they have tried other media’ first, such as. writing or painting. or at’ least that aspect of. the: visual-technical arts which can. traditionally be’ handled by.an individual:. still photography. But they have gravi-” tated to films because it. seemed to them. to be the technical -monumentality: of ‘it deter them... They’ are ine |: volved in the general. stream of contemporary: culture, ~ and for.them filmis a vehicle, not an aim:in itself. ~~ D. They have. a. rational approach to the film. naking:: process. There have always been people who have felt as passion “ately about film as the new ‘significant film makers, but. these have always been. offshoots, . tangential artists, avant-gardists in ‘the classie sense, revolutionists. who never overthrew any system. . Today, a new. rationality is pervading the ranks of these men, an ‘approach which allews them to tackle technical. problems Head on, and: to. cope with complicated financing and. distribution syStems in a sensjble manner. Much groundwork has been done for them, .of course, by: the emergence of the. independent producer in the industry, but they have learned . that lesson and improved upon it by ‘bending rules to fit Thus for the. first. time. art makes sense | in ‘pictures, How. ‘Are ‘These Films Made? A prime development. is constituted by. the fact. that creative spirits are “no longer . awed bythe difficulty ‘of “getting in”; in fact, the limitations imposed by the problems. of. “making it” often. serve as prods upon which much inventiveness hangs. It is not’ ‘‘fun.” they say, to Make a. film for a million dollars,’ you can. only enjoy. working with the type of people you get:on a $20, 000° Development in technique, portability of’ modern equipment, improvisational methods employed for maximum realism: the very. spirit: that surrounds a work done for its own sake—a]l these factors alleviate, but do not eliminate, the basic needs: money, people, : coe operation, facilities, laboratories, distribution, etc. While. it has become infinitely easier to make ‘films, it is not’ child's. play yet. And-it is important to analyze ‘the: methods ¢€mployved by ‘Significant. film. men and to draw... inferences from these’ ‘methods. for the future, of the industry. ' A; Financing. The traditional method for raising money for. film is, ofcourse, through a. distributor and its bankers. . The. advantages are obvious: the money {ts raised. in’a single lump, a distribution. deal is .part of the: contract, ‘and (ig that’s what you are. looking for) top properties are-more readily available. However, a: statement. prepared by @ group of young film makers recently, ‘lists. these disadvantages: distributors are tradition-bound and loathe . to experiment, they are star-conseious,. they want: script ap-proval, they are likely to.demand a crew. of their choosing, or that the film. be shot in their studio, they are likely to ask for the posting of.a completion bond and will normally: wish to co; pn checks. Most of these strictures, of course rically opposed to the exact thing. the newpeople are trying to do.. New ‘hethods, have therefore. had to be found for financing. these films: Willing To Cooperate... Various commercial. interests within the industry, especially on the. east coast, have shown an amazing readie. ness to. cooperate. with the new ‘significant. film makers. ° Whether this is through -an understanding. of the wider: meaning of their work or simply because of shrewd appraisal, remains to be ‘seen. ‘Certainly some ‘immediate. reasons for this cooperation. are obvious: ‘laboratories on the east coast. set to handle ‘large tv orders, are seeking . work now that much of tv. production has moved. out -to the Coast, and are therefore: ready not only to defer.. charges for lab work until. returns come in, but in some. cases. are even willing: to utilize. their own financial | T@e ‘serves. to assist. in the ‘raising of second money for pro‘ductions. The ‘same thing applies to the rental of equipment, although. here the supply has not outgrown the demand and it is harder’ to obtain assistance.. In obtaining -film stock, it is stil] necessary to pay cash, for .éxample. Cash is.also demanded ‘by’ sound studios, negative editors, sound mixers, and technical union crews, while actors can sometimes be obtainéd on a profit-share basis. Screen Actors Guild agreed to..let: actors. work on such. produc. tions as long as they. will eventually’ be paid SAG minimums. IATSE is’ the most. uncooperative element. The organizing talent, of course, may or may. not choose to. be paid salaries, or may. decide to function as: director: producers and defer monies. accruing | to. ‘them until they are readily available. B.Syndication approach to financirig: By far the most exciting departure. iowever, 1s. the syndication approach’to financing, a method derived from: theatrical practice whereby the production budget i is raised. by selling shares in the film to one or more investors ‘This offers same major... advantages ‘to the new film makers: (1) the producer is completely free from artistie control on the part of the money interests,-(2) he need not put up cempletion bond (and ..infact ‘is not legally. bound to finish the film), and (3) he can approach many small investors and raise his money. more. readily. In a guide book for independent investors soon to be pudlished by a group calling itself the “New American Cirema,” ‘Lewis Allen, producer of “The Connection” (Continued on’ page 160) 7c ¢. ae €s