view raw text
rati* *" "*" SIGHT AND SOUND By Leo Mishkin NEW YORK, N. Y., May 8.— I think it aas Giltert Seldes, or perhaps John Mason Brown, who some time ago promulgated 1 1 the theory that the influence of a newspaper critic on the arts Is in direct ratio to the price of admission paid by the cash customer. At the top of the list, naturally enough, were the drama critics, influencing people all over the place on ac-count of how box office prices for Broadway plays were run ning anywhere from six to ten bucks a ticket, or in the neighborhood thereof. Ex- cept, of course, in the cases of smash hits like "My Fair Lady" and "South Pacific" when the influence of the drama critics was multiplied many times over. Next in j line came the literary reviewers, since people who bought cooks usually had to put down three, four of five bucks per volume: and following the literary reviewers came the movie critics, with box office prices around a buck and a half or so, including ! the double feature and selected shorts. Way down at the bottom of the list, exerting practically no influence whatever, were the boys and girls who wrote about television for the newspapers; not only were they hampered in their endeavors by the fact television programs came to the customers supposedly free of all charge, but j by the time the TV reviewers got around to reviewing a TV program, the whole thing was past history anyway, and of only academic interest from that point on. But it seems that the television critics are now coming into their own. From time to time, over the years, a number of abortive attempts have been made to organize u TV critics into a "Critics Circle," along the lines of the Drama Critics Circle, the New York Film Critics and so on, all to no avail. Turned out that where one critic was looking at Phil Silvers, mayte, another reviewer would be concentrating on Arthur Murray; where one writer spent an hour or so looking at Ed Sullivan, another would be spending the same hour watching Steve Allen. And since, moreover, TV critics spending much of their working time at home, seldom coming into contact with each other except at cocktail parties, there seemed to be all too little meeting ground for an exchange of opinion, concerted action, or even consideration for a TV critics award. AAA A number of events in recent weeks, however, have turned up to lend the TV critic somewhat greater stature than he or she has been accumstomed to in the past. The Peabody Awards Committee, for instance, a few weeks ago gave a special citation to Jack Gould, the perceptive and argumentative television reviewer for the New York Times, for his contributions toward the art — or business — of broadcasting, and for serving as a watchdog on programming and trade practices that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. And a few days ago, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences issued a bulletin in which a plan was proposed to invite all "newspaper TV writers, critics and editors" to join the Academy in the category of writers, and help in the annual selections for the Emmy Awards. "Because of the creative function of the newspaper TV writers, critics and editors," read the bulletin, "in guiding the development of TV programming and talent, the Academy felt this group would be a vital addition to its membership. The Academy has always welcomed the suggestions and criticisms !!! of newsmen, and has found them very helpful in the revision of Awards categories from year to year. ... By saluting and interpreting the good work done in the medium, and by its criticism of poor and ineffectual programs, the press shares the aim of the TV Academy to advance the arts and sciences of television. . AAA N On the other hand, there are the remarks printed in the papers the other day of David Susskind, the producer of such ventures as the "Kaiser Aluminum Hour," "Armstrong Circle Theatre" and other expensive undertakings on the air. "The critics," said Mr. Susskind. are striving for some kind of destructive sarcasm or pithy colloquial speech. Instead of giving analytical appraisals of the plus and minus of TV shows, they dismiss television with cryptic comedy. Anything for a witty line! Theyre not doing their jobs. ... In place of constructive criticism. I find evidence of a cavalier disgust and a resentment of television. ... I dont know what TV critics were doing before television, but they should have had some experience in show business before criticizing TV. Or perhaps they should have been given a basic intelligence test for the job." Oh well. . . . What was it. now. that made horseraces?
