view raw text
, SIGHT AND SOUND VieoAfeM*, NEW YORK, N. Y., May 15.— I find myself somewhat more than slightly startled this morning at a couple of statements , made made public public within within the the made made public public within within the the past few days by a couple of eminent gentlemen in the motion picture business, regarding the archenemy, television. One statement came from Spyros Skouras, the president of 20th Century-Fox Films, in an address delivered to a gathering of theatre owners, distributors. newsmen and other interested parties, on the occasion of presenting "The Big Show," a compilation of scenes from forthcoming 20th Century-Fox pictures. The second public utterance bears the by-line of Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, the top figure, possibly, representing the entire motion picture industry in its dealings with the outside world. In both instances, Mr. Skouras and Mr. Johnston bore down on pretty much the same point — that television has reached a crisis in its own affairs, that its greatest attraction today are the old movies that have been released for telecasting by Hollywood, and that if this situation continues along its current path, as it gives every indication of continuing. Hollywood cannot hope but to gain immense benefits thereby. AAA "Our gigantic competitor," said Mr. Skouras, "has itself paid the greatest tribute to the movies by its insatiable appetite for the product of Hollywood. . . . We must make home television our servant by utiliz-| ing its facilities for our purposes. By mak- ■ ing available some of our older films to television outlets, we have helped, as we expected, to sharpen interest in motion ! pictures generally, and instill a desire on the part of the public to patronize regu- larly the newer and better motion pictures currently playing in the theatres. We must . harness television for our purposes, instead J of surrendering to it. We must render to j television only that which is televisions. I . . . We are now resolved more than ever . that we shall be the master, and not the slave of circumstances." AAA In all truth, there is a good deal of substance in what Mr. Skouras declared — that t the old movies being shown on TV stimulated a desire on the part of the public to j get out and see some of the newer movies [ turned out by Hollywood. The fault lies with television itself, its own "surrender" ■ to Hollywood films, its own abandonment I of its own aims and purposes, its own re-i linquishing of programming to what the ! movie studios have produced instead. The | danger, the disaster, to television lies in the calm, and not altogether unjustified as-I sumption that Hollywood "must make home television our servant, by utilizing its facilities for our purposes." It rests squarely on the television broadcasters themselves as to whether Mr. Skouras and I the other Hollywood producers will be permitted to take this position. AAA Mr. Johnstons comments along the same line are published in the new edition of the I Film Daily Year Book, an annual com- i pendium of facts, figures and statistics on ! the state of the motion picture industry. In his own remarks, Mr. Johnston points out that the enormous demand for program material even by a single TV station in a single city would be the equivalent of 63 feature length movies a week. In cities such as Los Angeles or New York, where there are seven different TV stations in operation, programming material would run to the equivalent of 20.000 full length movies a year. % AAA If televisions best today," says Mr. Johnston, "is warmed over Hollywood, isnt television making fans for our new and better product? If televisions audiences find our older films — on a small screen, and interlaced with commercials — as the best they can get at home, wont they soon discover what were offering in the comfort of modern movie theaters? Isnt the answer perfectly clear? I, for one, believe that American audiences are already turning to our new motion pictures, and will do so in even greater numbers during 1957." AAA The circumstances that some of the "new and better product" of Hollywood stems directly from television in the first place "12 Angry Men," "The Bachelor Party," "The Rainmaker," "Patterns," "Marty" among this product has little bearing here. The point remains that both Mr. Skouras and Mr. Johnston are authoritative and fully qualified to speak whereof they know. It now remains for such gentlemen as the Sarnoffs, pere et fils, Paley, Stanton, Joes et al., to let us know if they speak the truth. There is no future in television whatever if the words of the Messrs. Skouras, Johnston and their colleagues are borne out by the march of events.
