Home Video
by Howard Beckerman
If,
when I was a kid, had anyone told me that I could own a Hollywood movie, I
would have been stunned by such a notion. As every kid knew, the movies
belonged to the giant studios that manufactured them, and one thing was
certain, you or I could never own one. We could pay to see all of those wonderful
adventure and fantasy films, sit enthralled at the flashing images on the
screen, but we couldn’t take the thing home with us.
Television
changed all of that, it brought movies into our very own living rooms, and we
began going to bed later and later, watching Hollywood classics into the wee
hours of the morning. Still, none of us could actually own those films, I mean
hold them in your hand. There have always been some movies available for home
use, like the Castle Films that were abridged versions of the Hollywood
product, and there were always sources where collectors could obtain legitimate
16mm prints of features that had fallen into the public domain, and some
illegitimate sources that supplied pirated prints. Only with the advent of the
home video recorder or disc player can we now be allowed to own an actual film
and thereby control when we could view a movie and how many times.
Now,
there are forces at work which may prevent us from buying cassettes or playback
equipment without first paying a premium for the privilege.
Universal
Pictures Corporation and Walt Disney Productions have brought such a
case-against Sony Corporation, the original manufacturer of home video
recorders. The problem is understandable. After years and years of controlling
when and where audiences could see a film, the producers of the product now
have no say in the matter. Anyone can purchase or record shows that they would
otherwise have had to pay to see in a theater. The studios are reacting to what
is obviously another revolution in the entertainment media.
Since
before 1900, there has been constant change in how amusements, dramas and
performances were made available to us. When vaudeville was the rage and there
was no radio, movies or television, people gladly went to the local theaters.
You could not take a vaudeville hoofer or magician home to entertain unless you
were wealthy.
With
the invention of the phonograph, things began to change. The invention came out
of Edison’s original pursuit of a device that could be used to record voices in
conjunction with the early telephones. However, in the 1870’s, not everyone
owned a phone. Also the few lines that were available were often too busy to
handle all the simultaneous calls. With an invention that could record a
person’s voice, a message could be copied onto a tinfoil cylinder and be played
again at a later time. It didn’t take long for someone to realize that the
entertainment value of the new machine and popular performers were soon being
recorded. For the first time the customer could now own the voice of Harry
Lauder, Enrico Caruso, or Lillian Russell.
Somehow
vaudeville survived this first revolution, in fact one helped the other. Harry
Lauder’s popularity on the stage helped sell records and his records made him
better known to others who then went to see him in the theater. It was good for
all concerned. The important thing is that for the first time in the history of
the world, a person could hear an entertainer or a symphony without leaving his
home. The thing that killed vaudeville was the growing popularity of movies.
Many of the vaudeville stars moved over to the film medium and others went into
the next revolution which was radio.
Now,
movies, which were silent without voice synchronization, could co-exist with
phonograph records. You could go see a movie and when you returned home you
could listen to Alexander’s Ragtime Band. All was right with the world. Then
came radio and talking pictures. For a while the medium that suffered most was
the recording industry. With all that other sound available to the populace,
record sales dropped off. It looked as if the new electronic revolution was
about to be the death knell of the phonograph record. Hardly. Soon business
picked up, in fact it began to soar as film stars and radio personalities were
in demand on recordings. All was well with the world once more.
Then,
like a cartoon mallet on the head, television arrived. The movie studios who
know that this new device was imminent for many and brought it to fruition
while the film people just hoped it would go away.
Television
did not go away, as we well know, but Hollywood did. The movie capital as it
was, no longer exists. Coincident with the arrival of tv was the act of the
government ordering the large studios to divest themselves of their theater
holdings. Without control of the places to show their wares, these studios were
now in competition with independents, often their own former contract stars,
and the new medium, television. As each studio suffered reverses, it
conveniently sold off to the new competitor much of its valuable library of
movies. Paramount Pictures plucked itself from the grip of possible bankruptcy
by selling all of its cartoons to other companies that have reaped the monetary
benefits over the years. CBS acquired the Terry-Toon studio and its vast
library, and they managed to rent them to advertisers for programming on other
networks.
The subject of short subjects
Most
people look upon film festivals as merely a contest to see who wins what.
Actually, an international event that brings animators and filmmakers together
at a friendly gathering, affords the participants an ideal opportunity to meet
and share information and experiences. After the festival has brought down the
curtain on its final night and everyone has gone home with fond memories tucked
away in their brains, it is the mix of ideas and information absorbed from
others as well as the inspired impressions that retain any importance. Somehow
it is always more fun to derive a column from these combined thoughts rather
than to just list a series of winners.
Charles
Samu is a person who has spent several years gathering films from various
animation centers throughout the world, first for Phoenix Films and presently
for HBO. Since attendance at the major animation festivals is one way to see
what is out there, Charles gets to go to all of them. I cannot always be
available for such festivities, so I have come to rely on Charles Samu for
information, and it was Samu who notified this column of the winners of the
recent Ottawa festival and enabled us to get the news out to you immediately.
Now that he is back, I queried him about a seminar that he chaired which
related to a subject dear to the hearts of animators and producers, ‘‘Markets
for Short Films.’’
The
panel for this discussion included people who were active in some way with the
production, distribution or use of short animated films. They explained to a
large and enthusiastic audience several of the problems inherent in the short
film field. After listening to Samu’s overview of the meeting, I realized that
there was a great deal of pertinent information here for those of us involved
in short film creation, but that the seminar revealed a Jack and Jill aspect
about itself. By that, I mean that there seems to be a great need for short
films, and this thought sends our hope running up the hill. On the other hand
there are many pitfalls, usually involving money, which then sends us rolling
back down the hill while our hopes come tumbling after.
Bernice
Coe, a member of the panel, formerly with CBS, and now functioning as an agent
and distributor, made it known that there is a need for short; bright, humorous
material in several of the cable areas. These films are used as fillers.
Although there are many short films available, there are several problems with
many of them. First of all the good ones are now all too familiar to the
present audiences. I know as a fact that some local stations run some very good
short movies until they are ragged and the audiences are bored through
repetition. Many good films have the problem of being too long for slots that
require subjects from one to five minutes. Also, some very fine animated shorts
are too esoteric; they fall into the range of personal or art films that do not
readily hold the attention of the average viewer who may decide to flip the
dial to another channel, rather than slog through four minutes of geometric
abstractions.
Since
most cable networks don’t offer much money for films that are used, Coe feels
that the way for a producer to make any profit is to keep the films, short and simple
enough to ‘‘be made on the kitchen table.’”
Mary
Silverman of the children’s program, Caliope, expressed the need for good short
films for the younger set. Most producers in the United States do not create films
for children, at least films for the very young child. Television and theatrical
films are slanted toward the whole family and to teens and pre-teens. The idea
on Saturday morning tv is that all kids aspire to be teenagers and so all of
the shows cater to that level of thinking. Since little kids have no say in
this matter, and certainly no money to directly influence advertisers or the
sale of their products, they get short changed. Interestingly, it is in the
socialist countries in which most of the fine children’s films are made. Over
here, in free enterprise land, small children get pushed into the corner.
Witness the way Captain Kangaroo was so often asked to remove himself to a less
desirable hour, finally to be shunted from his daily programming schedule
altogether. Since many films in this category do originate in Europe, there is
still a need for children’s movies that are animated, have the sense and style
of the best children’s books, and still appeal to an American audience without
the added necessity of voice dubbing.
Mary
Silverman uses films that are for very young children which run from three
minutes to about ten minutes. Originally Caliope, which is part of the USA Network,
was geared towards children in the 8 to 14 year old bracket. Now the program is
on earlier in the morning and attracts a much younger group of kids.
Mike
Nicholson operates one of the few centers for the screening of short films, at
““Off The Wall,’’ in Cam-bridge, Mass. Nicholson’s small theater caters to the
college set that throng in to see everything from Bugs Bunny to Norman McLaren.
‘‘Off The Wall’’ relies heavily on the catalogues of 16mm distributors.
Nicholson, however, voices the same concern, as do these distributors, over the
prevalence of home video and cable programs that may be cutting in on the
public showings of films. It is even more of a problem for “‘Off The Wall,’’
since they are not funded as are similar showcases such as the fine Film Forum
theater in New York, nor can he just move into videotape and show what everyone
is already seeing in their own living rooms. One fact that became clear
throughout the seminar and brought home by the existence of Nicholson’s little
cinema, was that the theatrical short has been dead for a long time and when you
do see a short animated film, it is either at a festival, on television or at a
specialized theater.
Eli
Noyes is a New York producer who began inauspiciously by producing a clay
animated film while still in college. This film, an extemporaneous and humorous
use of clay, called simply, ‘‘Clay,’’ has been a best seller on the 16mm
circuit since its inception over 10 years ago. Noyes has now moved into other
areas which have included children’s films for national distributors like Learning
Corporation, commercials for various agencies, and is now in preparation for a
half hour show for tv. He has found that the market for independent films is very
narrow. Even though distributors and cable outlets would like to use animated
short films, the money from these sources is often not equal to production
budgets in today’s inflated economy.
Other
members of the panel included Sandy Mandelberger from Phoenix Films, New York, distributor
of informational films and tapes; Brian Norris and Antoinette Moses from
England, and Sam Freeman from Canada. It was revealed through discussion with
Norris and Moses that Europeans are excited about home video tape and that this
is now a growing phenomenon over there. In some countries overseas it has been
common for people to rent television sets rather than buy them as is the custom
here. Renting tapes for viewing of popular movies then fits into an accepted
pattern.
The
message apparently for anyone wishing to gain access to the new uses of short
films seems to be: keep it simple, keep it short, keep it cheap and don’t
ignore your audience. In other words, if you wish to obtain some success in the
area of general audiences, don’t make an art film, but make a commercial film
artfully.
Disney
was the only one to understand the potentials of the tube and went full scale
into developing shows for the medium, which helped him push new films and his
original theme park ideas. Eventually other studios followed and so began full
scale production of shows originating from the studios that once made the
movies that held us spellbound in darkened theaters on long ago
Now
the new revolution is at hand, the home video explosion. In effect it is not so
much a revolution in the idea that you can record your favorite program. Since
the end of World War II owners of reel-to-reel audio tape recorders have been
recording desirable things through their high-fidelity.
Many
of these people still purchased records, attended movies and pro-watched
television. With the advent of the Compact Cassette, home recording became
universal. The record business is not what it was a few years. The economy is
not what it was a few years ago either and may industries finding it tough
sledding. Many feel that the problem with the recording world is the ready
availability of taping radio and the duping of records, Instead of every kid on
the block buying a new album, one purchases it and everyone makes a copy of it.
The convenience of print duplicating machines has created the same problem for
the publishing field, so that if someone wished to Xerox a book they can
do so without paying any tribute to its author publisher. Though duplicating in
any manner is a copyright offense, there is no way of policing such actions.
It
is interesting that the Disney people are in the vanguard in this way against
Sony. Just recently they aired their 1941 feature, ‘‘Dumbo,”’ which I’m sure
many people taped at home, then it was released for sale in video stores
throughout the country. I wonder what the sales receipts show for it? I think
that this corporation could use more of their founder’s thinking. When cartoon
shorts appeared to be losing ground, Walt Disney began developing features.
Some of these features still bring in handsome returns. Disney was also the
only studio that actively pursued the licensing market. Money from spinoffs of
Disney films must have gone into other ventures. When movies began losing out
to television, he went into producing shows for this medium and also created
Disneyland, which brings in more money than any individual animated feature.
With the release of “Tron,” the Disney organization has tried to enter a world
that includes an audience not limited to nine-years-olds. There are already
Tron video games planted across the country, and video games are big money.
It
is narrow thinking to penalize the viewer who wishes to record television
programming for later viewing or for whatever personal reason. The
entertainment media, has shown that it can survive and afford us with wonderful
things when provided by persons with imagination and foresight. Instead of a tree
piece suit, I think the large corporations ought to get one executive with
ideas, give him a straw hat and a cane and send him on his merry way, He may
come back with yet another revolution that we can all cash in on."
No comments:
Post a Comment