The American Scene; The Art Theatre

Good morning. Movies always make a topic for conversation. A lot has always said about them and a lot has written about them. This morning on the American scene we would like to talk about a specialized area of the movies, the art film, and the art theater. And to help us this morning in this discussion we are very pleased to welcome two guests. Miss Rose Dunn, managing director of the Hyde Park Theatre, and Mr. Bruce Trins, owner and general manager of the Clark Theatre. Can we begin by listing what you think are typical art films, Rose? What would you say? Currently, most that roared, I'm going to give you not only typical ones, but ones that are doing very specially well. Most that roared, the Ingmar Bergman films, there have been possibly 20 Ingmar Bergman films. The last two wild strawberries, magician, have caught people's fancy, and now everybody is interested in anything by Bergman, old one's torment, fairly

recent one, seven seal. Room at the top, the English film, was not only a first -rate art film, it attracted what we consider the casuals in the art audience as well as the regulars. Going a little further back, of course, there are things like children of paradise, kind of hearts and carnets, bicycle fee, folk and city. Pies on. When I was a kid, I was holiday. One of these films are on different topics, different subjects. Is there a grouping by types that art films fall into, or are they either comedy or a very serious drama or something like that? I can feel that the appellation art film, probably, is given to off -beat pictures rather than anything with a specific theme. The British comedies, for example, were pictures that were done in an off -beat manner, such as kind hearts and cornets and the lavender hill mob. Well, how are

these off -beat proofs? Well, their treatment is quite different from what the usual American treatment or Hollywood treatment would be of that kind of picture. The humor is maybe, in some instances, a little more broad and yet in other ways, a little more subtle. Difficult to pinpoint this thing, but I've tried pinpoint in one sense. Generally, your realistic treatment of social comment is underlying in any good and well -accepted art film. Most of the road, for all that it's a hilarious comedy, has got lots of biting social comment, a kind hearts and cornets, a serenile. All of them have got something to say and say it without any glossing, any icing. Well, of course, that's been true of Hollywood films, too, in many instances. For example, in the 30s, when we had the cycle of the gangster

films and the very social conscious films that had treated well, well, American problems and current problems, such as, well, I'm a fugitive from a chain gang, was one. And you had the business of handling the problems of the depression, people realistically. And of course, what's happened since then is that the code has hampered the American treatment of American social problems. What is, you talked about the gangster films of the 30s? Now, were these really art films? A Hollywood film is not by origin, left out of the art film category. I try, if I may, to define art film by type, and I would include three types, the foreign films, the offbeat Hollywood or American films, and

the specialized films, such as documentaries or special short subjects, and reruns of Hollywood classics. That is, the fact that a picture was very popular and all about Eve doesn't disqualify it for the art film category. It's right on there in the pop. You're not saying that popular films are more often not art films, are you? The really great hits, very often. I mean, the all about Eves, Lily, Red Shoes, Limelight, films that Mulan Rouge, which played in conventional theaters in its first releases, come back for its reruns in art film theaters and even gone with the wind, which comes back for its re -releases in a regular conventional theater. It's still an important member of the art film category. Of course, the name art film is really, it's a kind of nebulous thing. I don't think that anyone who is really

close to pictures and sees them deals with them all the time can break films into categories in the art and the non -art films, because any good film is a good film, whether you call it an art film or a Hollywood product, foreign, domestic, or what have you. And I think the art film is just a convenient handle for people to describe the pictures that run in the so -called art theaters. Well, how did this phrase start? How did the word arts? I wanted to say on that point, when I was young in the business, I was very irritated when an exhibitor of a handling conventional product mostly said to me, art films, art films. All films are art films, aren't all films made by artists? And I was stumped. There are good artists in that, artists of course. It started probably because of a few very fine foreign films coming to this country during the 20s. Well, during the 20s, of course, in the silent era, we

had foreign films here that were mixed in very easily with Hollywood films, but in the early talkies. And the main spur, however, didn't come until during the war and after the war. And there are several explanations given for that. All the men who were brought as GI's, the traveling abroad since the war. And the great volume of production of documentaries during the war both created a technique of making these films and an interest in them. And that much improved and increased the volume of art product. And the neomelistic school of Italian films had a great deal to do with the popularity here. And one other thing, Arthur Rang films coming over here. Well, is this the crucial point in the technique that is used in making them? Well, I think technique probably has a great deal to do with it. But on the other hand, we have some American films that were made in a traditional Hollywood

manner with the gloss and the big budgets that qualify also in the category of top films. I'm thinking now of things like in American and Paris and singing in the rain. And when they were brought out originally, certainly they were just meant to be pleasant entertainment. And they went on to win awards and a lot of critical recognition. And now they very easily fit into the art theater as part of the program. Well, it seems what you're saying is that an art film is a superior film regardless of by whom or where it's made. I would think that would be the only fair definition one can make. There is the accepted definition that I think there's a kind of snob as them connected. Whether I've heard people say that, well, they wouldn't go to see an American film. They only like English films or French films. You know what they really do, don't you? They sneak into the regular conventional theaters to see some like it hot. But if an art theater wants to play it, oh no, they want a foreign drama.

And by all means go see some like it hot if you like a good film. And there are some of us in the art theater field who make no distinction between a good foreign film, a good Hollywood film, a good little New York film. And we don't like a bad foreign film anymore than we like a bad Hollywood film. There are plenty of bad foreign films. Most of which don't get over here. And the few that get here are pretty bad. Well, let's compare the art film that's made in America and the art film that's made in Europe. Are there any differences? Or are they generally the same? Do they handle the same kind of themes? Are they done in the same way? Well, that's a pretty broad question. But I think that American films generally are made with larger budgets, which permits more latitude for the producer and the director. And that many of the so -called American art films have the gloss and the mechanical perfection techniques that are not available to

the producers in Europe. In fact, many of these foreign films that are really considered classics of the screen have very poor photography. And we used to think that maybe the thing to do to impress certain people with the value of a picture was to smear up the lens so that the picture looked dark. And I think it was fine photography. As one who was born and bred on Hollywood films and loved and I always chose a good Hollywood picture if I could in preference over an art film until 10 years ago. I went screen to film to play at the theater, the overcode, and I rejected it on the basis of impossible technical levels of work, impossible transitions. I felt that they had left off the beginning and end of each reel it was so jerky. And then when I was badly badly

off for a second feature one time, I agreed to screen it again if they would get me a new print. I was sure it was the print that was bad. And I screened it again and still didn't like it technically. This print was a little better. And I put it in the theater very hopelessly and it was one of the big, yet nobody complained about the technical unevenness at all. Meaning maybe that the picture was not even as jerky as the audience. This is part of the snobbism. They will the art audience and the art audience I think are eggheads. And the eggheads will very ardently support an art film despite its defect and they may very, very often deride a Hollywood film because it is glossy because it is smooth. A lily, though they came to see it and love it and wanted and ask for it, they'll come out during the dance numbers. Oh well, not one of those Hollywood spectacular, girly, girly things. They'll come out for a cigarette during that

scene, but they still will come to see that picture. Well, who decides then which film is going to be called an art film and how does a person who runs an art theater find art films? Well, there are distributors who handle foreign films and offbeat films and generally, they solicit the so -called art theaters and try to... Just day in business though, they also distribute the horror films and the exploitation films. You've got to be careful. They have these two opposite lists usually. And they generally, it's the distributor who gets the picture off the ground. Sometimes, he may be surprised by what happens to the picture. A room at the top, for example, was a smash and played at many conventional theaters. Originally, it was considered strictly an art film, but it got into the popular category in his hand, a tremendous success. Doesn't art film have to be unpopular or only

relatively popular? No, I don't think so. The Guinness films... Well, you have your regulars and they will come, even if there isn't a star. Stars are very important, unimportant to an art audience. At least by their stipulation, they will say it doesn't matter to me so long as it's a good film. The fact is that an Alec Guinness became something people went to see even if they knew little or nothing about the picture in a survey that was made on the composition of the art audience and what the art audience thinks and what they judge films by. In the direct question, do you go to see a film because of the star? The answer was no, but when they were given a group of questions to answer which of these films would you like to see? And mythical films were described, films that had never been made, but actual stars used or actual directors' names, things of that sort. And then they had to give their reason why they would go to see it because it was an Alec Guinness film

because it was directed by Anatole D 'Voc, that sort of thing. As somebody once said the difference between an art theatre and a conventional theatre is that in the lobby advertising, the conventional theatre will be able to read a hayworth or curb Douglas and the art theatre will be able to be Anatole D 'Voc, the director. Of course you know these audience surveys or full of booby traps. There was many years ago some theatres ran audience surveys to find out whether their people preferred single or double features and there was an overwhelming majority for single features. And very lively, these people started to run single feature programs and their business dropped off by about 50%. So what people say and what they mean are not always the same things. Again on that snob appeal basis, they feel that it's the correct thing or the classy thing to prefer, to go to a single feature, the

austerity of it you know and the discrimination of it. But the art theatres that make a success with the regular audience of the double feature do so by the very nature of the programming of choosing with discrimination to find features. There never is a good picture with just any picture which happens in the conventional theatres because of the amount of releases and also costs of film whereas in the art field we can buy as good a picture for a little money when it's old as we and sometimes when it's new too. I at one time started looking for Robert Flannity's to play and there were none in release and a distributor dropped by to see some other show I was playing and told me he was having trouble on getting something past the censorship. A very fine documentary called La Tucco which had a scene of

violence and semi nudity in it and he just off hand casually said no more than in Nanook of the North which has had a permit for many many years and which I can show at any time. This was the first I knew that Aldezelle had Nanook of the North so I maintained poker face and two weeks later called his booking department said I needed something 60 minutes long and it turned out to be Nanook of the North and bought it very very cheaply as a main features matter thing. Did well. Let's get into the area of the audience. How would you describe the audience that attends your theatre? In two surveys that were made and by my own observation and one of the surveys I people referring to was made at the Hyde Park Theatre which is in the immediate vicinity of the University of Chicago. That is one of the prerequisites of a really successful art theatre either in the immediate environments of a university or with access to a university audience and that brings us to the first characteristic of the art audience

above average educational level. I would like to reserve comment for a couple of minutes. We get the Apple Anis we call them we get the people who have started going to art theatres because they love movies and in this restricting era of the film industry someone fourth of theatres closed in the decade of television they just have less theatres to go to and they stay in the neighborhood many of them and so after they've been to the big theatre showing the big pictures they'll go to the rerun theatre and they chance on something they like or they come back and try it again and pretty soon they're talking about art films with real appreciation and genuinely do appreciate it this is something in the nature of they're being educated in the finer kind of film entertainment just to exposure. Well we have found the Clark is located

downtown and naturally we get all kinds of people and at one time we ran primarily action pictures but with this shortage of product that has arisen because fewer pictures are being made we have upgraded and changed our our presentations and now we run many foreign films and I have had many letters of appreciation from people saying how much they enjoy them in requesting others and it's I think that the the foreign film the art for so -called art film the better films are attracting a wider audience today than they ever have the run of the mill film probably is not doing too well but there is a discriminating audience and I think it's becoming even more discriminating as time goes on. Well you're saying it's not only dependent on educational level I don't think so I think there are persons who have little formal education who have

very fine taste and can appreciate a fine motion picture a good book an opera play painting and there are also some other things that go into it a fine movie may appeal to an audience on many levels for example I think the the the classic in that instance is the informer and I was like to heart back to that it was a picture that did very poorly on its original run that won several Academy Awards and brought back was a smash hit but it is a picture that has all the elements that would please almost any type audience let's go strange it sounds like snob appeal there if it if that had all these elements the first run why didn't it do well then well your your audience taste has improved informer is what 20 years old yes but even you have this the the tremendous for

development of art theaters has been in the last 10 years in the decade of television and increased from I think it's estimated roughly 70 theaters in art theaters throughout the whole country to close to 400 theaters now that specialize in either full time or part time art film programming and informer is way before this but another exciting and interesting thing about the informer is that it didn't just accidentally conform to the standards of a good foreign art film John Ford when he made the film had the idea of doing a very realistic and biting film on the Irish revolution and he deliberately let himself the story goes let himself be left with a B budget which meant that with so little money involved in the production there would be a minimum of supervision interference and front office suggestions on who should play what part in that kind of thing

and he quietly went about making this film not talking at all hoping to get it finished as he wanted it done and this is exactly what happened and the fact that it didn't do much business at first was of no concern to anyone because so little had been put into it yes you see it kind of slipped through on the first run nobody expected much of it nobody put much into the publicity or exploitation of the picture and when it won all these awards are it surprised a lot of people and then on the reissue or re -run it was a big smash because it was brought to people's attention and it's good for business anytime still when talking about the economics of these pictures would you say it's impossible to make well almost impossible to make an art film with a big budget well red shoes must have had a fabulous budget take the collar so that's not a consideration no a big budget isn't necessarily a handicap it can but I think a good director with a plenty of resources and facilities at hand probably is helped by a big budget he can do things that he

wouldn't be able to do otherwise one may improvise with a with a low budget but sometimes the improvisation will show but sometimes the improvisation helps develop a wonderful new technique that's true I think that sometimes the limited budget has tremendous value apart from lack of interference and I think probably the foreign films have done as many wonderful exciting things as have been done because the directors are just working on a shoe string they just they've got to do this effectively in some new way or some short way and they do it the foreign films have had their ups and downs right now we have a that is from the standpoint of quality right now we have a mute movement in French filmmaking called the new wave which is a specific reaction to the Bardot era which now has I think run its course away from

what began to be France is going along with Hollywood formula stuff of course as an admirer of Bardot I think she's lovely and I think she's done some good things she did one very good thing laparise light across the street one of her early films didn't you like my region and laparise in with Charles Boyet and Henri Vidal to support her and a wonderful script but with another reservation if you saw it in the dubbed version you saw a very different show than if you saw it in the French and I saw it in both it played downtown in Chicago in a dubbed version I went to see it and I thought why did Basley Crowder rave about this it sounds cheap it's yes Boyer is good and things I like about it but this isn't good and then I suddenly realised they must be playing at the French in New York I researched it found out they were playing at both French and English in New York

I got the French print and made all the difference in the world when surely people who go to an art theatre aren't all familiar with the various languages that they hear there and the titles are the important part and aren't titles less satisfying in a dubbed version where you can have more of the conversation well and that's that question is somewhat akin I would say to is it colder in the summer or in the winter or in Alaska is it hotter in in the summer or in South America it depends on the dubbed version it depends on who writes the titles titles can be very unsatisfactory or they can be very good dubbing can be very poor or it can be good some pictures lend themselves to dubbing others don't naturally I feel at the in translation one loses an awful lot and if one can see the picture and understand it in the original language of course is the the optimum but I can't accept dubbing in any form when it's technically

good where one apparently is getting wonderful synchronization lip movement and words you've got to start the sentence in order to match those lip movements because you're dealing with another language but more important than that is the matter of rhythm there are rhythms and languages and when somebody is saying a French sentence with a French shrug and brumas it just doesn't match on English line it's just different and there's a distortion and a a constant discard that disturbs me so that I can't that's very true but of course dubbing has opened up a great new field for the foreign film because there are theaters it just wouldn't play pictures unless they were dub because the audience wouldn't sit through they won't read subtitles would that be so bad yes I think that the more circulation you get the more exposure these films get the better a chance they have in the long run there's always the possibility if they brought down to the mass level it

will dilute the quality and dubbing dilutes ruins the quality well of course some of the greatest classics in all fields of art have had very great mass appeal and I see nothing wrong with it after all communications should communicate and if we're going to appeal to a very restricted audience and I think we're losing a certain universality and certain communication that we should have with the audience well I don't think we should restrict it I think we won't I don't is is a growing one and the people who come to a room at the top true that's an English film but many times they come to a theater playing room at the top where there is a foreign film too and they get to see it and they like it you would say then that the future of the art film is is assured in fact the audience is getting larger for it than it has been in the past I I would think so thank

you very much mr. Rose Dunn managing director of the Hyde Park theater and Mr. Bruce trends owner and general manager of the Clark theater it seems that it's rather difficult to say just what makes an art film probably what was pointed out today most often was that it is the director involved and the method used in producing the film good morning for the American scene