Musings and Jottings II

In the summer issue of 1996, I wrote Musings and Jottings, Gil Cates suggested I do a sequel, especially since I also was importuning him to do a piece on his reflections of the Oscar for this issue - so here it is.

Have you wondered amidst all the sound and fury re the V-chip/rating system that there would be no debate, no need for a rating system if the Standards & Practices departments of the four major networks had any real standards - and enforced them together with a sense of responsibility working in a medium that is not Hollywood, not Broadway, not Vegas, but one designed for the American home, its parents and children? Do you sometimes wonder about who are these people whose judgments inflict so much damage on our culture that it arouses the ire of teachers, parents, rabbis, priests and ministers?

Has any group of parents, teachers and the clergy ever hailed the findings of these departments? Have any of these groups been in the vanguard demanding a lowering of generally acceptable community standards, where truth, decency, and morality should be compromised in order to satisfy the network pursuit of demographic ratings?

Do these people believe their work is a "sacred trust" as Martha Williamson, producer of Touched By an Angel said in accepting an award at a recent Producers Guild of America function? If these departments' primary interest were parents and children - Mr. Valenti wouldn't have had to devise his symbolic rating system, hardly visible to the eye and injected onto our screens without any explanation. And think, too, how insistent he and the networks are about giving this minimal, myopic system time to find out its true impact and receptivity among parents - a year's test! This when networks, even after one screening of a new show, can drop it from their schedules without any further testing claiming that they know when the audience speaks - in terms of Nielsen ratings and their demographics. One week for a show? One year for an anemic rating system?

Think about it.

* * * *

Some years ago when I headed NBC's Network Programming, the president of NBC, Robert E. Kintner, sent me on two missions. Woo Walt Disney from ABC to NBC and then persuade him to do a second series in addition to his anthology, the latter a careful mix of animal films, cartoons, historical drama, nature studies and an occasional western. (Mr. Kintner's boss, when he worked at ABC, was Leonard Goldenson whose vision single-handedly brought Walt Disney and Jack Warner into network television, paving the way for the other major studios to follow suit.)

This was not a tough mission for me. NBC had color; ABC was still telecasting in black and white. As to a second show, Walt expressed a willingness if he could find a good basic idea to build upon. We got along splendidly. He gave me a personal tour of Disneyland and pointed out his secret hideaway above the Disneyland fire station. Then he took me into his confidence and led me to a small room in which there was only a table with an overhead light. On that table rested a likeness of the head of Abraham Lincoln. Walt hurriedly wrapped a black cloth around the rough edges of the neck to conceal its jagged edges. On a signal to an engineer the head started to move and to articulate words. It was an impressive moment and Walt described his dream of Lincoln rising from a chair (he'd later shown me the metal configuration of Lincoln's arms, legs and body in another room) to the plaudits of all of the other past presidents of the United States.

Naturally, I applauded his vision. Abruptly, he took a step to the Lincoln head, reached in and unzipped the scalp, revealing a series of tightly moored tiny motors that moved the muscles of his face and lips. "My staff is hard at work developing some seven or eight more motors which must be so miniaturized that they will fit into this mechanism and that will make Mr. Lincoln even more credible. When that is done we'll introduce Mr. Lincoln here at Disneyland and later develop a ÔHall of the Presidents' for Florida, the entire group, some rising, some applauding Mr. Lincoln's words."

Sometime later, after the debut of Walt Disney's Wonderful World Of Color on NBC, I had lunch again with Walt. Somewhat timidly I told him I had an idea for a second series. Walt smiled politely. "I can tell it to you in just three words," I said. Once again, an even more polite smile. I then enunciated the three words. Walt stared back at me with a look of incredulity. "David," he said softly, "do me a favor. Come back here tomorrow at the same time and I'll give you my response."

I did as he requested. When he escorted me to his office the next afternoon he had 39 cards each measuring about three feet by two spread around the office. On each one was the outline of a show to illustrate my suggestion. "If you say the word we'll produce your idea."

I reported the good news to Mr. Kintner. He acknowledged my coup, but said, "Okay, we'll do it on one condition. Walt Disney has to give us a summer show made up of his westerns, westerns he's already made."

I expressed some concern. Kintner barked out his reaction, "We give him a new show and we give him a summer series of repeats - found money for him - you have any doubts?"

“I do," I replied. "He produces a western maybe every five or six weeks - in a mix of cartoons, historical pieces, nature films and so on - there is a considerable spread between the showing of his westerns. . ."

Kintner interrupted, "He gives us a summer series or no new series. Period."

When I met with Walt Disney and told him the terms for getting the show on the air he shook his head. "Can't do that. Can't lump all those westerns together - that's too much violence. That's not my image. An occasional one in a mix? Yes. But a series just of westerns, we can't do that."

“This could cost you that new series," I emphasized. "Mr. Kintner won't do the one without the other."

“Then we'll have to pass," Walt decided.

Was there ever a more vivid demonstration of principle over dollars? Wasn't television a bit better because of Walt Disney's stand on principle?

Think about it.

* * * *

So you're feeling creative. You want to do something imaginative. Maybe in TV, maybe in home video, maybe on LIFETIME or the A&E Network, or even the History Channel. Maybe you want to write a book for Hyperion Books, or an article for a faming trade publication, or perhaps a financial or medical publication, maybe you want to get into interactive. Maybe you want to do something in TV/video in Germany, Scandinavia, Brazil, United Kingdom via GMTV, maybe you even want to develop a TV series at Buena Vista or Touchstone - maybe even sell a series to the American Broadcasting Network or syndicate something on the ABC 10 owned an operated TV stations - sure you can do any of these provided you always realize that it has to be checked out.

Where? At the Walt Disney Company which owns all or a part of everything listed above.

So, you'd prefer to go to Fox. Maybe you have a book idea that could interest Harper Collins Publishers, or a new story for the New York Post, maybe your interest is in Fox Family Films, maybe cable/satellite via British Sky Broadcasting or in Germany via its Vox, or Latin America via Sky Entertainment Services, or even Australia, Asia or Japan; maybe you have a song for Festival Records, or an article for the Times of London, or papers in New Zealand or Fiji, not to mention your TV idea which might interest Fox Broadcasting, or some of its 12 TV stations, or Twentieth Century Fox Television - of course you have to check these opportunities out.

Where? With Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. And all I've described is just the major tip of the iceberg where you can easily be frozen out. But then you say you can turn to NBC - really a profit making center for giant General Electric, or to CBS, now part of the Westinghouse family.

What does it all mean? It means that Michael Jordan, John Welch, Michael Eisner, and Rupert Murdoch sit atop these giant conglomerates - watching Gerald Levin and Ted Turner, not to forget Sumner Redstone - also giant conglomerates each building his own network "weblet."

What can an independent producer - a creative writer - do? Not much at the moment, but remember when the motion picture giants were told to divest themselves of their theaters so that they could not control production, distribution and exhibition? That should provide a glimmer of hope. In many ways that breakup of the strangehold the major film companies had over all aspects of the motion picture business is minor stuff compared to the possibility - ventually - of these great conglomerates being compelled, in the public interest, to divest themselves of their network entities. Networks are not exactly like ordinary corporations - they have for the moment limited obligations to broadcast in the "public interest, convenience and necessity." Could the day arrive when the people will demand that television networks once again become totally independent, as was the case with CBS in its heyday - with respect for the audience, for a balanced schedule of programs reflecting quality and diversity?

Already there are many signs of discontent within the creative community and the production community. When a DreamWorks pulls three of its projects from NBC because NBC insisted on an ownership stake in DreamWorks' programs, perhaps this is a warning sign that "there arises a little cloud out of the sea, like a man's hand" that forecasts ominous times for the newly arisen mega-monsters. Perhaps this my be a challenge to the way things have been happening. Will the FCC revisit the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules that were abandoned in favor of the networks - which opened the way for network demand for ownership of independent productions, including programs created by the staffs of major film companies? And do not the networks' signing of talent to exclusive deals also contribute to the weakened power of independent and major production companies? One must ask, what was the real motivating force that led Warners and Paramount to launch their own networks? Wasn't it concern that the networks would be using less of studio product in favor of their own in-house production units?

Even more ominous than the FCC revisiting its decision to eliminate the financial Interest and Syndication Rules is the question of whether some future antitrust division of some future Justice Department will find a real mission: compelling conglomerates to divest themselves of their networks - big and small. Won't that serve the public interest better than today's mega-monsters who basically see even the news operations of networks in terms of profit centers? Wouldn't a return to the independence of William Paley, David Sarnoff and Leonard Goldenson be a return to better television, higher quality and more diversity, making for better entertainment, more meaningful public affairs in which the entire creative community can participate?

Think about it.

* * * *

By the time the next issue of the Quarterly is published (under Bill Blinn's supervision as editor), the comments contained herein will have been adopted, rejected, or modified. Jack Valenti has frequently insisted that what he most wanted to hear, regarding the TV Rating system his Implementation Group has adopted - which has come under fire from parents, teachers, congressional critics, etc. - were real parents. Apparently, and possibly to his regret and some embarrassment, he got his wish when Congressman Billy Tauzin, of Louisiana, convened a group of parents/children to confront the three chairmen of the I.G. - Mr. Valenti, Mr. Fritts of the NAB, Mr. Anstrom of The National Cable Association.

This meeting, held in Peoria, May 19th, brought a series of attacks on the present TV rating system by both parents and children. The net/net was an admission from senior officials at CBS and NBC that more TV-14 ratings are necessary - even Mr. Valenti, according to the L.A.Times, of May 21, acknowledged that, "there's no question that some of these shows have been misrated." Whether the industry will adopt the S,V,L labels remains at this writing moot - but Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, and "executives at many cable networks have privately endorsed the S,V,L plan. . ." The networks and some major Hollywood studios have "expressed opposition" - all of this according to Jane Hall of the L.A. Times.

There is no doubt that the debate will escalate as Congress threatens legislation and the FCC conducts a public hearing, in conformance with the new Telecommunications Act, starting June 20. While there are indications, according to reporter Hall, that a compromise may well be in the works, some critics still insist on a system that measures "intensity" as well as the actual presence of S,V,L.

In the meantime, it may be that those critics might also take a look at the Ratings given to motion pictures by the MPAA. This system, like its offspring in television, is age-based in its warnings about material that may be "inappropriate" or unsuitable" for younger people - never, of course, spelling out, even in the most general terms, what those elements might be.

Interestingly enough, the MPAA sends out a Bulletin every week to the trade papers - and according to the MPAA local coast office, to the press in general - which actually contains content labeling. Note a copy of April 17:

[note from web editor - see paper edition for graphic]

As one can read, the MPAA Classification and Rating Administration does an excellent job of describing what elements of S,V,L and other objectionable areas that might disturb parents are actually contained within the pictures rated - whether they are G, PG, PG-13, or R. These brief, but very meaningful comments about a motion picture's content are far more meaningful to parents than the familiar symbols used by major companies in their advertising. Question: Why don't the major picture companies, the backbone of the MPAA, simply use reasons WHY a motion picture receives a given rating? Such a move would give real meaning to "warnings" - "caution" - and there is room to do so without displacing any ad space.

For example: This is the actual copy of the Rating given to The Lost World: Jurassic Park as used in the L.A. Times in a full page advertisement on May 26, 1997:

[note from web editor - see paper edition for graphic]

Now here is the official MPAA statement regarding this film as sent to The Hollywood Reporter of May 1, 1997:

[note from web editor - see paper edition for graphic]

Without preempting any additional space from the ad itself here is how that ad could look if it utilized the actual information that is furnished by the MPAA to the trade papers:

[note from web editor - see paper edition for graphic]

Wouldn't that be an easy solution to the vexing problem of giving parents a bit more real information about a movie's content than confining the obligation solely to an age-based warning system devoid of any program content?

And wouldn't this also be a real solution to the ongoing debate about TV ratings?

Think about it.