V I D E O • A G E Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 10 As a U.S. producer and talkshow host in a business “that depends in many cases upon the whims of talent, television executives, and moviegoers,” as David Susskind himself described it, Susskind did very well for himself. Even after his death, he continues to be recognized as an innovative figure in the business. Stephen Battaglio, a veteran of media journalism whose work has been published in the New York Daily News and The Hollywood Reporter, drew upon interviews with Susskind’s family and associates, as well as Susskind’s personal papers to craft the first biography of Susskind. David Susskind: A Televised Life (St. Martin’s Press, 352 pages, $27.99) reveals as much about David Susskind and the productions he was influential in creating as it does the atmosphere of the industry throughout the 1950s and 1980s. Susskind began his show business career as an agent, but he soon established himself as a credible producer who was known to generate quality programs with groundbreaking themes. Indeed, his masterful work on Edge of the City, Susskind’s first feature film for MGM, earned him a job offer there; however, he turned it down because he felt that it would require him to produce films that “‘had no thematic content or consequence, pictures that didn’t influence hearts and minds.’” He much preferred to produce literary works and programs that addressed pressing political and social issues. Susskind consistently turned out highquality, intellectual titles such as A Raisin in the Sun (1959, Columbia Pictures) and Death of a Salesman (1966, CBS), both based on plays. Even in his role as a talk show host on Open End, later renamed The David Susskind Show in 1966 (syndication), Susskind did not shy away from challenging topics. In 1960, at the height of U.S. tensions with the Soviet Union, Soviet premier NikitaKhrushchev appearedonOpenEnd, marking a milestone achievement in news coverage. Susskind even used television to combat McCarthyism, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Communist witch-hunt, which essentially targeted liberals, by using scripts written by blacklisted writers. He also considered giving a voice to writer Ted Kotcheff and other victims of blacklisting on his talk show, although the plans fell through for security reasons. Battaglio explains that Susskind’s efforts to bring serious social issues to the forefront were not wasted on governmental authorities. Two days after Dr. Martin Luther King appeared onOpen End in 1963 calling for President Kennedy to act on the issue of civil rights, the president delivered a televised speech in which he declared that the country faced a “moral crisis” if it did not counter segregation. Television’s power to influence current events became evident again later that same year when the seventh episode of East Side/West Side (CBS), Susskind’s daring series that showcased urban strife, aired. The episode titled Who Do You Kill? centered on a black couple’s anguish after their infant daughter dies from a rat bite inflicted in their Harlem tenement in New York City. Two months after the episode aired, New York mayor Robert Wagner agreed to a $1 million extermination program to address the infestation of city tenements. While other factors undoubtedly influenced President Kennedy’s and Mayor Wagner’s actions, it is likely that Susskind contributed to the progress by addressing social issues such as race and poverty on his television programs, highlighting his authority as a producer and the power of television to impact current events. Battaglio provides an overview of the entertainment industry, and the impact advertisers had over which productions were broadcast into America’s living rooms via the small screen. Despite the fact that “‘the weight he carried as a producer was monumental,’” Susskind encountered resistance when he attempted to find backing for the types of projects he favored. Thus, although Susskind preferred to produce programs with an educational element –– often pushing Shakespearean plays for television and programs that showcased real life struggles –– advertisers did not want consumers to associate their products with sadness and urban decay. Therefore, they put pressure on producers to provide them with “happy” shows to sponsor. East Side/West Side was ultimately cancelled because advertisers no longer wished to sponsor the less than upbeat series. In addition, as television became a “powerful tool in driving consumerism,” advertisers demanded that producers make programs that appealed to all viewers, not just those who could appreciate the dramatic works Susskind favored. Consequently, when his agency, Talent Associates, was on the cusp of financial disaster in the mid-1960s, Susskind was forced to resort to commercial shows that appealed to broader audiences and earned big money. He hired game show producer Jerome Schnur to developSupermarket Sweep (ABC), which featured contestants who raced through supermarkets, filling their shopping carts to capacity. A sharp businessman, Susskind recognized that Talent Associates had to go through with the game show, but he allowed others to take credit for the show, preferring to avoid any association with it. Thus, while Susskind was willing to adapt to audiences’ tastes in order to keep his business alive, he remained true to his artistic taste by allowing others to develop particular programs and “showed little interest in the [company’s] West Coast activities,” likely because “they were too commercial.” By 1965, situational comedies dominated TV. Viewers tuned in regularly to watch programs such as CBS’s The Beverly Hillbillies, and although comedy was not Susskind’s specialty, he and business partner Dan Melnick were determined to capitalize on the trend. The result was Get Smart (NBC), which was developed by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry and quickly became Talent Associates’ first filmed hit series in 1965. Susskind’s willingness to allow for game shows and comedies to be made, and his decision to allow Leonard Stern to run an office on the West Coast despite his desire to keep the television industry centered in New York, indicate that Susskind was adept at knowing what sold — and at appointing the appropriate people to get the job done. However, Susskind’s artistic taste hindered him from taking advantage of films like Dirty Harry (Warner Bros. Pictures), which ultimately became successful. In the 1970s, it seemed that Susskind was not in tune with the movie world and was unable to produce groundbreaking film projects. He had trouble “embracing the new style of moviemaking,” and as he got older, his taste in movies greatly differed from popular tastes, as, despite his daughter’s insistence that it would sell, he was against making a movie out of the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon, which eventually became The Silence of the Lambs (Orion Pictures Corporation). Although the book reveals less about Susskind than one might expect based on the title, Battaglio provides the reader with an understanding of the politics of the entertainment industry during Susskind’s lifetime. The author frequently devotes passages to recounting the achievements of those who worked for or with Susskind, illuminating the inner workings of the industry. Battaglio used his resources well to offer a portrait of a man whose life was not, in fact, televised, as Susskind kept his personal life private — which is not to say that Battaglio refrains from revealing Susskind’s habit of womanizing.However, the author balances these revelations with statements from his many female employees, who maintain that those who refused his advances were not penalized, and that women felt they were on equal creative footing with Susskind. Instead, it was Susskind’s ambition and ideas that gave life to television. His innovation and determination paved the way for the array of productions his companies produced. Even at his memorial service, Susskind’s cousin Norman Lear said that no one knew much about Susskind as a person because, as the author writes, “Susskind shared his time, his means, his information, but really not much of himself. Lear believed Susskind was best defined by his work and his choices.” Thus, the book is perhaps more about how David Susskind’s ambitions gave life to the programs that aired on television than it is about his life itself. “David Susskind: A Life in Television” might have been a more suitable title. SA A Life In And Out Of Television Cameras B o o k R e v i e w
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5