Introduction

Balasubramanian (1994) used the term “benefit-mix” to describe organizational efforts to combine aspects of both advertising and publicity to utilize the advantages of each, while avoiding their respective shortcomings (1994, p. 29). While advertising allows organizations to have control over their message and its dissemination, it is often viewed as less credible with audiences. With publicity, organizations work through the media to transmit messages (or branding efforts). Although organizations give up some degree of control over the message (or brand representation), it is commonly believed that the message is viewed as more credible since it is being disseminated via the media rather than an organization (Guth & Marsh, 2003). Messages that achieve this benefit-mix are known as “hybrid messages” (p. 29-30).

One type of hybrid message is a product placement, or a paid product message aimed at influencing movie or television audiences via the planned and unobtrusive entry of a branded product into a movie or television program (Balasubramanian, 1994). While many cite Steven Spielberg’s film E,T.: The Extra-Terrestrial as the beginning of product placement, closer examination shows that products were present in cinematic films from the creation of the medium (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006; Lehu, 2007). Thus, the current study seeks to examine the evolution of the use of products in cinema.

Literature Review

Scholarly research on the topic of product placement is largely limited in focus to films and television programming produced during the 1980s and after (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Beyond histories of product placement written in recent years—such as Newell, Salmon, & Chang (2006), Lehu (2007), and Segrave (2004)—product placements prior to Reese’s Pieces in E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) have not been examined.

Following the use of Reese’s Pieces in E.T., scholarly research has focused on numerous topics surrounding product placement, such as defining product placement (Balasubramanian, 1994; Gupta & Gould, 1997a). The most popular topic is product placement effectiveness which encompasses product placement practitioners’ views (Karrh, McKee, & Pardun, 2003), audience views on product placement (DeLorme & Reid, 1999), specific characteristics of placements that make placements more effective (Gupta & Lord, 1998), and studies about how audiences remember product placements (D’Astous & Chartier, 2000; Law & Braun, 2000; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004; Russell, 2002). There have also been content analyses of television programming and film to determine the number of product placements present in these popular entertainment forms (Ferraro & Avery, 2000; LaFerle & Edwards, 2006; DiSisto & Miller, 2008).

Purpose

The seemingly overnight popularity of product placement among scholars in the 1980s raises the question of whether product placement was truly present before E.T. History suggests that it was present, and used from the beginning of cinema. The next question raised is how product placement changed in the 1980s to become the subject of academic scrutiny. First, a brief history of product placement will be presented to illustrate where current beliefs about product placement stem from.

History of Product Placements
Although the term “product placement” seemed to have been coined in the 1980s (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006), the practice actually dates back to before the beginning of motion pictures. There are clear examples of product placements in stage performances and art that predate motion pictures (Lehu, 2007). In Edouard Manet’s painting Un bar aux Folies-Bergère, for example, there is clear portrayal of Bass beer (Lehu, 2007). Charles Dickens’s The Pickwick Papers also could be considered product placement as the name Pickwick comes from a carriage line that appears in the novel. On the stage, Sarah Bernhardt wore La Diaphane powder and also served as a spokesperson appearing on the brand’s posters (Lehu, 2007). Likewise, cinema innovators the Lumière brothers worked with Lever as early as 1896 to showcase Sunlight Soap (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006; Lehu, 2007). Other brands to create early advertising films include Admiral Cigarettes, Pabst’s Milwaukee Beer, and Nestlé (Segrave, 2004). In an article titled “Camera! Action! Sales!” Business Week (1939) relates the story of an early commercial film for Dewar’s Scotch:

It came to him, we assume, one bright Spring day when, walking down Broadway, he observed all the giddy menfolk standing in line to get into the peep shows that were the current rage of the town. Perhaps the gentleman had a peep himself. Anyway, the idea came: Why not run a peep show to advertise Dewar’s Scotch whisky? And as a result a commercial motion picture was born.

The article goes on to mention examples of commercial films for Columbia bicycles and Piel’s beer, stating that the practice of making films with real products happened as early as 1894. While many of these films were created for specific brands, they were also produced to be shown in mainstream theaters as entertainment pieces (Segrave, 2004). Thus, while they do not fit into modern definitions of product placement, it is clear that such films laid the groundwork for modern product placements.

Newell, Salmon, and Chang (2006) suggested that product placement began through the use of family ties and grew into a means of reducing the cost of producing motion pictures through the use of free products and giving those products exposure at no cost. The practice of using real products in a film was called many things prior to the term product placement, such as exploitation, tie-ups, tie-ins, plugs, and trade outs (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). While the Lumière brothers started product placement in films, Thomas Edison turned it into a viable part of the film business, using branded rail lines and cigarettes in his films (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).

By the 1920s, American films were selling products worldwide. For instance, a Brazilian lumber baron started using an American-made saw blade after seeing one used in an American film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Segrave (2004) quotes Will Hays, the head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), as saying, “[The motion picture] is the greatest agency for promoting the sales of American-made products throughout the world.” Many early product placements were cross promotions in which the films would feature products and the product manufacturers would create advertisements promoting the film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). The New York Times noted the trend of brands getting their products in films in a 1929 article. According to the Times (1929), “Automobile manufacturers graciously offer the free use of high-priced cars to studios. Expensive furnishings for a set are willingly supplied by the makers, and even donated as permanent studio property,” and also “agents eager for publicity for jewelry or wearing apparel approach movie stars directly.” The article also states that there were times when monetary compensation was offered.

Segrave (2004) suggests that in the early days of the studio system, the studios were not heavily involved in advertising because there was not very much money to be made. As the industry began to grow, however, members of the motion picture industry and the business world began to notice the impact of film to persuade audiences even without direct advertising attempts (Segrave, 2004). Film actors, who were contracted to the studios, were also sought out to become spokesmen for brands. While the MPPDA banned stars from endorsing products, this quickly became impossible, particularly with the branded radio programs such as General Motors radio time (Segrave, 2004). By the end of the 1920s, movies began using products in the production, and at times showing them. However, this practice was still largely barter agreements rather than paid placements.

President of the MPPDA, Will Hays, was a major lobbyist for the benefits of placing American-made products in films. In a 1930 radio address on a coast-to-coast network, Hays told Americans “The motion picture carries to every American at home, and to millions of potential purchasers abroad, the visual, vivid perception of American manufactured products,” (New York Times, 1930).

In the 1930s, the Walter E. Kline agency had a list of products available for placement in movies that studio executives could use, such as Remington typewriters, IBM tabulating machines, and appliances from General Electric (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). These deals were called tie-ups and the products were free to use with the only stipulation being that the movie allow images of the product in the film to be used for advertising purposes (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).

By the 1940s product placement specialists at public relations firms and advertising agencies became known as exploitation agents (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). It was not until the end of the 1940s that product placements, or tie-ups as they were called, became profitable. Newell, Salmon and Chang (2006) cite documents that show the director of Love Happy, the Marx Brothers’ final film, sold signage in the climax of the movie to three companies (Cowan, 1949b; Lahon, 1949).

By the 1950s and 1960s, studios had lists of contacts for tie-up merchandise and by the 1970s, some production companies kept warehouses stocked with brand-name props ready for use (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Finally, in 1982, the use of Reese’s Pieces in the film E.T. brought the practice of product placement to the forefront and inspired scholarly research on the practice (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Thus, this study proposes to address this question in order fulfill Newell, Salmon, and Chang’s (2006) call for “understanding of the long-term development of product placement.” Specifically, this research will examine this through two research questions.

RQ1: What is the extent of product placement in top-grossing films from each decade from the 1920s to the 2000s?
This first question serves two purposes. The first is to find concrete evidence that there were instances of product placement in mainstream Hollywood films from the 1920s on. The second is to examine changes in the number of instances of product placement from decade to decade. Presence of a quantitative change, particularly from the 1970s to the 1980s, will hopefully lend some insight to why product placement became such a hot topic in the 1980s. Qualitative changes will also be important, and so the second research question asks:

RQ2: How did the characteristics of product placements in top-grossing films from the 1920s to the 2000s change from decade to decade?
This question seeks to assess the evolution of product placement over the last 90 years. Specifically, it will compare movies from the 1920s to the 1970s with movies from the 1980s to the 2000s to see if there are qualitative differences that suggest reasons for the increase in scrutiny by scholars in the latter period.

Method

Sample Data
A content analysis was performed on one of the top grossing Hollywood movies from each decade from the 1920s to the 2000s as defined by box office gross. This information was obtained from the American Movie Classics’ Film Site and Lee’s Movie Info websites. Each film was chosen because it was one of the top ten grossing American films of its decade, it was not an animated film, it was not a film set in a time period other than the one during which it was filmed, and it was available to the coder for viewing. The following is the list of films:

Coding was done using a method combining elements of Ferraro and Avery’s (2000) study, LaFerle and Edwards’s (2006) study and DiSisto and Miller’s (2008) study (see Appendix A for the coding sheet). A total of 20.6 hours of film were analyzed for product placement. A placement occurred when a movie scene portrayed a brand or product either verbally, visually or both (Ferraro & Avery, 2000; DiSisto & Miller, 2008). The placement began when the product or brand was shown and ended when the scene changed (DiSisto & Miller, 2008). The brands fell into seven categories, including automotive, food & beverage, entertainment & news, hygiene, technology, clothing, and other. Coding categories included mode of appearance (visual, verbal, audiovisual), tone of placed product (positive, negative, neutral), prominence of placement (clear or unclear), other branded products in the scene (yes or no), relevance to the plot (high, some, low), and character interaction (yes or no). Then the data was analyzed.

Results

RQ1: What is the extent of product placement in top-grossing films from each decade from the 1920’s to the 2000’s?

A total of 108 placements were coded and identified in 9 movies (20.6 hours of film). A product placement was only coded if the brand logo was visible or the brand name was stated. Table 1 illustrates the number and percentage of placements for each film as well as the number of brands in each film. Table 2 illustrates the number and percentage of placements in the movies made during three time periods (1920s-1940s, 1950s-1970s, 1980s-2000s), as well as the average number of placements per movie in the films made in those time periods.


As table 1 illustrates, there are continual increases in the number of placements in each film, reaching a peak with E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial in 1982. The 19 placements, which include brands placed multiple times, present in The Greatest Show on Earth cause the film to be an outlier. Examining the unique brands, meaning the number of brands present in the film at least once, shows a more consistent trend of increase. There is a general trend of slight increase until E.T. where there is a large jump. Then there is a slight decrease following E.T. consistent with both number of placements and number of brands. Table 2 further emphasizes this trend with 58% of placements occurring in films produced after 1980. Thus, the extent of product placement is much greater in the most recent thirty-year period than in the previous thirty-year periods.

RQ2: How did the characteristics of product placements in top-grossing films from the 1920’s to the 2000’s change from decade to decade?
The characteristics of each of the 108 placements noted were recorded and analyzed according to the six coding categories. The individual results of each placement in each film can be found in Appendix B. In order to better analyze the data, each of the films was grouped with two others to create three thirty year time periods. The placement characteristics for each period is illustrated in table three. Both the raw numbers of each type of placement and the percent that each of these numbers represents for its time period are given. The percents are more useful for comparisons between decades and so they will be referred to in reporting the results.
The first category examined was the mode of the placement. As table three illustrates, the majority of all placements (85.19%) were visual-only placements. This means that the brand or product was only shown on screen, either in use by a character or as a part of the set, and never actually mentioned. This general trend held true for each of the three time periods, with 91.67% of placements from the 1920s-1940s being visual-only, 78.79% of placements from the 1950s-1970s being audio-only, and 87.30% of placements from the 1980s-2000s being visual-only. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) found that the differences between the time periods was not statistically significant; F=(2, 4)0.42, p<.05.

The second category examined was the tone of the placement. As table three illustrates, the majority of all placements (92.59%) were neutral. This means that the brand or product was portrayed in neither a positive or negative light. It was simply shown as a product or brand. The overall trend held true for all three time periods, with 75% of placements from the 1920s-1940s being neutral, 90.91% of placements from the 1950s-1970s being neutral, and 96.83% of placements from the 1980s-2000s being neutral. An ANOVA found that the differences between the time periods was not statistically significant; F(2, 4)=.04, p<.05.

The third category examined was the prominence of the placement. As table three illustrates, the majority of all placements (97.22%) were shown clearly in the scene. This means that the brand name was clearly visible to the audience and was generally in the very center of the screen or was mentioned very obviously in dialogue. The overall trend held true for each of the three time periods, with 100% of placements from the 1920s-1940s being clear, 100% of placements from the 1950s-1970s being clear, and 95.24% of placements from the 1980s-2000s being clear. An ANOVA found that the differences between the time periods was not statistically significant; F(2, 2)=1.296, p<.05.

The fourth category examined was the relevance of the placement. As table three illustrates, the majority of all placements (47.22%) had low relevance to the plot. This means that the product or brand placed did not serve an integral part of the plot. Brands and products with some relevance to the plot accounted for 30.56% of placements. This means that the product or brand served a minor purpose in the plot. For instance if a character needs to drive a car and the car turns out to be a Ford, the Ford car has some relevance to the plot. Brands and products with high relevance to the plot accounted for 22.22% of placements. This means that the product or brand served a major part in the plot. For instance, in The Greatest Show on Earth (Demille, 1952) the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey’s circus was the setting of the movie and so it had high relevance to the plot.

The overall trends varied slightly in the three time periods. In the films produced during the 1920s-1940s, 66.67% of placements were of low relevance, 16.67% of placements were of some relevance, and 16.67% of placements were of high relevance. In the films produced during the 1950s-1970s, 33.33% of placements were of low relevance, 27.27% of placements were of some relevance, and 39.39% of placements were of high relevance. In the films produced during the 1980s-2000s, 50.79% of placements were of low relevance, 34.92% of placements were of some relevance, and 14.29% of placements were of high relevance. An ANOVA found that the differences between time periods was not statistically significant; F(2, 4)=0.81, p<.05.

The fifth category examined was character use of the product or brand. As table three illustrates, the majority of placements (54.63%) of placements involved a character using the brand or product. This means that a character either uses the product or brand physically or mentions it verbally, or both. This varied in the three time periods. In the films produced during the 1920s-1940s, only 41.67% of placements involved character use while 58.33% of placements did not involve character use. In the films produced during the 1950s-1970s, only 45.45% of placements involve character use while 54.55% of placements did not involve character use. In the films produced during the 1980s-2000s, 61.90% of placements involved character use, thus following the overall trend, while only 38.10% of placements did not involve character use. An ANOVA found that the differences between the time periods was not statistically significant; F(2, 2)=6.42, p<.05.

The sixth category examined was the presence of other brands. As table three illustrates, the majority of placements (83.33%) did not show the placed brand with other brands. This means that the placed product or brand appears in the scene by itself with no other competing products. This overall trend held true for each of the three time periods with 66.67% of placements from the 1920s-1940s occurring with no competing brands, 100% of placements from the 1950s-1970s occurring with no competing brands, and 77.78% of placements from the 1980s-2000s occurring without competing brands. An ANOVA found that the differences between the time periods was not statistically significant; F(2, 2)=2.56, p<.05.

Discussion

The results suggest that the characteristics surrounding product placements in Hollywood films have not changed. In fact, the characteristics have remained largely consistent. The mode and prominence of placements over the ninety year span examined exemplify what Gupta and Lord (1998) found to be the most effective product placements: visual and clear. As the content analysis results showed, 85.19% of the placements recorded were visual and 97.22% of the placements recorded were clear. The placements also followed the guidelines that product placement practitioners set out in Karrh, McKee, and Pardun’s (2003) study, specifically that the placement should show the product in use and omit competing brands. The content analysis revealed that 54.63% of the placements showed the product in use by a character and that 83.33% of placements omitted competing brands. The majority (47.22%) of placements were of low relevance to the plot, however, departing from DeLorme and Reid’s (1999) suggestion that placements that are relevant to the plot are more effective. Thus, the results suggest that while scholarly research only recently revealed specific characteristics that make a placement successful, placement practitioners have been employing these techniques, for the most part, since at least the 1920s.

Instead of suggesting that the characteristics of product placement have changed over the last ninety years to spark the increase of scholarly research surrounding the practice, the results of the content analysis suggest that the number of placements has increased. While it seems a natural conclusion that the increase in product placement was the catalyst for the increase in research, the opposite could as easily be true. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial had the highest instance of product placement (29). This is frequently cited as the first major use of product placement in film. It is possible, however, that the sudden notice of product placement following E.T. brought a wider knowledge of the practice to filmmakers. It is possible that these filmmakers saw the practice as more acceptable since it became the subject of public scrutiny. Thus, this research has raised the question of whether the increase in product placement sparked the increase in research or if the scholarly research sparked the increase of product placement. This merits further study.

Another interesting finding of this study was the extent of product placement in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1952 Best Picture Winner, The Greatest Show on Earth. This film follows a fictional cast of the world-famous Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey’s Circus. While the plot and characters are fictional, the circus is not. The entire movie plugs the circus with numerous instances of the circus’s name being on display. The name of the film is the circus’s slogan. Thus, this film is an example of major product placement and it was filmed thirty years before E.T. It follows the television advertising model of the day by having one major sponsor present throughout the entirety of the program. Instead of the Texaco Star Theater or Colgate Comedy Hour, it is the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey’s film. It would be useful to examine the terms that the circus and Paramount worked out for the film.

A final interesting finding from the research is that there was an instance of product placement in each of the films, which were not chosen for their use of product placement. This means that products have been placed in films since the early days of Hollywood, and these placements have been very similar in their portrayal. It would be useful to expand the current study to examine all of the top grossing films of each decade. It would also be useful to examine the top grossing films from each year in a similar study to get a more accurate picture of the product placement landscape of the last ninety years.

Limitations

This study faced several limitations. The first of which was time constraints. Because the study was limited to a two and a half month period, only nine films could be analyzed. While the nine films presented interesting results that suggest the use of product placements over the last ninety years, one or several of the films could be outliers, meaning that they contained an unusual number of placements. The current study also does not consider multiple genres of film, and thus could miss certain genres that use many product placements or other genres that use none.

Another limitation of the current study is that only one coder was used, again due to time constraints. While many placements were coded, the use of a second coder would have been useful to gain a more unbiased opinion of the number and characteristics of placements in the nine films. A second coder could have noticed placements that the one coder did not, and could perceive a placement as having different characteristics.

A third limitation is the coder’s knowledge of products from the past. There were certain instances when branded products could have been shown or mentioned and the coder did not notice them simply because he was unfamiliar with the product or brand, particularly in films from the earliest time period. This could potentially affect the number of placements in the earlier films and thus change the results.

With all these limitations, the current study should serve as an initial study. While valuable results were discovered, the limitations make further research necessary to draw definite conclusions. The trends discovered in this study should lay the foundation for further research by providing a hypothesis to test, namely that product placements have not changed in characteristics drastically but have increased over the years.

Conclusion

Product placement has been present in Hollywood films since at least the 1920s. While the number of placements in films has increased, the placements themselves have not. Thus, the characteristics of placements cannot be the cause of the academic scrutiny of product placement that has become so prevalent since the 1980s. Rather, this scrutiny must stem from the increase in product placement in recent years starting with E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.

Works Cited

Balasubramanian, Siva K. “Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages and Public Policy Issues.” Journal of Advertising 23, no. 4 (December 1994): 29-46. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 26, 2009).

Capra, F. (Director). (1939). Mr. Smith Goes to Washington [Film]. Los Angeles: Colombia Pictures Corporation.

Cowley, E. & Barron, C. (2008). When Product Placement Goes Wrong: The Effects of Program Liking and Placement Prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98.

D’Astous, A. & Chartier, F. (2000). A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations and memory of product placements in movies. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22(2), 31-40.

DeLorme, D. E. & Reid, L. N. (1999). Moviegoers’ Experience and Interpretations of Brands in Films Revisited. Journal of Advertising, 28 (2), 71-95.

DeMille, C. B. (Director & Producer). (1952). The Greatest Show on Earth [Film]. Los Angeles: Paramount Pictures.

DiSisto, C. & Miller, B.M. (2008). “Who Is She Wearing? A Study of Brand Appearances in Top-Rated Television Shows.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.

Emmerich, R. (Director & Executive Producer). (1996). Independence Day [Film]. Los Angeles: Centropolis Entertainment.

Galician, M., & Bourdeau, P. (2004). The Evolution of Product Placements in Hollywood Cinema: Embedding High-Involvement “Heroic” Brand Images. Journal of Promotion Management, 10(1/2), 15. http://search.ebscohost.com

Grover, Ronald. 2009. “I Can Make Your Product a Star.” BusinessWeek , no. 4139: 068-069. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 12, 2009).

Gupta, P.B., & Gould, S.J. (1997). Consumer’s perceptions of ethics and acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37-50.

HAYS LAUDS MOVIES AS TRADE STIMULUS :Speaking on Radio, Executive Declares Screen Creates a Demand for Comforts. CALLS IT VIRILE INDUSTRY Appeals to Public for Continued Constructive Criticisms So Advances Will Continue.. (1930, March 30). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 6. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2006). (Document ID: 113333331).

Karrh, J. A., Brittain McKee, K., & Pardun, C. J. (2003). Practitioners’ Evolving Views on Product Placement Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), 138-149.

La Ferle, C. & Edwards, S. M. (2006). Product Placement: How Brands Appear on Television. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 65-86.

Law, S. & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll Have What She’s Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers. Psychology & Marketing, 17(12), 1059-1075.

Lehu, Jean-Marc. Branded Entertainment: Product Placement & Brand Strategy in the Entertainment Business. London: Kogan Page. 2007

Newell, Jay, Charles T. Salmon, and Susan Chang. 2006. “The Hidden History of Product Placement.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50, no. 4: 575. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 12, 2009).

Nichols, M. (Director). (1967). The Graduate [Film]. Los Angeles: Embassy Pictures Corporation.

Nolan, C. (Director & Producer). (2008). Dark Knight [Film]. Los Angeles: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Roehm, M.L., Roehm, H.A., & Boone, D.S. (2004). Plugs versus Placements: A Comparison of Alternatives for Within-Program Brand Exposure. Psychology & Marketing, 21(1), 17-28.

Russell, C.A. (2002). Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Placements in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 306-318.

Segrave, Kerry. Product Placement in Hollywood Films: A History. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Company, Inc. 2004

Spielberg, S. (Director). (1975). Jaws [Film]. Los Angeles: Zanuck/Brown Productions.

Spielberg, S. (Director & Producer). (1982). E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial [Film]. Los Angeles: Universal Pictures.

TOPICS OF THE TIMES. (1929, August 23). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 12. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2006). (Document ID: 94172552).

Wellman, W. (Director). (1927). Wings [Film]. Los Angeles: Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation.

Wyler, W. (Director), and Goldwyn, S. (Producer). (1946). The Best Years of Our Lives [Film]. Los Angeles: The Samuel Goldwyn Company.