We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
EVASIVE DOCUMENTARY
DAVID SCHRIRE
It is a queer commentary on socially conscious film critics on whom we have come to rely for judgments unaffected by economic compulsives, that they have scrupulously refrained from turning the full force of their condemnation on a new tendency in cinema. In reality, this tendency is not new but its growing popularity and pseudo freshness give it the character of novelty and experimentation. Idyllic or evasive documentary of which Flaherty is the arch priest, is beginning to carve out for itself a well-nigh unassailable place in cinema.
Except for Grierson's far too kindly articles in Cinema Quarterly and various obiter dicta on the subject of documentary, little criticism has been directed against this new menace. A whole-hearted full-blooded frontal attack, showing its dangers, enlarging on the consequences of such so called "escapism" and revealing — didactically if necessary — the correct orientation for documentary pictures is urgently needed. That it has not already been done is an omission that may yet prove fatal to the true interests of documentary.
Possibly these critics imagine that they would be doing the cause of documentary a disservice by exposing and attacking "escapism." They must think that, as this form is after all an aspect of documentary, a stepping stone to what they really want to see established, it would be bad policy and tactics to give it a kick in the pants: that it is after all a solid box-office draw and is acquainting the public and the producing companies with an idea of the potentialities of documentary pictures.
This is a dangerous argument for it rests on a fundamental theoretical fallacy. It premises that that which differentiates a documentary picture from others is the use of natural material, and the use of natural material alone. In point of fact pictures by Flaherty et hoc genus omne have no real title to be styled "documentary." To do so is to water down the essential purpose of documentary, abort its function and render impotent its raison d'etre. The words "idyllic "