The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

54 CINE TECHNICIAN April 1955 WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD "Sight and Sound' Mis-states a Case CURRENT number of Sight and Sound contains an editorial opinion article which says : " The distressing fact that emerges, however, is simply that there is now no recognised point of entry into the film industry for creative talent. " To any observer with only a modicum of commonsense it must be clear that an industry which fails to train the only people who can provide it with its essential raw materials is either disastrously short-sighted or else notably lacking in confidence in the future. . . . " Nothing has radically changed to encourage the newcomer, to strengthen our cinema with that essential infusion of young talent. The result is that commercial television has not only the appeal of novelty; it seems to offer chances of the kind of creative activity that films at present deny the young enthusiast. Last year our cinema admitted 37 apprentices or trainees, a number that commercial television can at present absorb in a month. While the cinema, in fact, installs new screens and advertises for trainee house managers, television signs up producers, writers, directors and actors, and advertises for new technicians. Out of twenty-eight resolutions submitted at the A.C.T. annual general meeting in March, several were understandably concerned to establish a British quota for television screens and the payment of standard rates to technicians working in television films, but not one was related to the problem of creating more favourable conditions for the intake and development of fresh talent within the industry proper. " Meanwhile, into the editorial offices of this magazine — and, one knows, of most film organisations — come the young visitors (or letters from them) whose burden has been the same for the last few years. ' I am interested in films, I want to work in films, I've tried . . . (Here follows a catalogue of applications frustrated or rejected.) What do you advise?* And still, pointing out the futilities of illusion, one outlines the difficulties, the hazards of an uncertain period. But now one adds ■ ' Of course, you could try TV. After all, they do advertise. . . .' " Sight and Sound's editorial staff could quite easily have checked essential facts before publishing such misleading statements. They did not do so. " Not one (resolution) was related to the problem of creating more favourable conditions for the intake and development of fresh talent . . ." says the editorial. This is not the lie direct, but the lie indirect. Readers of this statement will be led to believe that the subject of new entrants to the film industry was not on the agenda of A.C.T.'s annual meeting nor discussed there. THE subject was down for dis*■ cussion, and was discussed. An item in the annual report — available to the press — reported on steps taken following a full discussion the year before on the problem, and this item was debated at this year's annual meeting. During the past year A.C.T. has admitted close on 300 new members. The association has striven for years to get established a satisfactory entry and training scheme in the film industry, and has been thwarted by employers unwilling to provide the necessary security of employment, by the heavy unemployment in the industry over the last five years, and by the shut down of studio after studio. Neither " new talent " nor old talent can sustain good moviemaking in conditions of instability and insecurity. With modern techniques and under present-day commercial control of film making and film distribution, sustained intelligent film making requires continuity of work and sound craftsmanship in all departments. It does not help British film makers to ignore these facts, and an indifference towards the wellbeing of already proficient technicians is not the best way to provide for the future of those entering the industry at the present time. That Sight and Sound should fail to show an elementary regard for honest reporting is bad enough. Worse, however, are the dishonesties embedded in the article itself. Most outstanding of these is the unscrupulous equation of " young visitors " and "young enthusiasts" with " creative talent," " young talent," and " fresh blood." Intended to leave the impression that A.C.T. and others are keeping " creative talent " out of the industry when in fact only " young visitors " are finding it hard to get into the industry. ALMOST as bad is the pretence that Sight and Sound's editorial staff are worried about the future of British movies. A glance at the number of Sight and Sound in which the editorial appears shows how worried they are about British films. Of editorial matter in this number, the equivalent of about halfdozen pages is given to British films and film-makers. Space to the extent of some thirty-four pages goes to American, Continental and other foreign films and film makers. This estimate ignores a sevenpage article on film acting, devoted almost exclusively to American and foreign film acting. The article opens as follows : " In realising his total vision of a film, the director's most inaccessible contributor is the actor. The actor is, potentially, the strongest threat to that uniformity of method whereby, in his own imaginative response to the material, the director may most perfectly reveal himself a stylist. The task of imposing a common interpretative method on a cast sharing, more often than not, no definable aims or affinities, is a formidable one. With no precise theoretical language in common through which to convey his ideas to the actors, the director can easily find himself in a semantic deadlock, and simple words like ' sincerity,' ' style,' ' pace ' can turn into confusing hydras. And with different acting styles within a single work, false emphases become unavoidable;