Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

CONTENTS NEWS LETTER A NATIONAL NEED NOTES OF THE MONTH GRIERSON AND THE I.L.O NEW DOCUMENTARY FILMS PUDOVKIN BROADCASTS LOVE LOCKED OUT TRAVELLER'S TALE AN EXAMINATION OF COLOUR BOOK REVIEW FORECAST FOR FILM SOCIETIES CORRESPONDENCE CARL MAYER 1894 FILM LIBRARIES TlBRARVf 25 26,38 27 28, 29, 30 30,31 31 32,33 34,35 36 37 38 39 40 THS MttttCUM VOL. 5 NO. 3 Published by Film Centre, 34 Soho Square, London w.l OF .VtOPEBflSEffiflLLING Received: A NATIONAL NEED 5 [t appears more than probable that the Ministry of Information is due for abolition as soon as the fighting is over; indeed, Brendan Bracken himself is apparently in favour of this action. The M.O.I, is, of course, a war baby (of Gargantuan size), and many easonable arguments can be advanced for its removal when the xisis is over. It is undoubtedly far too big ; and some of its branches notably that of censorship) have no place in the post-war period. But on the other hand it is providing in wartime a number of services whose value to the nation in peacetime would be of the nost positive nature, and many people are beginning to fear that hese too may be jettisoned, on grounds of "economy", if the vl.O.I. itself vanishes and leaves them homeless. This fear is all the more understandable if we consider how lifficult it still is for the M.O.I, to get rid of the smell which surounded its disastrous inception during 1939 to 1940. A glance hrough the back files of D.N.L. will suffice to indicate the lamentble mistakes (if indeed they were no more than mistakes) which >rought it into disrepute. But the same glance will also show, luite clearly, the progress which has since been made. D.N.L. las never hesitated at any time to criticise the M.O.I, when criticism eemed necessary ; and we believe much of our criticism has been iseful and constructive. But one thing is clear. To begin with, riticism could only be directed at the M.O.I.'s failure to do anyhing at all. Later, criticism fell on its doing things the wrong /ay. But finally and recently, the criticisms have been aimed >nly at what seemed to be errors or mishandlings of schemes nd plans which are essentially good and practical. The M.O.I, oday is no more and no less open to criticism than any other jovernment department, and it will be well to remember this oint during the next seven or eight months. ' We make no plea for the retention of the M.O.I, as it now stands and in its present unwieldy size. What is essential, however, ; that certain of its services — films, publications and home intellience to name three of them — should not only be retained but irefully fostered and developed during the years following the war. As far as films are concerned, the M.O.I, has provided the nation dth one of the finest pieces of educational apparatus imaginable, "he Central Film Library and the 150 odd non-theatrical circuits ave become an important factor in our national life. The films lown in this way to over 20 million people a year are giving lformation and instruction, arousing new interests, stimulating iscussion and in general acting as a creative factor in helping to roduce those close relationships between the people and their overnment which are the essentials of democracy. It is, incidentally, a great pity that the Films Division's non-theatrical work has not been publicised in more detail and more widely than hitherto, and we hope shortly to publish a full estimate of its value to various groups of the community. Meanwhile we content ourselves b> asking (quite apart from informational matters) whether there is any department in any other government which has vigorously and widely circulated such forthright films as World of Plenty, Words and Actions, and The Harvest Shall Come to a vast audience cross-sectioning the whole of the community. In addition to its non-theatrical service, the M.O.I. Films Division has done much for British feature film prestige, both here and overseas, through the full-scale documentaries of the Crown Film Unit (the influence of whose work on studio production is already marked). It has also, though perhaps more slowly, built up a good circulation of good films (British Council please note) in overseas countries, including the Dominions and Colonies, but most notably in the U.S.A. It has, too, effected a close and useful liaison with Russia, the fruits of which are now maturing. Remember too that the Films Division acts as the film making and distributing agency for all Government departments (other than the Services) and that this principle of operation makes for full co-ordination and avoids muddle and overlap. It is essential that the National Film Service established by the M.O.I, shall be retained and further developed. And as films in this reference can no longer be regarded separately from other media, it is clear that these further developments must be in close relationship to publications, home intelligence, etc. The issuing of handbooks, pamphlets, posters, diagrams, wall newspapers and so on should be intimately tied in with non-theatrical film release. The relationship between films and exhibitions (both the permanent and, more importantly, the travelling type) needs no proof at this late stage. By the same token there is a strong case for the retention of the Crown Film Unit and the necessary studio facilities which it entails. The time is long past when the old cries of bureaucracy or totalitarianism could be raised against the principle of a Government film unit and studios. Government is now in the film business; both past records and future possibilities make it sensible, to say the least, for it to stay there. This need is nowhere more strongly indicated than in the field of education. The use of films, both for child and adult education, is now being closely considered by the Board of Education — and the considerations are not as to whether to use films, but as to how they can {continued overleaf)