Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

30 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER No. 3 1944 New Documentary Films (continued) emotional catastrophe which provides the subject of the incident. The story is all told by means of dialogue. The Incident Officer has arrived before the film starts and has already made his preliminary enquiries. The Rescue squad arrives and the information is passed on to the leader of the party. Seven people lived in the houses but it is not yet clear how many of them were at home at the time the bomb fell. The leader becomes a detective. By cross-examining the neighbours he discovers that in one house there lived a mother and daughter, probably both at home and more than likely in their Anderson shelter where they usually went when there was an alert. In the other there lived a mother, father, two small children and grandmother. The adults were thought to have been in but nobody is very certain about the children. The only person who would probably know for certain would be the little girl buried next door, who went to the same school and usually came back with them. The questioning goes on, the stunned but rallying neighbours doing their best to give clear answers, revealing as they talk the pattern of peoples' lives, of favourite chairs in special corners, of going to bed at six because of working shifts, of children playing on the way home from school. And always in the background the pile of debris and the implicit question — are they alive or dead? Still the leader of the squad is not satisfied, a similar house must be inspected to check the lay out, more questions asked. As one of the neighbours shouts — why don't they get on with the job instead of messing about talking. Now at last they go to work. They surround the heap and from strategically chosen positions they call and tap, first for the mother and child, who being probably in the shelter, are likely to be the easier to find. First they hear the girl, yes, she's alive but very frightened, she thinks her mother is asleep beside her. Putting one man on to the job of reassuring her, they eventually get them both out. When she has recovered a little she tells them that the two children next door were not at home, they had gone to play with a friend in another street. A messenger is sent off to check this information while the squad go to work on the house next door. The job finished, the men go into their canteen. Here they grumble and argue. They ask the leader the questions that we, the audience, have been asking. Why all the messing about, the detective stuff, why not get on with the job and clear the debris and rescue the people. They are very conscious of the suffering people and are angry at the delays. Using flash-backs, the leader explains that the preliminary examination and questioning saves time, saves lives. He meets all their points and by so doing explains the reasons for the methods we have seen used. The men are convinced in this instance, but there is a healthy feeling that they are not the sort of people to let what is a sensible procedure, develop into a meaningless routine to bolster up some pet theory from headquarters. Propaganda Value: It would be difficult to praise this film too highly. Here is the cxpositional method of film making at its best and all the more powerful for being linked to a strong human story that will make its lesson last. It is to be hoped that a shorter version may be made for more general showing abroad as well as for us to see one day to remind us of what the world war means. Not strategy or world markets or elbow room or ideologies but the foot sticking from beneath the dusty pile of bricks and the breaking voice of a terrified child. Accident Service. Production: G.B.I. Direction: A. R. Dobson. Camera: Frank North. British Council. Length : 33 mins. Subject: How anybody in industry who has an accident (particularly in coal-mining) receives the best possible treatment. Treatment: The film starts with a brief diagrammatic sequence analysing the accident figures for Britain. We then see a miner who has been crushed by a fall being brought to the surface and taken to hospital. He has a fractured spine and receives immediate and expert treatment which is shown in some detail. At the hospital we see many other cases of various kinds, leg injuries, hand injuries and in particular we see a difficult open fracture reduced by modern methods. A skin graft is required and this is shown at various stages. During the operation the camera sees deep into the wound and the work of the surgeon is shown clearly and in detail. The latter part of the film is concerned with the stages of rehabilitation through which an injured worker should pass if he is to be restored to full health and working capacity in the shortest possible time. Propaganda Value: This film appears to have two goals simultaneously in mind and consequently misses its full effect. It is firstly a general film on the value of an Accident Service which takes continuous responsibility for a patient from the time of an accident up to the time of complete restoration, and secondly and concurrently a technical medical film on a modern method of dealing with a difficult fracture of the leg. The result of this combination of purposes is that the film as a whole is too specialised (and gruesome) for some general audiences whilst it is too general for medical experts who would wish to have a more detailed exposition in the operation sequence and would probably in any case have preferred a rarer and more interesting example of modern surgery to have been chosen. It would almost seem as if the reception of the British Council's Chest Surgery film has so impressed its makers that they now believe that the success of any film can be guaranteed by the introduction of a sensational operation — that blood and the surgeon's knife is a sort of box office substitute for sex appeal. The fact remains that the British Council is following a sound line of production policy in producing technical films of this type and we would only ask them to clarify their minds as to the preci-.e function and audience scope of each. PUDOVKIN BROADCASTS Transcript of a Moscow transmission in English, on April 18th, 1944 Before now, Pudovkin's work has won him the Order of Lenin, a Stalin Prize and the title of Honoured Art Worker. A few days ago he was decorated, together with some 500 other people in the Soviet Film Industry, for his work in wartime: the Order of the Red Banner of Labour was conferred on him. We have asked Mikhail Mikhailov to interview him. mikhailov: Allow me first of all to congratulate you on your decoration. pudovkin : Thank you. mikhailov : Perhaps you will tell listeners just how such large numbers of people in the Soviet film industry have come to earn this fine award. pudovkin : The Government decree tells you that, I think. They have been decorated for successful work in wartime. I should like to note this point, that the country has shown its appreciation of the people involved in the cinegraphic profession. It indicates, it seems to me, that the whole huge organism of the Soviet film industry is coming up to wartime requirements. It is working with the efficiency of a well-regulated factory. I think it would be true to say that they have been decorated for coping with the wartime difficulties. You will know that for our film industry too these difficulties have been very great. When the war began Ukrainian and BeloRussian studios had to stop work. Several of the factories producing films were in occupied territory. The Moscow and Leningrad studios were evacuated. I dislike that word "evacuated". It would be truer to say that like many other important war industries, our industry was moved to new locations. There were difficulties. o( course, but they were overcome, just as they were by the rest of Soviet war economy. The Moscow and Leningrad Studios were moved to Alma Ata, the capital of Kazakhstan. mikhailov : That was where the last war film The Country's Call was filmed, wasn't it? pudovkin: Quite right. Now, just like other factories, we had to start from scratch on our new site. There was nothing even faintly resembling a studio in Alma Ata. We were given an ordinary theatre building and it took much effort and ingenuity to go on. But we had no right to suspend our work for even the shortest time. Millions of peoples were waiting for new films about the war. mikhailov: So how did you do it? pudovkin : The same way as people in other industries. We turned builders, electricians, and so on. We worked among coils of electric wire. Until we had proper studios, we used a real staircase for shooting. It was in surroundings of this kind that Eisenstein started his monumental work of Ivan the Terrible. mikhailov : That certainly is interesting. I suppose there are regular up-to-date studios at Alma Ata now? pudovkin: Just as there are munitions industries, so there are hundreds of other war factories there as a result of their being moved east. So the film industry now has its additional studios in Alma Ata. mikhailov: And what are you doing now? pudovkin : I am working on a film about Admiral Nachimov, the groat Russian admiral. Like many other Soviet art workers I find our country's heroic past an inspiring subject. mikhailov: Have you been following British wartime film developments at all? pudovkin: Thoroughly, and with the keenest interest. I particularly like British documentaries. (continued on page 31) r it r. r. i: Ml I I.EC \ v 50 r id it an to la of K es Bi I'll! i it i ; i d s ,