Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER No. 3 1944 31 LOVE LOCKED OUT A MYTHICAL REVIEW by FRANK LAUNDER A fellow we know with an intimate knowledge -^*of the film business (oddly enough not a member of the peerage), has just written a book called "A Guide to the British Film Industry". This handy little volume, which the author estimates could be carried with ease in a large suit-case, should prove an invaluable work of reference for film journalists, members of parliament, civil servants, people who write letters to The Times, readers of trade papers and those who have to have the trade papers read to them, directors of insurance companies with masochistic tendencies, visiting American actors who are at a loss to know why they should receive twice their normal money in an industry one-tenth the size of their own, hall-porters and head-waiters at Claridges — after all it's their business as well as ours ("You're looking better this morning, sir. Got over your trouble with the N.A.T.K.E., I hope." It's little touches like that which contribute towards a spirit of comradeship so essential to the making of good pictures) ; in short the book should be read by all who are interested in the future welfare of the British film industry. Unfortunately, at the moment, the author cannot find a publisher with enough paper to publish his opus, so we have sought and obtained his permission to review it in advance. He dedicates the book to the big business boys of Hollywood who have done so much towards semi-Americanising the people of this country by establishing the American film on the screens of Britain. We cannot be too grateful, he says, to those Hollywood philanthropists, who for more than twenty years, in spite of all opposition, have given us of their best, their second-best, and even their third-, fourth-, and fifth-best in great quantities for a trifling annual return of something between ten and twenty million pounds. After all, film-going is a habit in the same way that whiskydrinking is a habit, and if we send America our whisky, and they send us their films, it is a fair enough exchange. Those who suggest that we might be happier with a little more of our whisky and a little less of their films have no conception of the principles of international trade. In his opening chapter the author quotes Sir Alexander Korda as saying that the ultimate judge of film entertainment is "the unaccountable, illogical and inexplicable taste of the public". He proceeds to prove Sir Alexander's contention by pointing out that if you are in Waltonon-the-Naze on a wet Wednesday afternoon when the two or three cinemas there are all showing third-rate American films, if you go at all your taste is undoubtedly unaccountable, illogical and inexplicable. If you retort that you are driven to see one of these films because you have nowhere else to go — then, the author declares forcibly, he has no doubt whatever that Sir Alexander knows the answer to that. Continuing to quote Sir Alexander as stating that "the surplus inventiveness of our young craftsmen should be directed into making educational and documentary films, in which we have made such magnificent progress", the author suggests that we should take this advice to heart. After the War, if and when the Ministry of Information closes down, and when thousands of our young craftsmen return from the forces, an unhappy situation might arise which would oblige the Government to take steps to foster British feature film production in order that these young men may find an outlet for their activities. This is an appalling prospect. Ninety per cent of the screen-time of our cinemas is the property of Hollywood. The great majority of their more expensive films would not make a profit but for the British market. Are we to have the audacity to attempt — like some band of modern pirates — to muscle in with our product, in our cinemas, on their screen-time? Certainly not. It practically amounts to a demand for expropriation. Let us therefore divert the energies of these thousands of young craftsmen into educational and documentary films (preferably sub-standard nontheatrical) so that we shall (a) not embarrass the Government, and (b) make no effort to interfere with the unfettered control of Hollywood over the British home market. Offering a word of praise to those British producers who are anxious to employ American writers, directors and technicians in order to put British culture on the screens of the world, the author declares that if we are obstinately determined to express ourselves as a nation through the medium of the film, how much better it is to allow those who know how to express themselves in terms of America to say what they think we are thinking so that the world may have a true picture of the Britain that the Americans believe to be Britain. Film history, the author admits, is rather depressing on this point, but that should not deter us. The author then moves on to deal with British film production as it exists to-day. He applauds the A.C.T. slogan, "Throw Away Your Trusts" because it appears to be directed primarily against Mr. Rank. This roving adventurer, he says, seeks not only to create an opening for British films in the world markets, but actually to occupy 5 per cent of the screen-time of his own cinemas with his own films. Cynics who maintain that if we must have monopolies, there may be some advantage in having a small British one alongside a large American one, because in the long run they may tend to cancel each other out, are simply indulging in wishful thinking. Finally the author makes a slashing attack on the leaders of the British film industry, particularly the insufferable independent producers, whom he accuses of being narrow and selfish in attempting to persuade the Government to introduce legislation similar to that which the unscrupulous French, flouting the rights of Hollywood, brought in to protect their industry some years before the war. He contrasts this mean outlook with the great-hearted attitude of Hollywood, and quotes Mr. Nathan D. Golden's statement in the December issue of the International Photographer: "The United States Motion Picture Industry", wrote Mr. Golden, "feels unanimously that the quality standard is the only type of barrier to which American films should be subjected in order to do business in world markets. . . ." That, the author declares, is liberality itself, hastily adding that it is carrying generosity too far. American imports unto this country between 400 and 600 films a year, and for them to offer voluntarily to reduce this number to some fifty or sixty* is a gesture without parallel in the history of Anglo-American film relations. This surely nails once and for all the lie that the big business boys of Hollywood are unwilling to decrease their profits by releasing any part of the 90 per cent of British screen-time which they control. It dismisses also the fable that Hollywood is anxious to continue to sell the United Kingdom distribution rights of its tenthrate quickies for sums ranging between £500 and £1,000 — figures with which the independent British producers complain they cannot possibly compete. In fact it is an offer so magnanimous and so sweeping that the sooner the big boys get after Mr. Golden and point out to him what he's "been and gone and done", before the British film industry grasps the offer with both hands, the better it will be for the continued prosperity of Hollywood films in Britain. (Jail-piece: The author of the book has received an offer of work from a Hollywood company.) *Sir Alexander Korda stated that about fifty quality films were produced in Hollywood in a year. » PUDOVKIN (continued from page 30) Quite early in the war I saw several short British films of this kind, in which material that might almost be called newsreel, was interwoven with feature material. In them I seemed to sense an interesting and unusual style being introduced in British film productions, and the film In Which We Serve convinced me of it. I saw in its characters real living Englishmen ; Britain at war. I saw how these people live, what they are fighting for, and why. I think the appearance of such a magnificent picture in these years of gloomy ordeal is not at all surprising. I remember seeing films which determined the Soviet film style, which also came into being at a time of great stress — in the years when our State was being born. It gratifies me the more to note these successes in British film productions, because it seems to me that before the war British films had no really distinctive style. mikhailov : The last thing I should like to ask, is this : which in your opinion are the future tasks of cinematography? pudovkin: The cinematographic art has a much more powerful effect on the people than any other. Accordingly, I was considering it during the war and immediately after it, as being particularly great. I think we need strong and bold films that will lead the people of the United Nations towards three principal lines : the first is — to bring to speedy annihilation the fascist brigand army by the concerted efforts of the nations. Justice demands that. The second is — the utter disqualification of the present fascist theories, for that will help to rid the world of slavery and make for liberty. The third is — show all that was best and more virile in the past, all that is best and most virile in the present. That will serve to prevent a recrudescence of the despicable fascist propaganda and make for lasting peace and cultural progress. Liberty, justice and culture — these are the three ideals which the Powers are called upon to serve. mikhailov : Thank you for a most interesting and informative talk.