Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER THE B.F.I. PROPOSES the governors of the British Film Institute have published their proposals for the organisation and activities of a Visual Education Committee. The Ministry of Education asked them for proposals on October 31st, 1944, and in fact received them by the end of the year. Their publication now in a leaflet* (dated August, 1945) which has been widely circulated comes as something of a surprise. We had thought that they had been discreetly pigeonholed. We believe that publication has also come as a surprise to the Ministry of Education which, as we go to press, has not felt itself compelled to acknowledge the proposals publicly or to take any action on them. With the general line of the proposals we and, we believe, most people with knowledge of the situation would agree. Obviously there must be a central Committee to direct the development of visual aids in education. Everyone knows that educational film production will have to be financed out of the public funds. As the number of schools using visual aids increases it will be necessary to decentralise distribution, and it will be desirable to attach to the organisations established for this purpose officers with special knowledge and experience of visual aids. But all this organisation the Governors propose should be established within the existing structure of the British Film Institute. The whole policy, administration and activity of the Visual Education Committee would be subject to the control of the Governors of the British Film Institute. The Governors have nominated the organisations that should be entitled to representation on the Committee, and the choice of individuals co-opted so as to form one-third of the Committee would be subject to their approval. The Governors would also be the final judges of which films should be subsidised. The proposed additional staff in London and in the provinces would be appointed by the Governors. To carry out their proposals the Governors would be given £100,000 a year, either by direct grant from the Ministry of Education or by contributions ranking for grant-aid from the L.E.A's. The Institute's record over the twelve years since it was established makes it impossible, in our view, for the Ministry to accept this proposal. Who else but the Institute would propose for an urgent job a Committee of 78 people with an elaborate system of Sub-Committees? Who else but the Institute would make proposals for subsidising film production and organising film distribution without making any proposals about the production and installation of projectors on which to show the films? What led the Governors to decide on a production programme of 40 reels of films a year at a flat rate of £1,000 a reel? Did the Governors have no misgivings about the wisdom or propriety of making themselves and the Visual Education Committee responsible both for the administration of subsidies to companies making educational films and for organising the appraisal of the films when they are made? Of the 78 members, 52 would be representatives of organisations. Co-option of individuals from the Subject Associations (Science Masters, Historical, Geographical, etc.), or for their knowledge of visual education, to form one-third only of the Committee would ensure that the members with knowledge were kept in the minority. The list of bodies to nominate representatives includes about everyone you can think of. But what practical help do the Governors expect to get for their Committee from the representatives of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, the Kinematograph Renters' Society, the Federation of British Industries, the National Confederation of Employers or, if it comes to that, the T.U.C.? The government education departments and local education authorities between them have 15 representatives, balanced by 20 from the Teachers' Organisations. Here there * Proposals from the British Film Institute to the Ministry of Education for the formation of a Visual Education Committee. are many claimants so most of them (Headmasters' Association Headmistresses' Association, Assistant Masters, Assistant Mi tresses and so on) get only one apiece. The Teachers in Trainin Colleges and the Association of Teachers in Technical Institution are favoured with two each. Why? The N.U.T. gets 6. Why? Amon 8 representatives of the Film Producing interests, the Short Fill Producers' Association is allowed 4 (balancing 4 from the featu part of the Trade) "two Instructional and two Documentary". J needs the Institute to draw so precise a distinction between make* of instructional and makers of documentary films. To do the work the Governors propose a smaller Executiv elected with "due regard to the adequate representation of th various constituent groups of the Committee"; and 7 specialise Sub-Committees: (a) Physical Education, (b) Science, (c) Tech nology and Art, (d) Humanities, (<?) Technical, (/) Appraisa (g) Research, the members of which would be experts appoints individually, but whether from the members of the parent Committet (in which there are only 26 people chosen for their expert knowledge or in addition to them is not clear. The prototype for this kind o Committee is said to be the Central Council for School Broad casting. But surely it is to be found much nearer home, in th system of Advisory Council, Panels and Committees for this, tha and the other which the Institute elaborated twelve years ago In fact, what is proposed is the same old firm under a new nam? but this time with executive powers and considerable sums a public money entrusted to it. Administratively, the Governors propose a system by which ; Sub-Committee draws up proposals, which are then passed up U an Executive, from it to the main Committee, and from it to th) Governors who "put forward as soon as possible a series oi recommendations of material which is urgently needed to be made' After this it would appear that the Governors wait for film compania to come and say that they are thinking of making films on such an« such subjects in the series of recommendations but cannot afford to do so without a subsidy. The Governors ask the companies to submit "extended treatments" and if "in the opinion of the Institute1 they seem promising they arrange "to guarantee a market". Ho* the Governors will arrange this or indeed whether this is what thej will do is difficult to discover from the leaflet. For while on page ' the Governors talk of guaranteeing a market, on page 6 they lis under Annual Subsidies "40 subjects of one reel a year at £1,1 each : 100 Film Strips at £150 each" and so on. Only the Governo can explain whether this is, as we suspect, an alternative suggests to guaranteeing a market, details of which they have omitted editing the proposals for publication. If it is not we should like UJ know how it is related to guaranteeing a market by, presumably, t sale of prints. The idea of a guaranteed market was first proposed a yeaj or so ago by GaumontBritish Instructional. Local educatior authorities were to be asked to undertake to buy copies of films! before they went into production so that the production companj could judge whether and at what cost it would pay them to mala films. Is this what the Governors are proposing — that L.E.A. should be committed to buying something they have not seen oi the say-so of the Institute? We cannot find any other interpretation That the Institute should propose a system which would invol L.E.A.'s in blind-purchase and would promote the production films of the greatest common denominator at the lowest possib price is typical. The Governors, as might be expected, make reference whatever to the production and distribution of films b Government Departments during the war. Yet there is a body < people, in the Ministry of Information and the Services, high expert in the assessing of scripts and the ordering of productioi whose experience could be applied to the production of educationa