Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

64 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER GRIERSON ON DOCUMENTARY Forsyth Hardy's compilation reviewed by Alex Shaw Reading Grierson's book is just like watching an evening's boxing. There's the ring flooded with a hard white light and there's the author putting up a terrific show, fighting in all the matches and, what's more, taking on all comers. No arranged matches for him. Sometimes he does try and fool us by pretending that he is acting as referee or critic, but he cannot keep it up for long. Bing bang and he's out there again punishing the aesthetes, the loose thinkers, the wishy-washy and the dull. But mostly the dull. And just in case the reader should begin to glow with the self-righteousness that comes from feeling he is on the side of the angels, he packs a few unexpected punches designed to shatter anybody's self-composure. The book consists of selections, admirably made by Forsyth Hardy, from Grierson's writings over the last sixteen years or so. It covers all kinds of subjects: Harpo Marx, Asquith, the Russian directors, the film in the school, propaganda and the film, the history of the documentary movement, the future of the film, the use of sound and a dozen and one such matters. Just for good measure he blows a smacking great kiss to the glorious Miss Mae West. A lot of writers have tackled these subjects before and produced their own particular brand of cold suet pudding. Grierson has produced a magnificent, digestible and completely satisfying plum pudding complete with flaming spirits, a sprig of very prickly holly and lashings of brandy butter. And if I appear to have wandered from the boxing ring to the kitchen I can only say that it is that kind of book. I tried marking the passages I thought ought to be quoted either as an example of how good it is or of how enraging Grierson can be. I eventually found that the whole book was scribbled over with scorings and asterisks and question marks. Anyway, it's not the sort of book to imagine you have readjust because you think you have got the gist from some quotes in a review. A lot of its vitality is due to the fact the stuff in it was written at different times but always with a purpose. There is no air of making up words for the sake of filling a space. And if time has left some of the secondary subjects rather stranded on the beach the only wonder is that so much of it is as vital today as it ever was. In one respect time has betrayed the author. One of the ea?lier passages refers to his belief that sound would burst the bonds of voice and enrich the film with its possibilities. Having just seen a collection of the latest films from all over the world I can only say that the sound track has shrunk not expanded. Speech and music rule the tracks and tie the film down as it has never been tied since sound came in. Mexican, Russian, Portuguese and all talk and talk and talk. It's possible that he was wrong in the first place. Or maybe we have all got a bit lazy. Perhaps you are not interested in technicalities? Then try the pieces on the film in education, on the relationship between Government sponsored films and politics. Or if this is not your line read section one on the Directors of the Thirties and the Cinema of Ideas and then wonder what the author uses for a magic crystal. But enough of this so-called review. Each section could start a dozen arguments or provide material for several articles. Read the book but be prepared to mix your appreciative nods with several frowns. Because someone is thinking and not softening the resulting blows. It only remains to add that Forsyth Hardy has done an excellent introduction, written some useful notes and collected a fine selection of stills to which the publishers have done full justice. (Grierson on Documentary. Edited by H. Forsyth Hardy. (Collins.) 15s.) SOCIETY, SCIENCE AND MOVIE (continued from page 55) however, to overcome this difficulty by collaboration with film producers who understand the issues involved. Preliminary discussion and investigation indicates that collaborative research on such topics as the psychological mechanism by which the film operates on the audience, the interests and attitudes of the audience in relation to specific films, the satisfactions provided by the film, might lead to the uncovering of facts which would be applicable to documentary and instructional film making. More specific topics for instruction might be the effect of musical background in films and the effects produced by real characters versus actors. The Sociatry of the Film In addition to research along the above lines, the general problem of the influence which the documentary and feature film exert in public life today has yet to be studied. Long-term research is needed to discover the extent to which films cement old values or create new ones, and thus assist or hinder the social maturing of the community. That this matter is of real importance is well illustrated by the picture built up in British minds of life in America, as a result of observing that country through the eyes of Hollywood. That the film is a permanent part of modern culture and that it exercises a considerable influence on the world's view of itself, no one can doubt. If it is to be a constructive force, its mode of operation must be clearly understood. The collaborative examination of such problems by the film maker and the specialist in human relations ma> lead to an increasing understanding oi' the dynamics of the film as an art form and as a teaching medium. MUNICIPAL CINEMA IN NORWAY FROM A CORRESPONDENT the first public cinema in Norway was opened in Oslo in November, 1904. Perhaps it was the relative lateness in taking up the new art tha' allowed the Norwegian government to take a long view. Whatever the reason, a law passed in January, 1914, not only gave the Norwegian municipalities power to control all film shows in their areas, but enabled them to build and open cinemas of their own and to forbid their introduction by private enterprise. The first towr. to take advantage of the new law was Notodden In 1918 the municipality of Oslo decided to forbid the opening of any new privately owned cinemas after January 1st, 1919. From January 1st 1926, all privately owned cinemas were forbidden Since that time, almost the whole film trade in Norway — cinemas, renting, studios and laboratories has been in the hands of the municipalities. The privately owned cinemas mainly belong to the co-operative movement and are very small. Though the exact number of cinemas after the German depredations in the North is at present uncertain, it is estimated that, in the spring or" 1946, 104 municipally owned cinemas had a gross annual revenue of 35,000,000 kroner, while 146 privately owned cinemas grossed only 5,000,000 kroner. Of the total revenues, Oslo cinemas contributed about 33-^ per cent, Bergen 1\ per cent, Trondheim 4+ per cent and Stavanger 3j per cent. The Norwegian State lev ies a general tax of 40 per cent on the gross income, but Norwegian films — which are few and far between — are encouraged by a tax of only 25 per cent. Before the war. home-produced films were responsible for about 1 1 per cent of the gross yearly income. Film rentals are fixed at 30 per cent of the gross, and the American renters who attempted to force Norway to pay a higher percentage by withholding new films appear to have been defeated. The municipal cinemas of Norway are all members of the "Kommunale Kinematografers Landsforbund". On behalf of its members, the KKL negotiates with film producers and the representatives of overseas film companies. It also publishes the only film trade paper in Norway, Norsk Filmblad, together with a yearbook. In 1919 the KKL set up its own rentini; organisation, the '"Kommunenes Filmsentral AS". In 1927 the Oslo section of the KK1. bought the majority of the shares in the oldes: renting company in Norway — "A S Fotorama" . and this is now merged with Kommunenes Filmsentral, which controls about one-third o'" all the renting in the country. The remaining twothirds are divided between some fifteen private home and foreign distributors. Kommunenes Filmsentral is not only a renting company, It is responsible for almost all the educational film activity in the country, with a catalogue containing 75 titles: it owns th_' biggest and best laboratory in Norway; it controls ""Norsk Film A S". the only studios in Norway ; and it finances and runs the Norwegian newsreel. The one aspect of the film industr ' which has hitherto been neglected is the documentary, informational, and instructional film.