Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

68 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER WHY NO LABOUR FILMS? DOREEN WILLIS, in this hard-hitting article, challenges the Unions, the Co-ops and the documentary film makers alike five years of DNL back numbers can produce only a few column inches of space devoted to films and the Labour Movement. The ease with which an organized audience of eight million trade unionists and nine million Co-operative families has been ignored is almost breathtaking. From a movement priding itself on its presentation of social problems and activities more is required than observation and truthful portrayal. The 'creative interpretation of actuality' implies more than photographing sweaty faces, slum housing and the gyrations of machines. The individual worker and housewife are now a familiar sight on both theatrical and non-theatrical screens and the earnest picture-goer may well have amassed quite a wealth of information about the work men do in this modern Britain, from Grierson's herring fishers through to the scientific worker processing DDT. But what of the worker in the aggregate, in the millionsstrong movements which express his special needs and aspirations? We've not seen him on the screen yet — or at any rate only in the briefest of glimpses. Documentary has a proud record. Its films have helped to orientate people to the complex workings of industrial society while assisting them in the fight for a better deal. Its best films have been those which performed these functions consciously and in which the film makers had a real opportunity to grapple with a definite problem, such as housing, malnutrition, etc. Something of the strength and confidence of the people in action has been assimilated into these films, and it is this vitality (inspiration if you like) which the Labour Movement can offer to all the social arts, including documentary. However, the economics of documentary, film making being what they are, nothing so ephemeral as inspiration will suffice to ensure the production of films with social validity. This hard fact explains, though does not condone, much of the apparent lack of interest in Labour problems which shows through the columns of DNL. Have not the unions, for example, ignored documentary just as consistently? Certainly few films have been sponsored by unions, while the output of the Co-operative Movement has been ludicrously below its potentialities. Again, can it be claimed that the Labour organisations have exhibited the interest in this new educational and propaganda force that one would expect of a forward-looking movement? Unfortunately no. Financial problems have created for both users a barrier which good sense and ideological conviction have hitherto failed to surmount. This provides documentary with one of its major problems. It might have been hoped that the advent of a Labour Government would automatically have solved it by opening out new vistas of social film making and by illustrating through its example the role which films can play in the carrying through of a vast programme of social reform. In practice the Government seems happily embarked on a modest programme of films dealing with the technical aspects of production, instruction, reconversion, etc., which, though valuable and necessary, cannot fail to be pedestrian if viewed from the standpoint of social documentary. Can we afford, as citizens, to settle down to a life of pseudo-peaceful reconstruction? Have all the great problems and conflicts vanished with the ending of the war and the election of a new Government? One gTeat section of the people doesn't think so anyway. Meeting recently, the Trades Union Congress expressed strong feelings on a variety of issues of acute interest to us all. They weren't altogether happy about the prospects of peace ; they were alarmed at the survival of large remnants of Fascism; concerned about the use of atomic power; and fed to the teeth with being exhorted to increase production while many elementary trade union rights are still unrealized and the prospect of a world slump grows. Hasn't documentary something to say on these questions? Of course it has, but the problems still remain of how to get films of this type sponsored and then how to show them to the people most interested and responsive. A beginning has been made in the trade union sponsorship of films, first with the Amalgamated Engineering Union film, Unity is Strength, and more recently with those commissioned by the Electrical Trades Union and the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers. The ETU film is particularly important because it is attempting to tackle a subject wider than its own work — the social implications of electricity. It will be good to see what the electrical workers feel about this subject and the proposals they have to make for the development of this type of power. But many other equally fascinating subjects present themselves. Recently we have seen a Crown film dealing with the railways as a career for young people, and the competent, objective handling of the material compelled our admiration. But the idea which remained in our heads long after seeing the film was horror at the low wage rates being offered to men on whose skill and judgment the lives of the travelling public depend (a living wage appeared to be paid only to those responsible for the handling of the financial side of the railway service!). What do the railmen themselves think of their calling as a career? What will they demand of a publicly owned transport system? We ought to have a film about that. And so we could go on, listing the films we should like to see but which only the Labour Movement can sponsor. Superficially it appears that the Co-operative Movement has gone further, but comparison between its \ast resources and its actual output of films presents a different picture. We have had a spate of short advertising films of indifferent quality, but few films of a fundamental character. Sureh the time has come for the building up of its own documentary unit b> the Co-op and for the turning out of a series of films on social subjects close to the interests and ideals of co-operation. But sponsorship of films by the Labour (Movement u.w\ come onlj if the individual worker is com meed o( the value o( the film. No union executive will agree to the considerableexpense involved unless it is confident that the expenditure will be approved by the membership. In bringing films to the unions there is much to be learnt from Canadian experience. There is nothing magic about the way in which trade union circuits were built up over there: just a good deal of thought and considerable organization. Having appreciated the importance of this audience, the first job was to sell the idea that films could help trade unionists. This was tackled with imagination and enterprise and resulted in the production of some first-class publicity material, including posters and a regular news sheet. It was understood that union film shows must not be stunts, for these would soon pall, but must become an integral part of branch activity. So films were woven into the normal fabric of union educational work. and. with the co-operation of the Canadian WEA, a technique of discussion shows was developed. Out of this experience came the production of special discussion trailers in which ordinary trade unionists gave their point of view on the main film and developed a controversy which could be continued by the live audience. Trade union and co-operative interest in documentary can only be achieved from a study of their real needs and interests rather than from abstract appeals or aggrieved bemoanings that the Labour Movement 'doesn't appreciate films'. As a matter of fact, when the unions, for example, have been approached and told something about the films which exist and the free distribution facilities, they have shown a marked interest or even enthusiasm. This is expressed in an increasing number of articles in union journals and in the beginnings of branch film shows. In Glasgow an interesting development has been the formation of a Trades Council Film Society, which is showing mainly documentary films. At least this is a start. The Central Office of Information has also a big opportunity to encourage not only the showing of films in the union branches, etc., but also the sponsorship by Government Departments of films having a more direct reference to the problems of Labour. The establishment of the National Film Association by the Co-operative Movement is a significant step forward, though it will need to break decisivelj with Workers' Him Association traditions of planlessness. inefficiency and preoccupation w ith profit making, if it is to realize its vast potentialities. It is also to be hoped that the International Labour Office will now implement the decision to carrj out a programme of film making which was held up b> the war. One must not forget, in this connection, the opportunities which lace the World federation of Trade Unions in fostering the exchange of films on national labour achievements and the sponsorship of films dealing with common international problems. These developments, though still in their first beginnings, mean great possibilities for the documentary movement. What is it prepared to do about them'.'