Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

DOC I Ml N I WRY NEWS LETTER 11V and, even better, the maintenance of a true balance between black and while does not result in a lifeless grey. Well-scripted, well directed, well edited, the film gives as complete a survey as one could expect in twenty minutes of the growth and present appearance of these stigmata of a misspent national life. The treatment is forceful and, compared with the mouselike timidity of many films on similar subjects, as bold as a lion — a circus lion, anyway. It is on issues such as this, rather than Sudan Dispute, that This Modern Age should build a reputation as an adult, entertaining, informative, reliable screen periodical. Taken for Granted. Production: World Wide for Middlesex County Council. Producer: James Carr. Script and Director: Mary Francis. Camera: Cyril Phillips. Distribution: Not yet announced. 20 mins. 'Before 1865 all the London sewers discharged into the Thames, by some 64 separate openings. They caused the river to stink prodigiously, and also infected most of London's drinking water.' That is not a quotation from the commentary of the film, but from Sherwood Taylor's Century of Science, in which, with an almost Elizabethan robustness, he surveys our more immediate past — what, it appears, might well be called 'The Dirtiest Hundred Years in European History'. Unfortunately, there is no echo of Sherwood Taylor's forceful handling of his subject in the treatment of this film. Well-made though it be, and it is a competently directed and photographed film, it yet lacks that imaginative treatment which would take it out of the rut where so many documentaries of today are to be found. This film, the story of the disposal of the sewage of a modern urban community, gives the impression of a painstaking preparation of its subject. We are interested in it because this story is unknown in detail to most of us, but never are we stimulated into that rapt attentiveness which overcomes hard seats or sends us out into the sunshine at the end, if not with a mission, at least aware that someone else has one. It is possible that the reason for so much of the dullness of documentary today, and to be quite fair this film is lively compared w ith some others, lies in just this very carefulness of research into subjectmaterial. Perhaps we must learn to throw the net of our investigations wider. Who would think, for instance, of reading or (I hope) re-reading Hans Andersen's The Tin Soldier and Charles Sale's genially Rabelaisian The Specialist as part of the necessary preparation for writing a script about sewagedisposal? But each of these would add a quality lacking in the film as it is. The first would have teminded us that gutters in spate are admirable places for the sailing of paper boats (what worse hazard than a drain?); and the second that the foundation of all sewage systems lay very much in the earth — for as Lem Putt said, 'It's a mighty sight better to have a little privy over a big hole than a big privy over a little hole'. Even without such lively aids, surely the director, producer or script writer at one time or another has lost something valuable down a drain — maybe in his or her distant childhood such a photogenic object as a beloved goldfish or a tadpole? And where are the rats? In spite of this general criticism, however, there emerges from the film a good sense of the admirable public service which quietly deals w ith this perpetual human problem, carrying out its work, in this example, at the minute cost of Ztl. per week per ratepayer. The control of sew age has progressed a good deal since the period of the quotation from Sherwood Taylor. 'Down the drain' is no longer synonymous for 'All is lost'. Indeed, the by-products of modern sewagedisposal methods, fertilizer for the land and methane gas, properly used, are perhaps symbolic of the general trend of today which seeks to use our resources according to our needs with an ever-growing insistence on the elimination of thoughtless waste. Salt. Realist for ICI. Director: Max Anderson. Camera: Ronald Craigen. 10 mins. Ammonia. Realist for ICI. Direction: Bob Anderson and Denys Parsons. Camera: A. E. Jeakins. Diagrams: Diagram Films. 10 mins. The increasing number of school teaching films sets a reviewing problem. It is axiomatic that a film designed for a particular audience should only be judged by its effect upon that audience. Films such as these two need 'reviewing' in the school itself. But until some mechanism is devised for routine class room testing they must continue to be assessed by the minds of adults. These points are stressed because the reaction of an adult to these films is that they are dull. In neither film is there a single memorable shot — but is this true for children? Only practical use will show. Salt is a film designed for primary and lower secondary school grades. It tells briefly of our physiological need for salt, surveys the natural resources — sea water, rock salt and underground brine — and shows the method of large scale production from each. It concludes by showing some of the most important uses of salt itself, and demonstrates articles of daily use in whose manufacture salt plays a part. Comment must be limited to a few of the questions that rise to the mind. Does, for example, a survey of this kind mean anything to a child of this age group? Children are completely personal in their outlook on life; salt here never becomes a reality in a personal sense. Are children interested in so much manufacturing detail? Does the model showing the method of salt evaporation convince better than a simple explanation of the principle using a familiar dish or pan? Will a child 'register' the fact that things such as glass need salt in their manufacture unless some explanation is given? Children want to know the 'why' about things. There is a barrage of questions in store for the teacher. And finally — the crucial test — does this film in fact show anything which the teacher could not equally well put over without it? Immonia is for a different age group — the mstry and general science classes of school certificate level. Ha 'Mows the same pat tern. Beginning by reminding the class of laboratory methods of making ammonia, it passes to a short statement of its use in the home, tor refrigeration and the manufacture of a number of essential products. The bulk of the film is then taken up h\ a detailed explanation of the I label Bosch method tor the manufacture of ammonia from air and water on a commercial scale. This later part the film explains well with actn ram. Had it been called The Manufacture of Ammonia' it could have been given full marks. But it is not. and so again there arc questions: Do shots of refrigeration spell ammonia.' One short cross section diagram would have driven the point home. Does this recital of Objects produced through the use of ammonia put its point over' Is manufacture really so important except to the sponsor' I his process does have to be learned, and the film is a help in explaining it, but in a general film the proportion of space given to it seems excessive. Such reactions as these are coloured no doubt by the hopes aroused by their arrival of some new contribution to the urgent problems of visual education. If these are not fulfilled it must in fairness be added that these two films are much superior to most films of this type, and that with the limited range available today, teachers will find in them much that is useful. Technically both films are of high quality, a fact which explains the level of criticism. Teaching notes which elaborate many of the points made in the films are being designed to accompany them. Take Thou. Basic for Evans Medical Supplies in association with Film Centre. Photography: Rod Baxter. Director: Kay Mander. Script: John Rhodes. Camera: A. Englander. Distribution: Publicity Department, Evans Medical Supplies. 25 mins. * Documentary has been prone to regard a 'tourof-the-works' as beneath serious consideration— as veiled advertising. Yet the activities of a large business house can be fascinating to the outside observer, and moreover, by integrating the work of the individual into the group, can give meaning to his apparently routine job (as the GPO Film Unit has shown). Take Thou is, we hope, but the first of many such films which while being undoubtedly a 'tour-of-the-works' carry no advertising message. Here is surveyed in briefest outline the rise of the pharmaceutical industry, the preparation on a vast scale of herb extracts, of fine chemicals, of synthetic hormones, of animal extracts and sera, and all the other drugs which stack the shelves of our chemists' shops. But manufacture is only the first part of the work; these products must be tested for purity and activity as well as for possible harmful inclusions, and finally they must be packed and dispatched in quantities of a tew milligrams or of many tons. The film moves fast through the many departments and processes, being concerned more with the broad picture than with any detailed procedures. For so superficial a survey the commentary is perhaps overloaded with technical terms, even for a specialized audience: the English language has some good simple synonyms tor long technical words which would have been more in keeping with this record o( the working man doing his job. Nevertheless Take Thou is a straightforward presentation, having much in common with Twenty-Four Square Wiles, for the photography is completely subservient to the subject-matter, the lighting is unpretentious, and one nonces a commendable absence c<\' thai beautifkation process which commonly precedes the arrival of a film unit. Mere is a simple unpretentious film, which by direct demonstration rather than cinematic virtuosity p fully the widespread activities of JUSI one British business organization. * The two starred reviews were wriii before the new Reviewing Panel ha.: