Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

DOCUMENTARY film news /OL. 7 NO. 63 MARCH 1948 EDITORIAL BOARD STEPHEN ACKROYD DONALD ALEXANDER MAX ANDERSON EDGAR ANSTEY GEOFFREY BELL kl \ < \ Ml RON PAUL FLETCHER SIN (LAIR ROAD GR A H AME 1 H A R P BASIL WRIGHT EDITOR DAVIDE BOULTING SALES & ACCOUNTS PEGGY HUGHES Cover design by james boswell CONTENTS This month's cover still is from Five Tonus reviewed in this issue Editorial Notes of the Month Summer in Peine Graham Wallace O Canada ! We stand on guard for thee John Grierson ... Progress in Brazil Brian Strange ... Films of the Month New Films Nationalism and Internationalism R. !■;. Whitehall A Technician at a Conference ... ... Close-up: Basil Wright ... ... ... Correspondence ... Published every month by Film Ontre '.I I Soho Sq. London \V I ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 1 2s. SINGLE COPIES \s. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 MARCH MERRYWEATHER mi ill ms mi i has proceeded in unspectacular fashion through the machinery of the House. In the Committee Stage members went solemnly through a tray full of amendments, showing in many eases a surprising grasp of the complex details of the industry. Most of the questions of substance they raised were, however, carefully headed off by an adroit move on the part of the President of the Board of 1 rade. When pressed to accept amendments designed to improve the marketing prospects for British films, he referred questioners to his proposed Committee of Inquiry into distribution and exhibition. There the matter was left to rest. The outstanding aspect of the Bill so far has been the low temperature of the discussion both in the House and outside. I ew heated exchanges have taken place on the floor, and there has been singularly little comment in the national Press. Those who remember the Bacon-Bogart diatribes of last year and more particularly the vast telegram campaigns organized by exhibitors at the time of the 1938 Act, expected much more Same than smoke. In part the unsolved issue of the Import Tax must be held responsible for this tepid reception. Also it would seem one of those odd quirks of public interest which veers and changes with strange suddenness. At least the business of framing new legislation should have been much easier in consequence. But is the resulting Bill likely to be any more effective than the old Act? The Bill, when lirst presented, was called by some unambitious and timid. What has happened in Committee Stage has not altered that impression. The President of the Board of Trade has had second thoughts about one or two points but none of them are major issues. To give British producers protection against the overwhelming volume of American film imports is necessary, but by itself, not enough. Anyway at this very moment, when no American films are coming into the country, it is like building a rampart to keep out the sky. It is argued that protection is the sole purpose of these Films Bills and that it would be improper to extend their scope. But in fact the new Bill does touch on fresh issues affecting the wider operations of the industry. It legalizes the gentleman's agreement given by the three circuits several years ago to limit their further expansion. It incorporates the Board set up in October 1946 to select six independent feature films a year for circuit distribution. In other words, u admits that more is needed than mere protection against foreign imports. The chief criticism is that it does so little more, just at the time when prompt and effective action is needed to get British filmmaking out of lis present ensis with studios idle and technicians unemployed. More and regular finance for production is one of the industry's main needs. A Government film finance corporation has been mooted for years rumours are in the air once again, but aie they to be taken seriously? I he Report on Monopob rendencies in the industry showed that the whole distribution a\i>.\ exhibition side needs prompt attention ami itself made a number o\ valuable le commendations. But that was ovei three years The new President ol the Board o\~ hade has ahead) shown a very considerable grasp ol the film industry's thomiei problems. But will he be able to break with the traditionally timid policies o\ his permanent officials? At the moment it happens thai there is nothing for the Bill to protect British producers against, it would be more than uonieal if the next move found the (io\einment with nothing to protect.