Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

DOCUMENTARY FILM NEWS 77 Off With Their Heads! by JACK BEDDINGTON Jack Beddington was, during the war, Director of the Films Division of the Ministry of Information. Before that, Publicity Director of Shell Mex Ltd. Was one of those who made the Government realize the value of the film in wartime propaganda the trouble with the documentary film world today is that the old gang is still in charge. It was, therefore, a great delight to me to hear considerable criticism of them by younger people at a private debate the other day. It was equally a pain to me — though not a surprise— to find that with a notable exception none of the old gang were present to hear those criticisms, though they must have known that they were coming. it The old gang twelve or fifteen years ago were pioneers wtih new ideas, great enthusiasms. courage and honesty. They are now middleaged, much fatter or thinner than they were, and no longer potential geniuses. I cannot see that they have made any advance in the last five years. Humour they do not understand; criticism they resent. This is no state of mind with which to startle, tickle or impress the world. I recently saw two films about housing, shown one after the other. About eleven years separated their dates of production. Apart from slightly better photography in the newer one, there was nothing to choose between them. There is, however, an enormous difference in the outlook of audiences today and those of eleven years ago. Documentary film-makers must get this into their heads. Before the war. there was a sympathy and a receptivity for the kind of work that they were doing. People were not conditioned by the frustration and brutality to which we are all now accustomed. This must be taken into account. We have had a terrible time for ten years and if film-makers want us to listen to them, they must either have something refreshing to say or a refreshing way of saying whatever is their theme. It seems to me that they are frightened by two of the simplest and most acceptable things in the world — humour and beauty. I need scarcely labour my point of humour because none of them will deny that they want to put it in their films. I must none the less point out that they cannot do so — as it were — on purpose. Humour in the \ense in which I am using it must be spontaneous and can only come from those who have the gift of laughing at themselves. It does not necessarily consist of jokes, funny business' or epigrams; it does mean the presentation of human beings in the round with their good and their bad points, without sneers and — above all — not as types. This brings me to what I believe is the cardinal weakness of the old gang. They are consistently pressing a political point of view. U is. I believe, of no importance what that point of view is provided that it does not prevent the film being exciting or interesting or stimulating in its own right; but the moment a piece of propaganda in a film is considered of more importance than the film itself, the film is bound to fail and to preach to none except the converted. If only the old gang would realize this and even that their political points of view are both well-known and old-fashioned, they might be induced to give up intrigue and wire-pulling and come back to film-making. In their early days they freely announced that they were only using films for propaganda purposes, but in those days they were young and enthusiastic and deceived themselves in a more agreeable fashion than they do now. In fact, they loved making films and it was for this reason that beauty and humour crept in despite their professed attitude of abhorring the aesthetic. This is one of their silliest and most self-conscious tricks. I am glad indeed that it does not seem to be shared by the newcomers. They don't seem to me nearly so frightened of either laughing or crying and it is for this reason that I have great hopes for the future. I am carefully avoiding the old contr<> of the appeal to the intellect as opposed to the appeal to the emotions. I don't really believe that any film-maker in any type of film-making consciously accepts such a difference. Some want to express their own theories of good and evil; some want only to entertain or to make money. All use the methods that come easiest to them. What comes through on to the celluloid is the essential quality of the makers. Some films come out dull or distorted, or difficult, to understand. Some don't. I can only hope then that the newcomers will retain their enthusiasms and their energy and vigorously chase out the old gang as soon as possible. A still fron a new COI film on the Civil Service the title is -Answer Four Questions'