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.
ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN THE MAKING OF FILMS FOR CHILDREN
By Nazzareno Padellaro.
Ispector General of Primary Educaction in Italy.
THE cinema for children, despite some sporadic attempts, is still in the hands of the amateurs. The prospect of its numerous possibilities has disorganized regular, continuous effort. It may seem a paradox to attribute the poor results obtained in this sector of cinematography to excessive enthusiasm. Enthusiasm which does not mean the beginning of a calm and planned action is only a stimulus or a tendency. Enthusiasms which follow in waves are not very different from rhythmic noises, which in other words mean a confusion that repeats itself.
Points in the Chil I wiH refer briefly and
dren's Cinema. m a summary fashion to certain elementary ideas which ought to help remove the attempts to build up a collection of films for children out of the hands of the amateurs into those of scientists.
Our first investigations ought to be directed towards what Lavelle calls " the dialectic of the senses ". Studies of this kind are not much in favour. Biologists think them extraneous to their work, psychologists pass them by, and the philosophers despise them.
The researches and reports of the above mentioned Lavelle are almost unknown. A work like " La Perception visuelle de la Profondeur " which ought to be " The Dialectic of the Sensory World ", the vademecum for those studying the questions of the cinema for children, is ignored.
Neither can it be argued that problems of this kind can be taken for granted, for that amounts to ignoring them, and no science can rest on ignorance.
Is the visual world an image and not a
reality ? If an image, why is it an image ? How comes it that the memory which carries all our past in us necessarily transforms successive actions into simultaneous images ?
Why is this simultaneity spatial? Why and under what conditions is the sense of sight the sense of illusion?
Why is it that to distance oneself from objects in space is like distancing oneself in the past ? (Parenthetically we may add : how many effects can result from a clear application of this principle !).
Up to what point is vision the concrete realization of the possible ?
I have barely outlined a few points which ought to form a propaedeutic for those who really desire to proceed to the creation of a science without trusting in chance or inspiration.
Is a course in philosophy necessary then ? No, a course in philosophy would be perfectly useless. What is required is a systematic research along the lines indicated.
I should not hesitate for a moment to refer those interested in the problems connected with the sound film to a work by I. Nogue " Site et Champ ". Students of this subject should also have a knowledge of the works of Gelb and Herring.
Time in Relation to Another point of imThe Image. portance which must
be faced is that concerning the valuation of time in relation to the image.
In order to set forth this question properly, I must notice some recent interesting theories which are beginning to be examined seriously iu scientific circles. For instance, does
4* — la Ingl.