American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1952)

Amateur CINEMATOGRAPHY IF IT IS true that to make a successful amateur film requires teamwork between different kinds of arfisfs, then to this cre¬ ative cooperative work let us welcome other amateurs who may be interested in scripting, acting, direction, editing, etc. IN THE EARLY days of amafeur movies, the accent was on the technical side of film making, on the ability of the filmer to catch significant scenes and beautiful scenery. Today, fhe lone amateur must show all-around versatility. Needed — A New Deal For Serious Amateurs Swedish amateur reports a decline in interest among amateurs similar to that in the U. S.; offers some solid ideas for infusing new life into the universal film making hobby. By M. G. LIVADA Director, Stockholm s Filmamatorer The article by Alvin D. Roe, which appeared in the July, 1951, issue of American Cinematographer, dealt with the declining interest among amateur movie makers for their hobby. The conditions revealed by Mr. Roe are not confined to American movie makers alone, but apparently are valid through¬ out the whole cine amateur world. As an example, whereas there have been an average of 90 competitors in the Swedish Annual Film Competition in recent years, the number of participants in last year’s Competition dropped to 17. I shall try to analyze the causes of this decline and to offer suggestions that may tend to remedy the situation: First, the technical equipment at the amateur’s disposal and the continuing improvement of the standards of ama¬ teur films throws the cine amateur of today into a grave dilemma. He has to choose between working alone and working within a film society or cine club. He has to decide between employ¬ ing more help and assistance, more re¬ sources, both technical and economical, and the loss of his independence and his individuality as a film maker. If he follows the advice of Pierre Boyer, as related in Mr. Roe’s article and which proposed that individual amateur movie makers unite and work collectively in the production of worthwhile films, he must endure all the formalities which working with a film society brings; and if he is compelled to work thus, there cannot he too much enthusiasm and phantasy left. I do not deny the importance of the facilities and other benefits which a film club offers; hut I sincerely confess that it seems to me that club-made films in¬ variably try to follow the historic de¬ velopment of the film instead of open¬ ing to it new roads and new horizons; for the amateur film, in my opinion, must possess — before any technical su¬ periority — courage, phantasy, and per¬ sonality. And if, to such quality, the professional touch is added, with the time, then we may speak of it as an ideal amateur film. The question is: is a compromise possible between team-work and one man's desire for self-expression through film? And if it is, in which way? I dare to affirm that a compromise is not only desirable but even possible. But for its attainment we need: a) A new type of film society b) A new type of film competition c) Improved competition awards d) A better means of contact be¬ tween individual movie makers To elaborate: (Continued on Page 224) 212 American Cinematographer May, 1952