British Kinematography (1951)

BRITISH KINEMATOCRAPHY VOLUME 18, No. 5 MAY, 1951 CONTENTS The Telekinema — Personal Impressions N. LEEVERS, B.Sc, A.C.G.I. (Fellow) and R. HOWARD CRICKS, F.R.P.S. (Fellow) Sound Film Equipment in the Festival of Britain Telekinema A. BOWEN, J. MOIR and H. TURNER The Director's Problems K. ANNAKIN How Should We Develop British Television ? C. IAN ORR-EWING, O.B.E., A.M.I. E.E., M.P. Page 140 Brains Trust on the Kinema Page 154 Technical Abstracts 158 Library Notes 159 142 The Father of Modern Photography 160 150 152 The Council Book Review 160 161 Personal News of Members 161 TECHNIQUE AND SHOWMANSHIP IN the face of lay publicity of a sensational character it may seem heresy to comment that Telekinema's justifiable claims to novelty are strictly limited. Nevertheless, the bringing together of a number of items previously demonstrated individually has a soecial significance for our members. We in the B.K.S. are particularly concerned that the efforts and achievements of the technical side of the industry shall not be misrepresented or mishandled before the eyes of the world. That is why we are especially interested in the Festival of Britain Telekinema, which might be regarded as the shop window of future developments. Here were to be demonstrated stereoscopic and stereophonic films in colour, large screen television and the latest technique our industry has to offer, under conditions which were to be, presumably, the standards for the future. If, in the Telekinema, this obiective has been obtained, then the outlook in our industry is indeed bleak. However, reconsideration convinces one that the acute sense of disappointment arises more from the matter presented than its minner of pre sentation. At the Telekinema, films seemed more closely linked with the eclectic dilettantism of the British Film Institute than the bold showmanship of the Barnum School or the Joe Vegoda Birthday Drive. Further, the bad showmanship, both in type of film selected and in the manner of their presentation, is in no way related to the best this country has to offer. Many members have commented on such blunders as the seating arrangements. There appears to be no attempt to stagger seating to give dear vision past the row in front, and occupants of rear stalls find the upper part of the screen cut off by the balcony soffit. The occupants of front stalls, on the other hand, get an excellent view if they adopt a neck-tiring posture reminiscent of the dentist's chair. Ceiling lights are featured to such an ex-ent thit they prove an annoying distraction within the field of view during the performance. It would be unfair to criticise the sound quality at so early a stage, sicce the shortcomings of the first demonstration will no doubt bedealt wi.hquickl/ and effectively. It does seem apparent, however, that the sound engineers have been given a very difficult problem to solve in producing a stereophonic effect from a relatively narrow proscenium. The use of speakers in the ceilings of stalls and gallery seems to have a stunt value only, but is capable of providing weird effects. The technical performance of both B.T.H. SUPA Projectors and Cintel large screen television was, of course, well-nigh perfect. Finally, the films shown do not seem to provide anything approaching the spectacular demonstration which should be possible with the equipment. The best stereoscopic demonstration took as its subject a voyage down the Thames — virtually a remake of Hepworth's " Stereo-scenic" of 1908. Other stereoscopic films were more modernistic (but less effec.ive) than Hepworth's "Rescued by Rover," 1903 — which, of course, would have made a splendid subject for stereoscopy. In the ordinary course of events, film criticism is not perhaps a field in which many B.K.S. members would care to express opinions publicly, but here is a case of the poor choice of subject matter being liable to give the world a wrong impression as regards both our film producing capabilities and our technical equipment. The experimental "arty-crafty" type of film will often, we hope, find a place in our film programmes as one of our more interesting variations of film diet, but we shudder to think of it as a staple food. A critical review is of course, a very personal affair and to do any lastin? good it must be cand d. If we do not point out the mistakes ou. selves, our foreign visitors will assume we are either disinterested or incompetent, and will themselves provide the criticism in no uncertain terms, or worse still, will "give polite praise and buy nothing." The fact that the demonstration may be aimed at the least informed public will not t=mper the blast. Many of the shortcomings of the Telekinema may only be teething troubles, other can be put right by determined and prompt action. It is hoped, for the benefit of an industry which is already hard hit in other d rections, that action will be taken. Baynham Honri. Chairman, Film Production Division. BRITISH KINEMATOCRAPHY, the Journal of the British Kinematograph Society, is Published monthly. Price 3s. per issue (3s 2d including postage), annual subscription 37s. 66. including postage. E6itorial an6 A6<ertising Offices: 117 Piccadilly, London, W.I. Grosvenor 4396-7. Publication in this Journal does not necessarily imply that the Council en6orses the views of authors. Reprinting is ptrmitte6, subject to due acknowle6gment being ma6e to BRITISH KINEMATOGRAPHY an6 the author. Editor R. HOWARD CRICKS. F.B.K.S., F.R.P.S. Hon. Consulting Editor : GEOFFREY PARR, M.I.E.E. F.B.K.S.