Celluloid : the film to-day (1931)

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.

68 CELLULOID which I deem essential, is open to restriction of its programmes through censorship. Yet whilst neither of these movements fully meets the requirements of the enthusiastic film student, they nevertheless deserve the warmest encouragement from anyone who cares for the future of the cinema. Although in many ways the film society movement is admirable, there is always an inclination amongst restricted membership groups towards preciosity, which in the case of the cinema is fatal to a proper understanding of the medium as a whole. There is a prevailing tendency at the moment for film society members to favour vague phrasings of a distinctly " arty " nature, attributing a variety of meanings to films and their directors of which the latter are quite innocent. It is fashionable to talk airily of subjectvalue and attach too great an importance to irrelevant theories of technique, which not only defeats the aim of societies but brings general disfavour upon the works of perfectly competent and simple-minded directors. Too few of these enthusiastic amateurs penetrate to the heart and meaning of cinema; they are happy to bandy slick phrases one with another and avoid the real significance of the film medium. This effeminate dilletantism would, I think, be largely eliminated if a permanent specialist cinema could be established, possibly on the lines indicated, but not as yet realized, by the Film Group. It is essential that this movement for better cinema should originate from the public itself and not from the wishes of an elite few. The successful but brief career of the Avenue Pavilion, London, to some extent met the