Cinema Canada (Sep-Oct 1978)

This Fabian element in Grierson’s life should be reviewed, because it illuminates an important principle in his approach to social change. The Fabian Socialists, such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, were anti-Marxist, and believed that man’s economic activities were best preserved in socialism in the same way that his political rights were best preserved in a democracy. The Fabians were disenchanted with “‘aissezfaire” capitalism’s tendency to permit certain groups of individuals to dominate the living standard of the majority. But instead of class warfare and revolution, the Fabians believed in reform, progressive legislation, and gradual improvement of social services. State socialism in England today is to a certain extent an outcome of this philosophy. In any case, one of the reasons why Grierson was so successful in creating his documentary movement and getting the British and Canadian governments to finance it was because, in the Fabian sense, he was a radical, but not a revolutionary. He worked within the system, and no other person in the history of film could manipulate the system like Grierson. By keeping his projects above the squabble of party politics, his film units tended to survive the electoral fortunes of any one government. In addition, he had no qualms about working with conservative companies like Shell Oil. Because of this, the documentary film never received the leftist reputation in Great Britain that it did in the United States. Grierson shooting Drifters in 1929 After graduating from the University of Glasgow in 1923, Grierson was approached to enter politics but declined. Instead he went to North America. It was here in Chicago, working with the journalist Walter Lippman, that Grierson’s ideas about using film to educate and enlighten began to crystalize. While in North America, Grierson didn’t just stumble upon the Canadian Government Motion Picture Bureau. During the 1920’s, the MPB was a rare institution, with an international reputation for producing quality information and travel films. This film unit had grown out of the Exhibits and Publicity Bureau of Department of Trade and Commerce which had been set up in 1914, to promote the sale of Canada’s abundant natural resources. In 1921, the film unit was reorganized and became the MPB. It was given the expanded 30/Cinema Canada eS ——————————eEeeEEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeE role of producing information films for all other government departments in addition to its travel and trade film responsibilities. One of the flaws of the MPB that was to cripple its activities later on was the fact that it was set up as a theatrical business enterprise. Under the leadership of Raymond Peck, the MPB emphasized sales of its films to theatrical markets, and chose not to transfer prints to the 16mm and 28mm nontheatrical formats of the day. Soon, government departments wishing to distribute non-theatrically started setting up their own film units, which tended to siphon off money from the MPB. But in 1928, the year Grierson returned to London to set up the EMB film unit, these were not major problems for the MPB. It continued to have no rival in the area of government-sponsored films, and its prints were sold all over the world. While building the EMB film unit, Grierson continued to make trips to the MPB in Ottawa. There were two reasons for this. The first was to report on the activities of the MPB to build support for and improve the EMB. Also Grierson realized that if the EMB was ever to achieve wide circulation of its films, non-theatrical outlets had to be set up. To do this, he had to convince schools, churches, clubs, and other organizations to buy projectors. And obviously before this could happen, he had to supply them with something to screen. Thus, Grierson also used these trips to Canada to bring back large amounts of MPB films, which were to become the basis for the first major non-theatrical film library in England. During the early years of the depression, the EMB expanded the role of Grierson’s film unit to form tighter economic bonds and promote greater trade among the Commonwealth countries. But at the same moment that government-sponsored film was assuming a greater role in England, the MPB was entering into a period of decline. Sound had come to film in the late 1920’s, and like film producers everywhere, the Canadian government at first hesitated to purchase the new, costly equipment. Soon the government was struggling with a depression economy, and there was no money available for such a low-priority item as sound equipment. By 1933, the MPB still hadn’t made a single sound film, and all of its theatrical markets had dried up. Although its films were now being converted to non-theatrical formats, these brought in no money. In the private sector, American motion picture companies were completing their stranglehold over the Canadian entertainment industry, and it appeared that filmmaking in Canada was a thing of the past. Evern Grierson no longer came to Canada. He had moved his film unit to the General Post Office, and was too busy producing such classics as Night Mail and Housing Problems. In Canada, a reaction started to set in. In 1934, the National Film Society of Canada was formed. This institution, which would later evolve into the Canadian Film Institute, was concerned about American domination of the film industry, and the decline of the MPB. One of the first things that it did was to publish a lengthy report highly critical of the state of film in Canada. One of the signatories to this document was a young editor named Ross McLean, who would later replace Grierson as head of the National Film Board. McLean accepted the position as personal secretary to the Canadian High Commissioner Vincent Massey, and went to London with him the next year. There McLean met Grierson, and soon became convinced that here was just the man to