Cinema Quarterly (1933 - 1934)

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.

THE SPECTATOR CLEAR THE DECKS! For the greater part of its history the cinema has been attacked, neglected, or unfeignedly despised. The claims of the pioneers who discerned the potentialities of the film as a medium of expression were openly scoffed at ; at best they were tolerated with superior condescension. But to-day, after years of patient propaganda, they are backed by a growing body of public opinion. We are now able to talk about " intelligent filmgoers," and to address them, knowing that they exist in even greater numbers than is generally realised. According to C. A. Lejeune, unusually optimistic, these wise folk can succeed in raising the standard of production by demanding from exhibitors a better type of film and by staying away from films they don't want to see. A pious hope! Until popular education and the general level of civilisation is improved a hundredfold there will always be sufficient people willing to spend their ninepence (or their eight-and-six) on films that are no better than the present measure of specious entertainment. Intelligent filmgoers, numerous as they are, could have little effect on the box-office if they all decided never to enter a picture-house again. The trouble at present is that too many people of the type who might be expected to appreciate good films stay away from the cinema altogether. St. John Ervine, it would appear, is more persuasive than Miss Lejeune. But if discerning patrons cannot prevent bad or indifferent films from being made, they can encourage and support the production of films with higher ideals and with a greater sense of artistic integrity than the average cinema audience is accustomed to. This patronage of worth-while films can make all the difference between financial failure and modest but adequate success. Only by the prospect of their paying their way can even the most idealistic producers be encouraged to make such films, and only by the public exhibition of these films can it be hoped to raise the general level of appreciation, and so ultimately of production. But to effect any influence on production, and to exert the strength of its numbers, this patronage must be organised. An intensive campaign must be waged against the attitude of the commercial cinema which prefers to ignore intelligence rather than to cater for it. Before the call to action goes forth, however, it must be seen that the decks are clear and that the course set is the right one. 143