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 FILM INSTITUTE
The establishment of the British Film Institute adds a new and much-needed power to the campaign for the development of intelligent cinema. The Institute has many tasks to perform — the dissemination of information and advice, research into the development and use of the film, the formation of a national repository of films, the linking of trade and "cultural and educational interests," and the influencing of public opinion — and in order to perform these tasks thoroughly it asks for, and most definitely requires, the co-operation of specialist bodies already engaged in the various fields of cinema, educational, social, and cultural activity.
In spite of an unsatisfactory constitution which places control in the hands of a governing body on which there is no public representation, the Institute is capable of accomplishing an immense amount of good. In so far as it can achieve results, opposition to its efforts on the part of other organisations would be futile and niggardly. But as a national organisation, approved by the Government and spending public funds, the Institute must expect — and receive — criticism as well as help. It exists not for the convenience of its members, but for the benefit of the public — an important consideration which receives emphasis by the publication of "The Cinema and the Public," in which Walter Ashley presents "a critical analysis of the origin, constitution and control of the ' British Film Institute."'
THE ASHLEY ATTACK
Ashley's criticism takes the form of a letter to the President of the Privy Council, whom he wished to influence against recognising the Institute's claim for a grant from the Cinematograph Fund. With a mass of carefully documented evidence it seeks to prove that the Institute is largely under the control of the film trade, and that it is powerless to exert any effective influence over the mass of entertainment films. In his zeal to prove his case, however, Ashley has interpreted certain events to suit his argument. There is no evidence, for instance, that "Scotland is wisely preparing to cut itself off" from the operations of the B.F.I. — the actual position being, that provided Scotland can retain its independence to deal with its own problems (which are substantially different from those of England) it is both willing and anxious to co-operate with the Institute.
The main object in Ashley's "exposure" was frustrated by the fact that publication was delayed until too late to have any effect on the allocation of the Privy Council grant. What will be its influence on public opinion depends on the importance readers place on the facts removed from their opinionative context.
144