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 SOCIETIES
In an introduction to a recently published book entitled "For Filmgoers Only," R. S. Lambert, one of the Governors of the British Film Institute, suggests that the film society movement, "which draws its strength from a certain dispair," may be in danger of developing "a 'coterie' sense expressing itself in an excessive admiration for one particular kind of film, as, for instance, a few years ago, the Russian film." This is both misleading and ungenerous, as well as impolitic on the part of one representing a body requiring all the organised support it can get. Does Mr. Lambert's interest in cinema not go far enough back for him to remember that it was the Russian film more than anything else which first aroused general interest in the new art of the film? In any case, the spread of the film society movement did not come until the first wave of enthusiasm for the Russian film had passed, and I challenge Mr. Lambert to discover in the programmes of the film societies published in Cinema Quarterly any evidence of coterie tendencies.
Instead of belittling the achievement of the film societies, many of whom have been doing for years work which the Institute is only now attempting, it might have been expected that some form of co-operation would have been sought. True, societies have been invited to become "branches" of the Institute — at the cost of forfeiting their independence and working under conditions of financial and administrative control which would preclude their proper functioning. Meanwhile, though cinema as a whole would benefit from the establishment of an efficient central organisation and a reliable information bureau, the Institute is proceeding to form branches up and down the country. This it is perfectly justified in doing, and some of its branches are already doing excellent work in areas where no organisation was already in existence. But it is an exaggeration to claim that they are accomplishing more than the principal film societies are doing in their own sphere.
The independent film societies, unhampered by any restrictive constitution or the limits of orthodoxy, must continue their separate existence as the advance-guard of the cinema — though of course this does not imply opposition to the Institute, whose aims and projects most societies, if asked, would be pleased to assist wherever possible. When new bodies come to be formed in districts as yet unorganised they will have to consider whether their ideals can best be served by remaining independent or under the aegis of centralised control.
Norman Wilson.
145