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.
by his experience as an imaginative craftsman. The full-length dramatic film must rely on a rapid progressiveness and a rigid economy of means for its effect. It cannot afford to be discursive, to elaborate detail, or to indulge in subjective analysis — all of which are prerogatives of the novelist's art. But the dramatic feature film is not all cinema, and it is not without significance that certain modern poets such as W. H. Auden and C. Day Lewis are coming to regard the film as a medium worth consideration. When they get to grips with it in their experiments they may discover that its technique is not greatly different from that of their own poetry. It may even transpire that what they have been attempting to do in verse will achieve finality in film.
SCOPE FOR THE SHORT FILM. The truth is, there are many kinds of film — not just "film." Actually the technique of the long film has more in common with that of the short story than of the novel. Was it not Tchekov who gave a sane piece of cinematic advice to a young writer when he said, "You must make them feel the moonlight as it glints from a fragment of bottle in the garden"? The cinema has long been accustomed to borrow from literature, but generally from the wrong sources. If it must learn from another medium, let it consider the short stories of Tchekov, Coppard, Powys, even Katherine Mansfield; the poetry of the imagists; the experiments of sur-realism. Paradoxical as it may seem, the short film has more time at its disposal than the long film, and without having to concern itself with the dramatics of rapid action and constructed situation, can indulge in subjective speculation and the analysis of mental and emotional processes. Only the documentary schools, however, in which the greater part of the intelligence in cinema seems at present to be concentrated, is experimenting boldly along newT lines. The only shorts which the commercial studios appear to be capable of making are so-called comedies, which exasperate even star-infatuated audiences who suffer them only to see the glamorous feature they accompany.
True, there have been such excursions in novelty as Pett and Pott, Dawn to Dawn and Lot in Sodom, but these have been independently inspired. The studios are still blind not only to the entertainment value of the short film but to its usefulness as a breeding ground for new ideas and new talent. On the score of risk and expense, experiment in feature -film production is made almost impossible. (A coloured Becky Sharp is risked for the prize, not of developing a new technique, but of popularising a technical process of immense potential monetary value.) This bar to experiment is one of the main factors which retard the artistic development of the film. There is, however, little or no financial risk attached to the making
132