The Cine Technician (1943 - 1945)

16 THE C.IXE-TECHNICIAN January — April, 194-4 Eight or Left, seems to have a profound contempt for the importance and effect of any activity at all except politics, and that goes double for films. Any Torv or Trade Union leader up to London for a couple of days and you can bet your boots where he's gone of an evening — to a " show " — the Windmill, a musical comedy or some highly coloured leg-show film. Neither side believes that the imagination of the people can be touched, their human spirit roused and action achieved through the hours they spend starry-eyed in the cinema. To the politicos it's all either Entertainment or Propaganda. And so" Reynolds,"" Tribune,' ' ' The Daily Worker " and the rest of them have never yet had a good film column — they're either hack film-star write-ups or cheap political tirades that totally underestimate the imaginative power of what they're writing about. The one real exception was the late Leon Moussinac, whose column in the Communist "L'Humanite" probably did more to build up the native genius of the French cinema than any other single agency. Over here a few people now and then have written good reviews in Left Wing papers : John Grierson used to do a good column in the New Clarion " and some others do good articles now and then, but there's no good Left Wing writer whose full-time job is film criticism. And that goes for America, too, if you make a possible exception for people like Meyer Levin, Herman (i. Weinberg or H. A. Potamkin. It's a sad, sad fact, but true, and shows a sadly unrealistic attitude on the part of Left Wingers. What we need is somebody of the stature that Edmund Wilson has in literature to do our film criticism. Trade-press reviews are a little subject all on their own. Of course, the Trade press of this country cannot hope for the comparative independence of " Variety," but it is true to say that if your read the reviews regularly and carefully you can, after long experience, often read between the lines of fulsome praise the little haunting phrase, "another stinker." Their reviews, anyway, are at least factually accurate and, I should say, prove a good guide to the knowledgeable exhibitor. And to anyone interested in such matters their literary style is a source of constant delight. Particularly Charlie Walker's, of wdiich a random example like "animated succession of knockabout hilarities involving coy terpsichorean prancings" cannot hope to give the full distinctive flavour. And then you'll meet him in the street, fresh from the latest • terrific epic. ' Seen any good films lately, Charlie? ' ' No, not since 1923." ' What's that then?" ' Fritz Lang's Destiny." They're certainly pleasant company, particularly drinking company, some of those boys, and some of the hard-boiled Fleet Street boys, too, such as Peg Mortimer, who used to be on " Empire News." But unfortunately they're all too cynical, all too tied up with the business side of the cinema for their writing to be any real help in its development. Though, to do them justice, most of them respect and will put in a good word for a man who they feel has real faith and the courage to try and do something about it — not you, Orson, Bil down. Well, that's the general set-up, and it's not a very happy one. Of course, good film reviews do get written sometimes, but usually, unluckily, in some periodical with a very limited circulation. Close-Up," for all its posing, used to have some good stuff in it from time to time. Robert Herring used to do good reviews in a rather finicking kind of way. Charles Davy and Alistair Cooke were quite bright and breezy. ' The Spectator " carries solid, sensible stuff from Basil Wright and Edgar Anstey. But unfortunately that's all coterie stuff that doesn't get to the public and so has very little influence over films and filmmaking. What we want is more critics with courage, standards and a love of the cinema in the popular press. And now let's get to the prize-giving. First Prize for more than 15 years' conscientious work. few bad lapses and for keeping her belief in films — C. A. Lejeune. Prizes for good honest columns in the popular press and for giving British films a helping hand — Ewart Hodgson and Elspeth Grant. Prize for the most promising newcomer (ii he will guard against becoming sour and snoot \ | — Richard Wilmington. Prize for the choicest vocabulary — Charlie Walker. Prize for the biggest drinker — I daren't say, but you know who I mean. Booby Prizes: For hoity-toityness, Dilys Powell ; for looking lost, worried and willing over column after column, Ernest Betts ; for most howlers, William Whitebait ; for calling a regular feature, " My Friends the Stars." Jympson Harmlan ; for calling anything the Disney factory does "a work of genius." almost everybody: for taking the backbone out of every critic they use. the B.B.C. That's all lor now : dismiss, boys, and tile out quietly. -For StuJio ami laboratory equipment, Comerasjripo&j'rintindfiocessiiy planL, ana far the solution of any technical problem concerning them the name thalmathn is W.VINTtN LTD. NO«IH CI«CUIA« «0 CRKKUWOOO-H .# 1 k .Glidilor* 6173