Documentary News Letter (1942-1943)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER FEBRUARY 1942 CORRESPONDENCE {Continued) would such an investigation reveal'.' That the D.A.K. has commissioned 100 training films, varying in length from one to six reels. That these films have been made to satisfy the immediate training needs of a number of different Army departments — probably rather more than the number of Ministries the M.O.I, finds it difficult to please. That the training given by these pictures is sufficiently valuable thatseveral of our Allies are glad to beg or borrow copies. That the quality is generally as high as — if not higher than — that of similar films made for other sponsors. That in the case of urgent pictures, involving exterior shooting, the D.A.K. is prepared in the event of bad weather — to my mind, quite rightly prepared — to sacrifice photographic quality to the urgency of war. Of course, the D.A.K. isn't perfect. The money available for producers is skimpy, with the result that in many cases the films lack "finish ". Now for M.O.I. D.N.L. beat them up at the outset — and they certainly deserved it. To-day you handle M.O.I, with kid gloves and rush to the rescue when journals with a.wider circulation take up the attack. Do M.O.I, deserve this change of heart? Has D.N.L. conducted an investigation of this department yet? If so, there's one point on which I should like information. Units have spent weeks or months working on films for M.O.I, only to find when they were completed that nobody had any clear idea why they were commissioned in the first place. Can D.N.L. tell us how many M.O.I, films have been stillborn? How much they cost? And who stood in the dock at the inquest? If any films were canned because they fell below the technical standard acceptable to M.O.I. — and presumably the minimum standard would be the worst of the films so far issued — then they heartily deserve their fate. But if the'y went on the shell because somebody forgot to find out in the beginning why they were being made and whether they would be wanted when they were finished, then the assumption is that the M.O.I. has not yet completely formulated its own policy. In which case it is surely a little early for D.N.L. to be suggesting that the M.O.I, should take over the activities of any other sponsor. Yours, etc., JAMES CARR EDITORIAL note: James Can is in charge of production al I entv Films, a unit which is largely engaged on film work for the Department oj Armv Kinematographv. the British Council, and the Films Division oj the M.O.I. We ourselves have little comment to make on \li. Cart's contentions, although we are interested to note that this is the first time that a defence has been made in writing against the hapten! ciilicisms we have made of ihe British Council and the D.A.K. Amongst othei things Mr. (air implies that he objects lo our editorial articles being unsigned. II c < an assure him that, in common with the rest Oj the press, our Board takes full responsibility for opinions expressed m <>it> Editorials ami Notes oj the Month. Ihe names ol the Editorial Boaid aie clearly printed in each issue, lie led that Mr. Carr's revelation ol D.XI.s tenderness and solicitude towards the Films Division id the M.O.I, will come as something of a surprise both to our readers and also to the Films Division itself. STRAND FILMS MAKERS OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS SINCE 1934 THE STRAND FILM COMPANY LTD. DONALD TAYLOR MANAGING DIRECTOR ALEXANDER SHAW DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT 1<>\ 5a UPPER ST. MARTINS LANE, W.C.2 MERTON PARK STUDIOS, 269 KINGSTON RD, S.W.19