Documentary News Letter (1942-1943)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER MARCH 1942 NEWS LITTER MONTHLY SIXPENCE VOL. 3 NUMBER 3 MARCH 1942 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER stands for the use of film as a medium of propaganda and instruction in the interests of the people of Great Britain and the Empire and in the interests of common people all over the world. DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER is produced under the auspices of Film Centre, London, in association with American Film Center, New York. EDITORIAL BOARD Edgar Anstey Alexander Shaw Donald Taylor John Taylor Basil Wright EDITOR Ronald Horton Outside contributions will be welcomed but no fees will be paid. We are prepared to deliver from 3—50 copies in bulk to Schools, Film Societies and other organisations. Owned and published by FILM CENTRE LTD. 34 SOHO SQUARE LONDON W.l GERRARD 4253 FILM AND REALITY By BASIL WRIGHT with A boldness only equalled by that of Dr. Johnson when he set out to compile his English Dictionary, Cavalcanti has, in Film and Reality, attempted, all on his own, to describe the development of the realist film over the past fifty years in an opus which runs for an hour and three quarters and contains extracts from fiftyeight different films. The result is a remarkable document, impressive for the wealth of its contents and (to myself at least) in many places controversial as regards its choice of material, and its attitude towards the social, as opposed to the academic or aesthetic development of the realist film. But whatever else it may be, it is certainly stimulating; after seeing it most people will find themselves considering the wider perspectives and the future possibilities which arise from this particular branch of film making. Film and Reality, being as it were the only visual reference-work dealing with a special type of cinematic endeavour, deserves close and detailed attention from the critical standpoint. And if my own criticism should appear too personal, no doubt others, including I hope Cavalcanti, will hasten to correct, refute, or amplify. I. THE SCOPE OF THE FILM As might be expected, Film and Reality is at its safest when it deals with history, or with chapters in realist development which can be regarded as more or less complete. The First Section (which is preceded by a prologue detailing Dr. Marey's early experiments and the first film made by the Lumieres), explains how a new form of dramatic entertainment quickly arose from the new invention. Extracts from The Life of Charles Peace, The Great Train Robbery, and The Assassination of the Duke of Guise, reveal how the essentials of the movie medium were quickly lost as producers turned more and more to the straight photography of theatrical mime. Incidentally D. W. Griffiths was probably the man who did most to rescue cinema from this blind alley, and this section might well have ended with a brief extract from Birth of a Nation. The Second Section shows how newsreels and interest films have always formed a continuous thread of contact with reality, whatever deviations the rest of the cinematic world might be indulging in. Here Cavalcanti very properly points out that both the newsreel and the interest film, being forms of visual record and little else, are unlikely to vary much in attitude and content, being affected only by improvements in photographic apparatus and similar mechanical developments. There is certainly little difference between the rioting suffragettes of 1906 and the panicky crowds milling around the killer of King Alexander in 1934. Two excerpts in this section have a special visual impact. The first is a short sequence of Chinese families burying their dead after the execution of revolutionaries in 1909; this might have been made yesterday. The second is an extract from Ponting's famous film of Scott's list expedition; which is, with Nanook, a remarkable reminder of the superb photographic quality which was obtainable with the old orthochromatic film. Incidentally, the camera which Ponting used on this expedition has been in possession of the British documentary movement since 1932 and as far as I know is still in The Third Section is perhaps the most complete and most memorable of the whole opus. But I wonder if Cavalcanti is right in describing Documentaries of Far-Off Lands by the epithet "romantic"? It hardly fits Poirier's Eve Africaine. and Allegret and Gide's Voyage au Congo, both of which confirmed for me once again my feeling that the French directors who took their cameras overseas were often more voyeurs than voyageurs. Nor, certainly, is the word "romantic" applicable to Wavrin*s Pays du Scalp. This, like Bunuel's Land without Bread (not represented in the film) is a straight ethnological study ; and the sight of natives eating live slugs, however well filmed and however interesting, is hardly romantic. Flaherty of course, is the big man of this section, which is indeed completely overshadowed by the wonderful tattooing sequence from Moana; but here again I would even prefer to use the adjective "exotic" in its original dictionary sense, to "romantic". The terrific realism of the crossing of the river in Grass is the other dominating factor in this section. Grass, without doubt, is one of the great realist classics, and worthy of constant revival along with Nanook and Moana. And, talking of early American films of fact what has become of Chang, with its terrific picture of man's eternal struggle with the jungle? But it is Section Four, dealing as it does with the sociological development of the film of fact which has obviously given Cavalcanti the most trouble and which is bound to be the most controversial. For this is the point where the historical merges with the contemporaneous, and where, incidentally, Cavalcanti's pre-occupation with aesthetics is at its most dangerous. Personally I do not believe that any one man is in a position to select extracts from the huge bulk of production during the past ten sears. With practically all the producers and directors of the films still at work, a personal selection is bound to be too arbitrary. Far better to have a selection committee, however heated the discussions which might result. As it is, I think that Cavalcanti has missed two things — firstly the real meaning of the sociological approach which was preceded and signalled by his own Rien Que les Hemes and by Ruttman's Berlin and which under Grierson's inspiration and leadership has formed the permanent basis of all documentary production in this country for the past iweh e years. Secondly —and this is very surprising from Cavalcanti — he has, in dealing with the Grierson documentary, almost ignored the dynamic use of sound a factor to which he himself has made such a great contribution. The various earlv experiments in sound were important not merely from the aesthetic point of view but because the> were designed to strengthen and clarify the sociological angle. Yet, barring an extract from Housing Problems and another from Nig/it Mail, the uninitiated might well get the impression that the realist film had hardly left the stage of musical accompaniment. One of the most important developments in