Documentary News Letter (1940)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

M EWS LEHER CO )L 1 No 4 PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY FILM CENTRE 34 SOHO SQUARE LONDON W1 THREEPENCE NOTES OF THE MONTH BROADCAST TO CANADA bv John Grierson FILM, 1923-40 A discussion of Nazi methods 13 CORRESPONDENCE THE BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE IN WARTIME ,3 FRANCO-BRITISH ALLIANCE NEW DOCUMENTARY FILMS 10 THE GERMAN CULTURAL AND PROPAGANDA 16 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FILMS IN PRODUCTION The aims of the Service d' Information de Londres STORY FILM OF THE MONTH FILM OF THE MONTH FOR CHILDREN 15 FILM SOCIETY NEWS 16 FOREIGN FILMS 16 NEWS FROM STAFFORDSHIRE Secondary Schools' Film Association 17 BOOK REVIEWS The Cinema Today, America at the Movies, and others 17 PEOPLE AND PLANS 18 NON-THEATRICAL FILM LIBRARIES divided •R ONE short period in 1939 the whole of Wardour Street as united in a determined drive to get the tax on raw film lock removed. Wardour Street does not seem to have learnt ly lesson from the success which its united forces achieved. [oday we have dropped back into the old jockeying by sec inal interests, and this is as true of the producers of short Ims as of any other section of the trade. At present the |uota, by which a certain proportion of British films must be istributed alongside the American, is under review by the [card of Trade. All sections of the film business are being con ilted, and if the experience of the Board of Trade' with the reducers of short films is anything to go on, the task of our sgislators will be a difficult one. Two groups of short film pro iucers are opposing each other, and giving contrary advice for |ie solution of their problems. One section wishes the pro icers of films eligible for quota to spend not less than a ;rtain fixed cost per foot on labour. An opposing section maintains that such a cost clause would be fatal to the prosperity of the short film business. In any circumstances, we believe that the short film can only be made to pay by ensuring a proper price for shorts from the cinemas. At present, no matter how popular the subject and treatment, or how wide the distribution, virtually no British quality short costing £1,000 a reel or more can hope to make a profit. Thus, most good shorts today are subsidised by one interest or another. 1/6 for three days' showing is a not unheard of earning for a one reel short; 3/6 is a relatively common price; and the average appears to range from 5/ to 15/ in ordinary theatres outside London. When one remembers that the renter takes at least 30 per cent of this, and that the cost of copies, advertising and tradeshow are deducted from the remaining 70 per cent, it is not surprising that short film producers look elsewhere than to the box office for money to make films. 1