Documentary News Letter (1940)

10 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER APRIL 1940 MONTHLY THREEPENCE NUMBER 4 APRIL 1940 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER is issued only to private subscribers and continues the policy and purpose of World Film News by expressing the documentary idea towards everyday living. DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER is produced under the auspices of Film Centre, London, in association with American Film Center, New York. EDITORIAL BOARD Edgar Anstey Arthur Elton William Farr John Grierson Paul Rotha Basil Wright 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 THE GERMAN CULTURAL AND PROPAGANDA FILM, 1923-40 This article is written by a German film director, now in Britain, who was closely associated with the German documentary movement up till the outbreak of war. PART 1. PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS WHEN APPROACHING the German cultural film, it is necessary to distinguish the two periods of development before and after the Nazis took over in January, 1933. Between 1927 and 1930 a large audience in Germany, interested in documentary films, had been created ; this enabled the German documentary film to develop. In spite of this public interest in a new kind of cinema, the German commercial film companies, like their opposite numbers all over the world, did not offer employment to the young, capable and imaginative men who were interested in developing the German cinema along new lines. These young men, therefore, turned their efforts to the field of the documentary film. In 1930 the first plans emerged for improving the production and distribution basis of such films. The producers formed an organisation called "" Lehrfilmbwur (Alliance of Educational Film Producers). The word "educational" rather than "documentary" was chosen because the biggest business of most documentary producers was with films of the former kind. Many films were produced for the State Institute for Education for distribution to schools, universities, clubs and so on. The Lehifilmhimd wished to enrol all documentary film producers. Its aims were : 1. A fixed minimum rental for all educational and documentary films. 2. Abolition of the double feature programme. (Both exhibitors and renters agreed to this.) 3. Compulsory inclusion of one documentary film in each cinema performance. 4. State subsidy for films of national importance. 5. Certificates for films of distinctive merit. 6. Reduction of exhibitors' entertainment tax for showing such films. By the end of 1930 some of these aims had been achieved. The Government Censor recognised the distinction between "volksbihknd" (instructive for everyone) and "Lehrfilm" (educational film). This resulted in the entertainment tax being reduced by a third for the whole programme if a documentary film with a certificate of approval were included. Naturally this was an inducement to the exhibitor to show documentaries though there was no compulsion. The other aims of the Leiufilmbund were not achieved. Most of the documentary producers joined the Association, but distributors were not forced to buy their films from its members. The minimum price for selling films by members was fixed at 10 marks per metre (about 3,v. 4r/. per foot). But producers outside the Association began to sell to distributors at a competitive price so that the members were forced to sell their films under the agreed rate. Ufa before the Nazis Before the Nazis came into power, the biggest producer of educational films was the Ufa Company. As early as 1923 Ufa had set up its own cultural department, with Or Grieving as manager and Or Nicholas Kaufmann as chiei producer. (They are still in charge today.) Many of its films, such as Ways to Health ana Beauty, Creative Hands, Steel and Turbulent Timber, were frequently shown abroad. Ufaj was also the largest distributor and owner of cinemas. Between 1928 and 1933 it increased its holding of theatres from 200 to 350. It had quite early recognised the disadvantages of the double-feature programme and had started showing one documentary film in some of its theatres. Later it showed documentary films in all its theatres, though other cinemas retained the two feature habit. Ufa refused to buy documentary films from outside producers and made them itself. In this it had many advantages over the small producer. Knowing from its own feature production schedule the number of docU' mentary films it would need each year, it could plan its documentary programme much more easily than the small producer, who did nol know if his film would sell till after he had finished it. Moreover, Ufa realised that it could make films for the State Educational Film Insti tute very cheaply, since it had access to a \ery large library of film shots : in consequence, it soon became the chief supplier to the Institute— another blow for the independent small producer. it US im gslist ploct IKVI JpJiM liaP Uiiii iW 10 it CO: KBiar iBlt K.ffl T ah mt im All audi fell m b\ jr?.i W3i mn Mi< Jalihi Jlrent The Nazis take Power When the Nazis took control of the film industry, the independent documentary producers hoped that the monopoly of Ufa would be broken sufficiently to open up the field to all. At first it seemed that they were right. The Leiirfilmbund was dissolved and its members transferred to the newly-created Reichsfilmkammer (Go\emment Chamber for films). This was to lead and manage the whole German film business. A special department for documentary film producers was set up. By degrees the major points in the programme of the Lehrfilmbund were recognised. Documentary films were graded as educational films, films of general instruction, lilms of special artistic merit, and films important foi their cultural and political aspects. Highest of alll grades was the film that combined artistic and political merit. The double-feature programme! was made illegal and every performance had tc jnclude a documentary. The reduction of thf entertainment tax was maintained, and when a film was given the highest certificate of merit this reduction was doubled and the film could in cer ■li,