Documentary News Letter (1940)

14 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER JUNE 1940 FILM SOCIETY NEWS SCOTTISH AMATEUR FILM FESTIVAL A Report by Norman Wilson IT WAS courageous of the Scottish Film Council to hold the seventh Scottish Amateur Film Festival when almost all similar efforts had been abandoned because of the war. It was rewarded by 54 entries, only 10 less than last year's total, and the winners were shown in Glasgow on April 27. Forsyth Hardy speaking for the adjudicators (the others were Oliver Bell, William Jeffrey and C. A Oakley) said : "Although the amateur in war-time is working under certain limitations, there are decided opportunities. We are living in a changing world, and in the first days of the war there was a great dramatic subject available to the amateur — evacuation. There was, however, no film on this subject entered in the festival, and the adjudicators were rather surprised and a little disappointed. One film was entered on A.R.P. and that was going in the right direction. "Non-fiction films were increasing in number as well as improving in quality, while fiction films were steadily improving in quality. The nonfiction film continued to be the main field of activity for the amateur." One of the main criticisms the adjudicators made was of the hackneyed nature of the subjects chosen by the amateur. Suggestions for future consideration included films on the smoke menace of Edinburgh, the expansion of Glasgow, the Border Festivals, mountaineering in the Highlands, the work of the Scottish lighthouses, life in the smaller Western isles, and film surveys of towns of character and tradition such as St. Andrews and Perth. The outstanding feature of the Festival was that no less than half the number of entries was in colour — rich, well-balanced colour which, in many cases (notably in Mathew L. Nathan's Copenhagen), was infinitely superior to results seen on the professional screen. There was, however, no attempt to use colour either imaginatively or selectively, but now that amateurs have gained confidence in the medium it is to be hoped that they will experiment on more creative lines. The British Film Institute Cup for colour rightly went to Mathew L. Nathan's Copenhagen, a competent if superficial survey of the Danish capital. The Victor Saville Trophy for non-fiction films was awarded to Dr J. Evans Gordon's Fishing Fleet, almost a model film of a type of subject well within the scope of the amateur. Well-constructed and well observed, it shows the value of thoughtful preparation and careful scripting. Haiidba" at Kirkwall, which secured the Andrew Buchanan Cup for the Craft Studio, Edinburgh, is a neat example of what the amateur can do in recording local customs. In the fiction class the Alfred Hitchcock Cup went to Joseph Bowyer's Two Hows to Wait, a tidy and amusing little film showing how difl'erent passengers spend their time at a wayside junction. Placing no great strain on the actors, because the situations were obvious and naturally comic, this was another example of a satisfying if modest success as the result of keeping within the re sources of the material and apparatus available to the producer. The impression gained from the films shown at the final adjudication was that amateurs are steadily improving in technical efficiency but, in general, still show a lack of creative imagination. Stepping Stones Between America and Europe, Black Vomit, The Story of Smoke, A.R.P., Our Daily Bread, Midhowe Broch, the titles of some of the films which, for various reasons, did not secure awards, are nevertheless a heartening indication that amateurs are turning in increasing numbers to subjects of contemporary and documentary importance. PROGRAMME BUILDING FILM SOCIETIES owe their existence to groups of men and women who translate the unspoken need for study and discussion of the culture of cinema into practical action. The very basis of their success must be in their presentation to their members of fresh and unorthodox material not seeable in the local cinema. They can, in fact, afford to experiment, whereas the exhibitor dare not. Film Society Committees must therefore make themselves fully aware of what film material is available. At the present juncture most established societies, which have been busily collecting data for years, can locate almost every film in the country, and can estimate the value of each one either from reviews, or by contact with persons at centre. A good local reference library often proves the saving of a harassed programme builder ; and the recent publications of the British Film Institute (e.g. Arthur Vesselo's monumental catalogue, reviewed in DNL January) represent a great advance in information services. New societies, moreover, can always count on any amount of co-operation from older and more established societies. Once all sources of information have been properly tapped, the programme builder will find a wide choice of subjects. Films of sociological or psychological value, continental films of outstanding merit, fantasies, satires; surrealist, abstract, cartoon, puppet, and silhouette films; documentaries; experimental films in\olving new applications in colour or sound technique ; and certain outstanding scientific, biological, economic and diagrammatic films. Local conditions are bound to play some part in determining the choice of programmes, but the object of any real Film Society should be to establish itself as a permanent cultural institution, and not just a preliminary to a repertory cinema. Contrast, cultural \alue, an international flavour, and unusual character can be guaranteed to make a programme pleasing to any Film Society audience; but there are possibilities beyond the mere "balanced" programme consisting of a cartoon, a documentary, an experimental colour abstract, and a French feature film. It should be possible to construct programmes round a definite theme, putting together a set of varying films for contrast or comparison. The most electrifying example of this was the Film Society's show in London two years ago, when two films about the Abyssinian war were run alternately, reel by reel; one was Russian, and the other Italian. Once this question of constructing programmes has sunk in, there are plenty of ideas which wil spring to the mind of the programme builder. Programmes contrasting directorial methods (e.g. the Austrian and American versions of Masker^ ade) ; programmes showing the development of a director (e.g. Pudovkin or Hitchcock films over a period of years); programmes showing differences of treatment (e.g. Dreyer's Joan of Arc run with Mcidchen Joanna). Programmes of more esoteric contrasts are often exceptionally popular: — e.g. Vigo's Alalanie run with a Marx Brothers film, or Vigo's Zero de Conduile run with Benoit Levy's La Maternelle. A few final notes of warning. Don't show English or American features unless you reviv( them for special purposes. Don't show continental features with a lot of dialogue and no Engli sub-titles. Don't forget to get on the right side ol local authorities; if you are running a programme at short notice it is usually best to run films w hich have at least an "A" certificate. Don't miscalculate running times when you are booking your films; all good catalogues give you at least the number of reels, but remember that without exact footage the reels may lead you astray as much as 15 minutes on a feature. And finally, don't be discouraged if your members complain about all your programmes and local authorities regard you with deep suspicion. All Film Societies have to go through it ; and the better the programmes— in the sociological and cultural sense — the sooner they will be accepted by authorities and citizens alike. ;:i