Documentary News Letter (1940)

f DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER NOVEMBER 1940 war. In Welfare of the Workers, for instance, the theme is mainly that the workers have voluntarily given up — for war purposes — the hard-won rights achieved by a century of trade unionism; and in return for this, benevolent Ministries look after their welfare. But note the pay-off — a pep-talk by Bevin on the lines of "Well, lads, we've all got to work together to get this wretched business over as soon as possible, and we're going to do it efficiently and cheerfully". Yes ; quite right; impeccable sentiments. But did someone murmur, "And then what"? Just a returning to the old ways; or the construction of something better? Is this a picture of part of a great people's army or not? We receive no clue. In fact there should be two programmes whereas at present there is only one. For if it is essential to have a clear picture of our present problems and dangers, and to indicate what is being done or what ought to be done to meet them, it is equally essential to give every citizen the chance to realise his own position, and that of his neighbours (and of his million fellows he has never met), so that the people's war can be brought to a proper conclusion by a people's army, whose organisations can only truly come from within. There are two or three objections usually raised against this thesis. One is blatantly anti-democratic and is based on the fear that if the people have a real understanding of, and a real say in, the war, they will at once constitute a menace to investment, property, and what not. Another is that we are already so busy fighting that we have no time to delve into first principles or ultimate issues. Yet another claims that no one knows what its all about anyway — so, why worry? In other words, there is a large number of people who are out of touch not so much with fact as with feehng ; who are frightened of any clear statement of true democratic principles ; who, from their own safe httle paradises, will delegate responsibihty upwards but never downwards ; who turn at all costs to a fictional heaven rather than a factual purgatory. With obvious exceptions, this accusation may be made against a number of politicians, Whitehall-ites, public relations officers, local government officials, and Bloomsbury googies. But they do not recognise themselves in these terms because their fears and timidities are sub-conscious. Complacent in their planning for increased efficiency, they are never aware that they are completely out of touch with real people. And, to return to films, nothing has been more striking than the timid, spineless withdrawal of officials from the few films which have been vulgar enough to talk turkey about People. With a hundred-and-one specious excuses they have endeavoured to can them. And sometimes — but by no means always — they have been successful. On the other side of the medal, they have sometimes seen their own ewe-lamb films hooted at — just because they know no better than to attempt to patronise those whose patronage they should rather be seeking on their bended knees. It is to be hoped that one of the finest subjects for a film that ever turned up is not to go by default. The taking over of the London Tube stations was the first skirmish of the people's army. When the incompetence and lack of imagination of the authorities had failed to provide adequate air-raid shelters, the people, with great good sense (and almost alarming politeness) made their own arrangements. It was, too, significant that both police and L.T.B. staff co-operated fully with the people. The film story here is the story of the first day's march of the only army — in or out of uniform — which will win the war. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to — for instance — the personnel of the Films Division to suggest that none of them understand ; for behind the chatter and the bombination one may detect the beating of real human hearts. With admirable singlemindedness the Films Division has constructed a workable machine from a collection of haphazard parts. Many of the films recently completed are not merely good in the expositional sense; they also concentrate on people as people (rather than as illustrations to a theme or as window dummies. The democratic feehng is creeping in. The best way to carry on the work is to get in touch with the people direct. There are over forty million of them ; they mean business; and they expect their employees in the Civil Service and elsewhere to provide them with the right provender in the right quantities. And a few official films articulating the people to the people would also have the salutary effect of articulating the people to the Government and the Governmental machine. Films could do an immense amount to bridge the long-criticised gap between bureaucracy and democracy. A little moral courage is all that is required. Given courage, action is easy. BROADCAST By SIR KENNETH CLARK, Director of Production of the Ministry of Information and lately Chief of the Films Division. Delivered as a postscript to the News on 4th October, 194'), and reprinted by courtesy of the B.B.C. THE ORIGINAL model of democracy to which all our theories of popular Government go back was the Greek city state, where all the citizens could meet in one place, and could see what the other fellow was doing and could shout their approval or disapproval. They could feel a first-hand interest in policy because they could see the whole working of their State as well as just the little bit they had to do themselves. Now, it is obvious that when you try to apply popular government to a great complex nation instead of a single city this vital feeling of participation is largely lost. People delegate their powers without even realising that they have done so; they accept services from the state of which they are quite unaware; they