Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

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.

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER 67 ind Distribution in the U.S.A. >rld has, indeed, been an arduous one, prodding over the bumpy ground of trial and ror. The films that have been outstandingly ccessful fall within a rather narrow range. First was A.R.P. films in the months following arl Harbour, when there were no American ns on the subject, and the possibility of air :ack on one or both coasts could not be disssed. Since then, most of the winners have en combat films and of these, the two most :cessful — Target For Tonight and Desert dory — were theatrical films in the first place, le cry for films from the war fronts is, indeed, vays the loudest. It is perhaps natural that the ar Department should provide little else but ttle pictures in its programme of "incentive" ns for war factories, but the same taste goes ;ht through, even to the schools. irget for Tonight Target For Tonight is so far our only longed film. After its successful theatrical run, was released for non-theatrical showing before 2 American production of war films had got der way and there was an instant demand for The O.W.r. made 130 prints at its own pense and sold 100 more. We sold over 100 rselves, and 40 prints in our libraries were pt constantly busy. The film was soon reported be the most heavily booked non-theatrical bject in the U.S.A. and it kept its outstanding pularity for over a year. Its success was the ;me of all 16-mm. dealers' conferences, and 2 Educational Film Library Association might nost be said to have founded its existence on calculation as to what might be done with succession of "Targets". When Desert Victory emerged in 16 mm. ere were many more rivals in the field, and e sale of prints was not so great, but it soon tablished record figures at our loan libraries, parly 50,000 showings of our own prints have en reported, and we gave the O.W.I. 100 prints tich have probably produced many thousands ore showings. Lately there has been a run on the "Act and ict" films, a series of one-reelers produced New York under general directions from Tom lird, and made from topical British newsreel aterial. D-Day, Cherbourg and The Road to iris in turn raised the spirits of our Film rficers, who must have occasional quick book s to keep up their morale. The films are wiously well justified from the point of view " the British Information Services, since they :lp to put over the story of Britain's achieve ents; but as they are made in American style | a Canadian editor and commentated by an merican voice, they are not quite relevant in discussion of how to win appreciation for ritish films in the U.S.A., unless you subscribe I the despairing theory that all British films lould be remade for America by Americans. It is reassuring to note that, of the important jn-combat films, two have achieved a dis j active record. World of Plenty was at once [cognised in leading non-theatrical circles and as backed by the Educational Film Library ; ssociation. We sold outright 75 prints (which good for a film of this kind, though not as x>d as we had hoped) and our own libraries ave recorded nearly 2,000 showings. More irprising than this was the success of Psychiatry in Action (American title of NeuroPsychiatry). When it was found that the film was almost invariably well received when shown, our field officers began to comb all the psychiatric and rehabilitation circles. An extraordinary array of organisations have used the film — rehabilitation agencies, medical groups, hospitals, mental hygiene associations, health authorities, college psychology groups, etc. — and its life is far from ended. This looks like the right solution to the problem of how to use a highly specialised film. and it is a good augury for international film relations of the future. Other successes of this kind have been on a smaller scale. Too many specialised subjects are viewed with interest by the leading officers of the appropriate organisations or government agencies, are praised, perhaps briefly reviewed in a specialist journal, shown a few dozen times and forgotten. We shall probably learn a good deal more about the way to handle these films, but the difficulties must be recognised. The chief value of a specialised film usually lies in its explicit teaching. Now it is certainly not Britain's business to hold up her own techniques as examples to other countries. In any case, specialists are often reluctant to promote the use of a film if the techniques illustrated differ in some essentials from those they approve. We have had countless examples of this. Midwives, frowned on in the U.S.A., were a fatal flaw in Mother and Child. The C.I.O. were friendly to Stanley Hawes' Partners in Production but could not formally endorse it because the discussions of the pit committee looked like an encroachment on the preserves of the trade union; one expert even regretted that A Start in Life was marred by a heretical lesson in nose-blowing (U.S. theory says both nostrils should be blown at once). Films have to carry such handicaps, even at home, but abroad they are more serious because they heighten the effect of strangeness. No wonder the first reaction of many an American specialist, when he sees a good British film on his subject, is something like Beethoven's "I like your opera; I think of setting it to music". In specialist provinces which are already well supplied with excellent and appropriate American films (farming, for example) it is very difficult to secure attention for ours. But we must peg away, because our job is part of the general job of promoting in all nations a livelier interest in each other's affairs and a spirit of eager exchange of ideas. Psychiatry in Action has shown that where this spirit exists the way is not so steep or stony. Failures The number of M.O.I, films which have fallen dead here, however, suggests that there is much to be learned by producers and directors as well as by distributors. Sometimes a failure is nobody's fault. It may be the very perfection and intimacy of the Englishness of a film which makes it unexportable. The Harvest Shall Come, for example, though it aroused the sympathetic interest of the Department of Agriculture here, dropped like a stone when it was tried on their agricultural circuits. In such cases there is no help for it. Some of our masterpieces we shall have to be content to keep, like our Wordsworths and our Elgars, at home. But it would be a counsel of despair to take this attitude to the whole issue. The problem of what are the qualities in British films which make for success or failure in America does not take the same form (fortunately) in the non-theatrical field as in the theatrical. Anyone who wants to understand either field, however, must first get rid of the notion, natural to those who talk cheerfully of "our American cousins", that a background of vague benevolence towards Britain is a normal feature of American life. A perusal of Part IV of William Dwight Whitney's pellucidly sane little Guild book Who Are The Americans? will quickly remove such a complacent notion and explain why it is that a buried resentment against England still smoulders, ready to flare up at a puff of wind, in many parts of America. Indifference . . . even hostility This being so, the distributor of British films in the U.S.A. must count on at best a massive indifference, and at worst a suspicion or even hostility towards his products, in many quarters. Some of the leading M.O.I, films just caught a favourable tide and had a marvellous passage. Target For Tonight rode out on the wave of admiration for British pluck and endurance which was sweeping over the country. Desert Victory, in America as in England, had the good luck to arrive just as all attention was focused on the second phase of the last African campaign. Both these films, after their theatrical reclame, came into the category of famous feature films which people wanted to see again (or for the first time) in 16 mm. These fortunate considerations should be remembered when one is tempted to say that a film only needs to be good enough to makes its way in America as well as at home. And since many films are good and important which no one would mock with the word masterpiece, and very few films are lucky enough to be launched with such favourable winds behind them as those which blew the two great combat pieces to fame, the amount of apathy we encounter in America should not surprise anyone. Indifference or resistance very often express themselves in the form of objection to British sound-tracks — especially as reduced to 16 mm. It is good to learn from Ken Cameron that direct recording on 16 mm. is likely to bring the technical quality of Crown films up considerably in the near future; but sound recording is only one part of an extremely complicated problem. The trouble really begins before the sound flows into the microphone. The first and obvious point is that we are dealing with a public which has not been attuned to English speech as British audiences have been familiarised with American speech by Hollywood. Moreover, American speech in publicis not only different from ours, it is louder, more emphatic, and often, one may concede, clearer. The bold style of The March of Tunc has a unique colour in England, but its significance in America is that it is a stylisation of the country's customary methods of public announcement. Ears attuned to such a bold and vigorous manner of public speech simply will not register the vibrations of some of our more modest speakers, and their charming off-handed ness misses the point. When it comes to dialogue, the old dilemma of documentary — whether to use trained actors {continued on p. 69)