Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER 87 that Films Division, which must have known that its public required such films, always put up the strongest possible fight for their production. Finally and most importantly we come to the Division's parochialism. Its films rarely take account of the world outside its own backporch. Other countries, English as well as foreign-speaking, have cultures and traditions of their own of which they are proud. The Division often seems to assume, not only that everything British is best, but that every country recognises this as a law of creation. Thus the Division's films have sometimes had less carrying power than they should have had, and its work has often been outclassed by the international sense of the National Film Board of Canada. Surely the Division might have learnt — may yet learn — lessons from the international approach, not only of Grierson's films, but of its own most important and successful World of Plenty! At the present rate of going the Division may be the last organisation in the British Isles to recognise that what happens on the other side of the Channel or in the Balkans or in Spain or in Russia or in any other quarter of the world may be as important as, or even more important than, what happens at Little Ditcham-bythe-Sea. In this connection it is not fair to place the whole blame with Films Division. Documentary film units have sometimes been as parochial in outlook as the Division itself. The two sides have occasionally conspired together to pull wool over each other's eyes, and to convince each other that we would be very much better off photographing the moon — our own special British moon — through the bottom of Nat Gubbins' upturned beer mug. Such are the strengths of Films Division. Such we conceive to be its weaknesses. But none will deny that Films Division has become a great instrument of Government. We hope that it will not only be preserved but will flourish whatever the fate of the Ministry of Information. Good luck to its Director and staff, and a long life! NOTES OF THE MONTH M.O.I. Output compared with 1943, the total cut negative footage of M.O.I. production fell in 1944 by some 26,000 feet from 175,613 feet to 120,565. The number of films issued dropped from 160 to 130. This drop was not caused by diminishing demand, for even as we write the demand for product by the M.O.I, appears to be as heavy and as urgent as at any time before. It must be accounted for in other ways. Even when allowance is made for V weapons, war weariness, and worn-out equipment (a most important factor to which too little attention is being paid by the M.O.I, and the Board of Trade) the fall remains disturbing. What are the causes other than the incidence of war? We believe they will be found, partly inside, partly outside, Films Division. Inside, we have the impression that more and more people have to be consulted before scripts can be agreed or rough-cuts accepted. Minor officials from other Government Departments seem to feel their prestige enhanced in the eyes of their masters if they can call for footling and unnecessary changes. The Finance branch of the M.O.I. , never its most efficient section so far as films are concerned, seems to grow more sluggish as time goes on. Outside Films Division, we think we can sometimes detect an infinite pondering on scripts, a shovelling about of information inside a mind temporarily isolated from the practical needs of ordinary living. What one would have thought could have been finished in three weeks takes six or eight or even twelve weeks, and at the end there is sometimes little to show for what were evidently painful mental gymnastics. Above all, there is sometimes a lack of enthusiasm ; films become something which must be begun — somehow, and finished — if possible. These things are, of course, only occasional (documentary would be finished if they became universal) but they are certainly present sometimes. If documentary is to take the next step they must be fought and overcome. N.A.L.G.O. the reconstruction Committee of the National Association of Local Government Officers has published a Report on Relations between Local Government and the Community. Realising that healthy and efficient local government depends on popular understanding, the report affirms that there are still large masses of people ignorant of, and therefore uninterested in, its methods of operation. Pressing for a policy of public relations which shall not be a one-way traffic of self praise, but a bridge between administrator and public, the report calls not only for local public relations officers, but for a National Public Relations Council, among whose duties would be the encouragement of the teaching of civics and citizenship in schools and to adults, the establishment of good relations with the press and the maintenance of a public information bureau. Inevitably the report examines the film and its proposals are cogent and far-reaching. The new Public Relations Council will seek to influence feature producers to tackle Local Government themes — South Riding is quoted as a happy pre-war example. Short films should be sponsored for use in schools. Recognising that Local Government has a fair claim on the Ministry of Information's nontheatrical service, which the report hopes to see extended after the war, the production of a broader type of documentary film is also suggested. Finally the report recommends the use of the film for training. An interesting suggestion is that there should be, not only broad documentary and educational films of national significance, but also smaller, less ambitious films about particular localities and problems, presumably to be made by the small production units which are now springing up under the guidance of amateur societies and local photographic dealers. Our Country Significant films opening up new horizons, devising new techniques, saying something new in a new way, are few and rare. Our Country — of which we reprint in this issue a section of commentary by Dylan Thomas — we believe to be such a film. Like all good poetry — film or written — experienced for the first time, it arouses strong feeling. Such works make those who hang on to cultural conventions for the comfort of their souls bruised and angry. They make those less inflexibly tied to the conventions of today and yesterday experience something so new, unexpected and exciting that at first it cannot easily be analysed. Of the powers of Our Country to move there can be no doubt. To some it is the most notable film of the last five years; it makes others very angry indeed. Richard Winnington in The News Chronicle, for instance, and Miss E. Arnot Robertson on the radio were so annoyed by it that they almost seemed to lose that detachment essential for objective criticism. On the other hand, the film Trade Press, of which the reviewers are both shrewd and hard-boiled, found the film good. Our Country also provokes technical argument. Some find the blending of Thomas's verse commentary with the visuals satisfying, others think the commentary unnecessary, and others again find it an impediment to the enjoyment of the film. But, whichever way one looks at it, the film leaves few unmoved, either to anger, or to pleasure, or to a disturbing mixture of the two. Those who consider the film irredeemably highbrow should notice that it had a West End premiere, not only at the Academy Cinema but at The Empire, Leicester Square.