Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER xl — or SPONSORSHIP Films Don't Grow on Trees the vast majority of British documentary films arc made at the expense of Government Departments or industrial undertakings. In short they are sponsored. Long-established sponsors like the Shell Oil Group, the Gas Industry and M.O.I, (now C.O.I.) have recently been joined by local government bodies and certain trade unions, but such desirable developments do not affect the basic fact that documentary production is unable to stand on its own financial feet and to recover from distribution revenue sufficient money to meet production cost. It is easy to exaggerate the disadvantages of sponsorship. Most documentary films made today are not suitable for production on a non-sponsored or 'voluntary' basis. They form a legitimate part of the public relations or educational policy of some industrial, governmental, or 'social-purposed' organization. Their primary object is not entertainment, and the audience whose needs they are designed to serve, is not so constituted as to afford a financial return. Let us, however, consider the position of any short documentary production w hich is intended primarily to entertain cinema audiences in terms which are not the concern of any available sponsor. Prior to 1939 the cost of such a film is likely to have been in the region of £1,500 per ten-minute reel; today the equivalent figure, due to increase in labour and material costs, is more likely to be £3,000. And the producer has still to face the basic problem of securing theatrical distribution. If he is fortunate enough to do so he may hope for a return, after deduction of distribution costs, of something in the region of £250 a reel — one-tenth of his production cost. Too much emphasis cannot be placed on this disparity. It lies at the root of all current documentary policy. The short film (and often the second feature) is regarded by cinema exhibitor and distributor alike as mere fill-up material to be obtained at nominal cost. The original cause of the trouble was the virtual giving away of American supporting material, dance-band shorts and so on, by American distributors. This material had perhaps already earned its production cost in America, and could in this country be thrown in as a makeweight to help salesmen dispose of an expensive feature. The result has been that British shorts and second features produced to compete in this market have had to be made for a few hundred pounds a reel, and, as a consequence, have almost invariably been so lacking in quality that a fully civilized community would scarcely have permitted their exhibition. Yet only a product so cheap and inadequate could hope to recover its production costs. It should perhaps be mentioned in passing that many of the makers of these films, content to cling to their precarious livelihood on a virtually unprofessional level of operation, have not hesitated to attack the competitive distribution of high quality sponsored films, on the grounds that the cinema is being used for commercial advertising! We need not probe further into this odd concern for the common weal which sees the public good served by some monstrous collection of badly photographed scenic views, strung together at the maximum possible length and condemns Target for Tonight, Song of Ceylon and World of Plenty as 'advertising'. It is obvious to anyone not blinded by his own commercial interests that public needs must come first and that if, in present economic circumstances, these are better served by the sponsorship method, then the source of the production, finance, becomes a secondary consideration. Yet the fact remains that great difficulty attends the theatrical distribution of high-class documentary films whether sponsored or otherwise. It is this which accounts for the high hopes attaching to the recommendations now under consideration for the revision of the Quota Act which in its present form shortl) expires. Previous versions of the Act have done little for the documentary and short film producer, but the hope is that the Board of Trade will see fit to introduce clauses which will ensure not only that American short and second feature footage is balanced by a high ratio of British madefilms in the same categories, but that eligibility to rank as quota shall be contingent on a reasonably high level of production expenditure. In brief the Act must contain a minimum cost clause for such films. Documentary and specialized film-makers through their appropriate organizations and with the support of many other powerful sections of the industry are pressing for legislation to this end, and it is very much to be hoped that what is generally admitted to have been Britain's outstanding contribution to world cinema will shortly be available on British screens. For the cynic might well argue that the documentary film has two main characteristics — high quality coupled with rare visibility! But whatever the nature of new legislation, we must not lose sight of the fact that if the production of documentary films were to be put on an economic basis in the normal commercial sense, the need and justification for sponsorship would by no means have passed. This is not simply because films to be used for purposes other than entertainment are likely always to require subsidy (notably in the field of education) but that even films intended for theatrical distribution may appropriately express the point of view of some group in the community, and that sponsorship finance may properly be made available for the purpose. The film is perhaps the outstanding instrument of group expression and provided entertainment standards are reached, the screen may well be used for public relations by local governments, trade unions, public utilities, or the Government itself. This practice is in line with modern democratic practice which requires that every community group which renders a public service should play its appropriate part in public enlightenment. Indeed, there is much to be said for the view that ideas of social value are more likely to originate from community groups operating outside the cinema than as the result of the individual inspirations of a film-maker — especially in view of the fact that the individual film producer or film director is almost always answerable to a financial group which may have no roots in the public service. For all films are 'sponsored' in the sense that they must somehow acquire finance in advance of production, finance which will not come back from the box-office for months or even years. And the source of such finance may well exert a direct or indirect influence on the nature of the product. The idea of overcoming this difficulty by setting up a State-controlled finance corporation or film bank for the provision of initial production capital and anv other similar steps in the general direction of the nationalization of the industry do not completely dispose of this criticism unless important safeguards are provided. For a film bank can hardly be quite free from an awareness of what is in the interests of the existing structure of the State. \nd if we are not to fall into the current errors of totalitarianism we must be careful to watch that in escaping from the present financial stranglehold we do not fall into another which may be equally oblivious of the claims for self-expression of minority groups The answei is. of course, that the onlj safe sponsor of documental \ films is the public itself acting through its commercial and p fessional groups. 1 air mai keting conditions will, in effect, enable the cinema-goei to act as an indirect sponsor but there will still remain many films which derive from the need for self-expression o\ the public in roles other than that of cine I he doctors will want to have then sa) ; the postmen through their trade union perhaps, the women's guilds, the local government officers, all ma> wish to reach their fellow-citizens through the screen fheir power to do so should be limited onlv hv their ability to hold the interest of an audie;