Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

94 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER NOT GOOD ENOUGH the British Film Institute issues a Monthly Film Bulletin which is supposedly an authoritative periodical designed to assist all those concerned in the educational, appreciative, and cultural use of the film medium. This bulletin is in fact the only document of its kind published in this country, and one should be able to look to it, not least because of its source of publication, as an authoritative and accurate document. Following various complaints we have received from readers of the Institute's Monthly Film Bulletin, we have asked two separate and unconnected individuals (concerned in the use of films for educational and general non-theatrical purposes) to examine the film reviews in the Bulletin over six issues, from July to December, 1946. As a result, it would appear that there is a great deal wrong with the Institute's system of appraisal and reviewing. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the Institute's much vaunted specialist panels (one would like to have details of how often, and in what numbers, they attend projections) and even greater confusion owing to reviews arbitrarily written by individuals. It is indeed difficult to see what actual reviewing and appraisal system the British Film Institute adopts. In the interest of film users we give below some critical observations on the Monthly Film Bulletin. We note, for instance, that the films entitled Flowers, Roots, Stems, are dealt with under the classification 'Botany' (p. 104). But Fruits (p. 118) is included under 'Science' while Leaves and Pollinations come under 'Natural History'. All these films, bless you, were reviewed by the Natural History Viewing Committee. All of them, bless you again, are catalogued by the producers, G-B.I. under 'Botany' which seems sensible enough to us. Why, oh why, the confusing crossreferences? Then again, take some overseas films. Mamprusi Village (p. 144) appears under 'Geography' but is viewed by the Educational Panel. Achimota (p. 159) appears under 'Background Films' and is viewed by that Committee. Hausa Village (p. 179) appears under 'Documentary and Interest' and is reviewed by an individual. Apart from the fact that Mamprusi Village and Hausa Village belong to the same series, one wonders what the Bulletin boys are really up to, especially when one finds that films on Bali and Trinidad are reviewed by the Geography Panel while Sisal and Tree of Wealth are reviewed by the Educational Panel. Incidentally, Tree of Wealth is described by the Educational Panel Viewing Committee as 'the best Indian film the viewers have seen'. But over a period of eighteen months they've only seen three — so, one asks, what weight does such an assessment carry? Now let's take Man — One Family. On p. 119 it is reviewed as a 'documentary and interest film' and is praised as authoritative, with the phrase (we quote) 'cannot fail to make an impression upon every type of audience'. Later, however, it is rc\ iewed as a background film, and in this case it is remarked that 'though it should certainly be appreciated by abler members of youth clubs and senior schoolchildren, a good introductory talk would make it easier to assimilate". That may be true enough, but why obfuscate the reader with two separate assessments? Enormous fun and games has been had by someone over Instruments of the Orchestra. This is an official Ministry of Education film made for schoolchildren. It has also been theatrically released through M.G.M. because, not perhaps unnaturally, it has 'popular appeal' (adults are inclined that way the same as children). On p. 162 this film is reviewed by an individual under the heading of 'documentary and interest'. There is a note to say that at a later date it will be reviewed 'in the Education Section by a panel of music teachers'. Will they review it as a 'documentary and interest' film, or what? In any case the existing review was clearly written by someone who knows nothing about music, which seems a pity, but there it is. No musical chap could solemnly write 'the orchestra plays excerpts from the Fugue by Benjamin Britten on a theme by Purcell'. The film, in case you haven't seen it, presents 15 variations and a fugue on a Purcell theme. All we would like to know is — why is there, apparently, no coherent planning of reviews in the Bulletin, and why, in particular is the B.F.I, so self-satisfied about it. In its Annual Report it claims that it has 'almost reached the limits of what it can undertake with reasonable efficiency'. If it comes to efficiency, it looks as though the 'limits of what' area is already out of sight. CORRESPONDENCE— continued from p. 93 The clubs are, therefore, flourishing and popular but the programmes are perhaps less encouraging. There is much less opportunity to see scientific films than in London even though the pioneer films of Painleve are given occasional public showings and the resumed annual congresses of the Institute of Scientific Cinematography, at Paris, are reported as excellent but only reach a small international audience. The ordinary programmes consist of one feature film not in commercial release accompanied by a short. There is a repetition and a lack of variety. This was probably inevitable in the early days and with the limited resources of the Federation and there has been some improvement in the past year. The great majority of films shown are French and include several early films of Carne (it was amusing to detect in them Jean-Louis Barrault, now brilliant in Les Enfants du Paradis). The foreign films come from Russia, Mexico, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Britain and America. The greatest and most obvious gap is that of documentaries. It is a pity that the progress and change in British documentary' during war-time should be almost unknown here and that such films as Night Mail and Drifters should be the only examples shown. Apparently there are certain difficulties which might be eased by UNESCO and by co-operation from the British producers. It is certainly to be hoped that something will be done to bring more recent British documentaries to France and to enable them to be seen by the French cine-clubs. Yours, etc., RUTH PARTINGTON {continued p. 95, col. 3) THE HORIZON FILM UNIT • • An Associate of the Film Troducers Guild Ltd A Unit of seven people who during the past two years have made eight films for Government Departments and Industry, for informational or instructional purposes. They specialize in, and are experienced in, the writing and film technique of helping to communicate people to each other in different aspects of citizenship. THE HORIZON FILM UNIT (producer: max m undi n i guild house, upper st. martin's lane, w . c . 2