Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

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.

96 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER THE RECEIVING END L. Helliwell protests against the inadequate distribution of Documentaries when, oh! when is more attention going to be paid to the distributive side of documentaries? Much human endeavour, much brilliance and sincerity is put into the making of a film; one would suppose that equal endeavour and sincerity would be employed in getting it to the people who would enjoy and appreciate the effort made. However brilliant a film is, its value lies only in the influence it brings to bear on those who see it — the finest film ever made, unless seen by an audience, is not a film. This surely must be appreciated by the creators, and yet, despite the tepth of thought and wealth of talent employed, interest seems to die at the moment of compledion. I like documentaries. I live in a city of nearly 300,000 inhabitants, but can I see a representative selection of 'reality' films? No! Occasionally one is included in the cinema programmes but it is never an attraction per se, and is only utilized in a haphazard and time-filling capacity. You can almost hear the film magnate's 'If you must have your 2^/3 hours show, you'll have to sit through this'. Is all this (to use the DNVs phrase) 'creative interpretation of reality' to remain for ever in such ignominy? In this city of 300,000 people you can see feature films at the local cinema, or join the city film society to learn film technique and appreciation— both occupations which I heartily enjoy. To a lover of the documentary, however, the latter is like having the after-dinner liqueur without having had the dinner. 1 said above I like documentaries. 1 do more : it is one of my duties to arrange a winter session of documentary and interest films. This is frankly an 'education through interest' movement by aligning films, speakers and books on a theme, together, at the same time. Normally, I use 2, 3 or 4 films of differing subjects but capable of being associated together to develop the theme, the speaker enlarging on the primary aspect, or providing the necessary cohesion between films. Anyone familiar with the film movement will immediately perceive the difficulty of 'partnering' films for thepurpose in view and the, usually, impossible, task of replacement if the desired film is not available. In this way each winter 1 use approximately 50 documentary and interest films of lengths between 10 and 40 minutes. You may say — 'No easy task!' Indeed, it is not. 1 lere we reach the whole crux of my problem and, I believe, the testing point of all uses of the documentary. Films are made to earn a profit. With that statement there can be no argument, but are the makers of documentaries satisfied with the method by which this return is obtained ; that their creative artistry is casually accepted as a regrettable but necessary obligation; when the whole conditions of showing tend to destroy the inherent value of the film? What can be good in one setting can be wasted in another. Does not a producer of documentaries ever say to himself, 'Is it worth while?' when he sees his work, not thrown away, but failing to get the full reception and appreciation it deserves? 1 said above that films are made for profit — and to obtain this profit they must be given the wrong setting. To exhibit them in their most useful surroundings is not an economic proposition. From these two facts there seems to be no divergence. My programme is not the best way of showing documentaries, but it is better than casual inclusion amongst feature films. 1 have a strongly appreciative public, but economically speaking, I am much too small fry to receive due consideration from the big film distributors, who, reasonably enough, are little interested in non-theatrical exhibitions, which bring small returns. There, above, are two aspects of the same problem — a private citizen's inabi'ity to see the films he wishes and an official's difficulty in obtaining the films to exhibit. You may protest at once that the one outrules the other. That is true to a certain extent — but it is incidental. Briefly stated, that is the situation at present. What of the future? If the documentary film is to have the success it deserves every town and city of appreciable size will have a documentary cinema or club on the lines of the present film societies, but before this desirable end is obtained the distribution of the documentary will have to be simplified. Now that producers have associated themselves in the Federation of Documentary Film Units, is it not possible to have a similarly centralized distributing agency? This would greatly simplify the work of any club organizer and would be a boon to anyone whose duties are similar to mine. Regarding the other trouble, the cost of hiring documentaries, is it not possible to have one or two copies of each film kept strictly for nontheatrical shows at considerably reduced fees? The immediate loss of income would be compensated by the wider distribution and the satisfaction of getting the film to the public it deserves and the public who welcome it. This suggestion will be viewed with scandalized amazement by film magnates, but the fact remains that documentary is still fighting for its merited appreciation, and will continue to do so whilst its energies are dissipated in the casual bookings of today. CORRESPONDENCE— continued from p. 95 Russian-trained dancers. This, combined with the minimal use of dialogue to which Marg's reviewer refers, makes Kalpana a film which could profitably be brought within the experience of the West. London exhibitors, and film societies are beginning to grow out of the idea that 'foreign' films must be Hollywood, French, or German, and are screening the productions of other countries. If London could support a Russian season of more than four years at the Tatler, and can keep the first Danish talkie we have ever seen running for months at the Academy, it is surely not too venturesome to suggest that Kalpana might enjoy a short season here? Indian films must someday be screened, for enjoyment and criticism, in London, and, if eventually why not now? This seems from its advance publicity to be as good a film as any, and better than most, to start with. Yours, etc., P. J. DROWN SIGHT and SOUND A cultural Quarterly MONTHLY FILM BILLETI.\ appraising educational and entertainment values Published by: The British Film Institute 4 Great Russell Street, London, W.C.I DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER Published Bi-monthly • SUBSCRIPTIONS (Post free anywhere in the world) SIX SHILLINGS A YEAR SINGLE COPIES ONE SHILLING Send your subscription to: — DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER 34 SOHO SQUARE LONDON W.I GERRARD 4253