Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LET I I R y> THE BRITISH CIIVEMA AT THE GALLI'I1 ■eachers and sociologists in this country have at last begun to take serious interest in the cinema and the part it plays in public lite. )ne can instance the storms which have blown up in educational ircles over Saturday morning Children's t inema Clubs, and the ■arious sociological inquiries which have been conducted recently. vJow it is the turn of the film industrj itself to lake note of its public, ind to observe its shifting moods. Most important is the news that Dr Gallup is to come to this :ountry. His mission, apparently, is to give British film-makers a esson in how to be scientific about judging the tastes and opinions >f the cinema-going public. One remembers that Mr Eric Johnston who has taken over the well-known Hays office) visited Britain only i few months ago to give similar instruction in Hollywood's idea of norality in the cinema. Between Dr Gallup and Mr Johnston the Mimrose path which the British producer is being asked to walk jromises to be distinctly uncomfortable. In the States the film indusry has always been concerned with keeping on the right side of its ?atrons for reasons best known to us all. Today, mounting production costs have accentuated Hollywood's fears, and one of the •emedies it has flown to is scientific audience research. Without .vanting to throw any doubts on the methods of sampling used (Dr 3allup has a number of accurate forecasts to his credit, particularly n the last few Presidential elections), one cannot help wondering vhat will be the result if such methods are applied willy-nilly to tilmnaking. After all, film-making is an art and art so often resides in the inexpected. Carefully formulated prescriptions for the would-be ;reative worker, w hether they issue from the art academy, the correspondence course or Dr Gallup's "pulse chart', are never very sure guides. But after all it isn't art which Dr Gallup is concerned with, ior even the public pulse, it is first and foremost the public pocket. The Kinematograph Weekly for May 1st reprints a very illuminating article from the American journal The Screen Writer. It deals with :he Gallup method of measuring the box-office value of films and :ontains this statement among others by Dr Gallup: 'Our reports rate "audience reception value" — that is, report the proportion of those who like the story idea and those who do not. Always, the likes and dislikes are in proportion to the amount of money each group normally spends at the box-office, by age, by sex, by income group, etc. 'Audience Research cannot tell a producer whether or not a story s worth S:0,000, SI 00,000, or S500,000, but ARI can point out that :his story starts with initial interest equal to, greater than or less than 3ther properties which were sold for S20,000, SI 00,000 or S500,000.' Nothing could be more explicit than that. The other public inquiry which has received attention recently is the Bernstein Film Questionnaire. It differs in many respects fronrDr Gallup's Audience Research Inc. Whereas Dr Gallup aims to Wke account of public reaction to films in the producer's interest, Mr Bernstein's Questionnaire sets out to discover the public's reactions as they affect the exhibitor. Mr Bernstein is the owner of the Granada ircuit of cinemas and the questionnaire (which is the sixth in a series first started in 1927) was circulated to the patrons o\' his Cinemas. According to reports in the Press 217,400 questionnaires in all were answered. At first sight this may seem quite a substantial sample. On the other hand, no evidence has been provided in the Report about the distribution of the people replying, according to sex, age, occupation, income-group, etc. The fact has also to he taken into account that of the 36 cinemas in the Granada Circuit, 20 arc m suburban areas in London and the Home ( bunties, 4 in Shrewsbury . 2 each in Bedford. Rugb) and Mansfield. With little or no representation from the Midlands and North and with pooi regional distribution generally, one must weight the findings accordingly. The questions asked cover a fairly wide range, though a number are of small general interest. Compared with the last Bernstein Questionnaire o\' 1937 it is perhaps interesting to note that British stars for the first time head the list of favourite actors and favourite actresses, i.e. James Mason and Margaret Lockwood. More relevant are the expressions of taste in the matter of types of films and programme length and composition: 70 per cent want 3-hour programmes; but only 20 per cent are in favour of a single-feature programme, though it is possible that people do not quite realize the kind of variety which could be introduced into the supporting programme. The question about single-feature programmes is framed as follows: Do you prefer one long film, news-reel, short and organ solo? This does not appear a particularly clear question, and it is fogged by the introduction of the organ solo. (A later question shows that t! who prefer a short film out-number those who want an organ solo by 50 per cent.) This of course raises the problem, on which so many questionnaires come to grief, of exactly how questions should be worded. It is very difficult to frame a question in such a way that it will ellicit the type of answer required without biasing that answer in advance. The report has some interesting reactions about cinema-going habits. 50 per cent say that they go to the cinema regularly, choosing the one with the best film, and 21 per cent go for particular films — which indicates a higher degree of selection than one might have imagined. 66 per cent say they go to a particular cinema because it has the best film. But it is a human failing to want to give the impression of acting at all times from deliberate choice, however untrue that might be. As for actual films or types of films, the answers show a marked preference, in feature films, for drama, followed by adventure and crime. Strong dislikes are expressed of horror and cowboy films and of full-length cartoons. In the case of short films, cartoons, news magazines, travel and sport head the list of likes, and social developments and science the list of dislikes. It is difficult to know whether the various categories used to describe features and shorts are explicit enough. Superficially the answers would suggest, among other things, a strong bias against documentary films. On the other hand, when a further question asked which of 36 selected films were considered to be the best, one finds that the list is headed by The Way to the Stars (a story-documentary). The Captive Heart (another documentary type picture) is third, and True Glory (a pure documentary made by the combined US and British Service I ilm I nits) is sixth. At the same time all three films were convincing and wellmade, which suggests, as one would imagine, that it is the quality and authenticity of the film which appeals and not the eaicgory into which it falls. That is yet another o\' the difficulties which those who draw up questionnaires must face, and one of the most important. Statistical inquiries can provide a greal deal of useful information, particularly of a quantitative kind, but the\ cannot assess quality, nor the power of ideas or imagination. Whatever Mr Bernstein's questionnaire or Dr Gallup's pulse charts mav sav . some films will succeed ami others fail for reasons winch cannot be pin-pointed ow a chart. In as I, ii as the making and show mil; o\' films is an industrj . market research is a verv necessary activity. But one is Ported to remember how limited is the choice and type o\ film at present offered to the public in the ordinary commercial cinema. Bv comparison the much criticized BBC . for example, prov ides a great richness and varielv ofentei i.iinment. One should therefore beware o( the techniques o\ market research being employed not to widen the scope of cinema entertainment hut to restrict it even further to the conventional film forms and to accepted (hemes, with no real thought for the public interest.