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.

DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER Editorial Board: Stephen Aikroyd, Donald Alexander, Mai Anderson, Kdgar Anstcy, Geoffrey Bell, Ken < imeron, I'.iul Fletcher, Sioclaii Road, Graham* rharp, Baafl Wright OCTOBER 1947 VOL 6 NO 59 PUBLISHED BY FILM CENTRE 34 SOHO SQUARE LONDON W 1 133 THE IMPORT TAX 134 135 UNESCO REPORTS 136-137 SURVEY OF FILM IN FRANCE, BELGIUM 143 AND LUXEMBOURG 144 138 DENMARK AND FILM 139 HOLLYWOOD JABBERWOCKY 145 140-141 ANATOMY OF HOLLYWOOD Annual subscription 6s. (published six times a year) 142 GOVERNMEM IILM-MAKI\(. I\ AUSTR W.I \ \l \\ DOCUMENTARY I ILMS AUDIENCE RESEARC II FILM FACILITIES NO. 2 — LEICES I I R 146-148 WRITING AND REALIZATION Bulk orders up to 50 copies for schools and Film Societies (THE COVER STILL ON THIS ISSUE COMES FROM THE DANISH FILM THE SEVENTH AGE) THE IMPORT TAX THE complete failure of certain sections of the Industry, and of the Trade Press in particular, to take even a moderately sober view of the 75 per cent tax on foreign films, has only been partially offset by the statesmanlike attitude of the BFPA. Otherwise the Trade seems to have been bent on confirming the accusations of its most violent critics that it is largely a tool of American finance anyway. The plain fact is that hysterical screams about the disaster which is about to overtake the British public in the form of closed moviehouses are both stupid and pointless. It is probably not true to say that people won't go to revivals of films; on the contrary, a large number have been revived, and successfully, during the past years. A little ingenuity and showmanship could work wonders — for instance, a Hitchcock repertory season. Meantime one notes that Britain's largest cinema has just had a week of live ballet, and been packed out. Dare one wonder whether the public would mind all that much if there weren't any films after all? The cinema is quite a mild drug, and enforced abstention from it is not likely to be even as irritating as abstention from smoking. At present, in any case, general opinion seems to be that the Americans will not cease to send films here, if only for the reason that in a market which has llways shown a clear profit (to the extent of determining financial policy as regards production costs) they will, in the <:nd. take 2^ per cent if they can't get 100 per cent; in other words. £4,000,000 a year is better than nothing. While British production cannot at this stage expect to be able to fill what in an\ case will be a bi gap, there is no doubt that annual output can go up pretty considerably if inflated budget pictures are abandoned, il the working tempo of British film production is stepped-up (a psychological as well as a technical matter), and if something is done to encourage the documentary and short-film people by providing some expectation of a reasonable financial return on production. A single feature programme will, of course, be necessary; and although the Bernstein questionnaire showed a large majority in favour ot the double feature, there is no reason to suppose that people will not quickly get used to the other, always providing that the supporting programme consists (as it certainly docs not todaj ) of good qualit] Stuff. All these factors mean that the imminent issue of the Government White Paper on the new Cinematograph Films Bill is of the greatest importance, even if the idea of Quota sounds, under immediate circumstances, a little incongruous. Financially and economically, there is every justification tor the Import lav and the average citizen will in the end prefer to find Spam in the tin rather than Carmen Miranda. But this justification should not blind us to the real disadvantages of the tax. films carrj ideas, and a tax on foreign films is a tax on the interchange of ideas. The aimed at America only; but it hits equally hard the import of films from other countries. It may be said that films from I ranee. Sweden, Denmark or Italj impinge little enough on the general film-going public, and that their total cessation would not matter. The reply to this is that the best of the European films have an influence on public taste on! ot all proportion to their audi. not least do thej influence the technicians who make British films \N i it must be remembered that one o\ the main reasons win ! uropean films are not more widelj shown here is the determination of the US-influenced section ol the Trade that the) shall not be Shown. Had it been possible to encourage the entr\ ol I films while taxing the entrj of I S films, the general audiences in this country alter a period ol resistance no doubt would have benefited a great deal But it must not be forgotten that tl on ideas applies with equal loice lo the best ol Hollywood production too Deprived ol this best, we should miss something really valuable, and not least the link ol ordinal \ understanding between peoples which the film, and the I S film especially, s.m. at Us finest. so \ i\ idly -ok\ cogentl) supplj