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.

!)()( I MINI Am Nl \\s I I I I I • K 137 lion Francaise des Cine-Clubs' now has about 120,000 members. A committee on films for children has also been formed recently to study the production and distribution of such films And to pull together the various efforts being made in that direction. BELGIUM The film position in Belgium is different in several important respects. Cinema attend quite high in proportion to population (the weekly figure is around three million), and there arc 1,200 35mm cinemas and about 350 equipped for 16mm shows. On the other hand Belgium produces hardly any feature films of its own; the figure for 1945 was five only and for 1946 even less. The Belgian cinemas therefore depend almost exclusively on foreign products. The percentages of all films shown in 1946, according to country of origin, is roughly as follows: US, 67%: France, 25%; England. Others, 2%. Lil,e most of the countries in Western F.urope Belgium continues to depend to a very large extent on America. There appear to be no restrictions operated by the Belgian Government against the importation of foreign films. In fact, Government action is limited to censorship and t ) the development of educational film activity. No information is available about documentary film production. This is an unfortunate gap, since this is the field in which many of the smaller countries are finding that they can make an important contribution. The absence of Government initiative may be one explanation. Educational Films The Belgian Ministry of Education has a Cinema Section formed in 1946 and responsible for developing the use of films and film strips. Unfortunately its library of films and all its tiles were destroyed by fire this year. The sen ice had therefore to begin from scratch. Its functions cover the whole range from purchase of equipment, production and distribution of educational films to the supply of information. No exact information is available as to the number of projectors in schools, but they are said to be adequate for present needs. A non-profit-making company, 'Institul National de Cinematographic Scientifique', has also been formed to produce films for universities. LUXEMBOURG UNESCO has not forgotten Luxembourg. Tiny, with no production studios and only 29 cinemas. the Grand Duchv nevertheless has an educational Film Ofiice and is seriously concerned with the problem of using films in schools. Only 45 silent projectors were left in use alter the war, but there are plans to increase the number. The Office operates a library which contains 370 subjects and is already producing educational films of its own. Once again the position of Luxembourg underlines the need for an international exchange system lor educational films. Other countries should take note. Calling Film Societies According to Report in the Daily Herald {of September 23rd) the Kinematograph Renters' Society has decided that Film Societies are becoming 'a threat to exhibitor interests' We would, like to draw the attention of I ilm Society members to this rather astonishing announcement and we inv ite them to let us know what they think. Do they feel that they are a threat ' Or could it be that the boot is on the other foot'.' Opinions, please1 THE MILLER'S AIM We feel that our readers may be interested in the following extract from an article in Vorwarts a paper published in the Russian Sector of Berlin. We print it as it stands, with the original title and point out that it is written by a German for German consumption. As usual, we remind readers that the views expressed in any article or extract do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of the Editorial Board. in England there is a special type of Miller. We mean a mill-ownerandnotamancalled Mr Miller. The name of this mill-owner is J. Arthur RANK. He is of a special type because in the first place he is the owner of very many, very big mills — so to say — a 'monopolist-miller'. The second reason for being outstanding is that Mr Rank developed an early liking for the cinema. Being a man of means, he at first afforded himself the luxury of a few cinemas and later of many. In the course of time film studios, film distribution agencies and other branches of the film industry were added. Today things have reached the state that you can hardlj enter a cinema in London which is not Mr Rank's property. It is just the same in the English provinces. However. if you did happen to find an independent suburban cinema somewhere, you may rest assured that the film you would see had been made in Mr Rank's studios. Of course, all this is fright-fully democratic. You may be certain that Mr Rank has a completely open mind and that his pictures faithfully reproduce his political convictions. Negotiations We would never have started to talk about Mr Rank had it not been for the fact that this flour producer first of all interested himself in the German lilmgoer. According to the English Sunday Chronicle, he has for some considerable number of months kept a team of research men in Germanv to study current conditions. Now the agents of Mr Rank have proposed a plan to the British Control Commission for the taking over of UFA, in which the exploitation of Rank's films in Germany would promote the birth of a new democracy in Germanv. Should we Germans be asked for our unbiased opinion, then we could only answer that we did not envisage the new democracy meaning that Hugenberg's monopoly could be replaced by Rank's monopoly. i k vnk CROOKS the strict laws of libel in this country are not infrequently a matter of editorial regret, and never more so than in dealing with the socalled 'producers' of the quickie shorts and featurcttes which arc currently tending to bring the name of documentary into disrepute amongst the cinema-going public. Originally these quickies, however much one may have objected to them, were not necessarily matters of dishonesty. The provisions of the Films Act, and the impossibility of getting adequate receipts from theatrical distribution, made the production of these films, costing as little as from £150 to £600, almost inevitable. Recently however this shoddy field of film-making has taken on a more sinister aspect. Quickie producers have noted that documentaries arc usually sponsored films. Taking a leaf out o\ the documentary book, they have begun to turn more than a few dishonest pennies by sponsor-swindling on quite a big scale. This is how they do it. They approach an industrial or commercial firm and spin a long story about the enormous public which can be reached through the public cinemas, at a cost to the sponsor no greater than a few big adverts in the national dailies, and with an audience fai greater than the readership of the newspapers. I hey ,nl>,\. though not of course in writing, that they can gel good theatrical distribution. It is extraordinary by the way how otherw ise hard-headed businessmen fall for this sort of guff. The producer then quotes a production cost of £1.500 or more. When he gets the contract he makes the film for as little as £600. The film having been finished, the sponsor naturally starts to agitate about distribution; but he lias nothing in writing. The producer spills all the old tricks of the trade altered market conditions and whatnot and eventually offers to make a special effoi t to get the film into the cinemas. I lc then takes it personally to a renter who offers say, £350 foi all distribution rights, rhis th« ducer pockets. I lis clear profil on the deal is in the neighbourhood o\' £1,200. I be basic result is that the public is tormented vet again bv a crapulous film of no merit whatever, the sponsor vows never to engage m films again, and. because the word documentary is -is ol not impertinently attached to these productions, a totally false and deleterious impression about the tactual film starts to get around. The onl} things which are satisfied in the whole episode are the producer, who can live in luxury at an expensive West I ml hotel as long as there arc still suckers land you know how often they aie born); and. of course, the exhibitor's quota, which is win somet must be done about the whole situation in framing the new Rims Bill