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.

DOdMIN I \U\ III M M \\S II CORRESPONDENCE SIR : fn the article reprinted in your last issue concerning the making of our film A Stitch in Time, on the subject of industrial exteriosis, Philip Mackie claims that his history "is untypical in one particular only, everything went smoothly'. Apart from this evidence of a short memory, there are in his lively account a number of statements which seems to us to call for comment. In what follows, the figures correspond with the numbering of his paragraphs. In paragraph (4) he says 'The PCO . . . rings up Hector Bathos, and finds that he is free'. It is of course, true that our producer frequently carries out personally investigations and the writing o( treatments undertaken by this Company, particularly in the fishing season. It was presumably, during one of his absences that Mackie's telephone conversation with Bathos took place. In paragraph (5) there are two points. 'The briefing meeting is attended by the PCO, Bathos, the Public Relations Officer at the Ministry of Help, and the experts on exteriosis'. The producer, we believe, was still fishing. 'After the meeting. Bathos and the PCO have a drink together . . . ' This interested us and we asked Bathos about it. He reassured us — he said he paid. In paragraph (6) we find, 'Production Contracts then send a formal commissioning letter (for a two-reel treatment at a fee of £65) to Nadir Films.' Mr Mackie's account suggests that no answer to this letter was ever sent. Our files show that, in fact, our Business Manager protested at once that the fee was too high. Also, the subject required considerable investigation involving some three or four months of Bathos's time, accommodation and transport. For this, in reply. Production Contracts offered the sum of £5, and a lengthy exchange of letters followed which became more and more pained as it developed, fn order to settle differences of this kind our Business Manager sometimes even has to put on his bowler hat, take his umbrella and make a personal visit to Norgeby House. This upsets him very much as it interrupts his football pools. Paragraph (7) says, 'The Treasury, after some thought, give their authority.' We regard this as a statement of considerable importance. The use of the words 'after some thought' puts Treasury officials at a much higher ethnographic level than we had imagined. Paragraph (8): 'Hector Bathos sends in his treatment.' An unusually definite step for Bathos to have taken, but doubtless he was tired of waiting for the producer to get back. Paragraph (10): 'The PCO gets Nadir Films commissioned for a shooting script, in the same way as they were commissioned lor a treatment' (our italics). This time our Business Manager, we are told, merely reached for his bow ler hat and umbrella and started for Norgeby House right away. The umbrella, it appears, makes admirable camouflage for the smaller types of sub-machine gun. Paragraph (12): 'Nadir Films send in a budget for . . . £3,950', etc. This implies that, knowing the global to be £4,000, we adjusted our budget to fall just nicely short of it. This does not line up with the facts. Our budget figure was £6.341 which was submitted knowing that a mar gin is always ad\isable so .is Production ( on tracts can cut out a couple of items to make them feel good without putting the production in jeopardy. As Mackie points out, the figure was duly reduced by cutting out certain sums, including the firm's telephone bill which had unaccountably become mixed up with our Business Manager's papers, to £3,895. Subsequently, supplementary budgets brought the final maximum contract price up to £6.340. It may be of interest that the firm's telephone bill has been paid. Paragraph (13) : 'As a result ol their comments, the whole of the first sequence is cut out and replaced by a single close-up of exteriosis in action.' Doubtless, poor Bathos, tired out by being in there all alone, pinch-hitting for the producer, let this one slip by in an unguarded moment. Arising from paragraph (17), we have heard recently that the film has had a great success in the regions as a comedy fill-up, but at shows to factory workers no effect whatsoever is apparent. You may, of course, use this letter in any way you think fit. Yours faithfully, for and on behalf of Nadir Films Ltd, NI ro NONF1 \M, Managing Director P.S. It was discovered that the producer had gone into features. Programme Planning sir : w hen building up a programme for a typical Film Society session one naturally wants to in elude a fa»r proportion of documc itaries I Ik short ones are useful as support lor the main feature to the long ones a whole evening ma> well be devoted. When it comes to carrying out in practice this inclusion one finds great difficulties. In the first place there is an almost embarrassing choice of hundreds of titles from the Central Film library catalogue (just to mention source) and these titles do not tell one. ol COU how good these films are. one feels instinctive!) that onlj some s to 10 per cent ol these shorts would be suitable lor showing to the Fill S type of audiences. Secondly the excellent graded catalogues prepared by various organization often either out of date or have been prepared with different turns in view. 1 ven the DNL does not always help In short, there is onl> one way out and that is to organize occasional viewing sessions of selected new documentaries for the representatives ol the Film Societies and similai bodies so that the;, see the films for themselves and form their own judgment. At present, the opportunities for viewing such films are so very limited, that some such scheme is surely desirable. After all, in many towns (and perhaps in many parts of London, too) it is only the Film Societies that will give the documentaries a fair chance and fight for their appreciation. N ours. etc.. Chelmsford LUC lxs PRE* listR ANNOUNCING A FILM FOR THE COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN DIRECTED BY PHILIP LEACOCK MADE AT THE MERTON PARK STUDIOS A FILM FOR THE UNITED NATIONS DIRECTED BY LEWIS GILBERT (BY ARRANGEMENT WITH G.B.I. LTD.) INTERNATIONAL REALIST LIMITED 9 GREAT CHAPEL STREET Wl