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 Ml. N I \KV FILM M \\S 23 CORRESPONDENCE )eath of British Documentary? >ear sir: The sensitive observer had no need to wait the verdict of the Brussels Film Festival to earn that the young genius of British documenary had died a premature death. Of course the xcuse is that there has been a war: but the war las not reduced the number of these films, rather itherwise. It is not quantity that has died, but luality. Films are appearing in greater numbers and vith greater technical proficiency, but — and here 5 the disturbing thought — with a depressing lack >f inspiration and character. Documentary had small beginnings, nonxistent finance and infinitesimal technical acilitics. To start on a film one required vast •nthusiasm and tremendous belief in the worthvhileness of the subject to be filmed. The world vas full (and still is) of subjects strong enough to nspire this enthusiasm, and here was a comnmitively new medium with which to bring real hings to the social consciousness of multitudes )f the people. Subjects were chosen: they saw the light as ough drafts. The enthusiasts talked to many )eople and in strange places ; some thought they vere mad. Little by little the jewels of truth imerged from the dross. The rough draft in the lands of the prime mover (who was usually the director and cameraman rolled into one) became i little less rough and took shape, the film be:ame alive, not always on paper, but sometimes :rystallized in the mind of the director — not in srrns of trolley shots, mixes, zooms and such ike, but of hot facts, intimate disturbing realities af existence of which humanity is made up and #hich could be captured by the camera. Now to express this belief in its chosen medium. Where can a camera be begged or borrowed? Who will give or lend some money? — not with which to pay high salaries, but just to Duy film stock, for the early workers were more interested in their subject than in a rising bank balance. These were the real difficulties which had to be overcome before a start could be made. Gradually the shape on paper and in the mind became the shape on film. Work was often physically hard because one was not in those days surrounded by a band of skilled assistants. Often it was exasperating. The camera, a borrowed one and not so good after all, was often temperamental. But finally the desired effect was obtained never of course so good as was intended : but in fime — and sometimes it was not so long — the finished picture emerged ; technically it was usually bad, sometimes shocking, but gleaming through the technical deficiencies there shone the light of truth and sincerity. On such slender foundations as these was built the fame of British documentary. Let us consider now the conditions which exist today, out of which has grown the disease and demise of British documentary quality. films of documentary class are not now produced by impecunious but enthusiastic treelances, but b> production companies some ol which, to their credit let it be said, are not primarily concerned with making large profits. ^ sponsoring body commissions a film to be made on a given subject, and a directoi is bi icled to make an investigation and write a treatment w inch, under the produce 's eye, confoi ns to the policy and tradition of the production company. The treatment is now passed on to the sponsoi . who will appoint a committee to cor idei the work. More often than not the members of this committee, though experts on the subjects ol the film, know nothing at all about film con u uction or the impact of the filmic medium on the mind of an audience. I he committee proceed to analyse .uid disintegrate the treatment, so carefully built up by the director who knows the possibilities and limitations o\' the screen each memlvi idvances and insists on his own particular point of \ icw. Sometimes there are several separate committees to be placated, [he writer knows of one case where five committees scattered up and down the country all had to have their say, and this number may not be a record. The result could only be confusion worse confounded. Treatments produced under these conditions are, at their best, composite affairs, and a director who starts on his shooting script with this background, and from this confusion ol ideas and tries to rescue a crystal line of filmic thought has a heart-rending job on hand. When the committee of non-filmic experts (who have by this time become filmically selfimportant) demand to see the shooting script then the battles have to be fought all over again. By this time any original enthusiasm, which the director once had for his subject has long since evaporated and when the picture at long last attains completion, producer, director and unit have indeed been clever if they have combined most of the ideas of the committee and succeeded in preserving a semblance of sanity in its presentation. Under these conditions a director with great potentialities may produce very indifferent films. Having been diverted from his true creative sphere he attempts to make up for the deficiencies of his script, of which he is only too conscious, by resorting to every technical trick he can bring in to rescue the film from dullness. Documentaries have thus lost their original art of presenting truth by the power of simple sincerity and are becoming merely clever. Where lies the light? If there must be committees and it seems there must, let them contribute to the film (instead of destroying it) by collecting and collating all the facts relative to the subject, and in their relative importance, before ever the treatment is started on, for which work they are probably well qualified, then leave the architecture oi' the picture entirely in the hands of the producing company, who surelv are the most competent people to deal with it. Yours truly, RON VI l> (. VKOINER Realist Film L nit 9 Gt Chapel St, London, III Serapbook for 1922 Di vk sm: l have always felt the past policj of anonvmous reviews in the l>\l w> be open to m .tin objections, and am glad to see thai recent!) these objections have been met in some measure by herding all the newer members ol the editorial into a lev icvving pen I ccms that, while avoiding the possibility of the unbalanced individual anonvmous review, 1)1 \ lias merely opened the doors to an unbalanced colle< one. I refer to the review, in the January issw 'hook for \'->22. which is grudgingl) corded |ust under two hundred lukewarm words, while another theatrical short, Montreal it, of no significance, gets almost double the space in the same issue. 1 have seen Si rapbook (bi 1922 in the cinema, and in private, and have been stuick noi only by the way it grips its audience throughout its length, but also b) the force of the perspective it gives to our present-da) lives and prob ( Looking back twenty-five years, to a time when another generation was wistfully regarding a mythical 'golden age", shows up our own glances over our shoulders todav as the unrealistic indulgences the) are. I hat implication in the film is unmistakable: and I can think of lew more apposite or needful exhortations of the moment than that we should face forward to the future and not lean backwards to the past. The pity is that the film was not made a year earlier. Admittedly, the film frankl) shows more than a little interest in the 'box-office' , but I submit that the very positive message it contains should not have escaped fourteen alert eves and Peter Baylis and his team are surely to be congratulated on having conceived, and so deftly made, a film which is likely to provoke constructive thought in its audiences at the same lime as being a rattling good piece of entertainment. Yours truly, 111 GH VII M VKKI. VIO Themlif Cottage, Swen Lane Hallerbull, Looe, Cornwall If you want </ reliable film-guide read Contemporary CINEMA now in its second volume Monthly Illustrated One shilling The recognized point of contact between the Church and the Film Industry •Revii ROG1 R M \s\l I I. the Film Critic. Author. Secretary-* era!, tor the British Film Academy Also on Editorial .1 Board: BISHOP OF BI At Mil U\ SIR MIC II Ml BAJ ( ON 1 DG \1< WM1 V HI RE\ G I will l 1 p w | w 1\|\(, .Inn:, 5 !\\ I I \l Mill I IM. Hfd Obtainable by subscription onl) fi I II!