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.

60 DOCUMENTARY FILM NfcWS CORRESPONDENCE National Film Board of Canada SIR, I was happy to read John Grierson's comeuppance of your Board of Review 'or its unci i sec in in g, snide, apparently jealous 'criticisms' of seven National Film Board of Canada productions. There was, as he suggests, little in the reviews that one would expect to see in a professional journal. As regards Bronco Busters in particular, I saw it along with about 50 children, who would certainly not have bubbled with such delight at anything 'sialic'. Incidentally, I have no axe to grind, since I left M B three months ago, and did not help produce any of the films in question ; and I may add that f have written a number of sincerely ecstatic reviews of British documentary films, than the best of which there are none liner. Now, it's only fair to point out that Grierson's list of outstanding personnel at NFB is badly out of date. Only the first three on it have worked there within the past year or more, and one has for several years been in business as an able but inimical rival of NFB. I'm amazed that Gnerson should have omitted mention of outstanding producers like Fvelyn Spice Cherry (Vegetable Insects), Gudrun Bjerring Parker (Listen to the Prairies), Bob Anderson (A Feeling nl Rejection), and Don Mulholland {Accidents Don't Happen and File Uil5). Yours sincerely, 272 Stewart St PAUL a. Gardner Ottawa Canada SIR, What induced you to include English Diary by Arndt von Rautenfeld in your February issue? It contains no 'documentary news' about the making of KRO Germany 1947; no impression of the work of the Crown Film Unit group the author met in Scotland; only two or three remarks about film production in England, which is what the author came over to study, but no comparative analysis. Instead, we have a propaganda article to enlist pity for our ex-enemies. Bomb devastations' what a pity he could not have seen London in 1940-41 before we tidied it up some six or seven years ago. Food? Clothes? Does he realize that we, the victors of a wai stalled by Ins people. have had to deprive ourselves to feed Germany, spending millions of dollars we need for reconstruction here ai home? So we want peace, do we? And when have we wanted war? Heir von Rautenfeld does a disservice to his country if he thinks articles like (Ins so reminiscent of the 'pily-lhe-poor-Crcrmans' propaganda after the fust World Wai will do anything bui make the British despise an ungrateful ami incorrigible people. Yours truly, 612 Rodnev House BETTY J. ( R vvv ll R Dolphin Square, .SHI We Want More Shorts SIR, Having been in the film industry over ten years, I have worked for many short-film companies. I have always found a tendency to treat shortfilm subjects not as big pictures ; I have found that, cinema audiences like shorts — if they are good but they must be good and have an appeal. Recently I was with a short and documentary film company. I found that many of the films were treated very lightly and when we began to shoot we had a very rough script. As time went on the director saw some of the rather obvious faults of the picture, he began to despair; this sort of thing can be remedied: there should be more planning. There is a nasty tendency in the industry to say — 'He's a short-film director, he could not be much good.' This is entirely wrong. The short film is a stepping stone for features; many a good director today started on shorts and having achieved success went over to features. The medium of features is different to a degree, one has to portray something on the screen for ten minutes — but it is nevertheless worthy of a good director. He must put the film over with the minimum amount of footage and waste. I et us treat short films as features! Very often at the cinema I have heard someone in the audience say — 'The feature was very poor but I lo\ed the short film on boats.' I think a good short is quite as important as the main film, for it can balance the programme perfectly. I should like to see more films of interest; this would balance a programme where there is a big feature of 9,000 or 10,000 ft. Some film 'fans' have told me they like going to such and such a cinema because they show Donald Duck; these cartoons run 7-8 rnins, yet are treated as an important item of the programme. Let us pay more attention to the supporting programme for these smaller subjects arc the backbone of the show, a good short, well produced, will make up for a rather poor feature. 1 el us go all out on these pictures and give the film industry more work to do. The answer is to produce good short pictures, then the exhibitor will pay more — let us cut out the tripe and make way for some decent smaller productions — it is up to the industry. Yours faithfully. The Priory g. max kemp Knowle Green Staines, Middx Films in Agriculture SIR, The technician who attended the recent SI \ conference on 'Films in Agriculture' writes tetchily o( his impressions in your last issue. He might ponder the fact that the delegates most o\ who. ii had travelled long distances to be present — were In their vers number a tubule to the genuine interest in the uses of the film in agricultural education. Conferences are normally the occasion for expressing divergent views. Why should agricultural films be an exception? And if your contributor found the prevailing atmosphere critical, he can rest assured that this was in no way due to bucolic bad temper but simply an indication to the film-maker that he was failing to satisfy the requirements of those who seek to make films do the job they claim to do. Disgruntled, these criticsmay have been, but they are the consumers, and most of their comments were constructive. I suggesl that there are still a great man) difficult problems surrounding the successful use of films in adult education work, that they occur in an extreme form in rural audiences, and that up to the present, attempts to solve them have been exclusively of the hit and miss variety. For example, we know very little about the ideal length of an agricultural instructional film; how long (a) farmers, th) farm-workers. (c) young farmers' clubs can. generally speaking, continue to assimilate facts which are (rt) within, (/>) outside, their everyday experience. Nor has much study been made of the psychology of rural audiences in relation to films. Were this done it might be found that they showed a far greater sympathy with the nontheatrical film programme than audiences in urban areas, where glamorous associations with the commercial cinema have to be overcome. On the other hand, it would probablv disclose that the language of the film, being less familiar to rural audiences, called for a slower tempo and simpler construction than in work directed at the life-long cinema-goer in the low ns. And many modern agricultural films are made by technicians reared in the structural conventions of the entertainment film. Complaints about commentators' accents are. I grant, becoming tiresome. But this again is the expression of a problem which has received no experimental analysis with agricultural or other films. As Mr Edgar Anstey noted at the conference we now suspect that the voice which read the news yesterday, lacks conviction when extolling the benefits of artificial insemination today. But has anybody investigated the popularity of various commentators? Or attempted to assess the real degree of resentment felt by Northumbrians for Devonian voices' Or even compared the response to silenl and sound films? (Quite the best insiruction.il film shown at the conference Knot-tying in the Hinder, was silent. t The answer to all these questions is no, and I suggest thai until some data are available. criticisms oi the kind which led to your contributor's outburst when he cried 'Nonsense!' will continue. Meanwhile I believe that expletives—however gentle nanlv from Soho are not merelv unhelpful, but possiblj damaging. N ours faithfully, The I 'niversity mi r\ v\ ri i \ i s Manchester 13