Film Culture (May-June 1955)

ences “excited” about the possibilities and achievements of the cinema and this, in addition to film classics, very definitely includes scientific films (time-lapse, highspeed, micro-cinematography) ; psychological studies (mental health films, psychological testing and research, candid camera approaches, such as in Slavson’s Group Therapy, or in the TV —The Search programs); social and other documentaries; art films, be they informational (Matisse) , poetic (The World of Paul Delvaux), illustrative (Images Medievales) , subjective-biographical (The Tragic Pursuit of Perfection) ; sound track experiments (electronic, handdrawn, musique concréte) ; film widths and 3-D experiments; and finally, films made without a camera or music made without musical instruments. In fact, while it is not within the province of this article to discuss this subject in detail, where does “education” stop and “art” begin? A truly “educational” film — in attempting to involve our emotions — often begins to assume the qualities of art. Is Song of Ceylon merely a work of art — or does it also convey educational, informational values without being either statistical or didactic about it? What about Night Mail, The River, The Plow That Broke the Plains? 6). It is well to keep in mind the difference between a commercial movie theatre and a film society. The commercial movie theatre aims to entertain; the film society aims to further the appreciation of film and of new experiments in the medium. The commercial theatre stears clear of controversy, the film society welcomes it. If the films shown by the film society are entertaining, so much the better; but. entertainment value cannot be the sole criterion for film society programming, nor can audience approval or disapproval. The New York Philharmonic Symphony (which, under Mitropoulos, in some ways attempts to fulfill for music a function similar to that of film societies for the cinema) has often witnessed demonstrations for or against contemporary music. The boos and hisses are expected by both audience and critics and while suggestions are repeatedly made to drop works of this type from the program, Mr. Mitropoulos has fortunately not given in to them. Similar problems prevail with such “experimental” programs as Omnibus (whatever its shortcomings) , in contemporary literature and art. The film societies must remain at least one step ahead of their audiences and must not permit themselves to be pulled down to the level of the lowest common denominator in the audience —a very easy, common, and dangerous occurrence in the mass media. (We could take well to heart the remark made by Frederick Stock, director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, who after introducing Brahms to Chicago audiences for the first time said: “They do not like Brahms ... I shall play him again.’’) A historical example may be found in the works of the French avantgarde of the twenties. Inspite of critical approval by a minority at the time, their efforts were frowned upon in more “respectable” circles, the showing of L’Age d’Or, for example, 30 leading to a well-organized and well-publicized political riot. Yet today many of the devices and achievements of this school have not only percolated into commercial Hollywood production but have inevitably been vulgarized as well. It is part of the function of film societies to constantly continue being the spearhead of new experiments and talents, even at the risk of committing errors of judgment and taste. It is difficult to pick out the “greats” of tomorrow; but the film society, to remain true to itself, must never cease trying. This, then, is a plea for more adventurous programming, for more daring, greater open-mindedness and audacity. Perhaps the motto of the societies should be Tennessee Williams’ provocative exhortation for our age when in Camino Real he has a somewhat tarnished Lord Byron once again setting out for unknown shores with the words: “Make voyages! Attempt them! p27 There is nothing else! —AMOS VOGEL FILM SOCIETIES FEDERATE An American Federation of Film Societies came into official being on April 8 in New York City, on the last day of the 1955 American Film Assembly. This event marked the new level of a movement which began in the thirties, when Iris Barry founded the New York Film Society (1932), when students at the University of Chicago organized the Documentary Film Group (1935), and when other pioneers started other groups in many towns across the country. After the World War II, film societies grew tremendously in numbers and importance; many more films became available to them, through commercial distributors as well as the Museum of Modern Art Film Library; and talk of a federation, like those already established in France, Great Britain, Canada and elsewhere, was wide-spread among leaders of American societies. The first occasion for a large number of film society representatives to explore federation was offered at the 1954 American Film Assembly in Chicago. The Film Council of America, sponsor of this annual event, made available a meeting place, sent out invitations to several hundred societies and interested persons, and brought together a number of key individuals whose inspiration and counsel proved vital to these initial discussions. The participants of this Film Society Caucus urged that steps be taken to establish a federation, and voted to continue the Caucus organization during the coming year. Art Assum (Roosevelt University Film Society) was elected chairman of an organizing committee, and three regional chairmen were named: Amos Vogel (Cinema 16), James Limbacher (Indiana University), and Frank Stauffacher (San Francisco Museum of Art). Jack Ellis (Film Council of America) was asked to provide liaison between the Caucus and FCA. Other participating and advisory members of the Organizing Committee: Gideon Bachmann, Margareta Akermark, Cecile Starr, Robert Goodman, Louise Pliss, Fred Smith, Art Brown, Ernest Callenbach, Andries Deinum, and Robert Greensfelder. FCA agreed to sponsor the Caucus during a one year exploratory period, and to devote the full time of one FCA staff member to film society work. The major undertaking of the Organizing Committee was a questionnaire-survey of all known film societies in the United States. Mailing lists were contributed by Brandon Films, Cinema 16, Contemporary Films, Film Council of America, Kinesis, Museum of Modern Art Film Library, The Saturday Review of Literature, and TransWorld Films. Some 700 questionnaires were returned, providing detailed information on over 300 film societies. (The remainder of the returned questionnaires were from series at museums and _ public libraries, audio-visual libraries and associations, series organized around subject matter interests, 16mm film councils and preview centers, college film appreciation courses, and 35mm better film councils.) The questionnaire also revealed the following facts: 1) 46% of all societies started operating in 1952 or later; 20% between 1949-51; the rest date back further; 2) 49% of all societies are sponsored by a school or college; 16% by a museum, art center or library; 19% claim no sponsorship. 3) 54% show foreign features most often; 28% U.S. features; 14% documentary films; 12% experimental films. 4) 27% of the societies have an average attendance of less than 100; 27%—100-200; 18%— 200-400; and only 2% over 1000. 5) 34% present up to 8 programs per year; 26% up to 24 showings. 6) 54% charged membership fees; 17% presented free showings; 13% charged both membership fees and single admissions. 7) 42% offered introductory talks before the film showings; 37% prepared film notes; 26% offered discussion after the showings; 11% published newsletters; 10% did research on films; and 10% engaged in production. As to the services desired from a national federation of film societies, 90% asked for information on film sources; 75% suggested “distribution circuits” of societies; 71% — a newsletter; 60% — program notes; 58% — publicity material; 48% — film society conventions; 42% — a speaker’s bureau; 32% — cue sheets of recordings for silent films. When asked whether they wanted to become part of a national federation, 36% of the societies responded “yes”, 33% — “probably”, and 23% — “don’t know”. (Six per cent did not answer the question and two per cent answered “no”.) With this mandate, accompanied by answers to other questions which revealed the true strength of the film society movement, the Organizing Committee moved ahead with plans for a federation convention at the second American Film Assembly. Several informal meetings of Caucus members culminated in a formal two-day Organizing Committee meeting in New York, January 21-22. At this time results of the survey were released and proposals for federation formulated. All of those who had replied to the questionnaire received