Film Culture (1956)

conception. In that time, the urgency has gone out of the need to make this film. In some cases the issue itself no longer exists. What I’m trying to say is that the State Department, in particular in its film program, has concerned itself with motion pictures that are dealing more directly with film is 18 months away from the time of its first counterpropaganda than they should, in my opinion. I just don’t believe that that kind of film is effective. I think the film that can be effective in presenting America’s case to the world, both to our friends and to our enemies, is the film which admits that everything is not perfect. As a matter of fact, a film that passionately states things are not perfect here, and begins to examine some of these things. This kind of film would be proof that America is a living country, capable of development, strong enough to admit its faults, proud to show what we are doing to correct them. The moral responsibility of the film-maker From the beginning of time, the artist has had a vision of his time and his place. Certainly the artist in America is no less limited than the caveman who drew his world on the walls of the cave. The American film-maker should have a vision of his time, should conceive, seize its problems and present them dramatically and effectively to his countrymen and to the world. Certainly one of the reasons why so many film artists today feel so close to Italy is because of the films that have come out of Italy, the exciting neo-realistic renaissance. Sometimes I feel that there aren’t enough people here seriously interested in the problems of making documentaries. Film-makers here are too individualistic—nothing binds them together. If they felt a certain community, the American documentary would improve. Grierson used to say that what we need is a pub where we could all meet and drink beer. There is practical wisdom in that. That is what we feel also. This was one of the reasons for starting the magazine FILM CULTURE. There is such a thing as the concept of defending the documentary as a School of thought, a trend, a moral attitude. Of course each artist within that school will have his own personal way of expressing it, but nevertheless a certain atmosphere, a certain milieu, where they more or less regularly meet and where they can not only dis cuss common problems but influence each other is necessary. As closing remarks, we would like to sum up the difficulties the contemporary American documentary faces today. One is the financial one, the difficulties of sponsorship and the relation of the creative film-maker to the person who advances the funds; and, secondly, the problem of the general political and moral atmosphere of the country which also conditions the creative spirit of the film artist. And we hope that Amertcan documentarists will gradually, now that this atmosphere of intimidation seems to have subsided, express whatever passion there is in their hearts in films. of value. I’m glad that you use the word moral, I think that is certainly a very important word to use in relation to the documentary film because it implies courage, a sense of justice, and the moral responsibility of the artist in a society. — 7 In other words, the true concept of the documentary, its moral and to some extent militant concept with all its social implications, should be upheld and this film form should not degenerate into industrial commercials, films that are easily, at least in the public mind, confused with the true documentary. If there is any way to find a mode of expression that would embrace the past and help us toward the future that is not “documentary” I would like to find it. The true concept of the documentary film should be vindicated—both in film criticism and in the artists’ attitude toward film making. Cabos Blancos, the latest film by Willard Van Dyke made for the Division of Community Education, Puerto Rico