The film answers back : an historical appreciation of the cinema (1939)

and spirit from those of the Mediaeval Church under feudalism. Such schools, in the long run have the effect of spreading the idea that authoritarianism is necessary and admirable. It is a thousand pities that this should be so, because it is quite evident that our film makers have no such deliberate intention. Our film makers, in fact, do strive to make pictures that will entertain, elevate and educate, that is to say, pictures that will evoke the greatest possible response at the pay-box. Unfortunately, such efforts are largely negatived by the disruptive social philosophy that underlies the majority of their productions. We will examine one or two more English films and the general trend in English film production to show that it is the wrong social philosophy whicli is at the root of the trouble, very little else. There exists a very wide gulf between the mind of the general publi: and the minds of our film executives. If this gulf could only be narrowed down, the result would be an immense stimulus to the film industry. Start with a firm, strong foundation, a sound social outlook, and you are on the way to building up a film whicti will be a credit to you. With a sound basis to start with, everything is added unto you. The right outlook will determine your choice of the right story to start with. The treatment is far more likely to be right. If the psychology is properly understood, your players will get into the ikin of their parts. If that kind of spirit is engendered in tie studio, everyone connected with the technical side will be infected in the same way, and your film will be a winner both in prestige and at the pay-box. One of the first requisites to a sound foundation, to the correct social outlook, is a recognition of the fact that the vast public is eternally sound in its ethics and in its judgments, and that it demands something that rings true in ordinary every-day human behaviour, something 167