FilmIndia (1940)

WE APPEAL TO THE CRITIC By The Editor Bulletin of the Association of Cine Technicians. "An article every journalist should read," Says Baburao Patcl. A friend of ours asked us the other day what was all this cry about technique in films — "What exactly is it that you call good photography or good sound, I never notice anything wrong myself with these things" — said he, "and whenever I do, the picture itself is generally so bad I never care to sit through." It was a very pertinent question that my friend had put to me. We create all this noise about our work and its importance, we demand more wages for it and we cry for recognition, and all this for doing something nobody notices anything wrong or special about, unless the film itself is so bad he cannot sit through. Funny isn't it, but therein, in the question itself lies the answer. If you have sat down and enjoyed the film and you have not noticed that something like photography or audiography has been done, you have unwittingly given your approval and praise for the work of the technicians who have created for you in that film the essence of realism. That is real good work. If on the other hand photography or sound draws attention to itself either because of its extra fine quality or the reverse, it is definitely in bad taste, and both are equally injurious to the picture. Good photography and sound therefore never draw attention to themselves. Even the "sound and photography were adequate", of the usual film critic is superfluous. One must know that the absence of any comment whatsoever is a certificate In itself which every cinematogra pher or audiographer must appreciate. But then this is an ideal condition, and all of us cannot live In a world of ideals. So great has been the power of the Press in all that governs our lives and in our own little world of the cinema, that some of us at any rate feel that a word of praise from the critic would go a long way. In practice today it Certainly does so, for we have known cases of educated and intelligent people changing their opinions of their own pictures after reading its press comments. Instances have been known of expected sure-winners of a studio with acknowledged standards of sound and photography have gone and proved themselves dud at the box-office. The press comments became discouraging and then for the first time doubts begin to creep that after all the technique was not so good as had been imagined. Can we therefore blame those of our colleagues that yearn for a line of favourable comment from the acknowledged critics of the cinema? And here again we have another stumbling block. Who are the acknowledged critics that pretend to rule the destinies of 40,000 and odd workers in the Industry? Surely not those who for the sake of some monetary or other gain attempt to praise a picture they have never seen, or who give out as sure tips pictures that only crash at the box office a fortnight later. A critic's work is no child's play, and to the honest and sincere we bow our heads. As a journalist he must realise the potentialities of the power that he wields. His word must be precise, it must be the truth, and above all it must be imbued with a spirit of tolerance for the good of the industry. In short it must be, what has so often been called constructive criticism, criticism that must help us to realise our short-comings, and thereby to better our work and place the industry on a little higher level than what It is today. But as we have said, all our critics that write in the numerous publications that come out every month from all corners of our land, are not always so. Whenever any reference is made to either of the three of us, the cinematographer, the audiographer or the laboratorian, the words convey but little meaning. With the cameraman's work it is not unusual to find such comments as the 'light and shade was not balanced well', or 'that the work was unimaginative', or possibly 'that the pictures suffered from a lack of light'. Such comments convey little or no meaning or the little that they do are not enough. Again about the sound Engineer, we usually heai, 'the adjustments of high and low pitch were not proper', or 'there was a sort of gargling noise', or again merely that 'the sound was not up to his usual standard. Much is not known about the exact work of the Laboratory technician and to him therefore are assigned a world of ills. (To be continued) 47