FilmIndia (1940)

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.

For The Techpidons \Y,Eā€ž APPE^i TO THEr CRITIC ( Continued from our last issue ) i ^ .) i. .1 t ā–  . . i ... rlii By The Editor Bulletin of the Association of Cine-Technicians In our . last issue we had dealt with the inadequate and even meaningless criticism that some of our so-called critics level at us. In the case of the laboratorian, because so little is known of him and his work they have found a willing target for a host of ills that cannot be assigned to another quarter. They have accused him of changing night sequences into day and vice versa, of introducing unwanted sounds or^ of eliminating the desirable ones, and generally if the cameraman or the sound engineer happens to be otherwise a consistent workman, 'to have lowered the usual high level of his work.' About . such critics we dp not wish to say a word. As we have said before, .to the fair and conscientious we bow our heads and to him alone we make, this appeal. And we believe that such a critic will necessarily have a detailed knowledge of that which he is out to criticise. Of course, no one can deny the usual excus: that one's inability to execute something as efficiently does, not take away from one's, capacity to criticise the way some on; else does that something. But it is. also true that he who criticises must not exhibit 'n his. criticism I lack of knowledge of . at least the fundamental .principles of our work,. For instance, while criticising the unusually weak technique of a recent . pictur?, some cne , said that the cameraman .at places did not use the proper., lenses to photograph the . foreground figure-; and the backgrounds in the proper light and focal balance. Wt know and the critic must know too. that such a lens does not exist, and thr effect that led . that someone to make his observation wa probably due to faulty lighting.. IS THE CRITIC JUSTIFIED? rt And now we come to yet another aspect of criticism ā€” let us for a moment admit that our critic has the exact knowledge' as to what is exactly wrong. Is he to point them all out? We are afraid we can scarcely stop him. But again if the purpose of his criticism is constructive, a certain amount of choice is necessary. There are mistakes. which just happen and which we regret the very next moment, but because of certain defects in studio organisation they cannot be rectified and are allowed to pass. We refer to little, mechanical mistakes of camera and sound manipulation, little. in. themselves, it is true, but detracting nevertheless from the usual standard of our work.. We. would certainly appeal to the critic tr spare us these and to confine himself to that portion of our work which , for want of a better word we will call as 'artistry.* A . slightly, out of focus ?cenc may be due to a little grit on the lens which the assistant may hav? failed .to, clean just before the take, or it may be due to faulty taping by the second assistant, but all the same the effect of an otherwise brilliant piec<> of .light ing is destroyed. Or it may be that the camera became slightly noisy and its sound was reproduced as a slight background to an otherwise faultless piece of recording. It may even be possible that owing to some slight mechanical breakdown in the laboratory some piece of extraordinary photographic or sound quality got damaged and scratched. And this very negative was so indispensable that it could not be removed and it finally appeared on the screen a blac': spot against an otherwise capable cinematographer and audio grapher. We appeal to you, as a well meaning critic, proud of" the In dustry you are helping to build up whether you are going to hold t i up against this particular work or you will pardon" him, bidding him be more careful in the future. Mistakes like this will happen, and it is not always in our hands to remedy them. If the blame has to be laid on some one it must be on the system of production that allows such obvious and glaring pieces of defective workmanship to be passed for exhibition. Our fault, if any, lies in being a part of this system. {Contd. t it page 64) Leela leads the others in "Gorakhnath" an Arun Picture.