Filmindia (1941)

February^ 1^41 f ILMINDI A were the exact qualifications of the man who was being Drought in. We are told that Mr. Alexander Shaw has been appointed for one year but Mr. Jamshed Wadia who is now the Chairman, after the resignation of Mr. Chandulal Shah, welcoming Mr. Shaw admitted having had a "glimpse into Mr. Shaw's broad outlook on life in general and films in particular and hoped that at the end of the year, Mr. Shaw would find ample opportunities of revising his decision to return to England." Does Mr. Wadia thereby I imply that Mr. Shaw would be with I us longer than a year? HULLO, MR. BEDDINGTON j Reverting to Mr. Beddington. Head of the Film Division on whose I recommendation Mr. Alexander ; Shaw was taken by Mr. Desmond Young, I beg to reproduce the following extract from the "Spectator" a leading paper in London in which I Basil Wright writes as follows: ' "After ten months of a total war the i. Film Division is still largely a il waste of the public's money. It has I annvunced no coherent plan, within : the framework of which its weekto-week film policy could be shaped ' and reshaped according to imme' diate needs. It has failed to mobilise the immense good-will of the BriI tish film industry. It has even failI ed to make more than a handful of i suitable films, and, if suitable films i have been made it has delayed or j bungled their presentation to the I public." That is the state of affairs in England in the Film Division of which Mr. Beddington is the head and Mr. Desmond Young, our Chief Press I Adviser, takes the recommendation i| of such a man "unhesitatingly" and (! presents us with Mr. Alexander i Shaw. THE ANGLO-INDIAN PRESS The attempt made by the '.Times of India" and by the "Illustrated Weekly of India" to lend a moral support to the Government in the appointment of Mr. Alexander Shaw is unique and original. The "Times of India" says in its first editorial of the 23rd January 1941 as follows: "It is no disparagement of the In dian Film Industry to say — what must be admitted as a fact — that no one belonging to it has a thorough knoivledge of the documentary film, mainly because this type has never been exploited for the commercial market here." While, the "Illustrated Weekly" in its issue of 2nd February 1941 writes: "India, so far from resenting Mr. Shaw's presence here, ought to be grateful to him. because he will be teaching India something about a vast untouched field. Who will deny that there is not a single man connected with the Indian film industry who can claim to be such an expert on the documentary?" Well. I deny and I challenge these writers to come out and discuss with me and convince me to the contrary. As far as I know we have at least half-a-dozen men who can do, if not better, at least as well as Mr. Shaw will do in this country and this statement of mine will be better proved when we summarise Mr. Shaw's work on the eve of his departure from India. By the way, I should like to know why such blatant attempt was made by these two Anglo-Indian papers in supporting the appointment of Mr. Shaw if the Government of India feel that the said appointment was absolutely correct and founded on merits. It is rather unfair to Mr. Shaw that so obvious a moral support should be given to his appointment, as I personally feel that Mr. Shaw, after all, may be knowing something useful in this field of documentaries. If the gentleman has been appointed on pure merits where was the necessity of finding such noi.sy justification for his appointment? I have no personal quarrel with Mr. Alexander Shaw and I agree with Mr. Desmond Young that personally he is a very agreeable person. But I object to the procedure that was followed in his appointment. Where is the sense in all the talk that is doled out to us about Dominion Status, Democracy, Freedom of speech etc. month after month from Simla, Whitehall and other high quarters if the executives of the Government insist on per petuating their old bureaucratic methods which should have by now become obsolete? THE OVERSEA GUARANTEE Introducing Mr. Shaw and justifying his choice and appointment before the Board, Mr. Desmond Young is reported to have said that the British Ministry of Information had not only agreed to pay more than half of Mr. Shaw's salary but had also promised a contribution of no less than £10,000/ for twenty films in the form of a grant of £500 1 for each film. He further stressed that though Mr. Shaw was not a representative of the Ministry of Information, still, as they had guaranteed so much money they would naturally like to have their interest watched by a person whose appointment met with their approval. The imposing extent of the amount promised by the British Ministry of Information naturally silenced the members of the Board who must have become dumb by now to protest about the appointment any more. With regard to this aspect one would like to know how many films Mr. Shaw would produce in a year of his stay in India and whether any films produced thereafter, without the active assistance of Mr. Shaw, would be still accepted by the British Ministry of Information at the price mentioned by them. I believe that at the most Mr. Sliaw would produce three films in this year and the remaining seventeen, if at all produced, will have to be under the absolute control of the Board and without the help of Mr. Shaw. Where then is the virtue of this guarantee which cannot be fulfilled within the specified period of one year? Strangely enough, Mr. Desmond Young doesn't tell us what part exactly of the salary of Mr. Shaw would be paid by the British Ministry of Information. It is just "more than half." In this connection, is it true that some copies of the films already produced by the Board and sent to the British Ministry of Information were returned as unsuitable being "too amateurish for theatrical exhibition"? If this is 19