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.
64
a studio as can be expected within the 107 pages he allows himself for this purpose.
The first part which traces the history of the cinema is marred by irritating comments of a political character which appear every now and then in the text. It is also wearying to have the interpretation of political angles in films underlined, in the manner of E. W. and M. M. Robson in “The Film Answers Back”. One realises the power of the film as a propaganda weapon, but in a “Primer for Film-Lovers”, one could do with rather less of the Left-Wing pleading with which the author interlards his
otherwise pleasingly-written narrative.
The third section, subtitled “You and the Film”, follows the customary course of essays on the influence of the cinema. One does not look for original theories in such a book as this and it would be unfair to blame the writer because the ideas he throws out are not developed. Suffice it to say that “Spotlight on Films” is a handy and nice-looking volume for those who want to gain sufficient knowledge f a£>out film-making to be able to talk intelligently on the subject. Like all spotlights, it tends to throw its subject somewhat out of context here and there.
A Slight Case of Treason
A correspondent has expressed astonishment that we urged people to see the film, Treason, in spite of what the critics might say about it. Our friend misunderstood our reason for this short-circuiting the verdicts of the professional critics. It was not based on disregard for the canons of criticism ; rather the contrary, for we were fairly sure that dislike of the film would flow from unwillingness or inabilitv to see that what this film was trying to say was more important than the way it said it. It tried to tell something of the truth about the internal state of a country which it is now expedient to ignore.
The Trade Press gave it adequate welcome as a film worth seeing. “Stern yet showmanlike political melodrama, semi documentary in treatment, reminding all that freedom of thought, speech and deed is barred behind the iron curtain . . . Topical to say the least . . . Potential boxoffice ‘turn-up’ ” (Kirie Weekly).
Contrast this with the following, from the organ of an organisation
which is subsidised to teach appreciation of film as an art : “Its interest, however, is considerable, as an example of what can happen when a film exploits contemporary political events, basing its appeal solely on prejudice, and so, in fact, damaging its own cause”.
Pius XI spoke of the power of the film “to champion the cause of justice”. Here is an example of a film, made by a team of Jews and Christians, against all manner of sabotage, trying to do just that. Treason was made with the object of trying to spread the truth about the persecution of truth in Hungary. The secular press critics have failed to understand or have been unwilling to admit that the “trial” of Cardinal Mindszenty was a judicial farce.
It is not claimed that the film is an outstanding piece of film art. But we . do suggest that the opposition to the I film was based on something other than critical sensitiveness to poor cinematography.