Focus: A Film Review (1952-1953)

221 unique pioneer of all that is salient, as some of the experts have claimed. Basic Quality In fact, a course of cinema at the National Film Theatre soon convinces one that memories of the golden days of silent films are not so gilded as might be supposed. Of course the actual film stock itself is often blotched, and the projection of silentspeed films reminds one of the headaches that were frequently the penalty of those who went too often to the Electric Hall or the Biograph, but the basic business of good film making seems to have altered but little with the passing of years. What we now enjoy is the streamlined projection of Griffiths’s imaginative groupings or the glossy finish to Dreyer’s terrible fire scenes. It is surprising to find out that when we laughed at Chaplin or Lloyd or Keaton in the twenties we were not necessarily the unsophisticated groundlings we have since imagined ourselves to have been. The weariness which so often assails us when we see a new film today, we discover to be the inevitable consequence of the fact that what is shown to us is, in spite of its mechanical perfection and chromium-plated gloss, not half as interesting, artistically, as the primitive efforts of the past. Film As Art That means, if it means anything, that the art of the cinema is not to be looked for in merely technical refinement. Though it is a pleasant thing to be able to enjoy the mechanical perfections which the technicians have provided for the projection of films in our cinemas, it is obvious that the art of cinema lies in the ability of the cine-artist (the cameraman — the director — the scriptwriter— whichever of these three functions is the essential one) to be able to transmit by means of film, the ideas which are his to express. The greater perfection which is now common to the instruments the cine artist uses — the camera, lighting, projection, etc., has not, as a study of the National Film Theatre repertory will demonstrate, necessarily meant a greater perfection in the art of cinema. It is true that we have now more men who are truly cine-artists (if I may be allowed once more this awkward term) than was the case fifty years ago, but we have also many men who erroneously imagine that with their up-to-date equipment they can automatically turn out good films. One of the satisfying things about the work being done by the National Film Theatre is that it gives opportunity to the young to see the best of all film periods and, together with the courses in film appreciation which are available for them, must have the result of stimulating eager minds to really artistic film making. If only the lesson sinks home that, if a film is to be a work of art, it must conform to the definition which justifies any other medium as art, all will be well for the film Fra Angelicos, Rembrandts and Da Vincis of the future. “Ars est recta ratio factibilium” : which may be rendered as the ability to express ideas according to right reason by means of some medium or other. It is the expressing of the ideas and not the use of the instruments which is basic to the definition of art. It is therefore, the manner in which film is made to transmit the ideas of the artist, and not the film itself that is fundamental to the art of cinema. If, then, the student of the "old” films discovers what you can and what you cannot do with film in order to justify the term artist, the enterprise of those responsible for the National Film Theatre will have been very well worth while. NOVEMBER FOCUS Next month’s Focus will have articles by C. A. Lejeune, Father Agnellus Andrew, O.F.M., and Stephen Ackroyd dealing with the problems presented by T.V.