International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1930)

— 39 — to the public, than from a private body. This, of course, is not in the least meant as a reflection on the impartiality of eminent and public spirited cultural institutions, the present article, being a purely objective contribution, which considers the subject matter from all points of view and with due regard to conditions prevailing in the several countries. Now, who can appreciate the fitness of a film and recommend it conscientiously on exclusively objective grounds ? Evidently only a body that has actually viewed it, that is to say that has had it examined by a committee, and is moreover in a position to verify its contents at any moment by means of a documentary specimen it must have on file . It is absolutely insufficient for the body in question to examine a film if it does not possess a copy, since it is well-known that films lend themselves easily to alterations. One has only to cut out or substitute parts of the ribbon or of the wording to get a film the contents of which differ very considerably from the original. It may aptly be compared with a sentence or a book from which important parts, words, or punctuation marks have been omitted or replaced by different ones. It might even happen that a film with the same title, and the parts of which bear more or less the same captions as another, be improperly or by mistake put into circulation, although it has nothing in common, apart from title and captions, with the film examined by the official body. Only the possibility of carrying out at any time a comparative test can give full security against incorrect descriptions, arbitrary alterations, casual mistakes, and intentional interpolations ; a recommendation regarding a given film cannot apply to a production that has been tampered with. In the case of text books care is taken that a standard copy be deposited, and authenticated copies are kept in connection with all legal transactions, whether of a public or private character. An authenticated copy of all films handed in for the test qualifying them for recommendation ought likewise to be kept and should be available at any time. It stands to reason that the examination should be a perfectly objective one, and should have regard to all requirements of popular education and teaching, as otherwise it would be a mere absurdity. Each country, moreover, would of course have its own standard for recommendation. 4) But even when proper information has heen made available for the purposes of selection we are still a long way off from supplying the demand. Even when a suitable film has actually been chosen, it may under prevailing conditions be unobtainable in many cases. In order to pay its costs, a film must have large audiences. Hence its holder, the lessee or renter, endeavours to secure for it the necessary attendance by establishing a monopoly similar to that set up by the producer and dealer, who, according to the usages of the trade, when selling or hiring a film, stipulate that the right of exhibition shall be limited to a given area and an agreed period. Thus it frequently happens, for instance, that cultural cinemas or schools apply in vain for an existing film to educational institutions or to film producers or dealers, because the producer or dealer has already stipulated a contract in its regard with a cinema or association located in the neighbourhood of the applicant. And as cinemas and cultural associations