International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1930)

53 — STATIONARY AND MOVING PICTURES FOR HYGIENE PROPAGANDA Der Bildzcart, the fine German educational film review, of which Dr. Gunther (the founder of other admirable institutions in Berlin) is the able and zealous editor, and in which he displays his practical grasp of the film problems of today, publishes in its November issue an article by Herr Rudolph Neubert of Dresden, which is both highly interesting and offers matter for debate. Dr. Neubert is a convinced advocate of the advantages of magic lantern slides for hygiene propaganda. « We consider the magic lantern slide the finest of all mediums — he writes — for the purposes of public hygiene propaganda. The primary difficulty with which We had to contend, namely, the shortage of suitable slides, has been eliminated thanks to the Deutsches Hygiene Museum of Dresden ». Herr Neubert goes on to deal with the differences between stationary projection for teaching geography, natural history, and the history of art; he describes with the technical sureness that characterises him the right type of slide for hygiene propaganda, and the advantages of drawings for certain kinds of demonstration, etc. So far, of course, we are quite in agreement with him, as also we agree on the essential principle that slides intended for teaching purposes must be carefully revised by experts and not left to the sweet will of manufacturers and speculators. It is in this connection more especially that the Dresden Museum merits praise, for during the last few years it has installed perfect equipment and has set going a very active movement in the field of magic lantern exhibitions. Herr Neubert goes on to say: « Popular hygiene education must not be limited to increasing general knowledge; it must attempt to improve the bases of health and hygiene education. To do this it is necessary to influence human will, because every man must look to himself if he wishes to become and to remain healthy ». So far we entirely agree with Herr Neubert; indeed we go farther, for we are of the opinion that no popular campaign can achieve really sound and bene ficial results (especially in such a domain as that of hygiene) unless it exercises not merely an influence, but something in the nature of a suggestive ascendency on mens' minds and stirs their deepest feelings. Thus it is necessary to bring home to them all the perils, all the evil consequences of negligence, to move and convince the public. By what means does Herr Neubert suggest that this end can be achieved ? « The simplest and most primitive method — ■ he writes, — is that of contrasting the false with the true, or, to put it in other words, of contrasting the consequences of negligence with the results of positive action ». Herr Neubert goes carefully info the whole question, cites many interesting examples, and insists on the general principles underlying his thesis. His thesis is excellent, we repeat, but there are some points to which we would raise a demurrer. We are well aware that the great majority of teachers are still favourable to stationary projection shows. But our experience has shown us that in many cases the young are no longer interested in them; nor are adult audiences where such questions as hygiene are concerned. Life to-day proceeds at a feverish pace; stationary shows may indeed make some impression, especially when they display contrasting pictures, but the effect obtained is a matter of passing emotion. There was a time when stationary images of this kind created a lasting impression on the mind; this is hardly the case at the present time. For this reason the big social welfare organizations which used to have so much faith in posters, drawings vividly depicting « before » and « after», the « consequences of neglect)) and the « effects of treatment », are now dropping this system to a great extent and having recourse to moving pictures. Popular hygiene propaganda bristles with difficulties that are realized only by those who have devoted their time and efforts to it. The public is not exactly sceptical, but it is not very keenly interested; at least this is true of many countries. And for this reason