International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1932)

— 783 — is struck by the poverty of educational films, which could certainly be produced in a more attractive manner. No spectator likes to see economy in a spectacle purporting to have an artistic or even simply a cultural purpose. I have no intention of going deeper into this aspect of educational cinematography. I only wish to show that my method, although concerned with the film as a means of education, has nothing in common with the instructional film as such, and consequently has nothing to fear from the sense of boredom and diffidence which surrounds it. The system is not specifically concerned with teaching, because, on the contrary, our method and our public have quite different aims, namely the study of a language. This aim is naturally a much more clearly defined one that of a public which goes to a cinema, for instance, to see the life of the star-fish. Moreover, in my method, as I have said, animated designs can be used which never give rise to dangerous confusion. We are dealing with something quite different from the film used in schools, where the fundamental idea is to project on the screen what cannot be seen directly in nature. Thus a film of this kind will show the flight of a bird, but no teacher will project a simple picture of a swallow which can be observed directly in nature. The teaching film is always and everywhere a lesson of things, and it is not our intention to give lessons of things, because we take for granted that our students have a general knowledge of a practical order, and are free to devote themselves to the learning of languages. The peculiar atmosphere in which the instructional film operates will allow us to draw some precious deductions therefrom for our own work. The spectators at our spectacles, whether adults or adolescents, must not ever be given the impression that they are being treated like children and shown films of an inferior nature. This idea would inevitably have dangerous consequences. Economic notions such as require the use of reduced size film should not be allowed to enter into the case, even if one forgets the fact that reduced size films cannot be used for performances for more than 200 people. Who will benefit from this type of teaching can easily be decided by establishing categories among the pupils, according to the professions to which they aspire, according to their age, sex, and social class both past and present. It must be insisted on that this system is essentially a practical one. We want to teach people to speak. Is it possible to teach a language ? Does a language as such and in itself really exist ? This is one of the principal ideas of Fritz Mauthner is his work " Beitrage zu einer Kritik der Sprache", which sets out to show that a language has no existence of its own. He maintains right through his work that "...the similitude between walking and talking would become clearer if we consciously substituted for the abstract word language the active verb to speak "• If therefore we state that we desire to teach speaking it is to indicate and, here I cite the testimony of Mauthner, that this alone can be taught. Several people believe they have learnt a language when they can understand those who speak it or can read or understand books in the language. There is naturally a large number of linguists who have a very extended knowledge of a language without being able to speak it fluently. My method is not directed to those who do not take an interest in the scientific study of foreign tongues. My object is strictly practical : to teach how to speak. A modern grammarian, Julius Schmidt in his work " Methodik der franzosische Unterriches " states that " until a person is complete master of a language, he will not