International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1934)

440 EDUCATIONAL CINEMATOGRAPHY analogies. Each is a strictly personal work, an expression of thought, a mirror of the authors observations. There are many ways of painting a picture. If a landscape can be a state of mind for a writer or an observer, so can it for a film-maker. The so called cinematographic truth easily accepts the technical processes which place at his disposal different aspects which the film producer uses in the same way as a writer models his phrases and turns of speech. At the same time, if the writer has the privilege of using simple instruments — pen, paper and typewriter — the film-maker is the slave of complicated apparatus which oblige him to have recourse to a number of collaborators. His work becomes therefore more delicate. He may be tempted to count too much on the work of his unavoidable collaborators, and this he must not do if he wants to obtain the best results. He must interpret the subject and theme himself, without unnecessary interpolations or acceptance of mediocre make-shifts. The charge has often been made against the film that it is a flight of too rapid images. The answer may be that the accused film was not specially made for the class-room. In films shown to the public it is necessary to avoid over long scenes, repetitions. The producers are afraid to interrupt the rhythm of the picture and diminish its attraction. But when it comes to teaching, there need be no fear of arresting the rhythm for a moment, to ponder, examine and go over a point again. These delays and lengthenings are inevitable. It is essential that children have the time to see with ease and comfort. If the action seems to rapid, the best thing is to repeat the film once or twice. One must also be prepared to sacrifice occasionally a fine scene when the case requires it in order to insert a sequence taken from a point of view more favourable for observation purposes. Certainly, it is desirable to show the child ren beautiful pictures whenever possible. It would foolish, however to sacrifice everything to this laudable concept. When making a scholastic picture, it is a good thing to repeat frequently : " What instruction will be pupils be able to derive from this scene ? " The process of making the film can be regulated in accordance with one's own answer. On the other hand, it is necessary to avoid dispersing the pupils' attention. Let us suppose you want to show the pupils the working of say a piston rod in a steam engine. I have taken a simple case. The children will see a whole lot of things on the screen such as the exhaust of the steam, the railwaymen, the track, the engine, etc. and their attention will not be particularly directed to one object unless it is shown in a special close-up. In any case, the use of close-ups should be thoroughly understood. Children, indeed, generally prefer close-ups to long shots. They are naturally interested in details as can be seen from a study of their drawings. It is well to fall in with the influence of nature in young intelligences. This and similar considerations should always be present in the mind of a film producer during the making of a picture, and it is impossible for a cineast to go too thoroughly into such details of his task. In making teaching films, he must forget certain habits and mannerisms which he has learnt in the production of theatrical or entertainment films. He will find himself obliged to " shoot " over again scenes that are didactically imperfect or badly lit. He will find himself under the necessity of cutting scenes which would do admirably for the general public but would be useless or out of place for scholastic proposes. When the " shooting " of the picture is completed, the next step is to mount the film. This is a matter full of difficulties and traps for one who is not a teacher, both as regards the order and duration of the scenes and the preparation of the sub-titles. Care must be taken in the matter of sub