Sociology of film : studies and documents (1946)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

PREFACE relationships and interests. Less than any other point of view can mine, which considers the development of the economic formation of society as a process of natural history, make the individual responsible for relationships whose creature he remains socially, even if he may subjectively rise above them.' Many others have given me enthusiastic help. I had interesting interviews with Sir Alexander Korda and Paul Rotha and a thorough discussion with Mr. Michael Balcon and Mr. Alberto Gavalcanti; Mr. Oliver Bell, the amiable Director of the British Film Institute, gave me valuable support; George Hoellering and his assistant, Miss May Harris, readily spent very many hours with me in discussing the problems of my work; Mr. A. E. Strong, Headmaster of Essendine Junior School in North Paddington, and Mrs. Phyllis Colenzo provided me with child material; Mr. Maurice Cowan, the Editor of The Picturegoer, kindly allowed me to use his paper for collecting adult reaction material. To all these I am profoundly indebted and also to those many hundreds — children and adults — who either gave personal interviews, filled in questionnaires, or wrote essays. Finally, I wish to thank John Roberts, Managing Director of The New Statesman and Nation, and Kingsley Martin, its Editor, who kindly gave me hospitality when the Rank organisation had not a single room to spare for me to work in. My temporary home at 10, Great Turnstile had the additional advantage that I could always draw, whenever necessary, on the wide knowledge of Raymond Mortimer and Edward Sackville-West in the field of literature, and on G. W. Stonier's immense experience in films. They have tolerated my curiosity in good humour though I am sure I have too often taken advantage of a hospitality so freely given. Yet I must emphasise that all conclusions at which this book arrives are necessarily my own. I alone must bear the responsibility for what is said and also for what is not said. I would have preferred to call the book not Sociology of Film, but rather 'Materiaux pour une sociologie du film', but as I could not find an adequate English title I kept this somewhat ambitious one. I hope the reader will realise from the subtitle, 'Studies and Documents', the preliminary or introductory intention of the volume. It opens with the exposition of some general problems of a sociology of film. This essay was written on a suggestion from H. L. Beales, my colleague at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and first published in Agenda (Autumn 1945). Beales followed the progress of my work closely, and his encourage 12