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.

THE CONTENT OF FILMS duree of the cinema is different from that of the theatre — with all its deep repercussions on us. Perhaps the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would say of us, too, that we have become — spectators. Only if one envisages such a horizon of a sociological film appreciation, can its importance and scope be adequately understood. A discussion of the problems of 'content of motion pictures' cannot be isolated from these and related problems. To return to Edgar Dale who, in another volume of the Payne Fund Studies, has examined the problem of How to Appreciate Motion Pictures (Tenth edition, Macmillan, New York 1938). There we read: 'A new point of view regarding the place of motion pictures in our scheme of living must be developed. At present motion pictures are only made for personal profit; they must be produced to fit the needs of the people. Many of these needs are satisfied by laughter and gaiety and joyousness, which erase our worries. Other needs relate, however, to the abolition of war, to a new point of view regarding crime and punishment, to the more satisfactory distribution of wealth, to a deeper insight into the problem of a democratic government . . .' Mr. Dale writes these sentences in a handbook for American high school students. They may be applied likewise to British students of the cinema. But pressure through group or individual appreciation is not enough. Tf producers', writes Mr. Dale, 'are not making motion pictures the seeing of which you can honestly regard as a worthwhile leisure activity, then you should demand that such pictures be produced. You represent a group of intelligent movie-goers, trained in the appreciation of pictures, and you have the power to influence the future of motion pictures. If producers discover that there is a demand for the finer pictures, they will make them. The demand must be first created, however, and you are the logical persons to do it.' I believe Mr. Dale underestimates the financial and propaganda power of the film producer. Education in film appreciation must be combined with state supervision of the commercial children's cinemas and also with the establishment of a public distributing corporation along B.B.C. lines. By such a combined effort it may be possible to safeguard the spiritual health of the nation. 177 M.S.F.