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.
in the argument — the consumption of food. On shot 19, as the knife cuts into the breast of the roast chicken, the commentator affirms the impression already given by the visuals — " Yes — it's a rich world." From this point onward the images undergo a gradual and subtle change. An impression of the greed of a minority is slowly conveyed : by the time 21 appears, the impression of good living which can be derived from this rich world is tinted with an impression of the self-indulgence of a particular section of society. The spectator is subtly introduced to the next step in the argument.
The shot of the wine-glass (22) dissolves into a similarly composed shot of the top of a garbage bin (23). The smooth, at first imperceptible transition links the two ideas represented by the two images in the spectator's mind : he concludes that waste is the inevitable result of badly planned food distribution. The three shots symbolising the wastage of food take the " the-world-is-rich " theme to its extreme conclusion and the spectator is now ready to see the other side of the problem.
The other side of the problem is the poverty and starvation of " one in every three people living on the earth to-day." To show this, the shots have again been selected for the directness of their impact. The vast wind-blown field (26), the starving cattle (27), the woman picking scraps from a dust-bin (29), all make different appeals on the same central issue. And the single, personal appeal of the images is strengthened and put into perspective by the commentary's explanation of the' extent of the problem. The sequence ends, having through the contrast of well-being and starvation posed the problem, by asking why the problem exists. Here, the commentary's rhetorical question is immensely strengthened by the bewildered, questioning gestures of the starving people in the last three shots.
This forceful and seemingly effortless interaction of word and picture hides a great deal of planning and co-operation between the editor and the writer. The joint effect of sound and visuals — which is nowhere one of mere repetition — can often give the images overtones of meaning which alone they did not possess. Here, the intimate and painstaking collaboration between writer and director becomes a crucial operation. In the passage we have quoted, the commentary is mainly employed to punctuate the various phrases of the argument and, where necessary, to strengthen contrasts. The question spoken over 25 sharpens the effect of the juxtaposition of the sequences on wealth and poverty by warning
208