World Film and Television Progress (1937-1938)

EDITORIAL Films and the \ation THE proposals by which the British Government hope to encourage the growth of the native cinema during the next decade have been published. Both renters and exhibitors will be required to carry an increasing percentage of British made films. To prevent alien exploiters from meeting their legal obligations at the lowest possible cost by the production of dirt cheap, or "quickie" films, a minimum labour cost of seven thousand five hundred pounds must be expended on films which are to rank for Quota. These are the principal conditions. Except for the minimum cost clause and a preferential treatment of luxury films there is no fundamental change from the old Act under which the British cinema has careered to its present state of disaster. Since the passing of the Cinematograph Act of 1927 we have seen one wave of swindle and mis-government succeed another. Public money has been subscribed in quantity for films which either failed to emerge or were so grossly mismanaged that a return on capital was from the first unlikely. The Government has looked blankly on, while foreign entrepreneurs in the production of quickie films over-drove our technicians and finally broke the spirit of men who might have done much for Britain on the screen. A wave of foreign invasion was permitted under the excuse of teaching our nationals though no attempt was made to see that this instruction of nationals was a real condition of employment. So long as the requisite amount of film footage was produced, no one cared under what conditions or in what quality production took place. Much has been forgiven the British Board of Trade, and the Government behind it, on the ground that a body of experience had to be built up in a new and difficult field before effective administration was possible. But it was expected that ten years would be sufficient and that, in any further intervention, a real effort would be made to co-ordinate the industry and save the country from further scandal. The Board of Trade, it must be confessed, has again taken the lazy way out. There is nothing in the new proposals— perhaps purposely so — which secondrate clerks could not, by measuring rule, administer. No constructive control of conditions and qualities of production is envisaged. The needs of the situation go beyond the commercial interests of any particular section of the film industry. In the ultimate the only interest that matters is the national interest and the encouragement of those creative elements in the film trade which are likely to serve that interest. On this fundamental ground three criticisms are offered on the Board of Trade's proposals. The first, made by Mr. Ostrer, is that no distinction is drawn between American pictures made in Britain and British pictures made in Britain and that, in fact, the sorry system of American con trolled British production will persist. The second criticism is that the relatively high cost test of seven thousand five hundred pounds minimum on labour costs bears hardly on the independent producer and prevents initiative outside a few commercial rings. The third criticism is that by limiting the shorts Quota to five per cent no incentive is given to a field of production in which much useful national work and valuable creative apprenticeship is being carried on. These criticisms have plainly a single common denominator: a demand that the Government shall adopt a more constructive role and that it shall use its power to direct the development of a great national asset. To all such criticisms the Board of Trade replies that an Advisory Committee will be set up to take care of exceptions. That Advisory Committee has, in the past, been drawn from majority interests in the film trade who, bound to the most hard-boiled traditions of commercialism, did not invariably represent either national or creative interests. This situation is to persist. Is the Government to abandon the film industry to a further period of commercial anarchy? Or is it to seize the opportunity of bringing the industry into something like national focus? The Moyne Committee suggested the latter policy, and so have all reputable critics. We expect Parliament to agree with them. Every Reader can serve this paper and the progressive forces of the cinema by getting a new subscriber. Religious Film Schism The announcement that Mr. Bruce Woolfe is to provide a series of religious film programmes marks the first step in what may become the most important development of the so-called 'non-theatrical' cinema. The churches have some fifty thousand halls which can be devoted to religious and social education by film. If even a proportion of these are so used they must become a new and vital force in articulating the public mind and a powerful complement to the influence of the commercial cinema. Conflict is inevitable, however, between two parties in the counsels of the church. The first party regards the film as a medium through which their present somewhat unimaginative teaching of the Scriptures can be more widely spread. They hanker after films of the Gospel stories, without apparent concern for the virtue which must so often be lost when the highly polarised message of the Scriptures is transferred to powder and paint. There is also a tendency to choose stories which, while praising the more visible forms of worship and conversion, leave some considerable doubt as to the taste and quality of either. The opposing school of thought, with whom Mr. Bruce Woolfe is by record and sympathy identified, is impressed by the value of cinema in community work and social education, and particularly in the service of youth. It points to the more startling possibility of making dramatic films of the world's greatest short stories and adding their spiritual message to the curriculum of religious experience. This is the real import of the announcement made by Mr. Bruce Woolfe, and Mr. Rank is to be congratulated on arranging so excellent a departure. The work of the Church will be enriched and it is assured in fiction of an inexhaustible source of inspiration. From a more general point of view, it is important to note that finance is made available for film work which has been conceived from the first in spiritual terms. Ambitious young directors will not fail to avail themselves of so unique and brilliant an opportunity. They must be prepared, however, to fight a difficult battle, for the Peter and Paul school will feel they are getting less than their due if the message is not "direct." Religious film makers should arm themselves with the text of Matthew seven and twenty-one. The danger is that in much emphasis of the formal aspects of religion, goodness may easily fly out of the window. Goodness, we believe, includes good cinema. In this Issue Cover still: Miriam Hopkins in Woman Chases Man PAGE "They Said I was Crazy" — interview with Erich von Stroheim, by Leslie Perkoff . 3 Theatregoers — Good and Bad, by James Bridie 4 Editorial ...... In Defence of Hokum, by Gene Towne . 6-7 Snow-White and the Seven Dwarfs, by the Brothers Grimm . . .8-11 You Can't Kid the Camera, by Robert Donat 12-13 Blast the Navy — Stick to the Shop, Boys! by Commander Lithgow . . . 14-15 The Paris Exhibition — The Mode of the Moment, by Marion Dorn .... The Pleasures of Modesty . The Flora and Fauna of the British Film Industry, by the Film Council Aliens Stifle British Talent, Anonymous People of the Studios . Five Films Reviewed, by John Grierson and Basil Wright Review of Reviews Cockalorum Newsreel Rushes . Letters Radio People with Purposes I Shot in Persia, by John Taylor Film Guide and Feature Film Releases Amateur and Technical Section 16 17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-29 30-31 32-33 35 36-37 38-39 39 40-41 43^*8