World Film and Television Progress (1937-1938)

NEWSREEL RUSHES A Wide-open Letter to Mr. Gerald Sanger, Dear Mr. Producer Sanger, This letter should really be addressed to your "official" Editor — -Sir Malcolm Campbell. I am sure he will understand my reasons for not doing so. His interests cover such a wide field of science, engineering, sport, and journalism, that for him to be just a full-time routine newsreel editor, would be a shameful waste of his valuable talents. I know that he does sometimes edit and commentate Movietonewstories. But I realise that his title as Editor of the general reel is practically nominal. That leaves you as the power behind the Movietone throne. Gigantic Machine In your case, "power" is an appropriate word. The newsreel machine upon which you ride is among the world's largest, most efficient. Behind you always, like the slave of Aladdin's lamp, you have the vast organisation of Movietonews of America, which, even allowing for U.S. journalistic exaggeration, is generally regarded as the "giant among the world's newsreels." It swims in the money provided by the enormously successful Twentieth Century-Fox companies. It is the only newsreel that literally covers the world with its own cameramen, speckling the globe like a heat rash. Everywhere outside Britain, you share the service of this tremendous organisation. No matter how obscure the place where a story breaks, you probably have a "staff" man within comparatively short range. In such emergency circumstances, almost any other reel would have to rely on a hastily hired freelance, of doubtful technical ability, with even more doubtful equipment. Seldom a week passes without some evidence in your reel of the power of your world-wide links in the news camera chain. After more than a year of the Spanish war, when almost every other newsreel has decided that "to forget" is cheaper (for cameramen daily risking their lives, expect to be paid!) — British Movietone continues to bring to the screen weekly proof that its cameras are still turning on all that futile horror. Few other reels can claim to bring so many stories from India and the Far East — except of course Gaumont-British, which shares your foreign material — and a striking feature of some of your recent stories on "Japan versus China," have been the voices of the Chinese and Japanese generals, proving that your sound units even roam the China Seas. American Influence Movietonews of America lends you its cameramen — it also largely controls your production policy. In doing so, it has given your reel certain features which I consider to represent the most advanced newsreel technique. A few of them : You use several commentators — varying the voice to suit the mood of the story. Properly carried out, I regard that as the best solution to date of the problem of newsreel commentary. Instead of using separate titles at the start of each story, you print your wording over the first scene, 32 Production Chief of British Movietonews. For the second time, Glen Norris terns the spotlight of candid and constructive criticism on to the British Newsreels. W.F.N, does not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed in this article on the newsreel affiliated to the American Twentieth Centnry = Fox Organisation. then fade it out. I believe that system would be even better if the title could first be definitely clearly read against a black background — the picture then fading up behind the title, before the latter disappeared. Thus there would never be the possibility that the picture might distract attention from the title, and there would be a more definite break between stories. But even in its present form, I regard your system as an improvement on that of any other British reel, as bringing a smoother flow to your make-up, a more definite link between title and commentary. / am enthusiastic about your system of grouping your newstories under such general titles as: Sport, Personalities, Royalty. It makes for less sudden jumps from the sublime to the silly, from funerals to fireworks. / admire your frequent use of optical printing tricks — fades, wipes, mixes, one picture superimposed on another. The modern newsreel has to cram so much into every hundred feet, that many a bad jump, many a loose connection between one picture and the next, cannot be avoided. But they can almost be hidden by a right use of optical printing tricks — while many an idea can be hammered home by a clever trick, which surprises the cinemaudience into a few seconds of absolute concentration. But perhaps the most important parallel between you and your American namesake, is in the lavishness of your equipment and staff. You send six cameramen out on a story which your rivals might try to cover with two. You have so many sound units, you send them about in pairs. Your pans are always a little bit smoother. Your lenses always seem to bring the great faces just a little bit nearer. Your camera angles, your cloud effects, betray the expert technicians, using the finest tools. Everything about you, even your Main Title, is just a bit bigger and louder than the others. It sounds grand on paper, doesn't it? You sit at the switch board of a machine that hums with smooth efficiency, that vibrates with controlled power, that is hooked to a world "grid." The machine will do its job superbly, // the switches are set right ! But in my view, British Movietonews does not do full justice to its machine — and the fault lies in the manipulation of the production controls. The Voice that Hurts Commentary is not the most important factor in newsreel production. But any frank discussion of British Movietone's faults, leads automatically to its commentators as a starting point. I have already said that U.S. Movietone has adopted a basic principle of commentating that is perhaps the ideal system. Yours is an exact copy of that system. But inasmuch as it fails completely to understand the American basic principle — by that much, your commentating is the worst fault of British Movietonews. The American basic principle: that no single voice can cover the full range of human emotions as reported in a newsreel— that therefore there should be a different voice for each type of story — but that each voice must have its own distinct personality, instantly recognizable from all the others. Thus U.S. Movietone confounds the critics who say that the cinemaddict likes to get to know one voice. In the U.S., he can still get to know his favourite voice — because no one can fail to differentiate between the slow drama of Lowell Thomas, or the smooth speed of Ed Thorgersen, or the comic sing-song of Lew Lehr. "Average" British Voices But on this side of the Atlantic, your voices are all "average" British. Apart from the ladies and the comedians, not one is definitely easily recognizable. Not one has a strongly defined vocal personality. Not one is definitely identified with a certain mood, with drama or tragedy, with heavy plodding or light tripping. At least three of your voices suffer from what the B.B.C. calls the "Oxford Accent"— and badly enough to provoke open jeers in certain parts of the country. A few months ago, I happened to see your Boat Race story in a tiny Lancashire village hall. The event of the evening was the derisive roar that greeted your commentator's: "Ah expect you reahlahs that ahm an Oxford man mahself." Perhaps not quite so bad as that spelling looks — but nearly! At least two of your voices imagine that to convey excitement they must shout — and one forces his voice up to such a strained high pitch, that I once heard him described in the row behind me as "the voice that hurts." I am convinced, that to a large number of cinemagoers, your commentaries are bad enough actually to detract from the interest of line photography. That does not prevent me from believing that the U.S. Movietone multi-voice idea is the nearest I know to the newsreel ideal. But as for your interpretation of it, I vote for a new-deal!