World Film News and Television Progress (Apr 1936-Mar 1937)

EDITORIAL Secrets of Film Finance Last month's article on the "Secrets of British Film Finance" had a startling sequel. On the day of publication the intelligence department of one of the big banks sent round for a flattering number of copies. Within a week came the news that the banks had taken thought and that the policy of lavish credits was to be reconsidered. Fleet Street echoed the story and quoted solidly from our article in both news and financial columns — not always with acknowledgment. A note of panic came into one of the trade papers. "Bad, very bad," it said, of the action of the banks, but acknowledged the salutary effect of a clean-up of film finance. Here and there an inspired newspaper column softened the blow to public confidence by talking of the fundamental difficulties of the British market and the necessity for speculation. We are glad to have done this service. We stand, above all, for the interests of the creative worker and for good films; and good films are impossible when production conditions are those of a limatic asylum. One result of our article was to confirm our distrust in the independence of some of the newspaper film columns. We know our film coltminists pretty well, and good men they are, but in many quarters a gesture was cast to the advertisement section and we were told the story was "too dangerous." "Too dangerous," though everyone knew the Film Council had no other interest than to tell the story as objectively as possible, and though everyone knew it was true. It is a curious irony that the banks did not think it "too dangerous," and that Mr. Maxwell before the Moyne Committee was no less violent in his comment than our figures were violent in their fact. We have one comment to make. So long as the film industry inhibits its journalists and frightens away honest criticism, it lays itself open to grave harms. The gold rush of British film finance has gone on unchecked and a noble opportunity has been wasted because Wardour Street neither told itself the truth nor allowed anyone else to tell it. We hope that one of the results of the current show-down will be a freer spirit of criticism. Film Policy for Africa AS WESTERN EDUCATION and the dissemination of Western civilisation by trade spreads over Africa, her native peoples are beginning to question its vaunted superiority, judging naturally by only what they actually see or hear of it. England and America are to them as far off as their strangeness as China and India were to Marco Polo or Vasco de Gama. Even if they come to the West for study or on business, it is too utterly different to be comprehended easily. One Gold Coast African, who had been on a long tour of the British Isles as a band drummer, could on his return talk only of the "wonderful tower at Eastbourne" — a typically Marco Polo touch — and how the cars and traflSc were "too much." He returned thankfully to his quiet village, reckoning its peace and freedom from worry as the greatest luxury he could imagine. Yet while despising many of the manifestations of western civilisation Africans are fully aware of its power and potentialities as a weapon of strength. They are demanding more and more education and are striving to arm themselves with it so that they may be at least on equal terms with the white race. In all this stirring of racial pride and tradition, together with the urge to acquire the knowledge and material benefits of the West, there lies grave danger to the white position in Africa. If clashes of brutality and bloodshed are to be avoided, the white Governments must somehow meet this hunger for Western knowledge and education in the wisest possible manner. Films of an educational and descriptive nature are the only means by which a real knowledge of life and conditions in the West can be obtained. The trouble, in West Africa at any rate, is that Government has little revenue to spend on education, much less to inaugurate a film policy for the purpose. It would be worth finding the money somehow, if it would prevent this vague unrest and craving for knowledge of the world to-day from crystallising into deep hostility. IN THIS ISSUE * The Film Council has published its first book. The full report from which last month's story of film finance was taken was issued on January ISth, as "Money Behind the Screen" (Lawrence and Wishart, 5i.). // appears over the names of Dr. F. D. Klingender and Stuart Legg with an introduction on behalf of the Film Council by John Grierson. PAGE Cover Still . . . Garbo in Camillc Homage to Garbo by Alberto Cavalcanti 3 The Curse of Dialogue by Gimther Krampf ...... 4 Editorial ...... 5 Conflicting Tastes of British Film-Goers 6-7 Kings for a Day by Dorothy HoUoway . 8—9 Robert Flaherty Interprets Nature-Spirit of India, by Penelope Chetwode . 10-11 Studio News 12-13 Hollywood Story Conference by Arthur Kober 16-17 Will Shakespeare — Old Hand at Scenario Writing 18-19 If the Price of One Cruiser . . . Lancelot Hogben ...... 20 Searchlight on Life 22-23 Review of Reviews 25-28 Money Makers of 1936 29 Cockalorum and Vicky Cartoon 30-31 People with Purposes . 33 35 Radio .... 37 Continental .... 39 Educational 40-41 Newsreel Rushes . 42 Fihn Society and Amateur . 44-^5 Film Guide .... 46-47 Zero de Conduite To the Editor, World Film News. We hope you will not forget in your "Review of Reviews" an interesting example of criticism in relation to Zero de Conduite {Nought for Behaviour), the Jean Vigo film now running at the Everyman, Hampstead. The comments of Mr. Ian Coster of the Evening Standard and Miss C. A. Lejeune of the Observer are so much alike that they have some appearance of being concerted. "Nought for direction. Nought for acting. Nought for story. Nought for continuity. Five for trying," says Miss Lejeune glibly, onetwothreefourfivesix justlikethat. Mr. Coster repeats the criticism, almost to the word. It seems to us the silliest and most irresponsible criticism that has disgraced our film columns these many months. Others have taken a rap at Zero, but with some regard for the pitfalls that beset the hasty and cocksure critic when an unusual style of art is concerned. Here we have the smart-alick in full and horrible cry. We expect much from critics of such distinguished papers as the Standard and the Observer and much that was great and fine could have been discovered in Zero de Conduite. We believe so because we have, quite simply, seen it ; and not once but in the many times we have watched the film since it first appeared in Paris four years ago. This perhaps is not the occasion to describe our own critical sense of the picture. Zero will still be aUve when some of the films which now secure the fervent attention of Miss Lejeune are as dead as mutton, and it will have ample opportunity to register among the classics of film expression. We only wish, before the occasion passes, to make our protest against a distempered and ugly critical performance. We are supported in this by correspondents in both England and Scotland who have asked us, some in anger and some in contempt, to express their disappointment. Vigo is dead and he died young, tortured to the last by such criticism as we have now in evidence. Yet the promise of his imagination was greater than in anyone we have ever known in cinema. Images were the life of the man. He thought, wrote and shot in images, and except his films are seen in terms of this language of images — a true language for cinema as for poetry — they may certainly be difficult to understand. But surely it is just this effort of understanding which is the privilege of criticism. When understanding fails, it is a pity; when the critic is insensitive to the harm of such failure, it is, shaU we say, a breach of common decency. Time, we think, will show that Miss Lejeune and Mr. Coster have done an ill-service to both their papers and themselves. This is particularly unfortunate in the case of Miss Lejeune, for she was once a sympathetic and careful critic, and a host of readers throughout the country looked to her for guidance. It was a great opportunity which will not soon come again. Alberto Cavalcanti Maurice Jaubert John Grierson