HOLLYWOOD EDUCATION FOR THE GERMANS?

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 317, 20 July 1945, Page 18

HOLLYWOOD EDUCATION FOR THE GERMANS?

HE other week The Listener reprinted an article by Sam Goldwyn entitled "The Future Challenges the Movies." Mr. Goldwyn was, on the whole, very well satisfied with what the movies have achieved up to the present and highly optimistic about what they are going to achieve in the future, especially in the international sphere. This was only to be expected, since Mr. Goldwyn is a very interested party, as much responsible as anyone for what the movies have done up till now, and I

nave no doubt he also hopes to be equally responsible for what they will do in years to come Soon after Mr. Goldwyn’s . article appeared, the papers carried a news item _ describing how eleven Hollywood magnates, including Jack Warner (one of the twe Warner Bros.) and Darry Zanuck (head of 20th Century Fox), were visiting Germany in luxury plane, taking with them two cases of beer and a special steward to attend to their material needs and fortify them for the distressing scenes they would witness as they travelled up the Rhine in Hitler’s yacht. Their object, it was re ported, was to study conditions im Germany as a guide in the making of future pictures. in-

cluding one designed for the "education of German youth." a * * T was doubtless hoped that the reaction we would feel on reading these two items would be one of relief and gratification that Hollywood is aware of its responsibilities to the post-war world and is going to do something about them. This was not my reaction. On the contrary, these two items-and especially the one about the eleven luxurious mag-nates-strike me as being highly disturbing. I do not question the sincerity of Sam Goldwyn in his prophetic vision; I do not doubt that Messrs. Zanuck, Warner, and the other nine Big Shots from Hollywood are all, according to their own lights, well-meaning men; but the prospect that they are going to cast themselves in the roles of educators of the German people fills me with alar and despondency. : The re-education of Germany by means of the Hollywood film! Surely even Germany’s guilt’ is not heavy enough to warrant such retribution as this. But seriously, you cannot divorce the films that are made from the men who make them. I do not want to single anybody out for undue distinction, but according to Dr. Leo Rosten, who knows what he is talking about, the leader

of the party, Darryl Zanuck, has "the greatest nickelodeon mind in America." Therefore, even disregarding the beer and the yacht trip, it seems doubtful. whether the present magnates of Hollywood are the right types for. the job, whether they are fitted for it by educa-. tion, cultural background, and social outlook. For it is a reasonable assumption that the way of life and the standards of value towards which they will strive to re-educate the Germans will be something very like the Hollywoéd way of life and the standards of value of th» average Hollywood film. Since this ie

the way of life under which they flourish, enabling them to travel in luxury planes with their own beer and a steward and a three-course meal, they naturally re gard it as the best possible way of life for the whole world, and want to ensure its continuance by proclaiming its virtues far and wide. It would be strange if they did not. Is it ungenerous, however, to hope that the Germans will be bad pupils and will refuse to be impressed? In any case, unless the visiting Americans can reach some agreement with the Russians, I imagine that there will be as much confusion in the new Germany as in a school with two or three radically different headmasters-for the Russians have already embarked on an extensive programme of their own for German reeducation, and their ideal way of? life is not exactly that of Hollywood. % ae * BUT this is only one particular aspect of the whole problem of the cinema’s future international influence which Sam Goldwyn’s article opened up. One can only estimate what that influence is likely to be in years to’ come by studying its influence in the past and the | present, and I suggest that the record of the movies to date, as a social instrument and a medium for international

understanding, scarcely justifies Mr. Goldwyn’s optimism. To support me in that contention I should like to enlist the aid of Dr. Viktor Fischl, of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Information in London, who gave a very important address to the British Film Institute in 1943, Dr, Fisch! began by recalling that 20 years ago an official of the League of Nations had said that "only the Bible and the Koran have an_ indisputably Jarger circulation than that of the latest film from Hollywood." Since then, of course, the circulation of films had increased enormously. "What possibilities there are here to show that man remains man whatever the nation he belongs to! But how profound has so far been the effect of this unifying medium? Have we proved much more than that girls in the Argentine, Norway, Lisbon, and Cape Town do their hair like Ginger Rogers and dream of men like Clark Gable. And if we have not, then what are the reasons?" The main reason given by Dr, Fischl -and- I see no reason at all to disagree -is that the movies have been industrialised and commercialised. This, he says, is perhaps the greatest misfortune they have’ suffered: that they are massproduced articles of commerce. In addition, they offer to their producers one great advantage over other forms of merchandise: it is much more easy to sell a silly film than, say, a silly hat, because you can, after all, look into a mirror before you buy a hat, or try on several coats before you decide to purchase one. But when you go to the pictures you pay in advance, and if you don’t like what you are given you cannot get your money back. "The industrialisation and commercialisation of film work is the principal evil with which we shall have to deal after the war in connection with the film,’ continued Dr. Fisch. "TI am certaifly not one of these who would like to deprive the film of its entertainment value. But the film is much more, or at any rate it could and should be much more than entertainment. The film is a very important weapon-a weapon for democracy . . e manufacture of films, like the manufacture of other weapons, demands a supreme degree of responsibility. It must be guided by a different spirit from the commercial spirit and by a different interest from that of material profit. It is impossible for us after this war to continue in silence the existing system of film production whose only is to find a satisfactory paying basis... . e Ancient Romans must have known more about the film, its possibilities and dangers, than we normally imagine, for they had a proverb. which said that the sword was good if it did not fail into the hands of a bad man. . . . It is not possible to look eo in silence when film production is kept in the hands of people who are not even very interested in the effect made by the films which they have manufactured on the hosts of millions of onlookers throughout the world, provided only that they get back the capital invested, together with a profit. . .. 1 have never considered it undemocratic to demand the exercise of censorship, control, and restriction against those who irresponsibly abuse freedom," 2Y SEBO os CONTINUING, Dr, Fisch] declared _ that in spite of a few exceptions in the form of truly ‘worthwhile pictures, the great majority of films made during the past quarter of a century have been almost completely senseless and valueless, in no way enriching those who saw them; films without a mission (except to make profits for their producers) and without a new vision of life. So it has come about, he said, that by far the greatest international achievement of the film so far consists in the doubtful merit of bringing the emptiness of the human mind to a lowest common denominator.

} The film, which could have become a universal medium of ideas, has become an ever-present bearer of spiritual emptiness, "I am somewhat doubtful whether a Lisbon sardine salesman or a hairdresser’s apprentice in Rio de Janiero has ever heard the names of George Washington or Thomas Masaryk. I am certain however that they know who Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Akim Tamiroff are ... 1 have met a lot of pe@ople who wondered whether the capital of Yugoslavia was Budapest or Bucharest. But the same people would never mix up Hedy Lamarr and Dorothy Lamour." * um * FTER the last war the League of Nations called into existence an International Film Institute and a special commission on the cinema which dealt with certain questions. But it made no effort to influence actual film production and the choice of subjects; it did practically nothing to make the film a means towards the rapprochement and _ collaboration of nations. "In my opinion" (said Dr. Fischl), "it will be necessary after this war to set up a new International Film Institute which will have to be equipped with much more far-reaching jurisdiction, , . . People are speaking a good deal about an international army which is to protect world péace in the future. I have tried to prove that the film is an important wea of democracy. Why not therefore include the arsenal of the films in’ this system of the international defence of world peace? And just as an international army demands an international staff, why not create within the framework of the new International Film Institute an international film staff in whose hands would be the conduct of policy in connection with the themes and standards of the film, the international exchange of films, and so on?" * ba we ND then Dr. Fischl made what was perhaps the most important statement of his whole very important speech. He said: "I am no prophet, but I feel that the film, after this war, will belong to those spheres in which the degree of State control will necessarily have to be increased. In some cases this ,increased control will extend only as far as production, in other cases it will have to cover disttibution as well, in other cases still the State may have to take over the cinemas on the Norwegian model. . . . It should not be impossible, indeed it should not be too difficult, to agree on ah international convention which would give the film general staff that I have mentioned the task of deciding what sort of films should be produced and distributed. . . ." me Bo By HESE are the views of an idealist. They are also, in their way, as optimistic as the views expressed by Sam Goldwyn. Not that they are any the worse for that, but optimism and idealism should blind nobody to the difficulties that would confront any attempt to put Dr. Fisch!’s suggestions into practice. There would immediately be fierce resistance, not only from the film magnates, whose "way of life’ would of course be wholly endangered, but also from a great body of ordinary picturegoers. Dr. Fischl himself foresees the likelihood, indeed the certainty, that many people would object to his proposals on the ground that they "would hate to have somebody else decide what sort of films they should see." But, replies Dr. Fischl-and there can be no valid comeback to this-such objectors forget that, in reality, other people do already determine what films they are going to see. But whereas according to his scheme it would be artists, educators, and statesmen who would decide in the higher interests of international concord, to-day it is the film producers, the directors of distribution firms, and theatre magnates who decide-in the interests mainly of their own pockets.