THE CINEMA AND UNITED NATIONS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 363, 7 June 1946, Page 32

THE CINEMA AND UNITED NATIONS

OME weeks ago, it may be remembered, in discussing the activities of Mr. Rank I suggested that the real danger of his attempt to secure a market for British films in America was that British films would have to ape Hollywood ones, and so would lose their national identity. With reference to this, a reader has sent me an article by Philip Carr in the London Spectator for November 30, 1945. It is entitled "One Hollywood" (on the analogy of Wendeli Willkie’s One World) and discusses the "stark reality" of the fact that, in spite of developing local production in many countries, the enormous majority of the films which are presented all over the world come from Hollywood and, for various unchallengeable reasons, are likely to continue to do so. "It is not necessary to be a political nationalist in order to be a convinced advocate of national individualism in thought and charecter and art (says Philip Carr). It is ea commonplace that this national individualism is breaking down. What is less generally realised is that it is being broken down far less by improved communications, by international political ideologies or by direct propaganda than by the fact that most of the moving pictures shown, not only in Great Britain but all

over the world, come from a single place in the west of the United States. ... "One would like to think that what is being gradually imposed upon the mental habits and imaginations of the common people of the world really represents the best in ‘the American way of life,’ though even this uniformity would hardly be a good thing. But of course it is not so. What the average Hollywood film has to show is not, and does not even pretend to be, the best of anything, except occasionally of ingenious clowning . +. . It is almost always decorated with a meretricious exaltation of mere wealth and tasteless luxury. Nor is it genuinely American. It is not typical of American life, nor of organic life of any kind. . . . It is merely a jumble of the sort of inconsequent cheap effects and showy. vul-garity-taking the word in its bad and not its good sense-which the uneducated but financially cunning showmen-some of them not even American-who put it together shrewdly imagine to be likely to appeal to the equally ignorant but simple mass of the big public." After discussing and giving evidence of the universal influence of the American film, Philip Carr declares that in writing like this he is not attacking the cinema, or even the Hollywood form of it, because such an attack would be -futile. For the cinema is irresistible, and Hollywood has become nearly, if not quite, irresistible also. "At the same time, serious people in all countries, including the United States, may perhaps ask themselves whether it is a healthy

thing to leave to a private monopoly in this one country such a powerful instrument in the formation of the character of all the peoples in the world." o % * Bur if it is futile to attack, is there no way to find some remedy for this state of affairs? Rejecting the suggestion that Britain might protect her own film industry by excluding Hollywood films altogether, on the ground that it simply would not work, Philip Carr also rejects the idea of complete nationalisation of the industry, as in Russia, because he thinks this would place intolerable limitations on the freedom of artistic expression. This does not, however, mean that laissez-faire is the answer. French films, though made by private companies working under conditions of complete freedom, are artistically good for tw reasons; because the people who them are nearly all artists, an because the people they are made for, the French, happen to be an artistic people. "But they are not an artistic people because art has been left to itself. They have been educated by generations of State-supported art, imposing its traditions from above."

The writer then arrives at his conclusion, to which all these quotations have been building up. It is a statement with special relevance to what I wrote previously about Mr. Rank, but it has very much wider application: "I believe the solution must be sought in the tact that in this, as in so many other things, we have come to the end of what can be achieved on the national plane alone. It may sound absurd to say that the United Nations Organisation could usefully be employed in working out agreed artistic and moral and social standards for so apparently frivolous a thing as the cinema; but I am convinced that this is the truth, and that it is only by international understanding that the national character of films, as of many other things, can be preserved." EY %* %* HAT is the crux of the matter. It is, of course, a conclusion that has been reached ‘by a good many other persons, including that Dr, Viktor Fischl, formerly of the. Czechoslovakian Ministry of Information in London, whose opinions on the world cinema were once quoted on this page. One of them is worth repeating: "The film is an important weapon for democracy. Why not, therefore, include the arsenal of the films in any 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 organisation, an international

(continued from previous page) 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? What is important is that the film should pass out of the hands of those who now control it in the interests primarily of their own pockets, into the hands of responsible people; of people who would realise that the film is a powerful means of world understanding, a means that can bring the nations closer together than perhaps anything else can." So much for theory. Where do we go from here, in practice? Or are we likely to go anywhere? I thjnk perhaps we shall; and I think also that we in New Zealand have a rather special interest in this international aspect of the cinema, if only because New Zealand, through the Rt. Hon. Peter Fraser, holds the chairmanship of the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee of United Nations-and it is _ primarily through that agency of the world organisation that any broad decisions affecting the cinema may be expected to be made. ‘The details, however, are more likely to be left to the auxiliary body known .as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation), of which New Zealand has become a member. The cinema certainly enters into all three spheres of education, science, and culture-particu-larly the first and last. Indeed, at the conference establishing UNESCO, it was generally understood that one of the specialised divisions in which the organisation will work will be that of "mass media" (the cinema, the radio, the press). % *.. % T would be foolish, and dangerous, to expect this international machinery, only just beginning to creak into action, to produce any miracles-or even, for some time to come, to turn out any finished articles of revolutionary design. While I certainly hope it will do something in the sphere of the cinema, I also hope that it will not attempt at first to do too much — and so break down. There are, however, a few simple and useful ideas which might be tackled for a start. sae The best way to use the cinema as an instrument of world understanding, and at the same time protect the best elements of national culture in each country’s films, is to make people conscious of what those elements are-by letting them see them. As a recent writer in The Christian Newsletter pointed out,

there is in a good many countries an astonishingly highly-developed appreciation of "form" so far as football-players and racehorses are concerned. Thousands of people who go to football matches every week have a standard of "form" by which they judge players and referees. It should not be fantastically difficult to develop a similar appreciation of "form" as applied to the cinema. The trouble is that, in trying to teach children (and adults) to appreciate the best that the cinema has to offer, it is virtually impossible to give examplesnot because examples do not exist but because they are seldom readily available. In teaching appreciation of literature or art, suitable "quotations" can usually be found merely by opening a book. But it does not mean much to people to tell them about the revolutionary technique of D. W. Griffith in The Birth of a Nation, -the historic significance of the Odessa Steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin, or the social value combined with artistry in the films of Charlie Chaplin, if they have never seen those films and are never likely to. So, as one of its first activities, the cinema section of UNESCO might well produce, or sponsor the production of, a series of anthologies of the film, embodying quotations from the famous and significant films of all nations, illustrative of the best and most lasting things that each country has to offer through the cinema; the best not only in artistry and technique but also in social content and national "character. Such screen anthologies would, I feel sure, find a wide and ready use in schools all over the world, as well as in adult education groups. * * UT anthologies are not enough: Those who want to should also be able to study the films themselves from which the excerpts, are taken. Therefore I think that UNESCO should take early steps to establish and operate some sort of International Archives of the Filma central clearing-house and circulating library for the best films of all na-tidns-making copies available on loan to any reputable group anywhere that wanted to borrow them. Something like this is already done by the British Film Institute and by the U.S. Museum of Modern Art, but on a limited scale only (partly, one imagines, because of the difficulty of persuading film companies to waive copyright even for old films).

Thanks to the rapidity of modern transport, the scheme could operate without undue delays caused by films wanted in one place being tied up too long in another. However, in addition to the central achives and clearing-house, I suggest that each country should maintain its own National Film Museum (or Film Library; that probably sounds better, since the word Museum rather suggests something dead). The Government of each country should insert a clause into the regulations controlling the local importation and exhibition of films; a clause requiring the producing companies to make at least one copy of each notable film available for permanent inclusion in the National Film Library or Museum (what constitutes a "notable" film would be decided by a qualified committee set up for the purpose). To protect the companies, the film would not require to be put into the library until after its ordinary commercial circuit had been completed; and even then some years might have to pass before its copyright would be regarded as having lapsed and it became available again for general presentation. * * * \V HAT usually happens now is that some time after notable films have completed their commercial circuit and had all available revenue squeezed out of them, they are destroyed by the film companies to save storage space and insurance costs. One small clause inserted by the Government into the licensing regulations could. preserve them for posterity, without harming the interests of the film companies. But it might be desirable if the initiative came from a body like UNESCO. The sooner a start is made on some scheme such as this, the better. Though a very complete collection of films from the earliest days could be assembled for the International Archives, many great films have probably been lost forever to national collections. Unless something like this is done,.in a few years’ time a film such as Citizen Kane or even Henry V. may be no more than a memory (it has happened already, I think, with The Grapes of Wrath and The Informer). Those of us who saw'them may be able to tell others about them-but of what real value will that be to the student of the cinema, or even to the normallyinterested picturegoer whose appreciation and critical taste can only develop through the comparisons which he is him- self able to make? * * * HESE, then, are three simple ways in which the United Nations Organisation might stimulate higher standards in the cinema, combat the present stultifying influence of Hollywood, and help to safeguard the national characteristics of each country’s films. From here the United Nations film organisation might branch out more ambitiously, and through the medium of its own literature and world-wide publicity set up its own standards for the cinema, to compete with and where necessary modify ‘those of the purely commercial film industry. It could do this by means of regular selections and awards for thé best work each year in all branches of the cinema-a recognition of outstanding work paralleling the present Academy Awards. But UNESCO might, in making its awards, regard the film as something more than commercial entertainment; it could take into account the standards of ethical values put forward in various films, their social content as well as their artistry, and the contribution they make to world understanding by the truthfulness of the picture each gives of national character and behaviour.