SIXTY MILES OF FILM IN TWENTY LANGUAGES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 390, 13 December 1946, Page 30

SIXTY MILES OF FILM IN TWENTY LANGUAGES

Impressions of the International Cinema Festival at Cannes

‘OR the first time since 1939 an International Film Festival was held this year, at Cannes. Some of the awards made there have already been reported in odd corners of our daily papers, but it is possible now to give a general impression of what the Festival accomplished, together with details of the individual entries and awards, and to draw certain conclusions about the standard of film-making in various countries to-day. The information and comments which follow have been compiled from articles in various French: journals published before, during, and after the Festival. They were made available to "The Listener,’"? and translated by the French Press and Information Service in New Zealand.

: HETHER it is regarded as , Van art, an industry, or a ... trade, or perhaps with more justification as an industry and a trade which sometimes manages also to be an art, the cinema is essentially international. It can compete with music in universal comprehension. But it is certain that it will not accom-

plish its intellectual, social, and artistic objectives solely by the medium of commercial distribution. For this reason, considerable value attaches to festivals such as that held at Cannes, where representative films chosen by the different countries are exhibited to an _ international audience. The writers, the directors, the producers, and the actors of individual nations are given an opportunity to study the latest developments in foreign films and to discuss personally details of technique and inter-

pretation. National cinemas, the existence of which has been almost forgotten, are brought into the limelightSweden, for example, and Mexico. And the films exhibited are of interest not only for their artistic value (sometimes), but often also for the insight they give into the psychology and politics of their countries of origin: for instance, the Japanese films screened at the international festivals before the war supplied undeniable proof that Japan was very closely linked with the Axis philosophically as well as politically. The Winners For this year’s Festival it was necessary for the films presented to have been produced during the previous 12 months, or at least to have been released from the studios during that period. It had been decided beforehand not to award an international prize for the one best film. Awards were to have been made for various individual merits and for the best film from each country, but not for over-all excellence. However, the judges unanimously revoked this decision and named La Bataille du Rail ("The Battle of the Rails") dealing with railway workers in the French Resistance, as the best film shown at the Festival. The director was Réné Clement. Michele Morgan (La Symphonie Pastorale). won the prize for the best actress; and Ray Milland (The Lost Week-end) already the possessor of Hollywood's ‘11946 Oscar-carried* off the award for the best actor. Awards were also made for the best scenario (Tchirokov), the best sets (La Bataille du Rail), the best music (Georges Auric), the best director (the Mexican, Ficentos), the funniest cartoon (Disney’s Make Mine Music), and the most effective documentary (the Russian film Berlin). . _ The following decisions were made on ‘the best films of each country: ~~

United States, The Lost Week-end; Great Britain, Brief Encounter; Mexico, Maria Cantellaria; Denmark, The Earth will be Red; Sweden, The Ordeal; Czechoslovakia, Men Without Wings; France, La Symphonie Pastorale; Italy, Rome, Open City; U.S.S.R., Decisive Turning-Point; India, The Lower Town; Switzerland, The Last Chance. The International Peace Prize was awarded to Switzerland for The Last Chance. The U.S.S.R. won a further international prize for Youth of Our Country, and another for the colour work in her Flower of Stone. Artistry Not Always Put First Altogether more than 60 miles of film in a score of languages were screened. After undergoing this rather exhausting experience the critics have been sitting back evaluating their impressions of the Festival. One fact emerges is that ‘artistic considerations were not always predominant in the choice of films made by the judges in the different sections: on the contrary, likelihood of commercial success seems fairly often to have swayed their decisions. This,, according to a writer in Lettres Frangaises, was the impression made by some of the British films, though their standard was "incredibly high" by comparison with pre-war efforts. "The first part of the British programme was certainly a disappointment (he says). It included the colossal and costly Caesar and Cleopatra, which is.a monument to all the mistakes that Korda has led British directors to make. This was followed by The Magic Bow, a dull and long-winded dramatization of the life of Paganini, the only virtue of which was the music played by Yehudi Menuhin.... "But Brief Encounter showed the English cinema at its best. Without making any comparisons as far as subjectmatter and total value are concerned, it can be said that the good features of

this film are those of. Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary. The detailed observation, the precision and understanding with which the characters are related to the society in which they live, give to the simple love story a specific as well as a universal significance." America’s Contribution "Disappointing" According to another French writer, the American films on the whole were disappointing. Disney’s Make Mine Music was pretentious and in bad taste for a good part of its length ("Walt Disney reveals here once again his passion for colour splotches. ... Awarding a prize to this film was a mistake by the judges.") America’s entry of Rhapsody in Blue was a similar error in taste, this life of Gershwin not being a good choice for international presentation. Notorious : was an impressive film, however, an advance even on Shadow of a Doubt (also by Hitchcock); and The Lost Week-end was also an impressive piece of work, despite certain arid sequences. But Gaslight, another Hollywood production, "carried with it the odour of blood, for | the British film made from the same novel was murdered so as not to steal the American production’s thunder." Films Need the Right Atmosphere Out of the nine international awards, France won four. This was a considerable triumph, showing that expensive equipment and huge capital funds are not the only requirements for a good and successful film. The success enjoyed by Réné Clement, Michéle Morgan, and Georges Auric was not due only to exceptional talent, for (as one commentator put it) "film work is essentially dependent on team-work and all-over effects achieved by co-operation. Particular talents are wasted if the ensemble is poor. There have been many examples of artists thrown away on worthless roles, on fatuous scenarios and dull sets. This Festival has shown that again. Except for the case’ of Mexico, all the awards were won by countries — the United States, the U.S.S.R., and France-in which there is a film atmosphere. A film, unlike a poem, cannot spring up in solitude." ; However, the French choice of entries for the Festival was subject to much criticism. Farrebique, considered by many to be the most original French film of the last five years, was eliminated. Instead Le Revenant was chosen ("a vaudeville rehash, whose decadent and dated dialogue belongs to the eighteen *nineties"’). This decision had been largely compensated for by the inclusion of La Patrie and also La Symphonie Pastorale, where the talent of Michéle Morgan was seen to its best advantage in a script originally conceived by André Gide. Mexico Produced a Triumph One surprise of the Festival was the Mexican film Maria Cantellaria. It was screened immediately after another Mexican film, The Three Musketeers, which featured Cantinflas, a comedian reputed to be a second Chaplin. This latter film was very disappointing and | the projection room was almost empty when the screening of Maria Cantellaria began. The first scenes in it were undistinguished, with mediocre studio sets. Then suddenly the audience was transported to the high plateaux among the vegetable-growing marshes, the poplars, the boats loaded with fruit and flowers, the canals, the malaria. This was a new Mexico, interpreted by actors as simple, as natural, and as impressive as thoge of the silent Russian films.

The Russian contribution to the Festival was very large. The dramatization of Jack London’s White Fang was very well received by all, but the film on Zola did not meet with the success that its honesty and directness deserved. The beauty of the photography, and the perfect sets and the competent actors were not enough to make Glinka appreciated by most of the audience. It was the fourth life story of a musician to be shown on the screen at Cannes and they were palling a little by that time. The greatest success for the Russians in the second part of the Festival was Youth of Our Country, a technicolour documentary of the Sports Festival at Moscow, directed by Youkevitch. The Earth will be Red, a film of the Danish Resistance, was impressive with

its quiet sincerity even if the tones were rather flat. It was better than the Czech Men Without Wings, but was far) below the standard of the Italian Roma citta aperta ("Rome, Open City"). This great Italian film has met with much success in the United States. It is the first example of a new kind of realism from across the Alps, and shows what the best modern European production can be like. From the results of this international contest it would seem that the films most generally appreciated are those which reveal most simply and directly the life of the’ country which produces them. It has also been proved again that stars and large financial resources are not the only essentials for good film-making,