Socialists Hear Candid Critic

A recently shown example of the Hollywood standard exposition of the American way of life was "Roughly Speaking," whose characters seemed content to follow the cycle of boom and bust till their life's end. The reason for this outlook was, of course, that films came from America, which looked like being the last stronghold of capitalism in the world, and from Britain, whose producers also believed strongly in the virtues of rugged individualism. It was interesting to consider what was likely to happen to the content of British films under the Labour Government. The attitude of a speaker in the House of Commons might be considered typical—"All films are rubbish, but they might as well be British rubbish."

As yet the Government had shown no intention of nationalising the British cinema. They seemed ready to tolerate and even to assist Mr. Rank's monopoly. He is valuable as a producer of saleable exports. It was possible to imagine that if Mr. Rank's monopoly continued until he had Bwallowed up all lesser film interests, the Government need take only one gulp to swallow up Mr. Rank.

Movies in general tended to encourage the maintenance of the status quo. An example of this was perhaps the constant prominence of Royalty in news-reels—though society was really interested in the Royal Family.

Films could be used as very potent propaganda in a political fight, as they were used successfully by Hollywood in 1934 against Upton Sinclair.

page break

The Russian Cinema had been nationalised since 1919 when Lenin described the cinema as "the most important of all arts to us." The Russian conception of the cinema as a major culture and educational medium was the direct opposite of our box office control. Apart from Russia the only fully State-controlled cinema was in Czechoslovakia which had nationalised its cinema directly after the liberation.

Mr. Mirams strongly favoured the ultimate public control of the cinema both in New Zealand and Britain, he would like to see Hollywood's present colouring replaced by a socialist tinge, but doubted the possibility of a change of heart. In 1934 the Hollywood Motion Picture Alliance was formed, a semi-fascist organisation which claimed to speak for the whole industry and branded all Liberals as Reds and un-American. To counter this the Council of Hollywood Guilds and Unions appeared. Almost reluctantly the people of Hollywood were being forced to conclude that they were not only Glamour Boys but workers who needed a union.

Control of the film Industry might come on an international level. Unesco's programme to be considered In November might include schemes for an international film staff to provide for such things as better supplies and exchange of documentaries.

There were dangers in State control of any medium of propaganda. Rather than ministerial control, a nationalised cinema should be run, perhaps, like the university or the BBC to retain a certain artistic liberty. Artists, educators and statesmen would replace big business magnates in deciding what were the films we should see.

France and Germany today with very limited resources could not ape Hollywood's lavishness and should produce finer cinema art. An international organisation might enable us to see more of such films.