“If the point of publicly sponsored documentary was to solicit public consent for the existing order, in affording glimpses of constituencies beyond the tweedy didactic boardroom, these films listened to other voices, other instincts.”
- Richard Armstrong
The films that Richard Armstrong refers to in this quote are the British Film Institute’s Box set Land of Promise: The British Documentary Movement 1930-1950. In his article for sensesofcinema.com, Armstrong critiques the short, publicly funded documentaries that became a movement in the mid 30’s to late 50’s in Britain.
Concentrating on the social concerns of the working class, many of these films were focused on non-traditional areas of chronicled life, such as women and children. A main topic addressed at the time was housing concerns. In the film “Housing Problems” the filmmakers film the tenements and their inhabitants as is, giving the tenants a change to speak and be heard regarding the terrible living conditions they faced every day.
Armstrong brings up an interesting point in that, “the dominant voices of British documentary, like mainstream cinema, were always middle class and determinedly Oxbridge.” To understand that these were well educated, middle class people making the films provides us with a background as to why the films were made. People living in these terrible conditions didn’t make the films; they were made by intellectuals interested in the subject. To be able to step away from those conditions at the end of the day gives them a distinct point of view on each matter they film.
They Also Serve and Children at School focus on women who stay at home while their husbands are at war, and school children and the empowerment of education. Armstrong makes note of the fact that these films were not only some of the first of their kind to be made in Britain, but were stringently detailed. They were no slop jobs. These were serious professionals making serious high quality films about the social concerns of the masses.
The fact that such a movement existed is really interesting and intriguing to me. I’d love to sit down and watch a few of these films. The fact that they are all under 40 minutes makes them interesting in that you can only get a small glimpse into ones life in that amount of time or less. These films serve as only short glimpses into these lives, almost begging for others to discover more and work towards a solution.
These short pieces became a movement, and every movement has a cause. It's interesting to think about why British filmmakers decided to make short documentaries rather than long fully encompassing ones. I take it to be that there were so many social concerns that this group wanted to cover, and funding was a major concern, so they took to making shorter films so they could cover a number of areas. With so much going on in the post Victorian age in Britain, the documentary community must have felt overwhelmed with all they could, and should do. I would not be surprised if another movement like that started in America. It seems more concerns and problems are arising every day, much more so than 10 years ago. It may be time that these problems be addressed again in short format. I personally think it's time.
I will now comment on the above quote. To have publicly funded projects that really dive into real life situations is something very special. The comment about the boardroom rings true. To make a film today that will reach as many people as these films have and still do, a studio must be involved. Monetary interests are involved as well. These films did not set out to make money. They set out to address concerns. They had a utilitarian purpose. To be able to avoid studios and the making of money and make completely socially observant films does create voices and instincts not heard on film in that time. The films are then allowed to serve the people they were meant to serve: The subjects of the film.
This collection sounds amazing and I hope to find it someday.
Filmmaking today is a homage to the past, an experiment of the present, and an unconscious leap towards the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Noah,
Given the hour this was posted, it makes sense that the post seems to focus and refocus. This may be a comment on your writing here but it is not meant as a criticism of your post. There is something impressively dogged about your pursuit; you seemed determined to cover the article, find a point of entry in it, and claim your own considerations.
All to the good. I may have some questions or wonderings. On the issue of funding: You mention a studio. No other ideas of foundational support? I just wonder about the dictates and eventual disregards of the market. Some other funding? Or given the alleged access and DIY means of distribution going on today, can there be other ways? Need we wait for such financial prompts?
Also your discussion about the background of the makers seemed curious. I am glad that you consider it, but what do you make of it? Yes, they would have a distinct point of view but do you think it would be an illuminating one? What do you think of the idea of, or abilities of, one outside of a community telling that community's story? Is it better, lesser? Who has more qualifications? And I'll agree that distance can be a qualification.
Mostly though I like the persistence here and efforts at thoroughness. I also appreciate the opportunity to revisit this movement. Thanks. We should see if the library could get this DVD set. (It also sounds like the good subject of a n entire class.) You can see Basil Wright's 1936 "Night Mail" at the library, Call Number: VHS-3309
Post a Comment