MOVIES FOR THE MILLIONS

Korero (AEWS), Volume 2, Issue 10, 22 May 1944, Page 10

MOVIES FOR THE MILLIONS

SOLDIERS ARE KEEN CRITICS By a Staff correspondent in N.M.D.

st all the crazy things in movies the use of music takes the bun.” This was the comment of a young realist during a Current Affairs discussion on “ Movies for the Millions ” at one of the N.M.D. units recently. All the discussions seemed to be keen —- at least nearly everyone had something to say with greater or less degree of emphasis. This critic continued : “I saw a film (‘ The Amazing Mrs. Holliday ’) in which Deanna Durbin sang a lullaby in a nursery. The whole thing was spoilt because she was accompanied by an unseen full concert orchestra. Now you can’t imagine children going to sleep with thirty or forty musicians crowded into their bedroom.” Another speaker, a W.A.A.C., took up the theme. “ Yes,” she said, “ It could have been done so easily by making Deanna turn the radio on and then start singing to the music. At least the children would be likely to go to sleep.” Servicemen and women make no bones about the motives behind picture attendance. These are either escapism or habit“ Why do I go to the movies ? Because my girl-friend (substitute ‘ wife ’ where applicable) likes to go out on a Saturday night.” Apart from the younger candid souls who go in pursuit of “a bob’s worth of dark,” and that select minority who scan the advertisements to find a programme that appeals to them, the bulk of servicemen go from

habit or for want of something better to do. This does not mean, however, that soldiers and W.A.A.C.s are satisfied with the programmes offering. On the other hand, they are keenly critical both of the subject-matter of current films and of the operation of censorship. In every unit where discussions were held some one had something to say about censor—usually against it. There were a few who said that censorship in New Zealand was all wrong, and even if it was good they wouldn’t like it. These, however, admitted that they had no knowledge of what was cut out of films. But they claimed that so far as censorship on moral grounds was concerned, a film which was considered suitable for public exhibition in England or America should not be subject to further censorship here. “We can take it” was the majority opinion. Of course, the question whether some guidance should be given to parents of children provided a complication. Here the W.A.A.C.s leapt into the breach. “ Simple,” they declared, “ children should not be allowed to go to the pictures.” Now that was a bit tough on the poor children ! Even the W.A.A.C.s admitted that perhaps there was room for modification. “ Children shouldn’t attend pictures under the age of fourteen,” one suggested. “At least eight years old before their first picture show,” said another. ■ —“Or six ! ” —“ And who

is going to keep the children away ? ” This naturally led the W.A.A.C.s into some difficulties in defending their point of view. An elderly bombardier—a father of six at —said it was the women who were softest on the children and let them go to any picture rather than be pestered to death, or else merely to have the brats out of the way for two or three hours. He suggested special programmes for children, to be screened in the afternoons. He was asking for trouble too. “ How,” they asked, “ are you going to stop parents from taking their children to an evening session if they have no one to mind them at home ? ” . So things apparently got back where they started. It all boiled down once more to the question of censorship. Perhaps there was something in censorship after all. All units agreed that sex was not the only censorable commodity. The popular picture of a film censor was an old gentleman who looked at life through a window bisected by a dotted line representing the sex border-line. Like drafting sheep, he drafted films, above, below, above, below Recommended for Adults, Approved for Universal Exhibition, and so on, ad infinitum. What was the poor parent to do ? Abandon picture-going ? Well, hardly. Educate the film exhibitors ? Yes, that sounded better. And also, perhaps, to revitalize the censorship and switch its viewpoint over to some of the features that really mattered, such as the pernicious influence of Mickey Rooney on youthful behaviour, and also that popular theme in American movies which invests youngsters not in their teens with the inevitable love affair.

How this was to be done was not quite so apparent. It was freely and somewhat ruefully admitted that public influence on box-office returns could not be effective so long as theatre accommodation in New Zealand remained inadequate for a free expression of tastes and preferences. The propaganda value of films did not seem to have very much appeal with soldiers or W.A.A.C.s. If there had been propaganda in films they had seen, they retained no impression of it. The list of questions included in the bulletin for assisting to determine propaganda provided a new slant on this aspect, and furrowed brows showed the amount of heavy thought that was being applied in assessing films recently seen. Much the same applied to film influences. Most people were willing to agree that American films, rather than American servicemen, had given us such expressions as “ 0.K.,” That’ll be the day,” “So what ? ” &c. But other influences were not as readily seen. Troops were content to critize in general terms the influence of films on children. Serials, it was said, were typical of the shoddy sort of stuff that affected, and infected, children. “ Any one would think the New Zealand public was a collection of morons,” said a young bombardier. The influence of movies on fashions was admitted, but W.A.A.C.s seemed to be in doubt as to whether the films themselves were not originally influenced by fashions. Rather a case of which came firstthe chicken or the egg-.

What a storm there was over news reels ! To judge by all that was said, there was hardly anything right with news reels. They were too scrappy; they were too long drawn-out; they showed too much of one thing and not enough of another. Their treatment of war news was hopelessly ineffective, superficial, incomplete, lacking in propaganda, hopelessly dull, obviously taken far behind the fields of action. From all of which it may be gathered that all is not well with the news reel. “ Why must all the news reels feature the same thing or things ? ” was a frequent question—and one to which the obvious answer was one that could only fail to give satisfaction. It was freely asserted that overseas news reels devoted far too much time and film footage to local and domestic affairs. “ Why not one news reel for home consumption and another, of more general interest, for export to overseas countries like New Zealand and Australia ? ” In this vein of criticism, comment was directed at the New Zealand news reel. In the first place it scored high marks for method of treating subjects and for the distribution of film footage. “ Nothing like so scrappy as the overseas article ” was a fairly general comment. Secondly, it was a good feature for non-New-Zealanders, as it showed very sincerely interesting scenes of life and activity in the Dominion. There, however, the favourable comment ended and was replaced by some strong criticism. The New Zealand news reels frankly did not interest New-Zealanders. With a few rare exceptions, the subjects chosen were dull, prosaic, or too well known. A W.A.A.C. made the comment that she had seen a New Zealand film dealing with arming. All she had seen was a series of shots of white-smocked land girls doing their best to impart some “ glamour ” to the milking-sheds. The whole thing irritated her because it was so obviously posed. Even the white smocks were not only spotless but without a wrinkle. It was clear that the “ March of Time ” is a popular feature amongst all types

of servicemen and servicewomen. Its propaganda value was not widely appreciated, but it was generally praised as an interesting, informative, and authentic news film. A popular aspect of “ March of Time ” was the way in which it devoted a whole session to a particular subject. Critics said this gave them time to see things in greater detail a big improvement on the news reel proper. ** . * “ What in your opinion was the best film you have seen ? ” When this question was asked in two discussion groups in C.M.D. most of those present men and women, thought it rather hard to answer offhand, and nearly all of them named two or more films. A film that was mentioned more than others, however, was the comparatively recent “ Mrs. Miniver ” and then, in order of preference, came : “ The Great Dictator,” “ Mutiny of the Bounty,” “ Rebecca,” “ Romeo and Juliet,” “ The Good Earth,” “ Blossoms in the Dust,” “ San Francisco,” “ Gone with the Wind,” “ The “ Story of Louis Pasteur,” “ Good-bye, Mr. Chips,” “ Song of the Plough,” and “ The King of Kings ” (silent film). A majority in these groups agreed that they went to see films for relaxation and amusement, though there were a few who said they went for educational reasons and a few more who said that, mostly because of home ties, they saw films very rarely and when they did they carefully chose the show first. The question, “ Are you satisfied with the pictures as they are ? ” was considered to be too wide in its scope, and some members of the groups found it difficult to give a succinct answer. However, the replies seemed to indicate that a majority considered “ the present position • fairly good, though there was considerable room for improvement.” Here are some of the suggestions that were made : — (1) More and better use could be made of educational subjects. (2) There is too much propaganda. (3) Sex themes are considerably overdone.