Grierson SA report 3

    ARGUMENT.

SHAPING A SOUTH AFRICA FILM INSTRUMENT.

1. We are concerned here with a plan for the film presentation of South Africa to itself and to the world.

2. But film is only one medium at the disposition of the Government of the Union. Film has its own special claims as a medium of great vitality and power of enlivenment. Nonetheless, no Government can afford to establish its national image in piece-meal fashion and all the media must be given their appropriate place in a progressive and orderly plan. Great aid can be given in their own spheres, by certain of the arts, e.g., painting, design and music. They have tended to be forgotten by governments, as instruments of Public Information. In furthering the special claims of the films in the field of information, I ask that these other arts should not be forgotten.

3. The first consideration is not the service of the film in itself but the service of the State in the matter of its many problems of exposition and presentation at home and abroad. The prior consideration must always be not the interest of the medium but of the science and art of public Information in the services of the Nation.

4. A national plan for film must, therefore, be (a) a functional plan and (b) a plan correlated on the ministerial level with the whole national effort in information, (radio, pamphlet, news, exhibition, etc.).

5. Film as Service to Information: As regards (a), experience shows that medium enthusiasts, whether amateur or professional, are apt to get in the way of the purpose of the Information Services. The essence of the matter is an appreciation of the work being done by the departments and by the Nation as a whole. The first value of the film is its capacity to report on and dramatise this work and the problems and visions which relate to it. Appreciation of the character and complexities of that work is therefore a sine qua non of the film operation. It involves accordingly academic power as well as creative and technical powers on the part of the film information service.

6. Need for Separate Film Development Authority Correlated With Other Information Media On Ministerial Level: As regards (b) the experience of other countries demonstrated that where real ministerial interest is lacking the information service loses its drive and tends to become a bureaucratic, uninspired service of departmental hand-outs. Harm comes too with the isolation of the media from each other on a policy level. Certain media are given special attention and others forgotten; and their power to help each other is neglected. (A special example would be the failure to develop the close relationship between Radio, Television and Film). Above all, the impact of the Information as a single integrated national force, fulfilling the National will, is not developed.

7. This does not necessary mean a single organisation governing all the media, for each has its own special laws of development. In particular, it does not mean that Film, Radio, etc., should be put under the governance of another medium, e.g. press. What is wanted is correlation on the ministerial, i.e. on the National policy level; with freedom to each of the media, under its own institution , to develop in its characteristic way and according to the special conditions which govern its creative nature.

8. One special considerations is worth noting which makes a separate administrative instrument for film development inevitable. Of all the media, film suffers most from untutured (sic) criticism; and film in fact is a Kibitzer's paradise, in which there is no end to the self assurance of the outside expert as to what should or should not be included and what should be left out. Film making, however, is a highly professional matter with an X-factor making for quality or showmanship which is not easily or quickly to come by. Film development, therefore, requires a separate supporting Authority, in Board or other form, which will progressively acquire an understanding of the special factors which govern successful film production and guarantee to it the conditions within which good and vital work is possible.

9. Film as Supplementary Rather Than A Nationalised Instrument: It does not follow that South Africa should approach the organisation of its film operation in the same way as it approached its Radio problem. Radio, for profound reason of State, is responsible for the provision of all kinds of services from entertainment to education. On the other hand, a film operation need not necessarily, and cannot expect effectively, under State authority, to cover so wide a field. The provision of entertainment film is today a vast and highly developed business and no State except the Soviet one has thought of nationalising it. All have been content to provide a supplementary film service directed to the information of the public in matters of national concern and to the education and instruction of the public in specialised fields of knowledge.

10. In the best example, Canada, the United Kingdom and Holland, there has been a relatively clear demarcation of the fields of operation, as between the film industry and the Government film services. In these cases, collaboration has benefitted both parties.

11. Collaboration with Film Trade: Moreover, a young and relatively small nation cannot afford to squander its resources in unnecessary competition and misunderstanding. Collaboration with the trade is therefore more than advisable. It has screen space of the greatest importance to contribute; it has access to film material from abroad which must become progressively useful to a national and international film service; it has access to foreign audiences which government agencies do not readily command; it has certain technical services to sell or hire which relieve a public organisation from what may tend to be embarrassing overheads in capital outlay, equipment and personnel.

12. Moreover, collaboration with the trade in other countries has to prevent the State film services as such from determining its own destinies, though a measure of give and take in the matter of box-office quality is inevitable. The heart of the matter is that collaboration is advisable; that it is possible on terms advantageous to a young nation with limited resources to make all pertinent forces contribute to the national interest.

13. Taking these points into account it is clear that an Instrument for the film in South Africa need not follow the pattern of the S. A. B. C., and not least because of :-
(a) it's closer functional relationship with government departments;
(b) its ability to secure services from others, and act as a liaison and promotional service, rather than a self-contained all-embracing Authority.

14. Proposed Range of Film Operation: I envisage the range of the film operation as covering:-

(i) the service of departments in giving an account of their stewardship; in explaining public statutes and securing co-operation for them; in helping them carry out their responsibilities in education and instruction; and bringing alive to the country the various problems and achievements in which they are departmentally involved,
(ii) The presentation of the South African nation as a living whole to itself and to the world;
(iii) Collaboration with all forces,

(a)  of the film industry,
(b) of industry and commerce, and
(c)  of all provincial, civic, professional and community organisations which can effectively supplement its effort

1. It is to be noted in particular that 14 (ii) above is not a departmental matter at all but one which deeply concerns the Government service as a single integrated force. A quotation from Dr. Goebbels is important in this connection: " In the day to day pursuit of departmental interests, the national interest is forgotten; this must be guarded against".

16. Conclusions With Regard to Shape of Film Instrument:
I draw the following conclusions at this point:

(a) Film requires a separate instrument for its governance, because of its special nature;

(b) But that instrument needs not to cover so wide a field of responsibility as the S.A B.C. Because of the more direct relationship of the film service to departmental and governmental services and materials, it should not be so detached from ministerial responsibility as the S.A.B.C. but should properly have Ministerial chairmanship and vice-chairmanship;
(c) Because of the more direct relationship of the film service to departmental and governmental services and materials, it should be so detached from Ministerial responsibility as the S.A.B.C. but should properly have ministerial chairmanshi and vice-chairmanship.

(d) Moreover, it is anomalous for the principal instrument of national expression to be attached to separate portfolios. While their laws of development are different and separate administrative instruments are necessary they are all aspects in the end of a single responsibility, which is the expression of the nation at home and abroad in terms of the mass media. Their common responsibility in this regard need not be marked by the creation of the Ministry of Information, and in fact there are always cabinet and other problems attending the creation of such a ministry, except in times of urgency. At the same time it is necessary and proper that there be co-ordination of policy; not least when it is considered that television and film have a big stake in each other's future. It is, moreover, necessary that such sweeping powers as the mass media posses over attitudes at home and abroad should be under progressively knowledgeable review on this Ministerial level, and subject to Parliamentary discussion. It is necessary, too, that administrative and financial methods, while they are bound to differ in each medium, should be brought to a common standard in public responsibility, wherever public funds are involved. One concludes inevitably that a single Minister be assigned to answer in cabinet and Parliament for the services: press information, film and radio. I shall return to this matter at a later stage.

Final report: National Board as Instrument | Keyan G Tomaselli & Edwin Hees: John Grierson in South Africa: Afrikaaner nationalism and the National Film Board.