DUFAYCOLOR - THE SPECTACLE OF REALITY AND BRITISH NATIONAL CINEMA
Simon Brown
Dufaycolor was one of the more successful of the British
natural-colour cinema processes that were promoted in the 1930s. In the two
years before the outbreak of the Second World War, the process, which had
been undergoing a costly research and development phase since 1926, finally
began to achieve a reasonable amount of success and exposure in the home market,
only to be interrupted by the conflict as the labs were put towards vital
government work. At the end of the war, Dufaycolor was launched again, but
had lost too much ground in the international market to competitors like Kodachrome.
By 1950 Dufaycolor as a cine film process was all but moribund, and the company
was concentrating on producing still cameras, black and white roll film for
still photography, and colour roll film for still photography. The colour
film was being promoted mostly in Italy, “as in England and America the taste
and requirement seems to be the more exaggerated colours of other processes”,
[1]
but this attempted expansion was unsuccessful. My purpose here is to examine some of these Dufaycolor films
and to use this examination to draw out issues regarding the conflict between
the realist and the spectacular in British National Cinema. This debate has
up until now been required to straddle a fiction/non-fiction divide. Both
Pam Cook and Andrew Higson have been seeking to redress the notion that quality
British cinema was and should be part of a realist tradition, but have done
so by drawing new attention to previously despised spectacular genres. However,
the realist tradition, though ingrained in fiction film, is inherently a non-fiction
tradition, whilst the spectacular genres of Gainsborough or Merchant Ivory,
or indeed the films of Powell and Pressburger are nonetheless part of British
fiction cinema. I propose here that Dufaycolor films, which are part of a
hitherto largely unexplored area of British cinema of non-fiction filmmaking
outside of the documentary films of the so-called Documentary Movement, maintain
within themselves the discourse of the spectacular, but placed here within
the traditions of the non-fiction film. Such a discourse of the spectacular
can perhaps be enlightening, especially within a type of film which as we
shall see cuts across the political, gender and class boundaries of the Movement
film, and addresses itself to a much wider and more generalised audience of
the nation. Up to the early 1930’s so-called ‘natural’ colour in feature
films– as opposed to tinting and toning, though this was used in a similar
vein - had been used primarily for a sensorial and sensational effect. In
titles such as The Phantom of the Opera
(1925) two colour Technicolor sequences were specifically designed to
provide an added spectacular emphasis to a particular scene. Tom Gunning suggests
that there is a basic dichotomy in the representation of colour on screen
[2]
. Initially, up until about 1960, when Gunning suggests
that the number of colour films produced began to overtake the number of black
and white, there was a certain novelty value in colour images. As he says,
“color appears as something superadded to the more dominant form of reproduction”
and adds that as such colour can evoke “a sensual intensity that can overwhelm
its realistic and indexical associations”
[3]
. A useful contemporary example is the rise in the use of
colour film in archive-based documentaries on television. Productions like
The Second World War in Colour (Carlton/TWI,
1999) achieved success primarily due to the spectacular use of colour images
to depict a history which has traditionally been seen only in black and white,
as for example in The World at War
(Thames Television, 1973-4). In The Second World War in Colour the content of the series is led by
the spectacular colour images available, rather than the images used to illustrate
a particular historical event. By ‘indexical’ Gunning is referring to the photograph or
film as a direct inscription of light onto photosensitive material that literally
imprints the image in front of the lens. Colour is clearly an essential part
of this homogenous whole. Colour images, he argues, can thus be read in two
separate ways, either to promote and complete a photographic realism, as in
the Bazinian sense of a ‘Total Cinema’, or as spectacle, as an extra to the
familiar, established, association between the photographic and the black
and white image. In other words colour may be both intertextual and extratextual.
Gunning’s primary focus in his article is the silent period, and he argues
the silent cinema tended particularly towards the spectacular use of colour,
which could be added to the early film text as an additional attraction. But
Gunning 's analysis of pre-colour cinema, leads him to conclude that the use
of colour could be both realist and spectacular/sensual at once. The unexpected
inclusion of colour tends towards both a heightened realism and a spectacular
image. Gunning uses both the term “spectacle” and the term “sensual”
in relation to a non-Bazanian sense of colour. The idea of spectacle is closer
to the idea of novelty. If colour on screen is unfamiliar, then presenting
a film in colour is therefore spectacular. Hence advertisements would highlight
the use of colour in a film (“all talkie, all colour” stated the promotional
material for Warner Brothers 1929 release On With the Show). But colour also has a sensorial effect and can
subliminally appeal to the senses. As Jules Guerin put it “color, like music,
is the language of emotions”.
[4]
Gunning ties the sensorial to the spectacular, with colour
being experienced as a power in itself. But the sensorial also has a place
in the realistic mode, although simply in a less overt and more homogenous
way. Now that all films are in colour, and black and white is considered uncommercial
(for example Disney’s refusal to back Tim Burton’s Ed
Wood, when Burton declared his desire to shoot it on black and white stock),
the impact of the spectacular and the sensual is diminished. But it is self-evident
that, as the dominance of colour rose and that of black and white declined,
there must have been a point when the spectacular/sensual and the realistic/sensual
mixed. Take, as a for instance, the final emblematic Technicolor
shot of the portrait at the end of Selznick’s Portrait of Jennie. Made in 1948, the final shot has three specific
functions. Firstly, it draws the audience attention to the fact that this
is a real portrait, hanging in a real gallery. Showing the painting in colour
serves to separate the reality of the existing portrait from the ghostly fantasy
world of the film itself, shot in crisp black and white. Also, it is designed
to provoke a sensorial response. There is the shock of the sudden switch to
colour that broadens the underlying awareness of the switch from fantasy to
reality. We have the vision of Jenny in colour, which we have not yet seen.
Our first glimpse of her in colour is through this portrait. Finally, this
is a show-stopping moment (no doubt drawing upon the similar device used in
The Picture of Dorian Grey three years
earlier). Not only do the audience see for the first time the eponymous portrait,
but also the first ‘natural’ Technicolor moment in the film, coming as it
does after the mock green-tinted section of the night storm. In the 1930s there was evident concern that colour images
would become part of the natural order of cinema, as sound had done, rather
than remaining as one particular palette a cinema artist could gather up for
a particular effect. In October 1935, the trade newspaper Today’s Cinema discussed an article, which had appeared in The Times criticising the use of colour
film and suggesting that the cinema was not required to portray events realistically
and that the artistic potential of films could only be hampered by any increase
in their power for realism. Rachael Low notes “there were…protests from highbrows, to
whom it seemed that the visual essence of the film, the composition of form
in movement by the use of light in black and white images, was threatened…destroying
the essence of film art”.
[5]
Today’s Cinema
was inclined to disagree, suggesting, “black and white is a mere mechanical
abstraction, with no specially inherent aesthetic virtues”.
[6]
Arguments ranged from that of The Times, to the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of Cinema Quarterly’s “until the retino-cerebral
apparatus is more advanced than it is at present, it is improbable that we
shall sensually enjoy coloured films, except for their purely kaleidoscopic
characteristics”.
[7]
This basically suggests that the notion of form in motion
is more comprehensible in black and white and that a colour system would “hide
form and clarity, making the whole composition less exciting”.
[8]
Eric Elliot, also from Cinema
Quarterly and quoted in Rachael Low, makes the observation that colour
“trespasses on the field of vision. It provides an abstract spectacle imposed
over the spectacle concrete”.
[9]
The suggestion is ironically that what colour adds to the
image it actually takes from it, be that the artistic nature of the black
and white image in favour of a grubby verisimilitude, or a spectacular overlay
which detracts attention from the images themselves. The concept of colour
appearing as a homogenous part of a realist text is never even addressed.
Colour, it is perceived, can only be separate from the image and has no indexical
potential. Gunning mentions several historical arguments against the
use of colour. For example, in the 19th Century, colour printing
was considered inferior to the work of the artist as it was mechanically produced.
Mechanical reproduction could indeed provide detail, but it could not interpret.
Artistic colour could not be achieved mechanically. Also Gunning mentions
that as colour images appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century in
Sunday supplements and on the covers of dime novels they came to be associated
with the popular and the sensationalist, as opposed to the artistic and the
elite.
[10]
So we can see the arguments against colour suggest that
its use can be both too realistic, and therefore not art, and at the same
time too sensational, which as a concept is anti-realist. The relationship between art and film is a complex one, and
outside the scope of this article, but it is worth noting an example from
the period of early cinema. One of the principal objections to the nude in
cinema and photography as opposed to art was the fundamental reality of its
presentation. A photograph could not be idealised as art could (artists would
not necessarily reproduce the exact figure of the model, but adjust it to
a more ‘classical’ form) and was also replete with pubic hair and vagina,
something absolutely taboo in art and tastefully removed. Thus a photograph
was more ‘real’ and the additional movement to be found in film gave an even
greater sense of reality. There is an irony here in that the lack of colour
in film intensifies reality, since colour in fine
art had an aesthetic purpose. When Pathe introduced (stencil) colour into
its risqué subjects such as Les Bains
Des Dames De La Cour (1905) the company was attempting not to make the
films seem more like reality, but more like art, since such risqué subjects
could be legitimised by citing classical nude paintings. The argument here,
that the absence of colour is more like reality
and less like art, can be contrasted with The
Times’ suggestion that the addition
of colour is more like reality and less like art. As Gunning realises, the
difference lay in current perceptions. Film as a new medium was chastised
for lacking colour. Once black and white became the convention, the addition
of colour came to be perceived as threatening. When the article appeared in The Times in 1935, colour film was beginning to make more concrete
inroads into the general world of cinema. Technicolor Inc. had perfected their
three-colour system, and Becky Sharp
had been released in July in the UK to great critical acclaim. The co-inventor
of Technicolor, Dr Hebert Kalmus, had been in the UK in early 1935 and had
struck a deal with Alexander Korda to form a British branch of Technicolor
to be owned 50% by Technicolor Motion Picture Company in the USA, and 50%
by a British group made up of Korda, Gerrard Industries and the Prudential
Assurance Company. In addition to Technicolor, there were a vast number of
colour processes vying for some sort of supremacy, including Dunningcolor,
Ondiacolor, Gasparcolor and of course Dufaycolor. But in the 1930s colour film was to all intents and purposes
still an experimental concept. With all these different types of processes,
all of which had their own inherent problems either in terms of practicalities
or costs, it was not surprising that few studios or production companies whole-heartedly
embraced, and were prepared to invest in, a particular format for feature
production, preferring instead to experiment on shorter subjects, or better
still, to watch other people experimenting. This was particularly true in
Britain. As Major Adrian Klein, the spokesman for Dufaycolor, put it “the
great difficulty in this country is that of finance…Even some of the bigger
production companies are experiencing great difficulties in raising the capital
they want”.
[11]
The fundamentally experimental status and the added cost
of each of the colour processes precluded the kind of breakthrough that sound
achieved at the end of the 1920’s. There was no ‘conversion to colour’. Tom
Gunning suggests that rather, “color appeared… as an innovation, encroaching
on territory dominated by black and white”.
[12]
Colour films started small, in animated cartoons,
newsreels, documentaries and educational films, or as experimental sections
in feature films. And for the majority of colour processes, this was where
they stayed, before being forced out of business by the 1950’s by the larger,
better financed American companies such as Technicolor and Kodak. It is therefore in the short film field that
the argument between realism and spectacle becomes more applicable, and relevant
to Dufaycolor. Rachael Low has ably charted the rise of the short film in
the 1930’s in her two books on the subject.
[13]
She divides the short film market into several sections,
including newsreels, animation, advertising films and documentaries. Dufaycolor
would be used in films of all of these categories. In terms of documentaries,
it is necessary to subdivide between the so-called Documentary Movement and
the more ‘routine’ educational shorts and travelogues, as Low calls them.
The Documentary Movement is primarily associated with the output of the Empire
Marketing Board, The General Post Office Film Unit, and later the Crown Film
Unit, plus certain personalities such as Paul Rotha, perceived to be part
of the “Movement”. Companies such as Inspiration Films, Publicity Films, Rayant
Pictures, and Gaumont-British Instructional Films put out the ‘routine educational’
shorts. Such shorts were neither always educational, nor routine of course.
Not only did thy encompass travelogues, educational films, nature films and
interest films, but producers also made use of them to make advertising films
for commercial clients. This practice was the driving force behind the non-theatric
circuit outside of the Movement, since it was partly the distribution requirements
of commercial sponsors that helped to develop and fund the non-theatric distribution
circuits of the late 1930’s. These shorts have as much right to be called
documentary-realist films as the films of the Documentary Movement. What distinguishes
them is that they lack the theorising and aesthetic principles of Grierson
or Rotha. However, Rotha himself made a number of commercial films, including
Roadwards for the Daimler Company,
and it is important not to forget that the Movement films were based within
the marketing departments of national organisations. Many of the most celebrated
Movement films, including for example Night Mail (1936), were advertisement films
for the GPO, whilst Housing Problems
(1935) was sponsored by British Gas. At a most basic level, they are two
sides of the same coin. Rachael Low was aware of this, suggesting that, “there
were areas…where the commercial advertising film and the Grierson Documentary
were seen to be alternative approaches”.
[14]
I shall therefore distinguish between them by referring
to Movement documentaries and non-Movement documentaries. In the field of
the documentary-realist film, Dufaycolor first appeared as part of the Movement
proper, before dropping out to become almost exclusively the domain of the
non-Movement documentary. Grierson famously defined the documentary as “the creative
interpretation of actuality”.
[15]
It is with this
oft-quoted phrase that one can argue for the relative suitability of colour
in the documentary genre. To put colour into films where previously none exists
and to use it to film non-fiction subjects is definable as the creative interpretation
of actuality, since it is arguably more actual, and
potentially equally creative as any other form of cinema language. Many film historians, notably Andrew Higson, have discussed
the basic dichotomy inherent within Grierson’s phrase, questioning the notion
that actuality can be treated creatively.
[16]
In an attempt to reclaim the previously despised spectacular
films of Gainsborough, Powell and Pressburger and Hammer, the critical debates
around British cinema have shifted in recent years away from the realist tradition
to engage with the concept of the spectacular. The course of this debate has
also given rise to the concept of the heritage film in which the spectacular
is necessarily placed in opposition to the realist tradition. But rarely had that debate been extended to
the use of colour in the documentary-realist tradition. Since the documentary
realist tradition is also integral to the concept of British national cinema,
I believe it is fruitful to extend the debate to include concepts of colour,
and to Dufaycolor, the most successful British colour process of the period,
in particular. The addition of colour
opens up the documentary-realist tradition to the concept of the spectacular.
The Dufaycolor Process – The History Before approaching the debates, it is important to understand
the history of the Dufaycolor process and its place in British cinema of the
late 1930’s. The Dufaycolor process was based upon a a four-colour screen
still photography process invented by the Frenchman Louis Dufay in 1908 called
the Diopticolore Process. The colour photographic image consisted of pairs
of lines of complimentary colours, such as magenta and green, placed at right
angles to a series of non-complimentary colours, such as cyan and yellow.
This produced a mosaic pattern of green lines interspersed with rows of red
and green squares. This mosaic pattern was situated between the base and the
emulsion, and the photograph was registered through the base. The light then
passed through this mosaic pattern, registering a colour image on the emulsion. Dufay marketed his process in various forms until the mid
1920’s when his French Company, Versicolor, which he had set up to investigate
the possibilities of the process for cine film ran into trouble. He had at
the time working with him T. Thorne-Baker, a colour expert from Britain, who
was asked by the British paper manufacturing firm, Spicers to report back
to them on the possibilities of the process. He evidently responded favourably,
since in 1926 Spicers bought the process, and set up Spicer-Dufay the same
year. Research into making the Dufay process suitable for cine
film took place over four years at the Spicer plant in Sawston in Cambridgeshire,
under the direction of T. Thorne-Baker. The research was undertaken in secret,
without any publicity, until 1931 when Dufaycolor was presented firstly at
the Royal Society in March, and then at the British Kinematograph Society
in September. Dufay’s original process had been considerably improved, with
a new mosaic pattern, called the reseau, of red and green lines overlaid at
right angles with blue lines. The presentations were well received, James
Williamson for example responded to the presentation at the BKS by declaring
“From what I have seen to-night, it seems to me to be “it” – what we have
been waiting for all these years”.
[17]
But despite this the process had significant problems,
which needed to be overcome. Firstly, there was the problem of the visibility of the reseau.
The angles of the lines of the reseau (67 degrees to the frame for the red
and green lines and 23 degrees to the frame for the blue) – had been chosen
after careful experiment to minimise its visibility on projection. But by
Spicer-Dufay’s own admission, the lines were visible as a series of diamond
shapes on the image from the first six rows of any cinema.
[18]
In addition, exposure and projection both had to be through
the base, in order that the light should shine through the reseau before hitting
the emulsion. This caused three significant problems. Firstly, the image
was consequently darker than normal film, and so required more illumination
upon projection. Secondly, any combined sound-track would, for the similar
reason that light had to pass through the base and the reseau first, be necessarily
quieter. And thirdly, due to these problems, the film had to be laced a different
way from normal, with the emulsion facing away from the camera or projector
lens, so that an extensive re-education programme was required for projectionists
and camera operators using Dufay film. Both projectors and cameras required
re-calibrating, since by lacing the film the other way round, the emulsion
was a fraction of an inch further away from the light source, so re-calibration
was necessary to ensure the picture could be focussed. There were also problems of shooting in artificial
light, and of cost. The advantage that Dufaycolor had over Technicolor is that
it was comparatively cheap. The stock and processing were more expensive than
black and white film, naturally, but nothing like the £20,000 to £25,000 it
was estimated that Technicolor added to a feature.
[19]
However, in the typically belt-tightening world of British
feature film production, even a small extra expense would be problematic.
The Dufay Company, in all its various incarnations, was at pains to promote
the relative cheapness of its process, but being relatively inexpensive was
not the same as being actually inexpensive. Dufaycolor prints cost around
3.5 pence per foot to make, about three and a half times the cost of black
and white prints. W.J Gell, head of Pathe, claimed that the cost of a colour
negative was five times as much as for a black and white negative, whilst
the cost of a print was six times the cost. Horace Shepherd, whose company
Inspiration Films used Dufay extensively claimed it was nearer four times
the cost.
[20]
For a film with a length of 1000ft, this expense was large
but not disastrous, but for feature length films of 6000ft or more, the extra
few pence a foot added a substantial amount to the budget. In addition, although
Dufaycolor was simple to use out of doors, requiring only a gelatine filter
and little fiddling in the camera, its use in artificial light was problematic
at best. It required at least one and a half times the usual amount of light
for interior lighting, and also required that light sources were not mixed.
For example, in lighting interiors for Dufaycolor it was inadvisable to use
arc lamps and tungsten lamps. The
reason for this was that the three colours within the Dufaycolor matrix, red,
green and blue, had to be balanced so that together they made white. This
balance was created at the printing stage, but light sources are not consistent.
For example, as sunlight is yellow rather than pure white, yellow light passing
through the matrix would stimulate one colour above the others, causing an
off-balance. To compensate for this off-balance, Dufay issued gelatine filters
free. Using two different light sources was therefore impossible, since the
filter could not compensate for both. Dufay were nothing if not helpful in
terms of their customer relations, even going so far as to engage a company,
Mole Richardson Ltd, to devise a lighting set-up for Dufaycolor interior shots
which could be bought or hired direct from Mole Richardson themselves. The
added complications of interior shooting, plus the extra cost involved, served
to limit the attractiveness of Dufaycolor for the feature market, but did
not prohibit its use in shorter subjects. Spicer-Dufay, having raised their profile with the presentations
in 1931, went back into the labs to continue research. In 1932, Spicers’ investment
of £500,000 enabled the launch of a 35mm cine film at the end of the year,
and more importantly, the British photographic firm Ilford made the decision
to invest in the company and the process. Spicer Dufay (British) Ltd was registered
in February 1933 as a private company with a capital of £600,000. Ilford’s
main objective was the development of a sub-standard, 16mm, colour cine film
for the amateur market, and this was the direction taken by the company throughout
that year and most of the following year. The new 16mm colour film, along
with an improved 35mm stock was presented at the Savoy Hotel in April 1934,
and the 16mm film was released onto the market in September to great success,
using the slogan “Dufaycolor: Everybody’s Colour Film”. The advertising emphasised
the simplicity and the inexpensiveness of producing “a living and permanent
record of life as you saw it”.
[21]
It was enthusiastically received, the Amateur
Cine World proclaiming “Dufaycolor involves the user in no more trouble
and but little greater cost than ordinary black and white film, and can be
used with confidence by the veriest (sic) amateur”.
[22]
Within a month of its launch, the Thames Valley Amateur
Cine Club had produced a 16mm sound on disc talkie.
[23]
The following year, 1935, saw four significant developments
in the history of Dufaycolor, which bring us back to the article in The Times about colour and to the point
where our story begins. First of all, Spicer-Dufay (British) Ltd struck a
deal with British Movietone News to film the Silver Jubilee of King George
V, beginning a tradition which associated the use of colour with spectacular
Royal events. Secondly, Len Lye completed his abstract film in Dufaycolor,
The Colour Box, and it was acquired by
John Grierson for the G.P.O Film Unit as an advert for the sixpenny parcel
post. These films mark the beginning of the use of Dufaycolor in documentary
film and newsreels. The third and fourth developments in 1935 are the release
of the first full Technicolor feature, Becky
Sharp in June, and the release in December of the British feature film, Radio Parade of 1935, which featured
two sequences in Dufaycolor. These are outside the scope of this article,
dealing as it does with documentary films and newsreels following the developments
mentioned above. However, in terms of the rise of public awareness of colour
and its eventual dominance in fiction film, the release of Becky Sharp is evidently important. As
for Radio Parade of 1935, it remains
along with Maurice Elvey’s 1939 feature Sons
of the Sea one of only two fiction feature-length films which used Dufaycolor. British National Cinema – Spectacle/Realism and the Spectacle of Reality Although the current terms of the debate about British film
have shifted recently to include the popular melodrama, John Grierson’s documentary-realism
as exemplified in the Movement documentaries is still at the heart of the
discussion. British national cinema has been characterised as an attempt to
distinguish British cinema from Hollywood’s “irresponsible cinema of spectacle
and ‘escapism’”.
[24]
Andrew Higson quotes the 1947 survey ‘The Factual Film’
which refers to the documentary - realist tradition as “Britain’s outstanding
contribution to the Film”,
[25]
and this tradition has been frequently referred to as being
particularly characteristic of British national cinema, indeed one that Higson
claims, “dominated thinking about cinema in Britain”.
[26]
Higson takes issue with this notion, suggesting that it
not only represents a simplified view of British cinema but that it has also
“produced a film culture which is profoundly distrustful of anything other
than a particular de-dramatised naturalistic form…hence the ossification of
one particular aesthetic as appropriate form for the development of a responsible
engaged cinema”.
[27]
Pam Cook addresses the prevalent use of a consensus of canonical
realist texts of theDocumentary Movement in her discussion of British national
cinema in the 1940’s. She picks up the theme of ossification noted by Higson,
noting that, “British commentators
on national identity appear to be remarkably attached to the realist canon”.
[28]
These same commentators dismiss for instance the Gainsborough
melodramas and the films of Powell and Pressburger as anti-consensual, owing
to their anti-realist, gothic style.
[29]
By contrast the consensus films of the Movement,
“draw on a rhetoric of realism in which the personal experiences of ordinary
people are set in the context of real public events. They are governed by
aesthetic restraint, employ a specific iconography, and episodic narratives
in the effort to define themselves as part of a national cinema clearly distinct
from Hollywood”.
[30]
Within this definition lies the suggestion that the realist
aesthetic depends partly on a rejection of popular genres as spectacle and
escapism. It is important to note, however, that as mentioned earlier,
the documentary-realist tradition encompasses only a relatively small number
of non-fiction (mostly short films) that were made in the years running up
to, and during, the Second World War. There was an entire other culture of
non-fiction films outside of the EMB, GPO and Crown Film Unit that tend, again,
to be largely dismissed. Although Grierson tells us himself that the original
meaning of the word documentary was “travelogue”, he himself dismissed travel
films and the like, stating “they do not dramatise, they do not even dramatise
an episode; they describe, and even expose, but in any aesthetic sense, only
rarely reveal…it is unlikely they will contribute to the fuller art of documentary”.
[31]
This limited approach to documentary suggests that its value
lies in its content. To reveal and to dramatise a subject is to contribute
to the fuller art of the documentary. Philip and Kathryn Dodd trace the Griersonian
ideology back to the nineteenth-century tradition of “Into Unknown England”
writing, and quote Grierson as wishing to “travel dangerously into the jungles
of Middlesborough and the Clyde”.
[32]
They note the intention of the documentarists to discover
and reveal the culture of the working class and to “bring the middle classes
and the poor into one nation”.
[33]
This they do by content and context, revealing the working
class as either a victim, worthy of compassion (e.g. Housing
Problems) or as fetishised male hero (e.g., Industrial Britain, Coal Face), worthy of respect. What is more, the
landscape is predominantly the urban and industrial, rather than the pastoral.
Partially, the Dodds argue, this is due to a cultural shift from South to
North as the locus of masculine British-ness. Drawing on Alison Light, they
suggest that in the late 1920’s the South was becoming increasingly feminised
with the rise of suburbia and the new middle classes, who represented “an
Englishness at once less imperial and more inward looking, more domestic and
more private – and…more feminine”.
[34]
Thus it is suggested concentration on the male figure in
an industrial landscape served to repair the fractured cultural identity of
the male, and by extension the nation. After the grievous and perceived loss
of an entire generation in the carnage in France and Belgium, the image of
the heroic worker, aside from drawing upon the roots of the documentary movement
in Russian montage aesthetics, serves to reassert the male figure in national
identity. Grierson himself alludes to this, noting that the use of a working
man as a national symbol in a “buy British” campaign created by the EMB caused
an outcry to the tune that the EMB was supporting the Bolsheviks, and that
“the thought of making…a workman…an honourable figure is still liable to the
charge of subversion”.
[35]
So the art of the Movement documentary, according to Grierson,
reveals to the rest of the country, in the aid of an education of national
community, an unknown Britain of the working class heroes and victims. What
it does not do is invite women to join in, nor invite identification between
audience and subject. Dodd again quotes Grierson who suggests “film can really
bring the outside world alive to the growing citizen”.
[36]
The chasm between inside and outside is implicit in this
phrase, and the outside to which Grierson refers is an outside for a southern
middle-class intelligentsia, the outside of miners, industrial workers and
slums. In crude terms, Movement documentaries present part of the nation,
predominantly working class, to the other part of the nation that has, according
to Grierson, a “superior taste in realism”.
[37]
And the nation is, furthermore, assumed to be, and is addressed
as, predominantly male. Given the fact that Drifters
was famously shown at the Film Society, once can surmise that Grierson’s audience
of superior taste was middle class, as were most of the film-makers involved
in the Movement. Yet the cinema audience in Britain in the late 1930’s was
still, not only predominantly working class, but also made up of a large proportion
of women. Bruce Woolf, one of the great producers of non-Movement Documentary
subjects wrote in The Commercial Film
that the film audience was predominantly female.
[38]
So it is possible to agree that to canonise the Movement
as the high point of British film culture is problematic. It fails to address
the needs of the audience, taking a middle-class viewpoint on the education
of the masses, not just in images of nation, but also of what makes good cinema.
New criticism is seeking to address this issue. Pam Cook’s
work on the Gainsborough melodramas, for instance reclaims, in the light of
feminism, this despised ‘female’ genre. This was a genre of bawdy romps. It
was popular and mass produced, and successful with female audiences. It was
also a genre full of spectacle: of costume, of stars, of setting, each aspect
drawing attention to itself from outside a homogenous reality. Its inherent
historical lapses only add to this. Gainsborough, frivolous, spectacular,
lurid and female, is traditionally held up to, and found wanting against,
the masculine art of the documentary-realist tradition; intellectual, realist
and male. It is also worth noting that Gainsborough is similarly held up and
found wanting against the output of Ealing Studios. Ealing too is honoured
for its realist tradition, its location shooting and its gritty urban life,
its presentation of its comedy within real Britain. This too is tied in to
an implicit and explicit male-ness, as Ealing
was very much a boys-own club under Michael Balcon.
Cook stakes a claim for Gainsborough as a part of British film culture,
and thus reclaims the spectacular and the female. Similarly, the non-Movement
Dufaycolor documentaries are similarly feminised in their subject matter,
dealing as they do not with the heroic worker or the working class victim,
but with the pastoral, the rural, and the scenic. Whereas the image of the
heroic worker is predominantly leftist in its connotations, and the majority
of the Movement film-makers were on the left, the image of the rural is more
inclusive. As Jeffrey Richards puts it, “the rural myth is to be explained
in part by its appeal both to the Romantic Right and the Romantic Left. For
the right the country meant the country house and the country church…for the
left it meant…the village community, rural crafts and honest peasantry”.
[39]
Not only is the non-Movement documentary to be perceived
as more feminine, it is also more politically inclusive. Such films have an interest in history and culture, and are
more likely to cover local crafts and beauty spots than heavy industry, as,
for example, in Lakeland Heritage
(pc Denning Films, 1939) and Devon
(c1939). Devon, as described by
a review in Today’s Cinema “shows
the beauty of Teignmouth, Exeter, Plymouth and Ilfracombe, pausing to comment
on the outstanding local features of each”.
[40]
Also the non-Movement films are spectacular in their use
of colour. In The Lancashire Way (c1948) for example,
the images specifically defy the convention of the industrial image of Lancashire,
in favour of pastoral scenes of the Lake District, of woodlands, cottages
and gardens. These images of rural “ravishing loveliness” (as the commentary
gushes) have a further level of address to their female audience. The Lancashire Way is in fact an advertising
film for Lanry, a miracle soap to cure the washday blues (all for sixpence,
plus a small return on the bottle!) and in the final minute directly addresses the housewife. In the 1939 film Beauties of Britain women representing each nation of Britain are
shown performing some sort of task which is similarly representative of that
nation, for example the woman from Ireland is shown sewing, the woman from
Scotland is shown at a loom. Each section begins with a shot of the particular
beauty carrying out this particular task before the flower which is the representative
of that nation, and is followed by a close up of the woman. The film is, in fact, an advertisement for
Galatea Toilet Soap and its kindness to hands. But the film clearly equates
female beauty with national stereotypes. Far from building the nation from
the image of the industrial working class male hero, here we see the nation
represented by beautiful women, none of whom are seen in workers clothes,
whose beauty is enhanced by the particular brand of soap. The Heritage Film has been the subject of critical discussion
as a new form of British cinema that is distinct from Hollywood. One of the
key identifying factors in the Heritage Film is the notion of display, of
a fetishistic insistence on the presentation of heritage features in the form
of country houses, pastoral landscapes, elaborately decorated sets, and the
customs and manners of the upper classes.
[41]
Pam Cook, looking at Higson’s arguments about Heritage
Cinema, offers the insightful phrase, “(Higson) shares with (others) a distrust
of spectacle as a potential distraction…from
the more serious business of historical analysis” (my italics).
[42]
However, it is this very notion of the spectacular
display of realism, of authentic period detail which infuses the heritage
film, and which distinguishes it from, amongst other things, the historical/gothic
melodramas of Gainsborough and Hammer. Certainly Cook has ably demonstrated
that one reason for the vicious attacks to which Gainsborough melodramas were
subjected was their wilful historical inaccuracies or, as Sue Harper puts
it, their qualities “which offend against the criteria of visual or psychological
realism”.
[43]
Although documentary-realism and heritage seem initially
to be polar opposites, both of them contain, in their make-up, the core idea
of realism, the one in terms of real people in real situations, the other
in terms of (re) presenting the past with a fetishistic accumulation of ‘real’
detail. As Andrew Higson puts it, “A version of realism is…at work in the
production and consumption of the heritage genre, just as it is in the documentary
–realist tradition”.
[44]
The reason for taking these two areas for my purpose is
that, in the heritage film, the idea of realism is bound up with the element
of spectacle, that is, of something imposed upon the narrative. Thus imposed
it stands outside of the diegesis, as, to quote Cook again, “a potential distraction”,
whereas for the documentary film, realism is obviously an integral part of
the overall aesthetic. Conversely,
as the realist film is deliberately anti-spectacle, it can be said that the
use of colour should similarly exist outside the diegesis of the realist film,
existing upon it as spectacle by the very nature of its sensuality and its
novelty. As we shall see, this argument holds true within the Movement, where
the use of colour was purely sensual. However,
if one looks beyond the Movement films to the Dufaycolor shorts produced by
the non-Movement sector, we can see a more complex merging of the spectacle
of colour and reality, which we might describe as ‘the spectacle of reality’.
As we shall see, far from being imposed upon the realist text, colour can
exist within the realist text as well as standing outside it. As such, the resoundingly male, anti-female,
anti-spectacle emphasis of the documentary-realist tradition gives way to
a more feminised spectacle of reality. What is more, and this will become evident as we look at
the films themselves, this notion of the spectacle of reality serves to produce
a more inclusive form for the documentary, a more national form. Instead of
assimilating the heroic industrial worker into a middle class ideology of
nationhood, or presenting a victim for sympathy and conscience, the pastoral
and colourful topics of the Dufaycolor documentary invite an identification
with the nation as locus, as a place, and a state of being. It does this precisely
through this spectacle of reality, the spectacular and sensual presentation
of real people within real images of the nation. It presents a nation seen
as it is seen, in colour, with which an audience can identify. Roger Manvell
suggested, “The realist urge is to see life steadily, to see it whole, to
analyse society and the functions of mankind”,
[45]
and the idea of spectacle may seem to be anathema to such
an analytical approach. But, if we are to see life whole, should we not also
see it in colour, since everyday life, or as Grierson called it “natural material”,
[46]
is something we see in colour? On the other hand, can we
then turn this idea upon its head and suggest that there are certain subjects
which already contain a rhetoric of the spectacular, and which in the medium
of colour film are being represented in a realistic context?
Sydney Box, noted producer of advertising films, wrote, “the colour
film has considerable novelty value and is particularly suitable for presenting
some products in an attractive light”,
[47]
evidently promoting the spectacular potential of colour.
But as we shall see, part of the very nature of the presentation of those
subjects that are particularly suitable is the blending of the spectacular
with the real.
DUFAYCOLOR AND THE DOCUMENTARY REALIST TRADITION It is not perhaps surprising, given the more or less absent
place of colour in the Movement films, that colour is introduced into documentary
with the work of its two most controversial figures, Len Lye and Humphrey
Jennings. Both were artists, and Jennings, was also a poet. For Lye, “film
exist(ed) on the sensory side of art”,
[48]
and his experiments with colour film would seek to exploit
the use of colour as a sensory experience. Lye was one of the very few filmmakers
who worked in colour under the auspices of the Movement proper, as controlled,
theorised and promoted by Grierson through the Empire Marketing Board, the
General Post Office Film Unit, and later, after Grierson’s departure, the
Crown Film Unit. Lye’s experiments are deliberately sensual, the combination
of abstract movement and rhythm belie any kind of narrative functionality.
Grierson saw clearly that Lye’s sensorial experiments could serve as advertisements
since by their nature they were both striking and memorable and Lye was content
for films like A Colour Box to be
used to advertise the products of the Post Office. While Grierson realised,
harking back perhaps to the Sunday supplements and dime novels, that colour
could be sensational and popular, Lye’s experiments neatly side stepped any
issues of the representation of form, since they were purely abstract and
sensual. However, despite Higson’s assertion that “the documentary film units
would become the site for the most systematic explorations of, and experiments
with, intellectual and artistic ideas”,
[49]
it was only with the abstract, and the more overt advertising
films produced by the GPO, that these
explorations extended to colour. With, for example, Lye’s A Colour Box (1935), Maclaren’s Love
on the Wing (1938) or Lotte Reiniger’s Heavenly
Post Office (1938). Grierson was happy to promote colour, or rather use
colour to promote the GPO, in abstract form, but his cordiality did not extend
to the live action subject. In Grierson’s world, colour was art, but not the
art of the documentary. Not all experimental films in Dufaycolor were produced by
Grierson. Lye’s approach was taken up during the war by the Polish Film Unit,
working in Britain on the extraordinary Calling
Mr Smith (1944), directed by Franciszka Themerson using both live-action
and animation. A film designed to draw attention to atrocities in Poland under
the Nazis and to re-engage the support of the British people, it uses bold
swathes of colour in a purely sensational way. In discussing the Nazi regime,
sepia toned archive footage of marches gives way to images of fire which are
coloured bright red, followed by a still image of a hanged man, also the same
bright red. As it comments that Poles are forbidden to read and listen to
certain things a huge red hand signalling stop is flashed upon screen. The
voice over commentary invokes a Mr Jones, neighbour to Mr Smith (an invisible
audience member whom the film is addressing), who refuses to believe that
which he has not experienced for
himself, while the use of colour, together with the blasting music of Brahms,
is designed to create a sensual collage, an experiential effect. The film
ends with four drawn images of a young girl’s haunted face which crosses the
screen left to right in ever increasing shades of deep red. Abstract images
of nature, trees and leaves, are superimposed against a blue background over
the image of a record playing Chopin. The idea of the natural world, the natural
order, of beauty, is represented by the blue background, the blue of the sky,
the blue of calm, which is in turn complimented by Chopin. Chopin, we are
told, is verboten (forbidden). The image changes to a naturalistic image of
a black boot smashing the record, and the peaceful blue of the natural world
breaks up around it. This form of
political animation is almost unique within the Dufaycolor output. Most of
the animated films using the procedure are either purely abstract or more
of a cartoon style, and the majority are used for advertising purposes, either
for the GPO in the Movement films, or for household products like Rinso washing
powder. In animated films such as these, self-evidently the issue of reality
becomes sidelined in favour of the sensual and the spectacular.
It is to the live action films and to Humphrey Jennings that we must
turn. Dufay-Chromex, which had been formed at the beginning of
1936, made a concerted effort to break into the shorts market. With the feature
industry still hedging, as described above, the shorts market was the obvious
place to which to target the process. As educational shorts had never been
included in the quota legislation of 1927, it was altogether very difficult
to persuade exhibitors to screen short films as part of the programme. Exhibitors
were required to show a specific percentage of British films by law, and,
although for the most part they tended to actually show a higher percentage
than was actually required, it did not behove them to show British productions
which did not count towards the figures. Rachael Low indicates that the percentage
of short films shown in cinemas had dropped to four per cent by 1935.
[50]
The short documentary industry, led by Grierson, was lobbying
hard for a short film quota to the Moyne Committee, who were considering the
options as so how to proceed when the 1927 Act expired in 1938.
In the meantime Grierson was advocating the distribution
of short films to non-theatric audiences, finding his inspiration in the flourishing
non-theatrical distribution circuits of the USA and Canada. Although, he was
quoted as saying that the audience outside of a cinema was bigger than the
audience within it, the difficulty
of getting films into cinemas meant it was simpler to take them elsewhere.
According to Paul Swann, by 1939 only one-third of the cinemas in Britain
still showed single feature programmes, and the cinemas that showed double
features devoted only 2.25 per cent of their screen time to short films in
1939.
[51]
The introduction of inexpensive 16mm sound projectors in
the 1930’s had opened up a new market throughout Britain for road shows, the
distribution of 16mm prints to local halls for screenings to local groups,
and also schools and film societies. Local groups could include church groups,
Women’s Institutes, the British Legion, Political Party Clubs, and Working
Men’s clubs. Western Electric, who gave road show presentations via their
subsidiary, Sound Services, claimed they had given over 40,000 shows of sound
film programmes between 1934 and 1937.
[52]
They provided programmes of films for free, put together
under the aegis of advertising film producers and sponsors. The films themselves
were not limited to advertising films, however. Western Electric could supply
technical films, travelogues of Britain or abroad, and even some entertainment
films, for example Tom Mix westerns. Non-theatric
distribution was already common with workers’ organisations such as the left-wing
film distributor, Kino, as well as the Co-Operative Wholesale Society, who
had had a policy of making films and showing them to Co-Op meetings for some
time,
[53]
but it was moving into the mainstream. By March 1936, Grierson
could write that, “what seemed a year ago a movement cultivated in the name
of propaganda has become today a spontaneous movement cultivated in a thousand
quarters in the name of public education…The return to the community of the
lecture club and the discussion hall is, to me, the bravest feature of the
year”.
[54]
Insightful advertising men largely
spearheaded the move into the mainstream away from the political left. Producers
of publicity films, like Sydney Box, particularly took up such opportunities.
Box was an old fashioned salesman in many ways. He advocated the use of road
shows for publicity purposes, as these allowed for the most direct contact
between the people and the product/manufacturer. The road show presentation
consisted of a travelling showman, employed by the particular manufacturer,
who could tour the country giving film shows in local areas. It was important
that the showman makes no secret of the fact that the films he offered were
propaganda, but the arrangement could work by mutual unspoken consent. For
the publicist, local groups offered cheap circulation, whilst “most amateur
groups”, according to Box, “are only too willing to accept the loan of sponsored
pictures for their meetings”.
[55]
Not only was it possible to show up at a pre-arranged
meeting of a local group, but also Box advocates the use of invited audiences,
hand-picked for special presentations in cinemas, halls or shops. Thomas Baird,
a colleague of Grierson, suggested, and this figure is most likely optimistic,
that by 1939 his non-theatric audience was as much as ten million people.
[56]
Regardless of how exaggerated this figure may be, it is
clear that the non-theatric market was essential money and exposure for short
film producers, so the ability to produce 16mm reduction prints was essential.
This break into the shorts market was aided by the fact that in September
1937 Dufay-Chromex announced they had perfected a process of reducing 35mm
Dufaycolor prints onto 16mm.
[57]
The same year, Dufay-Chromex, announced on 6th
July that the company had acquired the services of Major Adrian Klein, one
of the most important and influential experts in colour cinematography at
the time. Klein had come from Gasparcolor, where he had produced a number
of animated short films, but only one experimental live-action film, Colour
on the Thames. The animated film had limited potential in the short film
market beyond advertising purposes or cartoons, and Gasparcolor was not suited
to live action, so Klein moved over to Dufaycolor. One of Klein’s first acts
was to produce a series of short films sponsored directly by Dufaycolor, and
to direct them he acquired the services of Humphrey Jennings. Klein had probably
met Jennings when Jennings and Lye worked together in Gasparcolor on the Shell
sponsored film, Birth of the Robot.
It was announced in Today’s Cinema
on 29th September 1937 that the shorts would “deal with various
aspects of English life; shipping, agriculture and industry generally”.
[58]
The topics sound like typical documentary subjects. But Jennings
is known as an outsider in the Documentary movement, as well as a divided
figure whose interests included the seemingly uncomfortable partners of surrealism
and mass-observation, modernism and pictorialism. Whilst the Documentary Movement
“was dedicated to improvement at an ideological level” and also “needed the
rationale of ‘usefulness’ to get sponsors to put money into films”,
[59]
Jennings was neither a reformist nor a realist, but, as
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith would have it, “a cultural entrepreneur and artistic
innovator”.
[60]
Jennings’ interest was in bringing the extraordinary out
of the ordinary and the everyday. Anthony Hodgkinson identifies Jennings’
key concerns as “the dangers of technology and a love of rural England” as
well as “a joy in complex technology and (a) painters’ understanding of colour
combinations”.
[61]
Jennings himself had specific views on colour;
“colour” he said “depends upon
sensations”.
[62]
Commenting scathingly on the use of colour
in the film Trail of the Lonesome Pine,
he describes the hotel interior scenes as “unutterably awful…they smell of
arcs and plaster, simply because they are in colour and because the colour
has been put there on purpose to look good”.
[63]
Jennings’ comments neatly separate the sensual and the
spectacular. For Jennings, the use of colour “purely to look good”, in other
words for the sole purpose of spectacle, is distracting, since it draws attention
to nothing but itself, especially when artificially produced in a studio.
Jennings described the instinct for sensation as being that which has driven
people out of doors to make colour films, since the sensual aspects of colour
join the spectacular and the real. Colour is sensational, and if it is used
to film ‘real’ things (Jennings mentions horses and trees for example) its
use draws attention to the sensual and spectacular nature of real objects,
the sensation both of the colour and of the object itself. When that object
is false, for example a movie set, or indeed, as Jennings would have it, a
movie star, all the spectacle of colour can do is draw attention to itself,
the object having no inherent form beyond the fictional. As Jennings himself
says, “one is satisfied with the sensation of dog. One is not so satisfied
with the sensation of a star; and colour is sensation”.
[64]
Thus we can see Jennings was drawn to the instinct for sensations
that colour made available for the
representation of reality. His interest lies in the sensations and the spectacular
of real things presented in colour, not the spectacle of colour in its own
right. Jennings’ colour films are not abstract, even though it was initially
reported that he was due to make an abstract film.
[65]
He made instead three films in the winter of 1937-8, English Harvest (which was re-edited as the Farm), Farewell Topsails
and Design for Spring. Jennings does not over-engage with the colour. The commentaries
for all three films make no mention of colour images, and Jennings takes no
time from his subject to present shots of flowers, shop-fronts, or women in
brightly coloured clothes – even in Design for Spring, which is about fashion. He avoids anything that
is emblematically ‘colour’ but beyond the diegesis of his subject. His is
an integrated and homogenous ‘realistic’ world, the colour ostensibly presented
in a purely indexical way. But the use of colour is also spectacular, if only
in terms of its novelty. It can stand outside of the text in its own terms.
For example the films were announced in the press as being in colour, which
would make them films of special interest, but in terms of the diagetic world
constructed by Jennings, the colour is entirely integrated. The colour as
used to depict Jennings’ subjects is both attraction and non-attraction simultaneously,
and it is this we can perhaps term the ‘spectacle of reality’. Colour, like
music, has a sensorial effect which can direct an emotional response. However,
the other aspect of the use of colour suggests immediacy or reality, of seeing
the world as it is. The American Cinematographer
offered the opinion that “color gives a sense of actuality entirely missing
from a black and white picture: It is…almost as though they (the audience)
have made the trip with us, rather than being spectators at a movie show”.
[66]
Yet this is not to say that Jennings
makes no use of the colour. It does serve his text on a metaphorical level.
For example, in Farewell Topsails
there is a sequence where a shot of the schooner leaving port is inter-cut
with the faces of the men on shore, sailors, according to the commentary,
“who watch with a regretful eye” for these are those “for whom there are no
ships”. Throughout the film there is subtle colour contrast between the browns
and greys of the shore, and the blues of the sea. Topsail Schooners transported
chalky china clay, so Jennings palette is deliberately bleak, the browns of
industry and the suits of the men in the village, the chalky grey-white of
the clay, and then the blue of the sea and the black of the ship. The blue of the ocean contains within it the
rhetoric of the spectacular. Partially, this is due to the inherent romanticism
of the ocean itself, but Jennings exploits this by juxtaposing its vividness
in contrast with the dour earth colours of the shore. The use of these dour
earth colours enables him to make this contrast without drawing attention
to the colour of the ocean as an attraction. The ship is associated with romanticism,
with the past, but also with hard work and labour. In keeping with the image
of the Griersonian heroic worker, there are shots of the men on ship, stripped
to the waist and pulling at the ropes to unfurl the sails, white skin against
black and blue. But Jennings is not so interested in promoting the idea of
the heroic worker, but in the image of the heroic people. Jennings has a respect
for the masses of his mass observation. The image of the heroic worker contrasts
with the inactivity of the shore, the men in brown, leaning against brown
fences or posts in medium close up, the backgrounds devoid of colour – the
working class as victim. The blue colouring conveys both the working class
heroic male and the romanticism of the ocean and of sailing (or the poetry
of the sea, as the commentary calls it), its colour acting as contrast to
the browns of the ‘victims’ inactive on the shore. But the ‘victims’ are not
on display as they are in Housing Problems,
for example. The lack of colour on shore to contrast the bright blue of the
ocean gives a sensual dimension to the plight of those without jobs and future.
The sadness and injustice of the situation are represented on a new, sensory,
level by the use of colour, beyond testimony or dialogue. The colours are metaphorical but also spectacular, the ocean
sections being more ‘colourful’ than those on land dealing with industry,
unemployment, and the future. But the colour is also realistic. The blue is
the blue of the sea. The grey is the grey of the clay, the brown in the brown
of the factories. In The Farm, Jennings’
palette is for most part blue with various shades of brown or gold.
It is a film in two parts. English Harvest was originally advertised
in 1938, but not released until 1939. In 1938 The Farm was released. The 1939 release of English Harvest consisted only of the second part of The Farm, in which the harvest takes place.
It seems possible from the textual
evidence of the film, that Jennings had nothing to do with the first section
of The Farm, which for some reason
was added to the material shot and edited by Jennings. The first half consists
of farm scenes, pigs, lambs, sheep
etc being fed and so on, accompanied by a jovial commentary which is both
informative and full of terrible puns. It shows little skill in shot construction,
or mise-en-scene, and seems to have been shot in winter rather than autumn.
Its use of colour is interesting in comparison with the second half. In the
first half colour is used purely indexically.
The colour palette is the muddy brown of the farmyard and the animals, and
the red brick of the farmhouse. No attention is dawn to the colour either
through shot construction, choice of subject or juxtaposition. The second
half, which was definitely directed by Jennings, concentrates on the harvest
itself. Here Jennings places his characters firmly within the natural context.
Shots of men working are framed against the sky. The farmhouse of the first
section is no longer seen, there is no sense given of mankind’s own space,
he is only framed within the natural world of blue and gold. Although the film is, on the surface, a very traditional
education film, following a particular process, the harvest, step by step,
here we see Jennings’ preoccupation with the rural idyll and the teasing of
the extraordinary from the ordinary. The film was made in 1937, at a time
when Britain was re-arming, and when mechanisation was transforming agriculture
(by 1938 the tractor was making significant progress in replacing the horse-drawn
plough). The commentary introduces us to new machinery, but machinery still
drawn by horses. The commentary also points out that life here is “no hurry,
no rush”, and that “here is a peaceful state where thoughts of war have no
place”. The Farm is “peace of mind”. This film too draws upon the Griersonian tradition of the
heroic worker. The final emblematic shot shows two farmers, following their
horses as they plough the fields ready for sowing, moving off in a line towards
the setting sun, “his steel turned against the blue of the sky…(for this is)
a job on which depends our daily bread”. The parallels with image of the soldier
are obvious here with the use of the word ‘steel’ and the idea of labouring
to produce our daily bread, which suggests the struggle for preservation of
normality and tradition, as well as having spiritual overtones with its biblical
reference. So in the light of mechanisation, here on the farm lies the heart
of England, dependable, hard-working, spiritual and natural. The review of The Farm
in Today’s Cinema describes it as
“delightful rural scenes in enchanting Dufaycolor…beautiful vistas…the whole
building up into a truly attractive slice of rustic life which should be shown
in cinemas throughout the country”.
[67]
In keeping with Jennings’ earlier comments, the ideas of
the documentary are represented through the dialogue, and it is through the
use of images in colour that he provides the sensations that give rise to
the use of “delightful”, “beautiful” and “attractive” in the review. The use
of the sensation of colour gives the extraordinary dimension to the ordinary
life of the farmer. It gives it that poetic realism for which Jennings is
often cited. Andrew Higson suggests that poetic realism
is a conjunction between surface realism and moral realism. He defines moral
realism as involving “a moral commitment to a particular set of social problems”,
[68]
and that factual accuracy is bound up in the search for
moral truth “focused on the figure in the landscape”.
[69]
However, Jennings is not searching for moral truth, but
sensual truth. The truth he seeks lies not in the facts
of the farm, but in the sensation
of the farm as depicted in the use of colour. If the farm is “peace of mind”,
the images of the workers amongst the golden fields, bathed in a warm yellow
sunlight, provide the sensation of peace, of idyll, far better than words
can do. Here the fields, the gold
of the hay and the blue of the sky form the spectacle of reality. The world
which Jennings presents is one with which an audience can identify. It is
a living, colour world, not usually seen in the town, but which can be perceived
and understood. The commentary suggests that the farmers’ job is one which
would defeat many a city dweller, suggesting that the purpose of the film
is both for city and country, in other words, for the nation as a whole. It
is a film for the city dweller, presenting a rural idyll of bright skies and
golden colours, but it is also a film for the rural community, promoting their
skills and traditions against those of the city. The rural landscape is a
key emblem of British nationhood, and the colour presentation allows for a
spectacular display of rural colours. The notion of display is important here,
since it defies the need for interpretation. If a viewer has seen the countryside,
he or she can relate to the images on a sensual level, perhaps inducing sense
memories of smells or a particular event. But even if a viewer had never seen
it, the film displays its glories. This is not a black and white world of
the cinema, it is a colour world, like the world outside the cinema, and it
is the audiences’ world. It is not necessary to imagine what it looks like
in colour. It is displayed. Thus the use of colour is more inclusive. It does
not reveal or dramatise, but in the spectacle of reality, it invites identification
and inclusion. Design for Spring
is very much the odd one out in this group. Whereas the other two titles deal
with particular aspects of rural or semi-rural life, and have a determinedly
anti-industrial, anti-progressive stance,
Design for Spring charts the development of designer Norman Hartnell’s
spring collection. This was the film made in place of the proposed abstract
film, and it seems possible that this was a last minute substitution, possibly
at Hartnell’s request. It does seem that, after release, the film was criticised
for being too much of an advertising film. It was withdrawn and re-cut into
a shorter version which played down the Hartnell connection and was re-issued
as Making Fashions.
[70]
Both the other two films contain elements of
Jennings more familiar themes, which Nowell-Smith identifies as “the idea…of
an industrial nation, still attached both nostalgically and projectively to
rural values”.
[71]
It is curious that Jennings never worked again in Dufaycolor,
a format which he apparently regarded as ideal. It is possible Jennings fell
out with Klein after the problems with both The
Farm and Design for Spring. Jennings was of course a particular talent. With the promotion
of these three films, Dufay-Chromex
and Klein finally found the impetus which Dufaycolor needed to get producers
to invest in the shorts market. In 1938 and into 1939 a whole slew of companies
began production in Dufaycolor, including Inspiration Films, Publicity Films,
Rayant Pictures and Merton Park. In addition, a number of sponsors were attracted
to the process, including Morris Motors, The Guide Dog Association and the
Co-Operative Wholesale Society, all of whom either produced or commissioned
advertising films. Of the forty-nine Dufaycolour titles I have so far identified
from this period, by far the majority, some 34 altogether, could broadly be
described as travelogues, divided into seventeen dealing with the British
Isles, and seventeen dealing with locations abroad. These travelogues are for the most part interest
films revolving around a particular location, for example Lakeland Heritage (pc Denning Films, 1938)
and the three part British Isles Series
(pc Fraternity Films, 1939) which features Southampton, Devon and Isle of Dreams about the Isle of White.
The travelogue film is particularly relevant to the argument I am putting
forward, owing to its emphasis on the pastoral and the scenic. A typical example is Garden
of the Sea, produced by Raymond Hill for Rayant Wanderfilms. Evidently
shot before the war, it was released slightly later in 1942. A film about
the Scilly Isles, this 20-minute film is in four parts. Part one is an introduction
to life on the island, part two discusses the flower trade in tulips, daffodils,
narcissi and lilies, part three is about the lighthouse and the lifeboat on
the Islands, and part four is about the Abbey Gardens. Evidently this subject
matter is designed to fulfil both its educational/instructive purpose as part
travelogue and part industrial film, but also to showcase the colour photography
in its garden and flowers sections. This film is a particularly interesting
case, since it addresses both the masculine and the feminine. The Griersonian
ideal of the heroic worker is there in the sections on the lighthouse keeper
and the lifeboat-men, but also the garden and flower sections contain within
them the rhetoric of the spectacular, encased within a realist presentation
and discourse. The film is directed in an energetic manner by Anthony Gilkison.
Born in 1913 in Yorkshire, Gilkison was quite the innovator. In St Moritz, a travel film of the Swiss Resort
made in Dufaycolor in 1938, he presented what was claimed to be the first
slow-motion colour shots committed to film. Here, in Garden of the Sea,
he uses crane shots, rapid cutting, and unusual camera angles to keep the
film lively and interesting. The film fulfils its obligations to the idea
of documentary as social anthropological (“a journey through darkest Lancashire”),
but in this case, it is a journey through brightest St Mary’s, largest of
the Scilly Isles. As with the Jennings films, we see the attraction of British
rusticity. These Isles are “far from the bustle of the industrial mainland”
and “still maintain their prehistoric trades of fishing, farming and wrecking”
(which, the commentary adds, has now been abandoned in favour of tourism).
We arrive on steamer day, when the boat arrives from the
mainland, and a series of vistas of St Mary’s small town and the town life
greet us. In these initial sequences, the colour is purely indexical. It does
not draw attention to itself, rather presenting a homogenous, realistic colour
world. It is in the sections about the flower industry that the film engages
with its spectacular use of colour. Starting with a lengthy sequence shot
in the flower fields, we then follow the flowers from picking to packing,
and then being loaded on the steamer bound for Covent Garden. The commentary
all the while provides details of the amount of labour involved, and the processes
which are gone through in order to ensure that the flowers are as fresh as
possible. It is for items such as this that Today’s
Cinema suggested “In the instructional film and the travelogue…we are
likely to find (the absence of colour…a distinct lack), when the commentator,
uneasily conscious of the poverty of his material, is constrained to observe
that ‘it is the flowers’ bright colouring which attracts the birds’ attention’
or ‘the deep blue of the lagoon is beyond description’. Colour is not a world
of its own, conflicting with other worlds”.
[72]
Here the choice of subject contains within itself a spectacular
rhetoric. The same is true for the final section, set in the Abbey Gardens.
Such topics were naturally popular with the producers of the travel short,
and there are various examples of similar subjects shot in Dufaycolor. These
include the Julian Wintle production Behind
the Dykes (1939) which has at is core a section on the tulip fields of
Holland; and Follow The Sun (c1940), A British Foundation Pictures Ltd Film about the Canary Islands,
which again takes times to explore local gardens. However, films purely about
gardens or flowers are rare. Examples held within bfi Collections, such as
Cobham Hall – Kent (date unknown)
are, almost certainly, camera tests carried out by Dufay-Chromex themselves.
Usually topics with a rhetoric of the spectacular are drafted in to the film
to become part of it, rather than to take it over. Although they may be the
main inspiration behind the idea for the film, the spectacular sequences almost
always appear with sequences where the colour is simply part of a homogenous
realist world. It is appropriate that Garden
of the Sea should have been released during the war. The commentary points
out that the flower industry flourishes in the mild on the Scilly Isles “whilst
the mainland lies in the grip of frost, and bitter winds strip off the last
of the autumn leaves”. The analogy between the mainland being in the grip
of winter and in the grip of war is obvious. At a time when gardens had been
put aside for vegetables rather than flowers, images such as this and the
palm gardens of St Mary’s Abbey would have obvious appeal. As in Jennings’ films, the protagonists, such as there are,
are ordinary people, flower pickers and packers, and later lifeboat men and
lighthouse-keepers. Higson writes that the documentary images “tentatively
articulates ‘the nation’ and ‘ordinary people’ as the same, rather than seeing
the nation only in terms of the upper classes, as in the heritage film”.
[73]
But we have seen that in the Movement documentary, the
ordinary person is more likely to be male, and his place is more likely to
be the industrial north. Here the topic allows more of a sense of belonging
between the subjects of the documentary and the viewing audience, a sense
that the people in the film are their people, their space is the audiences’
space. As with Jennings’ film The Farm, I would suggest that the use
of colour here serves to heighten that sense of identification. At a time
when the UK mainland was given over to war work, to see a part of Britain
which is still behaving as normal could provide a reassurance that the world
could return to the way it was, that there is still and unchanging Britain.
Even the coastal sequences of the ship arriving would seem remarkable given
the absence of coastal defences. The colour of the gardens and of the flowers
exist as pure visual pleasure, but also serve within the narrative structure
to unite the world on screen and the world of the audience. These flowers
are being picked and sent to Covent Garden for distribution within the UK.
This world of bright colour is a world which is within reach, and what is
more, it can come to you. It must be remembered that the cinematic world during
the war was largely still a black and white world. In Britain particularly,
colour stock was hard to come by, and the number of colour films coming from
the USA was still relatively small. To see one’s own country in colour would
certainly be spectacular in a novel sense if nothing else. The colour world
shows the audience its real world, with an added advantage for an audience
which may be starved of such colour, certainly in the cinema, but also, to
a lesser extent, in life. The use of colour not only heightens the sensation
and the metaphor behind the image, but it also makes identification with the
image more possible, simply because it is more real. The documentary and the travel film can re-appropriate the
nation for the audience. Images in colour allow for a greater sense of identification
with the national space, showing it is as the audience sees it. Dufay-Chromex
was well aware of this, and exploited it in their advertising for their amateur
film stock; “Colour surrounds us on every side; why not capture it for your
self and keep a living and permanent reminder of life as you saw it”.
[74]
In the commercial travel film, the idea of ‘life as you
saw it’ is extended outwards to a national scale. This idea is born out by the 1945 film by Empire Film Productions’
title, Our Inheritance (1946). Released
after the war, it consists mostly of film shot before the war, a significant
amount of which comes from an aborted project from 1939 entitled England
My England. There are also a number of shots plundered from Jennings’ The Farm. Originally it was released in October 1945 as a simple
farming film, Today’s Cinema describing
it as “the story of the tillers of the soil who work from dawn to darkness…preserving
Britain’s heritage” and then adding that it was “average”.
[75]
As such it is remarkably reminiscent of Jennings’
The Farm and the approach which
he took to the cyclical life of farming and the farmer turning his steel to
the setting sun. However, it either proved unpopular or someone had a better
idea, because it was re-launched in April 1946 in this new form, some 20 feet
shorter, and this time Today’s Cinema,
commenting on its dealing with “various places of interest” described it as
“delightful”.
[76]
Packaged with a new commentary, the film presents
an image of Britain returning to normal after the war, a Britain which it
describes as “a wonderful country for a wonderful people”. The film covers
the length and breadth of the land, from London and the Lord Mayor’s Show,
to the shipyards of the north, the highlands of Scotland (represented by caber
tossing), rural villages, farms, hunts, chapels and cathedrals, pubs, markets
and Royal Ascot. As far as possible, the film covers all classes, creeds (as
long as they are Christian), and ways of life, all shot in Dufaycolor. After
a black and white war, this again would have been likely to have been a special
production, a spectacle, and is designed specifically in both context and
subtext to help re-build a nation. The use of images shot before the war coupled
with the post war commentary evoke a nostalgic lyrical Britain of “lush meadows”, “pleasant homesteads” and “enchanting
valleys” and a driving nation building ships to sail the seven seas for trade.
It is useful here to bring in as a contrast the Dufaycolor
newsreel stories and the relationship between Dufaycolor and the Royal Family.
The main use of Dufaycolor in the newsreel was for the coverage of Royal subjects,
starting with the Silver Jubilee of George V in 1935, and following on in
1937 with the Coronation of George VI, Trooping the Colour, Armistice Day
and the Naval Review at Spithead. Each of these was a patriotic subject, ideally
suited to a special presentation. After the abdication crisis, and in the
face of Germany’s aggressive re-armament, the nation could still unite under
its monarch. The King’s Consort, Queen Elizabeth, was very popular indeed,
and the shy and nervous Bertie, although nowhere near as emphatically adored
as his older brother, nonetheless won the hearts of the nation. The colour
newsreels both responded to and inspired patriotism and confidence in the
monarchy. Each story was determinedly spectacular. Each new event was held
up to be the first time it was filmed in colour. Seeing the royal coach in
colour, or the Union Jack, or the household cavalry exploited the sensuality
and spectacle of colour in the promotion of a patriotic vision. The King himself
was well aware of this. In 1939 he invited Dufaycolor to film him at Plymouth
in a series of moving image portraits. In full uniform, he stands before either
a Union Jack or the twin guns of a navy destroyer. Clearly the message here
is of a strong nation represented by a strong king before his flag or the
might of his navy, the message pushed home by the sensorial power of colour. Yet in all these items the idea of patriotism and nationhood
is directed towards a specific figure, the King. He and the trappings which
surround him are the focus of the patriotic image, of nationhood. In Our Inheritance, the patriotic image is
no longer encapsulated in the King, but in the land. Instead of the spirit
of the nation being embodied in the image of a personage of power, here the
country and the people become the nation, that “wonderful land for a wonderful
people” During the war, the emphasis shifted towards the community, in which
each member did his or her bit, large or small, for the nation. This can be
seen as a continuation of the democratisation of the media during the war,
when for example the BBC for the first time began to use regional accents
in its radio broadcasts. In 1935, Grierson could pick up on this necessity,
indicating that “the West End stage…has lost the accent of the people”.
[77]
Yet Grierson, as we have seen, sought to promote social
democracy through specific representations of the working class, whereas Our Inheritance presents a more inclusive national spectacle, disregarding
class issues. Our Inheritance promotes
a personal relationship between each person and the country/nation, irrespective
of gender, age or class, hence the all-inclusive narrative of north, south,
east and west. The images displayed are of the nation as being of the people,
and the inheritance of the people. Far from being an aloof presence, or images
that are designed to reveal part of the nation to the other part, here the
filmmakers ally themselves with the audience of Britain in celebration our
inheritance, a shared concept for both filmmakers and film viewer. Jeffrey
Richards suggests that “perhaps what the war did was to create a greater degree
of sympathy between the classes, more social mixing”.
[78]
One of the enduring images of the King and Queen, so prominent
after the recent death of the Queen Mother is the image of the King and Queen,
who stayed resolutely in London during the Blitz, and toured the bomb sites
of the East End and the Underground shelters, meeting the ordinary citizens.
Instead of hiding away in safety, they chose to share
a common experience with the people.
For all that their experience was nothing like that of the common people,
the idea that they shared the horror of the blitz with the citizens of London
is still a strong element of the national consciousness. Richards cites the
notorious slogan of the early war years “your courage, your cheerfulness,
your resolution will bring us victory”,
[79]
and the suggestion both in this slogan and the embodied
image of the King is that of a structure of ruling class/subject class. As
with the actions of the King, Our Inheritance
abandons the concept of ‘your’ in favour of an image of a nation with no divisions
or boundaries, united by what has been a common struggle. It is almost as
if the working class, the ‘your’ of Richards’ slogan, is being gifted a place
alongside the ‘our’, the ruling class, in the concept of national identity
as a reward for its war time efforts. Colour is used in Our
Inheritance as a spectacle, but, as with the images in Garden of the Sea, the heightened realism of the images increases
audience identification. This is their land after all, and the film shows
it as they see it. What is more, the sensual aspects of colour can serve to
intensify the patriotic message, the sense of nationhood and belonging. Although
the review of the Dufaycolor film Devon
in Today’s Cinema could suggest
that, “the narration is certainly calculated to stimulate the interest of
the Britisher in the beauty of his own country”,
[80]
the colour images give a sensory underpinning to the commentary,
and also produce this sense of identification. Although the colour can be seen to stand outside the text
as spectacle, in its novelty value for example, its use is also intertextual,
to intensify that national feeling which it seeks to promote. Our Inheritance, although not directed to Jennings’ standard, is reminiscent
of A Diary for Timothy. In discussing A Diary for Timothy Geoffrey Nowell Smith suggests that, “documentary
film was…an agent both of producing the cohesion called for at the beginning
of the war and of questioning it as the possibility for peace became imminent”.
[81]
While Our Inheritance does not contain such a
notion of questioning, it uses the same collage structure as A Diary for Timothy, but here the identification
comes not from the device of the young child, Timothy, but from the use of
colour. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith observes that A Diary for Timothy is deeply sceptical about the ability of the country
to change, a scepticism which he notes is “present in small details: while
the commentary evokes ideals of reconstruction, a pane of glass smashes, as
if to say reconstruction wont be easy”.
[82]
The commentary is not straightforward, it questions and
juxtaposes its questions with the images. Our
Inheritance is much simpler. Its sensual use of colour images evokes nostalgia
for pre-war Britain, an idealised, inclusive Britain. The sense of identification with the nation deriving from
the use of colour images can also be harnessed from advertising purposes.
The Morris plant at Cowley had its own film unit which made a number of promotional
films for Morris cars, three of which were in Dufaycolor. Facts and Fancies begins with a poem about “the hedgerows of Britain,
the green-hedges lanes, the homely village lit by its friendly panes…these
are the little things that stir us still”. Ostensibly the film takes a tour
around the countryside, which it describes as “this wonderful museum-the highways
and byways of Britain”. The obvious use of the spectacular British countryside
here as seen from a touring Morris car suggests that the Morris can give access
to this countryside. The use of the word ‘our’ continuously in the commentary
suggests this sense of belonging, equating pictorial beauty, national history,
and accessibility through the Morris. On the other hand the Morris too is
part of this landscape, equated with the national image the film presents,
becoming, by association, part of the national heritage on view. This is a
marketing ploy, of course. But the film uses the spectacle of reality of the
British countryside in all its glorious colours, plus the commentary which
informatively looks at various odd monuments, to promote a sensation of national
pride into which the Morris is placed. There is also direct equation, as the
film looks at the country’s smallest railway, smallest house and smallest
pub, equating them with the Morris car, which has the smallest upkeep costs
of any in Britain. There are, of course, more types of films made using the
Dufaycolor process than simply travelogues. The Co-operative Wholesale Society
for example made two films using the process, The Co-Operette (1938) and Sam
Goes Shopping (1938). Both films were considered to be prestige productions
and featured the popular variety star Stanley Holloway, reprising his role
as co-op Sam. The prime function of the Co-op films was entertainment, although
they included obviously an educational aspect, informing people of the services,
as well as trying to promote those services. The inclusion of colour in these films is
to indicate this is a high-class production suitable for a known star,
and so is spectacular in this sense. But it is also important to remember
than Stanley Hollway’s persona of Sam is very much identified with the ordinary
co-op worker, albeit a slightly dim-witted caricature. The star turn here
is both intertextual and extratextual, as too is the use of colour. In Sam
Goes Shopping for example, Sam goes to the co-op shop but can’t remember
what his wife sent him there to do, though it begins with a ‘D’. Cue the shop
assistants helpfully demonstrating all kinds of products to Sam as he tries
to remember. The colour within the films is used in a non-spectacular
way, never drawing attention to itself as an attraction in terms of the diagetic
world. It is outside the diagetic world, as a special production, that the
colour exists as an attraction, rather like the presence of Holloway. Within
the film, he is Sam. His star persona does not exert itself within the diagetic
world. Outside of the diegesis, it stands as an attraction, a popular star
to arouse interest in the film. Rachael Low is reasonably scathing about the non-Movement
short films. Her use of the word routine – or perhaps we could say mass produced
– suggests this. She positively attacks the films made by Horace Shepherd’s
Inspiration Films as being fundamentally worthless, considering Shepherd himself to be little more than a hack
who was driven out of business by the imposition of a cost quota for short
films in the 1938 Cinematograph Act. Perhaps the canonising of the documentary-realist
tradition of the Movement as the British contribution to film art has led
to certain assumptions being made about the non-Movement films. I make no
claims that the work of Shepherd, of Julian Wintle, of Rayant Wanderfilms
is superior to the work of Anstey, Cavalcanti, Grierson, Basil Wright et al.
Yet neither does Pam Cook suggest that Gainsborough Melodrama is better than
documentary-realist film. She merely makes the point that it is not necessarily
worse simply by not being part of the realist tradition. The Dufaycolor short
films are part of that documentary-realist tradition, but come from a completely
different direction, closer in fact the Gainsborough melodrama. They are populist,
feminine and spectacular. They do not seek to educate a nation about itself,
but to display it to itself. Not to journey into darkest Lancashire and
reveal its underbelly in any Orwellian way, but to journey into sunny Lancashire,
to have a look a Blackpool, and to display its glorious inclusion in a wonderful
nation.
CONCLUSION Almost all of the existing writing
on Dufaycolor concentrates upon technical issues, mentioning a few titles
of interest. My purpose here has been to draw attention to the use of Dufaycolor and to make a case for
the potential significance of Dufaycolor in British cinema studies. I have
deliberately not chosen to do this by presenting an industrial study of the
company, which is incidentally written in rough form, and will I hope be forthcoming
soon. Instead, I have chosen to highlight the process by using it, and the
films which use it, to offer some ideas which help to knit together the fractured
theories of British Cinema, polarised by the overpowering legacy of the realist
tradition. In doing so, in addition to adding to debates around the spectacle/reality
issue, I have been able to draw attention to some of the films themselves,
most of which are unknown, and to the context in which the process was used.
[83]
Yet Dufaycolor is also representative of an entire area of
British cinema which few have ever addressed, except of course for the inimitable
Rachael Low. I want to end by suggesting that perhaps this neglected area
of film-making has a contribution to make to British film scholarship. One of the principal problems of non-fiction production outside
of the Documentary Movement is that it is conceptually very unwieldy. Encompassing
travel films, industrial films, commercial films, exploration films, educational
films and instructional films, the subject matter and target audiences range
far and wide, from schoolchildren to potential customers, from new employees
to experienced surgeons. Low’s attempt to organise these films resulted in
the useful but cumbersome categories of Documentary and Educational Films
and Films of Comment and Persuasion. It seems clear that we need more than
an overview of this area. Dufaycolor films have provided a useful way in,
since in subject matter they represent a cross section of the types of films
being made. But films in colour were prestige productions. They were more
expensive than most, and so although they may represent a cross-section, they
are not characteristic of all production. There is so much to learn about
the production companies who were working in this area, about Publicity Films,
Inspiration Films, Julian Wintle Productions and Rayant Wanderfilms. Not just
what they were doing in the Dufaycolor process, but about their entire output.
The road show presentation of these and the GPO Films is of great interest.
So to are the relations between distributors, production companies
and commercial sponsors. These films were made to be seen.
Filmmaking is first and foremost a business, and no production company makes
films unless it believes that they will be seen. And this type of cinema,
road shown as it was in local communities and schools, is a cinema which is
potentially more ‘of’ the people than the realist tradition held up so readily.
Surely then the films and their history must have something to tell us about
themselves, and the time in which they were made and shown, plus the people
who made, showed and viewed them. If nothing else, perhaps some will find
this thought intriguing, and be moved to consider further. If so, it is up
to archives and academics to work together and to explore this area, screening
the films and putting them in context.
This article was written as the result of an AHRB Research
Exchanges grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Board awarded to Professor
Laura Mulvey, Director of the AHRB Centre for British Film and Television
Studies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Barr, Charles, (ed), All
Our Yesterdays, (London: bfi, 1986). Box, Sydney, Film Publicity;
a Handbook on the Production and Distribution of Propaganda Films, (London:
Lovat Dickson,1938). Burton, Alan, The People’s
Cinema, (London: bfi, 1994). Coe, Brian, The History
of Movie Photography, (Ash and Grant, 1981). Cook, Pam, Fashioning
the Nation, (London: bfi, 1996). Coote, Jack H., Illustrated
History of Colour Photography (Surbiton: Fountain Press, 1993). Coutlass, Clive; Pronay, Nicholas and Thorpe, Frances, British Official Films of the Second World
War: A Descriptive Catalogue, (Oxford: Clio Press, 1980). Davey, Charles, Footnotes
to the Film (London: Lovat Dickson Ltd, 1937). Gunning, Tom, Colorful
Metaphors: the attraction of color in Early Silent Cinema, Fotogenia,
www.muspe.unibo.it/period/fotogen/num01/numero1d.htrr Hardy, Forsyth, (ed), Grierson
on Grierson, (London: Faber and Faber, 1979). Hardy, Forsyth, (ed), Grierson
on Documentary, (London: Faber and Faber, 1979). Harper, Sue, Picturing
the Past: The Rise and Fall of the British Costume Film, (London: bfi,
1994). Hercock, R. J., Silver
by the Ton: The History of Ilford Ltd, 1879-1979, (Mcgraw-Hill Book Company,
1979). Higson, Andrew, (ed), Dissolving
Views, (London: Cassell, 1996). Higson, Andrew, Waving
the Flag: Constructing a National Cinema in Britain, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1997). Hill, John, British
Cinema in the 1980’s (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Hodgkinson, Anthony, and Sheratsky, Rodney E., Humphrey Jennings – More than a Maker of Films,
(Clark University: University Press of New England, 1982). Klein, Adrian, Colour
Cinematography (2nd edition), (London: Chapman and Hall, 1939). Limabacher, James A., Four
Aspects of the Film, (New York: Brussell & Brussell Inc, 1969). Low, Rachael, Film
Making in 1930’s Britain, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1985). Low, Rachael, Films
of Comment and Persuasion of the 1930’s, (London: George Allen and Unwin,
1979). Low, Rachael, Documentary
and Educational Films of the 1930’s, (London: George Allen and Unwin,
1979). Richards, Jeffrey, Film
and British National Identity: From Dickens to Dad’s Army, (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1997) Swain, Paul, The British
Documentary Film Movement 1926-1946, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989) Taylor, Philip M., (ed).
Britain and the Cinema in the Second World War, (London: Macmillan Press
Ltd), 1988.
Articles Cook, Pam, “Neither Here nor There”, ed. Andrew Higson, Dissolving Views, (London: Cassell, 1996),
51-65. Dodd, Kathryn and Dodd, Philip, “Engendering the Nation,”
ed. Andrew Higson, Dissolving Views, (London, Cassell, 1996), 38-50. Higson, Andrew, “Britain’s Outstanding Contribution to Film:
The Documentary Realist Tradition,” ed. Charles Barr, All Our Yesterdays, (London: bfi 1986), 72-97. Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey, “Humphrey Jennings: Surrealist Observer,”
ed. Charles Barr, All our Yesterdays,
(London, bfi, 1986), 321-333.
Periodicals Amateur Cine World American Cinematographer Art in America Cinema Quarterly Commercial Film Monthly Film Bulletin Proceedings of the British Kinematograph Society Sight and Sound Today’s Cinema World Film News
Collections Dufaycolor Collection of the National Museum of Photography
Film and Television, Bradford. Public Record Office, Kew: Records of the Supreme Court of Judicature (1945): J13/17820 HM Treasury Capital Issues Committee, Minutes and Papers
(1943-1951): T266/161
FILMOGRAPHY Dufaycolor Films Beauties of Britain
(Dir unknown, p.c. Merton Park c1939) Behind the Dykes
(Prod Julian Wintle, p.c. Julian Wintle Productions, 1938) Calling Mr Smith
(Dir Franciszka Themerson, p.c. Concanen Productions, 1944) Cobham Hall – Kent
(p.c. unknown. Camera test c1934) A Colour Box (Dir
Len Lye, p.c. GPO Film Unit, 1935) The Co-Operette
(Dir Montgomery Tully, p.c. Publicity Films, 1938) Design For Spring
(Dir Humphrey Jennings, p.c. Dufay-Chromex, 1937) Devon (Prod Nigel
Byass, p.c. Fraternity Films, 1939) England my England
(p.c unknown. Unfinished project, 1939) Facts and Fancies
(p.c. Morris Motors Ltd Cine Department, Cowley, 1938) The Farm (Dir,
Humphrey Jennings, p.c. Dufay-Chromex, 1937) Farewell Topsails
(Dir Humphrey Jennings, p.c. Dufay-Chromex, 1937) Follow the Sun
(Dir Ronnie Haines, p.c. British Foundation Pictures Ltd, c1940) Garden of the Sea
(Dir Antony Gilkison, p.c. Rayant Wanderfilms, 1939) H.P.O (Dir Lotte
Reiniger, p.c. GPO Film Unit, 1938) Isle of Dreams
(Prod Nigel Byass, p.c. Fraternity Films, 1939) Lakeland Heritage
(p.c. Denning Films, 1938) The Lancashire Way
(Dir and p.c. unknown, advertising film for Lanry liquid soap, c1946) Love on the Wing
(Dir Norman Mclaren, p.c. GPO Film Unit, 1938) Our Inheritance
(Prods Moss Goodman and Victor Cochrane Hervey, p.c. Empire Film Productions,
1945) Radio Parade of 1935
(Dir, Arthur Woods, p.c. British International Pictures, 1935) St Moritz (Dir
Anthony Gilkison, p.c Rayant Wanderfilms, 1938) Sam Goes Shopping
(Dir Harold Purcell, p.c. Merton Park, 1938) Southampton (Prod
Nigel Byass, p.c. Fraternity Films, 1939)
Other Titles Coal Face (Dir
Alberto Cavalcanti, p.c. GPO Film Unit, 1935) A Diary for Timothy
(Dir Humphrey Jennings, p.c. Crown Film Unit, 1946) Housing Problems
(Dirs Arthur Elton & Edgar Anstey, p.c British Commercial Gas Association,
1935) Industrial Britain
(Dir Robert Flaherty, p.c. Empire Marketing Board Film Unit, 1931) Night Mail (Dirs Harry Watt and Basil Wright, p.c GPO Film
Unit, 1936) The Phantom of the
Opera (Dir Rupert Julian, p.c. Universal Pictures, 1925) Portrait of Jennie
(Dir Wilhelm Dieterle, pc. Selznick International Pictures, 1948) FOOTNOTES
[1]
Statement by Mr E Lightfoot, Chairman, for year ended
30 September 1949, PRO file T266/161.
[2]
Ton Gunning, “Colorful Metaphors: the attraction of color
in Early Silent Cinema”, Fotogenia, www.muspe.unibo.it/period/fotogen/num01/numero1d.htrr
[3]
ibid.
[4]
Quoted by Gunning, ibid.
[5]
Rachael Low, Film
Making in 1930’s Britain, (London: Allen and Unwin, 1985), 102.
[6]
Today’s Cinema, 2 October 1935, technical
supplement, viii.
[7]
Pennethorne Hughes, Cinema
Quarterly, 2, no 1(1933): 1.
[8]
ibid.
[9]
Eric Elliot, Cinema
Quarterly 2, no 3 (1934): 163.
[10]
Gunning, op cit.
[11]
Today’s Cinema, 20 January 1939, 1.
[12]
ibid.
[13]
Rachael Low, Films
of Comment and Persuasion of the 1930’s (London: George Allen and Unwin,
1979) and Documentary and Educational Films of the 1930’s (London: George Allen
and Unwin, 1979).
[14]
Rachael Low, Films
of Comment and Persuasion of the 1930’s, 131.
[15]
John Grierson, “The Documentary Producer,” Cinema
Quarterly 2, (Autumn 1932): 8.
[16]
Andrew Higson, “Britain’s Outstanding Contribution to
Film: The Documentary Realist Tradition,” ed. Charles Barr, All
Our Yesterdays, (London: bfi 1986), 72-97.
[17]
Proceedings of the British Kinematograph Society
4 (November 1931): 11
[18]
ibid, 8
[19]
Rachael Low, Film
Making in 1930’s Britain, 105.
[20]
Today’s Cinema, 9 August 1938, 1, 12.
[21]
Undated publicity brochure for Dufaycolor 16mm and 9.5mm
film, Insight Research Centre, National Museum for Photography Film and
Television, Bradford.
[22]
Amateur Cine World, (September 1934): 272.
[23]
Amateur Cine World, (October 1934): 332.
[24]
Andrew Higson, “Britain’s Outstanding Contribution to
the Film: The Documentary-Realist Tradition”, 74.
[25]
ibid, 72.
[26]
ibid, 76.
[27]
Ibid 76, 77.
[28]
. Pam Cook, “Neither Here nor There,” ed. Andrew Higson,
Dissolving Views, (London: Cassell, 1996), 53
[29]
Pam Cook, Fashioning the Nation; Costume and Identity
in British Cinema, (London: bfi, 1996), 10-40.
[30]
Ibid 21.
[31]
John Grierson “The First Principals of Documentary”,
ed. Forsyth Hardy, Grierson on Documentary, (London: Faber
and Faber, 1979), 36.
[32]
John Grierson quoted in Kathryn and Philip Dodd, “Engendering
the Nation,” ed. Andrew Higson, Dissolving
Views, 41.
[33]
Ibid, 41.
[34]
Antonia Light, quoted by Kathryn and Philip Dodd, ibid,
48.
[35]
John Grierson, “The Course of Realism,” ed. Forsyth Hardy,
Grierson on Documentary, 77.
[36]
Kathryn Dodd and Philip Dodd, “Engendering the Nation,”,
43.
[37]
John Grierson, “The Course of Realism”, 77.
[38]
Bruce Woolf “Publicity Films seen mostly by women”, The
Commercial Film (May 1935): 4.
[39]
Jeffrey Richards, “National Identity in British Watime
Cinema,” ed. Philip M. Taylor, Britain and the Cinema in the Second World
War, (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1988), 44.
[40]
Today’s Cinema, 13 April 1939, 12.
[41]
See Andrew Higson, Waving
the Flag: Constructing a National Cinema in Britain, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1997), 176-271, and John Hill, British
Cinema in the 1980’s (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 73-98.
[42]
Pam Cook, “Neither Here nor There,” 57.
[43]
Sue Harper, Picturing
the Past, (London: bfi 1994), 3.
[44]
Andrew Higson,
Waving the Flag, 27.
[45]
Roger Manvell, quoted in Andrew Higson, Waving
the Flag, 198.
[46]
John Grierson, “First Principals of Documentary,” 35.
[47]
Sydney Box, Film
Publicity: A Handbook for the Production and Distribution of Publicity Films,
(London: Lovat Dickson, 1937) 33.
[48]
Adrienne Marcu and Willard Van Dyke, “The Artist as Film-maker
– Len Lye,” Art in America, (July-August 1966): 98-106.
[49]
Andrew Higson, Waving
the Flag, 187.
[50]
Rachael Low, Films
of Comment and Persuasion of the 1930’s, 62.
[51]
Paul Swann, The
British Documentary Film Movement 1926-1946, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 15.
[52]
Ibid. 130.
[53]
For example the Co-Op film The Magic Bracelet was released
in 35mm for cinemas in 1928, along with a 16mm version for Co-op Society
and labour movement branch meetings. See Alan Burton, The
People’s Cinema, (London: bfi, 1994), 25.
[54]
Grierson writing in the Manchester Guardian, quoted in
The Commercial Film, (March 1936): 2.
[55]
Sydney Box, Film
Publicity, 38.
[56]
Quoted in Paul Swann, The
British Documentary Film Movement 1926-1946, 15.
[57]
Today’s Cinema, 29 September 1937, 1.
[58]
Today’s Cinema, ibid.
[59]
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, “Humphrey Jennings Surrealist
Observer,” ed. Charles Barr, All our Yesterdays, 322.
[60]
Ibid, 323.
[61]
Anthony Hodgkinson and Rodney E. Sheratsky, Humphrey
Jennings: More than a Maker of Films (Clark University: University Press
of New England, 1982), 17.
[62]
World Film News, (June 1936): 13.
[63]
Ibid.
[64]
Humphrey Jennings, quoted in Charles Davey, Footnotes
to the Film, (London: Lovat Dickson Ltd, 1937), 122.
[65]
Today’s Cinema, 5 October 1937, 20.
[66]
American Cinematographer, Volume XV, (June
1934): 86.
[67]
Today’s Cinema, 4 August 1938, 6.
[68]
Andrew Higson, Waving
the Flag, 190
[69]
ibid.
[70]
This information is given on the BFI’s SIFT database
entry for Making Fashions. No source is given, and I am unable to verify these
facts. BFI collections hold copies of both films, which are identical. I
include this information here as it concurs with my own theory that the
film was made due to some deal between Klein and Hartnell, which explains
its sudden appearance, the dropping of the abstract film, and the unusual
subject matter for Jennings.
[71]
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, “Humphrey Jennings: Surrealist
Observer,” 330.
[72]
Today’s Cinema, 2 October 1935, technical
supplement, viii
[73]
Andrew Higson, Waving
the Flag, 196.
[74]
Advertising brochure for Dufay-Chromex 16mm and 9.5mm
amateur film.
[75]
Today’s Cinema, 12 October 1945, 15.
[76]
Today’s Cinema, 10 April 1946, 16.
[77]
John Grierson, “The Course of Realism,” 81.
[78]
Jeffrey Richards, Film
and British National Identity: From Dickens to Dad’s Army, (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1997), 128.
[79]
Ibid, 91
[80]
Today’s Cinema, 13 April 1939, 12.
[81]
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, “Humphrey Jennings Surrealist
Observer,” 330.
[82]
Ibid, 331.
[83]
. They are also not available, and this is one unavoidable
argument. However, there are plenty of black and white shorts which are
available, and I would also add that all three of Jennings’ Dufaycolor short
films are available to view at the bfi and have been for some time, although
they are rarely mentioned in discussions of his work. Work is proceeding
to make more of these Dufaycolor shorts available for research at the bfi
in the near future.
My thanks go to my colleagues in bfi Collections, Jan Faull, Sarah Wilde,
Mark Bryant, Heather Stewart, Rod Molinaire, Peter Simpson, Lynn Mcveigh,
Anita Woodstock and Laura Muncer for making this possible, and to Stacey Abbott
and Laura Mulvey for making it readable.