A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
ALS.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
Home Intelligence Special Report, No. 16
.
18th of April, 1942
Second Summary of Films Correspondents' Reports on M.O.I. Films (released during December, 1941)
“THREE IN A SHELL HOLE”
“SAM PEPYS JOINS THE NAVY”
“ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS”
“NAVAL OPERATIONS”
1. In view of the fact that there are now 195 Honorary Films Correspondents fairly evenly distributed over England, Scotland and Wales, it seems disappointing that the total number of Correspondents reporting on each M.O.I. film remains low. Two factors, however, may be taken into consideration:-
-
People appear to be visiting the cinema less . The Intelligence Officer, Scottish Region, writes, “Many of our contacts report that increasing inroads into their leisure time is making it more and more difficult for them to pay a weekly visit to the cinema, and several who before the war were keen film fans are now finding it almost impossible to visit the cinema except at long intervals”.
-
An M.O.I. Five Minute Film is not always shown : During February, 183 visits were made to the cinema by Films Correspondents: On 63 of these, no M.O.I. film was seen.
The list of Correspondents on whose reports this summary is based does not differ essentially from, those appended to our two previous film reports (on M.O.I. Films, 12th March; and News Reels, 23rd March, 1942), and can be supplied on request.
2. THREE IN A SHELL HOLE
16 reports have been received, 5 of which do not go into details. The majority reaction of Correspondents was one of strong approval .
Their reactions may be classified as follows:-
As usual, when a film is liked, there are fewer comments than when people have a lot of faults to find. The following points were commented on by a number of Correspondents:
(a) Best M.O.I. film yet (3)
“Best M.O.I. film I've ever seen”.
A fourth Correspondent paid it the rather backhanded compliment of describing it as “arresting, mainly because it is so different from the usual M.O.I. short”.
(b) The realism (5)
3 Correspondents praised the realism.
2 Correspondents found it too realistic.
“I didn't like it; it was too harrowing”.
“Too grim to be enjoyable...made me horrified at thought of what the A.T.S. might have to undergo”. (The heroine was described in the commentary as a kind of Russian A.T.)
(c) Propaganda (3)
Out of 3 Correspondents who referred to the film as “propaganda”, two praised the way this had been put over, but without indicating what they thought to be its intention.
“Propaganda put over with real skill”.
“Like an ordinary programme picture, and not obvious propaganda”.
The third referred to it as “propaganda with a big hate in it, although, from what one hears over the wireless and sees in the press, it apparently shows a possible incident”.
The reactions of a middle-aged Stirlingshire housewife, who goes rather more fully into her reactions, may be typical of others who merely express approval, without giving details:
“The calm and brave work shown gave me an unsettled feeling of sitting high and dry while Russian men and women did heroic work. I was ashamed when the thought entered my head of how we had been practically reared to despise Russian methods - methods which are now arousing such a great love of country and get the best work out of its people”.
(d) Dislike (1)
The only Correspondent who disliked it thought it “too harrowing”. (Her father's only remark was “Bunk - just bunk”.)
(d) Audiences' reactions (16)
The majority reaction of audiences was reported to have been one of strong approval . Their reactions may be classified as follows:
5 of these audiences applauded or cheered. In one case it was the first time the audience had been known to applaud an M.O.I. film. In Prestatyn, it was “so well received that it was put on for a second time, by special request”. At one cinema only was the audience described as inattentive and talkative, but this was attributed to the fact that the lights were kept on while the film was being shown, and ices were on sale.
3. SAM PEPYS JOINS THE NAVY
11 reports only have been received. In spite of the small number of reports, it seems worth summarising their conclusions, as so many of them comment on the same points.
The majority reaction of Correspondents was one of mild approval .
Their reactions may be classified as follows:
The various reactions of Correspondents to this film are well summed up in the following quotation:
“A very interesting film, with the idea of savings well introduced, but I was sorry to see the last of Sam and his activities. The film seemed to tail off a bit and I liked the recruitment and naval training scenes best”.
The following points were commented on by a number of Correspondents:
(a) The “double appeal” (8)
8 Correspondents referred to the fact that the film “changed half way through from a straight account of training in the Navy to our Savings Campaign appeal”.
5 of these expressed disappointment at the “break in the middle”. “Started off well, made one look forward with interest to seeing glimpses of various phases of a sailor's training. But just as the action was warning up, the film suddenly switched onto National Savings, and what promised to be a good compelling picture petered out in rather obvious propaganda”.
“Rather dull and very disappointing, since it changed half way through...”
3 of these praised the skill with which the two motives were combined, and the way in which “the expenditure on the Navy was introduced”.
“One of the best M.O.I. films yet. It had the correct amount of interest to balance its propaganda value, and made for entertainment as well as serving its original purpose - saving”.
“Whilst not one of the best Information Films, the ‘lead-up’ is one of the best I've seen”.
(b) Propaganda (7)
7 Correspondents regarded the film as propaganda.
4 of these considered it good propaganda (three of them - see above - praising the skill with which it was introduced).
“A very good appeal made for War Savings”.
“It made one feel that, as an investor in Government Securities, one became part of the Navy and that it is worth while to make same further sacrifice to help with the up-keep of the Senior Service”.
(c) Who is Pepys ? (2)
2 Correspondents suggest that “the audience's knowledge is too scanty to react to the historical background”.
“There are people who have never heard of Pepys”.
(d) Audiences' reactions (11)
Only one audience is reported to have applauded, and for the most part, no very definite audience reactions were reported, but they may be classified as follows:
The following quotation seems typical of most:
“The audience seemed to enjoy the first part of the film thoroughly and laughed at the bits of ‘ragging’ in it. They watched attentively but talked a bit when the mention of savings was introduced. I think a few people felt a bit flat, as they do when “Ovaltine' or some trade product comes into a picture which they did not think was a publicity film”.
4. ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS
23 reports have been received.
The majority reaction of Correspondents was one of strong approval .
Their reactions may be classified as follows:
The following points were commented on by a number of Correspondents:
(a) Too Little is known of the Royal Observer Corps (9)
9 Correspondents referred to the fact that the public knows little of the work of the R.O.C., and expressed pleasure at learning something about it.
“Personally, I found this film exceedingly interesting, bringing notice, as it did, to a Corps we seldom hear, or think, about”.
“An interesting record of the work of one of the Defence Services about which too little is known: I found it so absorbing that I was sorry when it was over, and thought that it could have been longer without being at all boring”.
(b) More information wanted (8)
8 Correspondents indicated that they would have liked even more information; and the only Correspondent who found the film unsatisfactory complained that it was “below the average as far as informative value was concerned”. No Correspondent complained that it was too technical or too long.
Further information was wanted (in each case by one Correspondent only) on the following:-
-
How the height of the planes was judged.
-
The details of training: this part was “too quickly over, and left a hazy impression”.
-
How the enemy planes were spotted at night: (only criticism of film was that it dealt only with day-time activities.)
-
The work of the R.O.C. all over the country, instead of being “confined to the London area and S.E. coast”.
-
How planes were identified by sound especially when “R.A.F. commentators say that it is not possible”.
-
How it all works in difficult circumstances - “it gives rather a fair-weather picture, and seems almost too easy”.
-
the details of the instruments used, and their purpose; also how the control room was run.
(c) Commentary (4)
4 Correspondents praised the commentary, one referring to the commentator's voice as “clear and pleasing”.
1 Correspondent, however, found the voice of the commentator “a little irritating”.
(d) Audiences' reactions (23)
The majority reaction of audiences was reported by Correspondents to have been one of approval , and may be classified as follows:
5 audiences are reported to have been amused - in two cases, at the chalking up of the score of swastikas on the wall.
2 audiences cheered and clapped the arrival of the British planes. Remarks overheard include:
“If only all their films were as good as that”.
5. NAVAL OPERATIONS
14 reports only have been received. Correspondents' reactions to this film were unusually mixed, and although the majority reaction of Correspondents was strong approval , there was the unusually high number of four who disliked the film.
Correspondents' reactions may be classified as follows:
The following points were commented on by a number of Correspondents.
(a) “Patchy” or confusing effect (6)
6 Correspondents considered that in one way or another the film produced a confusing effect.
(i) Diagrams confusing: (3)
“..the tiny metal objects that darted over the screen were so jerky, and distracted rather than attracted attention. The idea of shooting out a lot of small anchors from one large one to show naval bases is disconcerting”.
“I was very confused, and found it difficult to follow the arrows and understand which of them represented our own or enemy ships”.
“Too much jumping backwards and forwards”.
(ii) Lack of continuity: (2)
“there seemed no historical continuity, which had a confusing effect on some minds - it jumped about from one incident to another”.
“..a bit confusing, as the diagrams were sandwiched between actual shots of ships”.
(iii) “Bits of newsreels put together”: (2)
(b) Clear arrangement (2)
2 Correspondents, on the other hand, referred particularly to the “clear form” in which the information was presented, this opinion may be taken as being endorsed by implication by those Correspondents who praise without going into details.
“..thoughtful arrangement of material, telling diagrams, and excellent photography”.
“can easily be understood at a glance”.
(c) The commentary (3)
3 Correspondents referred unfavourably to the commentary and the lack of sound effects.
“It was silent except for a very bad commentary with gaps in it”.
“The spoken part was lost owing to its being rushed through”.
“Silent except for the ‘obligato’ provided by a droning commentator”.
(d) Audiences' reactions (14)
The majority reaction of audiences was reported to have been one of mild approval . Their reactions may be classified as follows:
2 Correspondents thought that the film appealed more to men than to women.
1 Correspondent, who was himself confused, overheard “some remarks suggesting that people were badly puzzled and bewildered by the charts”.