Fl Fl Eft FINANCE Sik, Sik,
for Mr, Davenport, having abandoned economics su,11.l, significantly makes no attempt to salvage his piren arguments for the closure of the National ° Finance Corporation. Nor does he venture to public money' our contention that the few millions of money' in this concern ,have not only been ‘1ell Placed but highly profitable to both Govern- 1v1 irrelevancies, and nation. Dipping into his ragbag of Irrelevancies, false conclusions and further errors of tact, what do we find? That, if Mr. Davenport and Others talk nonsense about films, the industry has Only itself to blame. Why? Because its publicity Ten (writing in the main for teenage fan magazines
d gossip columnists) put out so much twaddle apbout stars, high fees, etc. What an astounding
proposition. But how it confirms our suspicions as to where our pundits go for their information! And what a rent it discloses in Mr. Davenport's self-sewn mantle of authority!
Then we are reminded that twenty-odd years ago Mr. Davenport (acting, it is implied, beyond the line of City duty) helped the notoriously extravagant Gabriel Pascal raise the wind for his production of Pygmalion. Splendid! Pygmalion was a great suc- cess. Mr. Davenport is entitled to pat himself on the back. But what is he trying to prove? That the NFFC should only loan money to producers who 'bring new ideas and art to the screen'? It just won't do. Firstly, because the Corporation was em- bodied to preserve the livelihood of thousands em- ployed in production, as well as guard against the effect on the national economy of a reduced film output; secondly, because, as Mr.. Davenport points out without seeming to understand its implications, the 'real creative artists are so few and far between'; and, lastly, because producers who try to 'bring new ideas and art to the screen' can be no more certain of success, commercial or otherwise, than those few cold-blooded fish who inject Mr. Davenport's four S's (sex, sadism, etc.) into their work with dreadful calculation; or, for that matter, the Boulting Brothers, who apparently have added a fifth obscenity: slapstick! (0! Chaplin! 0! Clair! 0! Sturges!) If calculation brought guarantees, the NFFC would never have been called into existence. We are obliged to insist, therefore, Mr. Davenport's charges of 'odious humbug' notwithstanding, that film-making is a fundamentally creative process in entertainment and each film is, in fact, a prototype. Nor is this assertion invalidated by recognising that creation is possible on many different levels.
Incidentally, contrary to Mr. Davenport's belief. Shaw plays had been seen and heard on film long before Pygmalion; nor was the 'revolutionary intro- duction of Shavian dialogue' responsible for its suc- cess. This may be attributed more justly to the out- standing talents of Asquith, Lean and the late Leslie Howard. it is not entirely irrelevant that every ,other Shaw play filmed to date (both pre- and post- ,Pygmalion) have been, despite brilliant dialogue, conspicuous failures, with one recent exception, again directed by Asquith.
We made no attempt to 'twist' Mr. Davenport's observations on the epic film. If we misunderstood him, he has only himself to blame. He should have expressed himself more clearly. But It should be pointed out, even on this score, he is again incor- rect. At least one of the films he names as making 'the outstanding profits of the industry today' will be lucky if it recovers its negative cost.
Certainly, it would be imprudent (putting it mildly) for the NFFC and British producers to em- bark on million-pound 'epics'; not because we are 'incapable,' as Mr. Davenport asserts, but because, with limited resources, the gamble is far too high, and just one failure holds disastrous consequences (e.g. Pascal's production of Shaw's Ctesear and Cleopatra). Anyway, it so happens that many modestly budgeted films are still making 'outstanding profits.' If they are not always the works of art Mr. Davenport (or his splendid body of empanelled judges) would select and approve, they are clearly what the public wants, the industry depends on and the NFFC needs to support if, in its own turn, it is to continue supporting other and more artistic ventures.—Yours faithfully,
Broadwick House, Broadwick Street, WI
Previous page
