Copy of Memorandum from Mr. John Grierson. [1]

Memorandum to the Prime Minister. [2]
John Grierson

Uploaded 1 July 1999

After writing my previous memorandum I have had the opportunity of discussing possibilities with Ministers and others in the different States and the following recapitulation and supplementary notes may be of value to the Cabinet Sub-Committee. In view of the fact that members of the Cabinet have already expressed their interest in the matter and, it would appear, indicated general agreement as regards the principle involved, I emphasise in this memorandum the practical measures which might be taken. Certain of these have already been discussed with Mr. Spender. [3]

General.

The principal representations so far made are as follows:

1. The film is a powerful medium of information and if mobilised in an orderly way under a determined Government policy, is of special value to the Australian Government at the present juncture.

2. It could do much in the following vital matters:
a) Break down sectionalism and induce a national viewpoint, by bringing alive Australia to itself in terms of films describing national effort and constructive contributions to the more important fields of national activity.
b) Bring the disparate elements of the war effort together and create in the Australian mind an integrated view of the national war effort.
c) Bring into the public imagination the problems, responsibilities and achievements of Government.
d) Project to other countries a view of Australia as a powerful and progressive people, fulfilling its responsibilities to a large new territory – a matter of great importance today in international information.
e) By ‘projecting’ Australia, contribute substantially to the ‘projection’ of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

3. Because the film industry is a highly concentrated industry, it can be simply and easily mobilised in the national interest. The industry has expressed its willingness to give full co-operation to the Government. It should be taken up on that offer, and thoroughly. Without prejudicing the essential nature of the film business (i.e. light entertainment) the use of its screens can be mobilised to give an orderly and regular service of information to the nation, at least during war time.

4. In mobilising the film medium, the utilisation of screen space in the theatres is only half the story. The other half – and an increasingly important half – is the utilisation of film in all branches of education and public discussion (i.e. the so-called ‘non-theatrical’ field). There is more seating capacity outside the theatres than inside. The congregation of the public in terms of its professional, specialist or social interests is all the more valuable an opportunity for public information in that the receptive mood of the audience for the consideration of matters of public interest can be relied upon. The development, through the non-theatrical field, of local leadership of opinion is of paramount importance.

Practical Steps: Government Film Committee.

The principal steps to be taken are, I believe, as follows:
Set up a Government Film committee, to serve as a planning Committee for the co-ordination of Government film interests and the mobilisation of the film medium for national ends.

The Committee’s function would be to co-ordinate the use of the film by all departments of the Federal Government and create progressively a presentation of Australia on home and overseas screens. For the purpose, the Department of Information would be regarded as one among other departments and the Government Film Committee would act as film instrument of that Department.
In so far as the Committee would represent the needs of all departments and of the nation as a whole, it may be found advisable to attach it to the Prime Minister’s Department. The Minister appointed to serve as Chairman would therefore act as the Prime Minister’s deputy in this matter.

The Committee need not be a large one and particularly so in war time. The equivalent Committee in Canada (the National Film Board) has two Ministers and six committee members. The size might be conveniently reduced to one Minister and four Committee members, meeting once every three or four weeks to receive the report of the Executive Officer and review policy. The Committee might be composed of one Minister, two senior Government officials and two or three other members. The wider educational needs of the country should be represented and the Committee would probably be strengthened for national purposes by the addition of a member of the Opposition. Men who have already expressed their interest in and understanding of the possibilities are the Minister of Education for N.S.W., Sir David Rivett, Vice Chancellor Medley, [4]  Sir Alfred Davidson (Bank of N.S.W.), Mr. Clapp and Mr. Lloyd Jones. I have thought that Mr. Stevens, late Premier of N.S.W., might be as asset because of his fund of energy, but hesitate to mention political names.

As regards war information, the Canadian practice is for the Executive Officer of the National Film Board (called the Government Film Commissioner) to keep in touch with the other liaison officers in the Public Information Service. Policy is regularly checked with the senior liaison officer (Mr. Brockington, K.C.), who is attached as a special secretary for information to the Prime Minister secretariat and has direct access to the Prime Minister.

Executive Officer.

The key to the success of the Government Film Committee would, of course, be the calibre of its Executive Officer. His work would be somewhat along the following lines:

Films in Theatres.

1) He will keep in touch with editors of newsreels (i.e. Cine Sound and Fox) [5] making suggestions as regards items to be presented and securing for the newsreels the fullest facilities in production. He should have a small fund at his disposal to provide facilities or effects where it is not normally economical for the newsreels to secure these themselves. He will keep in constant review the extent and emphasis in overseas circulation of Australian newsreel items. Acting through the Directorates of Information in the United Kingdom and other Dominions and through New York newsreel centres, he will secure the fullest possible international circulation for Australian items.

2) He will negotiate with the Film Trade (the Exhibitor groups) an agreement to show special short one-reel war films at regular intervals in all theatres. In Canada, provision has already been made for a film a month. This is tantamount to securing from the exhibitors a voluntary quote for films marked as nationally important. The voluntary principle should work in Australia, in view of the Trade’s offer of facilities to the Government. If it does not work, compulsion might be held to be necessary. It is a feature of the film business that it offers much – and at the time means what it says but its co-operation tends to diminish after the first flush of enthusiasm and splash of publicity. A principal job of the Executive Officer will be to keep it to the sticking point and see to it that these national films are presented regularly and thoroughly.

3) As regards the production of the short films indicated above, the Government Film Committee will require a sufficient fund to initiate production (say £10,000 for twelve items). It would be good policy to use all appropriate units (commercial units as well as the Government Film Branch) [6] . Units[7]  which would seem to be available to the Government for this purpose are Cine Sound (Hall), Fox (Guinness), Argosy (Daniell), Australian Educational Films (Monkman), the Government Film Branch and the Chauvel unit. It might be advisable to have certain units (e.g. Australian Educational Films, the Government Film Branch and Herschel, [8] of Melbourne), concentrate on non-theatrical films. The Executive Officer would have the responsibility of planning the scripts with the producers concerned, analysing costs and entering into contracts and being responsible to the Government Film Committee for the quality, economy and effectiveness of the work done.

4) These contacts with the distribution, exhibition, newsreel and production sections of the film industry call for a strong and able officer, capable of standing above the fierce, cut-throat and sometimes devious divisions of the industry, and producing, form above, a co-ordination of effort by the industry which the industry seems incapable of producing by itself.
Because of these divisions and because of the present tendency on the part of certain film groups to look to their own somewhat exclusive commercial advantage, I have not thought of suggesting that a member of the film industry be a member of the Government Film Committee. Co-ordination of effort will, I am sure, best be effected by a Committee and an Executive Officer who can stand above the parochial battles.

5) At the same time, the Executive Officer will have much to do with the production of films for the non-theatrical field and with encouraging non-theatrical distribution both at home and overseas. This involves a wide knowledge of film requirements and film possibilities in educational and other specialised fields. As a result of my recent visits to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane, State Film Committees are in process of formation for the specific purpose of developing the use of films in all branches of State education and discussion. No doubt similar committees could easily be initiated in Tasmania and Western Australia. In New South Wales this development has the energetic backing of Mr. Drummond. [9] His Committee will represent School, University, University Extension and Agricultural Education, primary and secondary producers, womens’ organisations, etc. In Melbourne the initiative has been taken by Vice Chancellor Medley with the co-operation of the Director of Education; and similar interests will be represented on his Committee. In Adelaide and Brisbane the proposal is to extend, under the guidance of State Committees, the existing Visual Education services to schools and provide wider film service for all educational and social groups throughout the States. In Adelaide, this development has the backing of Mr. Jeffreys, the Minister of Education, Dr. Fenner and Dr. Portus; in Brisbane of Mr. Cooper, the Treasurer, and the Director of Public Instruction. The Australian Council for Educational Research, Dr. Cunningham, is now considering the possibility of providing a monthly bulletin or journal devoted to the encouragement of this wider use of the film in national education.

The Executive Officer would be required to keep in touch with these State Committees and see to it that an appropriate supply of films is made available for the non-theatrical audiences so mobilised. Sources of supply would be the departments of the Federal Government (operating through the Government Film Committee) and such notional organisations and industries as the Executive Officer may inspire to production.

An organised production plan for the non-theatrical field would include:

a) Films for schools.
b) Films showing achievements in various branches of national activity, calculated to inspire a sense of Australian citizenship.
c) Films calculated to show to one part of Australia the activities of other parts.
d) Films for specialised technical audiences, e.g. films which will cross the gap between the research station and the farmer, discuss ways and means of combatting erosion, etc.
e) Films for womens’ organisations, e.g. films to re-orientate buying habits in the national interest.
Other specialised film services will suggest themselves as the work develops and as the various Departments of the Government study the advantages to be gained.

6)An able Executive Officer will know how to save Government money in the following directions:

a) There is no reason why he should not negotiate for the distribution of war films to the theatres at an agreed price: say 10/-, 15/- and £1. a reel, according to the size of the theatre.
b) He might inspire State Governments to make their own contribution to the presentation of national activities, particularly as regards 5c) above, (i.e. showing one part of Australia to other parts). He could see to it that the State contribution on production and distribution is an integral part of the national plan.
c) He could secure valuable co-operation from large primary production and industrial groups. In England, the majority of the films in the field of public information are sponsored by Oil, Gas, Electricity and other industries. Oil spends some £30,000 a year; Gas spends from £15,000 to £20,000 a year.

It is doubtful if you have in Australia any single person who combines all the qualities and expert knowledge required for Executive Officer, i.e. understanding of public service requirements, understanding of film requirements and understanding of wide educational requirements. I suggest, however, that you could overcome the difficulty by putting a man like Holmes of the Travel Association in charge and giving him a technical film associate and an educational or non-theatrical associate.

As technical film associate Major Guinness of Fox might be the most suitable. He knows the film game intimately, and the politics thereof (an essential matter); he is probably first-rate as regards the economics of production and will understand how to get more out of any funds which are made available; and he would be trustworthy from a public service point of view. Guinness would, of course, have to drop all relationship with Fox for the period of the war. The main necessity is for someone who is technically expert, has an understanding of film economics and can be absolutely relied on as a public servant. If there is a candidate who can combine these qualities with a rich supply of production ideas, all the better.

The job of educational or non-theatrical associate will be easier to fill. Mr. Badger of the University Extension Board, Melbourne, or Dr. Duncan of Sydney University, would be good if available. On the other hand, the transfer of Ellis [10] from the Department of Commerce might fill requirements.

In considering names for the two associates, the wishes of whomever is appointed as Executive Officer should, of course, be considered.

Since no other staff, except secretarial, is planned for him, it is of great importance that he should have associates with whom he can work.

Normally, the appointment of one man with secretariat is all that is necessary for the executive office, but in view of the absence of a man with the special combination of qualities required, it would be best to secure results from the first by adopting the somewhat more expensive arrangements indicated above. It is worth paying £1500 a year for a suitable Executive Officer. The technical associate may have to be paid £1250, or even more. An educational, or non-theatrical, associate could probably be got at less. There is this consolation, that no further staff should be contemplated or allowed, apart from office secretariat. This should be regarded as a liaison service only. No production or distribution activity should be directly entered upon or any vested interest built up.

Heads of expenditure would be somewhat as follows:

Item (1). Travelling expenses for honorary Committee Members, say, £500.

Item (2). Salaries of the Executive Officer and his two associates, £3750.

Item (3). Travelling, office and secretarial expenses £2500

Item (4). Reserve fund for newsreel activity £1500

Item (5). Fund for provision of regular monthly films in the theatres £10,000.

Item (6). Fund for non-theatrical production £10,000.

Item (7). Fund for prints and for the development of non-theatrical distribution £5000.

Approximately £33250.

Savings on this grant might be effected in the following ways:

1) The appointment of a educational or non-theatrical officer could be deferred till the theatre side has been organised. On the other hand, the appointment of a non-theatrical officer was regarded as a major feature in the development of the Film Section of the British Ministry of Information. Moreover, the State Film Committees would benefit from having someone at Canberra to co-ordinate their demands and secure their supplies.
2) If film production for the non-theatrical field is initiated in association with the information services of the departments, and departmental grants are used for the purpose, the Government Film Committee need not have a large separate fund as indicated in Item (6). This, however, from a treasury point of view, is only a matter of book-keeping. Moreover, until the Departments learn how to associate films with their information services it may be best for the Government Film Committee to take the initiative and show them the way.
3) If an arrangement is initiated with the theatres by which a rental is charged for the monthly issue of war films to theatres, an income could be secured on Item (4).
4) An effective saving to the Government will result if State Governments and industries are prevailed upon to sponsor non-theatrical films which might otherwise fall under Item (6). The method of using a sprat to catch a mackerel can be ingeniously used. That is to say, an initial contribution by the Government Film Committee might be used to produce a much larger fund for the production of a particular group of films. I have seen £5000 of government money used in this way to produce £25,000.
5) State Film Committees might be prevailed upon to purchase prints for non-theatrical distribution at cost, representing a saving on Item (7). On the other hand, international circulation in non-theatrical fields calls for a generous supply of prints in many countries. Existing arrangements made by the Government Film Branch for the free circulation of films in India, the East Indies and on ships at sea should be extended.

In general, an outlay of £30,000 to £35,000 for the first year should not be considered excessive for the development of a national medium of information, which is at present going by default. A single Government Department in the United Kingdom (the G.P.O.) spent as much annually before the war. The Oil industry in the United Kingdom spends fully as much; and the expenditure on films by the Canadian Government for the current year will not be less than £60,000. I should emphasise, however, that even if the grant were limited to £20,000, an able Executive Officer could do much, by skilfully mobilising the resources and will-to-co-operate of the film industry, the State Governments and the large industrial groups.

Needless to say, any experience we have in other countries in any of the fields in which the Australian Government operated, would be made readily available to the Government Film Committee and to its Executive Officer. The Imperial Relations Trust will, I am sure, be glad to arrange for this exchange of experience.

Special Notes.

The Australian Film Industry.

While much willingness to co-operate with the Government has been expressed by different sections of the industry, major problems exist for the Government Film Committee and its Executive Officer in their relationships with the industry.

The American holding in film supply and screen preference is very secure. In so far as theatres do not make much use of shorts, there is a greater supply of short films from America than the market can take.

The Committee will therefore have to face up to the fact that in this particular category of short films, theatres must be prevailed upon – for the duration of the war and in the national interest – to change their policy and screen national information shorts as extras to their programmes. If necessary, American shorts will have to be displaced.

The same situation obtains with newsreels. In many cases, theatres do not carry newsreels at all. Here again, as a matter of national importance, all theatres should, in turn, carry a definite proportion of items of national or Allied importance.

In Canada, it has been possible to bring all distribution companies into a scheme for the distribution of national information films. The distribution territory has been split up and each major distributor given a particular territory to operate. This may not always be necessary, but I mention it to indicate that we have not thought it advisable to encourage any sense of division as between so-called ‘American’ and so-called ‘British’ film interests. We have regarded all units operating in the country – whatever their affiliation – as equally under obligation to the country in war time, and we have, in fact, received as much co-operation from the companies with American affiliations as from the native companies. In view of the great strength at home and abroad of the companies with American affiliations we have benefited greatly from these arrangements: to the point of securing thereby special advantages in the foreign distribution of newsreel items.

The co-operation of the American international film machine, secured through its local representatives, is – within appropriate limits – worth cultivating by the Government Film Committee. In view of the great good will of this international machine to the allied cause, the contribution already made to Allied propaganda by Hollywood, and the use which the United Kingdom and Canada are making of American co-operation, it seems particularly unwise to encourage anti-American attitudes on the part of native film groups, or encourage a view that in the matter of war information all work should go exclusively to groups which are free from American affiliations. I can think of nothing more likely to parochialise the Government’s relationship with the industry and limit the results to be obtained.

The Film Committee already set up in New South Wales by the Minister of Information may be a useful link for purposes of making promotional and distribution arrangements in that territory. At the same time, the relationship between the Government Film Committee and its Executive Officer and members of the film industry, should be a direct one. The Government Film Committee may desire to bring before it from time to time representatives of the industry. It should be free to bring before it any such representative as will help it in the particular problem under discussion.

Particularly in the matter of scripts and production the Executive Officer should have direct relationship with the producing company or producing companies concerned. He will, however, use his technical associate a good deal in such matters. Maximum freedom should be allowed the Executive Officer in this matter of production. Constant reference to departmental authorities and committee supervision of scripts, etc. take the vitality out of film making, and should at all costs be avoided. If the Executive Officer is worth £1500 a year, he is presumably worth trusting in the matter for which he is employed.

No doubt the Government will be much pressed by those groups interested in promoting feature films to bring the production of feature films into its scheme. I am still doubtful if there is a true economic basis for the production of expensive films in Australia or that entry into the international market, which would justify such production, can be easily commanded on Australian resources. The City of London lost several millions sterling by reason of similar optimism on the part of British producers. There is, I am sure, a case for the production of second feature films of modest expenditure and an industry could be progressively built if these films were of special and engaging Australian character and not merely second-rate imitations of the Hollywood product. From the point of view of national information, it is obviously sensible to build from the ground up and in fields where specific results can be intensively obtained. With Government resources, more can be done by exploiting thoroughly and with technical brilliance the newsreel and short film fields. There is special opportunity for directive results in the non-theatrical field, in which the United States has neither established itself nor is in a position to do so.

The Government Film Branch

This branch of the Department of Commerce has been taken over by the Ministry of Information. I gained the impression that its work at the moment is in connection with still photographs and that its film activity is of secondary importance.

The Branch has, in the past, made scenic films and films descriptive of commercial processes; and these have been circulated at home and overseas. While appreciating the difficulties under which the Branch has worked, and particularly its shortage of production personnel, I think it would be fair to say that the films produced have not been on a scale or quality calculated to give Australia leadership in this particular field of film making.

The Branch has effective equipment for developing and printing and for production, and its machinery represents a considerable capital expenditure on the part of the Government.

The Government Film Committee will appreciate the necessity of making the fullest use of this expensive machinery, wherever its use represents an economy to the Treasury. At the same time, I do not consider it would be wise to extend the size of the department and make it responsible for all production and distribution activities of the Government. From an economical point of view, it would be more sensible to use the powerful organisation of the existing film industry, rather than undertake the difficult task of setting up, under Government auspices, alternative machinery.

I suggest that the Government Film Branch should be regarded as simply one of the many units available to the Government Film Committee and its Executive Officer: to be used where its costs and qualities compare with those of the commercial units, and not otherwise.

It would be sensible to use the Government Film Branch for experimental work in those branches of film production to which the commercial industry is not particularly devoted e.g. educational, scientific and certain kinds of documentary film work. My impression is, however, that while the technical services of the Government Film Branch could be relied upon, its production personnel should be strengthened. Possibly it requires a first-class imaginative producer, who will support Mr. Maplestone’s [11]  knowledge of technical services. I am sure that among the junior staff there is good material from which an imaginative producer could build a first-class production unit. The practice which has obtained in the past of having scripts and commentaries vetted by departmental officers, with little knowledge or feeling in the matter of film requirements, would have to be eliminated, and a real attempt made, under the guidance of the Government Film Committee, to produce something more exciting than routine scenics and routine continuities describing how things are made.

In one matter, I see great advantage in keeping the Government Film Branch and developing its services. It would valuably be used as a central repository for the provision of film prints to the non-theatrical field. That is to say, it should hold negatives and supply prints to the State Film Committees and through the various High Commissioners and Trade Commissioners to the non-theatrical distribution centres in other countries: (e.g. to the Empire Film Library in London, the Canadian Film Committee, the New Zealand Film Committee, International Film Centre, New York, and the many other strategic centres of non-theatrical distribution throughout the world). If the Government agree to use the Government Film Branch for this purpose, I would try to arrange that negatives from England, Canada, etc. would be supplied free to it: the prints from these negatives to be made available to the State Film Committees. The Branch could arrange that the State Film Committees pay for the cost of printing.

(Sgd.) John Grierson.
28/4/1940
Imperial Relations Trust,
31, Palace Street,
London, S.W.1.

Address May to September, 1940.
National Film Board,
Ottawa,
Ontario,
Canada.

Footnotes:
[1] Department of Information: General correspondence, multi-number system, “Visit by John Grierson to Australia and New Zealand to develop a better understanding throughout the Empire by means of films”, 1940-1944, Australian Archives, SP109/1, item 78/1/9, pt B. Original formatting has been retained. all notes are provided by the editor, (Ina Bertrand).
[2] Robert Gordon Menzies was Prime Minister in April 1940.
[3] Percy Claude Spender was Minister assisting the Treasurer in April 1940, when this memorandum was forwarded.
[4] John Medley was Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne.
[5]Movietone News) and Cinesound (producing Cinesound Review).
[6] The Government Film branch refers to the Cinema and Photographic Branch of the Department of Commerce, later absorbed into the Films Division of the Department of Information, eventually to become the Commonwealth Film Unit.(See Ina Bertrand’s article, Theory into Practice: Stanley Hawes and the Commonwealth Film Unit )
[7] The named production units were in charge of: Ken Hall, Harry Guiness, Frederick Daniell, Neil Monkman, Charles Chauvel and
[8] Charles Herschell.
[9] D.H. Drummond was NSW Minister for Education.
[10] Ulrich Ellis worked for the Department of Commerce, and helped host Grierson during his 1940 visit.
[11] Lyn Maplestone was in charge of the Cinema and Photographic Branch, while it was located in Melbourne.