• • •
This chapter considers a series of manifestos that, unlike the others in the book, are State, or quasi-State, sanctioned. In these instances, the manifestos written by members of governments and religious institutions function as means by which to mobilize the cinema for the goals of the State, be they national, political, or theocratic ones. A key precursor is “The Lenin Decree” (see chapter 1), which outlines the role of the cinema in the then-nascent USSR based on the notion that film could bring together the disparate population of the USSR through propaganda. In a similar fashion, Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda and popular enlightenment in Hitler’s Nazi government, quickly moved to consolidate the German film industry under the command of the State. In “Creative Film,” a speech Goebbels gave at the closure of the International Congress of Film in 1935, he proclaimed what he saw as the role of cinema, not just in the Third Reich but internationally. Under the guise of aesthetics, Goebbels delineated the propagandistic role for the cinema as a means to reflect back the image of the nation put forth by the State as its own. Certainly, the quasi-messianic properties of Goebbels’s speech draw on religious rhetoric to argue for a form of transcendence only obtainable by blind adherence to the nation and its goals as propagated by the State.
The introduction to this book paid some attention to the quasi religiosity of film manifestos, of which “Creative Film” is but one salient example. But what of truly religious film manifestos? In the few writings one finds on film manifestos, it is almost always taken as a given that manifestos are inherently left-wing and revolutionary. This unfounded presupposition elides the complex history of manifesto writing and the role it has played in the creation of film cultures. If leftist film manifestos are often seen as a central aspect of modernity, right-wing film manifestos are, in essence, critiques of modernity and the modernist project, as one can see in Goebbels’s writings but also in the writings of theologians.
A recurring concern in much Catholic writing on the perils of the cinema is the way in which the cinematic spectatorial space lends itself to a lack of vigilance on the part of the spectator. Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti, better known as Pius XI, develops these arguments further and in a startling, one might even say audaciously prescient, move along the way articulates the basis of suture theory some thirty years before Jean-Pierre Oudart. In his seminal essay “Cinema and Suture” Oudart writes:
The spectator is doubly decentred in the cinema. First what is enunciated, initially, is not the viewer’s own discourse, nor anyone else’s: it is thus that he comes to posit the signifying object as the signifier of the absence of anyone. Secondly the unreal space of the enunciation leads to the necessary quasi-disappearance of the subject as it enters its own field and thus submerges, in a sort of hypnotic continuum in which all possibility of discourse is abolished, the relation of alternating eclipse which the subject has to its own discourse; and this relation then demands to be represented within the process of reading the film, which it duplicates.1
Although the terminology is distinct, this passage echoes the critique launched by Pius XI, especially in regards to the sublimation that takes place on the spectator’s part while watching the cinema. And Pius XI is not alone among Catholic writers to see the cinema this way: in Quebec, Boston, and other predominantly Catholic cities and states, this vision of the cinema’s powers can be traced back to the 1910s, if not earlier. What Vigilanti Cura does is codify these critiques for the worldwide church.
Furthermore, one cannot discount the importance of this manifesto as a call to arms and a proclamation of how to best live one’s material and spiritual life, as papal encyclicals fall under the rubric if not of divine infallibility, then as Pius XII, his successor, wrote in another encyclical: “if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.”2 This foregrounds another aspect of manifesto writing writ large: they are monological in nature, preempting any possibility of dissent. Because of his concerns, Pius XI argues that the faithful must take a yearly pledge in church in which they promise to stay away from films that are “offensive to truth and to Christian morality.” Here, Pius XI prefigures Dogme—of the Danish, not Catholic, sort—by instituting a pledge as a constitutive part of the manifesto. One must not only agree with the manifesto in question; one must swear allegiance to it. The pledge that was instituted was that of the Legion of Decency and was itself effectively a manifesto, undertaken in American Catholic churches once a year by parishioners. Furthermore, a network of Parish Hall screenings would be instituted and ideally, a world list of condemned films drawn up, a Bizarro-world parallel of Sight and Sound’s top one hundred films list; the pope’s list included such renowned films as Lubitsch’s Design for Living (USA, 1933), Sternberg’s The Scarlet Empress (USA, 1934), Hughes’s The Outlaw (USA, 1943), Preminger’s The Moon Is Blue (USA, 1952), and Fellini’s 8½ (Italy, 1963). And activism, under the guise of the Legion of Decency and other organizations worldwide, lobbied to make sure films that are mortal sins are not shown. The role of Vigilanti Cura should not be underestimated. Its effect on the overall development in the United States of the Production Code’s edicts and practices illustrates the profoundly Catholic nature of the censorship movement in that country. The most important reason that Vigilanti Cura ought to be taken seriously as a film manifesto is that it does postulate a highly conservative utopian discourse about the cinema and effects the overall development of what I claim is the most successful film manifesto of all time, the Motion Picture Production Code (if one is to judge effect by how a manifesto’s plans are implemented in public life).
The use of theological pronouncements as a means to regulate the cinema is by no means limited to Catholicism. Other theocrats have also pronounced on the cinema in similar ways, issuing manifesto-style proclamations. In his first speech on his return to Iran following the Revolution in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini stated the following about the cinema:
Why was it necessary to make the cinema a center of vice? We are not opposed to the cinema, to radio, or to television; what we oppose is vice and the use of the media to keep our young people in a state of backwardness and dissipate their energies. We have never opposed these features of modernity in themselves, but when they were brought from Europe to the East, particularly to Iran, unfortunately they were used not in order to advance civilization, but in order to drag us into barbarism. The cinema is a modern invention that ought to be used for the sake of educating the people, but, as you know, it was used instead to corrupt our youth. It is this misuse of the cinema that we are opposed to, a misuse caused by the treacherous policies of our rulers.3
Here we see the recurring claim that the cinema itself is fighting a retrograde action against culture and society and can only be righted by political film manifestos that aim to set the course of the cinema back on the right trajectory.
Willi Münzenberg
[Originally published in the Daily Worker, 23 July 1925.]
Willi Münzenberg (1889–1940) was a German communist organizer and a Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands member of the Reichstag from 1924 to 1933. Working close with the Comintern, Münzenberg was renowned as a propagandist. Here he argues that communists must be as successful as capitalists in using films for propaganda instead of turning against the new technology as simply a bourgeois capitalist tool.
Ferdinand Lasalle characterized the press as the new major power. The same can be said of the film, which, in some countries, has already achieved a greater significance than the press itself. The total attendance in the movie theaters of England, France and the United States is perhaps even today greater than the total number of newspaper readers in those countries.
Even if the press were granted the greater numerical dissemination, let it not be forgotten that the film, thru the medium of the visual picture, influences its patrons far more strongly and emphatically than does the printed word its readers.
He then develops the thot of the importance of technical progress in the film world finally convincing the last opponent of its value and permanence.
We must develop the tremendous cultural possibilities of the motion picture in a revolutionary sense. . . . The film must truthfully reflect social conditions instead of the lies and fables with which the bourgeois kind befuddles the workers, etc.
As in many other instances, the working class organizations were the most timid and tardy in the effort to put this new medium to their use. The time is not so far past when social-democratic leaders in common with bourgeois ideologists, in all seriousness proposed to boycott the films because of their competition with the theatre, their flattening of public taste and destruction of literary standards. Only after the war were timid attempts made to put the film into the service of working class propaganda. In various countries workers’ organizations arranged “Better Movie Nights” in which, besides the showing of educational and cultural films, criticism of current entertainment films was given. In 1922 in Germany the A.D.G.B. (All German Federation of Trade Unions) tried, thru the establishment of a “Peoples Movie,” to produce and exhibit socialistic working class pictures. The attempt was unsuccessful, but it was later repeated by the A.D.G.B. in the production and distribution of the film “The Smithy,” which, however, also failed of mass influence. In the main the labor organizations and even the Communist Parties and groups have left this most effective means of propaganda and agitation supposedly in the hands of the enemy.
The bourgeoisie, and especially the extreme nationalists and militarists, very early recognized the significance of the film as a propaganda weapon and constantly and most extensively put it to their service. Particularly far-reaching exploitation of the film took place during the world war, particularly by England and France which spent tremendous sums on film propaganda against the Central Powers in allied and neutral countries. Germany tried in vain to beat the opponent at this game, and even created a special film center for the purpose of pushing nationalist films to fan the war spirit. These films received little distribution outside of Germany and Austria. But it is beyond argument that the war and incitive films contributed very heavily to the creation of the chauvinist insanity in the war, and the post-period showed continued use of the films for the purpose.
While in England and France a whole row of pictures proclaimed the military victory, the German producers were more concerned with awakening a faith in the possibility of a rebirth of the “good old times” of Germany’s “greatness.” A typical example of this series is the picture “Frederick the Great,” which was mightily effective along this very line in petit-bourgeois and “spiessbürger-lichen” circles.
In considering the development of the German film industry it is interesting to note the reflection of the current political tendencies. During the mounting wave of the monarchist movement which culminated openly in the election of Hindenburg there was a decided increase in the production and release of monarchist and militarist films.
The pictures, “The King’s Grenadier,” “Ash Wednesday,” “Reveille,” “The Tragedy of Major Redl,” etc., are typical examples of this tendency, and it would be very interesting to establish statistically in how many theaters, during the few weeks before the presidential by-elections, these and similar films were shown to the public.
How far film is exploited for definite political ends is shown in the large number of prejudice building films directed by European and American producers against Soviet Russia. For example the film “Death Struggle” (Todesreigen) produced in Berlin which for months in practically all German cities conjured up on the screen the most unconscionable concoction of invention and fantasy of terror and horror on the part of the Soviet government against the Russian workers and peasants. In several industrial centers the workers became so enraged at this calumny that, as in Leipsig [sic], they smashed up the projectors and burned the films. The attitude of these workers is entirely understandable, but it also recalls its precedent in the early days of capitalism when the workers, feeling their livelihood threatened by the new machines, smashed the new tools and set a red cock on the roof of the manufacturer. Only later did the proletarians learn that it does no good to destroy machines, but that what concerns us is the conquest of those machines and their application in a manner useful to the workers. Understandable tho the action of the Leipsig workers, it shows no workable remedy with which to meet the evil. Not the destruction of tools and technical equipment, but their conquest and their turning to the use of the labor movement, for the ideal-world of Communism. One of the most pressing tasks confronting Communist parties on the field of agitation and propaganda is the conquest of this supremely important propaganda weapon until now the monopoly of the ruling class, we must wrest it from them and turn it against them.
Archbishop John McNicholas
The first draft of the Legion of Decency pledge was written by Archbishop of Cincinnati John McNicholas in 1933. The final version, printed here, was ratified by the Legion in 1938, and the pledge was taken each year on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, on December 8. The Legion rated films as either A (morally unobjectionable), B (morally objectionable in part), or C (condemned by the Legion of Decency). Viewing condemned films endangered one’s eternal soul. The most critical blow against this system came with the court cases surrounding Rossellini’s “Il miracolo,” the first half of his omnibus film L’amore (Italy, 1948), which screened in the United States in 1950. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court, in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, determined that a film could not be banned on the grounds of sacrilege, which all but eliminated film censorship in the USA, a major First Amendment win.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I condemn all indecent and immoral motion pictures, and those which glorify crime or criminals. I promise to do all that I can to strengthen public opinion against the production of indecent and immoral films, and to unite with all who protest against them. I acknowledge my obligation to form a right conscience about pictures that are dangerous to my moral life. I pledge myself to remain away from them. I promise, further, to stay away altogether from places of amusement which show them as a matter of policy.
Joseph Goebbels
[First published in German in Curt Belling, Der Film in Staat und Partei (Berlin: Verlag “Der Film,” 1936). First published in English in David S. Hull, Film in the Third Reich: A Study of the German Cinema, 1933–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 70–72.]
On 25 April 1935, German Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Joseph Goebbels opened the German International Film Congress at the Kroll Opera in Berlin. Along with inviting participants from approximately forty nations, totaling some two thousand delegates, Goebbels gave this speech at the Closure of the International Congress before the closing screening of Das Mädchen Johanna (Gustav Ucicky, 1935), a retelling of the Joan of Arc narrative, with Joan espousing the words of Hitler. In his speech Goebbels argued that film must eschew vulgar populism and radical aesthetic experimentation and instead show the lives of the people of a country as they are. Needless to say the lives of the people “as they are” was being determined by the State and its own propagandistic vision of the Greater German Reich.
It is the most noble task of art to bridge the gap between politics and economics. Art supplies the people with a solid ground on which they can disregard the conflicts of their interests and work constructively together, hand in hand. Art is the most noble cultural expression of a nation. Each nation creates its own specific art and style. Even the greatest artistic genius is in the last analysis a child of his nation and draws his boldest strivings for immortality from the roots of his native soil. International importance belongs to the kind of art which is deeply rooted in its national and folk origin, but whose rooted creativity is so dynamically charged that it goes beyond the boundaries of its native cultural realm and, because of its deep human values, is able to move the hearts of men in all countries and nations.
I realize that I am making high demands on creative movie production and its makers when I apply these age-old laws to it. From this derives for the film art, both in its national and international significance, a number of principles, which I consider essential if this most modern art is to prove and maintain its vital force and take its place of equality among the traditional and historical art forms. These principles form the foundation upon which the film has to prove its strength.
Permit me to develop these sketchy hints:
1. Like any other art form the film has its own laws. Only by obeying these laws can it preserve its own character. These laws differ from those of the stage. The superiority of the stage over the film must be discarded. The stage has its own language and so does the film. Things which are possible in the dim light of the proscenium become utterly unmasked in the harsh klieg lights of the movies. Relying upon its century-old tradition the theatre will try with might and main to maintain a position of condescending sponsorship over the movies. For the film it is a vital artistic necessity to stand on its own feet and to break the hold of the stage.
2. The film must rid itself of the vulgar platitudes of mass entertainment, yet it must not permit itself to lose touch with the people. The taste of the audience is not an unalterable fact that has to be accepted. This taste can be educated both for better or for worse. The artistic quality of the film depends upon the decision to educate the audience in a practical manner even at the cost of financial sacrifices.
3. This does not mean that the movies have to cater to anaemic aestheticism. On the contrary, just because of its wide reach the movies, more than any other form of art, must be an art of the people in the highest sense of the word. Being an art of the people it has to portray the joys and sorrows which move the people. It cannot escape the exigencies of our time and escape into a dreamland of unreality which only exists in the heads of ivory tower directors and scenarists and nowhere else.
4. There is no art which cannot support itself. Material sacrifices which are made for art’s sake are being squared by ideal attainments. It is a matter of course that governments support the construction of great state buildings which immortalize the creative expression of a period, governments also support the theatre whose productions reflect the tragic and comic passions of the time, they also extend subsidies to picture galleries which house the people’s artistic treasures. It must become equally a matter of course for governments to support the art of the film and to support cultural values, unless it foregoes the chance to place the film on the same footing with other art forms. In that case lamentations about kitsch and deterioration of movie standards are merely bigoted attempts to gloss over a sin of omission.
5. Like every other art form the movies must be closely related to the present and its problems. Film subjects, even though they may go back into previous historical eras and draw from foreign countries have to express the spirit of our time in order to speak to our time. In this sense, the film like any other form of art carries, as paradoxical and absurd as this may sound, the tendencies of its epoch to which it speaks and for which it works creatively.
6. Films that are based on these exigencies, while stressing the specific character of a nation, will tend to bring different nations closer together. The film is a cultural bridge between nations and increases international understanding.
7. The movies have the task to create with honesty and naturalness evidence for their very being. Empty pathos should be as foreign to the film as trashy sentimentality, a legacy passed on to it from the stage. An honest and natural film art, which gives our time living and plastic expression, can become an important means for the creation of a better, purer, and more realistic world of artistic potentialities.
If the movies adhere to these basic principles, they will conquer the world as a new form of artistic manifestation.
Germany has the honest intention to erect bridges that will connect all nations, but in back of us the greatness of life is waiting to find artistic expression. There is no other choice: We must lay hold of it and be part of it.
Let us start with the firm determination to be natural the way life is natural! Let us remain truthful so as to accomplish the effect of truth. Let us depict things, which fill and move the hearts of men so as to move these men’s hearts and to transport them into a better world by revealing to them the eternal.
Pope Pius XI
[First published as a papal encyclical in Latin and English on 29 June 1936.]
This manifesto, written by the Italian Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti, is one of the most influential film manifestos ever written, accomplishing nothing less than changing the course of North American and, to a lesser extent, Western European cinema. One reason that Achille Ratti does not appear in most film histories is that he wrote under a nom de plume and is much better known as Pope Pius XI. Vigilante Cura is a papal encyclical on the motion picture in praise of the arrival of the Legion of Decency and deploring the sinful nature of most cinema. These edicts determined to a large degree the kinds of images that would be seen on American (and therefore world) screens. Also, one should not underestimate its impact on European cinemas, as both Vittorio De Sica’s Landri di biciclette (Italy, 1949) and Roberto Rossellini’s L’amore (Italy, 1948) were attacked by Catholics in light of this encyclical and the movements that sprang from it. Vigilante Cura also outlined the moral implications that watching “condemned” films had for one’s soul. Like the far better known modernist manifestos, this text was a call to arms—though in this case for devout, right-wing Catholics.
In following with vigilant eye, as Our Pastoral Office requires, the beneficent work of Our Brethren in the Episcopate and of the faithful, it has been highly pleasing to Us to learn of the fruits already gathered and of the progress which continues to be made by that prudent initiative launched more than two years ago as a holy crusade against the abuses of the motion pictures and entrusted in a special manner to the “Legion of Decency.”
This excellent experiment now offers Us a most welcome opportunity of manifesting more fully Our thought in regard to a matter which touches intimately the moral and religious life of the entire Christian people.
First of all, We express Our gratitude to the Hierarchy of the United States of America and to the faithful who cooperated with them, for the important results already achieved, under their direction and guidance, by the “Legion of Decency.” And Our gratitude is all the livelier for the fact that We were deeply anguished to note with each passing day the lamentable progress—magni passus extra viam—of the motion picture art and industry in the portrayal of sin and vice.
As often as the occasion has presented itself, We have considered it the duty of Our high Office to direct to this condition the attention not only of the Episcopate and the Clergy but also of all men who are right-minded and solicitous for the public weal.
In the Encyclical “Divini illius Magistri,” We had already deplored that “potent instrumentalities of publicity (such as the cinema) which might be of great advantage to learning and to education were they properly directed by healthy principles, often unfortunately serve as an incentive to evil passions and are subordinated to sordid gain.”
In August 1934, addressing Ourselves to a delegation of the International Federation of the Motion Picture Press, We pointed out the very great importance which the motion picture has acquired in our days and its vast influence alike in the promotion of good and in the insinuation of evil, and We called to mind that it is necessary to apply to the cinema the supreme rule which must direct and regulate the great gift of art in order that it may not find itself in continual conflict with Christian morality or even with simple human morality based upon the natural law. The essential purpose of art, its raison d’être, is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral. And We concluded amidst the manifest approval of that elect body—the memory is still dear to Us—by recommending to them the necessity of making the motion picture “moral, an influence for good morals, an educator.”
And even recently, in April of this year, when We had the happiness of receiving in audience a group of delegates to the International Congress of the Motion Picture Press, held at Rome, We again drew attention to the gravity of the problem and We warmly exhorted all men of goodwill, in the name not only of religion but also of the true moral and civil welfare of the people, to use every means in their power, such as the Press, to make of the cinema a valuable auxiliary of instruction and education rather than of destruction and ruin of souls.
The subject, however, is of such paramount importance in itself and because of the present condition of society that We deem it necessary to return to it again, not alone for the purpose of making particular recommendations as on past occasions but rather with a universal outlook which, while embracing the needs of your own dioceses, Venerable Brethren, takes into consideration those of the entire Catholic world.
It is, in fact, urgently necessary to make provision that in this field also the progress of the arts, of the sciences, and of human technique and industry, since they are all true gifts of God, may be ordained to His glory and to the salvation of souls and may be made to serve in a practical way to promote the extension of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Thus, as the Church bids us pray, we may all profit by them but in such a manner as not to lose the goods eternal: “sic transeamus per bona temporalia ut non admittamus aeterna.”
Now then, it is a certainty which can readily be verified that the more marvellous the progress of the motion picture art and industry, the more pernicious and deadly has it shown itself to morality and to religion and even to the very decencies of human society.
The directors of the industry in the United States recognised this fact themselves when they confessed that the responsibility before the people and the world was their very own. In an agreement entered into by common accord in March, 1930, and solemnly sealed, signed, and published in the Press, they formally pledged themselves to safeguard for the future the moral welfare of the patrons of the cinema.
It is promised in this agreement that no film which lowers the moral standard of the spectators, which casts discredit upon natural or human law or arouses sympathy for their violation, will be produced.
Nevertheless, in spite of this wise and spontaneously taken decision, those responsible showed themselves incapable of carrying it into effect and it appeared that the producers and the operators were not disposed to stand by the principles to which they had bound themselves. Since, therefore, the above-mentioned undertaking proved to have but slight effect and since the parade of vice and crime continued on the screen, the road seemed almost closed to those who sought honest diversion in the motion picture.
In this crisis, you, Venerable Brethren, were among the first to study the means of safeguarding the souls entrusted to your care, and you launched the “Legion of Decency” as a crusade for public morality designed to revitalize the ideals of natural and Christian rectitude. Far from you was the thought of doing damage to the motion picture industry: rather indeed did you arm it beforehand against the ruin which menaces every form of recreation which, in the guise of art, degenerates into corruption.
Your leadership called forth the prompt and devoted loyalty of your faithful people, and millions of American Catholics signed the pledge of the “Legion of Decency” binding themselves not to attend any motion picture which was offensive to Catholic moral principles or proper standards of living. We are thus able to proclaim joyfully that few problems of these latter times have so closely united Bishops and people as the one resolved by cooperation in this holy crusade. Not only Catholics but also high-minded Protestants, Jews, and many others accepted your lead and joined their efforts with yours in restoring wise standards, both artistic and moral, to the cinema.
It is an exceedingly great comfort to Us to note the outstanding success of the crusade. Because of your vigilance and because of the pressure which has been brought to bear by public opinion, the motion picture has shown an improvement from the moral standpoint: crime and vice are portrayed less frequently; sin is no longer so openly approved and acclaimed; false ideals of life are no longer presented in so flagrant a manner to the impressionable minds of youth.
Although in certain quarters it was predicted that the artistic values of the motion picture would be seriously impaired by the reform insisted upon by the “Legion of Decency,” it appears that quite the contrary has happened and that the “Legion of Decency” has given no little impetus to the efforts to advance the cinema on the road to noble artistic significance by directing it towards the production of classic masterpieces as well as of original creations of uncommon worth.
Nor have the financial investments of the industry suffered, as was gratuitously foretold, for many of those who stayed away from the motion picture theatre because it outraged morality are patronizing it now that they are able to enjoy clean films which are not offensive to good morals or dangerous to Christian virtue.
When you started your crusade, it was said that your efforts would be of short duration and that the effects would not be lasting because, as the vigilance of Bishops and faithful gradually diminished, the producers would be free to return again to their former methods. It is not difficult to understand why certain of these might be desirous of going back to the sinister themes which pander to base desires and which you had proscribed. While the representation of subjects of real artistic value and the portrayal of the vicissitudes of human virtue require intellectual effort, toil, ability, and at times considerable outlay of money, it is often relatively easy to attract a certain type of person and certain classes of people to a theatre which presents picture plays calculated to inflame the passions and to arouse the lower instincts latent in the human heart.
An unceasing and universal vigilance must, on the contrary, convince the producers that the “Legion of Decency” has not been started as a crusade of short duration, soon to be neglected and forgotten, but that the Bishops of the United States are determined, at all times and at all costs, to safeguard the recreation of the people whatever form that recreation may take.
Recreation, in its manifold varieties, has become a necessity for people who work under the fatiguing conditions of modern industry, but it must be worthy of the rational nature of man and therefore must be morally healthy. It must be elevated to the rank of a positive factor for good and must seek to arouse noble sentiments. A people who, in time of repose, give themselves to diversions which violate decency, honour, or morality, to recreations which, especially to the young, constitute occasions of sin, are in grave danger of losing their greatness and even their national power.
It admits of no discussion that the motion picture has achieved these last years a position of universal importance among modern means of diversion.
There is no need to point out the fact that millions of people go to the motion pictures every day; that motion picture theatres are being opened in ever increasing number in civilized and semi-civilized countries; that the motion picture has become the most popular form of diversion which is offered for the leisure hours not only of the rich but of all classes of society.
At the same time, there does not exist today a means of influencing the masses more potent than the cinema. The reason for this is to be sought for in the very nature of the pictures projected upon the screen, in the popularity of motion picture plays, and in the circumstances which accompany them.
The power of the motion picture consists in this, that it speaks by means of vivid and concrete imagery which the mind takes in with enjoyment and without fatigue. Even the crudest and most primitive minds which have neither the capacity nor the desire to make the efforts necessary for abstraction or deductive reasoning are captivated by the cinema. In place of the effort which reading or listening demands, there is the continued pleasure of a succession of concrete and, so to speak, living pictures.
This power is still greater in the talking picture for the reason that interpretation becomes even easier and the charm of music is added to the action of the drama. Dances and variety acts which are sometimes introduced between the films serve to increase the stimulation of the passions.
Since then the cinema is in reality a sort of object lesson which, for good or for evil, teaches the majority of men more effectively than abstract reasoning, it must be elevated to conformity with the aims of a Christian conscience and saved from depraving and demoralizing effects.
Everyone knows what damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. They are occasions of sin; they seduce young people along the ways of evil by glorifying the passions; they show life under a false light; they cloud ideals; they destroy pure love, respect for marriage, affection for the family. They are capable also of creating prejudices among individuals and misunderstandings among nations, among social classes, among entire races.
On the other hand, good motion pictures are capable of exercising a profoundly moral influence upon those who see them. In addition to affording recreation, they are able to arouse noble ideals of life, to communicate valuable conceptions, to impart a better knowledge of the history and the beauties of the Fatherland and of other countries, to present truth and virtue under attractive forms, to create, or at least to favour understanding among nations, social classes, and races, to champion the cause of justice, to give new life to the claims of virtue, and to contribute positively to the genesis of a just social order in the world.
These considerations take on greater seriousness from the fact that the cinema speaks not to individuals but to multitudes, and that it does so in circumstances of time and place and surroundings which are most apt to arouse unusual enthusiasm for the good as well as for the bad and to conduce to that collective exaltation which, as experience teaches us, may assume the most morbid forms.
The motion picture is viewed by people who are seated in a dark theatre and whose faculties, mental, physical, and often spiritual, are relaxed. One does not need to go far in search of these theatres: they are close to the home, to the church, and to the school and they thus bring the cinema into the very centre of popular life.
Moreover, stories and actions are presented, through the cinema, by men and women whose natural gifts are increased by training and embellished by every known art, in a manner which may possibly become an additional source of corruption, especially to the young. Further, the motion picture has enlisted in its service luxurious appointments, pleasing music, the vigour of realism, every form of whim and fancy. For this very reason, it attracts and fascinates particularly the young, the adolescent, and even the child. Thus at the very age when the moral sense is being formed and when the notions and sentiments of justice and rectitude, of duty and obligation and of ideals of life are being developed, the motion picture with its direct propaganda assumes a position of commanding influence.
It is unfortunate that, in the present state of affairs, this influence is frequently exerted for evil. So much so that when one thinks of the havoc wrought in the souls of youth and of childhood, of the loss of innocence so often suffered in the motion picture theatres, there comes to mind the terrible condemnation pronounced by Our Lord upon the corrupters of little ones: “whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
It is therefore one of the supreme necessities, of our times to watch and to labour to the end that the motion picture be no longer a school of corruption but that it be transformed into an effectual instrument for the education and the elevation of mankind.
And here We record with pleasure that certain Governments, in their anxiety for the influence exercised by the cinema in the moral and educational fields, have, with the aid of upright and honest persons, especially fathers and mothers of families, set up reviewing commissions and have constituted other agencies which have to do with motion picture production in an effort to direct the cinema for inspiration to the national works of great poets and writers.
It was most fitting and desirable that you, Venerable Brethren, should have exercised a special watchfulness over the motion picture industry which in your country is so highly developed and which has great influence in other quarters of the globe. It is equally the duty of the Bishops of the entire Catholic world to unite in vigilance over this universal and potent form of entertainment and instruction, to the end that they may be able to place a ban on bad motion pictures because they are an offence to the moral and religious sentiments and because they are in opposition to the Christian spirit and to its ethical principles. There must be no weariness in combating whatever contributes to the lessening of the people’s sense of decency and of honour.
This is an obligation which binds not only the Bishops but also the faithful and all decent men who are solicitous for the decorum and moral health of the family, of the nation, and of human society in general. In what, then, must this vigilance consist?
The problem of the production of moral films would be solved radically if it were possible for us to have production wholly inspired by the principles of Christian morality. We can never sufficiently praise all those who have dedicated themselves or who are to dedicate themselves to the noble cause of raising the standard of the motion picture to meet the needs of education and the requirements of the Christian conscience. For this purpose, they must make full use of the technical ability of experts and not permit the waste of effort and of money by the employment of amateurs.
But since We know how difficult it is to organize such an industry, especially because of considerations of a financial nature, and since on the other hand it is necessary to influence the production of all films so that they may contain nothing harmful from a religious, moral, or social viewpoint, Pastors of souls must exercise their vigilance over films wherever they may be produced and offered to Christian peoples.
As to the motion picture industry itself, We exhort the Bishops of all countries, but in particular you, Venerable Brethren, to address an appeal to those Catholics who hold important positions in this industry. Let them take serious thought of their duties and of the responsibility which they have as children of the Church to use their influence and authority for the promotion of principles of sound morality in the films which they produce or aid in producing. There are surely many Catholics among the executives, directors, authors, and actors who take part in this business, and it is unfortunate that their influence has not always been in accordance with their Faith and with their ideals. You will do well, Venerable Brethren, to pledge them to bring their profession into harmony with their conscience as respectable men and followers of Jesus Christ.
In this as in every other field of the apostolate, Pastors of souls will surely find their best fellow workers in those who fight in the ranks of Catholic Action, and in this letter We cannot refrain from addressing to them a warm appeal that they give to this cause their full contribution and their unwearying and unfailing activity.
From time to time, the Bishops will do well to recall to the motion picture industry that, amid the cares of their pastoral ministry, they are under obligation to interest themselves in every form of decent and healthy recreation because they are responsible before God for the moral welfare of their people even during their time of leisure.
Their sacred calling constrains them to proclaim clearly and openly that unhealthy and impure entertainment destroys the moral fibre of a nation. They will likewise remind the motion picture industry that the demands which they make regard not only the Catholics but all who patronize the cinema.
In particular, you, Venerable Brethren of the United States, will be able to insist with justice that the industry of your country has recognized and accepted its responsibility before society.
The Bishops of the whole world will take care to make clear to the leaders of the motion picture industry that a force of such power and universality as the cinema can be directed, with great utility, to the highest ends of individual and social improvement. Why indeed should there be question merely of avoiding what is evil? The motion picture should not be simply a means of diversion, a light relaxation to occupy an idle hour; with its magnificent power, it can and must be a bearer of light and a positive guide to what is good.
And now, in view of the gravity of the subject, We consider it timely to come down to certain practical indications.
Above all, all Pastors of souls will undertake to obtain each year from their people a pledge similar to the one already alluded to which is given by their American brothers and in which they promise to stay away from motion picture plays which are offensive to truth and to Christian morality.
The most efficacious manner of obtaining these pledges or promises is through the parish church or school and by enlisting the earnest cooperation of all fathers and mothers of families who are conscious of their grave responsibilities.
The Bishops will also be able to avail themselves of the Catholic Press for the purpose of bringing home to the people the moral beauty and the effectiveness of this promise.
The fulfilment of this pledge supposes that the people be told plainly which films are permitted to all, which are permitted with reservations, and which are harmful or positively bad. This requires the prompt, regular, and frequent publication of classified lists of motion picture plays so as to make the information readily accessible to all. Special bulletins or other timely publications, such as the daily Catholic Press, may be used for this purpose.
Were it possible, it would in itself be desirable to establish a single list for the entire world because all live under the same moral law. Since, however, there is here question of pictures which interest all classes of society, the great and the humble, the learned and the unlettered, the judgment passed upon a film cannot be the same in each case and in all respects. Indeed circumstances, usages, and forms vary from country to country so that it does not seem practical to have a single list for all the world. If, however, films were classified in each country in the manner indicated above, the resultant list would offer in principle the guidance needed.
Therefore, it will be necessary that in each country the Bishops set up a permanent national reviewing office in order to be able to promote good motion pictures, classify the others, and bring this judgment to the knowledge of priests and faithful. It will be very proper to entrust this agency to the central organization of Catholic Action which is dependent on the Bishops. At all events, it must be clearly laid down that this service of information, in order to function organically and with efficiency, must be on a national basis and that it must be carried on by a single centre of responsibility. Should grave reasons really require it, the Bishops, in their own dioceses and through their diocesan reviewing committees, will be able to apply to the national list—which must use standards adaptable to the whole nation—such severer criterions as may be demanded by the character of the region, and they may even censor films which were admitted to the general list.
The above-mentioned Office will likewise look after the organization of existing motion picture theatres belonging to parishes and to Catholic associations so that they may be guaranteed reviewed and approved films. Through the organization of these halls, which are often known to the cinema industry as good clients, it will be possible to advance a new claim, namely that the industry produce motion pictures which conform entirely to our standards. Such films may then readily be shown not only in the Catholic halls but also in others.
We realize that the establishment of such an Office will involve a certain sacrifice, a certain expense for Catholics of the various countries. Yet the great importance of the motion picture and the necessity of safeguarding the morality of the Christian people and of the entire nation makes this sacrifice more than justified. Indeed the effectiveness of our schools, of our Catholic associations, and even of our churches is lessened and endangered by the plague of evil and pernicious motion pictures.
Care must be taken that the Office is composed of persons who are familiar with the technique of the motion picture and who are, at the same time, well grounded in the principles of Catholic morality and doctrine. They must, in addition, be under the guidance and the direct supervision of a priest chosen by the Bishops.
A mutual exchange of advice and information between the Offices of the various countries will conduce to greater efficiency and harmony in the work of reviewing films, while due consideration will be given to varying conditions and circumstances. It will thus be possible to achieve unity of outlook in the judgments and in the communications which appear in the Catholic Press of the world.
These Offices will profit not only from the experiments made in the United States but also from the work which Catholics in other countries have achieved in the motion picture field.
Even if employees of the Office—with the best of good will and intentions—should make an occasional mistake, as happens in all human affairs, the Bishops, in their pastoral prudence, will know how to apply effective remedies and to safeguard in every possible way the authority and prestige of the Office itself. This may be done by strengthening the staff with more influential men or by replacing those who have shown themselves not entirely suited to so delicate a position of trust.
If the Bishops of the world assume their share in the exercise of this painstaking vigilance over the motion picture—and of this We who know their pastoral zeal have no doubt—they will certainly accomplish a great work for the protection of the morality of their people in their hours of leisure and recreation. They will win the approbation and the approval of all right thinking men, Catholic and non-Catholic, and they will help to assure that a great international force—the motion picture—shall be directed towards the noble end of promoting the highest ideals and the truest standards of life.
That these wishes and prayers which We pour forth from a father’s heart may gain in virtue, We implore the help of the grace of God and in pledge thereof We impart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to the Clergy and people entrusted to you, Our loving Apostolic Benediction.
Given at Rome, at St Peter’s, the 29th day of June, Feast of SS Peter and Paul, in the year 1936, the fifteenth of Our Pontificate.
António Lopes Ribeiro
[Originally published in Portuguese as “Os quarto pontos cardeais de A Revolução de Maio,” Cinéfilo 9 (459), 5 June 1937. First published in English in “Edinburgh Film Festival Special Portuguese Cinema Dossier,” Framework 15/16/17 (1981): 46.]
This manifesto by director António Lopes Ribeiro reflects the “Estado Novo,” or New State, philosophy of Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar, who came to power in 1927. Lopes Ribeiro was consciously producing propaganda for Salazar and looked to Eisenstein’s Potemkin (USSR, 1925) as a model. A Revolução de Maio is one of the few films that could be called “Estado Novo” cinema, celebrating as it does the tenth anniversary of the Salazar regime. The final line of the manifesto demonstrates a self-reflexivity that is often lacking in the work of propagandists.
I made this film in order to:
1. Serve the Portuguese cinema.
In spite of the efforts of about 10 people of good will, our cinema should still be considered infantile and I use the term in a non-pejorative sense. On the contrary, it is precisely in childhood that we may find a great spontaneity, freshness which is to be the measure of the future that lies before us. Only six sound films have been completed in Portugal and two more are almost finished. Ours is a very complex industry that keeps pace with a subtle art: a national cinema cannot expect to achieve perfection after such a small number of films.
2. Serve the Portuguese people.
The Portuguese public of Brazil, the colonies, of Europe, America, Africa and Portugal demands films in their own language. I am committed to them and to the principle of providing one more film wholly aware of the great responsibility that a spectacle of that nature must provide . . .
3. Serve the propaganda machine of Portugal.
If I have succeeded in not spoiling by my incompetence (and certainly not by my lack of love) the formidable spectacle that occurred before the cameras I had at my disposal: the most beautiful landscapes of Portugal, the most beautiful costumes, our best artists, and wonderful work of “Estado Novo,” our Army, our Navy, our Airforce—then, it is certain that A Revolução de Maio will be a most efficient propaganda weapon for Portugal.
4. Serve the Salazar regime.
In our uncertain world, Salazar represents a unique example of co-ordination between thought and action and all his actions are connected to the heart. If I am not mistaken, if the film succeeds in communicating to each spectator, not the respect owed to him and on which he can rely, but just my enthusiasm, my admiration for the Man and his work, then I am convinced that all these former points can be contained in this one. By serving Salazar I have implicitly served Portugal, the public and the cinema of Portugal. I hope I am not mistaken.
Kim Jong-il
[First published in English as chapter 1 of On the Art of Cinema (Pyongyang, Korea: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1987), 1–13.]
In On the Art of Cinema (1973), Kim Jong-il’s massive manifesto on the future of North Korean cinema, he foregrounds the North Korean Marxist theory of Juche (the idea of a post-Stalinist self-sufficiency arising from the nation’s subjects), which delineates the proper mode of aesthetic expression in North Korean society. Juche foregrounds the way in which all art must work in the function of building, sustaining, and supporting the State through the principles of self-reliance, independence, and being master of one’s own actions. Here we see in theory, if not in practice, the ultimate idea of art working for and conforming to the dictates of the State and, indeed, that these goals are the only reason for artistic creation in the first place. Artistic autonomy gives way to becoming an artistic automaton, with the cinema imagining the world the State puts forward as its ultimate goal and as the ultimate reflection of the people, who are coexistent and at one with the State itself.
Like the leading article of the Party paper, the cinema should have great appeal and move ahead of the realities. Thus, it should play a mobilizing role in each stage of the revolutionary struggle.
—KIM IL-SUNG
If cinematic art is to be developed to meet the requirements of the Juche age, it is necessary to bring about a fundamental change in film-making. From the time of the emergence of cinema art to this day, many changes and advances have been made in artistic and technical matters, as a result of the changes in the times and social institutions, but the vestiges of the old system and methods have not yet been overcome in creative work. There still remain remnants of capitalist and dogmatic ideas to a considerable extent, particularly in the system and methods of direction, which constitutes the nucleus of film-making. Unless the old pattern is broken completely and a new system and methods of creation are established in direction, it will be impossible to accomplish the tasks set before the cinema, which has entered a new stage of development.
Today the cinema has the task of contributing to the development of people to be true communists and to the revolutionization and working-classization of the whole of society. In order to carry out this historic task successfully, it is necessary, above all, to revolutionize direction, which holds the reins of film-making.
To revolutionize direction means to completely eradicate capitalist elements and the remaining dogmatism from the realm of directing and establish a new Juche-inspired system and methods of directing.
In establishing the new system and methods of directing it is particularly important to clarify the duty of the director and continually enhance his role in keeping with the intrinsic nature of socialist society and the character of revolutionary cinema.
The director is the commander of the creative group. He should have the overall responsibility for artistic creation, production organization and ideological education and guide all the members of the creative team in film-making.
The director in the socialist system of film-making is fundamentally different from the “director” in capitalist society.
In the capitalist system of film-making the director is called “director” but, in fact, the right of supervision and control over film production is entirely in the hands of the tycoons of the film-making industry who have the money, whereas the directors are nothing but their agents.
In capitalist society the director is shackled by the reactionary governmental policy of commercializing the cinema and by the capitalists’ money, so that he is a mere worker who obeys the will of the film-making industrialists whether he likes it or not. On the other hand, in socialist society the director is an independent and creative artist who is responsible to the Party and the people for the cinema. Therefore, in the socialist system of film-making the director is not a mere worker who makes films but the commander, the chief who assumes full responsibility for everything ranging from the film itself to the political and ideological life of those who take part in film-making. The director should be the commander of the creative group because of the characteristic features of direction. In the cinema, which is a comprehensive art, directing is an art of guidance which coordinates the creativity of all the artists to make an integrated interpretation.
Just as victory in battle depends on the leadership ability of the commander, so the fate of the film depends on the director’s art of guidance. Even though he works to make a good film, the director cannot do so if he has no ability to guide the creative team in a coordinated way to realize his creative conceptions. The film is conceived and completed by the director, but it cannot be created without the collective efforts and wisdom of the creative team. Therefore, success in film-making depends on how the director works with all the artists, technicians and production and supply personnel in the creative group.
If the director is to unite the creative group with one ideology and one purpose and make an excellent film of high ideological and artistic value, he must free himself once and for all from the old domineering and bureaucratic system and methods of direction, under which the direction-first policy is pursued, the boss-gang relationship within the creative group is established, arbitrary decisions are made and creative workers are dealt with through orders and commands. If the director resorts to bureaucracy and shouts down or ignores the creative team, it will break their unity and cohesion in ideology and purpose which constitute the basis of collective creation, and deprive him of his potential to create films and bind him hand and foot. The old system and methods of directing not only do not conform with the intrinsic nature of our socialist system, where the unity and cohesion of the popular masses underlie social relations, but also do not conform with the collectivity of film-making and the intrinsic nature of direction.
In film directing, the basic factor is also to work well with the artists, technicians and production and supply personnel who are directly involved in film-making. This is the essential requirement of the Juche-inspired system of directing. This system is our system of directing under which the director becomes the commander of the creative group and pushes ahead with creative work as a whole in a coordinated way, giving precedence to political work and putting the main emphasis on working with the people who make films. This system embodies the fundamental features of the socialist system and the basic principle of the Juche idea that man is the master of everything and decides everything. Hence, it fully conforms with the collective nature of film-making and the characteristic features of direction.
Since the film is made through the joint efforts and wisdom of many people, every participant in the production should fulfil his role and responsibility like the master he is, and this collective should firmly unite with one ideology and will in order to perform creative assignments jointly. This fundamental requirement which emanates from the characteristic features of film-making can never be met by the old system of directing; it can be properly met only by the system which attaches basic importance to working with people, working with the creative team.
Under the new system of direction, film-making becomes the work of the director himself as well as the joint work of the entire creative group, and both the director and creative team assume the responsibility for creation. Therefore, everybody buckles down to creation voluntarily. Also, while making films, the director helps and leads all the members of the collective, and the creative staff learn from one another in the course of their work. Such communist ethics in creation and the revolutionary way of life are demonstrated to the full. Thus everybody is closely knit in the collectivist spirit and rises up as one in the creative work to attain the common objectives.
Under the new system of direction, the director is responsible not only for the creative work of the team but also for their political and ideological life. Therefore, he regularly conducts political work and ideological education closely combined with their creative activities and, accordingly, the process of creation becomes that of revolutionizing and working-classizing them.
In short, the system of directing based on working with people not only accords with the intrinsic nature of film-making and direction, but also enables the director to extricate himself from domineering and bureaucratic tendencies and decisively improve his ability to guide creation; it also enables him to eradicate deviation towards the idea of art for art’s sake, which gives exclusive precedence to artistic creation and to advance both creative work and the work of making the collective revolutionary.
The strength of the new system lies in the fact that it guarantees the solid unity and cohesion of the creative group based on the Juche idea and gives full play to the awareness and creativity of all the members, and the director’s guidance goes deep into the creative work and life so as to bring about an uninterrupted flow of innovation.
Under the new system the director should emphasize artistic guidance to the creative workers.
The basic duty of the creative group is to make revolutionary films of high ideological and artistic value, which make an effective contribution to arming people fully with the Party’s monolithic ideology and which imbue the whole of society with the great Juche idea. Whether this duty is carried out at the right time and properly depends on how the director works with the members of the creative team.
The creative workers are the main figures who directly execute the revolutionary tasks devolving on their group. The director’s plan is realized through these workers and all assignments of presentation arising in the course of creation are also carried out by them. Therefore, the director should work well with the creative workers and improve his role as their guide. Then, the creative group will be able to carry out the revolutionary tasks facing it successfully.
The first thing the director must do in his work with the creative workers is to bring about a consensus of opinion with regard to the production. This is the basic guarantee for successful creation and is the starting point of the director’s work. If each creative worker has his own views on the production, the director cannot lead them to perform the same presentation assignment and creative activities are thrown into confusion from the outset.
The director must carefully analyse the general characteristics of the content and form of a production, so that the creative workers can all understand and accept it.
In analysing and considering a production the director should not be too egotistical. Every artist has his own creative individuality and may have different views on a production. If the director does not take this into account and holds to his own views and ignores the opinions of other creative workers, it will be difficult to establish a uniform view on a production.
The interpretation of a production should be understood by everybody and win their consent; when it is accepted by everyone as their own, the work will be done effectively.
The director must always put forward his opinions on a production and create an atmosphere of free discussion so that many constructive views can be voiced, and he must sincerely accept the views of the creative workers. Once agreement is reached in discussion, the director must quickly act on it and base the production on it firmly and, then, must never deviate from it, whatever happens. If the director falters, the whole collective will do so and, if this happens, the production will fail.
When all the creative workers fully understand the production, the director must begin to work with each person individually.
Artistic guidance to individual creative workers must always be specific. If the director only gives general guidance and indications, he cannot give them any substantial help or lead them confidently to achieve his aims.
Taking into consideration the characteristic features and requirements of a production, the director should clearly tell the creative workers their assignments for its representation and the ways and means of carrying them out and consult them on problems which they may come across in the course of their work. Only then can his guidance conform with their work.
For example, take guidance to the acting. The role and position of the characters to be represented by actors and actresses throughout the presentation and their personalities should be analysed and, on this basis, the direction of acting should be set and the tasks of presentation and methods of acting for each stage and situation of the drama should be specifically taught. When the director’s guidance is precise, then his plan will agree with that of the creative team and their work will proceed smoothly.
The important factor in the director’s guidance of the interpretation is to help the creative workers to have a clear understanding of the seed of a given production and present it well.
The ideological kernel of a production is the seed which the director and all the other creative workers should bring into flower through their collective efforts and wisdom. It is not only the basis of the interpretation by individual creative workers, but also the foundation on which they all combine to produce one single cinematic presentation. When all interpretations are conducted on the basis of one seed, they form the components of one cinematic presentation because they are built on the same foundation, although various forms of presentation are created by different artists with different personalities. Therefore, the director should be very careful that none of the creative team loses the seed or introduces anything which has nothing to do with it.
Another aspect in which the director must make a great effort in his guidance to the presentation is to ensure that the creative interaction between artists is efficient and to lead their teamwork correctly.
Basically, a comprehensive artistic presentation cannot be achieved properly by the talents or efforts of individual artists. When every artist establishes a close working relationship with the others and carries out the teamwork efficiently, the different elements which make up the comprehensive presentation will harmonize well with each other.
The director should always be in the centre of creative operations and provide a close link between the activities of individual members of the creative team, taking care to prevent possible friction and departmentalist tendencies amongst them.
The director should guide the artists correctly so that they exhibit a high degree of independence and initiative in the course of creation. Giving full play to their independence and initiative is the main factor which increases their sense of responsibility and rouses their creative ardour and imagination. Creative cooperation between the director and the creative workers and amongst the workers themselves is only successfully achieved when each plays his part properly in his appointed post.
The director must guide the creative workers in a very strict yet enlightened manner. For their part, the creative workers have to accept and understand each of his plans and carry them out in a creative manner. In this way the director should give guidance on the principle of making the creative workers in charge of individual fields of presentation assume full responsibility for their own creative work. This is effective artistic guidance.
The original ideas of creative workers in film-making should be used to perfect the harmony of a comprehensive interpretation, while at the same time giving life to the personality of individual artistic portrayals. The director should be talented enough to maintain the originality of the creative workers and raise the level of interpretation in each field and, on this basis, achieve the harmony of the whole film. This is creation in the true sense of the word.
In his efforts to ensure that the creative workers express their original ideas, the director should not allow the harmony of the overall interpretation to be destroyed, nor should he suppress this originality in order to guarantee the harmony of interpretation.
The director, the commander of the creative group, should also work well with the production and supply personnel.
The director should be responsible for the production of films and must advance this work in a coordinated manner.
Film-making, which is complex in content and large in scale, cannot move forward unless it is flawlessly supported by production organization. In film-making the processes of creation and production are inseparably linked. If production is not well organized, the whole process of creation and production cannot run smoothly. It is only when production is well organized that it is possible to make an excellent film in a short time and with a small amount of manpower, funds and materials.
Production organization helps to ensure success in film-making. It moves the creative group in a unified and planned way so that all fields and units are well geared to each other, observing strict order and discipline, and it also makes rational use of materials and technical means and controls financial and supply activities. This is an important task which the director must control in a responsible manner.
The director should not work with production, technical and supply personnel in an administrative and technical manner just because production organization is administrative and technical in content. Administrative and technical guidance runs counter to the intrinsic nature of the Juche-inspired system of directing, and prevents production, technical and supply personnel from being actively drawn into film-making. In his guidance of production organization the director should work with people sincerely.
One of the major criteria for the new type of director is that he is the ideological educator of the creative group. The director should be responsible for their politico-ideological life and keep intensifying their politico-ideological education, so as to lead them to perform their mission conscientiously as revolutionary artists.
The unity of ideology and purpose of the creative team is a major factor for ensuring the successful completion of a film. Even if the director has the talent and skill to fuse together the diverse elements of interpretation organically, a harmonious film cannot be made with this alone. No production of high ideological and artistic value can evolve out of a creative group whose members are not united ideologically and in which discipline and order have not been established.
The unity of ideology and purpose of the creative team is not only a basic requirement for maintaining consistency throughout a film but it also has an important bearing on waging the speed campaign, establishing a revolutionary spirit of creation and hastening the revolutionization and working-classization of all the personnel.
Education in the Party’s monolithic ideology is basic to the ideological education of the creative team. This work should always precede creative work and should be conducted forcefully throughout the creative battle.
Ideological education by the director is aimed at equipping the creative team fully with the Party’s lines and policies so as to make better revolutionary films more rapidly. So, when ideological education is combined with creative work, great vitality can be demonstrated and artists can be roused to the creative battle.
The director must keep a grip on ideological education throughout the whole course of creative work, and give absolute priority to political work at each stage of the creative process. The new system of directing proves effective only when the director gives absolute priority to political work in everything that is done. The system is meaningless if the director neglects political work and remains as bureaucratic as ever.
To give priority to political work and keep raising the political awareness of the creative staff so that they willingly participate in film-making is an application in film-making of the fundamental requirements of our Party’s traditional revolutionary work method. The director should fully adhere to this revolutionary method of creation. Whatever he produces, the director must thoroughly explain its ideological content and artistic features to all the creative staff and tell them in full about the purpose and significance of the production, so as to encourage them to take part in creative work with great revolutionary zeal.
The director should take control of working with the creative team and energetically conduct political work prior to all other work. It is only then that he can satisfactorily perform his role as artistic leader, production organizer and ideological educator and become a distinguished commander of the creative group.