A Foreign Office Proposal for Some Longer Documentary Films  
 
In 1969 discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office resulted in the decision to produce the science programs and the profile programs In addition the Foreign Office conducted a separate review into the possibilities of producing a series of high quality documentary films with the aim of achieving better penetration of television markets in North America but also to target possible transmissions in Europe and Japan. 
 
In early 1970 a Foreign Office group called the “Scott Working Party” put forward a proposal for a major new series of television programs to become the centre-piece of Her Majesty’s Government’s overseas television effort.  The argument for the new series of programs is set out in paragraphs 50-53 of a Working Party Report which can be summarized under three headings:  
 
"Objective: to obtain better penetration than hitherto of the television markets of the United States and Western Europe, together with good transmission times in Japan, Australia and Canada. 
 
Purpose:  During the coming years of negotiation for the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community, it will be necessary to have the capability to effectively use television, among other information media, to combat a constant risk of misunderstanding and friction between Britain and the United States and continue to promote a climate of opinion so that Britain’s export trade may continue to expand.  
 
Means: After defining the policy objectives and purpose, the Working Party suggest that “one possibility” of achieving these ends “might be the production of a series of television documentaries of the highest quality to be made by outstanding television directors………these programs to be half hour or 25 minute films…. such programs might cost up to £25,000 each to produce and it is proposed that some of the resources hitherto used in the production of magazine television programs should be directed to this new proposal. (source COI Films and Television Division paper of September 1970 with a response and plans for such a series.)"  
 
There was much to be said for aiming for 30 minute programs since the 30 minute slot was a “normal” for most television stations.  However there might well be more competition for these time slots since this was the preferred length for many commercial film producers. Another consideration was that employing directors who have a reputation, meant employing people who like to have creative freedom in terms of style and content. In that sense it was a risky proposition.   
 
The major problem however, was that the spread of markets envisaged by the Foreign Office included the main European countries, Japan as well as the USA and the traditional Commonwealth countries. It also became clear that there was uncertainty within the Foreign Office that  Film Division had the ability or resources to produce films of a quality to match the expectations of the Scott Report. Very unusually the Foreign Office sought to impose a producer and production company of their choice on the COI. A spirited encounter took place that involved the COI Director General Thomas Fife Clarke to resist this imposition. (See file NA INF12/1123)    
 
In addition to the proposals for high quality documentary films the Foreign Office also wished to see documentary films produced on “political” subjects intended for use on television stations in Europe.  The COI Film Division advice was that it was very unlikely that television stations in Europe would be prepared to transmit such programs. However Foreign Office wished to test this advice through direct contact with some of the European broadcasters. Visits by a group from Foreign Office and Film Division to Rome and Paris quickly demonstrated that films of this length with a certain political content (remember the distinction between “public relations” and “propaganda”) would not be acceptable. Television Stations were quite prepared to make their own films with substantial “help in kind” while retaining full editorial control, which was not what Foreign Office wanted. So the European aspiration had to fall.  
 
However BIS New York were also keen on the idea of longer documentary films made by top class documentary film directors and thought there would be good distribution in their traditional markets. 
 
In this latter context Film Division produced three films that were made by interesting directors. The first called “Between the Anvil and the Hammer” was a look at the way the police operate in the UK. The film centered on the Merseyside Police Force. The film was directed by Richard Marquand (who later went on to direct one of the “Star Wars” series) Roy Battersby, a well known BBC director made a film about computer aided design and a very talented director John MacKenzie, made a film about primary education.  
 
Adam Leys who produced these films recalls that :    
 
Foreign Office and BIS New York came through with a new proposal, convinced that the COI was the kiss of death. They proposed we should just commission some of the bright young documentary makers who worked for the BBC for instance, and let them make their own film. So we did, and New York didn’t think much of them either.   
 
We got Roy Battersby, who at that time had had a falling out with the BBC, to make a film about computer aided design, which was alright up to the point where he delivered a film at 38 minutes, rather than the 27 minutes we had specified, and refused to cut it on the grounds that it was so beautiful.  
  
Big row, but we had to cut it down to get any distribution at all. We then got Richard Marquand, who had just left the BBC, and later went on to have a short and brilliant career in feature films before he died tragically young, to make a film about the British police.  To make sure that we understood the difference between the US and Britain, Richard and I went to New York, and spent a hilarious few days with New York policemen. The result was a very interesting film set in Liverpool called Between the Anvil and the Hammer. (NFA ID 127085) 
 
I was also looking at education issues, so we had a very experienced director, John Mackenzie, make a film about primary education, which led to one of the better memories of the time. We had taken advice from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate on what and where to film, and they had been happy with the script.  As the film was being finished, the Secretary of State for Education, then an up-and-coming Margaret Thatcher, heard about the film and demanded to see it.  It had, of course, been funded by the Foreign Office and made with advice from the Department of Education, but the Education Secretary felt that her department should have been closely involved – which it actually was - as the HMI was part of the Education Department.   
 
The screening at the COI was wonderful, with Mrs Thatcher at the front of the cinema surrounded by her advisers and acolytes, with the Foreign Office people a little further back looking mandarinish, the Film Division people further back still, looking nervous, and the director and me sitting as far back as we could, in the dark.  When it finished and it was a very clear look at creative teaching in a couple of excellent primary schools, Mrs Thatcher started laying about her.  She was on a losing wicket because we had filmed things which we had been advised to film The pivotal moment was when she said in ringing tones “And why on earth do you film people always make the classrooms look so very crowded??”  There was a short silence, and the director, John McKenzie, a blunt Northerner, said from the back of the hall “Because, Mrs Thatcher, they ARE all very crowded.” Wonderful silence, and the Foreign Office people looked at the ceiling with distant smiles, and made steeples with their fingers.  We didn’t change the film. 
 
In the end the three films were made by interesting directors, the first already mentioned about police work, Between the Anvil and the Hammer directed by Richard Marquand. Roy Battersby made the film about computer aided design and John MacKenzie made the film about primary education.  
 
Film Division believed that these were three very well made documentary films by talented directors. The feedback from BIS New York was not enthusiastic, not damming but clearly not quite what they imagined. The programs were put into distribution but no more were requested. ​