Overview of Producing Films for Use in the UK Process and Relations with Departments. Overview of Film Production 1946 to 1959
The composition of the film production operation of the new Film Division in 1946 is not at all clear. The first Director of Film Division was R E Tritton. The Head of Production appears to be a Mrs Helen de Houilpied since she played a leading role with Tritton in discussions with the Crown Film Unit over the allocation of work as between COI and Crown. A group of Production Control Officers(PCOs) reporting to Helen de Houilpied were responsible for individual films. The number of PCOs is not known, however looking ahead to 1960, there were probably 4-5 PCOs. It is probable that this staffing level replicates the Ministry of Information (MOI) production operation. It is possible that at least some of the individuals moved across from the MOI.
The PCOs were responsible for the production of documentary films, together with short public service films (aka cinema trailers and later television fillers). In taking on control of the Crown Film Unit with its reputation for excellence and also taking over responsibility for all public service films it might have appeared to the world outside that COI constituted an abandonment of excellence in the production of film. There certainly appears to have been a somewhat reserved even hostile reaction to the establishment of the COI Film Division among the great and the good in the documentary film industry. One possible explanation for this perception is that many of the leading figures in the Crown Film Unit had left to join or to set up new documentary film companies. But probably the main reason lay in the question “what was COI for? ”It was not perceived as a “film producing” organisation. It had no creative film makers such as writers or directors on the staff, no technicians, no camera crews, no studios. What was its purpose? What was the role of the PCO?
Whether its purpose was ever clearly stated or defined to the outside world in 1946 is not clear. There was, of course, a purpose which was to act as a bridge between the departments of government who wanted a film made and the film production companies who might make them. The bridge was there to make sure that public money was well spent, that value for money was achieved, that the right choices were made when choosing creative talent. That in the production process there was some informed control to ensure that the films were well made. The nature and extent of exactly what was meant by the word “control” was not, so far as can be seen, clearly spelled out.
As will be seen later years of this account, definitions and functions of the COI contribution evolved and came to have different meanings over time. For the moment the task of the PCO was to be responsible for a caseload of films assigned to him/her. This involved detailed discussions with the sponsoring department about the requirement for a film. The PCO would have to understand the purpose it would serve, the background to the subject and audience it was intended to influence. The understanding had to be as complete as possible. The PCO would then take this understanding forward to consider and choose (probably in consultation with Helen de Mouilpied) a suitable production company to undertake the production. The PCO would then closely monitor the various phases of production through initial treatment, script, case for financial approval, shooting, editing to completion.
Obtaining financial approval was not an easy process. It started with the Film Division Budget Unit who reported to the Divisional Administration Officer. Between 1946 and 1959 the budget unit consisted of two budget officers who handled the negotiations and contracts for all films. These negotiators had probably come across from MOI. Their method of negotiation was to go through and question, minutely, each item in the budget submitted by the contractor without much regard for the overall nature of the project.. The process was very slow and did nothing for the COI reputation with contractors who wanted to work with COI but found the budget process more than a little painful.
An aspect of the process was the degree of communication between the PCOs and the budget officers. This was mostly minimal. The PCO sent through a file containing briefing notes about the project together with the proposed costs provided by the contractor. The Budget Unit took over. For the more complex films there should have been closer liaison, more communication, since at least some of the production requirements had been discussed between the COI producer and the contractor. As this communication did often take place it led to situations where the file passed back and forth before a price could be agreed. Often a time and patience consuming process. Worse was to come. Once the Budget Unit had agreed a price the authority to place a contract had to be obtained from the Treasury. In retrospect it seems astonishing that for some years the COI did not have a delegated authority to place contracts any size. Obtaining permission could often take sometime. Film Division reports as late as 1958 complain of Treasury delays. Nonetheless the most important task of all, for those involved, was that the films clearly carried the message that the responsible department of government wished to convey, in an interesting, memorable and convincing manner.
Looking back at some 66years or so of documentary films made by COI it needs to be said, more than once, that as with any sponsored documentary film production company, the films that were made are those that it is was asked to make by the folk putting up the money: in this case effectively departments of government. COI did not have its own pot of gold or even silver that it might use from time to time to make films that it might think were worth making. COI was there to make the films it was asked to make to serve a particular purpose. The constraints were the same as those for any sponsored documentary film organisation. But that said, there were opportunities to make films that not only served the purpose of the sponsor, but films that were good pieces of film making, even exceptionally well made films, in their own right. While many of the films produced might not be of much interest to the film critic or historian they all had to serve the purpose of the sponsor, whether it was the Building Research Station or the Department of the Environment concerned with lofty questions about the nature of society and the built environment.
In later years research would be commissioned to check on whether the message that departments wished to convey by the use of documentary film actually worked. That is to establish that the required messages were conveyed to the target audience and served their purpose. That the films were memorable enough that some of the audience, at the least, remembered the message(s) and were persuaded to acted accordingly.