Our latest blog comes from stipend holder Ellen Scally, who is studying for a PhD at University College, Cork. Ellen explored our holdings on amateur filmmaking.
In arranging my visit to the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum in June of this year, I had a (perhaps rather ambitiously) lengthy list of materials that I hoped to look at during my all-too-brief time in Exeter. As is often the case when researching amateur cinema, these items were not classified as a single identifiable collection but were rather scattered across the museum’s catalogue, and in putting my list together I had to do a little bit of digging. The intuitive feature on the museum’s website which allows the user to create their own curated collection of items was incredibly helpful on that front, and the visibility of the available material here took away some of the guesswork. Primarily, I was interested in looking at amateur hobby press. These are hobby publications which were produced by and for amateur home moviemakers and enthusiasts, filled with tips and tricks, as well as information on the many film clubs operating around Britain and abroad. In service of my PhD research, I was particularly searching for any references in the British hobby press to Irish amateur filmmakers, many of whom were involved with the amateur film community in Britain.
Fig. 1. Front Cover, Movie Maker, August 1975
The amateur cinema movement in Britain was supported by the establishment of the Institute of Amateur Cinematographers (IAC), a nationwide, non-commercial organisation which offered support and guidance to film clubs and societies, and by the publication and wide availability of several hobby press publications, including monthly magazines like the IAC’s Film Maker, and the popular title Movie Maker (formerly known as Amateur Cine World). In Ireland, on the other hand, there was an absence of supports by and for amateur filmmakers, which likely contributed to the involvement of Irish filmmakers with activities in Britain. In Movie Maker, reports on club activities would regularly include contributions from clubs in Ireland, evidence of the friendly relationship between British and Irish enthusiasts.
Fig. 2. From “Club Commentary”, Movie Maker, August 1974, p. 559
The marginal nature of amateur cinema is reflected in the fact that there is no repository in which to view copies of these amateur hobby publications anywhere in Ireland, and there are only a small number in the U.K., including the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum. As previously mentioned, records relating to amateur film in general tend to be patchy as they are typically reliant on serendipitous acquisitions from private collections. Fortunately for me, the Museum had made just such an acquisition recently, when a private individual had donated almost thirty years’ worth of Movie Maker that had been sitting in a garage for several decades. This near-complete collection from the 1970s-1980s nicely supplements the Museum’s extant collection of amateur film materials, which primarily cover the 1940s-1950s. It is Movie Maker which ultimately takes up most of my allotted time, and in looking through some of these issues, a picture emerges of the changing nature and perception of amateur filmmaking over the course of the 20th century.
Figure 3: Cover of Movie Maker September 1975
One thing that stands out to me in my research, and which may be surprising to some, is the trans-national and international networking that amateur clubs and organisations engaged in. The 1930s, which have been described by Charles Tepperman as the “heyday” of amateur filmmaking, saw the establishment of several organisations dedicated to the support of amateur film enthusiasts, including the aforementioned IAC (1932-) in Britain and the Amateur Cinema League (1926-1954) in the United States, as well as the Union Internationale du Cinéma (UNICA; 1937) and, a little later, the International Federation of Film Societies (IFFS; 1947). These organisations provided a means for clubs and societies to network both nationally and internationally, keeping them up to date on amateur activities elsewhere through their hobby press, as seen in the excerpt in Fig. 2. Plenty of excerpts from Movie Maker support this and, moreover, indicate a degree of competitiveness between British amateurs and those from elsewhere, while revealing a close relationship between amateur cinema and national identity.
One 1952 issue of Amateur Cine World offers insight into the perceptions held by some British amateurs regarding their American contemporaries. In an article about film standards, one contributor suggests that British enthusiasts possess greater interest in the technicalities of the film apparatus than Americans (262). Later in the same issue, in reviewing the American Amateur Cinema League’s “Top of the Ten Best”, as seen during their first stop on a tour of film clubs around Britain, another writer suggests a lack of finesse in the American prize winners. Referring to the Americans’ use of sound, he goes so far as to recommend that “as many British amateurs as possible see this dire warning of the consequences of technical proficiency exceeding artistry” (p. 278). Furthermore, in reference to the content of some of the American films, one senses more than a hint of derision in the comment that:
“Many of the audience were astounded at the lengths to which the producers were prepared to let the children go. After all, how many British amateurs would let one of their offspring shave another one practically bald with an electric razor just to get a laugh?”
(Amateur Cine World, 1952, p. 280)
The comparisons also allowed for more self-critical commentary about the status of amateur cinema in Britain. In August 1975, regular Movie Maker contributor John Wright adopted a mock-French accent to boast about one French club’s well-appointed and equipped projection room which was provided by “ze local authorities” (p. 566), while highlighting the success of French amateur filmmakers in international competitions and implying that the British amateurs require more support if they are to compete at the same level.
The correspondence in Movie Maker over the years also reveals the importance of institutional supports for amateur cinema, in the case of Britain, the Institute of Amateur Cinematographers. In a series of editorials ranging from the end of 1975 to early 1976, the magazine’s editor Tony Rose laments a decision by the BFI to no longer hold copies of the Movie Maker “Ten Best” award-winning films. The prestigious “Ten Best” was their long-running annual film competition, and the BFI had been holding copies of the winners in their rental library since the competition’s inception in Amateur Cine World in 1930. The decision in 1975 to stop promoting the “Ten Best” was met with “some degree of vexation” according to one BFI representative (McArthur 761), and it had the potential to put a stop to the distribution and exhibition of the winning films at film clubs across the country. In the February 1976 issue, Rose thanked “the brave lads at the Institute of Amateur Cinematographers” for stepping in to take over distribution of the films.
Considering the recent boom in scholarly and archival interest in amateur films, this intervention by the IAC has proven crucial. The IAC continued to hold copies of the “Top Ten” winners and their film collection is now also held on long term deposit by the East Anglian Film Archive (EAFA), where some material has been digitised and made available online. Described by the EAFA as “internationally significant” (East Anglian Film Archive), the collection preserves films from across the globe, and is one of few easily accessible collections which offers an overview of the types of films being made by amateurs during the mid-20th century. Collections of hobby press such as the one at the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum complement the surviving films by offering additional information about competitions like the “Top Ten”, including reviews of the films and biographical details about the filmmakers.
Fig. 3. Programme for Screening of Amateur Cine World “Ten Best Films of the Year”, 1957.
In terms of my own specific aims, my visit to Exeter provided a wealth of material on the involvement of Irish filmmakers with British amateur institutions and competitions. Findings included contributions of articles by Irish amateurs like Frank Morgan and Northern Irish filmmakers the Spence Brothers and Archie Reid. The research conducted during my visit will inform and enrich my forthcoming PhD thesis on the history of amateur filmmaking across Ireland.
With special thanks to Phil, Matt, and all the staff at the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum for kindly facilitating my visit.
Works Cited
“East Anglian Film Archive.” University of East Anglia, www.uea.ac.uk/business/partneringfor-innovation/licensing/east-anglian-film-archive. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
McArthur, Colin. “Comment: Movie Maker air their views”, Movie Maker, vol. 9, no. 11, November 1975, p. 761.
Rose, Tony. “More in Sorrow”, Movie Maker, vol. 10, no. 2, February 1976, p. 81.
Tepperman, Charles. Amateur Cinema: The Rise of North American Moviemaking, 1923-1960. University of California Press, 2014.
“The Roaring ‘52s: American Ten Best Blast the Ear Drums”, Amateur Cine World, 1953, p. 278-280.
Wright, John. “Club Commentary”, Movie Maker, August 1975, p. 566-567.