US Documentary and Great Depression
SHOW GREAT DEPRESSION CLIPS
These were, of course, the same Hard Times that Grierson and his
group were responding to in his films.
While Grierson and his crew were turning out non-fiction films for the
British government,
notable things were also happening on the documentary
front in the US. -- both similar and dissimilar to the Brit
Doc Movement
The Grierson films were firmly aimed at
building national consensus and a uniform sense of
national purpose in dealing with the problems of the Great
Depression.
1
Supported as they were by the Brit Govt, the films of the Brit Doc
Movement
almost uniformly looked toward the central role,
benevolence, and effectiveness of State in providing
solutions.
Unlike Vertov's films in which the heroism and productivity of the
worker was largely the focus and the point of the film--the life's blood
of the revolution
the worker in Griersonian films tended to portrayed as
anonymous contributors to the glory of the nation...or as victims
of economic and social hardship in need of State support.
Brian Winston calls this feature of Griersonian film "The Tradition of
the Victim":
Subject are almost always spoken for ... even when, as in
Housing Problems, they are allowed to speak to the camera, it
is only on the capacity of Victim, never as agents in coming up
with the solutions to their problems.
2
HOW WAS THIS MANIFESTED in HOUSING PROBLEMS
COAL FACE
Not surprisingly Grierson's films represented a party line accepted by
both conservative and liberal parties in Great Britain.
There was social concern but little revolution and there was
ample patriarchy to satisfy even the stuffiest MP
In the US, the situation was somewhat different.
Beginning in the 1930s, a strong tradition of committed
filmmaking on the left developed in the US.
This was filmmaking that very consciously contested the
power and the authority of the State
rather than supporting, glorifying, or taking money
and marching orders from it.
3
During the Depression, this radical tradition existed simultaneously
with an equally strong body of governmentally-sponsored
documentaries.
The Depression was a period of intense social and political unrest.
The decade was maked by increasingly violent clashes between
labor and capital--strikes and labor riots were common front-page
news.
Hunger marches and massive public protests concerning social
and racial inequalities were also common.
Inspired in part by the Soviet revolution several decades before, the
American political left put its collective shoulder squarely behind
these struggles.
Left wing politics of the day attracted not only the working class,
but intellectuals and artists as well...
*****************
4
On the film front, the most notable early forays into leftist
documentary film during the early 30s were made by a New York
group known as the Workers Film and Photo League (later called
Film and Photo League) with sponsorship of the Communist Party
International.
League members included photographers Ralph Steiner (Manhatta),
and Margaret Bourke-White; Berenice Abbot; actor Elia Kazan (later
a film and theater director) and others...
The expressed goal of the group was to
train politically committed filmmakers and photographers to
produced media that would present the "true" view of American
life, including the plight of the worker, the dispossessed, the
underclass.
Like Grierson and Vertov, the League had an open disdain for
Hollywood-particularly for Hollywood's refusal to speak of the lives and
struggles of the ordinary man and woman.
5
In both approach and intent, these films were in marked contrast to
Hollywood's current version of history and current events: The
Newsreel.
SHOW DAWN OF THE EYE NEWSREEL clips
Henry Luce, Head of the Time organization that produced March of
Time characterized the style of these films as "Fakery in allegiance
to Truth."
--Are they documentaries?
--What do they have in common with the films we've seen so far?
--Omniscient narrator
--Editorial positions -- infuriated it's enemies…
--Nichols / Tom Gunning “cinema of attractions.”
The works of the Film and Photo League can be considered the
first social documentaries made in the United States…or at least
the first with a staunch political point of view.
6
In a sense, the highly politicized films of the Film and Photo League
bear more of a relationship to the impassioned and openly
partisan political oratory of documentaries after the 60's
than the Grierson tradition…
1930's left wing politics with nothing if not rancorous and marked by
fierce ideological in-fighting…
Artistic and political in-fighting split the group up in 1934… Three key
members, Leo Hurwitz, Ralph Steiner, and Irving Learner left to form
Nykino (NY Kino) that continued the work of making agit-prop
films such as "Pie in the Sky."
Nykino subsequently transformed into a group known as Frontier
Films -- again Paul Strand, Leo Hurwitz and Ralph Steiner were the
mainstays of a group whose membership included a wide range of
left-leaning actors, writers, and filmmakers.
7
The Frontier group produced relatively few films…and these few films
were seen by relatively few audiences: mostly in community groups,
churches, union halls
Perhaps there most notable work--and their last, was the film Native
Land (1942).
Film was first tentatively entitled "Labor Spy."
 Intended to be an expose of covert right wing and
industrial war against labor unions--particularly the
militant CIO.
 More generally, the film was intended to provide more
general heroic models of courage for the struggle
against fascism and infringement of the Bill of rights in
the US.
The majority of Frontier Films members were the sons and daughters
of immigrants--particularly Jewish immigrants.
8
 It has been suggested that Native Land was made in part to
reflect the sense of the filmmakers as cultural outsiders and
political outsiders as well.
 In a sense, the film also resonates with a sense of fear and
urgency about the spread of fascism and anti-semitism in
Europe and about the potential for similar events in the US-the resurgence of jingoism and nativism…
Narrated by Paul Robeson: African American film and theatre actor,
singer, author, One of the first black men to play serious roles in the
primarily white American theater…
Later singled out under the McCarthy witchhunts and blacklisted for
civil rights and social justice activism.
SHOW CLIPS: Native Land
--re-enactment using professional actors…Does this diminish the
power of the documentary? Why did the filmmakers chose to
alternative acted segments with actuality footage?
9
--what is the tone?
--What's the political POV of this film? Whose side is it on…who
does it speak for?
--The film is a series of vignettes--both acted and stock footage: how
do the film makers pull these together into a cohesive whole?
--How do the elements (photography, music, narration) support the
POV, the statements being made?
--In what ways is this film different from those of Grierson and the Brit
Doc Movement? (contesting the state)… How is the portrayal of the
working person different in this film than in, say, Coalface?
--What is the intent of the film?
It can be argued that the type of social and political documentaries of
the sort developed by the Film and Photo League paved the way for
the flurry of governmentally-sponsored more directly
Griersonian documentaries made in the US after 1935.
In June 1935 Rexford Tugwell, a former prof at the University of
Chicago and a member of FDR's inner advisory circle took over
10
directorship of Roosevelt's Resettlement Administration--an agency
associated with the Dept of Agriculture and vested with dealing with
the problems of farmers--particularly those blown off the land in the
Dust Bowl.
To document the plight of the dustbowl farmers, Tugwell hired a
group of extraordinarily talented photographers and artists,
to work in the Agency's information division.
Like John Grierson's boss at the EMB, Tugwell was also persuaded
that film could be used as a particularly potent means of telling the
story of migrant farmers and rural hard times.
The guy that made the pitch was a charismatic New Yorker, a college
educated, politically liberal film critic named Pare Lorentz.
Lorentz disliked the term documentary as much as Grierson
eventually came to dislike it (smelled too much of high-toned art and
academia).
Lorentz Preferred the term "Films of Merit."
11
With no prior film [production experience, Lorentz convinced Tugwell
to let him make a film about the causes of the ecological and
economic disasters of the dust bowl.
 Hired ex-Film and Photo Leaguers, Paul Strand, Leo
Hurwitz, and Ralph Steiner as cinematographers.
 Picked up editing basics from a hired-hand.
 The composer Virgil Thompson hired for the music.

Even tho this was a govt film, Lorentz was convinced he could
achieve wide theatrical distribution for his work.
Tiny budget ($6) (ultimately cost nearly 20K much of it subsidized out
of pocket); opposition from hollywood (which viewed governmentsponsored film production as out and out socialism…an outrage).
(Lorentz has previously pissed off Hollywood by authoring a book on
Hollywood censorship…so by the time his film was made they had
him in their crosshairs)
12
Run-ins with his cameramen--who wanted to politicize the film: put
the blame for the dustbowl on the greediness of capitalist banks and
landowners… (Lorentz believed this too, but had to appease his govt
sponsors, too).
CLIPS PLOW THAT BROKE THE PLAINS (26 min)
--Which of Nichols' modes?
--Unlike other Depression-era writing and film Plow does not focus on
the plight of individuals… Why does Lorentz choose this strategy?
--Voice: irony: juxtaposition of tanks and tractors
--Whom is the film addressing? Who is the "WE" the narrator.
addresses…why is this narrative strategy employed…
--Is the a political film?
--How is are the problems presented? What evidence is provided in
support of the filmmakers POV?
--solutions presented?
--What are similarities/differences British Doc movement films?
--use of music? How do music and narrative interact? Music and
image?
13
Film was controversial -- not your run of the mill boring non-fiction film
(those had been cranked out by various govt agencies for years).
Viewed as competition with hollywood…Rooseveltian New Deal
propaganda…a slap in the face of various midwest state
governments.
Lorentz was burned out--in debt…exhausted by his fights with
hollywood and his own crew…by the difficulties in finding distribution
channels for the film. About to throw in the towel he suggests
another film to Tugwell about flooding of the Mississippi Valley.
Lorentz' enthusiasm persuades Tugwell to let him produced the film,
The River…backed by the Farm Security Administration (function was
to help farmers stay on the land and work it).
Arguably Lorentz' masterpiece.
A warning about ecological irresponsibility and a plea for national
flood control and soil conservation. Tennessee Valley Administration
(TVA) as a way to make ravaged land and communities sustainable.
14
Shot mostly on location and mostly without a shooting script.
Employs brilliant cinematography of Willard Van Dyke (a member of
the Frontier Film group), Floyd Drosby, and Stacey Woodward. Also
incorporates some stock footage from the musical Showboat and
some newsreel footage.
15