one might think.
for any such non-establishment Indeed, these factors and the way they were handled by The Other Cinema (TOC] Collective are far from negligible, but it socios to me that in orace to assess them we have to place them within the perspective of TOC's exhibition projecr.
Is incepton in mas 1969, TOC was committed to providing distribution and "independent" and "political films. Operating primarily as a distributor.
durine years that шагкоа сопиансо асенс и audiences was hulld a Pondlar Cinema with Can important role to play in the political situation'. (TOC INDEPENDENT The cinema at Tollenham Street was the realisation of a long-sought exlubition show"independent' cinema and the means whereby a wealth of progressive, but largely neglectfilms could at last find the echinition outlet they renuined # was envisaged, moreover That box office returns would help to offset the cost of new tides thereby creating a subsidy for the distribution departwhich carries hundred political feature films and documentaries for use by film socicties and the labour movement. event, returns from hiring out these films were used to subsidise thie distribution service which has 30.281 SEE DOURUNE:
Fifteen months ago, cinema s programmer, Paul Marris, described the project селітрите 10 social and examine the history of the YOU MAY HAVE read ar The end of last year saw the closure of The Other Cinema in Central London, just 14 months after opening. "Predictable yet nevertheless disheartening'.
After all, the financial burden incurred by the venue itself, plus the seemingly pernicious tight-fistedness of the British Film Institute are surely shackles enough enterprise, writes cinema from viewpoint... to develop audience. Viewed as intentions attitude towards the role of the here to criticise.
Moweret I's Worth embhas ising that a film culture. "left-wing' or otherwise cannot be developed without an audience, and the notion of "socialist cinema (to me, least) is extremely unclear. The point is that TOC scamed to assume that an audience on the left already existed for many of its Giles. In fact, audience does not exist.
The repertoire of opposition al films was viewed often by tiny audiences mostly made up of those already involved oppositional film practice. The devclopment of a constituency for 'independent" film rests on challenuine the notion dr art produced for consumption which tends iD expectations that many people lake with them to the cinena But further, what assumptions do they bold abour the nature of political film-making?
AUDIENCE In recent years, the extubitión practices developed by groups and co-ops incorporated analysis of relation berwoon given films and their intended audiences, and through this work potential audiences for independent' cinema have emerged. Since the left means nothing homo the ences vary caormously in their CELL BESTEDLICTS It therefore seems necessary that arecisey these assume tions must first be interrogated programmes, and that the iden From the Community Comsocialist such an ENC film have the of programming should be extended to include docuHSH0U UI3LU3157 pecial events around key debates. and TOC's mistaken assumptior. ahour the nature of its audience mean! that many of its films were rewarded us inaccessio: or elitist". or were consumed in of much the same way (elevision documentary: (What I mean is that many political Hims, while aiming to change content - present the 'correct" position — use the same mode Film-making documentaries. Thes the whole question of aesthetics as ar ideological weapon remains marguialised.
To crode that marginalism is developing left-wing film culture'. Ir learning to view the kinds of films that characterise oppositional cinema, andiences will hegin to develop a critique of dominant cinema and from that point may begin re-examine the history of the cinema from a socialist viewpoint In terms of a venue, however, I'm not convinced chat cinema such as Totrenham Street's was necessary at thes point. This -15 underestimate the importance col good exhibitipe facilities and space for discussions, but the business of popularising the idea of Popular Cinema would secm, in its carlier stages at least, to involve only small groups of people tor which more modest bur flexible Tacilites (such as the London Film Makers' Co-op) are adequate and less demanding financially:
As for the British Film Institute, it seems easy to accuse i or reneging comotiment to British tim culture. TOC closed Docember when the Institute turned down the application far: 135.000 for the cinema, n [15,000 cash injection for the distribution department, and a discussion on 2 phased subsidy over the next years However, it did inirially contribute/17,000to enablethe cinema to open. TOC, given it perenially precarious financia position, should have ensured that its project would sustain BFl scrutiny in the event of a request formoney.
This is no: to advocate acknowledge one of the many contradicrions of developing an oppositional film culture and lo should have heen foreseen as pie of the polirics of TOC's DELHICLE CORES REAVES IN CORSIRE based med s If you are interested attending the monting in Liv comino a memb (individual annual subscrip receiving a copy o CUr Annan response or war further information, piesse Derek Jones COMCOM Information Officer 8 Millie d Close Cheshire Tal 0629 270554 (home), or 0925 51144 ext 15C Or if you live in the Lonco region; Simon Pertridge.
92 Huddleston Roed, London N7, te:: 01-272 5323