While we were searching for relevant items on the BDC website, the keywords we typed in were “second world war” “British cinema” “war-time cinema” etc. At the beginning, we expected to find items such as newspaper clippings, cinema tickets about certain films or pamphlets that give general information about film history. However, in the search result, most of the related items were books. We selected Britain Can Take It: The British Cinema in the Second World War, Second Edition, because its title made it seem most relevant to the task. First published in 1986, the book charts the period through the eyes of thirteen articles and reviews of war-time key films. Each chapter is based on a different film, and the official documentation that features in the book – along with the scripts and box-office returns – helps us place each film in its social and political context whilst also analysing precisely what the relationship between propaganda and film-makers was like.
The British historian Jeffrey Richards and Anthony Aldgate dedicate their book to Arthur Marwick, a history professor. The professor was himself the author of books with a focus on the war. In fact, one of his most influential books,

The Deluge, dealt with the transformations in British society brought about by the First World War, examining the social changes brought about by the war.

Information about the war-time cinema going and cinema’s functions other than its original purpose are not featured and linked to the films discussed. Moreover, all of the films analysed in this book are mainly propagandistic. Film historian Ian Christie describes the structure of this book, which combines empirical studies and orthodox analysis of the 11 films, as “old-fashioned” (147).

What this book immediately tells us about the war and how it affected cinema in the UK is that the demand was initially met with struggles. Due to fear of air raids from the German military, all sports areas and theatres (cinemas included) were closed off for the safety of the general public. It’s also worth noting that some owners of such venues would paint their buildings black, making them invisible on the cover of the night. The book opens, informing the reader of the risks and damages the war had over the film industry in Britain, shedding light on the havoc brought about by the bomb damage, and lack of film equipment as a result.

It also makes note of how 2 out of every 3 filmmakers were called into war, with the result that only 9 out of 22 film studios were being operated. The book then immediately shifts its focus on to the positive aspects of cinema during the war, explaining that the cinemas were eventually reopened when no threats of German air raids seemed to be on the horizon and that even with wartime costs and damages, there were still 4800 cinemas scattered across the UK and it’s estimated that only around 10 percent closed in the next 6 years.

Also, it tells the audience that filmmakers adjusted to wartime cuts by producing shorter films and altering the number of cinema programs. In doing this, the book attempts to get the state the negative first and shifts the audience’s attention to how cinema was an important source of entertainment to motivate the general public and keep morale in dark times. A mixture of the war-torn land and propaganda movies in the early 40’s, they could push the people to ‘do their part’ to ensure victory.

As Christie’s criticism in reviewing this book, “Had the authors discussed in detail such “deviant” anti-consensual films… the later work of Powell and Pressburger (which, to be fair, they have elsewhere), a more dialectical and less purely celebratory view might have emerged of Britain’s self-image during its finest hour.” (147). Furthermore, Marwick (557), whom this book was written for, together with Christie, suggests that the omission of Millions Like Us, which emphasizes the position and contribution of women during the war, is a pity. Aldgate and Richard’s selections of film lack diversity, because escapist films which do not directly address wartime issues were also produced and well accepted by the audience. The articles seem to focus on the filmmaking, storyline of the film, the historical background of the film and how the audience reacted to it. Regrettably, analysis tends to lie only in the narrative of the films, the technical elements such as cinematography or sound are touched on but not thoroughly analysed. A very useful filmography is included at the end for reader’s further viewing.

Furthermore, this item is only about British cinema so it cannot give us an international perspective of films during the second world war. As British film is strongly connected to Hollywood, it would be helpful to know what is happening there as well. It also might help to have a deeper understanding of the general history of the second world war outside of the film industry, to provide more context for the given information.

How we can apply the information found in this book in our works? We can use the information found in this book to study the strategies used by the production company to politically and socially influence the audience. Most of the films convey messages such as soldier recruitment, unity of the home front to support and supply the frontline soldiers, or maintaining the confidentiality of the military information etc. Alternatively, we may apply it in the topic of stardom, how actors and actresses were recruited and affected the box office of the propagandistic films. And also the audience’s attitude towards the vastly produced political films, that focus more on the realistic wartime issues rather than providing escapism.

Works cited:

Christie, Ian. “The Journal of Modern History.” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 60, no. 1, 1988, pp. 146–147. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1880417.

Marwick, Arthur. “History.” History, vol. 72, no. 236, 1987, pp. 557–557. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24415873.