The item we have chosen to analyse is a magazine clipping entitled “Wartime Cinema.” The Bill Douglas Cinema Museum’s curated website tells us that this press cutting focuses on aspects of British cinema during World War II, “including cinema-going habits and the careers of significant figures in the British film industry such as Michael Balcon, Michael Powell, Alexander Korda and Alfred Hitchcock.” From this description, alongside it being a press cutting from a magazine rather than a broadsheet newspaper, we made the assumption that it was more informal and light-hearted, created for a casual audience. However, as the description of the item continues, it presents an interesting complication to that assumption; the cutting additionally focuses on how the film industry was used as a “force for propaganda,” a far more serious topic. 

Highlighting how the war affected cinema in both Britain and Germany, the press cutting reportedly discusses the Ministry of Information and the Crown Film Unit.  The Crown Film Unit’s aims were to produce short, educational films that would allow British civilians to keep up to date with events in the war. However, the Ministry of Information was the central government department responsible for publicity and propaganda – including censorship, official news and monitoring public opinion. This department was created briefly at the end of WWI but reopened during the Second World War. 

Although it is hard to ascertain exactly what the clipping says about the war’s effect on cinema without actually reading it, this brief description’s reference to a discussion of cinema’s usage as a “force for propaganda” provides somewhat of an idea. Perhaps they are suggesting that directors were harnessing the emotive power of cinema not out of an artistic desire, but rather a political one.

Critically, though, the description we are given of the item does not inform us of who wrote the article or when it was written. Knowing if the article was written during or after WWII is imperative in determining how we interpret the item. Are they determining that cinema is being used for propagandistic purposes contemporaneously, or after the fact? We question how reliable the author is and whether this is an outsider perspective or someone with first hand experiences.