JAMIE SEXTON

GRIERSON'S MACHINES: Drifters, the Documentary Film

Movement and the Negotiation of Modernity

: le film de John Grierson Drifters et Ie 1nouvement documentaire

britannique seront examin6 en termes de modemit~. de modemisme et d'une
conception typiquement britannique du cinema modemiste partagee par les
cinephiles anglais. Les ~tudes sur Ie documentaire ont rarement discute du r~eau
parallele de Ia cinephjlie britannique, qui fut pourtant aucial pour Ia reception
critique des oeuwes, affiant un espace ali Ie documentaire pouvait ~tre w et
approoe entant qu'art. Grierson a aussi fait la promotion du mouvement
documentaire dans plusieurs ecrits qui ressemblaient i\ d'autres discours

I:

ahematifs sur Ie cinema. Un modemisme typiquement britannique est evident

dans la trope industrielle et I'esthetique machiniste de Drifters. Mais on y pen;oit

aussi Ia problematique de la construction de la maSOJlinrte proletaire.

n the mid-1920s an alternative film culture arose within Britain. This was
a broad fonnation of intellectual cinephiles who were attempting to establish cinema as a new, modem art fonn, one that could be defined by its own
unique properties. The Film Society, a members-only exhibition outlet set
up in 1925 to screen a range of films not generally shown in commercial cinemas, and Gos< U~, a journal devoted to promoting the art of film (its first
issue appeared in JulyI927), were the most influential organs of this culture.
This cultural fonnation created a space for cinematic art that was largely
modernist. Modernism traditionally refers to a diverse set of practices that
attempted to negate the effects of commercial and popular adture.
According to Malcom Bradbwy and lames McFarlane, whilst modernist
practices cannot be homogeneously blended, certain features are central to
the concept of modernism: internationalism, aesthetic self-consciousness
and a tum away from realism and toward fannal experimentation. I
More than just a set of aesthetic strategies, modernism also consciously addressed modtfHity, which, in the early twentieth century, included new

CANAaIAN JOURNAL Of FILM STUDIES. IEVUE CANADIENNE D'IhuDES CINtMATOCi'IAPHIQUE.S

VOLUME 11 NO. I SPIING rRINTEMPS n n pp .....,.

modes of cultural production (photography, the cinema) and new' modes

of social configurations (the shrinking of spatial barriers engendered by
mass transpOrtation and telecommunications)' One of the most distinc
tive elements of modernity addressed by artists in the first half of the twentieth century was mcdumitaticm. The increasing role that machines were
playing in the practical realm of everyday life was most enduringly sym
bolised in Britain by the assembly-line specialisation of working methods
installed in Ford's Highland Bell Factory'
In this article I want to explore the ways in which the British docu
mentary film movement exploited certain themes and fonnal strategies of
modernism and addressed sdeetive components of modernity, In particular, 1 want to argue that the critical acclaim the movement received was
largely due to such strategies, and to the fact that these strategies were in
tune with other elements of British alternative film culture. The movement
has been related to international modernist film aments as well as to
British modernist art outside of film.' The relation to international mod
emism is especially important and will be discussed here. Yet, the way in
which these modernist elements were taken up in speciFic ways within a
British alternative film environment is an extremely important factor that
has been largely overlooked. I hope to show, by using Drifttrs as a key
example, how a specifically British fOmI of modernist cinema was constructed and what aesthetic and ideological strategies underpinned it.
MODERNISM AND IIIlITISH FILM CULJURE

There were a number of interconnections between the modernism of

British alternative: film culture and other British modernist arts in the interwar period. Virginia Woolf was a member of the Film Society; H.D. wrote
for GOst Up; W.H. Audcn and William Coldstrcam collaborated with the
British documentary film movement; Len Lye exhibited with the Seven
and Five Society. Whilst these fragmentary connections may be the most
obvious evidence of modernism within British film culture, the relationship
of these two movements needs to be understood in more distinctly filmic
tenns.
A proliferation of alternative film movements sprang up internationally
in the inter war period, most notably in France, where a number of cineclubs and film journals started to appear lTom around 1915.5 These eventually led, in the mid1920s, to the creation of modernist theories of the
cinema (linked to Impressionist and Surrealist filmmaking).' The ontological properties of the medium were mapped and important aesthetic

CillEasON'S MACHINI5 41

qualities were identified: fluidity of camera movement, visual tricks, elaborate lighting and montage were some of the notable privileged features.
Cinema was perceived as important because it was a new, modem art fonn
and was celebrated in and of itself. Therefore, those films seen as relying
upon already established literary and dramatic traditions were denigrated
A canon of films was gtadually established within alternative film move
ments throughout the world during the 19205, The Cabind of Dr. Gdigari
(Germany, 1919, Robert Wiene), The Joykss Stred (Gennany, 1925, C.W.
Pabst) and Th, Batlksbip Pot""lein (USSR, 1925, Sergei Eisenstein) are three
celebrated examples.
British alternative film culture was in many ways much more related to
these general international currents than it was to other British modernist
arts. The Film Society and 00" Up forged links with film societies and
cine-clubs around the world in order to consistently show, or offer opinions on, a wide range of international films? Thus two central modernist
features-medium specificity and internationalism-became apparent
within alternative British film culture, and these tended to actively prevent
any straightforward connections between modernism in cinema and other
artistic fonns in Britain. Painterly abstract films, for example, were often
seen as relying too much on other artistic fonns and were difficult to assess
within the frameworks of film criticism. 8 At the same time, the international bent of alternative film arlture in its fonnative years actively fed into
a denigration of British cultural traditions.
As there were no systematic relations between British filmmaking and
Briti,sh modernist art, alternative' culture in the country has sometimes
been seen as ultimately parasitic. Thus the Film Society showed innovative
films from other countries, whilst Gasr Up translated international ideas.9
To some extent this is true. but by stressing this cultural strand as primarjly engaged in dissemination, such a view fails to recognize how international films and ideas were incorporated within a specific context. It is
perhaps a result of many discourses that arose within alternative British
film culture itself. Whilst British cinephiles wrote about the aesthetic qualities of films, they tended to dismiss the majority of British commercial
films in an intensely hostile manner. Within the pages of Oos< Up in particular, but also detectable within some newspaper articles and cultural
journals, an anti-British prejudice was apparent. British films we~ seen as
patriotic and old-fashioned; if they did attempt to integrate modernist elements they were accused of incorporating them in imitative, derivative
ways. Oswdl Blakeston WTote a series of articles in OOSt Up attacking

British cinema from a variety of angles 10, and Ralph Bond and Orlton West
criticised many amateur British films for imitating Soviet techniques in
uninspired'ways.11
The shift from treating commercial British cinema as unredeemable to
criticising it for being imitative, marked an important change in British
film discourse. Toward the end of the 19205 critics, recognising a new
artistic ambition in British films, critidsed the uninspired. incorporation of
the more obvious elements of international modernist cinema; they called
for international elements to be incorporated in more distinctive ways.
This led to appeals for a distinctively' British fonn of modernist cinema/
which would address excluded, or particularly modem, symbols of British
life (the most favoured of which were the working c1asses)-yet still retain
international modernist formal markers. It was John Grierson who eventu
ally propounded the most coherent vision of what constituted a new,
specifically British form of international cinema,
II MODERN BRmSH CINEMA

Grierson's ideas were heavily influenced by his time in America, where a

Rockefeller Scholarship permitted him to research mass communications at
the University of Chicago. 12 The principal influence came from the social
sciences, which were prominent in the Chicago circles in which Grierson
studied. Social science at this time was engaged in solVing social problems
through the study of hwnanity by scientific means, especially statistical and
observational research. Grierson, as has been widely noted, was particularly
impressed by the theories of Walter Lippmann, who wrote on public relations and believed. that the hierarchical nature of mass communications
undermined democracy. t3 Grierson was also, as Zoe Druick notes, influenced by his supervisor Robert Merriam, who-like Grierson---believed
that democracy could be redefined in the age of mass communications. 14
In addition to researching public opinion and mass communications,
Grierson wrote a number of articles on modem art for the CbfCiJ!Jo ErJnfin!J
Post, and undertook a report on the film industry for Famous Players
Lasky.1S He was especially interested in certain movements in modern,
abstract art, such as Vorticism and Cubism, because he thought they were
attempting to represent significant aspects of the modem world 16 Far from
being a simple ..realist.... Grierson was deeply interested in questions of
fonn and individual creativity.17 What he did QPpose was art that was
excessively introverted and personal, as he believed it was disconnected
from what he called the 'objective rhythms of everyday life:"

CAIEISON"S MACttINU

43

It is now generally acknowledged that Grierson was also inAuenced by

Hegelian idealism and its emphasis on an underlying, eternal reality that is
spiritually deeper than the objective and changing phenomenal world
immediately apprehended by human perception. Whilst I do not deny the
importance of this influence on Grierson's thought,. I want to stress the
additional influence of Positivism, a philosophy based on the study of
objective" and quantifiable data. It was the most influential philosophical
school in America in this period and dominated the research milieu in
which Grierson was working.lO Crierson had already read the influential
Behaviourist psychologist John B. Watson whilst he was at university,11 and
the Rockefeller Institute embraced the tenets of objective rationality.ll The
social sciences dominating Grierson's academic milieu adopted, for the
most pan, an instrumental view of humanity, and developed theories of cit
izenship based upon notions of an "efficient citizen.''13 Grierson's rather
idiosyncratic combination of neoHegelianism and Positivism meant that
he would, in his early years of film production, hold an idealist view of the
creative artist, but an instrumental view of human activities depicted within the films (which precluded the depiction of psychological subjectivity).
I'will return to these issues below.
Whilst Grierson's aesthetics were heavily influenced by his experi
ences in America, they were also very similar, in certain respects, to
views about the art of cinema propagated within international alternative
film circles. Grierson identified what he thought were uniquely cirlemat
ic principles-visual composition and rhythmic structure-and he
admired the medium's ability to attain a visual poeticism. At the same
time, Grierson was fascinated by some aspects of American commercial
cinema (especially its techni.cal sophistication), but he was dismissive of
the overall "vulgarization" and "'petty hokum"' that characterised entertainment films. 24 At this stage in the development of Grierson's cinematic aesthetics, the main difference between his and the prevailing
aesthetic trends in alternative circles was his objectivism. In the Film
Society programme notes and in the pages of Oose Up in its early years,
there was a marked preference for films that were capable of probing
psychological states, hence the celebration of many German
Expressionist films and, in particular, the films of G.W. Pabst. Grierson,
however, did not reject all notions of psychology. Whereas earlier alternative criticism celebrated the representation of psychological subjectivity, Grierson celebrated the psychological creativity of the artist who
organised the film images.

I'

In 1927 Grierson was employed by Stephen Tallents at the Empire

Marketing Board (EMB) to write a series of memoranda on British film problems. The EMB had been set up in 1926, under the auspices of the Dominions
Office, to improve Empire trade. lS This was a time when the concept of pub
lie relations was rapidly gaining popularity, and film was enlisted in this
mediation of public opinion. It was seen as an "'unconscious carrier of propaganda" and the most potent of all media in its ability to distribute ideas and
influence opinions.26 As American films were dominating the British market
during the midI92Os, American products were also receiving incidental pub
licity. Consequently, the EMB began to. look into film as a means of disseminating Empire propaganda, and it commissioned Walter Creighton to make
a filrn--On< Family (1930)-for precisely that purpose.
In his EMB reports Crierson began to define a conception of a distinc
tively British cinema. His reports were not only influenced by the need to
promote Empire trade; they were also influenced by neo-Hegelianism,
Positivism and anistic modernism. At this point, modernist cinema itself
was beginning to take a more "objective" and political (or, at least, social)
turn. That is, many cinephiles---both internationally and within Britainbegan to move away from privileging films that were psychologically
inward, and toward favouring films that were more sociallY-Oriented,
depicting "objective," external reality rather than subjective, internal reality.17 This was reAected in a shift from prefering German psychological
films to celebrating Soviet montage films. The latter-most notably
Eisenstein's-shifted cinematic artistry away from mise-en-scene toward
editing. This shift-which was common in many international alternative
film movements-was partly inspired by the changing political dimare, as
many filmmakers felt impelled to address social issues in light of the rise of
Fascism and the perilous economic climate.
Yet some filmmakers also still felt it was necessary to experiment with film
in formal terms; hence the growing convergence between documentalY
films and the avant-garde in several countries. Grierson's attempts to define
a distinctively British cinema---informed by social purpose and modemism-therefore fitted into a general international trend within alternative
film culture and the more specific milieu of British alternative film culture (as
he was ~ddressing British social issues). In his memoranda for the EMB,
Grierson wrote that British films should be poetic, yet not experimental to
the point of incomprehensibility. He also wrote that they should be national and international at the same time. Content.wise, modem aspects of British
industry and imperial themes could prOvide distinctly non-nostalgiC, up-to-

CIIIERSON'S MACHINES 45

date subject matter. Grierson wrote, 'There a,re subjects aplenty in the
progress of industty, the story of invention, the pioneering and developing
of new lands and the exploration of lost ones, the widening horizons of com
merce, the complexities of manufacture, and the range of communications:
indeed in all the steam and smoke, dazzle and speed, of the world at hand,
and all me strangeness. and sweep of affairs more distant.1I'18
Whilst British filmmaking should not forego modernist experimentation,
he argued, it should attempt to avoid straightforward imitation of, for example, Soviet montage techniques (a common criticism of British films with
artistic pretensions). Grierson therefore thought that, whilst international
inAuences should be incorporated, they should be placed within a distinctly British framework. He wrote, "English production might easily add to the
Russian intensity something of the English sense of moderation, and to the
preoccupation with personal fortunes insisted on by the Americans something of the EngUsh sense, something of a sense of human importance."'"
This line of thought was already current within alternative British film
culture and had been expressed in the midI92Os. Iris Barry, for example,
appealed for a specifically British--yet internationally aware-form of cinema that should incorporate a host of international advances in a way that
was still recognisably British.'" Yet this type of thinking was down played for
awhile in the midst of 0"", Up's regular, intense attacks on British cinema.
Several attacks on British cinema opposed a certain type of patriotism
that many felt permeated the British film indusrry, and that was seen as
excessively jingoistic and ignorant of industrial progress. Yet such attacks
should not be seen as anti-nationalist. Nationalism characterised the outlook of many cinephiles to the extent that they would define the whole
character of a nation through certain cinematic trends. Thus montage was
not merely seen as a tendency amongst a few Soviet films, it was seen as
somehow inextricably linked to Soviet characteristics. A form of cinematic stereotyping took place, in which a small selection of films was favoured
and seen to represent national characteristics. The internationalism of
alternative film culture was thus infonned by nationalism.
Whilst Bany's calls for a national-international cinema became muted
for a few years, others took. up the cause in a more consistent fann in the
latter part of the 1920s, notably Ralph Bond and Robert Herring, both of
whom wrote for Oost Up and thus went against its main editorial stance. 31
A new, modern fann of British cinema was defined as internationally
aware, liberal and progressive. It was characterised by distinctively British
modes of form (moderation) and content (which included looking at

46 ..... _

industrial progress and the representation of the working classes).

Grierson was eventually commissioned by the EMB to make a film on
the herring fishing industry. The resulting film, DriJItrl, allowed him to put
the ideas he had formulated into action. The film was shot at a low budget
of 2,948, in comparison to Om Family, which cost 15,740. It was also fin
ished earlier than Creighton's film (DriJIm was released in 1929) and proved
to be much more successful (0., Family was a commercial Aop)n This led
to the creation of the EMB Film Board, which existed from J 929 to 1933,
with Grierson in charge the whole time. Due to budgetary limitations,
many of the films made for this unit were relatively short, straightforward,
informational films. Yet Grierson did allow aesthetic experimentation to
exist withifJ his unit, as evidenced by some more aesthetically ambitious
films, like Robert Flaherty's Industria' Britain (1931).
The film unit was transferred to the General Post Office in 1934, where
it existed until 1939. Many of the films were modest commercial films that
promoted the activities of the GPO; however, there were some aesthetically more ambitious films, such as Alberto Cavalcanti's Coalfact (1934) and
Pdt and Pot! (1934). Some of these films, in which the promotional aspects
of film were subservient to artistic aspirations, foHowed the template of
DnJ1trs in their combination of modernism and tradition, their panicular
view of machinery and the working classes, and their contribution to the
development of a distinctly British-yet also intemational-<:inema that
blended aesthetic with social objectives. Through the study of Drift"", one
can see how these aesthetic and social concerns were -approached and why
they fitted in with the discourses of alternative British film culture that led
to the promotion of the British documentary film movement as an artisti
cally significant, native film tradition.
DADmON AND MODERNnY

One of the defining characteristics of discourses circulating within alternative British film culture was the merging of the traditional and the modem. Whilst cinephiles were keen to emphasise cinema as a new, modem
medium reflecting technological change and new ways of perceiving the
world, they also depended upon more traditional notions of aesthetic
excellence, such as balance and coherency. This meant that whilst radical
experimentation was encouraged, it was mostly seen as laboratory workwhat Paul Rotha called a "testing ground for the instruments of film."u
A true work of artistry was a film that could incorporate radical innovation
within more traditional frameworks. In such a framework, radical disjuncture

would be contained by the necessity of each Film part to relate to the

themes of industrialisation like those found in many Soviet montage films,

whole in an Horganic" manner. Grierson shared these ideas and built them

notably Eisenstein's 10, Gmual Lin' (USSR, 1929) and DzigaVeltov's 10,
Man With Ib, Maoi' Camua (USSR, 1929).
But at the same time, Drifltrs deviated from its Soviet models in important
ways. It is more moderately paced than many Soviet Films, reflecting

into his theory of what modem British Filmmaking should be. His notion
that British films should incorporate international experimentation in a
more moderate form mirrors the way in which alternative discourses oecu

pied a borderline position between tradition and modernity (and! by

extension, conventionality and radicalism). Tradition and modernity also
became incorporated as themes within Driftm, and therefore inAuenced
both its form and content.

Grierson's desire to add to the Russian intensity something of the English

sense of moderation." Whilst there is the occasional rapid montage sequence

(espeeially when the storm rises), the editing pace as well as movement within the frame is, on the whole, less intense. Another significant divergence

On a narrative level, Driftm is a rather simple Film. Following the opening titles, the men go down to the harbour and make their ship ready for
the catch. The film then follows one ship as it leaves the harbour, with the
camera mounted on the ship to record the view from it, as well as the action
on it. Eventually, after the men struggle to land their catch, the ship
returns, the Fish are sold, packaged, loaded and transported to market.
The merged themes of tradition and modernity are explicitly referred
to in the opening titles; 'The Herring fishing has changed. Its story was

from the more radical tendencies of many Soviet Films is the absence of a

once an idyll of brown sails and village harbours-its story now is an epic

men's work is marketed and debased by commercialism), I would argue

that this aspect of tlie film is not prominent within the overall text and that
it is itself a rather ambivalent critique. In general, Grierson was a prapo
nent of industrial progress, even if he did dislike certain aspects of mass
commercialism. On the whole, then, the film defends modernity and
attempts to assuage fears: about the more disruptive effects of technological progress. It offers, after an, a positive portrayal of its subject matter: it
attempts to portray the links between tradition and modernity and inserts
the actions of the trawlers within an overall unity.
DnJtm also relies to some extent on the conventions of "city sympho-

of steel and steam. Fishermen still have their homes in the old time villages-But they go down for each season to the labour of a modern industry." These titles indicate how

Drifttrs (like many of the documentary films

that followed) was concerned with modernity and progress, but avoided
reference to any radical break with the past. The emphasis on tradition

should not, however, imply outright hostility towards scientific progress.

Rather, the film is a moderate and evolutionary-rather than extreme and
revolutionary-fonn of modernist cinema. The Positivist milieu in
America would have influenced Grierson's ideas about an evolutionary

form of progress, in which, as Zoe Druick writes, "a modified form of

Darwinism that focused on the effect of the environment on the labour
and life of the community" prevailed. 304 Evolutionary ideas concerning
social issues were also prevalent in Britain via Fabianism, which was promi
nent in many British intellectual circles. Many Fabians believed that society should be developed in an "organic" manner, and they conceived of
social planning through natural metaphors. 35 This led to the belief in some
quarters that industrialism was an evolutionary development.

As has been widely noted, Drift'" was influenced by Soviet montage,

speeifically 10, Baultship Poltmkin. Its montage is the dramatic motor that
powers the action forward, it offers types rathet than psychological characterisation; it was made outside studios (for the most part); it incorporates

....... . -

$ense of the working classes as a force for revolutionary action; rather, they
are posited as protagonists in a drama between nature, man and machine.
Grierson was a refonnist, not a revolutionary. His effort to produce a
less radical, non-revolutionary cinema is at once an attempt to create a
more specifically national fo.rm of modernist cinema and a reAection of the
pressures of working for government sponsors. Although a case can be

made that the film critiques modernity at the end of the Film (when the

ny" films; documentary collages of the modem metropolis, such as Paul

Strand and Charles Sheeler's Manbalr.. (USA, 1911) and Walther Ruttman's
Btrlin, Sympb<lIIy of a City (Germany, 1927), which employed editing and
compositional strategies to construct abstract portraits of the city. These
films merged abstraction and social documentation, and were later mentioned by Grierson as valuable precedents to the documentary movement

(even though he did critique their lack of social engagement)' DrifltrS

shares with such films an effort to document the "objective" aspects of
everyday life in a poetic manner by depending more upon abstract patterns
than upon narrative or character motivation or such conventions of
commercial fiction films as shot/reverse shot editing. DriJtm does not,
however, focus on the modem urban world; its concern is with human

GIIERSON'S 1lIACHINlS 49

bt:ings and natur~ to iii much greater extent than the -city symphony" films
In this sen e the film merged mcchamsation with more humanist interests,

slich as a belief in the importance and perfectability of humankind, and a

rather triilnscendcntal attempt to universaHS( social experie~.)1
DnJtm constantly emphas,s"" the links between nature, man and
machine through symbolic association. For example, the ~diting sequence
lhat fills between abstr.lct views 01 "'. and surf, lollowed by a ship's fun
nel emitting OJrlicues of billowing smoke, is associative montage that
stresses connections between nature and industry. Likewise, thcre arc

many shots of birds and lish grouped tog<lher and in'emlt wi,h men cas<
ing heffing nets, whICh emphasise the patterned and organisational simi

larities berween different species. In a similar manner, the abstract and

rhythmic properties of machinC'1)'--such as the mechanIcal motion of the
turb.ne engine and the revolving winch-are shown to be an integral pan

01 the overall pnx:ess in which the fishermen participate, while at the same
hOle they are admired for their abstract qualiti"", The superimposition 01
ripplmg panems of the S(:a over a close: up of an engine: not only suggests
that abstract (cnns are fascinattOg in their own righ.t, but they are also pari

01 a global 'pattern,' On a formal level, lh< film is also vaguely machin<

like in that editmg scquen~s arc often structured with mechanical regu~

SI\ocIing dod<side scone la<

~,

Photo courtesy of the John Griofson ArcluYe, Sterling

Un~

machine, as an impartial basis for arrangement,""l Paul RothiJ would also

later praise the (tim for its machine-like abstraction and go on to write,

l.arity, and humans and nature: are depictcd in an impersonal way that
suggests reality itsdf is as irn~rsonal as a machine. Due to this aspect or

'The constricted course and rhythm of a machine

the f,lm, the worl:.ing das.." are represented impersonally, as though they

to watch but symbolical, also, 01 Infimte though!.'"

too a.re mere: objects to

be gazed at aesthetically.

MACHINEn. THE WORKING ClASSES AND WOMEN

Dn!ttn'rolphasis on machinery and indu trial progress, combi~d with its
humanist concerns and its s~ifically British inAections contributed to its
wid~sprt:ad acclaim within critical circles. J' Grierson had managed to
combine many of the traditional and mode'mist currents prtValcnt within
contemporary alt.ernative film diSCOUrK:. The film's representation of
"objective" events in a machineli'k.e manner came in for special approval. J9
Caroline Lejeune praISed the: film as marking a new stage in Bnush cinema. She wrote that human~ccntl"Cd drama had "stood in the way of devd
opmrnt, blocking out from the cinema a combination of imagcs in th~

rhythm 01 the abstract and inanimale that would give the directors' work
a new and fuller meaning."4Q She went on to say that she was not askmg

lor a totally abstract cinema, but for a cincma that accepted 'every scrap

or matenal

on its own merit's, using evocative: (onn. whclher of man or

IS

not only compelling

.DriJrm was also praised for bringing the working classes to the screen In
a serious manner, It is tdling, though, rhar this was done so mc=chanistlcally,
Paradoxically, whilst attempting to inflect the moderni<t film in a more
humanist directIon, DriJI<rs ended lip treating lh< working lasses Jlk<
rnachinety. The bodies of the men in the f,lm are often fragm<nted and rep
n:serltcd in a way that alh"" ,heir body parts with 01 hme parts. They only
perfonn necessary activities and arc: not Individuated. Their only respite
from work 1S through occasional ntCtSsmy functions like <;Iecplng and eating

The working classes thus become stripped 01 emotional content and are
placed as cogs within a vast apparatus of rhythmic and visual mochinery It
is no surprise to di~r that Grierson actually thought that there

wa, a

qualttative difference between the lower and working classes and ,he middle

cla""" they thought in fundamentally diflerent ways, he belIeved," Whilst

If may be that a Iilm like Thr Baul.sbip P,tmll<i. also obj<etifies ,he working
classes, ind Ei~nstein's use of "typageU exerted an m"ucoce on Gnerson's
portrayal 01 the wooong classes, " is notable that they are pos,ted as agents

st _ _
QlUSON"S MACKIHES

51

Men and machines prepare to seC sail in Drifters. Flame enlargement courtesy of the John

Abstract~ttems

Gtierson. Archive, Stertina University.

Griet'SOfl Archive. Sterling University.

of

500011

change an Potmtkin, a pnvllege= ,hey a("(: denied

III

DnJlm.

Grie~ns mechamstlc, POSllwJslic treacment of workers rc(leet

the
VIewS of 8ehavourist psychologISts who regarded hum.n bemgs as a!un to
machines and ammals-. Watson, For example, wrote, 11u: bchavlounst. in
his. eHons to gel 3 unitary scheme of animal response, recognisC'5. no divld
ing hnc between man and bl'\JI'c "+4 The Bchaviourist's influence on Grierson
is apparcm when he wntcs thal because: cinema is a visual medIUm, It should
concentratc on those who arc "physicillly expressive," such as children, ant
mals, men <It their work "pnmltives and the like....' Unlike Walson's gener
allzalton alxxtt "man and brute," Gnerson's Behavlounst views seem to
apply only '0 certam kinds of people. In Onflm, he peIS"S .he objectIve
world .s. machine on one level, but on a higher level he postul.tes. qualirative cre.tivity, wh.eh lies in the hand> of anists (lrke himself) who can
mcrlitc aesthetiCS with ObJcctlVlty and functionality. In tins sense, the world
\tIas ~ malleable machlnc and the artist was a Codlike manipulalOf
Watson and Cncrson we.re gender-biased as well as c1assbiased. Wac.son
thought women who challenged the: rcslnclions of their traditlonCiI roles
kg ch,ld-beanng) were m.ladjusted.... ln Dn1tm, whilst Ihe wOrklOg class
male is seen in a rather patronising manner, as a -noble machine," wOmen
do not even achic:vc this 5talus~ It if. as though they do not fll Into a

in -objective" reality in Drifters. Frame e.nlar8emem courtesy 01 the John

modernist, madllne-bascd vision of the world. Aversion to (he world at the

fcmlOine" can be detected, for inslaoce, in an anlCle that CncT'Son wrote
abou' the lIllroduCtlon of sound into film Sound he thought, would rob
doema of Its Visual mobility and trans-fonn It IOta a :.taut: medIUm con
cerned only with "pctty chlt-chat," whJCh he saw as feminine. In a statement
that betrays Crierson's bmary thmking-m.sculme/femm,ne, publi personal, aClion/ta.lk. cxtcnor/interior-he asserted that: women would suppon
the shift to sound films because ,hey lIved .nd Ihoughl in a world of pett),
horizon and only too personal sall factions""
Ort/lm-and many of tho documentary film' that followed ,n Its
wake--construcled a selective, masculme world of modemHY_ The IIllCf
war period &'aW many challenges to the conventions and. l:on:.tT3ltlts that
had defined femininity, Ie.ding to wh.t has boen called. crisis in masculiruty. Mica ava, for example, argues thoU the increaSing freedom oj
,,",omen was often hoked to consumcnsm, which lherdore became encoded as femintne and paSSive by many male intdlectuals."f The demarcation
between passlve/aCtlVe, feminine/masculine, personallpubhc. then can be.:
seen as a response to a nsc in male passiVity. which was iJLtual1y gro..... l0~
at the time, Concerns about 'superfluous' women-who in the popul.r
imagination were also 'new' women: Oappers, hedonists, fc-nunl~ts, workers.

GI.IaSON"S MACHlNU

voters--can be read as an evidence of masculinity, of men's fear of being

diminished, swamped and consumed ... 9 For Grierson and other documentary filmmakers, then, the machine was a metaphor that connoted masculinity, mobility and efficient production (as against consumption, which
was seen as feminine). It was also related to the exterior (contrasted to the
interior domestic world of the feminine) in that it demonstrated cinema's
ability to leave the theatrical studio and venture out into the open air, or
into the "reality" of industrial environments.

a non-disruptive and positive view of industrial progress and attempted to

emphasise the continuity of entrenched habits and structures. For this rea-

CONCWSION
Drifters was a critical success, 1 would argue, because of the way it con-

The working class male was thus depicted as a machine, interested in work
rather than leisure. Such a representation was full of admiration, but nevertheless condescending. Women were not even afforded admiration and
were mostly erased, due to the emphasis upon the male sphere as an
"authentic" locus of activity.

son, it is difficult to argue with D.L. LeMahieu's assessment of the documentary film movement as a cultural rc:assertion of hierarchy.'" This was a
general process in which "progressives intervened in mass culture in order
to construct more traditional and recognisable forms in the face of a
strange and somewhat threatening mass culture..51 Mass culture prOvided
the working classes with new modes of leisure and new freedoms-free

doms that could be seen as threatening to the middle and upper classes.

veniently fitted into some of the most privileged areas of British alternative film discourses. lt was an abstract documentary that employed
"uniquely cinematic" strategies, followed international modernist filmmaking

precedents, and was heavily inAuenced by machine aesthetics. Yet it also

distinguished itself from such precedents by marking out uniquely national" characteristics: evolution as opposed to revolution, moderation as
opposed to radicalism, and a commitment to mapping out areas of modem
Britain overlooked within the commercial cinema. It can be seen as a reaction against the traditional content of British filmmaking, but it relied, at
least partially, on traditional signifiers. [t was a Janus-faced union of tradition and modernity, firmly siding with the latter but heavily dependent on,
and respectful of, the fonner. In this sense it mirrored the prevalent char
aeteristics of the film writings of British cinephiles.
Of course, the British documentary film movement became a celebrated
native movement, widely seen as representing artistic integrity within the

Whilst many of the films I have mentioned tended to emphaSize the

craft

preservation of
skills and humanistic values, the influence of objectivism and machine aesthetics ultimately dehumanised the working class-

es and turned them into machines. If the mechanisation of the working

classes did not permeate documentaty filmmaking totally in the early-tomid1930s, it was a prominent factor that shaped many of the films celebrated for their aesthetic qualities, and reAected the attitude towards the
working classes among a number of documentaty filmmakers. (It is notable
that when the documentary movement did treat the middle classes-as in

BBC Voi of Bnla;. (1935, Stuart Legg) or even in Cavalcanti's satirical

comedy Pett and PoN-the representation was much less mechanistic.

Instead, space is opened up within the films for people to interact, if only

cinematic medium. It is no surprise, therefore, that the most celebrated films

within the movement often relied upon some of the strategies instituted by

in a rather stilted manner.)

An exception to the usual representations of the working classes was

Driftm. The links between tradition and modernity can be found in other
films made within the movement. For example, in Industrial Bn'rai" craft-based
skills are preserved within the climate of rapid industrial progress, in Coa/facr

class leisure. Whilst this film does treat the working classes in an anthropological manner, it does not present them as machines. Not surprisingly,

industrial labour is firmly placed within a natural setting to which it is inextricably linked; whilst 5<mg of CLykm (1934, Basil Wright) links nature and

Grierson and many other documentaty filmmakers disliked this film and
thought it adopted a sneering attitude towards it subjects. Spa" To"",

tradition

the processes of modernisation, all configured as part of a nat

however, was made at the end of the 19305, when representations of the

ural, evolutionaty pattern_ These films may have differed in many of their
aesthetic strategies, but the themes of tradition and modemity--and an

working classes were beginning to be modified.

As the 1930s wore on, Grierson's emphasis on objective documentation

objectification of working c1asses-are still there. so

rigidified, and he began to oppose any excessive aesthetic experimenta-

to

Humphrey Jenning's Spa" Tom' (1939), which takes up themes of working

The way that modernist radicalism was employed, yet tamed by more

tion. In the meantime, in opposition to educational reportage films, some

traditiona] signifier'S, mirrors the way in which the films themselves offered

documentary filmmakers-such as Cavalcanti and Hany Watt-began to

54 .....

s.no.

GIlJIERSON"S MACHINES 55

pursue more narrative-based or more Hanalytic" forms of documentarydrama. Both trajectories arguably allowed for a more satisfactory-if not
unproblematic-representation of the: working classes. 51 "Analytic" documentary films tended, at the very least. to address subjective problems of
the working classes, as in Housi'1 Probl"", (1935, Arthur Elton and Edgar
Anstey); whilst the narrative documentary represented working class interactions on a more personal level. It is a pity, however, that aesthetic experimentation became increasingly subdued as this transformation in working
class representation was occurring (Spart 11mI!' is a genuine exception here).
One of the few films to actually represent the working classes in a
humanistic-as opposed to a mechanistic-manner, while also engaging
in aesthetic experimentation, was made outside of the dominant British
documentary movement. That film was Bread (1934, Kino Group). Made
in the more radical environment of left-Wing film groups, it overtly draws
attention to the institutional disadvantages faced by documentary filmmakers working for governmental departments.53 Fonnalist experimentation was rare, however, within leh-wing film culture, because many British
S~cialists and Communists believed fonnal experimentation was an unnecessary extravagance."'"' Within the documentary movement, too, an antipathy towards experimentation began to take hold. What had started out as
a new and modernist mode of cinematic coverage soon led to a style of
filmmaking that was aesthetically anti-modernist.

NOTES

I.

_
BraClxJry and James M<Notane. 'The Name aoo - . . 01 ModerrOsm," in
Modernism 1890-/930, B<acI>ury and M<Notane. ed<.. (HannondgM>rth: Penguin. 1976), 23.

2.

See Raymond Williams. ""When Was Modemism?, in Raymond WiUiams. The Politics of
Modernism (London: Verso, 1989),31-35.

3_

This f.,ctory was operational as early as 1910. See Steven Tolliday, Mcmagement and
Labour in Britain 1896-1939; in Stepherl Toliday and Jonathan Zeitlin, eds.. The
Automobile indu<try and Its Wo<k...: 8etweetl Frxdism and Flexibility (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 19B6), 30.

4.

5.

see, for example Ian Aitken, Film and Reform: John Grier.;on and the Documentary Film
Movement (London: Routteclge. 1990), and Alan Lovell and Jim HiUier, Studies in
Documentmy (London: Seeker and Warburg, 19n), for links between the documentary
film movement and intemational modernist film aments.

see

Richard Abel, French Film 1heory and Criticism: 1907-1936. Vol I: 1907-1929

(Princeton: Princeton University Pre:ss,. 1988).

6.

The Impressionist and Surrealist avant-gardes developed out of an earlier pktorialist,

naturalist tradition which emerged in posl~.u France and which was concerned with

.......

landscape and the picturesque. see Alan Williams.. Republic 01 Images: A History of
French Filmmaking (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), .113.
7.

The Film Society built up close connections with the Vieux CoIombier in Paris and the
Film Arts Guild in New york.. Close Up featured many contributions from figures involved
in alternative c:irwits from various countries,. such as HA Potamkin' and Symon Gould
in New York,. Marc Allegret and Jean leneaur in Pans. Freddy CI1eYaIly in Geneva and
Andor Kraszna-Krau$S in Bedin.

8.

Even len lye, who became a celebrated British film artist in the 193Os, did not fit into
critical discourses in any straightforward manner. Critics often found it difficult to interpret his work. For more details on this issue, see Jamie sexton, 1'he Emergence of an
Alternative Film Culture in Inter-War Britain (ph.D. diss.., University of East Anglia, 2001).
2S9-268.

9.

The latter point was argued by Anne Friedberg in, ~iting About Cinema: 'Close Up'
1927-1933 (Ph.D. di~ New York University, 1984), 181.

10.

See, especially, British Solecisms,." Oose Up 1.2 (1927): 17-23; turther British
Problems; Close Up 1.5 (1927): 47-54; British Scenarios in PartiaJ!ar: Close Up 3.1
(1928): 418-420.

11.

See Ortton West, Russian Cutting; Close Up 4.6 (1929): 57-59; Ralph Bood,. '1his
Montage Busine:s.s.- Oose Up 55 (1929): 418-420.

12,

Initially, Grierson studied immigration and its effects on ttle United States population,
but he changed to mass communications due to his fascination with-the topic.

13.

See. especiaJty, Forsyth Hardy, John Grierson: A Dowmentary Biogrophy (London: Faber
and Faber. 1979), 33-34.

14.

Zoe Druick, Documenting Government: Re-examining the 19S0s National Film Board
F"dms About Citizenship, Conadian Journal of Film Studies 9.1 (2000): .58-63.

15.

These artides are mUeded in The John GrietSOn AtdJ;ve (hekI at the University of
Stirling).. GIAJ: extracts" from Chirogo Newspapers, and GJA5: 17: extracts from
Motion Pidvre News. The extracts from Chicago newspapers are undated. but were writ
ten in the period 1925-6. For a pt'evious overview of these "lNritings, see Aitken, 59- 89.

16.

He also belteved that philosophy, psychology, logic and political science were Vortidst,
as they expressed "the mental feeling of the time. Grierson wrote of Vortidsm: ~ is an
art three-dimensional, solid and powerful because an energetic and full-blooded lNOr1c:l
demands it. And if it is abstract. and. as it seems. simplified for a moment beyond casual recognition, it is no stranger than the records which the scientists present to us of our
most familiar happenings. (John Grierson, ~rtidsm Brousht to Save Drama: The
John Grierson Archive, GIA: J.)

17.

John Grierson. "'e Personality Behind the Paint:': The John Ctier.son Archive, C,A: 3.

18.

John Grierson. Of 1M\isder and the light That Failed, The John Grierson Archive, CIA: J.

19.

For the most thorough analysis of Grierson and Hegeian Klealism. see Aitken, possim.

20.

Aitken. 151; DRJKX. 58-63.

21.

The John Grierson Archive, GIAI. 1: Grierson's Univefsity Librory Records.

22.

Keny W. Buddey, Mechanical Mon: John Broadus Wats"on and the Beginnings of
Behaviourism (New York and london: The Guilford Press, 1989), 152.

23.

ORlick, 60.

24.

John Grierson, "The Product of Hollywood, Motion Picture Ne'NS (NoYember 6, 1926):
1756,. and -rhe Industry at it Parting of the Wcsys,. Motion PictJJre News (November 13,

GRIERSOfrS MACHINlS Sl

emphasis on interiority).

1926): 1842, The John GriefS011Arch;".e. G1A.S: J.

25.

Paul Swann. The British Documentary Film Movement 1926-1946 (Cambridge:

c.mbridge Univelsity Press, 1989), 21-

40.

CA lejeune, 'S Man Necessary?: The ObseflleJ' (July 27, 1930), in The John Grierson
Archive G2:24:2 /.

26.

Ibid,22.

41.

Ibid.

27.

For a good discussion of this tendency, primarily from an American angle, see Charles
Wolfe, Straiglrt Shots. and Crooked Plots: Social Documentary and the Avant- Garde in
the 19305: in Jan-Christopher Horak. ed., Lovers of Cinema: The First American Film
Avant-Garde 1919-1945 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995),234-266. The
main difference in antisll circles is that there was a concern to address specifically

42.

Rotha, 378.

British issues.

2a

29.

30.

The John Grierson Archive, G2A2. 15: 4: "Notes for Engtish Producers, part two: British

Cinema Production and the Naturalistic Tradition;: 15.

Buckley. 163.

The John GrielSOn ArchWe, G2A2.' 5: 4: 'Notes fOt' English Producers, part two: British
Cinema Production and the Naturalistic Tradmon' (April 1927): 18. tt should be noted
that Grierson used the terms 'British' and 'English' interchangeably.

T1le Oarion (June 1929), reprinted in Forsyth Hardy, ed. Grierson at the Movies
(london: Faber and Faber; 1961),28.

48.

See Iris Bany, ~e Cinema, American Prestige and British Films; Spectator (July 11,
1925): 51-52, and 'Of British Films: Spedotor(November 14,1925): 876. See also her
'A National or International Cinema?; Bioscope (28 February, 1924): 29, and H<lidee
WasStln, "Writing the Cinema into Dally Life: Iris Barty and the Emergence of aritish Film
Criticism," in Andrew Higson,. ed.., Young and Innocent?: Cinema and Britain 1896-1930
(Exeter: Ex:eter University Press, ,2002),321337.

For a discussion of various elements of mass culture encoded as feminine and thus inferior, see Andreas Huys.s.en, 'Mass CUlture as Woman: Modernism's Other: in Andreas
Huyssen, After the Great Divide: Modemismr Mass Culture, Postmodern;sm
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 44-62.

49.

Mica Nava,. Modernity's Disavowal: Women, the Ctty and the Department Store,' in Pasi
Falk and Colin campbell, eds.., The Shopping Experience (london, Thousand Oaks &
New Delhi: sage, 1997),83. The link between Griersonian documentary and the reac-

Swann, 27.

33.

Paul Rotha, The Film TiU Now (London: Vision Press, 1963; originally published 1930),296.

34.

Druick, 59.

35.

Ian Britain, Fabianism and Culture: A StIJdy in British Socialism and the Arts 1884-1918
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 14-15.

tion against feminisation has been acutely dissected by Philip and Kathryn Dodd in
'Engendering the Nation.' in Andrew Higson, ed., ();ssolving Views: Key Writings on
British Cinema (london: Casselt 1996), 40-41.
SO.

It was praised in a variety of publications, including the B;oscope, Oose Up (October

1929), the Observer (July 27, 1930), the Manchester Guardian, the Spectator and
Sunday warket (November 3 1929). Articles without a date were written between 1929
and 1932. These reviews are collected in The John Griefson Archive Q:24:2': Press

Objective here refers to an emphasis on external events shot outside of the studio and
lNhich avoid "subjective" representation of people within the film (and thus avoid an

SI ...... SUlon

For a more thorough analysis of these films in relation to sucll themes, see Sexton, 178200.

51.
52.

D.L LeMahieu, A Cufture for Democrocy: Moss Communication and the Cu1tivated Mind
in Britain Between the wars (Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 1968), 101-138.
For example, Brian Winston has claimed that the analytic documentary pioneered in
Housing Problems began a tradition of treating the woriUng classes as victims. (Brian
Winston, "'The Tradition of the Victim in Griersonian Dooomental)'''' in Alan Rosenthal,
ed.,.New Challenges for Documentary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 19881,

John GrierStlR, "DoaJmentary (2),. Cinema Quarterly 1.3 (1933): 135- 139.
These notions of humanism are elaborated, for example, in the work of Matthew Arnold.
. See Arnold, Culture and Anardty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988; first
published 1869). Arnold's humanism was an attempt to regenerate culture through ref
erence to Hellenic ideals, to place human creativity at the centre of the universe. and to
place great faith in tile perfedion" of humankind. He stressed the importance of cuJ..
ture as a means of unifying humankind by educating people and developing all that is
best within themsetves. However, in propounding this view of culture and human deveJ..
opment, Arnold had to downplay the fact that his conception of culture was only a hJs...
torically specific construction. He did so by distancing culture from politics and
contending that the OJltural sphere was universal and transcended time?nd place.

Cuttings, 1929-1932.

39.

45.

47.

32.

38.

as the Behaviourist Views II.' in William Lyons, ed.,

Modern Philosophy of Mind (london: Everyman. 1995), 24.

46.

Bond, however, centred more upon the content of British filmmaking and did not pay
much attention to questions of fonn.

36.

Aitken, 64_
See John B. Watson, "Psychology

The John Grierson Archive~ G2A2 , 5.. 4: '"Notes for Engtish Producers, part one: Cinema
and the Publk:: 12. This was an EMe Film Committee memorandum and was written
in April 1927.

31.

37.

43.

44.

269-286.
53.

For an overview of left-wing film groups in the inter-war period, see Bert Hogenkamp,
Deadfy Parallels: FIlm and the Left ;n BritaifJr 1929-1939 (London: lawrence and
WIShart, 1986).

54.

For a discussion 01 left-wing filmmaking and formalism in this period, see Paul Marris,
"Politics and 'Independenr Film in the Decade of Deleat,' in Don Macpherson, ed.,
Traditions of Independence: British Cinema in the Thirties (london: SR, 1960), 70- 95.

JAMIE SEXTON is completing his Ph.D. at the University of East Anglia

and is a Junior Research Fellow at the AHRB Research Centre for British
Film and Television Studies, based at Birkbeck College, London, where he
is investigating the inAuence of 16mrn synchronised sound technology on

British television of the t 960s.

GRiEItSON'"S MACHINfS

59