there
are not
T V keeps

is no adequate

place

for

exposure

keen

to include
fist

an iron

such
on all

offerings

that

it

the
of
in
their
beams out

finished
supporting
to a happy

product:

cinemas

progranrnes,
nation.

and

And so,
in ideas
rigid
of
artistic

ldeas

a uniquely
and attitudes

preconceived

all

at
creativity

level

attitudes

s,
Tomaselli

dynamic

art

form flounders

surrounding

it.

and engage

through
Only once we,
in an open and genuine

the
as

lack
a nation,

of dynamism

relax
interchange
in which

the

can we hope

to produce

the

atrrosphere

envisages

is

encouraged

and flourishes.

If Tomaselli's
its
appearance
obscured
side
ful

book in any way foments
is
fairly
track main issues,
cOOlparisons

to be welcoired.
amorphous
especially
French New ~Jave and Jean Vigo in particular)

at
and Tomaselli's
case
of one or

its main thrust
propensity

structure
in the

debate within

rrore open

However,

by its

tiires

the

(to

is
to

,

two overdone wish-

film circles,

Keya~ Tomaselli
Instltute.
R2,7S (inclUding
First
September

edition

1980.

University
tax).
of print.

out

- The S A Film Industry.
of Witwatersrand,

Published
Braamfontein,

by African

Studies

Johannesburg.

Second

edition

is

scheduled

to appear

in

REPLY TO R.W. HARVEY

Harri et Gavs hon

sorre

(Critical

for
system,
not
have
however,
vague

valuable
Arts,
example,
a neutral
is marred
concl usi ons

such
from a consciousness
that

one may be able

does

Harvey offers
Industr~
subsidy
state
criticism,
reach
"It
is
again,
determine

i~arch
are
interest
by academic
as:
of
ideology,
to est"imate

criticism

of Tomaselli's
1, no.
1980,
vol.
especially
useful

book,

The S A Film

,Hi~ conm;nts

1).
as 1t 1S obV10US tha~ the

on the

in subsidi

sing

obscu;-ity.

films.
This

allows

Mucn of hl s

him to
.

'

from it
the

direction

hav,iog

been made Vls1ble
and

to challenge,

the

strength

needed

to be successful."

(p .59)

\'iithin

even
consistent,

long established
which

In addition
always
of
production
s~ecificity
tlOn but
Har~ey should De discussing
10glcal
and as
taken

commodity
account.

takes
artistic
seems

of
there

into

the
He states
industrial

brevity
that
structures'(p.58)

of
" ...

critique,

the
S A comirercial

- a static

Harvey's

film ...

an~lysis

is not
lS the,pn;>duct

no account
production.

to be

little
is
such

the
is

of

the
Late:
connectlon
specificit~

dynamism that
he discusses

between

of

the

subject

to d1fferent

art1stlc

~iew of
from,the
ldeologlca;

e~r~s
ltS
two ~olnts.
of

What
the
productlon
an l~eo-
forceS WhlCh must De

func-

Moreover,
lations"

film production
but

a force

in defining

is

not

irerely
those

product

"the
rel ations,

of defined

social

re-

Harvey
inventing

al so suffers

a contradiction

from some

"critical
in Tomaselli

misunderstandings".
wnich

does not

exist.

He seems
No one would

to be

49

that

free

suggest
unjustified
and he is
production
comnodity
what ~1arx was doing

enterprise

exclude~

"intense

structurat~on

in saying
in conditions
in Kapita17)

"it

1S thoroughly
of

free

enterprise"
his

renders

and it

m1s1ead1ng

(p .57)

and managemen~",
to conce~tual1se
th1S not

(Is

argument meaningless.

omission.
cultural
the various

that

That Tomaselli
serious
separate
examining
be implying
but
correctly
he never

is

rrodified

did not

examine
The structure
production
stages
a film is
by the production
out

that

not

pOints
did

imply

that

Tomaselli's
films were

the

social
the

of

formation

book however

from economic
of production

structure
within

the

detail

in
shows
that
as Harvey
industry

is

indeed
he does
suggests.
he seems

only

defended

by powerful

ideological

a
not

to

By

interests

process

itsel
ideological
"ideology-free",

f,

Furthenrore
stance
is

al though Harvey

often

confused,

all

Of course
be classified
also
relatively
are
of
reality".
Tomaselli's
eyes
art
to the
be regrettable

of an artist
despite

realisation

terms

films

"art".

embody social
as
critical
They are of
- "art".
(whose

course

vision

and could

They are

is

eMbodying
of

social
the

relations.
contradictions

and ultimately

sterile.

can

that
limited,

investigation
they
through
and exists

are
the

in

as
submit

relations

but

some films

The films

even be called
by no means

of Ross Devenish,
a "tool

"ideology-free"

despite
although
the
but

for

a view of

reality
by that
determined
the
For
inherent

mediated
reality)

film-maker
in cultural

to merely

production

would

although

is more films

like
The references

It
dream",
cal
g~utted with American
d1d manage to forge
straints
of cultural

those

of Devenish

that

seem to be Tomaselli's

to the French New 'lave

can only

be

seen

South Africa

shares

the

expor':s

and local

feature

with
imitations.

"self-critical"

post War France
The New 'lave

cinema within

"idle
as histori-
of being
however
con-

the

an indiaenous
production.

his

have

called
conditions

should
the present
is no. "Black

Tomaselli
as under
There
fa~to~y" Wh1Ch are written,
does warrant
ThlS 1ndustry
1s at present
rese archi ng it.

Film Industry"

book
he could

other

"The South African White
about

not
than

have written
the
and financed

"rroving-photo-novella-
production
by white
by Tomaselli

recognised

a fact

directed
examination,

Film Industry"
any other.

houses.
who

1

~he mos~ important

h1msel f. Harvey

intended.
economy of
~he "in~us~ry

book and 1ts ment
therefo~

if
prOV1des

it
raw material

or
1S its
stil1lJlates

set

Perhaps
Tomase~l1
fo~ ~hlCh 1t ~as
PO~1t1cal
1n:tlVe
wntten
ma1nly for
a popular
successf~l
alternat1vely
~

parameter
failed

in which
to take
Undeniably
"reformi
the South African

to judge
cognisance
st"
(white)

the

book
the
of

that

is
readersn1p

~~ich

and by no means
film industry"
is

film-goer".

"the

def-
it was

therefore

It
the

should
industry
academic

It
be seen
itself
study.

as

or'

informed

the
accessibility.

change within

for

a rrore

rigorous

1.

Ew;Ption
dunng

is Gibson Kente's

How Long which was disrupted

productlOn

and has never

been

seen

commercially.

by the

police

The S A,Film Industry,
UnlVers1ty

1979,
the ~4itwatersrand,

of

Published

by the African

Studies

Institute,

1st Edition.

50