University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of published reviews of sixteen millimeter motion pictures on film selection in public libraries with large film collections

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of published reviews of sixteen millimeter motion pictures on film selection in public libraries with large film collections

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLISHED REVIEWS OF SIXTEEN MILLIMETER j
MOTION PICTURES ON FILM SELECTION IN PUBLIC
LIBRARIES WITH LARGE FILM COLLECTIONS
by
I
Joseph William Palmer
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Library Science)
June 1973
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication fhat the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Z eeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
73-31,376
I PAIMER, Joseph William, 1935-
THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLISHED REVIEWS OF
! SIXTEEN MILLIMETER MOTION PICTURES ON
FIIM SELECTION IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES WITH
j LARGE FIIM COLLECTIONS.
| University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1973
I Library Science
i
i ;
| University Microfilms, A X ER O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
©Copyright by
JOSEPH WILLIAM PALMER
1973
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
.........j o ^ F u m i ^ m F h i m R ............
under the direction of Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D ate ^ E1. 973
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
' 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . .................................. iv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . 1
Importance of the Study
Hypotheses
Assumptions
Definition of Terms
Scope and Limitations
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
II. BACKGROUND.................................. 15
Development of Film Services in Public
Libraries
Development of the Major Film Review Media
Criticisms of the Major Film Review Media
Summary
III. THE PROCEDURES AND SOURCES OF DATA USED IN
THE INVESTIGATION......................... 46
Interviews
The Questionnaire
Analyzing the Library Collections
Analyzing the Film Reviews
IV. REVIEW M E D I A ................................ 63
Landers Film Reviews
Educational Film Library Association
Booklist
Film News
Film Library Quarterly
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Summary
Chapter Page!
V. FINDINGS: THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO FILM
LIBRARIES................................... 126
Preview and Selection Procedures and
Statistics
Influences on the Selection of Films
Review Media
Summary
VI. FINDINGS: ANALYSES OF REViEWS AND HOLDINGS . 203
Films Reviewed by the Studied Media
Films Owned by the Analyzed Libraries
Titles Owned by Eight or More Libraries
Titles Owned by a Single Library
Leading Distributors of Owned Titles
Comparison of Review Media
Film Ratings
Agreement and Disagreement of Review
Ratings
Titles Receiving an Unfavorable Consensus
Summary
VII. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 290:
Summary
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
APPENDICES.......................................... 314 ;
A. Interview Schedule........................... 315 i
B. Questionnaire and Cover Letter.............. 319
C. Public Library Film Collections Included in
This S t u d y................................. 333!
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 336
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Statistics of Responding Libraries: Titles
Owned, Number of Titles Previewed and
Acquired Annually, Method of Preview .... 128
2. Sixteen Millimeter Titles Owned by Responding
Libraries................................. 130
3. Libraries Previewing Sixteen Millimeter Films
Prior to Acquisition....................... 131
4. Number of Films Previewed Annually by
Responding Libraries ....................... 133
5. Proportion of Previewed Films Eventually
Acquired by Responding Libraries .......... 134
6. Number of Films Previewed Annually Eventually
Acquired by Responding Libraries .......... 135
7. Publications Owned and Used by Responding
Libraries for Selection Purposes .......... 137
8. Use of Other Published Materials for Film
Selection Purposes in Responding Libraries . 139
9. Frequency with Which Distributors' Sales
Representatives Visit Responding Libraries . 143
10. Degree to Which Sales Representatives' Visits
Influence Film Selection at Responding
Libraries............................... 143
11. Distributors Mentioned by Responding Libraries
as Sources of Sales Representatives' Visits 144
12. Volume of Advertisements Received by Mail by
Responding Libraries ....................... 145
iv
Table Page
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Influence of Advertisements on Film Selection
for Preview or Purchase in Responding
Libraries . . .............................
Frequency with Which Unsolicited Preview
Prints Are Received by Responding Libraries
Sources of Unsolicited Preview Prints . . . .
Frequency of Preview of Unsolicited Preview
Prints by Responding Libraries ............
Receipt, Preview, and Purchase of Unsolicited
Preview Prints by Responding Libraries . . .
Frequency with Which Responding Libraries
Participate in Joint Preview Screening with
Other Libraries ...........................
Groups Arranging Joint Preview Screenings and
Selecting Films Shown .....................
Influence of Joint Preview Screenings on Film
Selection .................................
Frequency of Distributor Arranged Preview
Screenings at Responding Libraries ........
Influence of Distributor Arranged Preview
Screenings on Film Selection at Participat
ing Libraries .............................
Influence of Contact with Other Film Librar
ians on Film Selection of Responding
Libraries .................................
Sources of Contact with Other Film Librarians
Cited by Responding Libraries ............
Relative Influence of Various Factors on the
Selection of Films for Preview or Purchase .
146
147
148
!
1481
i
150
i
i
j
I
151 !
!
152 |
153
154 !
|
t
155
156
157
159
v
Table Page
26. Film Review Media Regularly Received by
Responding Libraries and Scanned for Film
Reviews..................................... 162
27. Relative Influence of Film Review Media on
the Selection of Films for Preview or
Purchase..................................... 165
28. Shortcomings Considered to Be Current Problems
by Responding Libraries.................... 170
29. The Frequency with Which Library's Evaluations
of Previewed Films Agree with Published
Reviews.................................... 172
30. Ratings of Review Media's Value for Public
Library Film Selection....................... 173
31. Objectionable Characteristics of Landers Film
Reviews Reported by Responding Libraries . . 176
32. Suggestions for the Improvement of Landers
Film Reviews . . . ....................... 177
33. Objectionable Characteristics of EFLA
Evaluation Cards Reported by Responding
Libraries.................................. 179
34. Suggestions for the Improvement of EFLA
Evaluation Cards........................... 181
35. Objectionable Characteristics of the Booklist
Reported by Responding Libraries ...... 183
36. Suggestions for the Improvement of the
Booklist................... 185
37. Objectionable Characteristics of Film News
Reviews Reported by Responding Libraries . . 188
38. Suggestions for the Improvement of Film News . 189
vi
Table
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Page
Objectionable Characteristics of Film Library
Quarterly Reviews Reported by Responding j
Libraries................................. 191!
i
Suggestions for the Improvement of Film
Library Quarterly ......................... 192!
I
Objectionable Characteristics of Educational |
Screen and AV Guide Reviews Reported by j
Responding Libraries ....................... 194
I
|
Suggestions for the Improvement of Educational ]
Screen and AV G u i d e ......................... 196 i
i
i
Objectionable Characteristics of Review Media !
Reported by Responding Libraries.......... 201 j
t
!
I
Distribution of Film Reviews................. 2061
j
Distribution of Reviews: Summary.......... 211 j
Percentages of Total Reviewed Titles and of j
Titles Reviewed and Owned or Unowned I
Reviewed by One to Six Media.............. 213 j
Percentage of Titles Reviewed by One to Six
Media Owned by Analyzed Libraries........ 215 j
Titles Owned by One to Thirty-One Libraries . 217 i
i
Titles Owned by One Library, Two to Seven j
Libraries, and Eight to Thirty-One j
Libraries................................. 221
I
Percentage of Titles Owned by One to Thirty- {
One Libraries Reviewed and Not Reviewed . . 223 j
I
Unreviewed Titles Owned by Eight or More
Libraries................................. 227
Distributors of Unreviewed Films Owned by
Eight or More Libraries................ 229
vii
Table
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Page;
Distributors of Reviewed Films Owned by Eight
or More Libraries......................... 232;
i
Distributors of Unreviewed Films Owned by a
Single Library ............................. 233;
Distributors of Reviewed Films Owned by a
Single Library ............................. 235;
Leading Distributors of the Titles Owned by !
the Analyzed Public Libraries............. 2401
Percentages of Reviewed and Unreviewed Titles I
Distributed by the Leading Distributors j
Owned by More Than One Library 247 |
i
Percentages of Reviewed and Unreviewed Titles j
Distributed by Distributors with Fewer |
Than 20 Per Cent of Their Titles Reviewed
Owned by More Than One Library 249 \
!
Percentages of Films Reviewed by Individual
Media 251 i
!
Amount of Duplication of Review by Individual !
M e d i a 253 j
Proportions of Titles Reviewed and Owned by j
Analyzed Libraries Reviewed by Individual j
M e d i a 255 i
Proportions of Titles Reviewed by Single Media
and of Titles Reviewed by Single Media and
Owned by One or More Libraries Reviewed by
Individual Media ........................... 257
Judged Ratings of All Reviews and of Reviews
of Owned and Unowned Titles................ 260
Proportions of 'O' and Reviews
Representing Titles Owned by the Analyzed |
Libraries.................................. 262!
viii
Table
Page
65. Proportions of the Reviews of the Individual
Media Judged to Be: 1 +1 , 'O' and '-' . . .
66. Proportions of 'O' and Rated Films
Reviewed by Individual Media Owned by One or
More of the Analyzed Libraries .............
67. Rating Configurations Received by the Reviewed
Titles ......................................
68. Numbers of Titles Reviewed by One Medium and
by Two to Six Media Receiving Ratings of
'+1, 'O' and '-1, and Numbers Owned by One
or More of the Analyzed Film Collections . .
69. Rating Configurations: Percentages of Titles
Reviewed by More Than One Medium Rated
'O', ...................................
70. Degrees of Agreement and Disagreement between
Reviews of Titles Reviewed by Two or More
Review Media ................................
263
266
269
272
275
280
ix
CHAPTER I
i
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OP THE STUDY j
I
I
Twentieth century technology, which has produced anj
"explosion" of information, has also multiplied the means |
available for that informations storage, retrieval and
dissemination. The average citizen of present day America,
surrounded by television, radio, cassette tape recorders,
cameras, and home movie equipment, has been conditioned to
accept and utilize media which communicate through sound
and image. Consequently, audiovisual materials have become
important library resources. In schools, the library is
being transformed into a multi-media learning center. In
public libraries, also, audiovisual services are prolifer
ating. These services presently emphasize phonograph
records and sixteen millimeter films.
The health of contemporary public library film
■service derives from the care with which the concept was
established and nurtured in the 1940's and early 1950's.
During that time, a series of projects, initiated by the
lAmerican Library Association and funded by the Rockefeller
;Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation, demonstrated it
|was both feasible and desirable for the public library to
collect and circulate sixteen millimeter films. The
McDonald Study of 1942^ affirmed a public agency was needed
to assist in the distribution of motion pictures to the
general community and suggested the public library might
undertake that role. In 1947, the American Library Asso
ciation's Film Advisory Office was established. During the
i
four years of its existence, the office provided guidance
and leadership to individual libraries on staffing, budget
ing, facilities design, and the organization and utiliza-
1
o
tion of equipment and materials. In addition, the Film
Office assisted the Cleveland Public Library and the
Missouri State Library in the development of demonstration
projects that established the viability of film coopera
tives and circuits as a means of bringing public library
3
ifilm service to smaller communities.
1
Gerald D. McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures
and Libraries (Chicago: American Library Association, 1942).
2
Irving Lieberman, Audio-Visual Instruction in
Library Education (New York: Columbia University School of
Library Service, 1955), p. 28.
3
Patricia Blair Cory, "Public Library Film Services
from Start Till Now," Film News, XXIII (June, 1966), 5. I
! 3
I
| In 1940, four public libraries were circulating
1 9
films. In 1947, the number was fourteen. One-hundred-
sixty-six libraries were lending films in 1953 either
through collections of their own or by participating in
: film cooperatives,3 and, by 1962 the number of such
libraries was estimated as in excess of 500.4
Phonograph records are easily assimilated into the
traditional public library since book oriented practices
can be readily adapted to their selection, circulation and
use. Selection is facilitated by an abundance of reviews
in mass media magazines and newspapers.
The sixteen millimeter motion picture, however,
presents the public library with very special problems.
The cost of a single print ranges from $100 to in excess of
$500. Projection equipment is expensive and not owned by
■^Mary U. Rothrock, "Libraries and Educational
|Films," A.L.A. Bulletin, XXXIV (March, 1940), 172.
j 2Patricia 0. Blair, "A.L.A. Film Questionnaire,"
IA.L.A. Bulletin, XLIV (July-August, 1950), 280.
3Grace T. Stevenson, "Public Libraries," in Film
Council of America, Sixty Years of 16mm Film, 1923-1983
(Evanston, 111.: Film Council of America, 1954), p. 124.
4Julie te Groen, "The Place of the Film in Public
Libraries," South African Libraries, XXXIII (April, 1966),
139.
4
I
i
jthe average library patron. Consequently, service has
primarily been directed towards community groups rather
than individuals. Because sixteen millimeter films are not
a mass market product, virtually none of the newspapers and
magazines which serve the general public review them.
Since schools are the major purchasers and renters of these
films, the periodicals and services that do review sixteen
millimeter films tend to be either education journals or to
emphasize school interests. This is deemed necessary to
effect financial viability.
Some periodicals and services that do review films
of interest to public libraries are Film News, Landers Film
Reviews, The Educational Film Library Association's evalua
tion cards (commonly called "EFLA Cards"), and the
Booklist.1 The Film Library Quarterly, the journal the
Film Library Information Council, is the only source of
reviews that has the public librarian as its primary
audience.
Film selection is far more complex and time consum
ing than is the selection of books and phonograph records.
■^In addition, the Library Journal has been publish
ing, since September 1972, Previews, a periodical devoted
largely to reviews of audiovisual materials including
sixteen millimeter films.
I Unlike these, sixteen millimeter films are invariably
;individually previewed prior to purchase by the film
librarian or by a committee selected by the librarian.'*' In
terms of professional time and clerical handling, this is
; i
i
very expensive. The problem is acerbated by the burgeoning|
! i
production of sixteen millimeter films in the last ten j
l
years due in part to widespread government subsidy of
educational materials and in part to the stimulation and
productivity of television as both a market for and pro- |
ducer of filmed materials. A public library which acquires
a large number of films cannot waste time on items of
little potential worth. It must be highly selective about„I
|
which of the over 10,000 films released annually it will
preview.
How then does the public library select films for
preview? Possible influences are bibliographies and film
i
lists appearing as books or in periodicals, distributors'
!catalogs, advertisements, visits of sales representatives,
and cooperatively arranged or distributor sponsored preview
screenings. Published film reviews, to the degree they are
Stanley F. Dunnetski, "Principles of Film Evalua
tion for Public Libraries," Illinois Libraries, XLIX
(February, 1967), 92.
| available and adequate, would seem likely to be a most
i
i
potent influence.
Emily Jones, former Director of the Educational
•Film Library Association, has aptly characterized the func
tion of published film reviews.^ Referring to the EFLA
;evaluation service, she stated, it
is designed to make it unnecessary for every new film
to be previewed by the film librarian. . . . The use
of this service can prevent the waste of unnecessary
time in previewing many films. This is the purpose of
an evaluation service? not to stand in final judgement;
not to encourage purchase of films without a preview;
but to prevent the previewing of unnecessary films.2
Predicting greatly increased film production, Miss Jones
noted, "The amount of time involved in film selection
. . .is bound to increase alarmingly. It will become
increasingly important for the film librarian to use every
evaluation device available in making his selection."
The present study will explore the adequacy and
influence of the major film reviewing media in relation to
| film selection in public libraries that preview and acquire
The Educational Film Library Association will
hereafter be referred to as EFLA.
2
Emily Jones, "Educational Film Library Associa
tion," Drexel Library Quarterly, II (April, 1966), 143.
3 .
Ibid.
substantial numbers of sixteen millimeter films. The media
|
|considered will be the Booklist, EFLA Cards, Film Library
I Quarterly, Film News, Landers Film Reviews, and EducationalI
i
I Screen and AV Guide. Educational Screen and AV Guide
| recently underwent a change in editorship and has been j
■ i
;publishing few sixteen millimeter reviews.1 Prior to this,
|reviews were entirely oriented towards school audiences.
It has been included here because, as an eminent audio- j
visual journal for over fifty years, it is invariably cited
in published lists as a major source of sixteen millimeter |
; i
film reviews, and because this publication contains The j
i
Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials, an annual, annotated
; subj.ect list which includes sixteen millimeter films.
Importance of the Study
For many years, researchers have been investigating
I non-print materials in relation to programs of formal
instruction. Unlike school media services, however, public
!
1 library non-print programs have been sparsely scrutinized
In 1972. the new editors changed the title of
Educational Screen and AV Guide to Audiovisual Guide. This
; study will refer to this journal by the earlier title, that [
! is, by the title in use during the period covered by this j
|study. !
8
by researchers since the closing of the American Library
Association's Film Office in the 1950's. Joan Clark,
Audiovisual Coordinator for Nassau County, New York, Public
Library System, has included the "development of a body of
knowledge" as one of the prerequisites for the advancement
and recognition of public library non-print services. She
has said:
Film librarians are a small group in a large profes
sion. In order to gain recognition and advance new
media services our aim must be threefold: (1) constant
exchange of information among ourselves, (2) continuing
education for our fellow librarians, (3) development of
a body of knowledge and standards. Only if these goals
are accomplished will non-print materials have the
social relevance and impact we know they are capable
of.1
Selection has been called the most important aspect
p
of film service. Published reviews either are or could be
of crucial importance to the selection process. By inves
tigating the major non-theatrical film reviewing media and
their influence on public library sixteen millimeter film
selection, this study will contribute to an understanding
of the relationship between these media and the selection
^oan E. Clark, "FLIC— One Year Old," Film Library
Quarterly, I (Summer, 1968), 7.
2
Violet Myer, "The Background and Philosophy of
Film Library Service," Drexel Library Quarterly, II (April,
1966), 108.
process and identify areas where improvement or change is
needed.
Hypotheses
Major Hypothesis
Although the major film reviewing media do not
entirely satisfy the needs of public libraries, they exert
a major influence on film selection in public libraries
with large film collections.
Secondary Hypotheses
In public libraries with large film collections,
the most widely owned post-1965 films are those which have
been reviewed by two or more of the major reviewing media.
There is widespread duplication of reviews by the
major media. In these cases, the consensus of the reviews j
usually agrees.
Films which either (1) have not been reviewed by j
the major media, or (2) have received an unfavorable con- !
sensus from the reviewing media are not widely owned.
10
Ass tamp tions
1. The goals and functions of the library and the
needs and interests of the collection's users are
the primary determinants of which films are
selected for preview and/or purchase by public
librarians.
2. The film librarian must be aware of the existence
of a film before he can begin to judge its value
for the library collection. He must rely on such
factors as published reviews, catalogs, advertise
ments, and salesmen's visits for information about
a film's availability, content and potential value.
3. Since a film may be well received by reviewing
media yet not relevant to the current needs of a
library's collection, favorable reviews, per se, do
not insure a film will be widely previewed or
purchased by public libraries.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following
definitions will be used:
! 11
j
| Non-theatrical films. Non-theatrical films are
i
! motion pictures released in a sixteen millimeter format for
;distribution to schools, libraries, organizations, and
t
!
private individuals for showings in places other than
commercial theaters. This study will exclude from this
| category sixteen millimeter prints of feature films ori
ginally produced in a thirty-five millimeter format for
release in commercial theaters.
Film review media. The term "film review media"
will be used to describe those periodicals and services
that regularly publish "evaluations," "opinion reviews" or
"critical reviews" of non-theatrical films.
Evaluation. An evaluation is the "considered
opinion of a qualified group or committee as to the scope,
1
usefulness, and quality of a given film."
Opinion review. An opinion review represents the
personal reaction of an individual to a given film. It
reflects his experiences, opinions and tastes.
1
Emily Jones, Manual on Film Evaluation (2d ed.;
New York: Educational Film Library Association, 1967),
p. 3.
Critical review. A critical review is the opinion
review of an authoritative individual who has developed
standards of excellence based on a thorough understanding j
of the nature and potential of the film medium. It reflects
broad experience, informed opinion and cultivated tastes.
i
I
Scope and Limitations
In its examination of the major review media and
i
• * i
their relationship to film selection in public libraries, j
I
|
this study will limit itself to the following:
1. The six major sources of non-theatrical film reviews
during the years 1965 to 1971: the Booklist, EFLA
Cards, Film Library Quarterly, Film News, Landers
Film Reviews, and Educational Screen and Av Guide.^
2. Public libraries which owned at least 500 prints
of sixteen millimeter films (because of title
duplication, one library did own less than 500
titles).
3. An analysis of non-theatrical films reviewed by
!
i
these media and/or owned by these libraries which j
I
"^Surveyed libraries were given an opportunity to
identify other review media that significantly influence
their film selection.
|...' .. " ’...".... 13 .....
j
have a release date of 1965 or later (because the
release date attributed to a film frequently varied
from source to source, the policy was adopted of
using the earliest release date ascribed to a film
in deciding whether or not it fell within the scope
of this study).
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter II presents background information derived
from a review of the literature. It is divided into three
parts: (1) that relating to the development of film
services in public libraries, (2) that relating to the
development of the major non-theatrical film reviewing
media, and (3) that relating to published criticisms of the
film reviewing media.
Chapter III describes the procedures and sources of
data used in this study. The four remaining chapters
present the findings of the investigation. In Chapter IV,
the review media's programs and procedures are described.
In Chapter V, the findings from the questionnaire sent to
public libraries with substantial sixteen millimeter
collections are presented. Chapter VI presents the results
from the analysis and comparison of films with a post-1965
14
}
j
j release date reviewed by the various media and/or owned by
i
the analyzed library collections. Chapter VII concludes
;the study with a summary of its purpose and findings, the
drawing of conclusions, and the presentation of some
I recommendations based on the investigation's findings.
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
Development of Film Services in
Public Libraries
During the first two decades of the twentieth cen
tury, the theatrical motion picture became a major influence!
on American culture and society. As early as 1910 there
was interest in using these films for "educational"
purposes, and in that year, a catalog of motion pictures
"intended . . . for the education of the adult as well as
the youth" was published by the film distributor, George
Kleine.^
Some public libraries of the period became inter-
jested in exhibiting motion pictures as part of their
activities, but they were confronted with formidable
2
obstacles. Motion pictures were made of nitrocellulose—
■^George Kleine', Catalogue of Educational Motion
jPictures (New York: George Kleine Co., 1910).
2
Orrin G. Cocks# "Libraries and Motion Pictures— An
Ignored Educational Agency," Library Journal, XXXIX
(September, 1914), 666-69.
15
|a dangerously combustible material, projection equipment
i
was bulky and expensive, commercial theaters resented the
competition these film showings provided, and facilities
for the distribution of "educational" titles were scant and
undependable.
In the 1920's, progress was made towards the solu
tion of these problems. Non-inflammable film was developed,
and in 1923, the sixteen millimeter projector was intro
duced. This compact, less expensive format was ideally
suited to the needs of schools and other educational groups.
As the market for educational films increased, there was a
corresponding increase in the number of producers and
distributors who made the needs of this market their
primary concern.
The first public library to lend educational films
;was Kalamazoo Public Library. This service began in 1929
Iwith a group of films deposited by the Michigan Department
of Conservation. Films were primarily intended for school
;use, but they also circulated to adult groups.^
Two important developments of the 1930's were
"^Gerald D. McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures
and Libraries (Chicago: American Library Association,
1942), pp. 141-46.
! 17
|
| (1) the advent of the sixteen millimeter sound projector
; and (2) the growth of the Documentary Film Movement in
i
Great Britain. Educational films had tended to be either i
iadaptations of theatrical features or didactic presenta
tions of factual matter. The Documentary Film Movement
; stimulated widespread interest in the information film and
i
recognition of its potential for being, simultaneously, a I
i
vehicle for aesthetic statement and factual communication.
This interest in the potential of the motion pic
ture for both artistry and education caused the Rockefeller
Foundation to fund the establishment, in 1938, of the
American Film Center.1 The Center, during the years of its
existence, was a great stimulus to the production and
utilization of high calibre educational and informational
films.
In 1939-1940, a second public library initiated
film service. This was Tyrrell Public Library of Beaumont,
: i
Texas, which became the first public library to create a
film collection specifically to meet the "educational and
I
recreational demands of its public."^ j
■^Rahoma Lee, "The Film News Story," Film News, XVII
(Spring, 1957), 11.
2
McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures, p. 146. !
j Recognizing a widespread and growing demand for
i .
educational motion pictures, the American Library Associa
tion appointed, in 1940, a Joint Committee on Educational
Films to determine what responsibilities libraries had in
regard to the distribution of such materials. The Commit
tee asked Gerald McDonald of New York Public Library to
iundertake an extensive study of the problem. With the aid
of a Rockefeller grant, he prepared a landmark study which
was published in 1942 as Educational Motion Pictures and
Libraries.1 The study found "the difficulties in educa
tional film use originate largely in the problem of
2
distribution," and suggested "the public library, a free
service institution, can become a connecting link between
3
the producer or distributor and the consumer." It could
do this by providing information to patrons on films and
their sources, by assisting patrons in borrowing films from
!these sources, by providing exhibition space and equipment,
;and by actually developing film collections that would meet
community needs.
The McDonald study was released at a time of
1 2
Ibid. Ibid., p. 103.
^Ibid., p. 27.
19 |
i I
; unprecedented interest in the use of films for educational
and informational purposes. The "film forum," a method of
I
;informal adult education which consisted of film showings
;followed by discussion, had been introduced to public
i ii
libraries in 1941 with the "What We Are Defending" series, j
land was experiencing great popularity. In addition, the j
i
armed forces were proving the educational value of motion
pictures by using them, on a huge scale, for the instruc- j
, i
tion and training of World War II inductees.
Federal agencies, such as the Office of War Infor
mation and the Office of Civil Defense, were attempting to
provide the general public with war information, instruc
tion and propaganda. To this end, they supplied suitable
motion pictures to those institutions which could reach
large audiences. Several recipients were public libraries,
including Cleveland Public Library, which had initiated
sixteen millimeter services in September 1942 with a small
donation of films from the local Federation of Settlement
1
Ibid., p. 50.
2
R. Russel Munn, "The Film and the Public Library,"
in Film and Education, ed. by Godfrey M. Elliott (New York:
Philosophical Library, 1948), p. 364. I
r ......................................" " .20.".
i
Houses.’ 1 ' In the next two years, the collection, under the
direction of the film librarian, Patricia Blair, came to
i
include over 40Q titles.
After the war, the American Library Association
sought to foster the development of public library film
service by establishing, with Carnegie Corporation funding,
2
:a Frlm Office. In 1947, Patricia Blair was appointed Film
Advisor for the four year project. During the first two
years, scores of libraries were assisted in the establish
ment of film services. The second two years helped to
bring film service to small and medium sized libraries i
through the introduction of the film cooperative and
circuit concepts.
I
The high cost of films had frustrated the attempts
of smaller libraries to provide their patrons with film
'service. In 1948, the Film Advisor's Office undertook a
)
istudy of the method by which Canadian libraries circulated
groups of films to cooperating libraries in a particular
j 1
Ibid., pp. 364-65.
2
Patricia Blair, "Films on Your Library Card,1 1 Film
; News, VIII (March-April, 1948), 18.
3
Patricia Blair Cory, "Public Library Film Services
from Start Till Now," Film News, XXIII (June, 1966), 5.
21
I
jregion with, the hope this plan might be adaptable to the
i
sneeds of smaller American libraries. In the following
|year, with additional Carnegie Corporation funding, two
i
jdemonstration regional film cooperatives, centered in the
iMissouri State Library and Cleveland Public Library, were
Sestablished.^ These projects proved highly successful and
ihave been widely emulated.
The 1949 Public Library Inquiry included an inten-
2
;sive study of the information film. The published report
included case studies of film circulation procedures in
eight public libraries and concluded public libraries and
|local film councils could provide the main answer to the
distribution of non-theatrical films.
In 1951 the Carnegie grant for the American Library
iAssociation's Film Office expired and the project termi-
jnated. Film service in public libraries continued to
-expand aided by the ever increasing recognition of the
j
:legitimacy and value of non-print library materials and by
the trend towards larger units of library service which
favored the development of film cooperatives and circuits.
1
I Ibid.
2
Gloria Waldron, The Information Film (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1949).
1 22 |
I |
;There ceased to be, however, the strong national leadership;
that characterized the era of the Film Office, and librar- 1
ies went "forward individually and in cooperative groups,
on their own impetus and by e x a m p l e . j
During the period from 1951 to 1967, the American
Library Association's Audiovisual Committee made some con- i
t
tributions to public library film service, notably in the j
preparation of bibliographies and lists of recommended j
I
films, but the scope of its activities was regretably i
; I
limited. The nearest approximation of a national organiza-j
tion and clearinghouse serving the needs of public library !
film collections during these years was EFLA with its j
i
numerous periodicals, services, monographs, and workshops, !
and its annual Americal Film Festival at which the
; I
country's leading public library film librarians were able j
i
to meet informally and exchange opinions and ideas. j
During the May 1967 American Film Festival, a meet- j
i
ing was held of film librarians who were dissatisfied with ;
I
; ]
existing organizations and felt a new national organization!
■ |
was needed that would foster the interests of public |
library film and audiovisual services. At this meeting, j
i !
Cory, "Public Library Film Services," p. 6. |
23
1 2
■ the Film Library Information Council was formed.
Committees were established to work in the areas of admin
istration and management, criteria, statistical studies,
3
personnel standards, equipment and space. In addition, a
journal, the Film Library Quarterly, was formed "to give
4
film librarians a communications medium."
This action stimulated renewed activity on the part;
of the American Library Association. During the following |
summer, it authorized an Audiovisual Task Force "to study
needs for a membership organization within librarianship
and a national office staff which could provide advisory
and coordinating services relating to audiovisual services
5
by libraries ..." The report of this Task Force, sub-
i
mitted to the Audiovisual Committee in late 1969, found a
"continuing need for identity, recognition and appreciation;
as well as information and help" on the part of audiovisualj
"^Hereafter referred to as, FLIC.
2 '
"Enter FLIC— The Film Library Information Council,"
Bookmark, XXVI (November, 1967), 89-90.
3
William J. Sloan, "The Film Library Information
.Council," Top of the News, XXIV (January, 1968), 219.
4 ‘
Ibid. ,
5
C. Walter Stone, "AV Task Force Survey Report,"
American Libraries, I (January, 1970), 40.
24
librariansand recommended the establishment of "a new
office or center within ALA staffed appropriately and
housed in the national headquarters office in Chicago’ 1
which would serve as a national clearinghouse, provide con
sultation services, and "maintain a continuing inventory of
both the objectives and accomplishments of other associa
tions, of relevant legislation, and experimental programs
in the field worth watching and/or which might be visited
2
by professional personnel." The report identified needs
in the areas of training, recuitment, and librarian educa
tion? gathering, compilation, and publication of informa
tion about materials and equipment? and the development of
specialized audiovisual services.
Another encouraging note was sounded by the publi
cation in 1970 of Guidelines for Audiovisual Materials and
3
Services for Public Libraries. These are quantitative
standards intended "to serve as a yardstick for public
libraries and library systems serving populations of
150,000 or more who wish to establish audiovisual services
1 2
Ibid., p. 43. Ibid., p. 42. 1
3 :
Audiovisual Committee, Public Library Association.
Guidelines for Audiovisual Materials and Services for
Public Libraries (Chicago: American Library Association,
1970).
or to strengthen their existing collection.h1 Especially
notable was the fact the standards were jointly prepared by
:the Standards Committee of FLIC and a committee appointed !
by the American Library Association/Public Library Associa
tion. Such cooperation bodes well for the continued
development of public library non-print services.
Development of the Major Film Review Media
In 1918, the first journal devoted to making "the
screen a greater power in education and business," Reel and
2
Slide, was published. The magazine, which, in 1919,
changed its title to Moving Picture Age, was joined in
1920 by Visual Education, and in 1922 by Educational Screen,
: i
which absorbed the earlier publications in 1922 and 1924
respectively. In 1920, Moving Picture Age began to publish
1001 Films. This was the first annual, annotated catalog
3
of non-theatrical motion pictures. Educational Screen
continued 1001 Films and has published it under various
titles until the present. It is now a multimedia list of
■ i
1 .
Ibid., p. 1.
2
Paul Saettler, A History of Instructional Tech
nology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968), p. 147.
; i
3Ibid., p. 151. |
j new materials issued each year and called "The Blue Book of
Audiovisual Materials."
In 1923, Educational Screen started to include
i
educational film reviews in its "School Department." The
;number of reviews declined sharply between 1928 and 1932.
|At that time, they ceased entirely and were not recommenced
: until October 1940 when a department entitled "New Films of
the Month as They Look to a Teacher Committee" was intro
duced.'*' In February of the following year, L. C. Larson of
: Indiana University became editor of the department. He
informed readers the reviews would represent the composite
opinion of a committee consisting of members of graduate
classes in audiovisual education and of teachers at the
2
Indiana University School of Education. In 1942, Carolyn
Guss of the University's Extension Division became an
associate editor of the column. Dean Larson and Dr. Guss
! have served as the editors of this department for thirty
years.
H.. W. Wilson Company entered the sixteen millimeter
■^"New Films of the Month as They Look to a Teacher
!Committee," Educational Screen, XIX (October, 1940), 344.
2
"New Films of the Month as They Look to a Teacher
Committee," Educational Screen, XX (February, 1941), 74+.
| field in 1936 with the publication of the Educational Film j
i i
i !
j Catalog/ which went through eleven editions and published
I ' I
supplements up to 1962. The catalog, which changed its I
title to the Educational Film Guide in 1945, was a select
list of non-theatrical films. It contained a title/subject
index followed by a classified section, arranged by Dewey i
j
decimal number, in which detailed bibliographic information}
I • !
was provided and the evaluative comments of numerous !
i
1 !
advisory consultants were quoted. The eleventh edition
I
I
has been called "the best index ever prepared on the 16mm j
film in the U.S."^ !
i
3
In a 1939 editorial, Nelson L. Greene, Editor of
Educational Screen, noted thousands of educational films
;were available, and, since these were of uneven value for
i
teaching purposes, he suggested there was clearly a need j
: j
for "significant and trustworthy evaluations . . . [which j
would] . . . reduce and ultimately eliminate guesswork in j
1
Educational Film Guide (11th ed.; New York: H. W. j
Wilson Co., 1953). i
; i
; 2 1
Naomi Weiss, "The Film Library's Book Collection,"
Film Library Quarterly, III (Summer, 1970), 19.
3
Nelson L. Greene, "A New Project for Evaluation of
Educational Films," Educational Screen, XVIII (January, !
1939) , 1 9 . i
jfilm selection for teachers, schools, and school systems."
i
He announced Educational Screen was embarking on a national
I cooperative program whereby teachers using a film in the
i
course of their work could fill out a pre-addressed postal !
■ I
: I
card evaluation form and mail it to the magazine for |
analysis and tabulation. The object was to "secure evalua-
; I
Ition more meaningful and reliable than any individual's
opinion and . . . make these evaluations readily available
i !
to the teaching rank-and-file throughout the country." j
The project was put into effect and functioned until inter-j
2 ' ■
rupted and terminated by World War II. Results were
published on index cards and issued as "Film Evaluation
i
I
Supplements to 1001 Films." Three sets were issued; each
included fifty films.
i
The McDonald report of 1942 noted an increase in
I
I
the evaluation of educational films. It observed, however,
"films are now evaluated almost entirely for school use and
little consideration is given to the growing demand for
3
evaluations which will guide adult users." This situation
1
Ibid.
2
One Thousand and One Films (18th ed.; Chicago:
Educational Screen, 1940), p. 7.
i
3 '
McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures, p. 30. !
I 29
; ameliorated considerably in post-war years with the appear
ance of review programs at EFLA, Film News, and the Satur-
j
day Review of Literature. j
j
EFLA developed from an earlier organization, the
Educational Film Lending Library Committee, which was j
formed in March 1942 to assist government agencies in j
distributing war information films.^ It was instrumental inj
; !
, the deposit of films at sixty educational institutions. j
Because there was a widely felt need for an organization to |
promote the production, distribution and utilization of j
educational films, the Committee was reorganized in March j
1943 as the Educational Film Library Association. L. C. j
Larson was named the first president, and the Association j
i
}
established an office at the American Film Center. Film |
News, which had started in December 1939 as a seven sheet i
-■ !
i
i
mimeographed newsletter for the American Film Center and j
j j
subsequently become a formal magazine, was named EFLA's j
official publication; it served in this capacity until the
2 !
closing of the Film Center in 1946. I
Early in 1946, EFLA initiated its evaluation j
! !
i
1
L. C. Larson, "The Formation of the Educational
Film Library Association," Film News, IV (Summer, 1943),
;11-12.
^Lee, "The Film News Story," p. 11. j
30
; program with evaluations being issued on 83s x 11 inch
loose-leaf sheets for film titles which had been evaluated
by in-the-field volunteer committees.1 In 1948, the format
was changed to 3 x 5 inch cards. Since EFLA1s membership
included public libraries and universities, the scope of
these evaluations included but also extended beyond motion
pictures intended for classroom use.
When the American Film Center closed in 1946, Film
!
News also ceased publication. In 1947, however, Rahoma
Lee, a motion picture scriptwriter and free lance journal-
i
ist, purchased the magazine from the defunct Center and
2
assumed its editorship. Not until late 1945 had Film News
included film reviews in its pages. Under lee, however,
reviews became the "backbone" of the magazine. For some
years, all reviewing was done by the editor herself.
Later, the policy was adopted of having the reviews written
! 4
by "user-specialists." Film News initially emphasized
;films for adult viewers but this approach proved not to be
1
Emily Jones, "The Educational Film in 1967 and
Beyond," Educational Screen and AV Guide, XLVII (January,
1968), p. 24.
2
Lee, "The Film News Story," p. 12.
3 4
Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
| 31 |
| I
! !
!financially viable and prime emphasis was necessarily
shifted to the school market.1 Despite this, the magazine I
continues to allocate a substantial part of its space to j
films of interest to non-school audiences. !
A section on sixteen millimeter films appeared in
;the Saturday Review of Literature between 1949 and 1956.
jMore than any other review medium of the period, the
Saturday Review concerned itself with non-theatrical motion !
: i
pictures of interest to adult and general audiences. It
consisted of two parts: a review section, "The Film
: |
Forum— The Saturday Review's Guide to Selected 16mm Sound
Films," and "Ideas on Film"— a department which presented
articles on sixteen millimeter films and their use. The
editor of the film section was Cecile Starr who was |
; !
described by Glamour Magazine, in 1954, as "the foremost
j
critic and authority on 16mm film production in this |
.
2
country." Cecile Starr was particularly sensitive to the
interests of public library film service since she had, in
1949, devoted six months to visiting public libraries
1
William Greaves, "An Interview with Rahoma Lee,"
Film News, XXVI (December, 1969), 7. j
2
Current Biography (1955 ed.; New York: H. W.
iWilson Co., 1955), p. 573. !
32
I
researching film activities for the Public Library
Inquiry.'1 ' Since the demise of the Saturday Review's six
teen millimeter section, no critic of non-theatrical films ;
has achieved comparable status and acceptance, nor, for
i
that matter, appeared as regularly in a mass media magazine.
Two new sources of sixteen millimeter reviews
appeared in 1956. One was Landers Film Reviews; the other
was the inauguration of quarterly reviews of sixteen milli-j
i
meter films in the Booklist. The latter were written j
largely by public librarians, members of the American
. I
Library Association's Audiovisual Committee's Film Review j
Subcommittee. The Booklist completely changed its review I
2 . i
program in 1970. Landers Film Reviews has continued to |
: j
the present time. j
i
i
Bertha Landers was a prominent film librarian who j
I
had organized film services at Dallas Public Library and
Saint Louis (Missouri) Public Library. She believed there
was a need for "some kind of film reviewing service which
would cut across the 16mm film field and come out at the
^The chapters of The Information Film dealing with j
film services in public libraries are based on her
research.
2
The current review program is summarized on
page 29. I
r 33
j
|time films were released instead of months later."1 Start-
j
ling with the cooperation of fifteen producers, who agreed j
to send her preview prints of their new releases, she I
established a monthly loose-leaf service, modeled on I
Virginia Kirkus' book review service, which provided
schools and other film users with film reviews on a sub- !
iscription basis. Presently the service reviews more titles
than any other medium.
I
t
For many years the need for more effective biblio- |
1 |
; I
graphic control of audiovisual materials had been j
i j
recognized. Under a United States Office of Education !
; j
grant, Margaret Rufsvold, Director of Indiana University's I
I i
Division of Library Science, and Carolyn Guss prepared, in
1960, a proposal which called for the establishment of a
; j
national cross-media catalog which would list and evaluate
newer media for the purpose of informing teachers about the
availability and educational utility of these materials.
r *
At a conference convened to discuss this proposal, there
2
Iwas much criticism of the evaluation aspect.^ It was
;_______ i
bertha Landers, "New Film Review Service," Library
Journal, LXXXII (April 15, 1957), 1042.
2
Work Conference on Bibliographic Control of Newer
I Media, Bloomington, 1960. Proceedings of Work Conference
ion Bibliographic Control of Newer Media Convened at Indianaj
j suggested this might easily develop into a kind of national
;censorship. Consequently, the final recommendations of the
conference, while endorsing the concept of the catalog,
specifically excluded any evaluative feature.
In 1964, also with United States Office of Educa
tion financing, a multi-media catalog, the Educational
Media Index,^ was published in fourteen volumes. H. W.
Wilson Company used the occasion to discontinue the
Educational Film Guide, which had been losing money for
many years. The Educational Media Index has, in turn, been
superseded by a number of computer based bibliographies
produced by the National Information Center for Educational
2
Media at the University of Southern California.
At the 1960 conference, Bertha Landers had cited
3
the need for greater access to available film reviews.
University, October 5-7, 1960 under the Sponsorship of the
I U.S. Office of Education (Bloomington: Indiana University,
I960).
■^Educational Media Council, Educational Media Index
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964).
2
These frequently revised bibliographies include
the Index to 16mm Educational Films.
3
Work Conference on Bibliographic Control, Pro
ceedings , pp. 95-97.
; - 35
i The need was lessened somewhat by the introduction of a
jmonthly "Index to Audiovisual Reviews" department in the
journal, Audiovisual Instruction in February 1963.^ The
:feature, which made no attempt to be either cumulative or
comprehensive, was discontinued in 1969, on the occasion of
the death of its compiler, Betty Stoops.
; The following year, two new film review indexing
I
services began. One was the Film Review Index, a subscrip
tion service; the other was a far less comprehensive film
review index which EFLA added to its new journal, Sight-
line s. In October 1971, Audiovisual Instruction began a
new monthly feature, the "Multi-Media Review Index."
Annual cumulations of the "Multi-Media Review Index" are
published by the Pierian Press.
An additional source of film reviews was provided
by the appearance, in 1967, of FLIC's journal, the Film
|Library Quarterly. Although relatively few titles are
I reviewed by the Film Library Quarterly, it is presently the
■ only review medium that restricts itself to films "which
^Audiovisual Instruction is the official journal of
:the Association for Educational Communications and Tech
nology, the organization which was previously called the
I Division of Audiovisual Instruction of the National
:Education Association.
!..... 36 .
I
|librarians and community leaders feel are important and
|significant.
Prior to 1970, the Booklist's quarterly film review!
! I
I section was largely written by public librarians. There-
ifore, it emphasized the public library point of view. As
•of September 1, 1970, however, sixteen millimeter films j
| were added to the scope of a non-print materials reviewing j
i 1
• ; i
program the Booklist had initiated in September 1969 start-i
i
iing with reviews of filmstrips and eight millimeter film |
: I
2 i
loops. Under the expanded program, each sixteen milli- 1
i
i i
meter film review appearing in the Booklist represents a I
!synthesis of the opinion of a Booklist staff member and j
; i
•the evaluations of two in-the-field consultant groups. I
;Sixteen millimeter film reviews now appear in each issue of
I the Booklist. !
i
In addition to the review media cited in the pre
ceding discussion, a number of other journals publish some
I
jfilm reviews. School oriented periodicals, such as Science j
!Teacher, Grade Teacher, The Instructor, and School Library j
i ■ -
i
1
"Film Reviews," Film Library Quarterly, I (Winter,
|1967-68), 41.
2
"AV Reviews Expanding," Booklist, LXVII
(September 1, 1970),39. |
37
: I
Journal/ publish a modest number of reviews.^ Educator's
Guide to Media and Methods, ostensibly directed at high
school educators but actually quite as relevant for those
who work with college students and adults, is an unusual
publication with a McLuhanesque philosophy which often con-:
tains sixteen millimeter reviews. These tend to be scat
tered throughout the magazine in formats and features that ,
vary from issue to issue. Cinema magazines, such as Films
in Review, sometimes devote a small portion of their space ;
to non-theatrical films and to reviews of theatrical
feature films which have been reissued in a sixteen milli
meter format.
Criticisms of the Major Film Review Media
A survey of the literature shows the following to
have been major criticisms and points of controversy
regarding audiovisual review media during the past thirty
years: (1) lateness, (2) inadequacy of bibliographic
i
citation, (3) subjectivity and unreliability, (4) lack of
multiple reviews, (5) preponderance of school oriented
1
Another major source of sixteen millimeter reviewsj
appeared in September 1972 when Library Journal began
publishing Previews, a periodical devoted entirely to
non-book materials.
38
reviews, and (6) leniency and reluctance to publish
negative reviews.
Lateness
Bertha Landers established Landers Film Reviews in
1956 because she believed there was a need for a film
reviewing service which would provide reviews "at the time
films were released instead of months later." There is
evidence that lateness has continued to be a problem for
EFLA and possibly for other review media. In 1962, EFLA
sent a questionnaire to its members requesting suggestions
and criticisms. A major complaint was lateness of evalua
tions. One respondent indicated "the evaluation cards come
out one or two years after we have purchased that particu
lar film.In 1968, another EFLA questionnaire found "the
chief demand was to have more evaluations and to have them
2
arrive more promptly after the film's release."
^Gladd Paterson, "Personally Speaking," EFLA
Bulletin, XIX (August, 1962), 2.
2
"From the EFLA Office," Sightlines, I (July-
August, 1968), 3.
39
Inadequacy of Bibliographic Citation
In 1970, Roderick D. McDaniel, a member of the
Education Faculty at the University of Southern California,
surveyed audiovisual review services in nineteen journals.
He found "the most glaring weakness . . . is the incon
sistent and inadequate manner in which the bibliographic
citation is carried."^ He found the most common omission
to be price.
Subjectivity and Unreliability
At the EFLA meeting of 1944, the Committee on
Evaluation and Utilization "tangled with the classic prob
lem of evaluation, namely, that .'evaluations differed
greatly since, in many instances they were subjective.'"
The Committee suggested "much would be gained if 'stand-
2
iardized scales for objective appraisal were developed.'"
Consequently, when EFLA initiated its evaluation program,
it developed a standardized evaluation form and required
1
Roderick D. McDaniel, "Audiovisual Reviews— the
State of the Art," Audiovisual Instruction, XV (December,
1970), 64.
2
"Annual EFLA Meeting," Film News, V (September,
1944), 4-5.
40
i
| that each evaluation represent the consensus of a qualified
i group.
Standardized forms and group consensus might seem
a remedy to the complaints of producers and educators that
"there are too many armchair evaluations on films and . . .
'emotions and opinions guide many film evaluators.How
ever, there remains the danger that the standardized
criteria may "pick at the bones of the film without ever
touching the meat," and the necessity to appraise the
background, the qualifications and the orientation of the
evaluating group. The approach has not prevented criti
cism of EFLA evaluations' reliability. A 1956 report on
cooperative film services in public libraries observed EFLA
cards were used in "a few places, but their emphasis upon
school use and the uneven quality of the contributed
3
evaluations were reported as criticisms." One comment
received by EFLA in response to its 1962 questionnaire was,
1
"Evaluations— Pro and Con Comments from Readers,"
Educational Screen, XXXIV (March, 1955), 116.
2
Cecile Starr, "Keep Up with Films," ALA Bulletin,
L (April, 1956), 211.
3
Patricia Blair Cory and Violet F. Myer, Coopera
tive Film Services in Public Libraries: A Report of a
; Survey of Public Library Film Cooperatives (Chicago:
American Library Association, 1956), p. 52.
i "I don't have much faith in the evaluations of some groups
i
| and feel that the standards of the various groups vary
i
!widely.nl
! ' |
Lack of Multiple Reviews
Since the opinions of experts vary, it may be
•'•3
important to obtain a number of reviews for a particular
title. It has been said "the lack of multiple reviews con
siderably narrows the spectrum of expert judgment on which j
1
2 •
!to base selection."
Preponderance of School Oriented Reviews
Since the largest market for non-theatrical films
; |
is the school, the majority of reviews are oriented towards
classroom use. The school and the school reviewer tend to
; judge films in terms of their relevance to the curriculum j
land for the facilitation of specific learning objectives.
IPublic libraries are interested in less formal objectives
!
with greater emphasis being accorded the film's value for I
general audiences and its aesthetic and affective aspects.
"^Paterson, "Personally Speaking," p. 2.
2
Warren B. Hicks and Alma Tillin, Developing Multi-
Media Libraries (New York: Bowker, 1970), p. 31.
I 42
I
| In 1942, McDonald noted there were few reviews of
films for adult audiences.1 Replies to the 1968 EFLA
j
Iquestionnaire indicated "as usual, the school people
|
thought there should be more classroom films evaluated, and
the library people want more attention to adult, art and
children's films."
Leniency and Reluctance to Publish
Negative Reviews
The most vociferous and persistent criticism of
audiovisual reviews has been directed at their purported
leniency and unwillingness to publish negative reviews.
McDonald observed, in 1942, "the treatment of poor films in
reviewing media varies, but in most cases magazines . . .
avoid the displeasure of producers by failing to list
3
them." Subsequent writers have spoken of a "hearts and
4
jflowers approach," of a "conspiracy of silence which
■encourages the continued production of films which are dull,
■^McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures, pp. 31-32.
2
"From the EFLA Office," p. 3.
3 . . .
McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures, p. 31.
4
Janet French, "The Evaluation Gap," Library
Journal, XCV (March 15, 1970), 1164.
I ’ ..... ......................... ’ ........... 43
;verbose or inept,and of "a general tendency to be kind,
■ * 2
|to accept mediocrity instead of demanding excellence."
!One writer has attributed this reluctance on the part of
journals to their dependence on producers' and distribu-
O
tors' advertising.
Proponents of negative reviewing have maintained
negative criticism is needed (1) to provide feedback to
producers, and (2) to provide guidance for the film user
who is subjected to producers' and distributors' advertis
ing and promotional pressures.
On the other hand, McDaniel has noted "public
announcement of failure can be financially disastrous to
the small producer. Although they desire and need this
criticism, most producers would prefer it be privileged and
4
direct." This argument is buttressed by the variation in
experts' opinions and the alleged scarcity of multiple
■^Emily S. Jones, "Personally Speaking," EFLA
;Bulletin, XX (September, 1962), 2.
2
Emily S. Jones, "EFLA Works for Better Films,"
Educational Screen and AV Guide, XLII (August, 1963), 470.
3
Neel Keehn, "Production," in Film Council of
America, Sixty Years of 16mm Film, 1923-1983 (Evanston,
111.: Film Council of America, 1954), p. 35.
4
McDaniel, "Audiovisual Reviews," p. 64.
;reviews. In addition, many persons feel, since space for
reviewing audiovisual materials is limited, it should be
reserved for superior or worthy materials. Conversely,
; i
many writers share McDonald's opinion "when films are
advertised and promoted by the producer, there is reason to
print the negative review. " ■ * "
Summary
Film service in public libraries has proliferated
during the last three decades. Stimulated by the McDonald
Report of 1942, interest in the motion picture as an
instructional device generated by government programs
during World War II, and the establishment, in 1947, of the
American Library Association's Film Advisory Office, the
late 1940's and early 1950's produced a phenomenal growth j
of public library film service. This was marked by the
development of film collections in large libraries, and of
film circuits and film cooperatives to service the needs
of smaller libraries.
The period from 1946 to 1956 witnessed the institu
tion of non-theatrical film reviewing services at Film News,
■^McDonald, Educational Motion Pictures, p. 31.
I the Educational Film Library Association, Landers Film
I Reviews, and the Booklist. National interest in public
i
;library audiovisual activities was fostered, in 1967, by the
formation of the Film Library Information Council. The
Council's quarterly journal, Film Library Quaterly, is
currently the only film review medium intended specifically|
and primarily for the public library film collection. The J
i
‘ number of published reviews of non-theatrical films was |
increased by the Booklist1s introduction, in 1970, of an
expanded and completely altered review program for sixteen !
: j
millimeter films. i
i
Published criticisms of film review services, j
during the past thirty years, have been concerned with the
;lateness of reviews, the inadequacy of their bibliographic
citations, their purported subjectivity and unreliability,
the lack of multiple reviews, the preponderance of reviews
: oriented towards school usage, and the review media's
leniency and unwillingness to publish negative reviews.
CHAPTER III
THE PROCEDURES AND SOURCES OF DATA USED
IN THE INVESTIGATION
The four major procedures used in this study of
published film reviews and their influence on film selec
tion in public libraries owning large numbers of sixteen
millimeter films were: (1) interviewing representatives
of the major review media, (2) preparing a questionnaire
for distribution to selected libraries, distributing the
questionnaire, and compiling data from the responses,
(3) analyzing the collections of responding libraries, and
(4) analyzing the reviews published in the major film
reviewing media. This chapter describes how these proce
dures were carried out.
Interviews
The activities relating to the interviewing of
representatives of the major review media were: (1)
selecting review media for study, (2) developing the inter
view schedule, (3) visiting the offices of the review
46........ ...................
media and conducting interviews, and (4) summarizing the
i
!information gathered in the interviews.
Selecting the Review Media for Study
The six review media studied in this project were:
Landers Film Reviews, Educational Film Library Association
; j
Cards, Booklist, Film News, Film Library Quarterly, and j
Educational Screen and AV Guide. These media were decided j
I
|
upon after careful examination of bibliographies, pub- j
lished literature, and actual copies of these and other !
!
: i
periodicals and services. The opinions of faculty members i
' j
and of practicing film librarians were solicited. It was j
i
j
generally agreed that, while other periodicals and services;
i
j
published some reviews of sixteen millimeter films, these j
s
six were the most prominent and important. Educational
Screen and AV Guide was included because of the historical I
; i
■ j
!importance of the journal, and because it appears on most j
t ,
lists of important film review media. However, it was not j
i |
anticipated this periodical would prove of major importance!
; i
; !
to public libraries because: (1) it has been publishing
relatively few reviews in recent years, and (2) the journal
and its reviews are intended specifically for school use.
For these reasons, Educational Screen and AV Guide was
i selected for inclusion in the questionnaire sent to
libraries, and for analysis of reviews, but not for per-
I
; i
sonal interview. Information concerning the operation of
this review medium was solicited by mail. Information
concerning the five other media was gathered by personal
interview with their respective editors. j
Developing the Interview Schedule
i
j
The purpose of the interviews was to determine the
aims of the review media, their methods of operation, and
the difficulties they encounter. An interview schedule was
designed to serve as a basis for interviews with repre
sentatives of the review media to ascertain this informa
tion. The schedule was examined and approved by members of
the doctoral committee and by prominent public library film i
librarians. A copy of this schedule is found in Appendix A.
Conducting the Interviews
During October and November 1971, the author of
this study undertook a cross-country trip to gather data.
; On this journey, interviews were held with: (1) Mr. Paul
■
Brawley, Non-Print Materials Editor of the Booklist, at the
American Library Association headquarters in Chicago,
!....... 49..
j (2) Mrs. Esme Dick, Director of EFLA, at EFLA headquarters
iin New York City, (3) Mrs. Rahoma Lee, Editor of Film News,
at the magazine's editorial offices in New York City, and
(4) Mr. William Sloan, Editor of Film Library Quarterly, at
the Donnell branch of New York Public Library. In each
case, the interview was taped on a cassette recorder for
later transcription. The interview with Mr. Sloan was
supplemented by an informal conversation with Mrs. Masha
|Porte, Film Reviews Editor of Film Library Quarterly, at
Dallas Public Library. In February 1972, Miss Bertha
Landers, Editor of Landers Film Reviews, was interviewed at
her home in Hollywood, California.
Summarizing Information from the Interviews
The information received from the interviews,
■supplemented by information acquired from published sources
land an examination of the review media, was summarized
under the following headings: (1) background, (2) selec
tion of films for review, (3) review procedure, and
(4) problems, feedback and predictions. These summaries
are presented in Chapter IV.
The Questionnaire
" .
j
The activities relating to the questionnaire
;addressed to public libraries with large sixteen millimeter
i
ifilm collections were: (1) developing the questionnaire,
(2) selecting libraries to receive the questionnaire,
! (3) submitting the questionnaire to the selected libraries
land obtaining responses, and (4) summarizing responses.
Developing the Questionnaire
The questionnaire submitted to the selected public
libraries consisted of thirty-nine items. These inquired
about the preview policies and procedures employed by the
libraries, the film review media used by the libraries in
I the selection of films, the libraries' evaluation of each
of the six review media studied by this project, and the
I influence on film selection of: (1) other bibliographic
I tools, (2) sales representatives visits, (3) advertise
ments, (4) unsolicited preview prints, (5) cooperative
|and/or distributor arranged preview screening sessions, and
| (6) professional contact with other film librarians.
i
A preliminary version of the questionnaire was sent
to members of the doctoral committee for comments and
i"’ 51
I
|criticisms, and carefully pretested on prominent librarians
i
involved in the operation of large public library film
collections in the Los Angeles area. The suggestions and
feedback thus received were incorporated into a revised
version of the questionnaire which was sent to the selected
libraries. A copy of the revised questionnaire and cover
letter are found in Appendix B.
Selecting the Libraries
In order to insure the public libraries studied by
this project engaged in substantial amounts of film
activity, it was decided to limit the project to public
libraries across the United States identified as having
more than 500 prints of sixteen millimeter motion pictures
in their film collection. Identifying these libraries
entailed some difficulties, since comprehensive and
jreliable statistics on the film holdings of American public
■ libraries are not available. Suitable libraries were iden
tified from: (1) information in the Film Library Informa
tion Council's Directory of Film Libraries in North
America,1 (2) inquiries directed to the various state
■^Film Library Information Council, Directory of
; Film Libraries in North America (New York: Film Library
52
departments of education and state libraries, and
(3) inquiries directed to individual libraries which had
been identified in various published sources as having
l :
substantial audiovisual budgets. From the data accumulated
in these ways, thirty-four public libraries were selected
for inclusion in the study.
Obtaining the Responses
The questionnaires were mailed to the selected
libraries during the first week of October 1971, immedi-
i
ately prior to the author's departure on a cross-country
trip during which he interviewed representatives of the
i
review media and visited the majority of the selected
libraries for the purpose of analyzing their collections.
The promise of the visited librarians to complete and to
return the questionnaire was usually secured. At the end
of December 1971, reminders were mailed to the librarians >
who had not yet responded. By the end of January 1972, !
completed questionnaires had been received from thirty-two
(94 per cent) of the thirty-four libraries. Efforts to
|
obtain responses from the two remaining libraries were
Information Council, 1971).
53
unsuccessful. Responding libraries are listed in
Appendix C. j
i
j
Summarizing the Responses i
j
The responses to the questionnaire were tallied and
i
summarized under the headings: (1) preview and selection
procedures and statistics, (2) influences on the selection
i
of films, and (3) review media. The heading, preview and j
I
selection procedures and statistics, presents information j
i
under the subheadings: (a) titles owned, (b) review pro
cedures, and (c) preview statistics. Influences on the
selection of films contains the subheadings: (a) published
i
i
materials, (b) sales representatives, (c) advertisements, |
(d) unsolicited preview prints, (e) joint preview screen- |
ings, (f) distributor arranged screenings, (g) contact with j
other film librarians, (h) relative influence of [the]
various factors. The heading, review media, is subdivided |
t
I
into: (a) review media received and scanned, (b) relative j
|
influence of [the] review media, (c) current problems of j
[the] review media, (d) agreement with reviews, and j
i
(e) individual review media. The results of the question- j
i
I
naire are reported in Chapter V.
Analyzing the Library Collections
54
The activities relating to the analysis of the
library film collections were: (1) formulating criteria
for including motion picture titles in the study, (2) col
lecting the data, and (3) analyzing and summarizing the
data.
Formulating Criteria for Including Films
It was decided to limit the analyses of the library
collections and of the titles reviewed by the studied
review media to sixteen millimeter films with a release
date of 1965 or later. In practice, this policy required
further definition since there was considerable disagree
ment in the release dates attributed to individual titles
by different libraries and review media. Therefore, the
practice was followed of accepting as correct the earliest
release date attributed to a title, and basing the title's
inclusion in or exclusion from the study on this date.
Motion pictures which were recognized as sixteen millimeter
reductions of commercially released thirty-five millimeter
feature films were excluded from the study.
55
Collecting the Data
Of the thirty-two libraries completing the ques
tionnaire, thirty were personally visited by the author of
this study during the period of October 1971 to December
1971.^ Libraries outside the Southern California area were
visited during October and November; Southern California
library collections were visited, in one instance, in
October and, in two other instances, in December for the
purpose of collecting data on the relevant film titles in
each collection. In most cases, copies of the current
catalog and its supplements were acquired, and the titles
and dates of films acquired since the publication of the
latest supplement and of films "on order" were copied. In
a few cases, no copy of the catalog was available for
distribution and the collection was analyzed on the
; premises.
I
The two unvisited libraries were: the Western
! Pennsylvania Regional Film Center located at the Carnegie
Library of Pittsburgh, and the Henry Ford Centennial
i
Library of Dearborn, Michigan. It was not necessary to
The two non-responding libraries were also
;visited, but were eliminated from the study when they did
not respond. .
visit the Western Pennsylvania Regional Film Center since
j
j a union catalog identifying its holdings was available at j
| the Eastern Pennsylvania Regional Film Center located at j
j ’ j
; the Free Library of Philadelphia. Circumstances made it !
: i
I
;impossible to visit the Henry Ford Centennial Library at
jDearborn, Michigan. A copy of its catalog was requested byj
mail, but the response of the collection's director !
;revealed this collection has no catalog other than a card |
catalog.
■ I
! I
Therefore, while the analysis of the questionnaires!
includes the response of the Henry Ford Centennial Library,j
: I
its collection was not analyzed. The thirty-one analyzed |
i j
libraries are identified in Appendix C. !
i
! i
i
Analyzing and Summarizing the Data |
; j
: i
In analyzing both the library collections and the
|published reviews, several large loose leaf notebooks were
|used to collate the data. In roughly alphabetical order,
an entry was made for each title giving: (1) title,
I(2) year of release, (3) distributor, (4) media reviewing
and judged rating given by each reviewing medium, and
i I
. C5) libraries owning the film. Library catalogs did not |
; i
always identify the year of release or the distributor. In j
ithese cases, there was constant cross verification with the
i
catalogs of other library collections, as well as searching)
of the NICEM (National Information Center for Educational i
J !
Media) indexes, distributors catalogs, and indexes to films)
: I
reviewed both after and prior to 1965. In a number of j
cases, the inclusion or exclusion of a title had to be |
decided on circumstantial evidence. For instance, a title j
which was "on order" in October 1971, which could not be j
located in any published catalog or list, would reasonably |
i
i
be assumed to bear a post-1965 release date. j
After completion of the analyses of the film col- j
i
I
lections and the film reviews, the contents of the note- I
i i
books were summarized by a list of summary notations which j
allocated one line to each film title, and contained:
(1) a code number representing the film title's location in
the notebooks, (2) letters and symbols representing the
I media reviewing the title and the rating each medium was
I judged to have given the title, and (3) a number represent
ing the number of libraries owning the title. A typical
notation would be "C106-L+B0- (3)." These notations served
as the primary basis for subsequent tabulations.
The tabulations and analyses of this data are
described more fully under "Analyzing the Film Reviews—
jAnalyzing and Summarizing the Data." The results of these
|
!operations are reported in Chapter VI.
Analyzing the Film Reviews
The activities relating to the analysis of the film
reviews were: (1) formulating criteria for including
reviews in the study, (2) reading the reviews and assigning
a rating of ' + ', 'O' or to each review, (3) collecting
the data, (4) analyzing and summarizing the data, and
(5) developing and testing ancillary hypotheses.
i
Formulating Criteria for Including
Film Reviews
The film reviews included in the study were the
reviews of sixteen millimeter films with a release date of
1965 or later appearing in the following review media:
Landers Film Reviews, EFLA Cards, the Booklist, Film News,
Educational Screen and AV Guide, and Film Library Quarterly
IIn determining whether a title for which discrepant release
i
dates were given fell within the scope of the study, the
earliest date given was used. Reviews of films recognized
as sixteen millimeter reductions of thirty-five millimeter
commercial feature films were excluded.
I 59
| Reading and Rating the Film Reviews
i
The film reviews published by each of the six
: studied review media, in 1965 or later, were examined. If
;a film fell within the scope of the study, the review was
[
read and assigned a rating of '+', 'O' or A review
I
was assigned a '+' if, in the opinion of this writer, the
review clearly considered the film "superior." An 'O'
rating was assigned if the rating given the film was judged
to range from "good to acceptable." A rating was
assigned if the review was judged to clearly consider the
film "seriously flawed."
It was sometimes difficult to decide which rating
was most appropriate for a specific review, and it is pos
sible another judge may have made different decisions in
certain instances. However, it is unlikely any judge would
consider any review which was placed in the '+' category
as less than "good," or any review which was placed in the
category as more than "acceptable." There was, there
fore, clear disagreement between reviews when one film
received two different reviews, one of which was judged to
be '+', the other to be Ratings of '+' and 'O' or of
j'-' and 'O' could not be described, with certainty, as in
iclear disagreement.
Collecting the Data
The issues of the review media analyzed, with the
exception of EFLA Cards, were those dated January 1965 or !
! • !
; i
later which were received by Los Angeles libraries prior toj
: I
I I
1 1
the end of the first week of October 1971. EFLA Cards
1 |
janalyzed were those in the files of the Los Angeles Public j
Library during the first week of January 1972.
In addition, issues of the studied media received
i
I by Los Angeles libraries between the first week of October
11971 and the last week of December 1971 were examined to j
determine whether additional reviews of titles reviewed by
other studied media prior to the first week of October 1971
had appeared. In the few instances where this was the
lease, these reviews were added to the study.
These extended to the following: Landers Film
I Reviews, XVI (September, 1971); Booklist, LXVIII (October 1,
11971); Film News, XXVIII (June-July, 1971)? Educational i
Screen and AV Guide, L (February, 1971); and, Film Library
Quarterly, IV (Summer, 1971).
Analyzing and Summarizing the Data
|
The methods by which the raw data were assembled
:and organized have been described under "Analyzing the
Library Collections— Analyzing and Summarizing the Data."
i
The findings were summarized under the headings: (a) films
reviewed by the studied media, (b) films owned by the
analyzed libraries, (c) titles owned by eight or more
libraries, (d) titles owned by a single library, (e) lead
ing distributors of owned titles, (f) comparison of review j
media, (g) film ratings, (h) agreement and disagreement of j
i
I
review ratings, and (i) titles receiving an unfavorable |
i
consensus. The results of the analyses of the film reviewsj
j
and the library collections are presented in Chapter VI. j
i
i
■ I
1 |
Developing and Testing Ancillary Hypotheses j
: ' |
The findings presented in Chapter VI, suggested
; the following ancillary hypotheses:
t
! i
! 1. A majority of the titles owned by one or more of
i
the analyzed libraries had been reviewed by one or
more of the studied media. j
; i
: I
2. The greater the number of media reviewing a title, |
i
: I
the greater is the likelihood that title is owned j
by one or more of the studied libraries.
3. The greater the number of media reviewing a title,
i
the greater is the likelihood it is owned by a j
i
larger number of libraries. I
4. The greater the number of libraries owning a title,
the greater is the likelihood the film has been
reviewed by one or more of the studied media.
5. A greater percentage of the titles judged to have j
i
received any ' + ' reviews are owned by one or more j
j
I
of the studied libraries than of those receiving |
i
1
any ' 0 1 or 1-' reviews. j
6. There is a positive correlation between the per-
I
centage of '+' reviews a title reviewed by more j
than one medium receives and the likelihood it is j
t
!
owned. |
7. There is a negative correlation between the per- |
centage of 1 -1 reviews a title reviewed by more
than one medium receives and the likelihood it is
owned.
j
These hypotheses were tested by the presentation of j
I
i
evidence from the findings presented in Chapter VI. In j
t
most cases, correlation coefficients were calculated. The |
i
results have been integrated into the body of Chapter VI. j
CHAPTER IV
REVIEW MEDIA
The following chapter describes the sixteen milli
meter review programs and procedures at Landers Film
Reviews, EFLA, the Booklist, Film News, and Film Library
Quarterly. The information provided is derived from an
examination of the publications, published information, and
interviews with editors or review editors. Educational
Screen and AV Guide is treated less fully. Information
regarding its practices was obtained from an examination of
the publication and from information solicited by mail from
the editor, Carolyn Guss.
Landers Film Reviews
Background
Landers Film Reviews was started in 1956 by Bertha
Landers, a public librarian, who had established film
service at Dallas, Peoria, and Kansas City, Missouri Public
Libraries. Its purpose was to provide sixteen millimeter
| 64
i
| reviews for the guidance of the users of educational and
l
; documentary films. The original intention was to review
;films at the time of release instead of months or years
later. It has not always been able to do this. Of the
titles reviewed in 1971, approximately 7 per cent had pre-
1970 dates attributed to them; the rest were about evenly
divided between 1970 and 1971.
During recent years, the service has been published
by Landers Associates, and is owned and operated by Bertha
Landers and a "silent partner." Miss Landers describes the
aim of the service as providing information to users of
sixteen millimeter films about which titles are available
and which will best satisfy their requirements. The
service is directed primarily at school audiences and
secondarily at public librarians and other non-school film
users.
Landers Film Reviews is a loose-leaf service
modeled on the Virginia Kirkus format. For a subscription
fee of $35, a subscriber receives a loose-leaf binder and
monthly issues from September to May. The service does not
publish during June, July and August. During the period
September 1970 to May 1971, 553 films were reviewed.
Each review begins with very detailed bibliographic
information identifying producer, distributor, date,
|running time, color or black and white, production credits,
I
|and sale and rental prices. Landers is the only one of thej
j |
I six review media which consistently gives rental price and I
! . I
[provides credits which identify contributors such as
[writer, director, photographer and composer.
!
This is followed by brief identifications of
; ' j
["Intended Audience," "Subject Area," and "Purpose."
Finally, there is the "Review." This tends to be a 100 to
; . ■ |
|250 word essay which describes the film's content and tech-j
: !
nique and concludes with a few evaluative phrases which
usually point out commendatory aspects of the film.
;Reviews are not signed and there is no indication anywhere
| within the publication of how films are reviewed or by whom.
Each issue contains a subject index and a title
|index. There are annual cumulations of each of these, and
|a six year cumulation of title indexes is published.
Issues of Landers Film Reviews tend to be received
i
|at Los Angeles libraries in the middle of the month appear-
j
|
:ing on the masthead. This speedy distribution is facili-
t
tated by the offset method of production.
! !
Landers Associates feels, in addition to serving
; j
ifilm users, the service aids producers and distributors by !
I ................................................... 66..
jbringing their product to the attention of potential users.
IIn a flyer aimed at inducing new distributors and producers
to submit films for review, the service describes itself as
|
"the busiest salesman in 16 mm films."
Additional features of Landers Film Reviews are the
listing in each issue of new "Multi-Media Materials," an
annual Source Directory of producers and distributors,
lists of award winning films from American and foreign film
festivals, and the awarding of "Landers Awards of Merit" to
the twenty-five films each year which have received the
most votes from subscribers. Landers Associates also pro
vides a research service which provides subscribers with
assistance in locating films and distributors, and a con
sultant service which advises producers and film makers on
the editing and improvement of their product.
Landers Associates hopes to continue to increase
the number of reviews but contemplates no other changes.
Selection of Films for Review
All films reviewed have been submitted at the
initiative of the producer or distributor. Landers Asso
ciates never solicits specific titles. On the other hand,
there is a continuing effort to induce new producers and
67
distributors to submit titles for review.
Most participating producers automatically ship new
titles to the service. A handling fee of $7.50 must be
included to cover costs of mailing, insurance and handling.
Landers Associates sends promotional literature to new
producers identified from such sources as lists of con
tributors to film festivals. The west coast location
(Hollywood) of the service is also an aid in reaching
potential participators; new producers are often referred
by processing laboratories.
Very few films submitted for review are rejected.
Those which are refused are rejected on the basis of poor
quality. The small number of such films reflects what
Landers Associates feels is the generally high level of
current film production.
Landers Associates will not review films which are
very poorly made, have little possible use, or are overly
technical and geared to a very limited professional audi
ence. Neither are free loan films reviewed. At one time
a separate section was provided for such films. It was
discontinued when distributors found they were deluged with
requests for free loan after a title was reviewed.
There is no written policy concerning what will be
68
reviewed. Low coat and sponsored films which are available
for sale are reviewed when submitted.
Landers Associates hesitates to publish strongly
negative reviews. If a film has no potential use, it is
not reviewed. If it is of some value, Landers Film Reviews
prefers to describe the film objectively and indicate its
potential use. Shortcomings are often noted within a
generally acceptable review.
Review Procedure
Reviews are jointly prepared by Bertha Landers or
her partner and one of four salaried employees. After
viewing the film, an employee prepares the descriptive
portion of the review and indicates her personal reaction
to the film. Miss Landers or her partner have also viewed
the film. They edit the final copy and prepare the evalua
tive portion of the review.
The salaried employees include a former librarian,
a former advertising agency writer, a former classroom
teacher, and a recently graduated college English major.
There has been little turnover in staff except for two
replacements hired in 1971 for recently deceased staff
members. Replacements were recruited through professional j
j ................... 69
i
I
|contacts and listing at local university placement services.
!The most important qualification is an ability to write
clearly and well. Employees are trained by Landers
Associates in filmic values and instructed in the Landers
style so that uniformity and consistency will be main
tained. A standard form is used for collecting data
'concerning the film, but not for the annotation.
Most screenings take place at Miss Landers' resi
dence in Hollywood, California. One married employee views
films at her own home. Children's films are usually routed
to this employee so that the reactions of her four children
may be obtained.
Landers Film Reviews is the only review medium con
sidered in this study which does not rely on reports
provided by in-the-field consultants or reviewers. For
this reason, they are able to prepare a review and return
!the film to the distributor in ten days. This has con
tributed to the rapport between Landers Associates and
producers and distributors, since the print is quickly
handled and made available for paid rentals or preview by
potential purchasers.
Problems, Feedback, and Predictions
!
i
i
The major problem"reported by Landers Associates is
i
j meeting deadlines. The number of issues per year was
reduced from ten to nine by the elimination of the June
issue, yet the total number of films reviewed annually
continues to increase. Reviewing continues throughout the
j
| year with the summer months being particularly active since
schools are closed and film distributors take advantage of
ithe slackened activity to submit titles for review.
| Another problem is getting new and independent
producers and distributors to submit films for review.
Financially, the service has few difficulties. It does not
!depend on advertising revenue but supports itself entirely
ion subscription fees.
Landers Associates receives little feedback from
iusers other than occasional approving letters. Emily Jones
jhas expressed the opinion "Landers Reviews are valuable
| primarily because of the very detailed description of
! content, rather than any critical opinion expressed."'*'
^Emily S. Jones, Manual on Film Evaluation (2d ed.;
New York: Educational Film Library Association, 1967),
I p. 3.
Bertha Landers feels current sources of sixteen
millimeter reviews are adequate. She does not foresee any
drastic change in public library film service within the
decade, and believes innovations such as videocassettees
and videorecords will not achieve standardization and wide
scale distribution in the near future.
Educational Film Library Association
Background
The Educational Film Library Association was estab
lished in 1943 by directors of film libraries in universi
ties and colleges, state departments of education, county
and city school systems, and public libraries and museums.
It emerged from the Educational Film Lending Library
Committee, an organization which had been formed to provide
a liaison between educational film libraries and government
; film producing agencies.
The aim of EFLA is "to encourage the production,
'distribution and utilization of the highest possible
quality films and filmstrips."^ This is accomplished
■^Emily Jones, "The Educational Film in 1967 and
■Beyond," Educational Screen and AV Guide, XLVII (January,
i1968), 24-26.
72
through a program of publications, meetings and workshops,
and individual consultation. Publications include the EFLA
evaluation cards, the journal Sightlines, and occasional
monographs. The most important meeting is the annual
American Film Festival, which serves as a showcase for out
standing educational and non-theatrical films. Blue
ribbons are awarded to the films judged most outstanding in
each of forty subject categories. Red ribbons are given to
second place films.
Sightlines began in 1967 and is published six times
a year. It includes articles, the "Film Review Index," the
"Film Review Digest," and the "Filmlist." The "Filmlist"
is an annotated, non-evaluative, subject listing of newly
released films compiled from information supplied by pro
ducers and distributors. Reviewing is not a major function
of the journal although articles reviewing available titles
on a certain theme are sometimes published.
At present, the membership of EFLA is about evenly
divided between (1) colleges and universities, (2) ele
mentary, secondary and special schools, and (3) public
libraries and museums. EFLA tries to direct its services
towards the needs of all these types of institutions.
Film evaluation was started in 1946 and has become
!... ’ ..... 73 ..
"a cornerstone of the EFLA program."^ Originally, members
previewing films in the normal course of their functioning
were asked to complete a standardized evaluation form for
!titles viewed and return these to EFLA for duplication and
distribution to cooperating members. In 1948, the practice
was adopted of publishing evaluations on individual 3 x 5
inch index cards. Later, EFLA began to assign specific new
films to in-the-field committees for evaluation. When the
American Film Festival started in: 1956, evaluations pre
pared by festival judges for blue and red ribbon winners
were also published in the evaluation program. In 1969,
EFLA acquired a new director, Esme Dick. She introduced
the practice of publishing evaluations prepared by commit
tees composed of EFLA staff members and New York City film
and subject specialists. One of these committees is the
New York Screening Group, which is sponsored by EFLA and
:has been meeting to view new films from 5:00 to 7:00 P.M.
every other Thursday during the winter for the past decade.
Mrs. Dick has also started to include occasional sets of
evaluation cards devoted to films on a single topic of
current interest. Sets have been issued for such topics
^Emily Jones, "EFLA Works for Better Films," Educa
tional Screen and AV Guide, XLII (August, 1963), 420-21.
I
|as drugs and ecology. Each set is tinted a distinctive
I
color to facilitate retrieval.
EFLA cards are not critical reviews, but present in
outline form a brief summarization of the consensus of an
evaluating committee, which consists of at least three
members and must include a film specialist, a utilization
specialist, and a subject specialist. Evaluations begin
with bibliographic data. The following information is
usually included: producer, distributor, date, running
time, color or black and white, and sale price. Dewey
Decimal numbers used to be provided in the upper right hand
corner of the card so that classified arrangement of cards
was possible. This feature was eliminated in 1969.
Bibliographic data are followed by "Subject Area,"
"Synopsis," "Uses," "Age Level," "Technical Evaluation,"
"Comment," and "Rating." Except for "Synopsis" and
"Comment," these aspects are treated in a word or simple
phrase. The "Synopsis" averages twenty-five to sixty words
'the "Comment" ten to forty words. The evaluating committee
: is identified by the name of the evaluating group. (For
I
instance, "Indiana University," or "EFLA New York Commit
tee.") Members of the committee are not identified.
Since cards are usually interfiled, they
75
i
!
automatically form their own self cumulating title index.
IEarlier editions of the Film Evaluation Guide were arranged
Iby Dewey Decimal number. No other subject index has been
; provided, other than the tinted cards now being used for
the special subject sets.
Since 1948 EFLA has been publishing between 300 and
400 evaluation cards a year. The number varies. At
present the service attempts to publish at least ten sets
of thirty-six cards annually. Cards are distributed to
"Constituent" and "Service" members of EFLA. These member
ship categories pay a membership fee of $25, $35 or $50 j
depending on the size of the institution.
EFLA would like to expand the evaluation service,
; . i
publishing more evaluations and utilizing a refined format.
I
The degree to which this can be done is limited by finan- j
; |
cial problems which prevent the addition of enough salaried
: workers to the staff.
|
! Selection of Films for Review
Evaluation cards are derived from one of four
■ sources: (1) unsolicited evaluations submitted by EFLA
i I
I members, (2) evaluations of films specifically assigned
I to in-the-field committees, (3) the American Film Festival,
land (4) EFLA based committees.
j
■ Unsolicited Evaluations
A number of EFLA members submit evaluations of
:films which their institution's evaluation committee has
viewed in the course of their normal activities. The deci
sion whether or not to print these is dependent upon the
quality and interest value of the film. Also, EFLA does
not wish a disproportionate number of evaluations to ori
ginate from any single source. Indiana University, for
instance, views and submits evaluations for a large number
of films. Only a fraction of these are used.
Assigned Evaluations
The largest single source of evaluations is the
evaluations of in-the-field volunteer committees for films
specifically assigned them by EFLA headquarters. Most of
these films are assigned from the titles appearing in
Sightline's Filmlist. Others are titles which the EFLA
staff has learned of through their professional activities
and contacts. For the most part, the descriptive informa
tion has been supplied by the producer or distributor but
without any specific request that the film be reviewed.
| 77
i
j American Film Festival
Not less than two full sets of EFLA cards are the
|result of the American Film Festival. Frequently three
full sets of cards originate in this way. Evaluations are
published for all blue and red ribbon winners as well as
for the "cream of the festival."
Films screened at the festival are those which have
been selected by Pre-Screening Committees across the
country from titles which have been submitted by producers
and distributors. In 1969, nearly fifty committees
selected about 350 films for the festival from over 1,000
submissions.^ v ,
EFLA Based Committees
About 10 per cent of the evaluations, not including
the special sets on a single topic, have been prepared by
the New York Screening Group or by committees viewing films
in the EFLA office composed of members of the EFLA staff
land local film and subject experts. Films shown are those
i
for which prints have been supplied by the producer or
distributor, often with the request that the title be
1
James L. Limbacher, "Letter from the President,"
' Sightlines, III (September-October, 1969), 2.
r '......................................................................................... 78
;reviewed. At the time Esme Dick was interviewed in October
i
1971, approximately 150 such prints were in the office. As
many as is possible of these prints receive at least a
cursory viewing. Only a few receive formal and published
evaluation.
Only a small number of the films listed in the
Filmlist are assigned to committees. Only a small number
of the films sent to the EFLA office receive published
|
evaluations. There are no formal criteria by which films
are selected or rejected for evaluation. They are assigned
or evaluated on the basis of their merits or on the basis
of their relevance to the interests of EFLA members as
perceived by members of the EFLA staff. Also, an attempt
is made to insure a balanced distribution of evaluations
among the various subject areas, audience levels, and pro
ducers and distributors.
There are no categories of film that EFLA specifi
cally excludes from review, except that it prefers not to
evaluate titles that are too old. EFLA tries not to give
preferential treatment to any particular distributor or
producer. Free loan and sponsored films, when they are
considered of sufficient interest, are evaluated.
EFLA does not hesitate to publish negative reviews.
jit feels it has an important responsibility to do so,
I particularly since many schools use the cards for guidance
jin selecting films for rental and do not receive the bene-
j fit of a complimentary preview.
Review Procedure
All evaluations represent the consensus of a
i
committee. Each committee is chaired by an EFLA member and
includes not less than one film specialist, one utilization
specialist, and one subject specialist. The membership of
the committee may vary according to the film under consider
ation, especially in regard to the subject specialist.
Each committee member completes a standard EFLA evaluation
form. The chairman collects these and prepares a single
evaluation summarizing the group consensus. This is sent
to EFLA headquarters. No evaluators, other than salaried
I
jEFLA staff members, receive any pay of any kind.
;In-the-Field Evaluating Committees
1
In-the-field evaluating committees are recruited by
|periodic questionnaires mailed to the entire EFLA member
ship. These solicit volunteers who will become a chairman
and form an evaluating committee. Those who respond
80
|affirmatively are sent a form letter inquiring whether they
|
|wish to limit themselves to films they see as part of their
i
|normal previewing operations, or if they wish films
|
jassigned to them. Most request films be assigned.
i
I
There is an average of forty in-the-field evalua
tion committees. Of these, perhaps one-third are really
l
active submitters of evaluations. There is a considerable
;amount of turnover. Some volunteers find they can not
handle the task and do not return evaluations. Others
return as little as one evaluation a year. About half of
!the films assigned for evaluation by in-the-field commit-
:tees actually have evaluation forms returned to EFLA
iheadquarters.
There are some public library in-the-field evalua
tion groups; however, the majority ate universities or
;schools. Most committees have more than the minimum three
i
Imembers; six is preferred.
| When a film is assigned to a committee, a letter is
I
1
sent to the chairman informing him of the assignation.
Another letter is sent to the producer or distributor
j
requesting a print of the title be sent to the in-the-field
I committee for EFLA evaluation as soon as possible.
Committees return the film directly to the producer or
| 81 1
distributor.
The current evaluation form was copyrighted in 1954j
and revised in 1971. It has spaces for bibliographic data;j
evaluation institution and names and titles of evaluators;
i
: I
synopsis; possible audiences and purposes; recommended age
level; rating of structure, picture quality, and sound
quality; comment and general impressions; and overall
i
estimate of the value of the film (poor, fair, average,
good, very good, or excellent).
An average of three months transpires between the
: i
assigning of a film to a committee and the publication of
an evaluation card. Sometimes the lapse is as much as one j
year. Producers and distributors tend to be very coopera- j
i
tive. Although the EFLA office often receives inquiries I
from producers and distributors requesting return of films
sent to the office, there have been few inquiries regardingj
prints not returned by in-the-field committees. Presumably i
j
these are approached directly.
j
!
EFLA would seem to edit evaluations very often !
since, while the evaluation form requests a synopsis of i
i
"about 75-100 words, as detailed as possible," few pub
lished synopses approach this length. Sometimes, if the
staff has seen a film and an evaluation is returned by a
82
committee, which, the staff feels consistently overpraises
i
films, the praise is toned down. On occasion, a solicited j
!
evaluation is rejected for publication.
On very rare occasions, EFLA drops or phases out a :
committee which consistently returns superficial, insuffi- !
ciently detailed, or overpraising reports. i
i
j
EFLA Based Committees ;
Esme Dick is chairman of both the New York Screen- j
ing Group and of committees viewing films in the EFLA
Office. The membership of these committees is constantly
changing. They may consist of five or six persons in the
j
office or more than fifteen evaluators participating at a
!
New York Screening Group session. Committees consist of
certain EFLA staff members and outstanding film and subjecti
area specialists from the area. Many public library film
specialists from the New York metropolitan area participate.;
j
American Film Festival
Evaluators for the Pre-Screening Committees and
i
judges for the American Film Festival tend to be invited to j
|
participate rather than volunteer. Pre-Screening Commit- I
tees are personally selected by Esme Dick and must be able j
t
I
to look at a large number of films within a short period |
83
of time. These committees must consist of not less than
six people; few have less than nine members. The majority
of these committees are public libraries and are located
outside the New York City area. A variation of the EFLA
evaluation form is used which is more precisely analytical
and which assigns numerically weighted values to each
aspect. If a film is rejected for inclusion in the festi
val, the producer or distributor is informed and told, if
he wishes, he may see the Pre-Screening Committee's evalua
tion after the festival.
Judges at the festival include outstanding people
from all parts of America and all categories of EFLA
membership. However, the greatest portion are educators
and film specialists from the New York area. Evaluation
cards published from festival evaluations do not identify
evaluators other than as "American Film Festival Jurors."
Problems, Feedback, and Predictions
When Emily Jones was director of EFLA prior to
1969, she frequently expressed a concern with the problem
of obtaining more and better qualified evaluation commit
tees. This problem remains. However, the situation has
been considerably improved by the current practice of
including evaluations produced by EFLA based committees.
i
: Adequate staff, time and funds are in short supply
| at EFLA headquarters. With a larger staff, follow-up pro
cedures could be introduced to encourage in-the-field
I committees to report more quickly and on a larger percent
age of assigned films. More evaluations could be published
and with less delay. If funds were available, an assistant
director could be hired. At present, Esme Dick is
responsible for all EFLA activities including the evalua
tion program, Sightlines, the American Film Festival, and
the planning and coordination of programs and services.
Few difficulties are experienced in dealings with
producers and distributors. Occasionally there is pressure
to review certain films or complaints about poor ratings.
: There is sometimes a delay in receiving preview prints from
i smaller producers and distributors because of the limited
;number of prints such sources have available.
The most consistent complaint of users is "I want
i
! more films for me." Public libraries want more titles
reviewed of interest to general audiences; schools wish
I more classroom films evaluated. Other complaints concern
the lateness and uneven quality of reviews. Users con-
isistently ask for more evaluations, more reliable
85
evaluations/ and prompter evaluations. The 1950 remarks of
jEdward Schofield, then EFLA's president, still have
| validity.
The evaluations need lengthening. Some means must be
found for releasing film evaluations as near the
release date of the film as possible. There is a need
for more evaluations, more frequent and more critically
| constructive in comment. There is a need for a wider
representation of reviewers geographically and profes-
| sionally. There is a need for more money
Esme Dick believes the current sources of sixteen
i
imillimeter reviews are inadequate. There are not enough
films reviewed. There are not enough critical reviews.
Neither is there adequate circulation of existing reviews.
! Users of reviews are not sufficiently well informed to
: judge the competence of reviewers. There is too much frag-
I
mentation of existing review services and too little
cooperation between them. She believes it would be useful
for representatives of the various media to meet together
|once a year to communicate ideas, discuss problems, and
coordinate activities. She also feels there is too much
I
reliance by some services on producers' and distributors'
financial support.
^Edward Schofield, "EFLA's Future," in Educational
iFilm Library Association, Report (New York: Educational
iFilm Library Association, 1950), p. 52.
Esme Dick feels the future development of sixteen
imillimeter film use is dependent upon the economic condi
tions that will exist. If conditions are favorable,
sixteen millimeter use will flourish in the next decade.
;Otherwise, since the audiovisual budget is the first cut
in times of emergency, there will be a continued but modest
rate of growth. There will be an increasing need for six
teen millimeter reviews.
Mrs. Dick feels the videocassette format presently
being merchandized does not represent the definitive format
for accessible video materials. She believes it will take
a minimum of ten years before such a format is developed
which will be cheap enough, in terms of hardware and soft
ware, to reach a mass market.
Booklist
Background
The Booklist is a publication of the American
Library Association. It started in 1905 as an annotated
list of recommended books. It is currently a buying guide
to recent materials, and attempts to bring superior print
and non-print items to the attention of librarians.
I The magazine began including quarterly reviews of
f
sixteen millimeter films in 1956. These were prepared by a
; !
subcommittee of the American Library Association's Audio
visual Committee, and included those films which were
recommended for purchase by public libraries. The member
ship of the subcommittee changed from year to year. For
each issue, the chairman sent a list of new films to each
member of the subcommittee asking: (1) had he seen the
j
film, (2) if so, would he recommend it, (3) if so, would he
be willing to prepare a review. Based on these replies,
i
j
the chairman selected titles to be reviewed and assigned j
reviewing responsibilities. The members of the sub
committee were listed with the published reviews; however,
individual reviews were unsigned. This method of operating
!
was employed until September 1970.
During the 1960's, the volume of non-print materi
als produced for and acquired by schools increased tremen
dously. Consequently, school librarians requested Booklist
review such items. Since 65 per cent of the subscribers
are schools, the American Library Association's Editorial
Committee established, in 1967, a subcommittee to investi
gate the feasibility of this proposal. The subcommittee
agreed there was a need for such reviews, proposed Booklist
I 88
I undertake non-print reviewing responsibilities on a very
jsubstantial scale, and assigned priorities to the review of
the various media formats.
In 1969, Paul Brawley, an assistant film librarian
at Boston Public Library, was hired to be Booklist's non
print editor. In September 1969, the review program began
Iwith the publication of reviews of filmstrips and eight
;millimeter loops as a regular feature of the magazine. In
September 1970, the scope of the program was extended to
include sixteen millimeter films and non-musical recordings
Under the previous system, Booklist had published
;from forty to sixty sixteen millimeter reviews a year.
During the first year operating under the new program
(September 1, 1970 to July 15, 1971), 425 sixteen milli
meter films were reviewed. The number of reviews produced,
i
•however, appears to have been seriously reduced by the
I elimination, in January 1972, of one professional and one
!clerical position from the non-print staff, for reasons of
economy. An average of twenty-three films per issue were
reviewed during the last four months of 1971. During the
first four months of 1972, the average number fell to
thirteen.
Booklist is published twice a month from September
! 89
I
jthrough July. The single August issue is an annual index,
|
|which lists the titles of all reviewed materials in a
!single alphabet regardless of format. A semi-annual index
is also published in February, and each issue contains its
!own title index. There is no subject indexing. Subscrip
tions are $12 a year.
Films relevant to all types of audiences, from pre-
;school to adult, are reviewed. However, schools are the
major audience for the reviews and the largest portion of
reviews are directed towards their needs and interests.
Only recommended items are reviewed and the audiences for
whom the recommendation is made are always identified.
Detailed bibliographic information appears at the
top of each review. Identified are producer, distributor,
date, running time, color or black and white, and sale
price. This is followed by an essay type annotation which
I averages 100 to 300 words summarizing content, value, and
limitations. An attempt is made to keep these reviews
uniform in style and objective in tone. The annotation
concludes with an indication of audience level. Below this
are subject headings and Library of Congress card number.
Reviews are unsigned.
Booklist1s non-print editor would like to review
jmore f:. ,.\s and review more selectively. Funding difficul-
I
I ties li.ouce it difficult to achieve these goals at the pres-
i ent time. He would like to include reviews of United
I
:States Government non-print materials as a special feature j
! j
!of the magazine, but is finding it difficult to locate an j
iin-the-field specialist who previews large numbers of these
I items during the course of his work. Booklist has started
publishing special, highly selective, retrospective, cross-
' j
media lists of recommended materials on individual topics. |
j |
These are compiled by librarians and subject specialists, i
i ' I
l
who are paid an honorarium for their labor. j
! J
Issues of the Booklist tend to be received at Los j
!Angeles libraries within a few days of the cover date.
i
Selection of Films for Review J
Approximately 75 per cent of the films considered
! for review have been submitted by producers and distribu-
| tors who have been approached by Booklist and agreed to
i
Isend automatically for preview all new films falling within
i
the scope of the program. Letters describing the program
! and its scope are sent to new and non-participating produ
cers and distributors soliciting their participation. They
; i
; j
are requested to restrict their submissions to materials !
|released within the previous three months and to mail to
I the Booklist office two separately packaged prints of each
I title with accompanying descriptive literature and biblio-
|graphic data. About 25 per cent of the films considered
for review have been specifically requested from non-
participating producers and distributors based on news
releases and advertising Booklist staff members have seen.
Booklist will consider for review films in all
subject areas and for all age levels, preschool to adult,
which are available for purchase or long-term lease from
American producers or distributors. Official policy
excludes: foreign language teaching materials intended for
a professional audience; materials of limited local inter
est; and free loan items that cannot be secured on a
permanent basis.
Almost all films submitted fall within the pro
gram1 s scope and are sent to in-the-field consultant groups
for evaluation. A staff reviewer at Booklist then views
v .
the film and, based on the evaluations of the consultant
groups and his own feelings, decides whether or not to
review the film. About 50 per cent of submitted films
receive published reviews. All producers and distributors
receive copies of the consultant groups' evaluations of
92
jtheir product whether or not a review is prepared. It is
hoped this feedback will encourage better films. While
reviews are prepared only for films judged worthy of
recommendation, there are degrees of recommendation, and
shortcomings may be noted in the final review.
The larger producers and distributors tend to sub
mit the most films and to have a better chance of review.
Smaller producers and distributors tend to have fewer
preview prints available. Sometimes exceptions are made
for them and they are allowed to submit only one print
instead of the usual two. However, this slows up the
review process considerably. Booklist may find it neces
sary to retain a print up to four months. This could
entail a tremendous loss of rental revenue for the smaller
company.
Low cost and sponsored films are sometimes reviewed
if they are normally available for sale or long-term
deposit. However, Booklist finds the great majority of
sponsored films have overly intrusive sponsor messages.
Booklist would like to begin review of government produced
non-print materials as soon as a qualified consultant can
be obtained.
93
Review Procedure
i
Each submitted film which falls within the scope of
i the program, is evaluated by two in-the-field consultant
groups and one non-print reviewer on the Booklist staff.
If the staff member decides the film is worthy of recom
mendation, he prepares a review. He rarely incorporates
the consultants' remarks per se into the final review.
In 1971, Booklist's non-print department used the
services of almost 200 consultant groups and three salaried
reviewers for the evaluation and review of filmstrips,
eight millimeter loops, sixteen millimeter films and non-
;musical recordings. Consultant groups are pre-existing
library or media center committees which already evaluate
non-print materials for their own institutions' purposes.
They include elementary and secondary school districts,
public libraries, junior colleges, universities, and
i
graduate schools of library science. Each committee is
;under the direction of a coordinator who takes responsibil
ity for the return of forms and materials. The committee
;is given a week after receipt of a preview print to prepare
an evaluation. Consultants are not paid by Booklist but do
receive a complimentary subscription to the magazine. New
94
j consultant groups are continuously added. There has been
j
j
I little turnover in consultant groups during the first two
I
i
years of the program's operation. A few have been dropped
; i
i
for failure to complete forms and return materials with
;sufficient care and conscientiousness. Original consultants
were recruited by a large mailing of questionnaires to
i
schools and libraries.
Evaluation forms used are very general and were
i developed for use by professionals already skilled at
evaluating materials. They ask identification of "Grade
Levels"; "Possible audiences and specific curriculum or
library uses"; rating ("poor," "fair," "good," "superior")
;of "Authenticity," "Utilization," "Content," "Technical
Qualities," and "Overall Rating"; whether or not the group
would recommend the item for purchase and review, and a
;brief explanation of reasons for recommendation or non-
|recommendation. An information sheet sent to consultants
i
iexplains what should be considered in judging "Authentic
ity," "Utilization," "Content," "Technical Qualities," and
"Overall Rating."
Staff reviewers at the non-print section of
j Booklist have been young librarians with some previous
I experience with non-print materials. They have been
j 95
|
|recruited by means of advertisements in the library
j j
;periodicals.
Evaluation and review are accomplished in the !
t t j
ifollowing manner. Two preview prints are sent to the Book-;
!list office. A staff member examines the accompanying j
literature to see if the film falls within the program's
scope. If so, he selects two consultant groups and mails
a print with accompanying literature to each group. One
group is instructed to return the print'to the producer or j
: I
distributor; the other is instructed to return the print
j |
to the Booklist office. When evaluations and preview print!
I
are returned, they are placed on a shelf until they are |
' i
selected for examination by a staff reviewer. The decision j
i |
iis made whether or not to review, and the preview print j
: |
with a copy of the consultants' evaluations is returned to j
ithe producer or distributor.
j
Problems, Feedback, and Predictions
i
!
A current problem at Booklist is funding. The
’reduction of non-print staff by one reviewer and one clerk j
|starting January 1972, has reduced the number of films j
i i
I reviewed. In addition to employees' salaries, there is j
i |
considerable expenditure required for postage. Booklist |
96 ]
I
assumes the cost of mailing preview prints to consultants !
j
and to producers and distributors after the staff has
finished with a print. Some of these costs might be offset]
by more paid advertising, but the budget is not really ade-|
guate to support a very substantial campaign to recruit
i
advertisers. Other problems include finding really compe- j
!
tent consultants, and difficulties in dealing with the
great volume of non-print material that is published and
j
submitted for review. There is always a considerable I
i
backlog of materials in the office awaiting reviewer
examination.
Some difficulty is experienced in obtaining full j
cooperation from producers and distributors. A number of
these are reluctant to submit materials. Others stop sub-
j
mitting films if several items in a row have been rejected
for review. j
|
There is relatively little feedback from users, but j
schools seem very pleased with the service. Public
i
i
libraries appear to want a larger portion of the non-print
|
reviews devoted to sixteen millimeter films, and to want !
i
more films reviewed that are related* to their interests.
Many users seem unaware that listing in Booklist per se j
indicates a title is good to excellent. Some people have
97
complained the reviews sound more like descriptions than
evaluations.
The most vocal criticisms of Booklist have been
directed at their policy of limiting the publication to
recommended reviews. Some people have claimed this obvi
ates public critical discussion of poor films. Paul
Brawley feels, under present editorial policy, little can
be done to respond to this complaint. However, he is
inclined to find some merit in the argument, and would like
eventually, to be able to include signed, critical reviews.
Such reviews would, however, represent one person's opinion
and lack the objectivity of present reviews, he notes.
Mr. Brawley does not feel lateness of review is a
problem because only films released in the three months
prior to submission are accepted. However, the frequent
backlog of materials awaiting review sometimes causes sub
stantial periods to elapse between the receipt of materials
and the publication of reviews.
Brawley does not believe current sources of sixteen
millimeter reviews adequately meet the needs of public
libraries. On the other hand, he does not believe public
libraries provide a market for films adequate to support a
review service that would satisfactorily meet their needs.
98 i
I t
He feels not enough films are reviewed, that there are too
'many fugitive titles which are never reviewed, that there j
are not enough multiple reviews, and that, even where j
policy permits, lack of space and fear of incurring ill I
will prevent adequate numbers of negative reviews from |
being published.
As the volume of materials acquired by schools and
j
libraries increases, there will be less and less time
available for previews and increasing reliance on reviews.
This will stimulate the production of more reviews. There |
|
will be increasing recognition, by producers and distribu- j
t
|
tors, of the value of reviews and they will be less
reluctant to participate in programs.
i
Brawley suspects an individualized video format may|
i
I
become popular, but only if costs can be reduced to the j
point where a mass market can be reached. Any such develop-!
ment would afford a powerful stimulus to the production of
reviews.
Film News
Background !
Film News originated as a newsletter of the Ameri
can Film Council in the late 1930's, and developed intoaj
99
news magazine that reported on developments in the produc-
i
j tion and distribution of documentary and educational motion
pictures. After the film council's demise in 1946, the
;magazine was purchased by Rahoma Lee, the present editor
and publisher. She continued to publish trade news but
limited the scope of the magazine to sixteen millimeter
films, and introduced film reviewing as a major function.
The trade news aspect was deemphasized when Eilm World (a
now defunct magazine) appeared. Reviewing is now the
magazine's single most important activity. Reviews are
published in the following departments: "Classroom and
Community Films," "Religious and Interfaith Films," and
"Feature Films on Sixteen Millimeter." In addition, there
are special articles that review available films on a
particular theme, for example, "Films about the Mexican
American," and articles reviewing film festival award
i
| winners.
Film News is published six times a year and costs
I
$6 per annum. Each issue includes feature articles, an
annotated "New Films List," "What's New in Equipment," and
|a "Calendar of Festivals, Workshops, and Meetings." There
; is an alphabetical listing of film reviews at the begin
ning of each issue. Otherwise, the magazine provides no
' indexes.
I
I The format of film reviews differs from other film
! review media in that bibliographic information appears at j
i i
: !
I the end of the review. This includes producer, distribu- j
tor, running time, and color or black and white. Date is
‘sometimes given. Prices are purposely omitted, since j
i Rahoma Lee feels these are subject to fluctuation and |
incorrect data could result in bad public relations for
both the magazine and producers and distributors. The body
of the review consists of an essay which averages 100 to
i
]
450 words. Reviews are signed and qualifications of |
! !
reviewers are given at the front of the magazine. There I
: are usually twenty to twenty-five reviews in each bimonthly
! issue. Issues of Film News are frequently received by Los |
!Angeles libraries about one month after the cover date.
Film News is largely a one-woman operation. Rahoma
j Lee is publisher, editor, circulation manager, advertising
manager, and a frequent reviewer. There are no paid staff
members or contributors.
The magazine's primary audience is schools at all
levels from primary education to college, religious educa-
tion, adult education, and special education. Also served
! i
: are community groups, libraries, and museums. Originally, |
101
the adult user was the major target of the magazine. The
emphasis shifted to schools when the earlier approach
proved not economically feasible. However, Rahoma Lee
feels there is a trend away from the "pure curriculum film";
and towards the "enrichment film" which is of interest to aj
i
wide variety of school and non-school audiences. Conse- |
quently, many of the reviews are of interest to several
!
categories of film users. j
The main purpose of the film reviews is to encour
age educators and community leaders to make use of films,
and to inform them of superior materials. The reviews also
:
attempt to advise the producer of where his film could be
better, or to encourage him by saying, this is an excellent
film. Also, by publishing critical reviews, Film News
i
hopes to assist in raising the level of public taste.
While Film News would like to print more reviews,
and sooner after the film's release, it lacks the funds,
time, and personnel resources to do so at the present time.
: i
Selection of Films for Review
The great majority of film reviews appearing in j
Film News have' been prepared at the specific request of the
editor. A few are unsolicited reviews submitted by \
! 102
t
j
readers, but these are discouraged. Frequently, however, a
I reviewer will request a particular title be assigned to
'him. If Rahoma Lee feels the title is of sufficient inter
est, she will attempt to arrange the assignation.
Approximately half the films reviewed are those for
which producers or distributors have sent Rahoma Lee either
descriptive information or actual preview prints. Others
:are films the editor has seen or learned of in the course
|of her numerous professional activities and attendance at
film events.
Producers and distributors often request titles be
reviewed. The majority of these are viewed by Rahoma Lee
or assigned to a reviewer. If the film is found not to be
worthy of recommendation, it may either not be assigned to
a reviewer or the completed review may not be printed.
The editor has far more reviews available than
|there is space for in the publication. Unused reviews are
placed in a file for possible future use. Film News tries
;to include a representative cross-section of films on
various topics, for different audiences, and from current
producers and distributors. It is especially interested in
:films from new producers and winners of prizes at film
ifestivals.
| 103
j
There is no formal policy regarding what will or
i
I will not be reviewed; no legitimate type of sixteen milli-
I
meter film is excluded. Films are eliminated on the basis
: i
i
;of improper approach to subject matter, inaccuracy, and
poor craftsmanship. Rahoma Lee rarely publishes a review
of a film she considers completely bad.
We haven't got the space to waste, for one thing, and
we don't think we ought to crack down on any producer
that hard, considering his investment and his future.
We write him a letter and explain why we aren't pub
lishing the review in the hope of being helpful in
that way. 1
Since advertising is crucial to the continued
existence of the magazine, the editor tries to include a
fair selection of advertisers' films. Films of new com-
’ i
I
panies are favored also, in the hope they may be encouraged i
to become advertisers.
i
Sponsored and free loan films are reviewed when
; they have usefulness. Many films reviewed in the "Reli-
jgious and Interfaith" section fall into these categories.
i
Review Procedure
While the editor reviews some films herself, the
majority are prepared by "grassroots people who get
William Greaves, "An Interview with Rahoma Lee,"
Film News, XXVI (December, 1969), 7.
(reactions to the material in their classrooms, groups, or
I 1
libraries.1 1 There are about fifty teachers, educators,
librarians and subject specialists who prepare reviews.
: I
However, only fifteen to twenty of these review consis- j
J j
tently. Many more people would like to review than the
I
magazine can use. j
; i
! i
In general, there is little turnover in the regularj
I ' I
I
reviewers. An exception occurred when FLIC was formed;
many public librarians who had been regular contributors to
Film News were no longer used.
Reviewers are recruited on an informal basis.
Specialists are sometimes invited to participate as guest j
j
reviewers if a title requiring expertise in their area is j
i
I
obtained. Frequently, people write to the magazine statingj
their qualifications and areas of interest and offering to
review. If the editor is impressed by the letter, she will
■ send a trial film. Other reviewers are people the editor
has met professionally and invited to become reviewers for
;the magazine.
Rahoma Lee considers knowledge of the subject to be
a reviewer's most important qualification. If she finds he
has ignored filmic aspects, she either queries him about
these or flashes out the review herself.
1
Greaves, "An Interview with Rahoma Lee," p. 7.
Film News does not use an evaluation form since the
j
|editor feels these tend to inspire bland, stilted, imper
sonal reviews. She wishes reviewers to write freely out of
their own experience and to include their overall emotional
response. She writes individually to new reviewers. She
igives them the following instructions:
1. Do not just give your opinion of the film without
saying what is in the film.
2. Judge the film for whatever varied uses you can
see.
3. Always give the age limit of the film. Is it for
children only? Is it for children and adults? Is
it for adults only? What kind of adults?
4. Siam up your general impression of the film. Did it
interest you, or capture your attention? Is the
subject drily treated but unavailable elsewhere?
Reviews are frequently edited or changed. These
may be slight or extensive. This is done when reviews are
too short or too long, too bland or incomplete or poorly
written. Sometimes reviews are not used or rejected.
Sometimes reviewers1 services will be terminated—
usually because they are very dilatory in returning
materials. Producers and distributors frequently infoann
! 106
;
j Mrs. Lee when prints are not returned; she personally
I
i follows up the matter.
The usual procedure for reviewing films is as
follows: Rahoma Lee is informed of the existence of a
film. After some consideration, she decides to assign it
; to a reviewer. She selects an appropriate reviewer and
either writes or telephones him to ask if he is interested
in reviewing this particular title. (No film is assigned
without first determining if the reviewer is agreeable.
j
This is to insure a personal and considerate relationship
with reviewers.) If the reviewer accepts, the editor
i
writes to the producer or distributor and requests a pre
view print be sent directly to the reviewer. This situa
tion is somewhat different if, as frequently happens,
producers or distributors have already sent preview prints
to the Film News office. If Rahoma Lee decides not to
review the title herself, she remails it to the selected
ireviewer.
Problems, Feedback, and Predictions
The lack of projection facilities within the Film
News office is one problem with which the editor must deal.
She must carry prints to her home for viewing. Lateness in j
107
t
the receipt of assigned reviews is also a common problem.
She follows up on these, encouraging prompt action, but can
!
not exert excessive pressure on reviewers since she feels
grateful to them for being willing to review films without
compensation.
Film News' biggest problem is finances. It is
entirely dependent on advertising revenue for its existence.
Mrs. Lee claims subscription income consumes itself in
maintenance costs. She has said the situation is made even
more precarious by "too great a proliferation of publica
tions . . . pulling at more or less the same advertisers."^
i
: i
Mrs. Lee would like to enlarge the magazine, print j
more reviews, and print them sooner after a film's release.
She can not do this without increased revenue and without a
paid assistant. She estimates there is a span of three to
four months between the time a film is assigned and a
i
review is published. The main reason for this is the
Ilimited space available within the publication.
Film News receives little feedback from users other
than occasional complimentary letters. Mrs. Lee believes
■there would be more feedback if there were space for a
1
Greaves, "An Interview with Rahoma Lee," p. 7.
| 108
;"Letters to the Editor" section.
I
While Rahoma Lee feels the present sources of six
teen millimeter reviews are not entirely adequate, she
believes there is a need to expand existing services rather
f
I than to inaugurate new ones. She finds a need for more
j comparative reviews and for better and wider distribution
;of existing reviews. She suggests there is a need to con-
;solidate reviews, producing yearbooks that collect in one
iplace reviews which otherwise remain scattered. Indexes
are of limited value, she believes, since the review itself
may remain inaccessible. There is no tool available for
films comparable to Book Review Digest. EFLA's "Film
Review Digest" is too meagre in coverage and is not even
cumulative.
Rahoma Lee believes the use of educational films
; proliferated due to government subsidies in the 1960's, but
|has entered a plateau as these funds have dwindled. She
1
I feels an accessible video format will eventually be devel-
I
oped which will bring large scale use of filmed materials
;in the home. This mass market will create a mass audience
!capable of supporting commercial enterprises undertaking
I the review of such materials. At present, she feels an
| 109
l
! .
iindependent magazine, without foundation or association
i
i
I support, has a difficult time surviving.
Film Library Quarterly
| Background
! i
I
The Film Library Information Council was estab
lished in 1967 by a group of public library film librarians
who felt there was a need for a national group which would
; promote the use of films in public libraries and give film
librarians a greater sense of identity and commitment. At
;the inaugural meeting, Julien Bryan, a film producer and
distributor, donated $500 to help start the organization.
At that point, William Sloan, film librarian of New York
Public Library, volunteered to solicit contributions from
|other producers and distributors to start a magazine as an
i
organ of the council. Several thousand dollars were raised
I in this manner, and the first issue of the Film Library
j Quarterly was issued at the end of 1967.
The magazine was founded to publish news about and
;promote a feeling of identity among film librarians, to
i
provide "nuts and bolts" information on the administration
iof film library services, to publish film reviews, and to
I 110
I print background articles on the art of film and noteworthy
:film makers. News was found to be difficult to gather, and
I that aspect has subsequently been played down. Similarly,
j few articles on the administration of public library film
services have been submitted. As a result, issues of the
magazine have emphasized the "film" aspect rather than the
; /
:"Library" aspect. Film Library Quarterly is intended for
!public libraries and other film using institutions which
serve the general public.
Reviews are considered an important feature of the
magazine. They aim to bring important films to the atten
tion of public libraries, and to encourage high critical
standards among film librarians. Most reviews average 100
to 500 words in length and appear in the "Film Reviews
Section." Sometimes, films are reviewed in feature length,
heavily illustrated articles in the bpdy of the magazine.
Reviews in the "Film Reviews Section" begin with
i
'bibliographic information. Producer, distributor, running
time, and whether films are in color or black and white,
I are identified. Sometimes, outstanding contributors are
identified; for example, the review of Eggs identified the
.........Ill.. .
composer of the film's music as Quincy Jones.1 Reviews are
signed, and reviewers receive very brief identification in
a small "Reviewers in This Issue" section.
The number of reviews has exhibited considerable
variation. There have been as few as four (Slimmer 1971)
and as many as thirty-four (Spring 1969) . During 1970 and
1971, the number of reviews averaged six to nine per
quarterly issue. A special feature is the tendency to pub
lish multi-film reviews in which related titles are treated
together. Also, side by side, pro and con reviews some
times appear. There is no index of any kind.
Subscriptions to Film Library Quarterly accompany
membership in FLIC. Non-voting membership can be obtained
for $8 a year. Issues of Film Library Quarterly tend to be
quite late in arriving at Los Angeles libraries.
Film Library Quarterly would like to publish more
and better reviews, and, ideally, more side by side pro and
con reviews. The major reasons for not doing so at present
are limitations on space, and the scarcity of highly
informed and competent reviewers.
^Film Library Quarterly, IV (Fall, 1971), 51.
112
Selection of Films for Review
The selection of films for review is highly
informal. Producers and distributors almost never approach
the magazine and request a film be reviewed. About 60 per
cent of the reviews published are unsolicited contributions
from readers. About 40 per cent are prepared at the
specific request of William Sloan or Masha Porte, the
reviews editor, for films they feel are important and sig
nificant by people they feel are outstandingly competent.
While no written policy as to what will be reviewed
has been formally adopted, a guide prepared by Masha Porte
advises reviewers, in some detail, of what titles will and
will not be reviewed. Only the most noteworthy films of
use to public libraries in serving a cross section of the
community are reviewed. Excluded are films which are
inferior and mediocre, films primarily intended for class
room instruction, highly technical or narrowly specialized
films. Negative reviews will occasionally be printed for
widely publicized titles the editors feel have been over
promoted or overpraised. Sometimes, side by side pro and
con reviews are used. Cultural films and social documen
taries are preferred.
113 j
| |
Not all reviews received by the editors are j
printed. Some are not printed due to lack of space, others^
!
are rejected because of the inferior quality of the film or|
l
!
the review. All reviews are sent, either by contributors
i
' or by William Sloan, to Masha Porte, who edits them in 1
final form and returns them to William Sloan. He makes the j
; I
final decision concerning which will be published. Some j
; ■ ]
reviews, held for future issues, become stale and are never
used.
I
There is no conscious favortism in selecting titles 1
j
for review and a fair selection of major producers and !
I
1
distributors as well as some smaller ones are included. j
The producers' and distributors1 reputations are very
i
I
important in determining if the editors see the film in j
the first place. The editors will rarely publish a review
jof a film they have not seen.
| |
While advertising revenue is essential for the
journal's continuance, not all advertisers have films j
; i
I '
reviewed. On the other hand, most advertisers are those
: I
; i
producers and distributors whose products are of most
interest to public librarians, and their films tend to be j
:reviewed in the natural course of events.
I I
Although there is no policy against the review of I
free loan and sponsored films, few are reviewed. If titles
i
| of very high quality which are freely available to public
|libraries for deposit, purchase, or long term loan come to
ithe attention of editors, they will be considered for
!review.
Review Procedure
While reviewers vary from issue to issue and new
reviewers continually appear, a core of highly qualified
people is gradually being assembled. Reviewers tend to be
film librarians, who share the public library point of view
A substantial number of reviews are contributed by non-
library cinema specialists.
i
To encourage the submission of high quality, pro
fessionally written reviews, a fee of $5 is paid as an
i"honorarium" for each published review. Reviewers are,
i
j
jtherefore, the only paid contributors to the magazine.
j
;The majority of reviewers submit items at their own initia-
i
j
jtive. Those whom the editors ask to review a particular
film, are people the editors know personally and respect.
I They seek top flight, perceptive people who understand the
ifilm medium and are able to communicate a feeling of what
the film is about and how it can be used. Film Library
Quarterly wishes in-depth reviews which are more critical,
more personal, and have more flavor than the reviews
appearing in other media.
| A two page "Guide for Reviewers for the Film
ILibrary Quarterly," distributed by Masha Porte, describes
i I
|the scope and character of reviews and lists factors to
I consider in evaluating films. Reviewers are advised to
write from a personal viewpoint referring, where relevant, J
to personal experiences and outlook, and, whenever possible , j
1 I
! t
to write a multiple title review that deals with two or j
more films. They are advised to "Be specific. Be explicit.}
' I
i
jKeep it lively! Keep an open mind." No evaluation form
i
is used.
I
Both Masha Porte and William Sloan frequently make
jminor changes in reviews. On occasion, more substantial
changes are made for films they feel strongly about,
i
jusually with the reviewer's permission. Reviews are
|rejected if too stale, too poorly done, too unimportant, or
i
j
if the editors feel it is ill considered or ill informed.
! When individuals are asked to review a specific
; title, they either request a preview print themselves, or,
if they are not film librarians, have the editors arrange
Ithe shipping of a preview print. Often, the reviewer is
j approached at a screening session at which the film is
j
scheduled to be shown.
! i
Problems, Feedback, and Predictions
The major problem encountered is getting highly
qualified reviewers and high quality reviews. Another
I
problem is the limited space available for printing reviews.j
: j
Sometimes the feature articles run longer than expected and j
review space is further reduced. Lack of space prevents j
: i
I
every available review from being published, and, since the j
i
I
magazine is only published four times a year, unused !
I
reviews quickly become dated and stale.
There is little feedback from readers other than,,
occasional requests for more reviews, and intermittent
criticisms of opinions expressed in individual reviews.
William Sloan feels, from the public library point
i
iof view, present sources of reviews are inadequate. Not j
| enough films are reviewed, and they are not reviewed {
j
quickly enough. Except for Film Library Quarterly, all the
major reviewing media are school oriented, and, for the
public library, there is much "chaff" and a limited amount
of "wheat." He does not see an easy solution to this prob-
; I
lem, since a large scale review service aimed at the needs j
117
of public libraries would require a degree of financial
isupport public libraries could not supply.
Mr. Sloan also feels too many reviews are dry,
stilted, and impersonal. There is a need for critical
reviews by reviewers of stature, whose opinions and tastes
readers have come to know and trust.
He is not convinced there is a need for so much
duplication in the films reviewed by the various media, and
often regrets having given space to a film when a similar
review appears in one or several other media. Mr. Sloan
would like to see some sort of coordination of published
reviews.
Masha Porte believes there is a need for more dis
criminating reviewers, who are aware of cinematic tech
niques and values, and call attention to a film's relevance
to contemporary life.
William Sloan predicts audiovisual materials, until
la few years ago the public library's "stepchild," will be
;
increasingly employed to reach the general public and to
justify the library's existence. Sixteen millimeter serv
ice is flourishing and will continue to expand. More and
more films will be produced. There will be a continuing
ineed for more and better reviews. At present, the cost of
video cassette systems is too high. When a definitive |
i
!format is achieved and accepted by the general public, a j
i i
! • I
revolution in library service will occur. This revolution
I
i
I is at least twenty years away.
i
| Educational Screen and AV Guide
The most recent film review department of Educa
tional Screen and AV Guide began in October 1940 with Don
White of the Audiovisual Extension Service of the Univer- j
; . !
sity System of Georgia in charge. It was started because
of a need for "more prompt critical reviews of the new
films released month by month [which would result in] speed
ing up [the] dissemination of information about good new j
i i
films.A reviewing committee of experienced teachers was
selected and judgments in the film reviews were described
as representing the composite opinion of the committee
! rather than the opinion of a single critic. In February
; 19 41r the department was taken over by L. C. Larson of the
!Indiana University School of Education. He informed
readers:
1
"New Films of the Month as They Look to a Teacher
iCommittee," Educational Screen, XIX (October, 1940), 344.
r .................................................. * 119
i
I
i
The Teacher Committee will consist of members of
j two graduate classes in audio-visual education and
teachers in the University School. The authors will
attempt, in the description of the film, to give an
objective report of the content and meaning of the
film. The final revision of the description of content
and an appraisal of the selection and organization of
material in the film, the use of the film medium, and
possible educational uses for the film will be prepared
by the Teacher Committee immediately following the
viewing of each film. The description of content and
the committee appraisal will, therefore, represent the
composite contribution of the committee rather than the
opinion of a single critic.1
In November 1949, the following note occurred:
Film reviews and evaluations on these pages are j
based upon discussions by a preview committee composed
of Indiana University faculty members, public school
teachers, students of audio-visual education, and staff
members of the Audio-Visual Center at Indiana I
University.2 j
: ’ i
During the first decade of the review department, j
|reviews were unsigned. In the 1950's a signature began to
appear at the end of some reviews. In later years, almost
sail reviews were signed. However, there has never been any
l
;information provided concerning the role, background, or
j
|qualifications of the signee, other than a short notice
; which appeared for several months during 1955 stating: "A
^"New Films of the Month as They Look to a Teacher
iCommittee," Educational Screen, XX (February, 1941), p. 74.
2
"New Films of the Month as They Look to a Teacher
Committee," Educational Screen, XXVIII (February, 1941),
Ip. 74.
| " 120
Iname at the end of a film review indicates that the review
I
!
was written by that person rather than by one of the
editors of this department.”
Between 1965 and 1970, an average of three to five
films were reviewed in each issue of the monthly publica
tion. In September 1970, reviews ceased. There followed a
transition period for the magazine during which there was a
change of editorship. The emphasis of the magazine now
:focuses upon the instructional process and the role of
technology in achieving the goals of instruction. In the
January 1972 issue, the film review department reappeared;
two titles were reviewed.
In May 1972, the author of this study addressed a
letter to Dr. Carolyn Guss soliciting information about the
operation of the review service. In part, the letter
;asked:
i
An examination of reviews published . . . during
the past thirty years suggests they are the result of
the consensus of opinion of a screening committee com
posed of members of the School of Education faculty,
students in audiovisual instruction classes, and mem
bers of the Audiovisual Center's staff. The signature
at the bottom of the review indicates the person who
actually wrote the review as of summary of the commit
tee's feelings rather than as a reflection of his own
reactions and opinions. Is this substantially correct?
121 ]
An unsigned reply which appears to have been pre
pared by a member of Dr. Guss' staff was received. It
stated:
Reviews are written on those titles which have been!
evaluated by our department (Indiana University Audio- J
visual Center) and found to be outstanding. The person!
who actually writes the review does so with the
advantage of knowing the opinions of those who have
evaluated the materials. As we all know, each of us
has his own style of writing? this is reflected in the
reviews. Also, one's selectivity in (deciding) what
to include and not to include has a great deal to do
with the end results. Thus . . . the reviews are
actually the product of the author with input gathered
from a number of sources.
Questioned about the purpose for which reviewed
films are originally screened, the respondent indicated:
Films are originally previewed with consideration for
purchase. Titles that are purchased are added to the
Indiana University Rental library.
in response to an inquiry about how films are
l
selected for viewing by the committee, the respondent
indicated:
We are not currently on automatic preview, thus titles
are requested. . . . Films requested are selected from
announcements of new releases from producers and dis
tributors. The faculty of Indiana University are also
encouraged to suggest titles for purchase considera
tion.
[ 122
i
j Summary
j
I
Landers Film Reviews and Film News are privately
! owned publications whose primary function is the review of
j
sixteen millimeter films. The Booklist and Film Library
:Quarterly are publications, sponsored by professional
;library organizations, that consider the review of sixteen
millimeter films an important function. EFLA Cards are
produced by the Educational Film Library Association, a
non-profit organization engaged in a variety of activities
: intended to promote the availability and utilization of
high quality non-theatrical films. The review of sixteen
millimeter films currently appears to be a low priority
activity at Educational Screen and AV Guide, a privately
owned magazine emphasizing the applications of instruc
tional technology to formal education.
i
The persons responsible for individual reviews are
I
| identified in Film News and Film Library Quarterly, but not
I in Landers Film Reviews, the Booklist, or on EFLA Cards.
i
EFLA Cards do identify, in very general terms, the evaluat-
I ing committee. A name appears at the end of each
i
I Educational Screen and AV Guide review, but the position of
! this person and his role in the preparation of the review
| 123
!
j is not indicated.
1
! Titles are selected for review by the different
review media in a variety of ways. Some are films that
have been submitted by producers and distributors, others
are titles which have come to the attention of editors by
way of advertising and promotional activities of producers
and distributors, others are titles entered in the American
Film Festival. A number of reviews are of titles which
■ t
: I
: have come to the attention of EFLA's, Film Library Quarter-j
I
ly1 s, or Film News* in-the-field contributors.
The owners and salaried employees prepare all
reviews that appear in Landers Film Reviews. All other
media rely heavily on the assistance of in-the-field volun
teer reviewers, committees or consultants.
The manner of review used by Landers Film Reviews
; i
makes it possible for preview prints to be returned to
jproducers and distributors in ten days. Other media may
i
; i
i require that preview prints be kept up to four months or
i
longer. This could cause a substantial loss of rental and
sales revenue, especially to smaller producers and
distributors. The Booklist requests two preview prints be
submitted; a large portion of these submissions never do
receive published reviews. |
Free loan films are rarely reviewed by any media
|other than EFLA Cards and Film News. They are specifically
i
jexcluded from review by the policies of the Booklist and
|
I Landers Film Reviews.
!
Highly negative reviews are freely published by
i
!EFLA Cards. Other media indicate they are reluctant to
ipublish such reviews; some state they prefer to reserve
their limited space for films of acceptable or superior
|quality.
Most of the studied media indicated they review
;primarily for school audiences and only secondarily for
other film users such as public libraries. EFLA maintains
;it gives equal consideration to the needs of public
;libraries, higher education, and elementary, secondary and
|special schools. Film Library Quarterly is the only review
isource primarily and specifically directed towards the
!needs and interests of public libraries.
| Problems encountered by the review media most
i
!frequently cited are those relating to inadequate finances.
Consequently, shortages of time, staff and publication
i
j space exist and limit the number of reviews that can be
j
I prepared and/or published. Only Landers Film Reviews does
1 j
j not find funding and financial viability a problem. j
EFLA finds it difficult to locate qualified in-the
I field consultants. Film Library Quarterly complained of
ithe shortage of highly qualified reviewers. Film News
:identified competition for limited advertising revenue and
;the lateness of some reviewers as problems. The Booklist
experiences some difficulty in obtaining full cooperation
from some producers and distributors.
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS: THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO
FILM LIBRARIES
The questionnaire was sent to thirty-four public
library film collections across the United States identi
fied, from published data and inquiries, as owning at least
500 prints of sixteen millimeter films. Responses were
received from thirty-two of the thirty-four libraries, a
return of 94 per cent.
Information was sought in the following areas:
Cl) preview and selection procedures and statistics,
(2) influences on the selection of films, and (3) review
media. The data are presented in that order. The ques
tionnaire itself did not classify questions, but followed a
single sequence, dealing with topics in what, it was
believed, respondents would find the easiest, most logical
progression. A copy of the questionnaire is found in
Appendix B.
126
127
Preview and Selection Procedures
and Statistics
Table 1 summarizes the number of titles owned,
preview-procedures used, and preview statistics of the
responding libraries. The average number of films cur
rently acquired was calculated from the preview statistics.
Titles Owned
The number of titles owned ranged from 400 to
5,042. The mean number was 1,529. The median number was
1,211. Ten libraries (31 per cent)^ owned less than 1,000
titles. Seven libraries (22 per cent) owned 2,000 or more
titles (Table 2) .
Preview Procedures
Twenty-seven libraries (84 per cent) "always"
preview sixteen millimeter films before purchase; five
(16 per cent) "usually" preview before purchase. In regard
to depository or gift films, thirty libraries (94 per cent)
either "always" or "usually" preview prior to accepting?
^In this study, percentages given in the tables
will be to the nearest .01 per cent. Percentages given in
the text, however, will be rounded off to the nearest whole
number.
TABLE 1
STATISTICS OF RESPONDING LIBRARIES: TITLES OWNED, NUMBER OF TITLES
PREVIEWED AND ACQUIRED ANNUALLY, METHOD OF PREVIEW
Titles Percentage of Titles Usual
Titles
Library Previewed Previewed Acquired Method of
0wned Annually Titles Acquired Annually Preview1
1 5,042 400 40 160 d
2 3,500 225 35 79 b
3 3,000 500 60 300 a
4 3,000 275 7.5 17 b
5 2,700 600 25 125 c
6 2,500 350 33 116 b
7 2,000 1,000 25 400 a
8 1,930 125 62.5 79 a
9 1,900 325 33 108 a
10 1,700 600 30 180 b
11 1,662 290 33 96 b
12 1,623 400 35 140 b
13 1,560 250 15 38 c
14 1,310 300 60 180 b
15 1,287 400 38 152 d
16 1,221 120 43 52 d
17 1,200 500 50 250 b
18 1,200 650 30 195 b
19 1,200 450 25 112 b
20 1,095 600 7 42 c
TABLE 1’ — Continued
Library
Titles
Owned
Titles
Previewed
Annually
Percentage of
Previewed
Titles Acquired
Titles
Acquired
Annually
Usual
Method of
Preview-*-
21 1,050 250 50 125 a
22 1,000 1,000 15 150 b
23 986 350 25 87 d
24 750 200 20 40 e
25 640 no answer no answer
- -
c
26 640 200 25 50 c
27 600 200 25 50 b
28 600 500 10 50 a
29 580 200 10 20 b
30 525 375 15 57 b
31 517 no answer no answer
- -
b
32 400 200 50 100 b
a = Films are usually previewed by the film librarians only,
b = Films are usually previewed by the film librarians and other
members of the library staff,
c = Films are usually previewed by members of the library staff plus
members of the community,
d = Respondent checked both a and b suggesting these methods are used
with equal frequency,
e = Respondent checked a, b and c-
i
129
I3Q
TABLE 2
SIXTEEN MILLIMETER TITLES OWNED BY
RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Titles Owned
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Less than 1,000 10 31.24
1,000 to 1,999 15 46.88
2,000 to 2,999 3 9.38
3,000 to 3,999 3 9.38
4,000 to 4,999 0
- -
5,000 to 5,999 1 3.12
|two libraries (6 per cent) either "occasionally" or "rarely'
preview prior to accepting (Table 3).
TABLE 3
LIBRARIES PREVIEWING SIXTEEN MILLIMETER FILMS
PRIOR TO ACQUISITION
Preview
Prior to
Acquisition
Purchased Films
Depository of Gift
Films
Libraries Percentage
(N=32)
Libraries Percentage
(N=32)
Always 27 84.38 17 53.13
Usually 5 15.62 13 40.62
Occasionally 0
— - 1 3.12
Rarely 0
- -
1 3.13
Table 1 shows six respondents (19 per cent) indi
cated films were usually previewed (a) by "the film
slibrarians only"; sixteen (50 per cent) indicated films
were usually previewed (b) by "the film librarians and other
members of the library staff." Four libraries (12.5 per
cent) checked both (a) and (b) apparently indicating both
methods were used with equal frequency. Five respondents
:(16 per cent) indicated films were usually previewed (c) by
"a group which includes both library staff and members of
132
I
the community.1 1 One library (3 per cent) checked (a), (b) ,
|
! and (c) . |
j i
I I
» t
I Preview Statistics j
: i
I
Table 1 indicates the current number of films j
; I
iannually previewed by each of thirty responding libraries, !
i
las well as the percentage eventually acquired. Two librar
ies did not provide this information. By multiplying the
Inumber of films previewed annually by the percentage even
tually acquired by each respondent was calculated.
The number of films previewed ranged from 120 to
1,000. The mean was 428; the median was 350. Twenty-one
libraries (66 per cent) previewed less than 500 films a
Iyear. Only two libraries (6 per cent) previewed 700 or
more films a year. Two libraries (6 per cent) did not
ianswer the question (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the proportion of previewed films
jeventually acquired ranged from 7 per cent to 62.5 per cent.
iThe mean was 31 per cent; the median was 27.5 per cent.
! i
The number of films previewed annually eventually |
; I
acquired ranged from seventeen to 400. The mean was 118 I
|
films; the median was 106 films (Table 6).
The correlation between the number of films
TABLE 4
NUMBER OP FILMS PREVIEWED ANNUALLY BY
RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Films Previewed
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Less than 100 0
“ —
100 to 199 2 6.25
200 to 299 10 31.25
300 to 399 5 15.63
400 to 499 4 12.50
500 to 599 3 9.37
600 to 699 4 12.50
700 to 799 0
- -
800 to 899 0
- -
900 to 999 0
- -
1,000 2 6.25
No answer 2 6.25
134
TABLE 5
PROPORTION OP PREVIEWED FILMS EVENTUALLY ACQUIRED
BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
M M B P g g g . . . . ! . ” "1 . . 9 B « ! g g a a B P W ^ i W M i i i i . . y i j l . i b m b p — i— i -aagBHwa— e—
Libraries
Percentage of Previewed
Films Acquired
0 to 9
11 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to 79
80 to 89
90 to 99
100
No answer
Number Percentage
(N=32)
2 6.25
5 15.63
7 21.87
8 25.00
2 6.25
3 9.38
3 9.37
0
— -
0
- -
0
- -
0 '
- -
2 6.25
previewed annually (by the thirty libraries reporting this
information) and the number eventually acquired was calcu
lated. A Pearson Product moment correlation "r" of .42 was
obtained, indicating only a moderate correlation.
TABLE 6
NUMBER OF FILMS PREVIEWED ANNUALLY EVENTUALLY ACQUIRED
BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Number of Films Previewed
Annually Eventually
Acquired
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
0 to 50 8 25.00
51 to 100 7 21.88
101 to 150 7 21.87
151 to 200 5 15.63
201 to 250 1 3.12
251 to 300 1 3.13
301 to 350 0
- -
351 to 400 1 3.12
No answer 2 6.25
Influences on the Selection of Films
Published Materials
The libraries were questioned about the ownership
and use for selection purposes of specific publications, as
well as the use of bibliographies and lists of films
136
i
!
appearing in periodicals, lists of award winning films,
monographic bibliographies, and distributors' catalogs. It
i
i
should be emphasized, the questionnaire inquired about use j
|
"for selection purposes"; it is quite likely some items not j
i
used heavily for selection are used heavily for purposes j
i
such as reference or cataloging assistance. The specific i
j
publications named in the questionnaire were: Film Review j
Index, NICEM Index to 16mm Educational Films, Library of j
Congress Catalog: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips, the
j
"Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials," and The Learning j
Directory. The "Multi-Media Review Index" was not included
because it did not begin publication until after the
questionnaire was mailed.
Table 7 shows how many of the responding libraries
owned and used for selection purposes each of the five
publications. Of the thirty-two responding libraries, the
numbers owning each publication were:
Library of Congress Catalog: Motion
Pictures 31 libraries
NICEM Index to 16mm Educational Films 29 libraries
Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials 26 libraries
Film Review Index 11 libraries j
j
Learning Directory 2 libraries j
TABLE 7
PUBLICATIONS OWNED AND USED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES FOR SELECTION PURPOSES
(N=32)
Libraries Using
Not Owned No Answer
Publication Rarely Moderately Heavily
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Film Review Index 3 9.38 6 18.75 2 6.25 16 50.00 5 15.62
NICEM Index to 16mm
Educational Films 15 46.87 7 21.88 7 21.88 3 9.37 0
Library of Congress
Catalog: Motion Pictures 15 46.88 12 37.50 4 12.50 1 3.12 0
Bluebook of Audiovisual
Materials 20 62.50 6 18.75 0 6 18,75 0
The Learning Directory 1 3.13 1 3.12 0 28 87.5Q 2 6.25
138
i
i
| The numbers indicating heavy use of each publication for
i
selection purposes were: j
i
i NICEM Index to 16mm Educational Films 7 libraries j
!
; i
Library of Congress Catalog: Motion j
Pictures 4 libraries|
[
i i
Film Review Index 2 libraries j
Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials
Learning Directory
The numbers indicating heavy use or moderate use of each j
publication for selection purposes were:
Library of Congress Catalog: Motion
Pictures
NICEM Index to 16mm Educational Films
Film Review Index
Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials
Learning Directory
It should be noted that the Film Review Index was a
I relatively new service at the time libraries were questioned-
;Several libraries reported it was either "on order" or too
new to evaluate.
Table 8 shows how heavily responding libraries used
leach of four kinds of "other published materials" for
|selection purposes. Of the thirty-two responding libraries,
I the number indicating heavy use of each kind of published |
16 libraries
14 libraries
8 libraries
6 libraries
1 library
TABLE 8
USE OF OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS FOR FILM SELECTION PURPOSES
IN RESPONDING LIBRARIES
(N=32)
Publications
Rarely
Used
Moderately
Used
Heavily
Used
No Answer
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Film lists and bibliographies
in periodicals 5 15.62 18 56.25 7 21.88 2 6.25
Lists of award winning films 3 9.38 17 53.12 12 37.50 0
Monographic bibliographies 12 37.50 12 37.50 7 21.88 1 3.12
Distributors' catalogs 1 3.13 10 31.25 21 65.62 0
)
140
material for selection purposes were:
Distributors' catalogs 21 libraries
Lists of award winning films 12 libraries
i
Film lists and bibliographies in
periodicals 7 libraries
Monographic bibliographies 7 libraries
The numbers indicating heavy use or moderate use of each
kind of published material for selection purposes were:
Distributors' catalogs 31 libraries
Lists of award winning films 29 libraries
Film lists and bibliographies in
periodicals 25 libraries
Monographic bibliographies 19 libraries
Ranked by the percentage of libraries reporting
heavy use for selection purposes, the various published
materials included in this section of the questionnaire
assume the following order:
j 1. Distributors' catalogs 66 per cent
of respondents
2. Lists of award winning films 37.5 per cent
3. Film lists and bibliographies
appearing in periodicals 22 per cent
4. Monographic film bibliographies 22 per cent
5. NICEM Index to 16mm Educational
Films 22 per cent
141
6. Library of Congress Catalog:
Motion Pictures
i
12.5 per cent
7. Film Review Index
i
6 per cent
8. Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials 0
9. The Learning Directory
0 !
Ranked by the percentage of libraries reporting i
either heavy or moderate use for selection purposes, the i
various published materials included in this section of the j
i
i
questionnaire assume the following order: [
1. Distributors1 catalogs 97
of
per cent
respondents
2. Lists of award winning films 91 per cent
3. Film lists and bibliographies
appearing in periodicals 78 per cent
4. Monographic film bibliographies 59 per cent
5. Library of Congress Catalog:
Motion Pictures 50 per cent
6. NICEM Index to 16mm Educational
Films 44 per cent
7. Film Review Index 25 per cent
8. Bluebook of Audiovisual Materials 19 per cent
9. The Learning Directory 3 per cent
Sales Representatives
Fifteen libraries reported sales representatives
frequently visit the library to discuss new films. Only
one library reported sales representatives "almost never"
i
visit (Table 9).
Fourteen libraries indicated these visits moder
ately influence selection, seven libraries indicated the
j
visits substantially influence selection, and four librar
ies indicated the visits influence selection "very much." ;
Seven libraries indicated the visits have little influence
on selection (Table 10).
More of the libraries frequently visited by sales j
i
representatives reported a significant influence on film
i
selection than did the libraries reporting occasional
|
visits. Three of the fifteen libraries frequently visited j
reported salesmen's visits influence selection "very much," i
i
three reported substantial influence, seven reported j
moderate influence and two reported little influence. |
i
Of the sixteen libraries reported occasional visits j
j
by sales representatives, one reported the visits influence i
t
selection "very much." Three reported substantial influ- ■
ence. Seven reported moderate influence. Five reported
143
TABLE 9
|
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH DISTRIBUTORS' SALES REPRESENTATIVES j
VISIT RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Libraries
Frequency of Sales
Representatives' Visits
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Frequently 15 46.88
Occasionally 16 50.00
Almost never 1 3.12
TABLE 10
DEGREE TO WHICH SALES REPRESENTATIVES'
FILM SELECTION AT RESPONDING
VISITS INFLUENCE
LIBRARIES
Degree to Which Sales
Libraries
Representatives' Visits
Influence Selection
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Very much 4 12.50
Substantially 7 21.88
Moderately 14 43.75
Little 7 21.87
!little influence.
Libraries were asked to name the distributors whose
l
jrepresentatives visit most. Replies are tallied in
Table 11.
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTORS MENTIONED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES AS
SOURCES OP SALES REPRESENTATIVES' VISITS
Libraries
Distributor "
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Contemporary-McGraw Hill 26 81.25
iBailey/Film Associates 24 75.00
Crowell, Collier, MacMillan 12 37.50
:Coronet 8 25.00
Learning Corporation of America 7 21.88
Encyclopedia Britannica Ed. Corp. 7 21.88
Films Incorporated 6 18.75
ACI Productions 6 18.75
'Doubleday 5 15.63
iDisney 4 12.50
Churchill 3 9.38
Sterling Educational Films 2 6.25
jNBC Educational Enterprises 2 6.25
Cahill/AIMS 2 6.25
|Carousel 2 6.25
Handel 1 3.13
!Journal Films 1 3.13
;International Film Foundation 1 3.13
American Educational Films 1 3.13
1 4 5
Advertisements
I
; Table 12 shows that twenty-nine libraries (91 per
I
|cent) reported "very many" advertisements were received by
mail. The other three respondents reported many advertise
ments were received.
TABLE 12
VOLUME OF ADVERTISEMENTS RECEIVED BY MAIL BY
RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Volume of Mailed
Advertisements Received
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Very many 29 90.63
Many 3 9.37
Some 0
— -
Few 0
- -
Mailed advertisements appear to be considerably
jmore influential on the selection of films for preview or
purchase than are advertisements appearing in periodicals.
Nineteen libraries (59 per cent) indicated mailed adver-
i
tisements either influenced selection "very much" or
substantially. Only one library reported these advertise
ments had little influence. On the other hand, only ten
libraries (26 per cent) indicated periodical advertisements
either influenced selection "very much" or substantially,
and thirteen libraries (41 per cent) reported they had
little influence (Table 13).
TABLE 13
INFLUENCE OF ADVERTISEMENTS ON FILM SELECTION FOR
PREVIEW OR PURCHASE IN RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Degree to Which
Advertisements
Influence Selection
Mailed
Advertisements
Periodical
Advertisements
Libraries Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Very much 8 25.00 2 6.25
Substantially 11 34.38 8 25.00
Moderately 12 37.50 9 28.13
Little 1 3.12 13 40.62
Unsolicited Preview Prints
The majority of respondents do not receive a great
number of unsolicited preview prints. Table 14 shows
thirteen libraries (41 per cent) reported such prints were
rarely received. Another thirteen indicated unsolicited
prints were only occasionally received.
TABLE 14
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH UNSOLICITED PREVIEW PRINTS
ARE RECEIVED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Libraries
Frequency
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Very often 2 6.25
Fairly often 4 12.50
Occasionally 13 40.62
Rarely 13 40.63
Twenty-seven libraries (84 per cent) indicated
distributors supply unsolicited preview prints? eight
libraries (25 per cent) reported producers sometimes send
such prints. Libraries were asked to name "other" sources
of unsolicited preview prints. Three respondents (9 per
cent) named film makers (Table 15).
As shown in Table 16, thirteen libraries (41 per
cent) indicated unsolicited preview prints are "almost
jalways" previewed. Seven libraries (22 per cent) usually
i
!
do not preview such items. The remaining twelve respond
ents (37 per cent) view these films "more often than not."
TABLE 15
SOURCES OF UNSOLICITED PREVIEW PRINTS
Libraries
Source
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Distributors 27 84.38
Producers 8 25.00
Other: Film makers 3 9.38
TABLE 16
FREQUENCY OF PREVIEW OF UNSOLICITED PREVIEW PRINTS
BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Libraries
Frequency
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Almost always 13 40.63
More often than not 12 37.50
Not usually 7 21.87
]......... 149
| Three libraries (9 per cent) purchase unsolicited
j
preview prints "fairly often." Twenty-one (66 per cent)
purchase such films occasionally. Eight (25 per cent)
!rarely purchase these items. Of the eight respondents
|reporting they rarely purchase unsolicited preview prints,
three "almost always" preview such items, two do so "more
often than not," and three do so rarely. Of the seven
respondents reporting they do not usually preview unsoli
cited items, three rarely buy such items, and four do so
occasionally (Table 17).
Joint Preview Screenings
Ten libraries (31 per cent) indicated they fre
quently participate in joint preview screenings with other
libraries. Five libraries (16 per cent) occasionally
participate in such screenings. Seventeen respondents
; (53 per cent) rarely participate in joint preview screen
ings (Table 18).
Of the ten libraries frequently participating in
I these screenings, all indicated screenings were arranged
and films shown selected by "library systems, circuits and
;networks." In addition, three libraries reported
TABLE 17
RECEIPT, PREVIEW, AND PURCHASE OF UNSOLICITED PREVIEW
PRINTS BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
(N=32)
Frequency with Which
Unsolicited Preview
Prints Are Received
Libraries Previewing Unsolicited
Prints
Almost
Always
More
Than
Often
Not
Not
Usually
No. % No. % No. %
Very Often
Purchased:
Very frequently 0 0 0
Fairly often 0 0 0
Occasionally 1 3.13 1 3.13 0
Rarely 0 0 0
Fairly Often
Purchased:
Very frequently 0 0 0
Fairly often 2 6.25 0 0
Occasionally 0 1 3.12 1 3.12
Rarely 0 0 0
Occasionally
Purchased:
Very frequently 0 0 0
Fairly often 1 3.13 0 0
Occasionally 5 15.62 3 9.38 2 6.25
Rarely 0 1 3.13 2 6.25
Rarely
Purchased:
Very frequently 0 0 0
Fairly often 0 0 0
Occasionally 1 3.12 5 15.63 2 6.25
Rarely 3 9.37 1 3.13 2 6.25
TABLE 18
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDING LIBRARIES PARTICIPATE
IN JOINT PREVIEW SCREENING WITH OTHER LIBRARIES
■— ".HIJL-. .« ■ ■ ■■»■■■■■ . ..... ........ L----- L ~ - — L- ■ - ■ ■ —
Libraries
Frequency
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Frequently 10 31.25
Occasionally 5 15.62
Rarely 17 53.13
152
I
!
i
I
|"professional associations" sometimes performed these
|
activities (Table 19).
TABLE 19
I GROUPS ARRANGING JOINT PREVIEW SCREENINGS AND SELECTING
FILMS SHOWN
Libraries Participating in
Joint Previews
Groups Arranging
Joint Preview Screenings
Frequently Occasionally
No Percentage
(N=10)
No. Percentage
(N=5)
Professional associations 3 30.00 1 20.00
Library systems, circuits,
and networks 10 100.00 4 80.00
Producers and
distributors 0
- -
1 20.00
Of the five libraries occasionally participating in
■such screenings, four indicated screenings were arranged
land films shown selected by "library systems, circuits and
Inetworks." One of these four reported screenings were
sometimes arranged and films shown selected by "producers
iand distributors." The fifth library indicated screenings
were arranged by "professional associations."
In regard to the influence these screenings have on
! ..... ’ .....’ ............... ’ . 153”
|
1
|film selection, one of the libraries frequently participat-
ling in joint screenings indicated they influence selection
; i
I"very much," two reported they influence selection substan-j
tially, five reported moderate influence, and one reported
little influence. Three of the five libraries occasionally
participating in such screenings reported they influence
selection "very much," one reported substantial influence,
and one reported moderate influence (Table 20).
TABLE 20
INFLUENCE OF JOINT PREVIEW SCREENINGS ON
SELECTION
FILM .
Libraries Participating in
Joint Previews
Influence on
Film Selection
Frequently Occasionally
No. Percentage
(N=10)
No. Percentage
(N=5)
Very much 1 10.00 3 60.00
Substantially 2 20.00 1 20.00
Moderately 5 50.00 1 20.00
Little 1 10.00 0
- -
No answer 1 10.00 0
| Distributor Arranged Screenings
Libraries were asked if distributors ever arrange
;preview screenings for the library in which films they have
chosen are shown. No respondents reported this occurred
frequently. Six libraries (19 per cent) indicated such
screenings occur occasionally, and twenty-six libraries
I (81 per cent) said they occur "rarely or never" (Table 21) .
TABLE 21
FREQUENCY OF DISTRIBUTOR ARRANGED PREVIEW SCREENINGS
AT RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Frequency
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Frequently 0
- -
Occasionally 6 18.75
Rarely or never 26 81.25
' One of the six libraries reporting occasional dis-
!
tributor arranged preview screenings indicated screenings
jare usually for that library only; three others indicated
screenings are usually "for representatives of several
groups." Two respondents reported screenings are
I"sometimes for this library only, sometimes for repre- |
i i
i t
Isentatives of several groups."
| Of the six libraries reporting occasional distrib- |
;utor arranged preview screenings, two indicated these
screenings influence selection "very much," two indicated
they influence selection "substantially," two indicated
they influence selection "moderately" (Table 22).
i
TABLE 22
INFLUENCE OF DISTRIBUTOR ARRANGED PREVIEW SCREENINGS
ON FILM- SELECTION AT PARTICIPATING LIBRARIES
Degree to Which
Film Selection
Is Influenced
Libraries Participating in Occasional
Distributor Arranged Preview Screenings
Number Percentage
(N=6)
Very much 2 33.33
Substantially 2 33.33
Moderately 2 33.33
Little 0
- -
f
; !
! i
Contact with Other Film Librarians j
i I
i Three libraries (9 per cent) indicated professional|
I i
j contact with librarians of other film collections and |
;informal sharing of opinions and suggestions influenced
' i
; I
their selection of films for preview or purchase "very
i
much." Twelve libraries (37.5 per cent) reported these
contacts exerted a substantial influence. Twelve others
i
; I
i
(37.5 per cent) reported these contacts provided a moderate!
influence and five libraries (16 per cent) reported little ;
influence on film selection was attributable to such con- j
tacts (Table 23).
TABLE 2 3
INFLUENCE OF CONTACT WITH OTHER FILM LIBRARIANS
ON FILM SELECTION OF RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Degree of Influence on
Selection of Films for
Preview or Purchase
Number
Libraries
Percentage
(N=32)
Very much 3 9.38
Substantially 12 37.50
Moderately 12 37.50
Little 5 15.62
I
I
i
Libraries were asked to identify the sources of j
these contacts. The most frequently cited were film j
festivals, conventions, and professional meetings. Under
the heading "Other," two respondents named "correspondence" j
157 |
as a mode of contact, and one library named "exchange of
catalogs." The modes of contact cited are listed in
Table 24.
TABLE 24
SOURCES OF CONTACT WITH OTHER FILM LIBRARIANS
CITED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Sources of Contact
Libraries Citing
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Film festivals 27 84.38
Conventions 24 75.00
Professional meetings 23 71.87
Telephone conversations 17 15.13
Preview screenings 17 15.13
Social meetings 9 28.13
Other: Correspondence 2 6.25
Other: Exchange of catalogs 1 3.13
Relative Influence of Various Factors
The libraries were presented with a list of ten
factors and asked to rank them according to their relative
influence on the selection of films for preview or
158
'
purchase. Table 25 shows the most influential factor was \
I
to be assigned a rank of "1," the next most influential j
factor was to be assigned a rank of "2," the next most !
influential factor was to be assigned a rank of "3." An
i
eleventh category, "Other influences" was provided with a
space for assignment of rank and the directions "Please
specify."
Twenty-eight respondents answered this question.
One of these identified only the two most influential
factors. Two others identified only the one most influ
ential factor.
Pour respondents attributed an equivalent rank to
more than one factor. In such cases, an appropriate frac
tion of a tally was scored for each factor in as many ranks
as there were factors. For instance, if a respondent
listed two factors as "1," a tally of .5 was attributed to
each factor for both ranks "1" and "2." The factor which
had been listed as "2" was then tallied as rank "3."
Published film reviews were ranked "1" by 14.20
libraries (44 per cent). The factor receiving the next
highest number of "1" rankings was Advertisements (both
those appearing in periodicals and those received by mail).
These were ranked "1" by three libraries (9 per cent) .
TABLE 25
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS FACTORS ON THE SELECTION OF
FILMS FOR PREVIEW OR PURCHASE
(N=32)
Factor Influencing Selection
Libraries Ranking Influence as
Number Number Number Either
"1,
II II O II
or
Published film reviews 14.20
(44.38%)
5.20 1.25 20.60
(64.38%)
Advertisements (both in periodicals 3.00
and mailed) ( 9.37%)
3.00 3.25 9.25
(28.91%)
Cooperative screenings or screenings
arranged by distributors or others
Distributors * catalogs
2.70
( 8.44%)
2.20
( 6.88%)
.70
2.20
3.20
5.45
6.60
(20.62%)
9.85
(30.78%)
Salesmen's visits 2.20
( 6.87%)
2.20 2.45 6.85
(21.40%)
Contact with other film librarians 2.00
( 6.25%)
5.50 3.75 11.25
(35.16%)
Unsolicited preview prints .20
( .63%)
.20 .20 .60
( 1.88%)
TABLE 25— Continued
Libraries Ranking Influence as
Factor Influencing Selection
Number
1 1 X”
Number
"2"
Number
"3" "1,
Either
. 1 . l 2« I Qr H3I «
Film lists in periodicals or mono
graphs other than the NICEM Index
or the Library of Congress Catalog
0 4.00 3.00 7.00
(21.88%)
NICEM Index to 16mm educational
films 0 1.00 0 1.00
( 3.12%)
Library of Congress Catalog:
Motion Pictures
. 0 0 1.00 1.00
( 3.13%)
Other:
Patron requests and recommenda
tions
1.00
C 3.12%)
.50 .50 2.00
( 6.25%)
American Film Festival Awards .50
( 1.56%)
.50 1.00 2.00
( 6.25%)
Personal contact with film makers 0 1.00 0 1.00
( 3.12%)
No answer 4.00
(12.50%)
6.00
(18.75%)
7.00
(21.88%)
160
Published film reviews were reported to be one of
the three most potent influences on film selection for
preview or purchase by 20.60 libraries (64 per cent).
Contact with other film librarians, which was ranked "1"
i
I by only two libraries, was reported to be one of the three
most potent influences by 11.25 respondents (35 per cent).
|Distributors1 catalogs, ranked "1" by 2.20 libraries (7 per
, i
: I
cent), were reported to be one of the three most potent j
influences by 9.85 respondents (31 per cent). Advertise
ments were identified as among the three most potent
influences by 9.25 respondents (29 per cent).
i I
i
: !
Review Media |
: j
; i
Review Media Received and Scanned !
; ■ j
Libraries were asked to indicate which of the
i following the library regularly receives and which the film
!division regularly scans for reviews of sixteen millimeter
|films: Landers Film Reviews, EFLA Evaluation Cards, Film
i
i News, Booklist, Educational Screen and AV Guide, Film
Library Quarterly. Twenty-four respondents (75 per cent)
; i
iindicated all six media are regularly received; seventeen
!
of these regularly scan all six media for sixteen milli-
|
meter reviews (Table 26). J
162
TABLE 26
FILM REVIEW MEDIA REGULARLY RECEIVED BY RESPONDING
LIBRARIES AND SCANNED FOR FILM REVIEWS
Libraries
Receiving
Libraries Scanning
Film Reviews
Review Media
No. Percentage
(N=32)
No. Percentage !
(N=32) |
Landers Film Reviews 31 96.88 31
1
i
96.88
|
EFLA Evaluation Cards 30 93.75 30
'
93.75
Film News 32 100.00 30 93.75
Booklist 31 96.88 27 84. 38
Film Library Quarterly 31 96.88 30 93.75
Educational Screen and
AV Guide 27 84.38 23 71.88
Film News is received by all thirty-two libraries,
and is regularly scanned for sixteen millimeter reviews by
I
thirty libraries. Landers Film Reviews, Booklist, and Film
Library Quarterly are each received by thirty-one libraries,
i
iSixteen millimeter reviews are regularly scanned by all
thirty-one libraries receiving Landers Film Reviews, by
thirty libraries receiving Film Library Quaterly, and by
twenty-seven libraries receiving Booklist. EFLA Evaluation
Cards are both received and regularly scanned by thirty
j 163
|respondents. Educational Screen and AV Guide is both the
l
jleast received medium and its reviews are the least widely
scanned. Only twenty-three of the twenty-seven libraries
I
|receiving this periodical, regularly scan it for reviews of
sixteen millimeter films.
Respondents were asked to name other review media
that significantly influence sixteen millimeter film selec
tion. Ten libraries named Sightlines; nine cited Media and
Methods; eight libraries named Mass Media Ministries News
letter. Three respondents cited Business Screen, and two
named Library Journal. The following were each cited by
a single respondent: Film Sneak Annual, Take One, Film
Comment, Sight and Sound, Sneaks, Radical Software, Film
Nut News, Film Review Index, Saturday Review, Films in
Review, Media Mix, Video-Record World, and Film Maker's
Newsletter.
Relative Influence of Review Media
i
The libraries were presented with a list of the six
studied review media and asked to rank them according to
i i
their relative influence on the selection of films for j
preview or acquisition. The most influential medium was to j
be assigned a rank of "1," the next most influential was to
: be assigned a rank of "2," the next most influential was to
be assigned a rank of "3.'' Three additional spaces with
places for assigning rank and the captions "Other (Please
name)" were provided so that respondents who felt other
review media were more influential than the named ones
might be accommodated.
Table 27 indicates one library did not answer this
question. Another library listed only the medium ranked
"1." In addition, five respondents attributed an equiva
lent rank to more than one medium. In these instances, an
appropriate fraction of a tally was scored for each medium
in as many ranks as there were media cited. For instance,
if a respondent listed two media as "1," a tally of .5 was
scored for each of these media in both ranks "1" and "2."
The medium which had been ranked by the respondent as "2"
was then tallied as "3."
The review medium receiving the largest number of
"1" tallies was Landers Film Reviews. This was ranked "1"
by 9.33 respondents (29 per cent), and was reported to be
i one of the three most influential media by 20 libraries
(62.5 per cent).
Educational Screen and AV Guide was ranked "1" by
no respondents, and was reported to be one of the three
I TABLE 27
i
{
!
I RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF FILM REVIEW MEDIA ON THE SELECTION j
OF FILMS FOR PREVIEW OR PURCHASE
(N=32) j
Libraries Ranking Influence as |
Review Media
Number
I I I I
Number
"2"
Number
"3"
Either "1,"
"2" or "3" j
Landers Film Reviews 9.33
(29.17%)
7.33 3.33
1
20.00 |
(62.50%) i
|
EFLA Evaluation Cards 6.00
(18.75%)
3.50 4.50 14.00
(43.75%)
Film Library
Quarterly
5.33
(16.67%)
4.83 3.33 13.50
(42.19%)
Booklist 5.00
(15.63%)
6.00 5.00 16.00
(50.00%)
Film News 4.00
(12.50%)
5.00 8.50 17.50
(54.69%)
Educational Screen
and AV Guide
0 2.00 1.00 3.00
( 9.38%)
Other:
Media and Methods 1.33
( 4.17%)
.83 .83 3.00
( 9.38%)
Sightlines 0 .50 2.50 3.00
( 9.38%)
Mass Media Minis
tries Newsletter
0 0 1.00 1.00
( 3.13%)
No answer 1.00
( 3.13%)
2.00 2.00
! 166 i
i i
! I
|most influential media by only three libraries (9 per cent)J
i |
;EFLA Evaluation Cards, Film Library Quarterly, Booklist,
: . |
and Film News were each ranked "1" by between four and six i
— ... I
I !
respondents (12.5 per cent to 19 per cent). Each of these
1
; I
iwas reported to be among the three most influential media !
| j
I by from 13.5 to 17.5 libraries (42 per cent to 55 per cent).!
! i
j j
Among the "Other" responses, Media and Methods was ranked |
"1" by 1.33 respondents (4 per cent) and reported to be
among the three most influential media by three respondents j
I i
(9 per cent) .
Libraries were asked: "Why is the review medium
you ranked as '1' the most influential?" Libraries ranking
Landers Film Reviews as "1" most frequently referred to the
large number of films reviewed, and the detailed biblio- i
; ' i
graphic information. Others cited the service's sensitiv- j
jity to the needs of public libraries, the frequency and
!
|regularity of issue, its reliability, and indexes. Some
I
|comments were:
i
Appears with the most regular frequency— has i
generally readable reviews with helpful criticisms. j
Covers a broad range of films of interest to public
library audiences, . . . complete bibliographic data,
. . . Good indexing, subject approach, annual cumula
tive index. Good as a reference tool . . .
It makes an effort to state whether or not intended
for public libraries.
167
i
| Bertha Landers was a public librarian and her
reviews reflect her experience.
Regularity and frequency of publication, amount of
information, number of reviews.
Usually first to review a film. Content descrip
tion quite good.
Libraries ranking EFLA Evaluation Cards "1,"
explained their selection with rather diffuse reasons.
!Some cited the convenience of the format? others mentioned
the reliability of evaluators, the fact that some evalua
tors were public librarians who understood the public
:library point of view, and some mentioned that titles were
reviewed which were not found elsewhere. Some comments
were:
We know it to be . . . by experienced viewers . . .
with [a] scale of values that is familiar to us . . .
Reviewing is . . . by a variety of users. Public
library reviewers understand library use of film.
Has more titles not found elsewhere.
Our evaluations most frequently agree with these.
The libraries listing Film Library Quarterly "1"
jemphasized the high quality of reviews and the fact they
were specifically aimed at public library needs. Some
;comments were:
Reviewers [are] of higher quality.
| 168
i
I
Reviews are specifically written for public
! libraries by film librarians.
Reviews are objective and evaluated from the public
library point of view.
i
Libraries attributing the rank of "1" to Booklist
cited the quality of reviews. One respondent mentioned
;that suitability for public library collections was indi
cated. Some comments were:
Good balanced reviews.
Current titles are reviewed. . . . Lengthy, anno
tated reviews. Indication as to suitability for public
libraries.
Competent reviews, good, dependable.
Best written.
Libraries ranking Film News "1" tended to emphasize
the suitability for public libraries. One respondent
commended the quality of films, reviewers, and editing.
Some comments were:
I respect the professional film people who review.
. . . The quality of films reviewed is unusually high
. . . well edited.
Seems most geared to public libraries.
t
Reviews more films of interest to . . . public
library collections.
Closest to public library point of view.
! 169
i
!
| The two libraries including Media and Methods in
;their "1" ranked review media spoke of its currency and
daring. Comments were:
Most current and includes indication of . . . kinds
of groups who would use the film . . .
Media and Methods is more gutsy than the others and
a bit broader in outlook. The other reviewing media ar^
locked into the institutional point of view and seen to
shy away from daring or popular material. Other media
. . . are . . . unresponsive to the needs of a young,
alive audience.
Current Problems of Review Media
Libraries were presented with a list of ten review
media shortcomings and asked to identify those which they
felt to be current problems. An eleventh category, "Other
(Please indicate)" was provided. Responses are presented
in Table 28.
The shortcoming identified by the largest number of
t
libraries was "lateness of review." Twenty libraries
! (62.5 per cent) felt this was a problem. This was the only
i
item checked by more than 50 per cent of the respondents.
Fourteen libraries (44 per cent) believed "too few films
!are reviewed." Ten libraries (31 per cent) indicated "not
enough reviews of free, sponsored and inexpensive films"
! |
iwas a problem. Nine libraries (28 per cent) agreed j
170
TABLE 28
SHORTCOMINGS CONSIDERED TO BE CURRENT PROBLEMS BY
RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Problems
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Lateness of reviews 20 62.50
Too few films are reviewed 14 43.75
Not enough reviews of free, sponsored
and inexpensive films 10 31.25
Reviews are too lenient 9 28.13
Reviews are unreliable 7 21.88
Lack of multiple reviews 7 21.88
Excessive duplication of reviews 6 18.75
Not enough films reviewed in specific
areas1 3 9.38
Too many films are reviewed
(unselective) 1 3.13
Reviews are too severe 0
- -
Other:
Lack of comparative reviews
Mere "annotations" instead of
5 15.63
"real critiques"
4 12.50
Inadequate indexing
Too many films reviewed are school
1 3.13
oriented 1 3.13
Lack of qualified reviewers 1 3.13
‘ ''Cited were: sports films, films of interest to
boys and mens clubs, films for adults, films for the
general public, commercial and foreign short subjects,
I television documentaries.
"reviews are too lenient." No respondents agreed "reviews
are too severe."
Under "Other," five libraries (16 per cent) com
plained about the lack of comparative reviews. Four
libraries (12.5 per cent) complained too many reviews are
mere "annotations" instead of "real critiques."
Three libraries (9 per cent) believed "not enough
films are reviewed in specific areas." They indicated
these areas included sport films, films of interest to
boys' and men's clubs, films for adults, films for the
general public, commercial and foreign short subjects, and
television documentaries.
Agreement with Reviews
Thirty respondents answered the question concerning
the frequency with which the library's evaluation of pre
viewed films agreed with published reviews. Fourteen
(44 per cent) indicated they "usually agree"; sixteen
(50 per cent) indicated they "frequently disagree." No
respondents reported they "almost always agree" or they
"usually disagree" (Table 29).
172
TABLE 29
THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH LIBRARY'S EVALUATIONS OF
PREVIEWED FILMS AGREE WITH PUBLISHED REVIEWS
Frequency
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Almost always agree 0
- -
Usually agree 14 43.75
Frequently disagree 16 50.00
Usually disagree 0
- -
No answer 2 6.25
Value of Review Media for Public Library
Film Selection
For each of the six film reviewing media studied,
libraries were asked to rate its overall value for public
library film selection. Table 30 shows that twenty-five
libraries (78 per cent) rated Film Library Quarterly "Good"
or "Excellent"; thirteen (41 per cent) rated it "Excel
lent. " Twenty-four libraries (75 per cent) rated Landers
Film Reviews "Good" or "Excellent,1 1 but only seven of these
(22 per cent) rated it "Excellent." Film News, Booklist,
and EFLA Evaluation Cards were each rated "Good" or
TABLE 30
RATINGS OF REVIEW MEDIA'S VALUE FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY FILM SELECTION
(N=32)
Rating by Libraries
Review Media Excellent Good Fair Poor No Answer
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Film Library Quarterly 13 40.63 12 37.50 2 6.25 1 3.12 4 12.50
Landers Film Reviews 7 21.88 17 53.12 6 18.75 2 6.25 0
- —
Film News 6 18.75 16 50.00 7 21.88 1 3.12 2 6.25
Booklist 3 9.38 17 53.12 6 18.75 2 6.25 4 12.50
EFLA Evaluation Cards 3 9.38 15 46.87 11 34.38 2 6.25 1 3.12
Educational Screen and
AV Guide 1 3.12 2 6.25 12 37.50 10 31.25 7 21.88
|"Excellent" by from eighteen to twenty-two respondents
| (56 per cent to 69 per cent) . Film News was rated "Excel-
: lent" by six respondents (19 per cent) ; Booklist and EFLA
iEvaluation Cards each received "Excellent" ratings from
I three libraries (9 per cent each).
Educational Screen and AV Guide was rated "Good" or
!"Excellent" for public library film selection by only three
respondents (9 per cent); twenty-two libraries (69 per
cent) rated it "Fair" or "poor." "Poor" ratings were given
i to Film Library Quarterly and Film News by one respondent
;each (3 per cent each); to Landers Film Reviews/ Booklist/
and EFLA Evaluation Cards by two respondents each (6 per
cent each) ; and to Educational Screen and AV Guide by ten
respondents (31 per cent).
Individual Review Media
The libraries were asked to indicate which of a
j list of characteristics they found to be objectionable
features of each service or periodical's reviews. They
were asked what they would suggest the publisher do to
improve the reviews. Responses are presented in the
following summaries.
I 175
|
Landers Film Reviews
As shown in Table 31, the most frequent criticisms
| of Landers Film Reviews concerned reviews being too non-
;committal (41 per cent of respondents cited this), reviews
Ibeing too lenient (34 per cent), and too many of the films
!
;reviewed being of little interest to public libraries
|(34 per cent). Six libraries (19 per cent) objected to
i
j
;reviews being unsigned, and six thought reviews were
unreliable and not authoritative. No respondents felt
; there were too many reviews, or reviews were too brief or
too severe. Under "Other," the most frequent complaint
|(12.5 per cent) concerned reviews being too non-critical
and too descriptive instead of evaluative.
The responses to the question "What would you sug
gest the publisher do to improve Landers Film Reviews?"
are summarized in Table 32. The most frequent suggestion
iwas that the service's reviews be more evaluative and
j
■critical. The next most frequent suggestion was that
jreviews be signed and reviewers' qualifications be stated.
Some comments were:
i
Landers is not a review medium. For content [it
is] excellent.
i
The detailed data furnished by Landers . . . is
often as helpful as the review itself.
176
TABLE 31
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDERS FILM REVIEWS
REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Libraries Reporting
Objectionable Characteristics
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Reviews are too non-committal 13
Reviews are too lenient 11
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries 11
Evaluations are unreliable— not
' authoritative 6
Reviews are not signed 6
Reviews are too long 4
Too few reviews 2
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning 2
Reviews are too brief 0
Too many reviews 0
I
iReviews are too severe 0
!
lOther:
More descriptive than evaluative,
needs to be more critical 4
Not enough negative reviews 1
Not enough comparative reviews 1
Often misleads by overpraising
mediocre films 1
Reviews sometimes appear over a
year after the film's release 1
40.63
34.38
34.38
18.75
18.75
12.50
6.25
6.25
12.50
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
TABLE 32
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF LANDERS FILM REVIEWS
Libraries
1
Number Percentage I.
(N=32) |
Be more critical and evaluative 9 28.13
Sign reviews and state reviewers
qualifications 4 12.50
Review more public library type films 3 9.38
Review sooner after film's release 2 6.25
Shorten reviews 2 6.25
Publish more negative reviews 2 6.25
Make reviews available on cards 1 3.13
More comparative reviews 1 3.13
Identify criteria for evaluation 1 3.13
Evaluate outstanding free films 1 3.13
j 178
j
We are not interested in previewing classroom
| films, but need [the] descriptions for reference.
Begin each volume with a presentation of Landers'
criteria for recommendation, inclusion for review, etc.
: List staff reviewers . . . [and sign reviews].
[Include] more "not recommended" reviews.
I would suggest shortening the format, and being
more specific in criticism.
: • I
Set higher standards, reviews are too lenient. |
i
EFLA Evaluation Cards
The most frequent criticism of EFLA Evaluation
: 1
Cards was that they were too brief. As presented in
Table 33, fifteen libraries (47 per cent), identified this
as an objectionable characteristic of the service. The
next most frequent complaints concerned the large number of
films reviewed of little interest to public libraries
i(28 per cent of respondents), too few films being reviewed
(25 per cent), and unreliability of reviews (22 per cent).
iNone of the respondents felt EFLA Evaluation Cards were too
j
long, too severe, or too numerous. Neither did any
’libraries indicate the format impeded rapid scanning. Under
j !
"Other," seven libraries (22 per cent) complained of the j
! I
I
lateness with which reviews appear. Four libraries j
I
(12.5 per cent) complained of the erratic distribution j
|
schedule, and six (19 per cent) protested against the wide j
179 |
TABLE 33
| OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFLA EVALUATION CARDS
REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Objectionable Characteristics
Libraries
Number
Reporting
Percentage
(N=32)
Reviews are too brief 15 46.88
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries 9 28.13
Too few reviews 8 25.00
Evaluations are unreliable— not
authoritative 7 21.88
Reviews are too lenient 3 9.38
Reviews are too non-committal 3 9.38
Reviews are too long 0
- -
Too many reviews 0
- _
Reviews are too severe 0
- -
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning 0
— —
Other:
Lateness of reviews, not current
enough 7 21.88
Wide divergence in standards of
evaluators 6 18.75
Erratic distribution schedule 4 12.50
Only the committee's identity is
given, members are not named 3 9.38
Not full enough description to commu
nicate content or justify rating 2 6.25
Too few committees do too much of the
! evaluating
2 6.25
Card format results in outdated and
j unwieldy file
1 3.13
| 180
!
divergence in the standards of evaluating groups. Three
:libraries (9 per cent) felt the mere naming of the evaluat
ing group was not satisfactory and members of the groups
I
I should be named.
In offering suggestions for the improvement of EFLA
Evaluation Cards, the respondents' comments most frequently
dealt with remedies for the lateness of reviews and the
;uneven quality of evaluators (Table 34). Seven libraries
(22 per cent) suggested the cards be expedited, evaluating
films sooner after their release and distributing evalua
tions on a more frequent and less irregular schedule. Six
libraries (19 per cent) expressed the opinion better
evaluators with more reliable and uniform standards would
ibe desirable. Three respondents (9 per cent) requested
more consistently accurate and complete bibliographic data,
and three asked that a larger number of evaluating commit-
jtees be employed in lieu of what they seemed to consider
were a favored few.
! Some comments were:
I feel, of the evaluation [sources] . . . , EFLA is
the best all around.
Review more films and . . . more often.
TABLE 34
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EFLA EVALUATION CARDS
Libraries
Suggestions
Number Percentage
(N=32)
I Review sooner after film's release,
more frequent and regular distribution 7 21.88
Get better evaluators who apply stand-
:ards in a more uniform and consistent
manner 6 18.75
!Provide more consistently accurate and
complete bibliographic information 3 9.38
;Use a larger number of evaluating
committees 3 9.38
Review more films 2 6.25
Identify committee members 2 6.25
Review more films for public libraries 2 6.25
I Describe and evaluate more fully 2 6.25
|Be less didactic and more objective 1 3.13
More comparative evaluations 1 3.13
I Produce more sets on special subjects 1 3.13
182
Cards are prepared by widely divergent groups of
reviewers [and there is] no consistency of judgment.
Items are generally widely known when cards are
received.
Order information is not complete at times— current
price [is desirable] always.
I've usually had the film several months before
cards arrive. . . . Do newer films— sooner.
. . . EFLA, in my estimation, is trying to do too
much to do it all well.
Less reviewing from one or two sources.
Don't know who is evaluating, i.e., who is on the
committee.
Delivery erratic, so not counted on.
Exercise greater editorial care in providing
accurate distributor data.
Reviews are too unpredictable. Reviewers vary from
New York Screening Group (very critical) to . . .
(very uncritical). Often arbitrary. . . . Get cards
out quicker . . . get a standardized reviewing board or
else farm them out to a broader base.
Booklist
As shown in Table 35, ten libraries (31 per cent)
jconsidered the fact reviews were not signed to be an
objectionable characteristic of the Booklist. Nine librar
ies (28 per cent) believed there were too few reviews.
|Eight respondents (25 per cent) consider Booklist reviews
too non-committal? seven (22 per cent) indicated too many
TABLE 35
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOOKLIST REPORTED
BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Objectionable Characteristics
Libraries
Number
Reporting
Percentage
(N=32)
Reviews are not signed 10 31.25
Too few reviews 9 28.13
Reviews are too non-committal 8 25.00
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries 7 21.88
Reviews are too lenient 6 18.75
Reviews are too long 3 9.38
Reviews are unreliable— not
authoritative 2 6.25
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning 1 3.13
Reviews are too brief 0
- -
Too many reviews 0
- -
Reviews are too severe 0
- -
Other:
Lateness of reviews, not current
enough 7 21.88
Style too pedantic or bland 5 15.62
Divergence between submitted evalua
tions and published reviews 2 6.25
Not enough negative reviews 1 3.13
Dislike composite reviews 1 3.13
Evaluating committees unhappy with
films received 1 3.13
Staff reviewers' backgrounds and
qualifications not told 1 3.13
Subject heading provided are too
narrow and specific for public
library use
1 3.13
[ ................ 184
I films of little interest to public libraries were reviewed.
;
I Six respondents (19 per cent) said Booklist reviews were
too lenient. No respondents considered the reviews too
brief, too numerous or too severe.
Under "Other," the most frequent complaint was that
ithe magazine was too slow in reviewing motion pictures.
Seven libraries (22 per cent) believed reviews appear too
late. Five respondents (16 per cent) objected to the style
of reviews indicating they were too pedantic, impersonal,
bland or unenthusiastic. Three respondents identified
i
: themselves as members of evaluating committees and either
were unhappy about the divergence between the evaluations
submitted and the published reviews or with the kinds of
materials received for evaluation.
The most frequent suggestion relating to the
improvement of the Booklist1s film reviews, was films be
previewed sooner after release (Table 36). This suggestion
i
|was offered by seven libraries (22 per cent). The next
jmost common suggestion, offered by four libraries (12.5 per
I ^
cent), was that more films of interest to public libraries
|be reviewed. Three respondents (9 per cent) desired more
readable, lively and enthusiastic reviews, three asked that
i
reviewers and consultants be identified for each review,
185
- TABLE 36
I
1
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
j
OF THE BOOKLIST
1
|
i
Libraries
j
Suggestions
i
Number Percentage
(N=32)
I Review sooner after film's release 7 21.88
|Review more films for public libraries 4 12.50
Make reviews more readable and lively
and less pedantic 3 9.38
;Identify reviewers and consultants
for each title 3 9.38
;Be more critical and evaluative 3 9.38
IPublish negative reviews 2 6.25
Review more films 2 6.25
[Shorten reviews 2 6.25
Publish reviews written by evaluating
committees with changes limited to
; style 1 3.13
1 Index films separately from books 1 3.13
1 Provide a subject index 1 3.13
i
|Use signed reviews prepared by paid
in-the-field reviewers 1 3.13
Summarize rating at the end of each
review 1 3.13
;Be more selective 1 3.13
186
and three felt the Booklist would benefit from more truly
critical and evaluative reviews.
Some comments were:
The Booklist is currently doing a noble job evalu
ating a considerable number of films and filmstrips.
Slow . . . but the best of the [review sources].
. . . Reviews . . . could be shorter, more up to date.
Material reviewed is not always most up to date.
More . . . [real] evaluations, more public library
oriented films. . . . The Booklist is improving but
needs to continue its efforts.
. . . Colorless— lacks enthusiasm.
They are not really critical reviews.
Make them more readable and [less] pedantic. Sign
them. We [suspect] they are all written by one man
since they never appear as . . . sent in by our commit
tee if they appear at all.
. . . Include . . . not recommended films.
There is a hiatus between the reviewing group and
the review writer.
I think it is quite good as it is. It would be a
speedier reference tool if films were indexed [sepa
rately] and a subject index was included.
Too cool and bookish. Not film oriented. . . . [It
should be more enthusiastic and less pedantic.] Any
publication can be lively if they try.
It would be nice to know who evaluates, [their]
qualifications and background and type of experience
with film.
Film News
The most frequent objection to Film News reviews
was that there were too few reviews. Thirteen libraries
(41 per cent) considered this an objectionable characteris
tic of the magazine. Seven libraries (22 per cent) felt
too many of the films reviewed are of little interest to
public libraries. Six libraries (19 per cent) considered
reviews too lenient. No libraries believed reviews were
too numerous or too severe. Under "Other," two libraries
(6 per cent) suggested reviews appear too late, and two
complained the magazine is often late in arriving. Objec
tionable characteristics of Film News reported by respond
ing libraries are listed in Table 37.
A variety of suggestions were offered for the
improvement of Film News (Table 38) . However, none of the
suggestions was offered by more than two libraries. These
included proposals that more films be reviewed, reviews be
more critical, include prices, and include more titles of
interest to public libraries.
Some comments were:
I find nothing objectionable about Film News. I
like it as it is.
Rahoma Lee does a good job. . . . I feel she has
public libraries in mind.
TABLE 37
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF FILM NEWS REVIEWS
REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Objectionable Characteristics
Libraries
Number
Reporting
Percentage
(N=32)
Too fevr reviews 13 40.63
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries 7 21.88
Reviews are too lenient 6 18.75
Reviews are too long 2 6.25
Reviews are too brief 1 3.13
Reviews are too non-committal 1 3.13
Reviews are unreliable— not
authoritative 1 3.13
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning 1 3.13
Too many reviews 0
- -
Reviews are too severe 0
- -
Other:
Lateness of reviews, not current
enough 2 6.25
Publication appears behind schedule 2 6.25
No price information provided 2 6.25
Technical aspects of the film are
rarely treated adequately 1 3.13
Wide divergence in standards of
evaluators
1 3.13
Subject headings are not given 1 3.13
No cumulative indexing 1 3.13
Too much coverage of American Film
Festival winners 1 3.13
Sometimes reviews are more descrip
tive than evaluative 1 3.13
TABLE 38
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FILM NEWS
Libraries
Suggestions Number Percentage
(N=32)
Review more films 2 6.25
Review more films for public libraries 2 6.25
Publish issues on time 2 6.25
Include prices 2 6.25
Be more critical and evaluative 2 6.25
Review sooner after film's release 1 3.13
Get more knowledgeable reviewers 1 3.13
Summarize rating at the end of each
review 1 3.13
Provide title indexes and subject
indexes 1 3.13
190
Since Film News . . . circulates more to schools
than public libraries, perhaps it satisfies that market
| and shouldn1t change.
Film News is school oriented and public librarians
; have learned to allow for the bias.
Film News is always late in coming out.
j
Include sale/rental prices . . . provide an index
by title [and] subject to films reviewed.
. . . What often passes for reviews are just con
tent recaps.
Try to get more knowledgeable reviewers.
1
Film Library Quarterly
Only one undesirable characteristic was widely
! attributed to Film Library Quarterly (Table 39). This was
that there are too few reviews. Nineteen libraries (59 per
cent) objected to this. None of the respondents indicated
I reviews were too brief, too numerous, too lenient, too
severe, too non-committal, too often of little interest to
i
jpublic libraries, or unreliable. Under "Other," the most
!
i frequent complaint, noted by five libraries (16 per cent),
i
I
|was that films reviewed were not current enough.
Table 40 indicates the suggestion most frequently
i
offered for the improvement of Film Library Quarterly was
I
that more reviews be included. This sentiment was
i
expressed by nine libraries (28 per cent).
TABLE 39
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF FILM LIBRARY QUARTERLY
REVIEWS REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Objectionable Characteristics
Libraries Reporting
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Too few reviews
Reviews are too long
i .
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning
‘Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Reviews are unreliable— not
authoritative
Other:
i Lateness of reviews, not current
enough
Quarterly publication is too
infrequent
Some films reviewed are unsuitable
for public libraries
Review quality slightly uneven
Occasional downgrading of a review
by editorial comment
S Some mediocre films included
No index
19
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
59.38
6.25
6.25
15.63
6.25
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
192
TABLE 40
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FILM LIBRARY QUARTERLY
Suggestions
Libraries
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Review more films
Publish more issues per year
Review sooner after film's release
Shorten reviews
Increase number of side by side
conflicting reviews
Provide title indexes and subject
indexes
Make feature articles more library
oriented in subject matter
Revive "Sneaks" section
i
IRevive "Preview Recommendations"
I column
i
Cease publication
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
28.13
6.25
6.25
6.25
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
193 1
Some comments were:
Reviews are fine— timely— often comparative.
Articles on film-makers and film use tend to motivate
me to send for previews. I particularly liked the
column "Preview Recommendations." That should be con- I
tinued along with the reviews. i
j
[I] cannot find much fault other than not enough
reviews. I
!
j
Since there are only four issues a year, there are j
too few reviews. Many [appear] well after general
release. Many have appeared in other review media.
Increase amount of space given to reviews. Reviews
themselves are good.
More current reviews. j
i
Unusable— reviews old films already in collection
or films which are unsuitable for library use.
Some of the films reviewed are of mediocre quality,
not meriting inclusion in limited space. . . . Articles
need to be included [which] stress library-interest
subjects rather than film society, film school, or
film making.
i
Reviews are late. Publish more reviews.
Make it monthly or bimonthly. Quarterly is too far
apart for effective use by libraries.
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Table 41 shows that the two major criticisms of
Educational Screen and AV Guide were that too few films were
i
reviewed and too many of the films reviewed were of little
interest to public libraries. Thirteen libraries (41 per
TABLE 41
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATIONAL SCREEN AND
AV GUIDE REVIEWS REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Libraries Reporting
Objectionable Characteristics Number Percentage
(N=32)
Too many of the films reviewed are of
little interest to public libraries 14 43.75
Too few reviews 13 40.63
Reviews are too long 3 9.38
The format of the review impedes
rapid scanning 2 6.25
Reviews are too lenient 1 3.13
Reviews are too non-committal 1 3.13
Reviews are unreliable— not
authoritative 1 3.13
Reviews are too brief 0 - -
jToo many reviews 0 - -
{Reviews are too severe 0 - -
i
Other:
Publication appears behind schedule 2 6.25
I Style uninteresting 1 3.13
195
I cent) indicated there were too few reviews. Fourteen
i
|libraries (44 per cent) indicated too many of the films
reviewed were of little interest to public libraries. None
of the respondents felt the reviews were too brief, too
;numerous or too severe. Very few items were added under
"Other." Two respondents (6 per cent) complained of the
publication's late and irregular distribution schedule.
Few suggestions were offered for the improvement of
Educational Screen and AV Guide (Table 42). Many of the
comments received in response to the question solicitng
suggestions for improving the magazine emphasized it is
school oriented and maintained it has little relevance to
public libraries. The most frequent suggestion, offered by
three libraries (9 per cent), was that the magazine publish
more reviews.
Some comments were:
i
There are some fine articles on technological
innovations, architecture, multi-media, etc., but for
selection purposes not reliable or relevant for public
libraries. It is curriculum and grade level oriented,
not quality of "expanded consciousness" oriented,
j Perhaps that is as it needs be for school educational
! communications staff. Frankly, I'd say leave it as it
is.
Evaluate more films. . . . We take this more for
its articles and news of AV happenings than for its few
film reviews.
196
. . . Evaluations are uninteresting. . . .
Received too late to be effective.
)
[Not] useful for library purposes because too few j
reviews [and] mostly school oriented.
Increase number of reviews.
S
Meet publishing schedule.
TABLE 42
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
SCREEN AND AV GUIDE
Libraries
Suggestions
Number Percentage
(N=32)
Review more films 3 9.38
Publish issues on time 2 6.25
Review more sponsored films 1 3.13
Index more frequently 1 3.13
Review sooner after film's release 1 3.13
Summary
The published materials, other
than film reviews
and advertisements, most frequently identified
as being
;used by responding libraries for film
selection purposes
197
jwere: distributors' catalogs, lists of award winning films,
i
; and film lists and bibliographies appearing in periodicals.
i
| Distributors' catalogs were moderately or heavily used by
97 per cent of the respondents, lists of award winning
films by 91 per cent.
i
Sales representatives "frequently" or "occasion- j
; ' |
ally" visit 97 per cent of the libraries to discuss new
films. Seventy-eight per cent of the libraries indicated
these visits had at least a moderate influence on film
selection; 34 per cent felt such visits influenced the
: i
selection of films for preview or purchase substantially or
"very much."
Advertisements, when received by mail, were reported
to substantially or "very much" influence selection at
59 per cent of the libraries. Advertisements appearing in
periodicals, however, were reported to substantially or
"very much" influence selection by only 26 per cent of the
■libraries.
!
Approximately half the libraries "frequently" or
"occasionally" participated in joint preview screenings
iwith other libraries. Most of these reported such screen
ings exerted a moderate influence on film selection.
Contact with film librarians of other collections
I 198
| was reported to substantially or "very much" influence
selection of films for preview or purchase by 47 per cent
i
I of the respondents. An additional 37.5 per cent attributed
!
:a moderate influence to such contacts.
Given a list of ten possible influences on the
selection of films for preview or purchase, 44 per cent of
the responding libraries ranked published film reviews as
the "1" most influential factor; 64 per cent ranked this
I factor either "1," "2" or "3." The factor ranked "1" by
: i
. t
the next highest number of respondents was so ranked by j
only 9 per cent of the respondents. i
i
Respondents were asked to identify which of a list
of shortcomings they considered current problems in review
services for sixteen millimeter films. "Lateness of
! reviews" was the most widely cited shortcoming; it was
indicated by 62.5 per cent of the responding libraries.
|This was followed by "too few films are reviewed" (44 per
cent) and "not enough reviews of free, sponsored and
inexpensive films" (31 per cent).
The value of Landers Film Reviews for public
i
library film selection was rated as "good" or "excellent"
by 75 per cent of the respondents. The most frequent
criticisms of this service concerned its being too
non-committal or too lenient, and there being too many
j films reviewed of little interest to public libraries. The
!most frequent suggestion for the improvement of the service
|was that reviews be more critical and evaluative.
i
EFLA cards were rated "good" or "excellent" by
156 per cent of the respondents. The most frequent criti
cism of EFLA cards was that they were too brief. The most
I
|frequent suggestions for improving the service were that
films be reviewed sooner after release and the cards be
i
distributed more frequently and regularly, and that better
evaluators be used who apply standards in a more uniform
and consistent manner.
The value of the Booklist for public library film
i
selection was rated as "good" or "excellent" by 62.5 per
|cent of respondents. The most frequent criticisms of the
; Booklist were that reviews were not signed, that there were
i
jtoo few reviews and reviews were too non-committal. The
I most frequent suggestions for the improvement of the Book
list were that films be reviewed sooner after their release
|and that more films of interest to public libraries be
j
I reviewed.
i
j ?
The value of Film News for public library film
selection was rated "good" or "excellent" by 69 per cent of
200
|respondents. The most frequent criticism of Film News was
j
|that there were too few reviews. There was no strong con-
!sensus regarding suggestions for improving Film News, but
i
!some of the respondents felt it should review more films,
!
;review more films for public libraries, publish on time,
|include prices, and be more critical and evaluative.
! Film Library Quarterly was rated "good" or "excel
lent" by 78 per cent of the respondents. The most frequent
criticism of the journal was that there were too few
reviews. The most frequent suggestion for its improvement
;was that more films be reviewed.
:
Educational Screen and AV Guide was rated as "good"
or "excellent" for public library film selection by 9 per i
cent of the respondents. The most frequent criticisms of
the magazine were that too many of the films reviewed were
;of little interest to public libraries, and that there were
;too few reviews. Few suggestions were offered for the
;improvement of the magazine. The most frequent suggestion
!
iwas that more films be reviewed.
I
Objectionable characteristics of the review media
|reported by the responding libraries are summarized in
Table 43.
TABLE 43
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF REVIEW MEDIA REPORTED BY RESPONDING LIBRARIES
Number of Libraries Attributing Characteristic to:
Objectionable Characteristics Landers
Film
Reviews
EFLA
Cards
Book
list
Film
News
Film
Library
Quarterly
Educa
tional
Screen Total
Too few reviews 2 8 9 13 19 13 64
Too many of the films reviewed
are of little interest to
public libraries 11 9 7 7 0 14 48
Reviews are too lenient 11 3 6 6 0 1 27
Reviews are too non-committal 13 3 8 1 0 1 26
Reviews are not signed 6 3a 10 X X X 19
Reviews are unreliable— not
authoritative 6 7 2 1 0 1 17
Reviews are too brief 0 15 0 1 0 0 16
Reviews are too long 4 0 3 2 2 3 14
Format impedes rapid scanning 2 0 1 1 2 2 8
201
TABLE 43— Continued
Number of Libraries Attributing Characteristic to:
Objectionable Characteristics
Landers
Film
Reviews
EFLA
Cards
Book
list
Film
News
Film
Library
Quarterly
Educa
tional
Screen Total
Too many reviews 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reviews are too severe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other: Lateness of reviews 1 7 7 2 5 0 22
a
This was not an alternative provided in the questionnaire. These three
respondents indicated, under "Other," they were dissatisfied with EFLA's policy of
only identifying committees, and not committee members.
202
CHAPTER VI
FINDINGS: ANALYSES OF REVIEWS AND HOLDINGS
In order to study the relationship between film
reviews and the acquisition of films by public libraries
with large sixteen millimeter collections, the reviews of
the six media studied by this report and the holdings of
thirty-one of the public libraries responding to the ques
tionnaire were analyzed. Films judged to have been
released in 1965 or later were identified and tallied. The
number of media reviewing a film and the number of librar
ies owning it were determined. Characteristics of widely
owned but unreviewed films were scrutinized and contrasted
with characteristics of widely owned films which had been
reviewed. Each review was read and assigned a rating of
'0' or depending on whether the review was judged
to clearly find the film superior ('+’)/ good to acceptable
CO') , or seriously flawed (*-')•
The following hypotheses were tested:
1. A majority of the post-1965 sixteen millimeter
motion pictures owned by one or more of the
203
analyzed libraries had been reviewed by one or more
of the studied review media.
The greater the number of media reviewing a title,
the greater was the likelihood that title was owned
by one or more studied libraries.
The greater the number of media reviewing a title,
the greater was the likelihood a larger number of
the studied libraries owned it.
The greater the number of libraries owning a title,
the greater was the likelihood the film has been
reviewed by one or more of the analyzed review
media.
A greater percentage of the titles judged to have
received any * + ' reviews were owned by one or more
of the studied libraries than were titles receiving
any '01 or '-' reviews.
There was a positive correlation between the per
centage of '+' reviews a title reviewed by more
than one medium received and the likelihood it was
owned.
There was a negative correlation between the per
centage of reviews a title reviewed by more
205
than one medium received and the likelihood it was
|
owned.
j Films Reviewed by the Studied Media
A total of 6,287 reviews representing 4,581 differ
ent titles were published by the six media for sixteen
millimeter films judged to be within the scope of this
study. Of these titles, 1,267 (28 per cent) were reviewed
iby more than one medium. These 1,267 titles accounted for
i
2,973 (47 per cent) of the total reviews.
Table 44 presents, in detail, the distribution of
the reviews among the various media. It includes the num
ber of titles reviewed by from one to six media, the
proportions of these titles owned and unowned by one or
more of the studied libraries, and the number of reviews
judged to be ' + ' , 'O' and A summary, omitting ratings,
iis provided in Table 45.
Table 46 shows 3,314 (72 per cent) of the titles
{reviewed were reviewed by a single medium. Nine-hundred
i
forty-six titles (21 per cent) were reviewed by two media,
227 (5 per cent) were reviewed by three media, 72 (2 per
cent) were reviewed by four media, 20 (.4 per cent) were
reviewed by five media, and two titles (.04 per cent) were
TABLE 44
DISTRIBUTION OP FILM REVIEWS
Reviewed Judged _______________Number of Media Reviewing
by Rating
6 5 4 3 2 1 Total
Landers Film Reviews
Owned (by 1 or more libraries)
+ 2 15 50 94 195 286 642 (L+)
0 X 5 20 66 247 388 726 (L0)
—
X X X 1 3 8 12 (L-)
Total Owned 2 20 70 161 445 682 1,380
Unowned + X X X 17 94 362 473 (L+)
0 X X X 27 269 1,166 1,462 (L0)
—
X X X X 6 21 27 (L-)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 44 369 1,549 1,962
Total Reviews 2 20 70 205 814 2,231 3,342
EFLA Cards
Owned + 1 14 54 89.5 158.5 100 417 (E+)
0 1 5 10 34 92.5 51 193.5 (E0)
—
X X 2 13.5 60 29 104.5 (E-)
Total Owned 2 19 66 137 311 180 715
TABLE 44— Continued
Reviewed Judged ________________ Number of Media Reviewing
by Rating
6 : j5 4 3 2 1 Total
EFLA Cards
Unowned + X X X 19 93 128 240 (E+)
0 X X X 18 101 127 246 (E0)
-
X X X 5 54 86 145 (E—)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 42 248 341 631
Total Reviews 2 19 66 179 559 521 1,346
Booklist
Owned + 2 13 47 67 77 57 263 (B+)
0 X 4 15 27 61 . 56 163 (B0)
—
X X 1 X X 3 4 (B—)
Total Owned 2 17 63 94 138 116 430
Unowned + X X X 1 15 32 48 (B+)
0 X X X 6 68 109 183 (B0)
—
X X X X X X 0 (B—)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 7 83 141 231
Total Reviews 2 17 63 101 221 257 661
TABLE 44— Continued
Reviewed Judged Number of Media Reviewing
by Rating
6 5 4 3 2 1 Total
Film News
Owned + 2 11 34 45 48 26 166 (N+)
0 X 6 18 41.5 69 33 167.5 (NO)
—
X 3 2 2.5 10 5 22.5 (N-)
Total Owned 2 20 54 89 127 64 356
Unowned + X X X 3 20 45 68 (N+)
0 X X
• n . r
A 6 36 122 164 (NO)
—
X X X X 6 15 21 (N-)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 9 62 182 253
Total Reviews 2 20 54 98 189 246 609
Educational Screen and
Owned +
AV
2
Guide
7 6 21 13 5 54 (A+)
0 X 3 5 18 9 9 44 (A0)
—
X X X 1 X X 1 (A-)
Total Owned 2 10 11 40 22 14 99
208
TABLE 44— Continued
Reviewed Judged Number of Media Reviewing
by Rating
6 5 4 3 2 1 Total
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Unowned + X X X 14 11 6 31 (A+)
0 X X X 13 27 19 59 (A0)
—
X X X 1 X 1 2 (A—)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 28 38 26 92
Total Reviews 2 10 11 68 60 40 191
Film Library Quarterly
Owned + 2 11 18.5 26 36 17 110.5
(Q+)
0 X 3 4 2 5 2 16 (Q0)
—
X X 1.5 X 2 X 3.5
(Q-)
Total Owned 2 14 24 28 43 19 130
Unowned + X X X 2 3 Xx 5 (Q+)
0 X X X X 2 X 2 (Q0)
—
X X X X 1 X 1
(Q-)
Total Unowned
Total Reviews
0 0 0 2 6 0 8
2 14 24 30 49 19 138
TABLE 44— Continued
Reviewed Judged
by Rating
Number of Media Reviewing
6 5 4 3 2 1 Total
Total Reviews All Media
Owned + 11 71 209.5 342.5 527.5 491 1,652.5 (+)
0 1 26 72 188.5 483.5 539 1,310 (0)
—
X 3 6.5 18 75 45 147.5 (-)
Total Owned 12 100 288 549 1,086 1,075 3,110
Unowned + X X X 56 236 573 865
(+)
0 X X X 70 503 1,543 2,116 (0)
—
X X X 6 67 123 196 (-)
Total Unowned 0 0 0 132 806 2,239 3,177
Total Reviews 12 100 288 681 1,892 3,314 6,287
Total Titles (Number of reviews divided by number of media reviewing)
Owned 2 20 72 183 543 1,075 1,895
Unowned 0 0 0 44 403 2,239 2,686
Total 2 20 72 227 946 3,314 4,581
210
TABLE 45
DISTRIBUTION OP REVIEWS: SUMMARY
Number of
Media
Reviewing
Landers EFLa
Film Cards
Reviews
Book
list
Film
News
Educational
Screen
Film
Library
Quarterly
Total
Reviews
Total
Titles
Reviewed
Reviewed by six media
Owned 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 2
Unowned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 ’ 2
Reviewed by five media
Owned 20 19 17 20 10 14 100 20
Unowned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 20 19 17 20 10 14 100 20
Reviewd by four media
Owned 70 66 63 54 11 24 288 72
Unowned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 70 66 63 54 11 24 288 72
TABLE 45— Continued
Number of Landers EFLA
Media Film Cards
Reviewing Reviews
Book
list
Film
News
Educational
Screen
Film
Library
Quarterly
Total
Reviews
Total
Titles
Reviewed
Reviewed by three media
Owned 161 137 94 89 40 28 549 183
Unowned 44 42 7 9 28 2 132 44
Total 205 179 101 98 68 30 681 227
Reviewed by two media
Owned 445 311 138 127 22 43 1,086 543
Unowned 369 248 83 62 38 6 806 403
Total 814 559 221 189 60 49 1,892 946
Reviewed by one medium
Owned 682 180 116 64 14 19 1,075 1,075
Unowned 1,549 341 141 182 26 0 2,239 2,239
Total 2,231 521 257 246 40 19 3,314 3,314
Total reviewed by all media
Owned 1,380 715 430 356 99 130 3,110 1,895
Unowned 1,962 631 231 253 92 8 3,177 2,686
Total 3,342 1,346 661 609 191 138 6,287 4,581
212
TABLE 46
PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL REVIEWED TITLES AND OF TITLES REVIEWED AND OWNED
OR UNOWNED REVIEWED BY ONE TO SIX MEDIA
No. of Media
Reviewed
No. of Titles
Reviewed
Percentage of
Total Titles
Reviewed
(N=4,581)
Reviewed Titles
Owned by One or
More Libraries
Reviewed Titles
Unowned by
Analyzed Libraries
No. Percentage
(N=l,895)
No. Percentage
(N=2,686)
Six 2 .04 2 .11 X 0
Five 20 .44 20 1.06 X 0
Four 72 1.57 72 3.80 X 0
Three 227 4.96 183 9.66 44 1.64
Two 946 20.65 543 28.65 403 15.00
One 3,314 72.34 1,075 56.72 2,239 83.36
213
jreviewed by all six media.
j
I Table 47 discloses only 1,895 (41 per cent) of the
'4,581 titles receiving one or more reviews were owned by
i
lone or more of the thirty-one public libraries analyzed.
i
:(However, these 1,895 titles represent approximately half
:[3,110] of the total [6,287] reviews.) As expected, films
I reviewed by more than one medium were owned more often than
were titles reviewed by a single medium. Eight-hundred
|twenty (67 per cent) of the titles reviewed by two to six
media were owned, while only 1,075 (32 per cent) of the
3,314 titles receiving a single review were owned. Five
hundred forty-three (57 per cent) of the titles reviewed by
two media were owned by one or more libraries? 183 (81 per
cent) of the titles reviewed by three media were owned, and
all of the ninety-four titles reviewed by between four and
six media were owned.
i
I Hypothesis
I The greater the number of media reviewing a title,
jthe greater was the likelihood that title was owned by one
or more of the studied libraries. (There is a positive
correlation between the number of media reviewing titles and
TABLE 47
PERCENTAGE OF TITLES REVIEWED BY ONE TO SIX MEDIA
OWNED BY ANALYZED LIBRARIES
No. of No. of No. of Titles Percentage of No. of Percentage of
Media
Reviewing
Titles
Reviewed
Owned by One of
More Libraries
Titles
Reviewed
Titles
Not Owned
Titles
Reviewed
Six 2 2 100.00 X 0
Five 20 20 100.00 X 0
Four 72 72 100.00 X 0
Three 227 183 80.62 44 19.38
Two 946 543 57.40 403 42.60
One 3,314 1,075 32.44 2,239 67.56
Total 4,581 1,895 41.37 2,686 58.63
216
!
|the proportion of these titles owned by one or more of the
|
I studied libraries.)
i i
!
i
1
i
I Findings
i The Spearman Rank Order correlation was calculated
|for (a) the number of media reviewing, and (b) the per
centage of reviewed titles owned (Table 47). The coeffi
cient obtained was +.94. This was found to be significant
! at the .01 level.'*' j
; i
! I
i
Films Owned by the Analyzed Libraries j
i I
i
I
i
The film collections of thirty-one public librar
ies, each owning more than 500 prints of sixteen millimeter
motion pictures, were analyzed and collated for films with
a release date of 1965 or later. A total of 3,460 differ
ent titles were identified. These were owned by from one
| to twenty-eight libraries; no film was owned by more than
j
!twenty-eight libraries. Table 48 provides a detailed list-
i
1 ing of the number of the total titles owned by one to
!thirty-one libraries including the proportion reviewed by
i
i
lone to six media and the proportion unreviewed. This same
i
■^"Significant at the .01 level" means the chances
I are no more than 1 in 100 that the differences indicated by j
I the correlation coefficient are due to sampling error. i
TABLE 48
TITLES OWNED BY ONE TO THIRTY-ONE LIBRARIES
Number of
Films Reviewed by Total Titles Owned
Libraries
Owning
6
Media
5
Media
4
Media
3
Media
2
Media
1
Medium
Reviewed Unreviewed
31 X X X X X X 0 0
(N=0)
30 X X X X X X 0 0
(N=0)
29 X X X X X X 0 0
(N=0)
28 X 1 X X X X 1 0
(N=l)
27 X 1 X X X X 1 0
(N=l)
26 X X X 1 X X 1 0
(N=l)
25 X 1 X X X X 1 0
(N=l)
24 X 1 1 X 1 X 3 0
(N=3)
23 X X 1 1 X X 2 0
(N=2)
22 X X X 1 X X 1 0
(N=l)
21 X 1 3 3 X X 7 0
(N=7)
217
TABLE 48— Continued
Number of
Films Reviewed by Total Titles Owned
Libraries
Owning
6
Media
5
Media
4
Media
3
Media
2
Media
1
Medium
Reviewed Unreviewed
20
(N=7)
1 1 3 1 1 X 7 0
19
(N=7)
X 1 3 2 1 X 7 0
18
(N=12)
X X 5 2 3 X 10 2
17
(N=13)
X 2 4 2 1 2 11 2
16
(N=12)
X 1 X 5 4 1 11 1
15
(N=7)
X X 4 3 X X 7 0
14
(N=17)
X X 9 3 1 2 15 2
13
(N=23)
X X 3 5 5 3 16 7
12
(N=36)
X 3 3 7 14 5 32 4
11
(N=28)
X 1 2 5 6 6 20 8
10
(N=43)
1 2 6 7 8 8 32 11
9
(N=46)
X 2 2 13 15 8
40
6
218
TABLE 48— Continued
Number of
Films Reviewed by Total Titles Owned
Libraries
6 5 4 3 2 1
°Wning Media Media Media Media Media Medium
Reviewed Unreviewed
8
(N=61)
X 1 5 11 15 19 51 10
7
(N=86)
X 1 2 12 26 28 69 17
6
(N=93)
X X 4 10 27 27 68 25
5
(N=132)
X X 7 10 34 48 99 33
4
(N=215)
X X 2 - 12 63 77 154 61
3
(N=324)
X X X 16 69 129 214 110
2
CN=582)
X X 1 19 91 226 337 245
1
(N=l,699)
X X 2 32 158 486 678 1,021
Total 1-31
(N=3,460)
2 20 72 183 543 1,075 1,895 1,565
219
: 220
1
i
| information is summarized in Table 49 with the data grouped
i
I in the following categories: "Titles owned by 1 library," |
"Titles owned by 2 to 7 libraries," and "Titles owned by j
| |
18 to 31 libraries." This shows that 1,699 (49 per cent) of
the 3,460 titles owned were owned by a single library,
1,432 (41 per cent) were owned by from two to seven
libraries, and 329 (10 per cent) were owned by eight to
i
thirty-one libraries.
Sixty-five per cent of the owned titles not
reviewed by any medium were owned by a single library,
while 45 per cent of the owned titles reviewed by a single
: medium, 29 per cent of the owned titles reviewed by two
I media, 17 per cent of the owned titles reviewed by three
media, 3 per cent of the owned titles reviewed by four
! media and none of the owned titles reviewed by five or six
media were owned by a single library.
Conversely, only 3 per cent of the owned titles
not reviewed by any medium were owned by eight or more
I libraries. Five per cent of the owned titles reviewed by
|a single medium and over 75 per cent of the owned titles
reviewed by four or more media were owned by eight or more
j
libraries. This clearly suggests a positive correlation
between the number of media reviewing a title and the
TABLE 49
TITLES OWNED BY ONE LIBRARY, TWO TO SEVEN LIBRARIES, AND
EIGHT TO THIRTY-ONE LIBRARIES
No. of Media
Reviewing
Ca)
No. of Titles
Owned
Titles Owned by
1 Library 2 to 7 Libraries 8 to 31 Libraries
No. % of (a) No. % of (a) No. % of (a)
Six 2 X 0 X 0 2 100.00
■ _ Five 20 X 0 1 5.00 19 95.00
Four 72 2 2.78 16 22.22 54 75.00
Three 183 32 17.48 79 43.17 72 39.35
Two 543 158 29.10 310 57.09 75 13.81
One 1,075 486 45.21 535 49.77 54 5.02
Unreviewed 1,565 1,021 65.24 491 31.37 53 3.39
Total 3,460 1,699 49.10 1,432 41.39 329 9.51
|likelihood it is owned by a larger number of libraries.
I Unreviewed titles would seem far less likely to be owned by
ilarger numbers of libraries than reviewed titles.
The percentages of "reviewed" and "not reviewed"
i titles owned by one to thirty-one libraries are listed in
Table 50. This table shows 1,895 (55 per cent) of the j
i
I 3,460 titles owned were reviewed by one or more media;
j
45 per cent were unreviewed. Of these 1,895 titles, 43 per
cent had been reviewed by two or more media. Examination j
of the figures discloses, however, a substantial majority
of the titles owned by a single library (60 per cent) were |
unreviewed. In contrast, 66 per cent of the titles owned
:by . two to seven libraries were reviewed, as were 84 per
cent of the titles owned by eight or more libraries. Only
fifty-three unreviewed titles were owned by eight or more
libraries compared to 276 reviewed titles. No unreviewed
!title was owned by more than eighteen libraries; the number
I
|of reviewed titles owned by between nineteen and twenty-
i
eight libraries was thirty-one. Of the 276 reviewed titles
owned by eight to twenty-eight libraries, 147 (53 per cent)
j
iwere reviewed by three or more media, seventy-five (27 per j
i
: i
cent) were reviewed by two media, and fifty-four (20 per j
I i
; i
cent) were reviewed by a single medium. !
223
TABLE 50
PERCENTAGE OF TITLES OWNED BY ONE TO THIRTY-ONE
LIBRARIES REVIEWED AND NOT REVIEWED
Number of
Libraries
Owning
(a)
Number of
Titles
Owned
Titles Reviewed Titles Not Reviewed
No. % of (a) No. % of (a)
31 0 X 0.00 X 0.00
30 0 X 0.00 X 0.00
29 0 X 0.00 X 0.00
28 1 1 100.00 X 0.00
27 1 1 100.00 X 0.00
26 1 1 100.00 X 0.00
25 1 1 100.00 X 0.00
24 3 3 100.00 X 0.00
23 2 2 100.00 X 0.00
22 1 1 100.00 X 0.00
21 7 7 100.00 X 0.00
20 7 7 100.00 X 0.00
19 7 7 100.00 X 0.00
18 12 10 83.33 2 16.67
17 13 11 84.62 2 15.38
16 12 11 91.67 1 8.33
15 7 7 100.00 X 0.00
14 17 15 88.24 2 11.76
13 23 16 68.57 7 31.43
12 36 32 88.89 4 11.11
11 28 20 71.43 8 28.57
10 43 32 74.42 11 25.58
9 46 40 86.96 6 13.04
8 61 51 83.61 10 16.39
7 86 69 80.23 17 19.77
6 93 68 73.12 25 26.88
5 132 99 75.00 33 25.00
4 215 154 71.63 61 28.57
3 324 214 66.05 110 33.95
2 582 337 57.90 245 42.10
1 1,699 678 39.91 1,021 60.08
Total 3,460 1,895 54.77 1,565 45.23
Summary:
8 to 31 329 276 83.89 53 16.11
2 to 7 1,432 941 65.71 491 34.29
1 1,699 678 39.91 1,021 60.09
224
I Hypothesis
The greater the number of media reviewing a title,
the greater was the likelihood a larger number of the
studied libraries owned it. (There is a positive correla-
jtion between the number of media reviewing titles and the
number of libraries owning them.)
iFindings
The Pearson Product-Moment correlation was calcu-
;lated for (a) the number of media reviewing titles owned
by one or more libraries, and (b) the number of libraries
owning them (Table 48). A coefficient of +.52 was
obtained. This was significant at the .01 level.
Hypothesis
A majority of the post-1965 sixteen millimeter
motion pictures owned by one or more of the analyzed
libraries had been reviewed by one or more of the studied
review media.
Findings
A slight majority (55 per cent) of the titles owned
I by one or more of the analyzed libraries had been reviewed
(Table 50). However, a minority (40 per cent) of the
j 225
I
i
titles owned by only one library had been reviewed, while
I
:66 per cent of the a^les reviewed by two to seven librar
ies had been reviewed, and 84 per cent of those owned by
eight or more libraries had been reviewed.
Hypothesis
The greater the number of libraries owning a title,
; the greater was the likelihood the film has been reviewed
by one or more of the analyzed review media. (There is a
positive correlation between the number of libraries owning
titles and the proportion of these titles which had been
reviewed by one or more of the studied review media.)
; Findings
The Spearman Rank Order correlation was calculated
for (a) the number of libraries owning titles, and (b) the
percentage of the titles owned by this number of libraries
I that had been reviewed (Table 50). A coefficient of +.88
was obtained. This was statistically significant at the
i
:.01 level.
Titles Owned by Eight or More Libraries
It has been indicated more than five times as many
titles owned by eight or more libraries were reviewed than
Iwere unreviewed. An examination of these titles reveals
t
i
! even further differences. While the great majority of the j
i
reviewed titles were distributed by prominent commercial
distributors, the preponderance of unreviewed titles were
distributed by the Canadian Travel Film Library, a subsi
dized organization which places films in public libraries
on free of cost long term deposit. A number of the remain
ing unreviewed titles were either sponsored films or titles j
from previously reviewed series.
Unreviewed Titles
Unreviewed titles owned by eight or more libraries
are listed in Table 51 and the distributors are tallied in
Table 52. It is noteworthy that thirty-nine (74 per cent)
of the titles are distributed by the Canadian Travel Film
Library, an agency of the Canadian government. Such films
|are placed on deposit in the library by this agency. The
library has little to say about which titles will be
j
jassigned to it, but the standard of excellence usually
; achieved by these films is widely acknowledged.
The three most widely owned unreviewed films (The
i
Black Soldier, Heritage of Slavery, Body and Soul: Soul)
are all from the series "Of Black America." Other titles
227
i
I
TABLE 51
i
l
UNREVIEWED TITLES OWNED BY EIGHT OR MORE LIBRARIES
Number of
Libraries
Owning
18 The Black Soldier B/FA*
18 Heritage of Slavery B/FA
17 Body and Soul: Soul B/FA
17 Tides of Fundy CTFL*
16 Stampede Fever CTFL
14 Blessing on the Woods CTFL
14 Breath of Spring CTFL
13 City of Rivers CTFL
13 Family Camping CTFL
13 Minawanamut CTFL
13 Orison CTFL
13 Ottawa: Reflection of a Nation CTFL
13 Tied to the Sea CTFL
13 Toronto Queen City CTFL
12 Adventure Trent Severn Style CTFL
12 Bonjour Montreal CTFL
12 Summer Pageantry CTFL
12 West to the Mountains CTFL
11 Bluenose Shore
CTFL
11 Flowers of Darkness
(Distant Drummer I)
NIMH*
11 Getting a Job Is a Job Dibie Dash
11 Profile Canada CTFL
11 Quebec City CTFL
11 To Labrador for Brook Trout CTFL
11 Tuna Angling CTFL
11 Western Newfoundland CTFL
10 Assignment Manitoba CTFL
10 Bridge from No Place
(Distant Drummer III) NIMH
10 Campsights Holiday
CTFL
10 Canada's Waterways West CTFL
10 East I West I
CTFL
10 Merry Go Round Horse LCA*
10 Montreal Ville Marie CTFL
Title Main
Distributor
TABLE 51— Continued
Number of
Libraries
Owning
10 A Moveable Scene
(Distant Drummer II) NIMH
10 Hailstones and Halibut Bones
|
j
Part II Sterling Films !
10 Royal Province CTFL
10 Winter Potpurri CTFL
9 Cape Breton Island CTFL
9 Downstream to the Sea CTFL
9 Free from Care CTFL
9 Land of the Overlanders CTFL 1
9 New Foundland Sings CTFL
9 The Wall McGraw Hill
8 Canoeing the Big Country CTFL
8 Echoes of Gold CTFL
8 Fish Naturally CTFL
8 Jasper: All of This and
Winter Too CTFL
8 Off/On Lee & Mary Myers
8 Pee Wee's Pianola Sterling Films
8 Riding the Waves CTFL
8 Road Ahead Nat. Urban League
8 Voyage to the Enchanted Islands B/FA
8 Winter in Ontario CTFL
*B/FA = Baily/Film Associates'-
CTFL = Canadian Travel Film Library
NIMH = National Institute of Mental Health
LCA = Learning Corporation of America
Title Main
Distributor
229
TABLE 52
DISTRIBUTORS OF UNREVIEWED FILMS OWNED BY EIGHT
OR MORE LIBRARIES
Distributor
Number of
Titles
Percentage
(N=53)
Canadian Travel Film Library 39 73.59
Bailey/Film Associates 4 7.55
National Institute of Mental Health 3 5.66
Sterling Films 2 3.77
Dibie Dash 1 1.90
Learning Corporation of America 1 1.90
Lee and Mary Myers 1 1.90
National Urban League 1 1.90
McGraw Hill 1 1.90
j 230
j
|in the series have been widely reviewed, notably Black
History— Lost, Strayed or Stolen, a title which was owned
by twenty-two of the studied libraries. Other titles from
previously reviewed series, are Hailstones and Halibut
Bones, Part II (Part I was released and reviewed in 1963),
and Pee Wee's Pianola, a title from the very popular chil
dren' s comedy series "The Magnificant Six and a Half."
Three titles, Flowers of Darkness, A Moveable
Scene, and Bridge from No Place, are from the United States
National Institute of Mental Health's series on drug abuse,
"The Distant Drummer." Another film, Road Ahead, is a
sponsored film prepared by the National Urban League.
While Off/On, a film by experimental film maker
Scott Bartlett, was not reviewed per se, it was highly
praised in Film Library Quarterly's 1970 review of
Bartlett's Moon 1969 as "so obviously a landmark, that it
i
|has been acquired by virtually every major film art collec-
: tion in America."^
Of the remaining unreviewed films owned by eight or
more libraries, Merry Go Round Horse is a children's film
which has been heavily merchandised by the distributor as
1Sheldon Renan, "Moon 1969," Film Library Quarterly,
III (Fall, 1970), 30.
| * ..""...' .................................. 231
! an international prize winner in the style of the academy
I award winning The Red Balloon; Getting a Job Is a Job is
| aimed at assisting minority groups find employment? The
Wall is an award winning cartoon; and Voyage to the
j Enchanted Islands was a widely seen and praised television
documentary
i
i i
Reviewed Titles
The 276 reviewed titles owned by eight or more
i
libraries were handled by fifty-five different distributors]
!These are tallied in Table 53. The Canadian Travel Film
Library distributed only three of these titles. By far the
distributor with the largest number of titles was McGraw-
Hill. This company distributed fifty-seven (21 per cent)
of the titles. Carousel was the company with the next
largest number of titles. It distributed twenty-one (8 per
i
cent) of the 276 titles.
I
!
Titles Owned by a Single Library
Of the 1,699 titles owned by a single library,
|1,021 had not been reviewed. Table 54 summarizes data
|
iconcerning the distributors of the unreviewed titles;
■Table 55 presents information on the distributors of the
TABLE 53
DISTRIBUTORS OP REVIEWED FILMS OWNED BY EIGHT OR
MORE LIBRARIES
Distributor
Number of
Titles
Percentage i
(N=276)
McGraw Hill 57 20.65
Carousel 21 7.61 j
ACI Productions 17 6.16
Sterling Films 14 ‘5.07
Bailey/Film Associates 14 5.07
Pyramid 13 4.71
Encyclopedia Britannica 9 3.26
Churchill 9 3.26
Weston Woods 8 2.90
Disney 8 2.90
International Film Foundation 8 2.90
International Film Bureau 8 2.90
Indiana University/NET 8 2.90
Brandon 6 2.17
Learning Corporation of America 6 2.17
Henk Newenhouse 6 2.17
Films Incorporated 4 1.45
National Film Board of Canada 4 1.45
Center for Mass Communication 4 1.45
Connecticut Films 4 1.45
Canadian Travel Film Library 3 1.09
Jason 3 1.09
Robeck 3 1.09
Universal Education and Visual Arts 3 1.09
: Hartley 2 .73
! Benchmark 2 .73
'U.S. National Audiovisual Center 2 .73
1 Doubleday 2 • 73
! Distributors with one title owned-*- 1 x 26 .36 x26i
Precision Films, Calvin Productions, American
Foundation Institute of Corrections, Centron, Bill Snyder
Films, NASA, King Screen, Xandu, University of California at!
Berkeley, Coronet, Professional Arts, American Educational
Films, National Institute of Mental Health, Harris Communi- ;
ications, New York Times, U.S. Dept, of State, Clifton.
Classics, University of Miss., Princeton Seminars, Billy
Budd, Australian News & Information Bureau, Creative Film
Society, Image Resources, National General Pictures, United
Productions of America, Dibie Dash.
233
TABLE 54
DISTRIBUTORS OF UNREVIEWED FILMS OWNED BY A
SINGLE LIBRARY
Distributor Number of Percentage
Titles (N=l,021)
Not ascertainable 102 10.00
McGraw-Hill 77 7.54
Hearst 48 4.70
Sterling Films 28 2.74
Castle Films 25 2.45
Youth Film Distribution Center 23 2.25
Indiana University/NET 21 2.06
Time/Life 17 1.67
National Film Board of Canada 16 1.57
Bailey/Film Associates 14 1.37
Films Incorporated 14 1.37
NBC Educational Enterprises 13 1.27
Warner Brothers 13 1.27
NASA 12 1.18
Cahill/Aims 11 1.08
Grove 11 1.08
Universal Education and Visual Arts 11 1.08
Bureau of National Affairs 10 .98
Pyramid 9 .98
Pan American Airlines 9 .98
United Nations Television 9 .98
ACI Productions 8 .78
New Zealand Government Tourist Office 8 .78
Radim 8 .78
Association Films 7 .69
Bell Telephone 7 .69
Ford Motors 7 .69
Kodak 7 .69
Robeck 7 .69
U.S. Bureau of Mines 7 .69
Brandon 6 .59
Cromwell, Collier, Macmillan 6 .59
Coronet 6 .59
Encyclopedia Britannica 6 .59
Embassy Enterprises 6 .59
U.S. Department of Agriculture 6 .59
234
I
TABLE 54— Continued
Distributor
Number of
Titles
Percentage
(N=l,021)
American Telephone and Telegraph 5 .49
Canadian Travel Film Library 5 .49
Center for Mass Communication 5 .49
Douglas Aircraft 5 .49
Firestone 5 .49
Yellow Ball Workshop 5 .49
McDonald Aircraft 4 .39
Churchill 4 .39
International Film Foundation 4 .39
Learning Corporation of America 4 .39
Netherlands Information Service 4 .39
Nestle Company 4 .39
U.S. National Audiovisual Center 4 .39
University of California at Berkeley 4 .39
Bob Cowan 3 .29
Cine Craft 3 .29
CBS-TV
3 .29
Disney 3 .29
Fleetwood Films 3 .29
Hollywood Turf Club 3 .29
Humble Oil 3 .29
New York Times 3 .29
National Association of Manufacturers 3 .29
"OIP Films" 3 .29
Psychological Films 3 .29
Sid Davis Productions 3 .29
UNESCO 3 .29
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 3 .29
UNICEF 3 .29
United World Productions 3 .29
Xerox 3 .29
Distributors with two titles owned 2 x 49 9.60
Distributors with one title owned 1 x 211 20.67
TABLE 55
DISTRIBUTORS OF REVIEWED FILMS OWNED BY A
SINGLE LIBRARY
Distributor
Number of
Titles
Percentage
(N=678)
i McGraw Hill 80 11.80
Indiana University/NET 47 6.93
Coronet 46 6.78
! Bailey/Film Associates 45 6.64
; Encyclopedia Britannica 44 6.49
International Film Bureau 22 3.24
- Churchill 19 2.80
Pyramid 17 2.51
Sterling Films 17 2.51
Learning Corporation of America 15 2.21
Universal Education and Visual Arts 14 2.06
!ACI Productions 12 1.77
:Films Incorporated 11 1.62
King Screen 11 1.62
Fleetwood Films 8 1.17
AV Explorations 7 1.03
Henk Newenhouse 7 1.03
Radim 7 1.03
Brandon 7 1.03
: Cahill/Aims 6 .88
; Disney
6 .88
Independent Film Producers 6 .88
iNational Film Board of Canada 6 .88
Paulist Productions 6 .88
Association Films
5 .74
1Arthur Barr
5 .74
|Carousel
5 .74
Alemann Films
4 .59
Cromwell, Collier, Macmillan 4 .59
!Doubleday
4 .59
: Modern Learning Aids
4 .59
1 Stuart Finley
4 .59
| Association Instructional Materials 3 .44
International Film Foundation 3 .44
Modern Talking Pictures Service 3 .44
! ............................. 236 ~~
!
j TABLE 55— Continued
( S S _ S s ; ^ B s ; = S S : s S a ; ; S B a a ^ s a B S ^ B a s B a ^ B B a a B a : ; a g S S s a n a B n a s s 3 B n B S S S B S
I Number of Percentage
!
NBC Educational Enterprises 3 .44
jSterling Movies 3 .44
jTrend Films 3 .44
■ United Productions of America 3 .44
•Harvest Films 3 .44
Productions Unlimited 3 .44
iPonderosa Films 3 .44
! RMI Productions 3 .44
Robeck 3 .44
Distributors with two titles owned 2 x 24 7.08
Distributors with one title owned 1 x 93 13.72
....................... 237
678 reviewed titles owned by a single library.
The distributors of 102 of the unreviewed titles
! could not be ascertained. The remaining 919 titles were
jscattered among 327 different distributors; of these only
sixteen were represented by more than ten titles. McGraw-
|Hill was, once again, the leader distributing a minimum of
| seventy-seven (8 per cent) of the unreviewed titles owned
l
|by a single library. The second largest number of titles
were distributed by Hearst (forty-eight titles, 5 per
cent).1
The 678 reviewed titles owned by a single library
represented 161 different distributors. Again McGraw-Hill
iwas the leading distributor, handling eighty (12 per cent)
: of the 678 titles. The company distributing the next
|largest number of titles (forty-seven titles, 7 per cent)
i
;was Indiana University/National Educational Television,
j
I followed closely by Coronet (forty-six titles, 7 per cent),
i
!Bailey/Film Associates (forty-five titles, and Encyclo-
I
|
jpedia Britannica (forty-four titles, 6 per cent).
"^It should be noted almost all films distributed by
|Hearst are from a monthly series "Screen News Digest" which
several libraries, notably those in New England, receive
iwith some regularity— frequently as the gift of some local
jbusiness or organization.
............. ’........ 238
i
Distributors with more than ten titles among the
I
unreviewed films owned by single libraries, and, in addi
tion, more than ten titles among the reviewed films owned
;by single libraries were: McGraw-Hill, Indiana University/
NET, Sterling Films, Bailey/Film Associates, Films Incor
porated, and Universal Education and Visual Arts. Of the
jtwenty-two titles distributed by International Film Bureau
and owned by a single library, all had been reviewed.
Similarly, all eleven of the titles distributed by King
Screen had been reviewed, as were nineteen of the twenty-
|three titles handled by Churchill and fifteen of the nine
teen titles distributed by Learning Corporation of America.
Conversely, none of the forty-eight titles distributed by
Hearst, the twenty-five titles distributed by Castle Films,
the twenty-three titles distributed by the Youth Film
Distribution Center, the seventeen films distributed by
iTime/Life, the thirteen films distributed by Warner
I
; Brothers, or the ten films distributed by the Bureau of
[National Affairs, had been reviewed.
An examination of the distributors of unreviewed
i
films owned by single libraries discloses a large number of
[commercial and government organizations. This suggests
many of these films were depository items. Among the
! 239
I
I
j
|distributors noted are: NASA, Bureau of National Affairs,
(
]
1 Pan American Airlines, United Nations Television, New
jZealand Government Tourist Office, Bell Telephone, Ford
!Motors, Kodak, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of
'Agriculture, American Telephone and Telegraph, Canadian
Travel Film Library, Douglas Aircraft, Firestone, McDonald
Aircraft, Netherlands Information Service, Nestle Company,
U.S. National Audiovisual Center, Hollywood Turf Club,
Humble Oil, National Association of Manufacturers, UNESCO,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and UNICEF. Table 55 lists
none of these in its enumeration of the distributors of
three or more reviewed titles.
Leading Distributors of Owned Titles
Five-hundred fifty-eight organizations were identi
fied as the distributors of 3,349 of the 3,460 titles owned
I
;by one or more of the analyzed public libraries. Of these,
j
1442 distributed fewer than four titles each, nine dis-
i
jtributed between fifty and 100 titles, and six distributed
in excess of 100 titles. Distributors of four or more
! titles are listed in Table 56.
|
I McGraw-Hill was, by far, the distributor with the
i
largest number of titles. Its 443 titles represented
TABLE 56
LEADING DISTRIBUTORS OF THE TITLES OWNED BY THE ANALYZED PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Titles Owned Percentage
m , I ! “ “ ! 7 Reviewed
Total Reviewed Unreviewed
McGraw Hill 443 314 129 70.88
Bailey/Film Associates 143 102 44 71.33
Encyclopedia Britannica 136 124 12 91.18
Indiana University/NET 131 104 27 79.39
Sterling Films 112 53 59 47.23
Canadian Travel Film Library 104 3 101 2.88
Hearst 89 1 88 1.12
ACI Productions 85 72 13 84.24
Coronet 74 66 8 89.19
Pyramid 72 59 13 81.94
Films Incorporated 69 44 25 63.77
International Film Bureau 56 53 3 94.64
Learning Corporation of America 54 43 11 79.63
Carousel 54 47 7 87.04
Churchill Films 53 49 4 92.45
National Film Board of Canada 45 20 25 44.44
Disney 40 33 7 82.50
Universal Education and Visual Arts 35 22 13 62.86'
NBC Educational Enterprises 33 14 19 42.42
Youth Film Distribution Center 32 1 31 3.13
International Film Foundation 30 23 7 76.67
Cahill/Aims 29 15 15 51.79
Brandon 28 20 8 71.43
240
Distributor
Castle Films
Weston Woods
Robeck
Fleetwood Films
Radim
Bureau of National Affairs
Henk Newenhouse
NASA
Pan American Airlines
Center for Mass Communication
Time/Life
Warner Brothers
Grove
Association Films
King Screen
Doubleday
Ford Motors
Cromwell, Collier, Macmillan
U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Paulist Productions
Arthur Barr
Handel
AV Explorations
Independent Film Producers
56— Continued
Titles Owned Percentage
Reviewed
Total Reviewed Unreviewed
27 0 27 0.00
24 21 3 87.50
24 14 10 58.33
24 18 6 75.00
22 12 10 54.55
22 0 22 0.00
22 21 1 95.45
21 3 18 14.29
19 2 17 10.53
19 10 9 52.63
19 0 19 0.00
18 4 14 22.22
18 6 12 33.33
18 10 8 55.56
17 17 0 100.00
17 10 7 58.82
15 1 14 6.67
15 8 7 53.33
12 2 10 16.67
11 3 8 27.27
11 9 2 81.82
11 9 2 81.82
10 10 0 100.00
10 10 0 100.00
10 10 0 100.00
TABLE 56'— Continued
Distributor
Lee and Mary Myers
Connecticut Films
American Telephone and Telegraph
Benchmark Films
Creative Film Society
Bell Telephone
New Zealand Government Tourist Office
United Nations Television
Kodak
Modern Learning Aids
Texture/Landmark Films
New York Times
Hartley
Netherlands Information Service
Alemann Films
Brigham Young University
Official Sport Films Service
University of California at Berkeley
U.S. National Audiovisual Center
Australian News and Information Bureau
United Productions of America
Atlantis Productions
Colonial Williamsburg
Centron
Mass Media Associates
Titles Owned Percentage
Reviewed
Total Reviewed Unreviewed
9 1 8 11.11
9 8 1 88.89
9 2 7 22.22
9 6 3 66.67
9 7 2 77.78
9 0 9 0.00
9 0 9 0.00
9 0 9 0.00
8 1 7 12.50
8 6 2 75.00
8 7 1 87.50
8 4 4 50.00
8 8 0 100.00
8 0 8 0.00
6 1 85.71
4 3 57.14
1 6 14.29
2 5 28.57
3 4 42.86
7 0 100.00
7 0 100.00
7 0 100.00
7 0 100.00
6 4 2 66.67
6 3 3 50.00
TABLE 56— Continued
Distributor
Titles Owned
Total Reviewed Unreviewed
Percentage
Reviewed
National Council of Churhces 6 4 2 66.67
Productions Unlimited 6 4 2 66.67
United World Productions 6 1 5 16.67
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 6 1 5 16.67
Yellow Ball Workshop 6 1 5 16.67
Association Instructional Materials 6 6 0 100.00
Hartley Productions 6 6 0 100.00
RMI Productions 6 6 0 100.00
Stuart Finley 6 6 0 100.00
American and National Leagues of Baseball 6 0 6 0.00
Embassy Enterprises 6 0 6 0.00
Aetna Life and Casualty 5 3 2 60.00
American Educational Films 5 2 3 40.00
American Documentary 5 2 3 40.00
Communications Group West 5 3 2 60.00
Dibie Dash 5 3 2 60.00
Jason 5 4 1 80.00
Modem Talking Pictures Service 5 4 1 80.00
National Institute of Mental Health 5 2 3 40.00
Douglas Aircraft Co. 5 0 5 0.00
Firestone 5 0 5 0.00
Arthur Mokin 4 3 1 75.00
Boy Scouts of Am rica 4 1 3 25.00
Billy Budd 4 3 1 75.00
CBS News 4 1 3 25.00
243
TABLE 56— Continued
Distributor
Titles Owned Percentage
Reviewed
Total Reviewed Unreviewed
Journal Films 4 3 1 75.00
Office of Economic Opportunity 4 2 2 50.00
TRAFCO 4 3 1 75.00
University of Southern California 4 1 3 25.00
Wexler 4 3 1 75.00
Arthur Higgins Productions 4 4 0 100.00
General Electric Films 4 4 0 100.00
Harvest Films 4 4 0 100.00
Thome Films 4 4 0 100.00
Trend 4 4 0 100.00
Sterling Movies 4 4 0 100.00
Audio Productions 4 0 4 0.00
McDonald Aircraft Corporation 4 0 4 0.00
Nestle Company 4 0 4 0.00
National Cinema Service 4 0 4 0.00
Perennial Films 4 0 4 0.00
UNICEF 4 0 4 0.00
Xerox
Distributors with three titles owned
Distributors with two titles owned
Distributors with one title owned
4
3
2
. 1
x 29
x 71
x 342
0 4 0.00
244
13 per cent of the 3,460 titles owned. This was three
I times the number of titles distributed by Bailey/Film
iAssociates (143 titles, 4.13 per cent of the titles owned),
i
jthe company with the second largest number of titles.
! While distributing more than 100 titles each,
j Sterling Films and the Canadian Travel Film Library had had
I
!fewer than half their titles reviewed. Only fifty-three
(47 per cent) of Sterling Films' 112 titles had been
reviewed by one or more of the analyzed media. Only three
(3 per cent) of the 104 titles distributed by the Canadian
Travel Film Library had been reviewed. In addition, only
i
one of the eighty-nine titles distributed by Hearst had
I been reviewed. For the fifteen distributors identified as
■ distributing more than fifty of the titles owned, the mean
i
: percentage of reviewed titles was 69 per cent, the median
jwas 80 per cent. Excluding the Canadian Travel Film
i
Library and Hearst, the mean was 79 per cent and the median
jwas 82 per cent.
i '
i Of the remaining distributors listed in Table 56,
i
(those with fewer than 20 per cent of their titles reviewed
jwere: Youth Film Distribution Center, Castle Films, Bureau
i
!of National Affairs, NASA, Pan American Airlines, Time/Life
i
i
I
jFord Motors, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Lee and Mary Myers, Bell
|...' ......... '.246
Telephone, New Zealand Government Tourist Office, United
‘ Nations Television, Kodak, Netherlands Information Service,
Official Sport Films Service, United World Productions,
i
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Yellow Ball Workshop, Ameri-
ican and National Leagues of Baseball, Embassy Enterprises,
Douglas Aircraft, Firestone, Audio Productions, McDonald
IAircraft Corporation, Nestle Company, National Cinema
Service, Perennial Films, UNICEF, and Xerox.
Table 57 lists the distributors with more than
fifty titles owned by the analyzed libraries; it identifies
the number of reviewed and unreviewed titles which were
owned by more than one library. The mean percentage of
owned and reviewed titles distributed by the fifteen lead
ing distributors owned by more than one library was 70 per
cent. The mean percentage of owned but unreviewed titles
distributed by these same organizations owned by more than
one library was only 51 per cent. The medians were 68 per
j
!cent and 45 per cent respectively. This indicates a sub-
;stantialiy larger portion of the reviewed titles distributee,
by these companies were owned by more than one library than
were unreviewed titles distributed by the same organiza
tions.
TABLE 57
PERCENTAGES OF REVIEWED AND UNREVIEWED TITLES DISTRIBUTED BY THE LEADING
DISTRIBUTORS OWNED BY MORE THAN ONE LIBRARY
Reviewed Filins Unreviewed Filins
Distributor
Owned by More
Total Than 1 Library
Owned by More
Total Than 1 Library
No. Percentage No. Percentage
McGraw-Hill 314 234 74.52 129 52 40.31
Bailey/Film Associates 102 57 55.88 44 30 68.18
Encyclopedia Britannica 124 80 64.52 12 6 50.00
Indiana University/NET 104 57 54.71 27 6 22.22
Sterling Films 53 36 67.92 59 31 52.54
Canadian Travel Film Library 3 3 100.00 101 96 95.05
Hearst 1 1 100.00 88 40 45.45
ACI Productions 72 60 83.33 13 5 38.46
Coronet 66 20 30.30 8 2 25.00
Pyramid 59 42 71.19 13 4 30.76
Films Incorporated 44 33 75.00 25 11 44.00
International Film Bureau 53 31 58.49 3 3 100.00
Learning Corporation of America 43 28 65.12 11 7 63.64
Carousel 47 42 89.36 7 6 85.71
Churchill 49 30 61.22 4 0 0.00
Table 58 lists the distributors in Table 56 that j
i
had fewer than 20 per cent of their films reviewed. j
Thirteen of these had at least one title reviewed. The
i
mean percentage of the reviewed titles that were owned by j
i
i
more than one library, in these instances, was 78 per cent; j
the median was 100 per cent. The mean percentage of j
unreviewed titles owned by more than one library for these !
same distributors was only 43 per cent with a median of I
I
40 per cent. This suggests that even with these distribu- !
j
i
tors reviewed titles were more widely owned than were
unreviewed titles. i
i
Comparison of Review Media j
i
Number of Reviews j
j
As Table 59 shows, Landers Film Reviews was the
source of more than half (53 per cent) of the total (6,287)
reviews. Furthermore, its 3,442 reviews included 73 per !
cent of the total (4,581) titles reviewed. The next
largest number of reviews were provided by EFLA Cards ;
i
|
(1,346 reviews, 21 per cent of all reviews, 29 per cent of j
i
all titles reviewed), followed by Booklist (661 reviews, |
l
i
11 per cent of all reviews, 14 per cent of all titles j
TABLE 58
PERCENTAGES OF REVIEWED AND UNREVIEWED TITLES DISTRIBUTED BY DISTRIBUTORS
WITH FEWER THAN 20 PER CENT OF THEIR TITLES REVIEWED OWNED BY
MORE THAN ONE LIBRARY
Distributor
Reviewed■ Films Unreviewed Films
Total
Owned by More
Than 1 Library
No. Percentage
Total
Owned by More
Than 1 Library
No. Percentage
Canadian Travel Film Library 3 3 100.00 101 96 95.05
Hearst 1 1 100.00 88 40 45.45
Youth Film Distribution Center 1 1 100.00 31 8 25.81
Castle Films 0 0 X 27 2 7.41
Bureau of National Affairs 0 0 X 22 12 54.55
NASA 3 2 66.67 18 6 33.33,
Pan American Airlines 2 2 100.00 17 8 47.06
Time/Life 0 0 X 19 2 10.53
Ford Motors 1 1 100.00 14 7 50.00
U.S. Bureau of Mines 2 1 50.00 10 3 30.00
Lee and Mary Myers 1 1 100.00 8 6 75.00
Bell Telephone 0 0 X 9 2 22.22
New Zealand Government Tourist Office 0 0 X 9 1 11.11
United Nations Television 0 0 X 9 0 0.00
Kodak 1 0 0.00 7 0 0.00
Netherlands Information Service 0 0 X 8 4 50.00
Official Sports Film Services 1 1 100.00 6 5 83.33
United World Productions 1 0 0.00 5 2 40.00
249
TABLE 58— Continued
Reviewed. Films Unreviewed Films
Distributor
Total
Owned by More
Than 1 Library
No. Percentage
Total
Owned by More
Than 1 Library
No. Percentage
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1 1 100.00 5 2 40.00
Yellow Ball Workshop 1 1 100.00 5 0 0.00
American and National Leagues of
Baseball 0 0 X 6 4 66.67
Embassy Enterprises 0 0 X 6 0 0.00
Douglas Aircraft 0 0 X 5 0 0.00
Firestone 0 0 X 5 0 0.00
Audio Productions 0 0 X 4 3 75.00
McDonald Aircraft 0 0 X 4 0 0.00
Nestle Company 0 0 X 4 0 0.00
National Cinema Service 0 0 X 4 0 0.00
Perennial Films 0 0 X 4 2 50.00
UNICEF 0 0 X 4 1 25.00
Xerox 0 0 X 4 1 25.00
250
TABLE 59
PERCENTAGES OF FILMS REVIEWED BY INDIVIDUAL MEDIA
Review Media
No. of Percentage Percentage of
Films of Total Total Titles
Reviewed Reviews Reviewed
(N=6,287) (N=4,581)
Landers Film Reviews 3,442
EFLA Cards 1,346
Booklist 661
Film News 609
Educational Screen and
AV Guide 191
Film Library Quarterly 138
53.16
21.41
10.51
9.69
3.04
2.19
72.95
29.38
14.43
13.29
4.17
3.01
!reviewed) and Film News (609 reviews, 10 per cent of all
i
jreviews, 13 per cent of all titles reviewed). The fewest
I
I reviews were published by Educational Screen and AV Guide
j
|and Film Library Quarterly. Educational Screen and AV
I Guide's 191 reviews represented only 3 per cent of all
! , i
|reviews and 4 per cent of all titles reviewed. Film j
i ' !
j Library Quarterly1s 138 reviews constituted a mere 2 per
i
(cent of all reviews and 3 per cent of all titles reviewed.
; • !
Duplication of Reviews
Table 60 identifies what portion of the titles
i
i
reviewed by each of the studied media were reviewed by no
other medium, by one other medium, and by two or more media.
It demonstrates an inverse relationship between the number
|of titles reviewed and the amount of duplication. Only
;9 per cent of the 3,443 titles reviewed by Landers Film
j Reviews had been reviewed by two or more other media. By
(contrast, 48 per cent of the 191 titles reviewed by Educa
tional Screen and AV Guide and 51 per cent of the 138 titles
j reviewed by Film Library Quarterly had been reviewed by
i
two or more other media. Conversely, approximately two-
i
(thirds of the titles reviewed by Landers Film Reviews had
been reviewed by no other medium, while only 21 per cent of I
TABLE 60
AMOUNT OF DUPLICATION OF REVIEW BY INDIVIDUAL MEDIA
Number of Titles Reviewed by
Review Media
No Other Medium One Other Medium Two or More Other Media
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Landers Film Reviews 2,231 66.75 814 24.36 297 8.89
EFLA Cards 521 38.71 559 41.53 266 19.76
Booklist 257 38.88 221 33.43 183 27.69
Film News 246 40.39 189 31.04 174 28.57
Educational Screen and
AV Guide 40 20.94 60 31.41 91 47.65
Film Library Quarterly 19 13.77 49 35.51 70 50.72
253
jthe 191 titles reviewed by Educational Screen and AV Guide
i
i
!
I and 14 per cent of the 138 titles reviewed by Film Library
Quarterly had not been reviewed elsewhere.
Ownership of Titles Reviewed by
Individual Media
Table 61 lists the number of titles reviewed by
j
jeach medium and the number of these titles which were owned
by one or more of the analyzed libraries. In terms of |
i
inumber of reviewed titles owned by one or more libraries,
Landers Film Reviews was the leader. Of the 3,342 titles
reviewed by this medium, 1,380 were owned by one or more
libraries. This represented 73 per cent of all the titles
reviewed by one or more media and owned by one or more
libraries. However, these 1,380 titles represented only
: ' j
41 per cent of the 3,342 titles Landers Film Reviews had
reviewed. Conversely, Film Library Quarterly reviewed only
;138 titles, but 130 of these (94 per cent) were owned by
i one or more libraries. j
i
I
In terms of the number of titles reviewed and owned,!
j
the six media ranked as follows: Landers Film Reviews
^ _ - --- ^ _
: i
(1,380 titles), EFLA Cards (715 titles), Booklist (430
titles), Film News (356 titles), Film Library Quarterly j
TABLE 61
PROPORTIONS OF TITLES REVIEWED AND OWNED BY ANALYZED LIBRARIES
REVIEWED BY INDIVIDUAL MEDIA
Review Media
No. of
Titles
Reviewed
Percentage of _ Percentage of . '
All Titles 1,0 • of ^viewed Total Reviewed Eatf° of
Titles Owned „___ (b) to
Reviewed
(N=4,581)
(a)
NO. %
Titles Owned
(N=l,895)
(b)
(a)
(b/a)
Landers Film Reviews 3,342
« *
EFLA Cards 1,346
Booklist
Film News
Educational Screen
and AV Guide
Film Library
Quarterly
661
609
191
138
72.95
29.38
14.43
13.29
4.17
3.01
1,380 41.29
715 53.12
430 65.05
356 58.46
99 51.83
130 94.20
72.82
37.73
22.69
18.79
5.22
6.86
1.00
1.28
1.57
1.41
1.25
2.28
j 256
i
I(130 titles), and Educational Screen and AV Guide (99
j - ”
I titles).
i
In terms of percentage of titles reviewed by each
i
medium owned by one or more libraries, the six media ranked
as follows: Film Library Quarterly (94 per cent), Booklist
|
I
i
I(65 per cent), Film News (58 per cent), EFLA Cards (53 per
cent), Educational Screen and AV Guide (52 per cent) and
i
Landers Film Reviews (41 per cent).
Titles Reviewed by Only One Medium
Of the 4,581 titles reviewed, 3,314 were reviewed
by only one medium; of these, 1,075 (32 per cent) were
owned by one or more of the analyzed libraries. These
1,075 titles represented 57 per cent of the entire 1,895
reviewed titles owned by one or more libraries. Table 62
jsummarizes information on titles reviewed by a single
medium.
| In terms of the number of films reviewed by a single
medium reviewed by each medium, the six media ranked as
i
follows: Landers Film Reviews (2,231 titles), EFLA Cards
(521 titles), Booklist (257 titles), Film News (246 titles),
t
I
Educational Screen and AV Guide (40 titles), and Film
Library Quarterly (19 titles).
TABLE 62
PROPORTIONS OF TITLES REVIEWED BY SINGLE MEDIA AND OF TITLES REVIEWED BY
SINGLE MEDIA AND OWNED BY ONE OR MORE LIBRARIES
REVIEWED BY INDIVIDUAL MEDIA
Review Media
No. of Titles
Reviewed by
This Medium
Only
Percentage of
All Titles
Reviewed by a
Single Medium
(N=3,314)
No. of Titles
Reviewed by
This Medium
Only Owned
Percentage of
All Titles
Reviewed by a
Single Medium
Owned
Ratio of
(b) to
(a)
(b/a)
(a)
No. Percentage
(N=l,075)
(b)
Landers Film
Reviews 2,231 67.32 682 30.57 63.44 .94
EFLA Cards 521 15.72 180 34.55 16.75 1.07
Booklist 257 7.75 116 45.14 10.75 1.39
Film News 246 7.42 64 26.02 5.95 .80
Educational
Screen and
AV Guide 40 1.21 14 35.00 1.30 1.07
Film Library
Quarterly 19 .57 19 100.00 1.77
in
3.11 "*
257
! 258
|
| In terms of the number of owned films reviewed by
i
I a single medium, the six media ranked as follows: Landers
; !
i !
;Film Reviews (682 titles), EFLA Cards (180 titles), j
! " j
|
;Booklist (116 titles), Film News (64 titles), Film Library
jQuarterly (19 titles), and Educational Screen and AV Guide
I(14 titles). i
; |
A rather different sequence occurs when the media
;are ranked according to the percentage of titles they alone|
i
reviewed which were owned by one or more of the studied I
. i
! i
libraries. In this case, the order is: Film Library I
; j
Quarterly (100 per cent), Booklist (45 per cent), Educa- !
i I
tional Screen and AV Guide (35 per cent), EFLA Cards (36 per
cent), Landers Film Reviews (31 per cent), and Film News
(26 per cent). It is noteworthy that all nineteen of the
titles reviewed by Film Library Quarterly alone were owned,
and that, while Booklist and Film News both reviewed some- j
what more than 7 per cent of all titles reviewed by a j
I
| single medium, Booklist had 45 per cent of these titles
'owned compared to Film News' 26 per cent. This may be due
Ito the large number of sponsored religious films reviewed
I
in a section of Film News. I
! 259
I
j Film Ratings
l i
The 6,287 reviews of films believed to fall withini
! !
i the scope of this study were read by this writer and each
was assigned a rating of 'O' or A ' + ' was j
! I
assigned when the review was judged to clearly consider the I
film "superior." An ' 01 was assigned to reviews ranging j
from "good to acceptable." A was assigned when a j
■ \
: j
review was judged to clearly consider the film "seriously j
• |
flawed."
Comparison of the Ratings of
Individual Media
Table 44 provides a detailed analysis of the
reviews of the six studied media including the proportions j
t
iof titles rated ' + ', '0' and This information is I
summarized in Tables 63 to 66.
The largest portion of the total reviews (54.5 per
icent) were judged to be rated 'O'; *+' reviews constituted
i
40 per cent of all reviews, and '-1 reviews constituted
In the following tabulations, reference to ".5"
reviews will sometimes be seen. This is because a single
title sometimes received two different reviews in the same
medium. In such instances each review was tallied as
'".5" reviews.
TABLE 63
JUDGED RATINGS OF ALL REVIEWS AND OF REVIEWS OF OWNED
AND UNOWNED TITLES
Judged
Rating
No. of
Reviews
Percentage of
All Reviews
(N=6,287)
Reviews of
Owned Films
Reviews of
Unowned Films
Number Percentage
(N=3,110)
Number Percentage
(N=3,177)
+ 2,517.5 40.04 1,652.5 53.17 865 27.23
0 3,426 54.49 1,310 42.12 2,116 66.60
-
343.5 5.47 147.5 4.75 196 6.17
260
I 261
|5.5 per cent of all reviews. An interesting inversion
j
| takes place when only those films owned by one or more of
i
jthe examined libraries are considered. In this case, '+'
reviews represent 53 per cent of the total reviews, while
'0' reviews constitute 42 per cent. A slightly smaller
proportion (5 per cent) of the reviews of owned titles
were judged to be l~l than was the proportion (5.5 per
cent) of all reviews judged to be 1
1
j In Table 64, the proportions of reviews judged to
be '+', '0' and which represent films owned by examined
libraries are given. While 49 per cent of all reviews were
of films owned by one or more of the studied libraries,
66 per cent of the ’+' rated reviews were of titles owned
!by these collections. The percentage of '0' rated reviews
representing owned films was, in contrast, only 38 per
jcent, while the percentage of rated reviews was 43 per
!
!
!cent.
The proportions of each review medium's reviews
]
judged to be '+', '0' and are given in Table 65. Film
;Library Quarterly was judged to consist of 84 per cent '+'
reviews. The media with the next highest proportions of
' + ' reviews were: EFLA Cards (49 per cent ' + ' reviews),
‘Booklist (47 per cent '+' reviews), Educational Screen and
TABLE 64
PROPORTIONS OF *+', '01 AND ■-» REVIEWS REPRESENTING TITLES
OWNED BY THE ANALYZED LIBRARIES
Reviews of Titles
Owned and Unowned
Reviews Judged to Be Rated
'O'
■ _ i
by Analyzed
Libraries
No. Percentage
(N=2,517.5)
No. Percentage
(N=3,426)
No. Percentage
(N=343.5)
Owned
(N=3,110, 49.47 per
1,652.5
cent)
65.64 1,310 38.24 147.5 42.94
Unowned
(N=3,177, 50.53 per
865
cent)
34.36 2,116 61.76 196 57.06
262
TABLE 65
PROPORTIONS OF THE REVIEWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEDIA JUDGED TO BE:
'O' AND
Reviews Judged to Be Rated
Review Media
'O'
i_ i
No. % No. % No. %
Landers Film Reviews
(N=3,342)
1,115 33.36 2,188 65.47 39 1.17
EFLA Cards
(N=l, 346)
657 48.81 439.5 32.65 249.5 18.54
Booklist
(N=661)
311 47.04 346 52.35 4 .61
Film News
(N=609)
234 38.42 331.5 54.43 43.5 7.14
Educational Screen and AV Guide
(N=191)
85 44.50 103 53.92 3 1.57
Film Library Quarterly
(N=138)
115.5 83.70 18 13.04 4.5 3.26
263
264 ;
AV Guide (44.5 per cent ' + ' reviews), and Film News (38 perj
cent ' + ' reviews). Landers Film Reviews had the smallest |
proportion of '+' reviews (33 per cent). I
The only media publishing substantial numbers of j
reviews judged to be were EFLA Cards and Film News. !
Nineteen per cent of EFLA Card reviews were judged to be
'-' , while 7 per cent of Film News' reviews were placed in j
this category. Only thirty-nine (1 per cent) of Landers i
Film Reviews' 3,342 reviews were judged to be Book- j
list, Film Library Quarterly, and Educational Screen and ;
|
AV Guide were each judged to have fewer than five
reviews. (Such results were to be expected in view of j
these three media's policies of printing, with rare excep- j
i
tions, only reviews of recommended films.) It should be j
i
noted that EFLA was the source of 249.5 of the total |
i
343.5 reviews judged to be |
Slightly more than half the reviews of Booklist
(52 per cent), Educational Screen and AV Guide (54 per j
i
cent), and Film News (54 per cent) were in the 'O' category.!
This rating accounted for 33 per cent of the reviews of
EFLA Cards and only 13 per cent of the reviews of Film j
I
I
Library Quarterly. The greatest portion (65 per cent) of |
j
Landers Film Reviews' reviews were judged to be 'O'.
Table 66 lists the number and percentage of films
reviewed by each medium and rated '+', '0' and which
were owned by one or more of the analyzed libraries. In
ievery instance, a greater proportion of the '+' reviewed
films were owned. However, eliminating the three media
which assigned fewer than five '-1 ratings (Booklist, Film j
|
Library Quarterly, and Educational Screen and AV Guide), j
i
there does not appear to be a substantial difference j
between the percentages of '0' rated and rated films
owned.
To summarize, Landers Film Reviews was character
ized by few reviews, and approximately twice as many
'0' reviews as '+' reviews. While only 33 per cent of the j
! i
i
'O' rated films were owned, 58 per cent of the '+' rated j
: i
I
titles were owned by one or more of the analyzed libraries.|
EFLA Cards demonstrated the most substantial number
!of reviews, and approximately 50 per cent more '+'
reviews than 'O' reviews. Of the films rated '+', 63 per j
cent were owned; of the films rated 'O', 44 per cent were j
i
owned, and, of the films rated 42 per cent were owned, j
; !
Booklist reviews were approximately equally divided i
|
between '+' and '0' ratings with a small plurality (5 per I
1
cent) of '0' reviews. While 85 per cent of the '+' rated
TABLE 66
t
PROPORTIONS OF 'O' AND RATED FILMS REVIEWED BY INDIVIDUAL MEDIA
OWNED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE ANALYZED LIBRARIES
Reviews Judged to Be Rated
Review Media
'O'
1 _ I
Number
Owned
Number
Owned
Number
Owned
No. % No. % No. %
Landers Film Reviews 1,115 642 57.58 2,188 726 33.18 39 12 30.77
EFLA Cards 657 417 63.47 439.5 193.5 44.03 249.5 104.5 41.88
Booklist 311 263 84.56 346 163 47.11 4 4 100.00
Film News 234 166 70.94 331.5 167.5 50.53 43.5 22.5 51.72
Educational Screen and
AV Guide 85 54 63.53 103 44 44.72 3 1 33.33
Film Library Quarterly 115.5. 110.5 95.67 18 16 88.89 4.5 3.5 77.78
Total 2,517.5 1,652.5 65.64 3,426 1,310 38.24 343.5 147.5 42.94
! ...... *.. 267...
|titles were owned, only 47 per cent of the 'O' rated titles
j
were owned. Although inclusion in Booklist supposedly
implies recommendation for purchase, four titles received
reviews which were judged by this reader to be in the
"seriously flawed" (* —') rating category.
Of the films reviewed by Film News, 54 per cent
Iwere judged to have received 'O' rating, 38 per cent were
judged to have received ' + ' ratings, and 7 per cent were
judged to have received ratings. While 71 per cent of
I the ' + ' rated films were owned, 51 per cent of the '0'
rated titles and 52 per cent of the rated titles were
owned.
Of the fewer than 200 ..titles reveiewd by Educa
tional Screen and AV Guide, 54 per cent were judged to be
I rated 'O' and 44.5 per cent were rated ' + '. The portion
of ' + ' reviewed titles owned was 64 per cent; the portion
; of the 'O' rated titles owned was 45 per cent. Only one of
I the three rated titles was owned.
i Most (84 per cent) of the films reviewed by Film
i
I Library Quarterly received ratings judged to be ' + '.
j Of these 96 per cent were owned by one or more of the
analyzed libraries. Eighteen films (13 per cent) were
judged to be rated 'O'; 89 per cent of these were owned.
j Of the 4.5 reviews judged to be ' 3.5 were of owned
!
|titles.
Ratings of Reviewed Titles
i
Table 67 lists the rating configurations received
by the titles reviewed by from one to six media. It indi
cates what proportion of each configuration was ' + ', 'O'
and what proportion of all titles reviewed by that
number of media received that configuration, and the pro
portion of all titles receiving each configuration which
I were owned by one or more of the analyzed libraries.
Table 68 lists the number of titles reviewed by one
| medium and the number of titles reviewed by two to six
media which received any (.5 or more) ' + ', 'O' or
|ratings in their total configuration. In addition, it
I indicates the number of titles owned by one or more of the
janalyzed libraries which received any '+', 'O' or
|reviews.
i
' The number of ' + ' reviews received by individual
titles ranged from zero to six; the number of 'O' reviews
I ranged from zero to five, and the number of ' -1 reviews
!
ranged from zero to two. Thus, while individual titles
i received as many as six ' + ' reviews, and as many as five
! TABLE 67 |
RATING CONFIGURATIONS RECEIVED BY THE REVIEWED TITLES
Number of:
Rating Number of
Configuration Titles
Percentage of
Titles Reviewed
by This Number
of Media
Number
Owned
Percentage
Owned
+ 0
Reviewed by Six Media (N=2)
6 x x ++++++ 1 50.00 1 100.00
5 1 x +++++0 1 50.00 1 100.00
Reviewed by Five Media (N=20)
5 X X +++++ 5 25.00 5 100.00
4 1 X ++++0 6 30.00 6 100.00
4 X 1 +++H—
2 10.00 2 100.00
3 2 X +++00 2 10.00 2 100.00
3 1 1 +++0- 1 5.00 1 100.00
2 3 X ++000 2 10.00 2 100.00
1 4 X +0000 1 5.00 1 100.00
X 5 X 00000 1 5.00 1 100.00
269
TABLE 67’ — Continued
Number of:
Rating
Configuration
Number of
Titles
Percentage of
Titles Reviewed
by This Number
of Media
Number
Owned
Percentage
Owned
+ 0
—
Reviewed by Four Media (N=72)
4 X X ++++ 24 33.33 24 100.00
3 1 X +++0 25 34.72 25 100.00
3 X 1 +++- 2 2.78 2 100.00
2 2 X ++00 13 18.05 13 100.00
2 1 1 ++0- 1 1.39 1 100.00
1 3 X +000 2 2.78 2 100.00
1 2 1 +00- 2 2.78 2 100.00
.5 3 .5 000+/- 1 1.39 1 100.00
X 3 1 000- 1 1.39 1 100.00
X 4 X 0000 1 1.39 1 100.00
Reviewed by Three Media (N=227)
3 X X +++ 52 22.91 48 92.31
2.5 X .5 +++/- 1 .44 1 100.00
2 1 X ++0 84 37.00 75 89.29
2 X 1 ++- 5 2.20 3 60.00
1 2 X +00 54 23.79 35 64.81
1 1 1 +0- 7 3.09 4 57.14
1 .5 1.5 +-o/- 1 .44 1 100.00
TABLE 67— Continued
Number of
+ 0
•
•
Rating
Configuration
Number of
Titles
Percentage of
Titles Reviewed
by This Number
of Media
Number
Owned
Percentage
Owned
X 3 X 000 15 6.61 8 53.33
X 2 1 00- 6 2.64 5 83.33
X 1 2 0— 2 .88 2 100.00
Reviewed by Two Media (N=946)
2 X X ++ 174 18.39 140 80.46
1 1 X +0 370 39.11 221 59.73
1 X 1 +- 45 4.76 26 57.78
.5 1 .5
o+/-
1 .11 1 100.00
X 2 X 00 263 27.80 107 40.72
X 1.5 .5 00/- 1 .11 1 100.00
X 1 1 0- 88 9.30 46 52.27
X X 2
— —
4 .42 1 25.00
Reviewed by One Medium (N=3,314)
1 x
x 1
X X
X
X
1
+
0
1,064
2,082
168
32.11
62.82
5.07
491
539
45
46.15
26.04
26.79
271
.....272
TABLE 68
NUMBERS OP TITLES REVIEWED BY ONE MEDIUM AND BY TWO TO
SIX MEDIA RECEIVING RATINGS OF ' + ', 'O' AND
AND NUMBERS OWNED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE
ANALYZED FILM COLLECTIONS
Titles Receiving Rating
Titles Receiving 0.5
Ratings of:
or More
' + • 'O'
Titles Reviewed by:
■ ' - -
1 medium 1,064 2,082 168
2 to 6 media 885 952 171
Total l,949a 3,034 339°
Percentage of All Titles
Reviewed (N=4,581) 42.55 66.23 7.40
Titles Owned by One or More
Libraries Reviewed by:
1 medium 491 539 45
2 to 6 media 646 566 101
Total 1,137k 1,105 146d
Percentage of All Reviewed
Titles Owned by One or More
Libraries (N=l,895) 60.00 58.31 7.70
Seventy (3.59 per cent) also received 1
_ 1
ratings.
Forty-five (3.96 per cent) also received
ratings.
cSeventy (20.65 per cent) also received '+' ratings.
| J
Forty-five (30.82 per cent) also received '+'
ratings.
| 273
i
| 'O' reviews, no title received more than two reviews.
i
Titles receiving .5 or more '+' reviews accounted
; * I
; j
;for 43 per cent of the 4,581 reviewed titles, and for j
i i
I 60 per cent of the 1,895 reviewed titles owned by one or j
1 i
: |
|more of the analyzed libraries. At least .5 'O’ reviews j
; i
Iwere received by 66 per cent of the total titles reviewed, !
; i
land by 58 per cent of the reviewed titles owned. Some
(.5 or more) ratings were received by 7 per cent of the |
titles reviewed, and by 8 per cent of the reviewed titles j
owned. I
I
: i
It should be noted that 171 of the 339 titles j
: ■ I
: i
I receiving 0.5 or more reviews were reviewed by more j
than one medium and that seventy (41 per cent) of these \
i
. |
also received ' + ' reviews while only seven (4 per cent) j
received more than a single rating. While 59 per cent I
; j
I of the 171 titles reviewed by more than one medium were
i
■ owned, only 27 per cent of the titles reviewed by a single
I
jmedium were owned. These last statistics do not differ
|
j
lexcessively from the statistics for titles receiving 'O'
reviews. While 59 per cent of the 952 titles receiving 'O'
|reviews and reviewed by more than one medium were owned,
only 26 per cent of the 'O' rated titles reviewed by a
single medium were owned.
! 274
j
!
In contrast, 73 per cent of the 885 titles receiv-
i
Iing 0.5 or more 1+' reviews and reviewed by more than one
:medium were owned, while 46 per cent of the '+' rated
:titles reviewed by a single medium were owned.
Table 69 lists the rating configurations, the num
ber of titles receiving each configuration, the percentage
of the total configuration which is '+', '0' and and
the number and percentage of the titles receiving each con-
; figuration which were owned by one or more of the analyzed
libraries. The data in this table were used to test the
hypotheses which expected (1) a positive correlation
between the percentage of the review configuration, in
titles reviewed,by more than one medium, which was '+' and
the percentage of the titles so reviewed which were owned,
and (2) a negative correlation between the percentage of
the review configuration, in titles reviewed by more than
medium, which was and the percentage of titles so
!reviewed which were owned.
i
i
;Hypothesis
A greater percentage of the titles judged to have
received any 1+' reviews were owned by one or more of the
TABLE 69
RATING CONFIGURATIONS: PERCENTAGES OF TITLES REVIEWED BY
MORE THAN ONE MEDIUM RATED '+', 'O'
i _ i
Rating No. of
Percentage
Titles Owned by the
lfiguration Titles
' + ' 'O'
i _ i
Number Percentage
++++++ 1 100.00 X X 1 100.00
+++++0 1 83.33 16.67 X 1 100.00
+++++ 5 100.00 X X 5 100.00
++++0 6 80.00 20.00 X 6 100.00
++++- 2 80.00 X 20.00 2 100.00
+++00 2 60.00 40.00 X 2 100.00
+++0- 1 60.00 20.00 20.00 1 100.00
++000 2 40.00 60.00 X 2 100.00
+0000 1 20.00 80.00 X 1 100.00
00000 1 X 100.00 X 1 100.00
++++ 24 100.00 X X 24 100.00
+++0 25 75.00 25.00 X 25 100.00
+++- 2 75.00 X 25.00 2 100.00
++00 13 50.00 50.00 X 13 100.00
++0- 1 50.00 25.00 25.00 1 100.00
+000 2 25.00 75.00 X 2 100.00
+00- 2 25.00 50.00 25.00 2 100.00
000+/- 1 12.50 75.00 12.50 1 100.00
000- 1 X 75.00 25.00 1 100.00
0000 1 X 100.00 X 1 100.00
275
TABLE 69— Continued
Rating
Configuration
No. of
Titles
' + '
Percentage
*0'
i _ i
Titles Owned by the
Analyzed Libraries
Number Percentage
+++ 52 100.00 X X 48 92.31
+++/- 1 83.33 X 16.66 1 100.00
++0 84 66.67 33.33 X 75 . 89.29
++- 5 66.67 X 33.33 3 60.00
+00 54 33.33 66.67 X 35 64.81
+0- 7 33.33 33.33 33.33 4 57.14
+-0/- 1 33.33 16.67 50.00 1 100.00
000 15 X 100.00 X . 8 53.33
00- 6 X 66.67 33.33 5 83.33
0— 2 X 33.33 66.67 2 100.00
++ 174 100.00 X X . 140 80.46
+0 370 50.00 50.00 X 221 59.73
+- 45 50.00 X 50.00 26 57.78
0+/- 1 25.00 50.00 25.00 1 100.00
00 263 X 100.00 X 107 40.72
00/- 1 X 75.00 25.00 1 100.00
0- 88 X 50.00 50.00 46 52.27
4 X X 100.00 1 25.00
276
j ..... 277
|
I analyzed libraries than were titles receiving any 'O' or
i
I
|reviews.
|Findings
Of the 1,949 titles receiving '+' ratings in their
review configuration, 1,137 (58 per cent) were owned by
!one or more of the analyzed libraries (Table 68). In con-
t
Itrast, only 1,105 (36 per cent) of the 3,034 titles
I receiving 'O' ratings and 146 (43 per cent) of the 339
titles receiving reviews were owned.
:Hypothesis
There is a positive correlation between the per
centage of * + ' reviews a title reviewed by more than one
medium received and the likelihood it was owned. (There is
;a positive correlation between the percentage of '+'
; reviews received by each title reviewed by more than one of
i
!the analyzed media, and the percentage of titles receiving
!that review configuration owned by one or more of the
|analyzed libraries.
Findings
The Pearson Product-Moment correlation was calcu
lated for (a) the percentage of '+' reviews received by
each title reviewed by two or more of the studied media,
and (b) the percentage of titles receiving that review
i
i .
configuration owned (Table 69). A coefficient of +.81
|was obtained. This was significant at the .01 level.
!
|Hypothesis
There is a negative correlation between the per-
!centage of 1-' reviews a title reviewed by more than one
|
!medium received and the likelihood it was owned. (There is
j
|a negative correlation between the percentage of '
I reviews in the review configuration of each title reviewed
iby more than one of the analyzed media, and the percentage
j of titles receiving that configuration owned by one or more
I of the analyzed libraries.)
I
j
I Findings
! The Pearson Product-Moment correlation was calcu
lated for (a) the percentage of reviews received by
each title reviewed by two or more of the studied media,
i
I
jand (b) the percentage of titles receiving that configura-
i
|tion owned.(Table 69). A coefficient of -.17 was obtained,
jThis was significant at the .01 level.
Agreement and Disagreement of
Review Ratings
The difficulties sometimes experienced in the
assignment of reviews to the categories of 'O' and '
have been discussed in Chapter III. While every review
l
; placed in the ' + ' category was judged, by this writer, to
|contain a clear rating of "superior," and every title
placed in the category was judged to contain a clear
rating of "seriously flawed," the discrimination between
"clearly superior" and "good" and between "clearly
seriously flawed" and "acceptable" was not always easily
accomplished. For this reason, one can not unequivocably
i state reviews judged to be ' + ' are in clear disagreement
with reviews judged to be 'O', nor can one unequivocably
state reviews judged to be are in clear disagreement
with reviews judged to be 'O'.
! On the other hand, it would appear reasonable to
state reviews judged to be ' + ' are in clear disagreement
with the reviews judged to be and reviews judged to
be ' + ', 'O' or are clearly in agreement with other
reviews judged, respectively, to be '+', 'O' or In
Table 70, degrees of agreement and disagreement between
i the reviews accorded individual titles reviewed by two or
TABLE 70
DEGREES OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN REVIEWS OF TITLES
REVIEWED BY TWO OR MORE REVIEW MEDIA
Percentage of
All Ti
Agreement of No. of . Nature of the
Review Ratings Titles j_V:L^Ww Majority Rating
2 to 6 Media
(N=l/267)
Agreement:
100 per cent agreement 540 42.62 100% • + ' = 256
100% 'O'
S B
280
100%
* _ * =
4
75 to 99 per cent agreement 43 3.39 75 to 99% 37
75 to 99% 'O'
=
6
75 to 99%
i _ i
= 0
66 to 74 per cent agreement 151 11.92 66 to 74% • + • s
89
66 to 74% *0'
=
60
66 to 74%
1 _ 1
=
2
Total
66 to 100 per cent agreement 734 57.93 66 to 100% •+'
=
382
66 to 100% •O' 346
66 to 100%
1 _ 1
6
280
TABLE 70— Continued
Nature of the
Majority Rating
Both Agreement and Disagreement:
Titles receiving both ' +1 and 1 - * reviews and:
75 to 100 per cent agreement 6 75 to 99% * + ' = 5
75 to 99% ’O’ = 1
75 to 99%
i _ i _
0
66 to 74 per cent agreement 5 66 to 74% ' + ' = 5
66 to 74% •O’ = 0
66 to 74%
* —1 =
0
Total 11 .87
Pis agreement:
Titles receiving both '+* and
reviews 69 5.45
Neither 66 to 100 per cent
Agreement nor Disagreement: 475 37.49
Percentage of
Agreement of No. of
_ . Reviewed by
Review Ratings Titles 2 to 6 Media
(N=l»267)
281
| 282
j
more media are tabulated. Sixty-nine titles (5 per cent of
;all titles reviewed) evidenced clear disagreement within
the reviews by receiving both ' + ' and reviews. On the
i
i
| other hand, 540 titles (43 per cent of all the titles
reviewed) demonstrated 100 per cent agreement of reviews.
In these instances, 256 of the titles received all ' + '
I reviews, 2 80 received all '0' reviews, and four titles
ireceived all reviews.
An additional forty-three titles showed agreement
between from 75 to 99 per cent of the reviews received,
and 151 titles showed agreement between 66 to 74 per cent
of their reviews. Thus a total of 734 titles (58 per cent
of all titles reviewed) evidenced clear agreement between
two-thirds or more of their reviews. Of these, 382 had ' + '
t
as the majority rating, 346 had '0' as the majority rating,
and six had as the majority rating.
I
! Eleven of the 734 titles demonstrating agreement
between 66 per cent or more of their reviews also demon-
i
jstrated clear disagreement between their reviews. That is,
I they also received both ' + ' and reviews. An additional
fifty-eight titles, which did not have 66 per cent or more
agreement between their reviews, also received both ' +1
and ratings. Thus, a total of sixty-nine titles
i 283
i
j (5 per cent of all titles reviewed by two or more media)
I showed clear disagreement between reviews, 734 titles
i
j (58 per cent of all titles reviewed by two or more media)
| showed clear agreement of 66 per cent or more of their
previews, and 475 titles (37 per cent of all titles reviewed
| by two or more media) showed neither clear disagreement
I
I nor clear agreement of 66 per cent of their reviews.
I
Titles Receiving an Unfavorable Consensus
An examination of Table 70 shows only six of the
titles reviewed by two or more media received 66 per cent
|or more reviews. Of these, four were reviewed by two
media and two were reviewed by three media. Only one of
the four negatively reviewed titles reviewed by two media
|was owned. In all four cases, the review configuration
was 1 — Of the two titles reviewed by three media (in
! both cases the review configuration was 10— 1) , both were
; owned. Thus, of the six titles with a consensus, three
j
i
: (50 per cent) were owned by one or more of the analyzed
(
i
libraries.
284
| Summary
i
|
A total of 6,287 reviews of post-1965 films within
i
| the scope of this study were identified in the analyzed
!review media. These represented 4,581 different titles of
i
which 28 per cent were reviewed by more than one medium and
I
I 41 per cent were owned by one or more of the analyzed
ipublic libraries.
Landers Film Reviews (3,442 reviews) was the
!largest single source of reviews followed by EFLA Cards
(1,346 reviews), Booklist (661 reviews), Film News (609
reviews), Educational Screen and AV Guide (191 reviews)
and Film Library Quarterly (138 reviews).
A total of 3,460 different films within the scope
of this study were identified as owned by the analyzed
I public libraries. Of these, 49 per cent were owned by a
|single library, 41 per cent were owned by two to seven
I libraries, and 10 per cent were owned by eight or more
jlibraries.
i
A slight majority (55 per cent) of the titles owned
jhad been reviewed. However, a minority (40 per cent) of
i
I the titles owned by a single library had been reviewed,
|while 69 per cent of all titles owned by two or more
! k
; ....... . ’..... 285
j libraries had been reviewed and 84 per cent of the titles
: owned by eight or more libraries had been reviewed.
An examination of the titles owned by a single
library revealed that reviewed titles were largely distrib
uted by standard commercial distributors, while unreviewed
titles included, in addition to the commercial distribu-
| tors, very many distributors of sponsored and depository
films.
An examination of the fifty-three unreviewed
titles owned by eight or more libraries showed 74 per
cent of these to be depository items from the Canadian
Travel Film Library, and a preponderance of the remaining
titles to be sponsored films or films from previously
reviewed series.
A strongly positive correlation (+.88) was found
to exist between the number of libraries owning titles
and the percentage of titles owned by that number of
libraries which had been reviewed by one or more media.
That is, the greater the number of libraries owning a
title, the greater was the likelihood the title had been
I reviewed.
A correlation of +.94 existed between the number
:of media reviewing titles and the percentage of titles
286
owned by one or more libraries. That is, the greater
i
! the number of media reviewing a title, the greater was
; the likelihood it was owned. Only 32 per cent of the
]
I titles reviewed by a single medium were owned while 67 per
!
| cent of the titles reviewed by two or more media were
| owned.
i
A lesser but still positive correlation (+.52)
i
jexisted between the number of media reviewing owned titles
j and the number of libraries owning them. Thus a strongly
positive relationship between multiple review and acquisi
tion by the studied libraries appears to exist.
In addition, there was an inverse relationship
between the number of titles reviewed by each of the media
: and the amount of duplication of review. Only 9 per cent
i
of the 3,442 titles reviewed by Landers Film Reviews had
'been reviewed by two or more other media. In contrast,
j 48 per cent of the 191 titles reviewed by Educational
I
| Screen and AV Guide and 51 per cent of the 138 titles
|reviewed by Film Library Quarterly had also been reviewed
by two or more other media.
j Ratings of 'O' (acceptable to good) were judged
|to constitute 54.5 per cent of the reviews, in comparison
j 287
i
to 40 per cent '+' (clearly superior) reviews and 5.5 per
cent (clearly seriously flawed) reviews. Of the
12,517.5 reviews considered ' + ', 66 per cent were of
j
i titles owned by one or more libraries. In contrast, only
i
|38 per cent of the 3,426 reviews considered 'O' and
|43 per cent of the 343.5 reviews considered were of
!owned titles.
Fifty-eight per cent of the titles receiving any
;'+' reviews in their review configuration were owned by
i
:one or more of the analyzed libraries as opposed to
36 per cent of the titles receiving any '0' reviews and
I 43 per cent of the titles receiving any 1-* reviews. This
:confirmed the hypothesis that a greater percentage of
titles receiving any '+' reviews would be owned than of
titles receiving any '0' or reviews.
I Furthermore, for titles reviewed by more than one
j • ■
jmedium a correlation of +.81 existed between the percentage
!
j of 1 + ' reviews in the review configuration and the per-
|centage of titles receiving this configuration owned. That
|is, the greater the percentage of '+1 reviews in a review
j configuration, the greater was the likelihood the title
i
I
I was owned by one or more libraries.
288
Only 339 titles received any 1-' reviews. EFLA was
| the only review medium that published a substantial number
i
| of 1-' reviews. Of the 343.5 reviews counted, 249.5
| were published by EFLA. Of the 171 titles reviewed by more
! than one medium and receiving any ' reviews, sixty-nine
!
| also received • + ' reviews, 112 also received ' 01 and only
!
! seven received more than one review. (Of these 171
I titles, only thirty-six had not received evaluations
I
i
| from EFLA.) A possible explanation for these findings is
| j
j i
that since most media are disinclined to publish j
reviews, films receiving 1 -1 reviews tend to receive
jmultiple review only when another medium finds the title
:good or superior.
' i
Contrary to expectations, there was not a substan-
j
| tial negative correlation between the percentage of
; reviews a title reviewed by two or more media received and
|
jthe likelihood it was owned. The correlation coefficient
I
I was a mere -.17.
j
i
i Of the titles reviewed by two or more media, 540
i
i
I
|(43 per cent) demonstrated 100 per cent agreement between
i
!
| the ratings attributed to their reviews, and a total of
|
| 734 (58 per cent) demonstrated agreement between more than
289
66 per cent of their reviews. Only sixty-nine titles
(5 per cent) evidenced clear disagreement between ratings
by receiving both '+' and reviews within their review
configurations.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
i
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Audiovisual services are proliferating in public
libraries as their importance is ever more widely recog
nized. Currently, such services emphasize the collection
:and lending of phonograph records and sixteen millimeter
films. Because of their high cost, the limited number of
media reviewing them, and the near-universal practice of
'individually previewing before deciding whether or not to
acquire, sixteen millimeter films present the public
library film librarian with special selection problems.
The Problem
The purpose of this study was to determine the
influence of sixteen millimeter reviews published by the
major sixteen millimeter reviewing media on film selection
in public libraries acquiring substantial numbers of such
290
! 291
j
j films. Further, it attempted to determine how adequate
i
i
;these media were for this purpose and to identify areas of
weakness.
To achieve its purposes, this study attempted:
;(1) to determine the influence of published film reviews on
ifilm selection relative to other influences in public
libraries with large film collections, (2) to determine the
i
proportion of recent films acquired by these libraries
which had and had not been reviewed and to determine the
characteristics of reviewed and unreviewed titles, (3) to
examine the methods by which published reviews were pre
pared by the major reviewing media, (4) to identify prob
lems relative to published film reviews both from the
points of view of reviewing media and public library film
librarians, (5) to determine the degree to which published
reviews were favorable and unfavorable, (6) to determine
jthe degree to which favorable and unfavorable reviews
correlated with ownership of reviewed titles by the studied
|libraries, (7) to determine the degree to which there was
duplication of review by the major film reviewing media,
land (8) to determine the degree to which duplicate reviews
agreed and disagreed.
292
[
i The Procedure
j
i
| The data used in this study derived from four main
jsources: (1) questionnaires sent to public libraries
identified as owning more than 500 prints of sixteen milli
meter films, (2) interviews with editors or film review
editors of five major sixteen millimeter reviewing media
and information obtained through correspondence with per
sons at Indiana University responsible for reviews appear
ing in Educational Screen and AV Guide, (3) analysis of the
post-1965 film holdings of thirty-one libraries responding
to the questionnaire, and (4) analysis of the reviews of
post-1965 films that appeared in the six reviewing media
prior to the commencement of this study in October 1971.
Findings
Relative Influence of the Published Reviews
Responses to the questionnaire indicated published
reviews of sixteen millimeter films were regarded as a
major influence on film selection by a majority of the
reporting libraries. Presented with a list of possible
:influences on film selection and asked to rank them accord-
i
|ing to their relative influence on film selection, 44 per
| 293
|
|cent of the responding libraries ranked published reviews
j
!as the most influential item. The item ranked by the
j second largest number of respondents was so ranked by only j
9 per cent of the respondents. A total of 64 per cent of >
i
:the respondents indicated published film reviews were
: l
j I
;among the three most influential items.
Furthermore, the analysis of library holdings indi
cated 55 per cent of all post-1965 titles owned, 69 per |
icent of all post-1965 titles owned by two or more libraries\
and 84 per cent of all post-1965 titles owned by eight or
more libraries, had been reviewed.
Methods by Which Reviews Were Prepared
Landers Film Reviews was unique in that all of its
reviews were prepared by the service's owners and a full
time, paid staff. All other media relied heavily on in-the-
i
!field volunteers to assist in the production of reviews.
jEFLA's evaluations derived from: (1) reports of in-the-
!
field volunteer committees on films either assigned to them
|or that they had seen in the course of their activities,
1(2) evaluations of entered films at the annual American
Film Festival prepared by Festival jurors, and, more
i
recently, (3) evaluations prepared by EFLA staff and New
! 294
I
j
i York City film specialists. Booklist1s reviews were pre-
I
j pared by paid staff members after considering evaluations
|
|prepared by two in-the-field volunteer committees and
:deciding whether or not to publish a review. Most reviews
I appearing in Film News were prepared by individual teachers,
!librarians, and other in-the-field film users for films
;assigned them by the editor. Film Library Quarterly
|reviews were either unsolicited contributions from readers
!or reviews, prepared at the request of the editors by
individuals they deemed outstandingly well qualified for
;films they considered important. Reviews appearing in
Educational Screen and AV Guide were prepared by persons at
!Indiana University for titles considered for addition to
the University^ large rental collection.
It may be relevant to note that Landers Film
I Reviews, with a reviewing staff of six (including the two
!owners), was responsible for the production of 3,442 of the
i
t
|total 6,287 reviews of post-1965 films identified in this
i
!study. Perhaps, the method of review was responsible for
|this productivity.
| Ultimately, the producers and distributors of
\sixteen millimeter films appear to be responsible for
j bringing films to the attention of reviewers and review
I
I
jmedia. In some cases, -they directly submit films to the
i
Imedia for review. In other cases, they bring new titles to
;the attention of reviewers and review media by announce
ments, advertisements, and other merchandising activities.
:The relationship between producers and distributors and the
review media is complicated by the fact the media are
dependent upon the good will of producers and distributors
1 i
I
sfor the supplying of preview prints. Furthermore, media j
I I
■such as Film News and Film Library Quarterly are dependent j
|
|on the advertising revenue or even the subsidies of pro- |
ducers and distributors for their existence. j
! !
i I
|
Problems of Review Media !
: !
; i
Financial difficulties were reported by the major- j
ity of the review media. Shortages of funds resulted in
i
there not being enough staff, available time, and space
within the publications so that only a limited number of
films could be reviewed and only a limited number of
reviews could be published. Only Landers Film Reviews J
specifically indicated finances were not a problem. j
I ■ i
Other difficulties mentioned by the review media j
frequently included problems connected with obtaining j
296
!highly qualified and reliable in-the-field volunteer
I
reviewers or consultant groups.: Film News complained of I
competition for limited advertising revenue and of the !
lateness of some in-the-field reviewers. Booklist indi- j
■cated there was some difficulty in obtaining full coopera- j
'tion from all producers and distributors. This particular j
! problem might reasonably be related to the method of review j
used by Booklist since two preview prints, which may be j
; |
ikept several months or longer, are requested and with no j
: !
I
i
guarantee the title will ever actually receive a published |
; j
review. The large number of titles submitted to Landers j
Film Reviews by producers and distributors may in part be
attributed to the manner of review, whereby preview prints j
are returned in ten days, and the fact submitted films are j
; • j
! almost always reviewed. ;
Librarians' Criticisms of the Review Media
; i
; • |
j r
Of the responding film librarians, 62.5 per cent
considered the lateness of reviews a major problem. This
criticism was most frequently levied at EFLA Cards and J
Booklist, two media that rely heavily on the reports of j
\ |
in-the-field consultant groups. Such lateness may be j
i
related to the uncertain punctuality of such groups and the !
; .......... " 297
I great deal of time consumed in assigning titles, mailing
iprints, receiving and processing reports, and so forth.
Other common complaints were that too few films
were reviewed; there were too few reviews of free, spon
sored, and inexpensive films; and that too many of the I
: ' t
I films reviewed were of little interest to public libraries, j
Furthermore, the total study seemed to indicate
there were too many unsigned reviews and reviews by persons
;of obscure or unspecified backgrounds and that it might be
desirable to replace the large number of in-the-field
;volunteers with a smaller corps of highly qualified indi-
;viduals who review frequently and sufficient numbers of
films to establish strong reputations and a confidence in
their judgments on the part of review users. The present
isystem seems to result in reviews being late and of !
|
uncertain quality.
i The major criticisms of Landers Film Reviews con-
j
|cerned reviews being too lenient and non-committal and the
I
large number of films reviewed of little interest to public
|libraries. The leading criticism of EFLA Cards was that
reviews were too brief. A number of respondents specifi
cally complained of the highly variable quality of these I
: )
; i
reviews. The leading criticisms of Booklist were that !
j 298
i .
I
; reviews were unsigned, were too non-committal, and were too
I
|
I few. The main criticisms of Film News and Film Library
iQuarterly were that these media published too few reviews.
Review and Unreviewed Titles Owned by
the Libraries
Although a majority of titles owned by a single
: library had not been reviewed, a substantial majority of
the titles owned by two or more libraries had been reviewed.
An examination of titles owned by a single library revealed
;many of the unreviewed titles were distributed by distribu
tors of sponsored and depository films. This was not true
of the reviewed titles owned by a single library.
A large majority of the titles owned by eight or
more libraries had been reviewed. Those which had not been
reviewed were discovered to consist predominantly of films
distributed by the Canadian Travel Film Library and other
f
;distributors of sponsored and depository films as well as
i
!of titles from previously reviewed series.
Thus, a large portion of unreviewed films owned by
libraries appeared to be sponsored and depository films.
I Except for EFLA and Film News, most media rarely review or
ispecifically exclude from review these categories of film.
299
Interestingly, the lack of such reviews was one of the
r '
|
jquestioned libraries’ most frequent criticisms of the j
!review media.
j
j
! A correlation of +.88 existed between the number of
i
i
I libraries owning a title and the likelihood it had been
| reviewed. This suggests the review of a film which is
|relevant to public library needs increases the likelihood
!the title will be owned by a larger number of libraries.
Favorable and Unfavorable Evaluations
* i
; I
The only review medium publishing substantial
: numbers of negative evaluations was EFLA Cards. The other
I review media indicated they were disinclined to publish
highly negative reviews, and, except for Film News, few
ireviews judged to be negative were found. The somewhat
i larger number of negative reviews appearing in Film News
i
jwas possibly due to the magazine's policy of reviewing
i . ' '
I
I denominational religious and other sponsored films.
i
' Of the 6,287 reviews analyzed, 40 per cent were
i
judged to represent "clearly superior" ratings compared to
154.5 per cent "acceptable to good" ratings and 5.5 per cent !
|"clearly seriously flawed" ratings. Titles receiving any
i i
i 1
!"clearly superior" ratings were more likely to be owned j
! i
; 300
| than titles receiving any " acceptable to good1 1 ratings or
!
j any "seriously flawed" ratings.
i I
The likelihood a title reviewed by two or more
media was owned was found to be positively correlated
! (+.81) with the proportion of the review configuration
which was judged to represent "clearly superior" ratings.
Thus evidence indicated favorably reviewed titles were more
i widely owned than were titles receiving smaller proportions
of more "clearly superior" ratings.
i
A comparable relationship was not found to exist in
regard to unfavorable reviews and non-ownership. The
ownership or non-ownership of titles receiving "clearly
j seriously flawed" reviews was not found to be substantially
:different from the ownership or non-ownership of titles
receiving "acceptable to good" reviews.
I Duplication of Review
i
i Among the more interesting findings of the study
!
I were those relating to duplication of review. Twenty-eight
iper cent of all titles reviewed and 43 per cent of all
I reviewed titles owned had been reviewed by two or more of
i
! the review media. Furthermore, the greater the number of
I media reviewing a title, the greater was the likelihood the j
| 301
j
jtitle was owned by one or more libraries, and the greater
i
j
I was the likelihood it was owned by a larger number of the
|analyzed libraries.
I
The reason for this correlation is not clear. Were
i these titles more widely owned because they had been widely
reviewed, or, were both the wide ownership and the wide
I
I review symptomatic of the operation of other factors such
|
as superior quality of the product or more intensive mer
chandising by the distributors? Were these films widely
I
reviewed because of their excellence or because the
activities of producers and distributors insured the titles
would come to the review media's attention? Would these
;factors have insured wide ownership even if the titles
,had been less widely reviewed? These questions should be
I answered before any decision is made as to whether or not
.widespread duplication of review is wasteful or is an
;important device for bringing superior films to the atten
tion of public library film librarians.
| Agreement and Disagreement of Reviews
I
A majority of the titles reviewed by two or more
media demonstrated substantial agreement between the
reviews they received. Forty-three per cent demonstrated
302
100 per cent agreement; 58 per cent demonstrated clear
| agreement between higher than 66 per cent of their reviews.
Only 171 of the 339 titles receiving any "clearly
|seriously flawed" reviews had received more than a single
!
| review. Only seven of these received more than one nega-
i tive review. Conversely, sixty-nine titles demonstrated
j clear disagreement within the review configuration by
i
receiving both "clearly seriously flawed" and "clearly
jsuperior" reviews.
The scarcity of negative consensus and of clear
disagreement within review configurations may be attribut
able to the media's reluctance to publish negative reviews.
Thus, if a title did receive a negative review (usually
from EFLA) , it was unlikely another medium would have
reviewed it unless that medium considered it worthy of
i
;recommendation.
I
j
| Conclusions
I
i
| The findings of this study seem to warrant the
!following conclusions:
i
i
| 1. Published reviews of sixteen millimeter films
exert a major influence on film selection in public
ilibraries owning large numbers of sixteen millimeter films.
303
2. While such libraries rely on a variety of pub
lished, mailed, and person-to-person forms of communication
for information about new sixteen millimeter films, pub
lished film reviews constitute the single source of
information with the greatest overall influence on film
I selection.
I
!
3. A majority of the recent sixteen millimeter
films owned by public libraries with large film collections
have been reviewed. However, a very substantial number of
the films owned have not been reviewed.
4. Reviewed titles tend to be owned by larger
numbers of libraries than are unreviewed titles.
5. Unreviewed titles that are owned by relatively
few libraries tend to include many sponsored and deposi
tory films.
6. Relatively few sponsored and depository films
are reviewed by the major film reviewing media. Such films
constitute a substantial portion of the film collections of
some libraries. (EPLA Cards and Film News do review some
! ---------
j
jsponsored and depository films.)
7. Unreviewed films owned by large numbers of
libraries tend to be either titles from previously reviewed
series or titles distributed by the Canadian Travel Film
304
Library.
!
8. Titles reviewed by more than one review medium
I are more likely to be owned and to be owned by a larger
i
number of libraries than are titles reviewed by a single
!medium.
9. The greater the number of media reviewing a
;film, the greater is the likelihood that film will be owned
land owned by a larger number of libraries. However,
whether the increased ownership is a result of the larger
number of published reviews or whether the increased number
iof reviews and the increased ownership are both attribut-.
able to the operation of other factors, such as increased
merchandising on the part of producers and distributors,
is uncertain.
10. Titles receiving clearly superior reviews are
more likely to be owned than are other reviewed titles.
11. Relatively few unfavorable reviews are pub-
ilished by the majority of the media studied. EFLA Cards is
the major source of negative reviews. Other review media
are either reluctant to publish such reviews or specifi
cally limit themselves to reviewing recommended items.
12. There is substantial duplication in titles
i
reviewed by the various review media. The fewer the number |
I 305
i
i
I
I of titles reviewed by a medium, the greater is the likeli-
i
i
i
ihood the films it reviews have also been reviewed elsewhere.
I Whether this duplication is wasteful or is essential for j
j
I
|publicizing superior motion pictures is uncertain.
13. In most cases, there is general agreement in
I the consensus of the reviews a title receives.
14. Clear disagreement between published reviews
'is relatively rare; this is due to the relatively few
negative reviews published.
15. Clear disagreement is found in a high propor
tion of the reviews received by titles which have received
a negative review and have also been reviewed by more than
one medium. This may be attributed to the reluctance of
most media to publish negative reviews. Therefore a title
I receiving a negative review from one medium is unlikely to
be reviewed elsewhere unless another medium finds the film
i acceptable or worthy of commendation.
16. With the exception of Landers Film Reviews,
ithe review media studied rely heavily on volunteer in-the-
i field consultants for assistance in the preparation of
■ sixteen millimeter reviews.
17. This reliance on in-the-field volunteers con
tributes to major problems associated with published film !
jreviews, notably the lateness with which reviews appear.
t
| It also contributes to the uncertain reliability of many
:reviews since they are prepared by unfamiliar or identified
!individuals whose standards vary greatly.
| 18. Producers and distributors either directly or ;
: ' i
;indirectly determine which titles are considered for
; I
|review. They do this either by submitting prints for
;review or through merchandising activities such as new
;film announcements and advertisements that bring titles to
the attention of the review media or the in-the-field con
sultants . i
: i
19. The review media are highly dependent on the
good will of the producers and distributors of films for
their continued submission of preview prints. Furthermore,
jsome media are financially dependent on advertising revenue
I or even the direct subsidy of producers and distributors.
i
|
| 20. The major problem faced by most of the studied
|review media is one of inadequate finances. The lack of
i
funds and consequent shortages of time, staff and publica- i
;tion space strongly limit the number of reviews that can be
I prepared and published by most review media. Only Landers j
Film Reviews (by far the publisher of the greatest number I
of film reviews) finds funding is not a problem. I
[ ................... 307.
21. The method of review employed by Booklist
whereby two preview prints are requested and the judgments
of two in-the-field consultant committees are acquired
i
before the decision on whether or not to review is made,
contributes to the lateness of this medium's reviews and to
the difficulty it experiences in obtaining full cooperation
from certain producers and distributors.
I
i
|
22. The method of review employed by Landers Film
Reviews, whereby the assistance of in-the-field volunteers
; !
is not utilized, contributes to the rapidity with which
films are processed and returned to the producer or dis-
i
i
tributor. This speedy handling contributes to the excellent
i
rapport between the review medium and film producers and I
|
distributors and is partially responsible for the large i
; j
number of titles submitted for review and the large number j
I
; I
of reviews published. i
| 23. With the exception of Film Library Quarterly,
| and to a far lesser degree EFLA Cards, the review media
s
■view schools as their primary audiences. Reviews are
preponderantly addressed to the needs of such audiences.
24. A major shortcoming of published sixteen i
; i
millimeter film reviews is that they do not appear soon
; i
enough after a film's release. This shortcoming represents j
I 308
! the aspect of the review media with which public library
film librarians are most dissatisfied.
Recommendations
< The following recommendations are based on the
findings of this study:
1. The production and publication of sixteen
millimeter film reviews must be expedited and the number of
reviews increased. To this end, the individual review
media must re-examine the methods by which their reviews
are produced, institute necessary changes in these proce
dures, and seek innovative techniques for the production of
prompter, more efficient and effective, reviews.
2. The present fragmentation of the review media
indicates some kind of meeting should take place during
which representatives of the review media can discuss
‘mutual problems and interests, seek productive solutions to
ithese problems and establish formal channels of communica-
i
tion for the purpose of cooperation between review media
iand possible coordination of reviews. Meetings of review
producers with review users might also be useful.
3. The widespread practice of relying on the
assistance of in-the-field volunteers for review production
j 309
I
|requires careful re-examination. The findings of this
i
jstudy indicate these techniques often contribute to the
I
slowness, expense, and unreliability of published reviews.
|Studies should be undertaken to determine whether important
;and unique benefits derive from the utilization of in-the-
:field consultants, or whether reviews of equal or superior
|quality and effectiveness might not be prepared more
I quickly and economically by small corps of highly qualified
paid employees. The value and economy of using in-the-
field consultants should be clearly established if review
media are to continue relying so heavily on them for the
I creation of reviews.
4. The Booklist, in particular, should reconsider
the methods used for the preparation of its sixteen milli
meter film reviews. It should be determined if equally
satisfactory reviews might not be prepared using one rather
|than two in-the-field consultant groups, or if, perhaps,
!
equally good reviews might not be prepared using paid staff
I
;members alone. These alterations would seem likely to
i
result in quicker processing of films, quicker publication
|of reviews, larger numbers of reviews, and better relations
with producers and distributors.
i 310
I
j 5. All review media should clearly indicate the
i
|individual most responsible for each review. EFLA Cards
1 should include the name of the chairman of the evaluating
: . \ . . . i
; 1
committee as well as the name of the committee. The Book-
i I
i ■ |
:list should indicate, perhaps by initials, the staff member!
I who prepared each review. Landers Film Reviews should
|introduce each annual volume with a brief statement of
!
i review policy and practices and an identification of the
reviewing staff. Audiovisual Guide should indicate the
|position of the person signing each film review and the
role he played in the review's preparation.
6. A commercially viable library periodical with
ia large circulation should introduce a continuing feature
|consisting of a monthly column of critical evaluations of
I
inew sixteen millimeter films by a prominent, highly
i
irespected individual who is widely acknowledged to be an
i
!expert on films and their use in public libraries.
7. Film Library Quarterly should publish more
|reviews, and, if possible, publish them more frequently. A
|bimonthly newsletter consisting largely of reviews might be
i
! considered.
8. The review media should consider facilitating
the rapid scanning of school oriented reviews by public
3 1 1
:librarians by devices such as the placing of an asterisk j
' I
before film titles deemed to be especially appropriate or |
; I
desirable for public library collections. |
i
9. The review media should seek to establish
channels for continuous user feedback on the adequacy of
their reviews for meeting users ' needs. j
I
10. The feasability of establishing a film review j
I
digest along the lines of the Book Review Digest should be I
explored. j
11. The Film Library Information Council should
prepare annual lists of recommended films for public
library collections. It might consider awarding citations
to outstanding films.
12. The Canadian Travel Film Library and its role
in expanding public library film service should be studied
as a basis for recommending the establishment of similar
agencies in the United States.
|
13. A national committee or organization, perhaps
under the auspices of the American Library Association,
should be established to serve as a clearinghouse and
evaluation center for sponsored films. A major function of
this clearinghouse would be to prepare depository collec- |
i • j
tions of outstanding films of this type for placement in
public libraries throughout the United States. This would
make high quality free of cost films widely available to
I public libraries and their patrons, serve to encourage the
production of superior films by sponsoring organizations, j
. j
:and repay the sponsors by making their films available to a
|large and changing audience. j
14. A study should be undertaken to clearly deter-!
mine why the most widely reviewed titles are also the most j
S
widely owned titles, and to indicate whether or not dupli-
; i
cation of reviews by the various media is needed or
wasteful.
15. A study should be undertaken to determine how
satisfactory and influential published sixteen millimeter
reviews are in aiding film selection in schools. The study
should investigate how extensively published reviews are
;used for guidance in the selection of rental films, and
j determine if the scarcity of negative reviews handicaps
this selection.
I
16. A study should be undertaken to investigate
the roles and feelings of producers and distributors of
i
i
sixteen millimeter films in relation to published reviews, j
Their evaluations of the worth, effectiveness and short-
i
comings of the review media and factors that influence them
313
to cooperate or not cooperate with review media should be
solicited.
APPENDICES
314 |
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
315
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: REVIEW MEDIA
316
1. Background
How did the (periodical/service/organization) begin?
Who started it?
When
For what purpose?
Has its purpose changed over the years?
In terms of the (periodical's/organization's) overall
goals, how important are its sixteen millimeter film
reviews?
What is the aim of these reviews?
Towards whom are they directed?
Are there any plans for changing or expanding your
review service?
2. Selection of Films for Review
How much of the responsibility for getting a film
reviewed rests with the films distributor?
What proportion of the films you review have been
submitted at the initiative of the distributor?
What proportion has the service itself requested?
In what other ways are review titles obtained?
Is every film submitted for review actually reviewed?
What proportion are not?
Are there certain categories of films that you will
NOT review?
How are films eliminated? Based on what criteria?
Do you have a written statement of policy concern
ing what will be reviewed?
Are certain distributors more likely to have sub
mitted films reviewed than others? Why?
Are many free, low cost, and sponsored films reviewed^
I
If not, why not?
Reviewers
How many reviewers does the (periodical/service)
utilize for the review of sixteen millimeter films?
Who are they?
Are they paid?
How much turnover is there in reviewers?
How many new reviewers are employed each year?
How are they recruited?
What qualifications do you seek?
What criteria are used in reviewing films? How do
you insure reviewers are using these criteria?
Do you have written statements of criteria?
Evaluation forms?
Do you hesitate to print very negative reviews? Why?
Do you ever edit, change or reject a review? Why?
How often?
318
Do you ever terminate a reviewer's services? Why?
How often?
How are the review screenings physically accomp
lished?
4. Problems and Predictions
What problems does your organization experience in
reviewing sixteen millimeter films?
Do you receive any feedback from your users? Are
they generally satisfied with film review services?
What complaints and criticisms do they have?
Is lateness of review a problem?
Are there certain kinds of films that users wish
reviewed more extensively? What are they?
Considering all present sources of published reviews
of sixteen millimeter films, how do you rate the
current system?
Is an adequate job being done?
What are its present shortcomings? What needs to
be improved?
What solutions would you suggest?
What do you predict will be the future role of pub
lished film reviews? What need will exist for such
services? What changes do you foresee?
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER
319
2041 North Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90027]
October 3, 1971
Dear Film Librarian, j
! !
|Recent years have witnessed increased efforts on the part j
of non-print specialists to improve, expand, and obtain j
greater recognition for audio-visual services in public
libraries. It has frequently been suggested that, if these]
goals are to be achieved, more research must be undertaken j
in areas related to audio-visual library operations. i
i
iBecause I share this opinion and because of my own interest ]
in non-print media, I have undertaken a doctoral disserta
tion at the University of Southern California’s School of
Library Science which will study the major reviewing media
for sixteen millimeter motion pictures and their influence
on film selection in public libraries owning more than
500 titles. My research will include questionnaires
addressed to these libraries, interviews with representa
tives of the review media, and analyses of film reviews and ]
I library collections. j
: I
] I
I The enclosed questionnaire has been prepared with the j
gracious assistance of film librarians who are actively j
]engaged in film library projects at the local, state, and
|national levels. They have been kind enough to suggest
jthat the results of this study will be of great value.
j
]The success of this project is dependent upon your coopera
tion. May I ask you to complete the questionnaire and
; return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided?
A synopsis of the results will be sent to you. Since I
!
321
iwill shortly be leaving on a cross-country journey to
gather additional information, I would be grateful if you
would send the form to my New York address no later than
October 25, 1971. Your help is sincerely appreciated.
Yours truly,
Joseph W. Palmer
322
Joseph W. Palmer
iUniversity of Southern California
School of Library Science
Fall 1971
THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLISHED REVIEWS OF SIXTEEN MILLIMETER
MOTION PICTURES ON PUBLIC LIBRARY FILM SELECTION
Name of Library:
Questionnaire completed by:
Name:
Title: Date:
1. Are sixteen millimeter films previewed before
purchase?
Always Usually Occasionally Rarely
2. Are all sixteen millimeter depository or gift films
previewed before acceptance?
Always Usually Occasionally Rarely
3. How many sixteen millimeter titles does your collec
tion contain?
4. How many sixteen millimeter films are previewed
annually?
5. What proportion of these are eventually acquired?
%
323
6. Who usually previews sixteen millimeter films?
The film librarians only
The film librarians and other members of the
library staff
A group which includes both library staff and
members of the community
7. Which of the following review media does the library
regularly receive?
Landers Film Reviews
EFLA Evaluation Cards
Film News
The Booklist
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Film Library Quarterly
8. Which of these does the film division regularly scan
for reviews of sixteen millimeter films?
Landers Film Reviews
EFLA Evaluation Cards
Film News
The Booklist
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Film Library Quarterly
9. Are there any other review media that significantly
influence sixteen millimeter film selection? Please
list them below.
324
10. Please RANK the following according to their relative
influence on the selection of sixteen millimeter films
for preview or acquisition. (Most influential = "1,"
next most influential = "2," etc.)
Landers Film Reviews
EFLA Evaluation Cards
Film News
The Booklist
Educational Screen and AV Guide
Film Library Quarterly
Other (Please name): ______________________________
Other (Please name): _____________________________
Other (Please name): _____________________________
11. Why is the review medium you ranked as "1" the most
influential?
12. Which of the following do you find to be current
problems?
Excessive duplication of reviews— the various
services all review the same titles
Lack of multiple reviews— there is not enough
duplication to provide a diversity of opinion
Lateness of reviews
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too lenient
Too few films are reviewed
Too many films are reviewed— reviews should be
more selective
Reviews are unreliable
Not enough reviews of free, inexpensive and
sponsored films
Not enough films are reviewed in specific areas
(Please indicate areas) :________________________
Other (Please indicate):________________________
13. Does the library's evaluation of previewed films
usually agree with the published reviews?
Almost always agree
Usually agree
Frequently disagree
Usually disagree
325
14. Which, of the following do you find to be objectionable
characteristics of LANDERS FILM REVIEWS?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too few reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of little inter
est to public libraries (e.g., classroom films,
technical films, feature films, etc.)
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
Reviews are not signed
Other (Please specify) :____________________________
The form of the review impedes rapid scanning
a. How would you rate the overall value of LANDERS
FILM REVIEWS for public library film selection?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve
LANDERS FILM REVIEWS?
15. Which of the following do you find to be objectionable
characteristics of EFLA EVALUATION CARDS?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many films are reviewed
Too few films are reviewed
Too many of the films reviewed are of little
interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
The form of the review impedes rapid scanning
Other CPlease specify):____________________________
326
a. How would you rate the overall value of EFLA
EVALUATION CARDS for public library film selec
tion?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve
EFLA EVALUATION CARDS?
Which of the following do you find to be objectionable
characteristics of FILM NEWS?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too few reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of little
interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
The form of the review impedes rapid scanning
Other (Please specify) ; _______________________
a. How would you rate the overall value of FILM NEWS
for public library film selection?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve
FILM NEWS?
327
17. Which of the following do you find to he objectionable
characteristics of THE BOOKLIST?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too few reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of little
interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
Reviews are not signed
The form of the review impedes scanning
Other (Please specify):____________________________
a. How would you rate the overall value of THE
BOOKLIST for public library film selection?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve
THE BOOKLIST?
18. Which of the following do you find to be objectionable
characteristics of EDUCATIONAL SCREEN AND AV GUIDE?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too few reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of little
interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
The form of the review impedes rapid scanning
Other (Please specify):____________________________
328 |
i
a. How would you rate the overall value of EDUCA- ;
TIONAL SCREEN AND AV GUIDE for public library film
selection?
i
Excellent Good Fair Poor
i
i
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve j
EDUCATIONAL SCREEN AND AV GUIDE? i
19. Which of the following do you find to be objectionable
characteristics of FILM LIBRARY QUARTERLY?
Reviews are too long
Reviews are too brief
Too many reviews
Too few reviews
Too many of the films reviewed are of little
interest to public libraries
Reviews are too lenient
Reviews are too severe
Reviews are too non-committal
Evaluations are unreliable— not authoritative
The form of the review impedes rapid scanning
Other (Please specify):________________________
a. How would you rate the overall value of FILM
LIBRARY QUARTERLY for public library film
selection?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
b. What would you suggest the publisher do to improve
FILM LIBRARY QUARTERLY?
20. Please indicate how extensively the film library uses
the following bibliographic tools for selection !
purposes. J
Film Review Index;
Not Owned but Moderately Heavily !
Owned rarely used used used !
NICEM Index to 16inm Educational Films;
Not Owned but Moderately Heavily
owned rarely used used used
Library of Congress Catalog: Motion Pictures and
Filmstrips:
_Not
owned
_Owned but
rarely used
Mode r ately
used
_Heavily
used
The Blue Book of Audiovisual Materials (in August
issues of Educational Screen and AV Guide):
_N°t
owned
_Owned but
rarely used
The Learning Directory:
_Not
owned
Owned but
rarely used
^Moderately
used
_Moderately
used
JHeavily
used
_Heavily
used
Bibliographies and lists of films appearing in
periodicals (e.g., articles listing films on conserva
tion, etc.):
Rarely
used
_Moderately
used
Heavily
used
Lists of award winning films:
Rarely __Moderately __Heavily
used used used
Monographic bibliographies of films such as EFLA1s
Feature Films on 8mm and 16mm:
Rarely __Moderately __Heavily
used used used
Distributors1 catalogs:
Rarely __Moderately Heavily
used used used
330
21. Do distributors' sales representatives visit the
library to discuss new films?
Frequently Occasionally Almost never
22. Which distributors do this the most? (Please name)
23. Do these visits substantially influence selection?
Very much Substantially Moderately Little
24. Does the library receive many advertisements for new
films by mail?
Very many Many Some JFew
25. Do these substantially influence selection for preview
or purchase?
Very much Substantially Moderately Little
I
26. Do advertisements for films appearing in periodicals
influence selection for preview or purchase?
i
Very much Substantially Moderately Little
27. Does the library receive unsolicited preview prints of
sixteen millimeter films? j
I
t
Very often Fairly Occasionally Rarely
often
28. Who sends these unsolicited preview prints? (Check as
many as are appropriate.)
Producers
Distributors
Others (Please identify):____
29. Are unsolicited preview prints usually previewed?
Almost always More often than not Not usually
331
3Q. Are they purchased?
Very Fairly __Occasionally Rarely
frequently often
31. Does the film division participate in joint preview
screening sessions with other libraries?
Frequently Occasionally Rarely
32. Who arranges these screenings and selects the films
to be shown? (Check as many as are appropriate.)
Professional associations
Library systems, circuits and networks
Producers and distributors
Other (Please specify) :____________________________
33. Do these screenings substantially influence selections
of titles for your collection?
Very much Substantially Moderately Little
34. Do distributors ever arrange preview sessions in which
groups of new films— which they have chosen— are
shown?
Frequently Occasionally Rarely
35. Are these screenings arranged for your library indi
vidually or for simultaneous showing to representa
tives of several film using organizations?
Usually for representatives of this library only
Sometimes for this library only, sometimes for
representatives of several groups
Usually for representatives of several groups
36. Do these screenings substantially influence selection?
Very much Substantially Moderately Little
i 332
|
137. Doe?, professional contact with, the librarians of other
| film collections and informal sharing of opinions and I
suggestions influence your selection of films for j
preview- or purchase?
Very much Substantially Moderately Little j
* * “ " " * " r i
138. Where do these contacts occur? I
Preview screenings
Conventions
Organization and other professional meetings
Film festivals
Social meetings
Telephone conversations
Other (Please specify):_____________________
39. Please RANK the following according to their relative j
influence on the selection of sixteen millimeter films !
for preview or purchase at your library? (Most I
influential = "I," next most influential = "2," and j
so forth)
Published film reviews
NICEM Index to 16mm Educational Films
Library of Congress Catalog
Other bibliographies (both monographs and film
lists appearing in periodicals)
Distributors' catalogs
Salesmen's visits
Advertisements (both those appearing in periodi
cals and those received by mail)
Unsolicited preview prints
Screenings arranged by producers, distributors,
or others or cooperatively with other libraries
Comments and suggestions received during profes
sional contact with the librarians of other
collections
Other influences (Please specify):______________
This completes the questionnaire. Thank you for your
I cooperation. Any additional comments you may wish to make
will be welcome.
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC LIBRARY FILM COLLECTIONS INCLUDED
IN THIS STUDY
333
PUBLIC LIBRARY FILM COLLECTIONS INCLUDED
IN THIS STUDY
Los Angeles Public Library, Los Angeles, California
Los Angeles County Library, Los Angeles, California
Long Beach Public Library, Long Beach, California
Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado
Saint Louis Public Library, Saint Louis, Missouri
Saint Louis County Library, Saint Louis, Missouri
Chicago Public Library, Chicago, Illinois
Henry Ford Centennial Library, Dearborn, Michigan-1 -
Toledo-Lucas County Library, Toledo, Ohio
Cleveland Public Library, Cleveland, Ohio
Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York
Westchester Library System, New Rochelle, New York
New York Public Library, New York City, New York
Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, New York
Nassau County Library System, Roosevelt Field, New York
Greenwich Public Library, Greenwich, Connecticut
Ferguson Public Library, Stamford, Connecticut
Russel Public Library, Middleton, Connecticut
Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts
Western Massachusetts Regional Library System, Springfield
Massachusetts
Worcester Public Library, Worcester, Massachusetts
Montgomery County Department of Public Libraries, Bethesda
Maryland
Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland
Public Library of the District of Columbia, Washington,
District of Columbia
; Arlington County Public Library, Arlington, Virginia
|Eastern Pennsylvania Regional Film Center at the Free -
Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
•Western Pennsylvania Regional Film Center at Pittsburgh
Public Library, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Columbus Public Library, Columbus, Ohio
Henry Ford Centennial Library, Dearborn, Michigan
participated in the questionnaire, but its collection was
not analyzed.
Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton Counties,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Louisville Free Public Library, Louisville, Kentucky
Public Library of Nashville and Davidson Counties,
Nashville, Tennessee
Dallas Public Library, Dallas, Texas
BIBLIOGRAPHY
336
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Allison, Mary L., comp. New Educational Materials. New
York: Citation Press, 1968.
|Alter, Forrest, ed. Sixty Years of 16mm Film, 1923-1983.
Evanston, 111. : Film Council of America, 1954.
Audiovisual Marketplace. 3d ed. New York: Bowker, 1971.
Cory, Patricia Blair, and Myer, Violet F. Cooperative
Film Services in Public Libraries; a Report of a
Survey of Public Library Film Cooperatives.
Chicago: American Library Association, 1956.
Elliott, Godfrey M., ed. Film and Education. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1948.
Film Evaluation Guide, 1946-1964. New York: Educational
Film Library Association, 1965.
Film Evaluation Guide, Supplement, 1968. New York: Educa'
tional Film Library Association, 1968.
Film Library Information Council. Directory of Film
Gaver,
Hicks,
|Jones,
337
Libraries in North America. New York: Film
Library Information Council, 1971.
Mary V., ed. Background Readings in Building
Library Collections. Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow
Press, 1969.
Warren B., and Tillin, Alma. Developing Multi-Media
Libraries. New York: Bowker, 1970.
Emily S. Manual on Film Evaluation. 2d ed. New
York: Educational Film Library Association, 1967.
iKleine, George. Catalogue of Educational Motion Pictures.
New York: George Kleine Co., 1910.
|Kujoth, Jean S., ed. Readings in Non-Book Librarianship.
Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow Press, 1968.
Kula, Sam. Bibliography of Film Librarianship. London:
The Library Association, 1967.
Learning Directory. New York: Westinghouse Learning
Corporation, 1970.
| Lieberman, Irving. Audio-Visual Instruction in Library
Education. New York: Columbia University School
of Library Service, 1955.
jMcDonald, Gerald D. Educational Motion Pictures and
Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association,
1942.
Public Library Association. Audiovisual Committee. Guide
lines for Audiovisual Materials and Services for
Public Libraries. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1970.
Saettler, Paul. A History of Instructional Technology.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968.
; Waldron, Gloria. The Information Film. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1949.
jWork Conference on Bibliographic Control of Newer Media,
Bloomington, 1960. Proceedings of Work Conference
on Bibliographic Control of Newer Media Convened at
| Indiana University, October 5-7, 1960 under the
Sponsorship of the U.S. Office of Education.
Bloomington: Indiana University, 1960.
Articles and Periodicals
Anderson, Reba. "Preview and Evaluation of Films." Illi
nois Libraries, XLV (February, 1963), 85-89. j
I 339
I
i
I"Annual EFLA Meeting." Film News, V (September, 1944),
I 4-5.
i"AV Reviews Expanding." Booklist, LXVII (September 1,
1970) , 39.
|
;Blair, Patricia 0. "A.L.A. Film Questionnaire.1 1 American
Library Association Bulletin, XLIV (July-August,
1950), 280-81.
; ________. "Films in Public Libraries." Saturday Review
of Literature, XXXII (June 11, 1949), 34-36.
________ . "Films in Public Libraries: A Review of Prog
ress to Date." See and Hear, V (January, 1950),
43.
; ________. "Films on Your Library Card." Film News, VIII
(March-April, 1948), 18.
Brubacker, Mildred J. "The A & P of AV Materials."
Illinois Libraries, XLIX (February, 1967), 129-40.
Clark, Joan E. "FLIC— One Year Old." Film Library
Quarterly, I (Summer, 1968), 7.
________ . "Media Services in Public Libraries." Bookmark,
XXVII (December, 1967), 119-24.
Cocks, Orrin G. "Libraries and Motion Pictures— An Ignored
Educational Agency." Library Journal, XXXIX
(September, 1914), 666-69.
iCory, Patricia Blair. "Public Library Film Services from
Start Till Now." Film News, XXIII (June, 1966), 5.
I .......
Dunnetski, Stanley F. "Principles of Film Evaluation for
Public Libraries." Illinois Libraries, XLIX
(February, 1967), 89-92.
Eason, Tracy. "A Selected Bibliography of A-V Media in
Library Literature, 1958-69." Wilson Library
Bulletin, XLIV (November, 1969), 312-19.
j"Enter FLIC— The Film Library Information Council." Book
mark, XXVI (November, 1967), 89-90.
"Evaluations— Pro and Con Comments from Readers." Educa
tional Screen, XXXIV (March 1955), 116.
"Films in Public Libraries." Drexel Library Quarterly, II
(April, 1966), entire issue.
French, Janet. "The Evaluation Gap." Library Journal, XCV
(March, 1970), 1162-66.
"From the EFLA Office." Sightlines, I (July-August, 1968),j
Greaves, William. "An Interview with Rahoma Lee." Film j
News, XXVI (December, 1969), 5-10+. |
I !
I
Greene, Nelson L. "A New Project for Evaluation of Educa- !
tional Films." Educational Screen, XVIII (January,I
1939), 19. j
i
I
Jones, Emily. "Educational Film Library Association." j
Drexel Library Quarterly, II (April, 1966), 141-43. j
j
i
________. "EFLA Works for Better Films." Educational |
Screen and AV Guide, XLII (August, 1963), 420-21.
________. "The Educational Film in 1967 and Beyond."
Educational Screen and AV Guide, XLVII (January, j
1968), 24-26.
!_______ . "Personally Speaking." EFLA Bulletin, XX
(September, 1962),2. j
;Jones, Norma L. "Selection of Media in Libraries— Criteria
and Tools." Wisconsin Library Bulletin, LXVII
(May, 1971), 131-34+.
Landers, Bertha. "New Film Review Service." Library
Journal, LXXXII (April 15, 1957), 1042.
Larson, L. C. "The Formation of the Educational Film
Library Association." Film News, IV (Summer, 1943);
11-12. !
341
!Lee, Rahoma. "The Film News Story." Film News, XVII
(Spring, 1957), 11-13+.
1 i
Lembo, Diana. "Notes from a Semi-Darkened Room." Library j
Journal, XCV (February 15, 1970), 735-37. j
; |
Limbacher, James. "Film Evaluation and Criticism."
Illinois Libraries, LXVI (February, 1964), 121-25.
_________. "Letter from the President." Sightlines, III j
(September-October, 1969), 2.
Lyman, Helen. "Film Service in the Public Library."
Wisconsin Library Bulletin, LVIII (March-April,
1962), 79-84.
. i
I
McDaniel, Roderick D. "Audiovisual Reviews— The State of !
the Art." Audiovisual Instruction, XV (December,
1970), 63-65.
Miller, Hannah. "Freebie Films." Library Journal, XCV j
(February 15, 1970), 756-57.
Myer, Violet. "The Background and Philosophy of Film
Service." Drexel Library Quarterly, II (April,
1966), 104-10.
"Non-Print Media: A New Reviewing Service." Booklist, j
LXVI (September 1, 1969), 34-35. j
Paterson, Gladd. "Personally Speaking." EFLA Bulletin,
XIX (August, 1962), 2.
iPeer, Catherine Ann. "Reference Sources in Non-Print
Media." Pennsylvania Library Association Bulletin,
XXV (May, 1970), 168-72+.
Peters, William. "Audiovisual Materials in the Public
Library." Library Trends, XVI (October, 1967),
241-50.
Quinly, William J. "The Selection, Processing and Storage
of Non-Print Materials: Aids, Indexes, and Guide- j
lines." Library Trends, XVI (October, 1967),
274-82.
342
Rothrock, Mary U. "Libraries and Educational Films."
American Library Association Bulletin, XXXIV
(March, 1940), 169-73.
Sloan, William J. "The Film Library Information Council."
Top of the News, XXIV (January, 1968), 218-220.
Starr, Cecile. "Keep Up with Films." American Library
Association Bulletin, L (April, 1956), 209-11.
Stevenson, Grace. "The Why of Film Criticism." Illinois j
Libraries, XLVI (February, 1964), 116-20. j
|
Stone, C. Walter. "AV Task Force Survey Report." American!
Libraries, I (January, 1970), 40-44. j
Te Groen, Julie. "The Place of the Film in Public
Libraries." South African Libraries, XXXIII (April,
1966), 137-42. j
i
Weiss, Naomi. "The Film Library's Book Collection." Film I
Library Quarterly, III (Summer, 1970), 17-21. j
i
j
Westchester Library System. "Film Service and Selection
Policy Statement." Bookmark, XXIII (July, 1964),
279-83.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Federal Aid To School Libraries; A Study Of The Title Ii, Phase Ii Program In California, 1965-1966

PDF

A Study Of Some Aspects Of The Publication Program Of The Government Of India, With Recommendations

PDF

California Public Libraries And The Cooperative Systems Concept: A Study with Recommendations

PDF

The Library In The Administrative And Organizational Structure Of The American Public Community College

PDF

Attitudes Of Academic Librarians In The Pacific Coast States Toward Library Technicians

PDF

A Study Of Human Response To California Library Organization And Management Systems

PDF

A Study Of The Architectural Design Of Six University Library Buildings

PDF

A Survey Of Mechanization And Automation In Large University Libraries

PDF

Relevance Evaluations Of The Nicem Master Data Base Of 16Mm Educational Films

PDF

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY FACTORS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOTTED TO SPECIFIED PUBLIC SERVICE TASKS BY SELECTED SCHOOL LIBRARIANS.

PDF

Frequency Of Visual Change In Multi-Channel Communication As A Factor In Maintaining Attention And Creating Attitudes To Media And Message: An Experimental Study

PDF

A Study Of An Independent Feature Film 'You Don'T Have Time'

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Relationship Of Film Movement And Emotional Involvement Response, And Its Effect On Learning And Attitude Formation

PDF

Visual Presentation Strategies And Conceptual Learning

PDF

Stimulus-Approach Tendencies Of Learners As A Factor In Evaluation Of Instructional Films

PDF

A Critical Analysis Of The Structure Of The East German Film, 'Berlin Wall'

PDF

A Design For A Mediated First Course In Film Production

PDF

A Pilot Study Of The Suitability Of An Individualized Audio-Visual Program In The Continuing Education Of School Administrators

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Belasco Theatre In Los Angeles And The Forces That Shaped Its History: 1927-1933

PDF

Diagnostic Pretesting Of The United States Air Force Instructional Motionpicture--Theory And A Proposed Model

Asset Metadata

Creator Palmer, Joseph William (author)

Core Title The influence of published reviews of sixteen millimeter motion pictures on film selection in public libraries with large film collections

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Library Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Library Science,mass communications,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Boaz, Martha (committee chair), Kilpela, Raymond (committee member), Miller, Herbert R. (committee member), Ward, Pearl (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-891286

Unique identifier UC11364492

Identifier 7331376.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-891286 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7331376

Dmrecord 891286

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Palmer, Joseph William

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA