,is tlíc autcnnatic, v.-htrelgss-skilied lib oř Li cm plny cd, arJ these ejupluyoLs art pven nwkinj? a greater rectnd on tteauloiiútie tlian in the Morse. Wu Im-c rcriircís taken fícin tlie Western Union NJívw shmving that wújik:i havo muut-sir.ed na averige Specii nt n mcisage evéry 11 Heceinds tor $ libiiri and 15 mir-utc* in a dav. In other vnrtK 1.120 meisiiiiii in A hours, ora maximum of >ri7 m^s-ages haodled m unchour ... In recent ytars theťtvmpariy has been tryir-g its best, .ipparently. tci číiifňnát* the Morse oratoř and to Lise iií Lts sLuad the .^íitconMtic aiachiue. 'i hrne to kun1 girLs and b&p art ustially reqimed to di> the work that one olictjU.t fnrrmirly dld, Lbus uliminating the skiiled ivúAcr;." {[ntitiiftial Mňlíůiú, 9311-1.3). Rcg.trdiilg [lni Western Union schools i]i the iyios, T. W. Cattoll to lil the «im misí ion, gradu ate 1 k-w fťmale employei:*. We teacJi theni telegrafy, ,ma Iťthey itesirú iu c<intinue oh tlie Morst sitie ofií, that is their pm-Llcgc: brit ai a iu!e, we ^r«jiřjatí thpin into the aulíimat:c scivic<>" (liiduitriái 'Ěclalmjli,
hollywood's educators
MARK MAY AND TEACHING KILM CUSTODIANS
"The scholarly and historical status of the Payne Fund I Studies on children and the movies of the 1930a has always been uncertain. 'the existing literature is even inconsistent about how many there actually were, because of a difference between the number of studies and the number of volumes. Li t s call it twelve studies, which includes Rdgar Dale's film appreciation text and Frederick Thrash ers and Haul Cressey's unpublished work, but excludes W,W. C barters's and Henry Hoi-man's summaries. Reading them, they are simultaneously impressive and bewildering. Some were ahead of their time methodologically and some "were well behind, Despite a clear line to research developments in the sociology of the Chicago school, the studies were too quantitative and normatively driven to find a sure place in what would become the humanities-based held of film studies, And they are without directly continuous institutional in-iLuenee, unlike the work of Paul Lazarsicld and his cohort, I o by considered anything hut a curious anomalous effort Jin' iho Held of iii.cs LOiumunkation,1 In terms of reccp-LH)1Í, lbe 01 oji'it wi* mumenlarily popul.nly ener^i/ihu lun
B 3 s
C    ^   n Oh
3
87
ot an enactment of a modern mas a-me dieted public as well as the production i ofrehitedlniei'srchiL^ofcultuMlaLithoiity.
As away to indicate the lirni ted influence of the Payne Fund) lowett, Jarvie, and Fuller obsem: that few of (lie researchers had further interest in motion pictures once their contributions were complete. But among those few were some impressive long-term efforts, especially by Mark May, Rdgar Dale, and Samuel Renshaw—all three innovators in the deployment and assessment of media in changing educational contexts. Win fit follows concentrates upon Mark May's contrllmtions to the lustitntiona!ination of the properly instructional deployment oI'motion pictures and of the role Hollywood was to play in this new technological pedagogical formation.
May trained in psychology at Columbia University, with much of his research concentrating on character—its formation, expression, and measurement. With Hugh Hartshorne and Julius B, Mailer, he spent rive years studying character, which was part of the Character Education inquiry Teacher* College, Columbia University, in cooperation with the Institute of Social and Religious Research, under the supervision and with the participation of Dr, fc. i„ Thomdike. Published as Studies in the Nat tit;: oj Character in 1928 and 1929, the first volume was Studio, in Deceit and the second Studies ij\ Servict and Scif-Conb-ol 1 he-work tried to measure a wide range ot'social activity, including cooperation, charitable behavior, service, school morale, and the rolt of out-of-school experience. They measured self-control by observing persistence and inhibition, using party games and assessing contributing factors. In what was m\ expansive project. May and his colleagues studied more than 3 thousand children of various ages and various types of schooli to do this work,
1 hough not the focus of this study, they did ask questions about and charted moviegoing among the children they observed. In one of their general conclusions on the relationship between frequency of moviegoing and participation in civic service activities, they found, 'it is apparent that other factors than mere attendance .it movies need to be taken into consideration, but even after we have noted such concomitants as have been recorded we still find larger differences in service tendencies between the regular and occasional moving picture attendants —between the addicts and the casuals — than it is easy to understand."1' And on the relationship between moviegoing and self-control, tbey wrote, "Those who attend motion pictures less frequently than their schoolmates do arc inclined to evert greater effort and greater self-restrainl, It is a question whether I his results as a direct elite I i>f the pu Liiri-S themselves
«t hoin characteristic ways in which habits of attendance on motion pictures d»w-lii|> among different sections of the population of a given community."111 'llu'He observations, showing some differences without conclusive claims of ftHMtity, echo in May's later Payne Fund study. Co-authored with his Yale col-Ifi^ne I;rauk Shuttleworth, May contributed lite Social Cwduct and Atiiiudti tf Munc l:\ins (1333), gathering material from three hundred frequent movie-|nlUK kids (three films per week) and three hundred infrequent moviegoers (|e» Ih.ui once per month).'I hey used the same Character K due at ion Inquiry it*vrl«iped in the earlier study. Among the general findings were that teachers limit Ii^s favorably upon the movie fans, but that peers rank them higher as popul.u people and as "best friends." On attitudes about crime, prohibition, Ht, parents, authority, and the like, they found essentially no difference be-Iwivu the groups, concluding that the community is a greater influence than m01 ion pictures.11
Ai the time, May wrote studies of theology in practice and of driving safety, I 111 nii^sI ]imminent work was at Yale University's Institute of Human Rc-la-llmiv an appointment he held from 1027 through to i960, and of which he was itliei 11.1 from ly ^, At this Rockefeller-funded research center, May oversaw
......e i t I eh rated research projects, including John Do Hard's Cash? mid Oass
in ,1 \1mlla1u 'liwa (jy.Vz). The goals of this institute were broad, and it was ill 1 fll.nl Id take the episte motoric ,11 stakes of psychology from the closed lab
.....trxl out into 1 lies', it r social environments/1 he researchers saw categories
lJk>' pelt eption and pfcrso'na.llVy-ai involving soda I structure^-lo examine this,
1 r Wllult". ■ lui" UN 11'".
1 ho insrrtutc constructed what at the time was a fairly novel interdisciplinary context, in which anthropology, medical research., economics, history, prima-Lulogy, statistics., and psychology would be in conversation with each other, Ai TV'?it magazine put it, under Mar's direction, the institute studied an odd array of topics, including prejudice; satire, detective storks, war, crime, speech defects, frustration, and reactions to parking tickets.Ji The intellectual influences of' the day were many, but Pollard gave special mention to Edward Sapir aiid Sigmund Freud,1*
So, with this sense of new directions in research, contemporary social phenomena, and "real world" application, as well as his own academic prominence. May began to work in an advisory capacity with the Motion Picture Producers arid Dish iburors • Associ ari oh of Amer tea (m p p oa ), May's work on character education and ideas for1 a human relations series interested the mp i1 da because ot its potential Appeal to a general audience of teachers and students.1'1 Just as important, here was an accomplished academic, at a prestigious university, who was truly committed to the exploitation of the educational potential of film. Knowledge of how films might be used, what kinds of films benefit teachers, and what pedagogical advantage instructional use held was still scant at this time, in essence, there was a premium placed on these who could construct and interpret information about film in non-entcrtainment settings. Mark Lynn Anderson has examined the Payne Fund Studies in exactly this way, demonstrating their impact on the formation of a cohort of professional media experts whose primary goal was tlie exercise of social control,15 In his efforts to work between at a de mi a and Hollywood, May was similarly fashioning himself an exemplar of the kind of influence these new media experts might exert-In the io-jps, popular reports cmphasi7ed the MP pdas longstanding interest in education, in particular repealing the fact that soon after the group's formation, William Hays, its head, expressed his interest in industry reform for the benefit of education to a meeting of the National Education Association (nea) in Roston in 1911. Between 1030 and early 1956, the MfPDa collected a thousand school curricula, press clippings, and various published statements by educators in an effort to ascertain the possible educational value of it on -current theatrical shorts.115 litis activity notwithstanding, education was hardly the cure concern of the organization, to say the least, though it was a powerful public relations tool. Whatever advancement in education the Mi11' 11a may have eventually iiuhsidi/ed, its primary hitU> rnwei wavered from the well-being oi its member 1 lollywood studios.
May s licit contact with the industry lobby appears to have been atten-%iiiv at the .vii>pda conference of educators and civic leaders on film as a íl hmgtooiin 191y. At this event, the mppva established the Committee on fcn id Values in Motion Pictures, with Howard LeSourd (the dean of boston University Graduate School) as chair, and on which May served. This com-limii'e developed the experimental use of shortened features, which began In earnest in 19:;}. and became the "Secrets of Success" serieš.17 lbe series timvistet! oi eight prints of twenty one-reel works taken from ''quality" films And made available to schools, running from       to in.^fi. 'fhc films demoi't-.ilľil excerpts of "'social value" for use in character education, which was understood as a secular version ol religious education.1* School interest in the "SiMcts of Success" scries was substantial, but it was not easy to regularize wV-iRV as, with prints available in j^mm only, it required schools to negotiate < i uberal ion with local theaters to open their doors to classes. The mppoa nlmialed that over six hundred thousand students saw these films over two yr.us, a sizable audience given that this program was essentially exploratoiy 11 j1 design. Still, general distribution would require the ability to handle much Ui^er numbers.'" Too expensive to maintain, too complicated to organise, and 11 *o I'raught with uncertainty about economic impact on theater owners, the pi iiuiailt was unsustainable. Moreover, the Mr pda did not wish to continue tnppuiting the ''Secrets of Success'' series in part due to concerns about re-Ir.Miig member films for distribution by non-member organizations.-^
And yet, as a testing ground, the mepda appeared to convince many that (flimi in g the teaching role oi' film was not an option. In 1936, May and I.e-V'i'fd designed a plan to build on the findings, and shift the goals, of the Com-1 ml tee on Social Values in Motion Pictures and or the Payne Fund Studies.7-' I hr i r proposed program would offer illustrative films, depictions oi human irlat ii>nsr coverage of world news, and methods of critical discussion of what indents would he seeing, the latter described as "a psychologically sound itivlhod of censorship."-2 Tlie first year of the plan would involve arranging for ihv lijms used by the Committee on Social Values, that is, the "Secrets ofSue-i*W films, and preparing some new ones, then testing them experimentally Hi .ihiiut thirty schools. Durmg the next year a wider selection of films would In- uilered. The members of the committee were to be retained in an advisory > .ip.u 11 y. Distribution of the films was to return to the industry after that txvo-yi-ai period^'
t in*' ileraliuii ol'thii proposal was llie tľinnmissŇHt on Human Relations dim piojcil ol (he lYogieisive ľilin.iWon A-wsociatn*)), under I he diiiMmn
nf Alice KeliluT, but with significantly more ambitious plant.-4 Tilt- \s it-da agreed to K.e liber's experimental use; provided films were in ifimm format only and ivere exclusively exhibited in school, which responded to some of the exhibitor and studio concerns about the "Secrets at Success" program. Keli-her's more, expansive project undertook the editing of other feature films, with special emphasis on questions ofsoci.il life, fcveil though in May 193d Keliher was not optimistic that she would receive support for this/* the Rockefeller Foundation, through the General Education Hoard, did back the effort. The project rait for two years, and then received a final year's grant for
19.18-39. Topics selected were to "cultivate social democracy; promote a feeling of responsibility for war, and break down wci.il prejudice ■ • - [and show] parent-child relationships, effects of divorce an children, family adjustments, the obligations nf friendship, the functioning of law in the community."* The Human Relations projeel treated the "Setrets of Success" films as an initial offering, soon adding ucwsrecls, travelogues, and other subjects.27 In other words, the character education programs were a starting point for a wider applieatinn of film in education, rather than the main focus. Using seventy-live truncated films to chart and study pedagogical uses, Ketiher's program recorded the discussions following such films as Slack Legion (1937), bury (1910), and Alice Adams (1935). AJI these excerpted films were for the program's exclusive use, and did not go into general distribution.23 Keliher made explicit the fact th,u her commission, and not the industry lobby, would have control over usage of the films, by which she meant critical analysis and discussion of the films in question. She was, reasonably, concerned about undue interference from the mainstream industry in her experiment. This request had the apparent blussing of May and Hays."
Before the Human Relations series had been planned and launched, May visited Hollywood with Hays and other board members in July 1935 to discuss a possible appointment to an mp pda educational film committee. May reported to Marshall an he Rockefeller Foundation that he had decided not to accept the position as a salaried member, preferring to act as an independent advisor.10 The need for even more formalized study led to the invitation nf Mark May to prepare a report through the summer of 1936 to recommend further action on the part of the mppda. His main point, one that was formally launched in September 1936, was the establishment of an Advisory Committee on the Use* of Motion Pictures in Education, made up ol leading educators and with May appointed its head/1 Kffectively, this was a lr.imloim.il inn nf (he
I ľ ľ has í ľo remittee on Social Values Into a non-salaried Advisory Commit-l*n that tire expertise and familiarity with the earlier program was not lost.32 Si-vera I factors encouraged the mp p da And participating members of the ft»ťd 11 n- such an Advisory Committee. These included praise for their work Hum ľ d Li Ľá to is at home and abroad, and the growing number of guilts for lit In-1 r* peri mental instructional projects by the American Council on Edu-
tilk.....u id the University of Minnesota. Other sparks of activity in the area of
trhu alio rial film mduded the aforementioned Human Relations project, and Ik1 Iinmation of the American Film Center and the Association of School I'llm I ihräries in A perennial problem to the development of motion pii iitivs in education was that schools were not investing substantially in pro-It. tni h because of the lack of dims, and few films were being released for in-MniiiMiial usage by the Hollywood majors due to the absence of projectors, Willi lis special relation to the mainstream entertainment industry, the Advi-imy ('niumittee was in a good position to lobby for the release of films "to hto.ilt the deadlock in the educational film movement," which it did*'1 The Himihi is uf the MPPDA still worried what effect such distribution would rum1 upon their theatrical releases, so the focus rested upon films that had mm p let e d their theatrical run, But, beyond the public relations advantage of Hollywood supporting education, these experiments in educational film were *Un a way to test the waters for what secondary markets might exist for these nliI pnutm'ts. What new value might the studio libraries hold for educational lii.ukcis? The Advisory Committee acknowledged that classroom use was still iflalively uncharted territory for film, so it recommended intensified support liu 1 ľ sea re 11 on film and education. And, always mindful of the public per-
1 i-pt.....Oil lolly wood involvement, all study was to be undertaken by a third
|Mily, r.ulier than the industiy or the Advisory Committee itself, even if one nilli ľ other would direct and make requests for certain kinds of research. This Holr of impartiality turned the research dimension back to educators, schol-■41 ••. and philaulhropies,,s
Meeting for the first time on February 9,1937, and then rive more times in wy;, till1 Advisory Committee operated with the unshakable belief that co-opciation between the film industry and educators was entirely possible. 'Ihe HwnmiTľh were well aware of the delicate nature of such an idea, and vowed In Lismuľ lli.vt schools would not sense an encroachment of advertising and 111.1 [ inhibitors would not feel they were |<v.inp revenue or facing a new com-jn-lilin."1 livt-nsu, once operations wete up and running, one oi Hollywood's
OP    Al 1    tJ o
III U I If 1^1 If III '. P IM I, ŕ\ľ< 1 lí-.     n J
4819
16
84
26
.The catalogue itemized the screened, evaluated, and recommended Holly-wood shorts and was available in 1919?' The first year of itc's film distribution—the iy3y -40 school ye a r— did not in dude advertising for specific pto-grams for film, as the r ye was hoping instead to gauge market interest from school demand alone/3 Hilms, including ucm's "Crime Doesn't Pay" stries, City oj Wax (iyj.0. '&i.jp'<i}f Circus (19^,9), and tisgadas pfPeiping. (i^vjOj tost a rental rate oi'Sif per year or iv^o for three years;'** Users of the tfc — which included schools, school boards, state departments of education, and university systems —entered into licensing agreements for either one-year terms or three-year terms/1 Tire 1939 catalogue included about 45d films, though some were not yet actually available due to technical problems, Tn particular, the Technicolor films could not he supplied as a result of the challenge and expense of reducing them to Kimni* Hays diel promotional work for the tfc, appearing.it an xea conference and introducing the tfc as an industry re: sponsc to the growing interest in classroom films. Reportedly, demand was highest for historical works and travelogues that focused on social and economic !ife.i,s Updating its offerings, the ifc completed a new catalogue, Fihrti for Qasiroom Ust; in 194 j, adding 141 new films and dropping ah out 100 due to low demand or unavailability.57 To assist in the deployment of films in specific classroom contexts, the tfc produced si Lid y guides to accompany film rental, doing so with assistance from the National University Extension Association." Tn what was a notable source of bewilderment for the rv-c's directors, demand for films in high schooi social studies classrooms remained low. As a consequence, they agreed to support a preliminary study on this need, conducted by Howard Wilson of Harvard University.
initially the jfc drew up contracts for the 111ms it handled with each individual studio, emphasizing that only non-current films that had completed Lheir theatrical run were of interest, with Para mount the last holdout until 'I he agreements allowed for the use of short subjects for exclusive, nonprofit use in schools in the continental United States, though this eventually expanded to Canada and beyond. The tfc renewed the three-year contracts ibr the use of these films for another three years in [942.60 The goals of the tfc, as explained to member-company erf-J, only began with the laudatory expansion of educational service. Another goal was the stimulation of a market for projectors, and hence an eventually profitable educational II]in production and distribution industry. The Tin: was "positive ih.il this added encouragement has in many instances pro veil the determining f.u k.»vm enabling s-i hool syslems to eunip ihvir s< hool huilduu^ fur ihr pnt|t<i lum n|\ lassnnuii
lilms."'0 A further ubjeefive saw the public relations benefits of putting an educational gloss on Hollywood enterprise. 'Ihis "goodwill for the motion picture industry1' among teachers and administrators would assist in "the softening l-1.1 the charge of monopoly against the industry in educational circles," which .nose when they found that desired films were tin avail able for educational lives.-1 And all indications were that interest in the films the tfc offered was ^towing. By the end of 1945, more than io,}00 tkC ifimm reels were circulating at 425 film libraries"
Hut these reels were all still short subjects. Other scholarly work has sugars ted that the tkC circulated excerpted features in the 1930s, which it did nol/1' Such truncated films were available in a limited and experimental basis Iii st through the "'Secrets of Success" program and then through Keliher's t onunission on Human Relations, but they were not in general d is tri tut ion tu the l^os.The release of features, however excerp red, remained a significant ^mulling block, Tlie market impact was uncertain, and it was not completely t lear how permanent the turn to film education would be. Alice Keliher had plans to he gin renting the Human Relations films openly. John Marshall commented on the unlikelihood of the Rockefeller Foundation supporting such ,1 turn, as Kehher moved the commission away from its experimental and re-stage** Marshall addressed Carl Mlliiken, the mtpda's executive sec-it- i.iry, on this subject, and Mil liken reiterated the fact that the films remain the property of the original Hollywood producers. With the tfc gaining »team, MiUiken, as one of its trustees, recommended that that organization might he in a posit ion to divert some of its rental revenue to Keliher's com-niiHMcm.'16 Keliher became vice-president of the American Film Center (a (■■£;) in lui«; and announced that distribution of the Human Relations films was Ihi'n available from the afc, though officially the Human Relations project [i,ilI he en completed and there were no contracts for such distribution* She h.iuded these films over to the tf u by April 6r l94.}/1* though the Vi< did not yel have the green light for their distribution either.
l'o negotiate excerpted feature distribution, to work on an ongoing basis wiih the rFC, and to get the studios on its side, the mpfua formed another lunimiltec in iy-n composed not of educators but of industry representatives: Nl. I'eter Rath von, president of rko; j. Robert Rubin, vice-president ni Loews inc.; and Joseph Haze, vice-president of Warner bios.w' 'lhe lumi-n.iru's lent support and credibility in the eyes of the studios to the release of n< ci pled feature iilinn, Asa result, the next round of ri^1 contracts with the Indios, 111 i<j.|s, nit hided Inith fraliues and ■.hollv Unlike lhe previous two.
cl tt £
C
3
c
q.
C
3 3Fh
5'	n		5	
+-	c p n	p" rc	re	Li''l
				n
				o q
	fr	>		
	Cl	■J:		
	3	ft		
	n			r+
	It.			
n ■-I g	g	r+ ft	■_r ■j-j	^)
	r+	0		ft ft TS<
Is				
	si			
ft				
57		Q		
o			o"	ft
			O	
ft ft		■5"	ft	o' IS/
				O
o
g 3
>    'J\ PL
» p1
= -
:l   p p
«33
ft
ft? pl
5*^
re -2.
""^ G
jfr 3
P O
B S ?
£_ ft. 3
i-t* I—"Tr-
s a a.
ft     ^ £z.
ft    in ^
■"■3
5- ^ i-T
7   * p"
ft
"5 5
^ o
t3 C
C
c ft 3 3
Tl
n
^   o p
■— l t c   ^ pi
n
		^3 r+ rr it	cr C		3 it
>		g	p, 3	S' 3 c	it
		p.'	ft		
. p	r+ 3f V.	c' p	3 D" rL ™;	fn p	
±j	i-l .	c		n	
	^!			r+	3
C		p ■	O	O	P
3 !^	c' 3	rd n	ik ra	3	
p
it
or
C
pu
P-
3
p L
pi >!   ^ —
3 P _ ^> P, CL
it p
fn S-,
3
1>
c p
p
5
c it.
r-^ ft >-»-S ^ PT C      1 rr
Pi
3 S
3
pl it
O P
					3
			ft		M
77-	p_	3			
it 3 <?	c]	it	•n fL	r-i' v. C	b
	c	c" r+	±j 3 CL		>-
3			fj	r; H	
	■-i		™;		
		3	TD		^.
K-			f2 ■n C		_^
3".	p	rt	p-	it	iu
		r+ it	'J:		•s-rj
	ft	■J:	fi		p-
	pl				^,
7\.	3	p		it	P
3 O	n Zj	n	>-+	rjf=,	"<
	O		rp		ol
■J\			^1	ft ■fi Si	rp
3"		^_	3 ■-»-.		i4
	3j		5"	V-rt)	?i rj
		pi		w	El.
		3		3-	.
it"	3"		>-+	n O	ft O
it		n		3-. 3l	
			at	ft	
V-				3	
p'					
O	V"	7"		p"	o5
3-^3
4
tl5
□ 3"
5" 3
-j
3 CL
PJJ
c_
it
3
it tL
p
3
1^1 ^ I S
rrl- G_,
^ 1-1—I
cl
P ^ —
p ~" rp,
pl ^ !L
(t ^
it
ft
5 ^ ^
ft-
.4 O
Cli S
=-, 5
O S
3 Cft Ln
2;' o
tJ 3 CL
o
it
PL
% 3
lv.
5"
it cl
CL
■5
3i 5i I 4"
CL ri
CL
r^ P 3
re Cl
3"
5
ft
ft sj
^ o
^ c:
c:. 3
2 p-
* pd
ft 1—
— ft
S r,
ft' P
cS -
P (L
it			!^
fl r+	p	ft r+ c	rt
p	3		r+
	n	rt	rr
p1			
rr.		P	
■ peri	meet	rt P	it -T p-
c CL	p>	M p'	
	it		
3
CL
3
Cl
rii
A4/D
5113
v
(ŕ
•n r, ir.flvijijvlllim fro m tliĽ lhitlyvcocj síidios lij.či.'tsfrrŕnis. ľrrtril '/'.'íffĽ Si"*, 4-
tantíy, whatever educational u r scholarly merits there were, the actions taken we it monitored unambiguously and closely ill rough the connections of the sponsoring Industry, benefiting their own understanding of this rising market of lo'mm instmctibiial film. Whore the ľayilC Fund Studies wondered about the nature of influence of mo v iť going upon children, the Payne Fund author Mark May; and tľc i'i'č, developed ínstŕuťtiónál pro grams is the proper and "useľuľ' function of film, never leaving industrial interests outside their activi-l its. For Lis part j Hollywood, noted for its s elf-congratulatory nature, touted the public relations, legacy and nascent market value or these projects, ť'or insUnce, a dinner celebrating the industry's contributions to education took puce at the Ueverly Hills Hotel on the occasion of the t K's fifteenth anni-yi'r.SSryi" which included the release of a promotional film 'lilt TfC Story. At a parallel event on the Hast Coast, they pitted themselves on the back at the ľiltmore Hotel in New York City, where Mark May b estowed honorary scrolls Ui jiic Johnston and the eight M PA A studio heads for their commitment to education.^
Activity continued for several decades more, with increased attention 10 aud in visual technologies and tele vision. From iyv> tit nj VI, iIictm: ran several workshops and i on lei ernes, and supported llw Lake Ukiihojt Leadership Cimti'iriucik on juilmvoual education ol ihp NrA* Itapattmcnt ol'Audio-
Visual Instruction (davi),3"* The tFt" provided financial support for davi's Field Service, wliich helped schools and universities get audiovisual programs off the ground.8" Tlie t h c acquired the right? to distribute "Cavalcade of America" television programs in the early i^os, and developed iilms for language acquis it i on with the Modern Language Association, beginning in iy^9.X(' All of the ifc's materials were barreled over to Indiana University in ly".} as it ceased opcrations.
lhe tf c was just one organization advancing the place of film in educational institutions during this period. Comparable records of activity could chronicle the contributions of other initiatives, Mediating the interests of the mainstream commercial film industry, however, the Trc was in a uniquely influential position that kept Hollywood majors involved in this growing market and that assisted in promoting the very notion of screen education further integrating moving images with other aspects of contemporary life- Let me reiterate that the activity documented here involved more than simply licensing films. It involved assessing film usage, compiling catalogues, writing study guides, testing usage and effectiveness in closed settings, monitoring discussions in classrooms, sun-eying teachers, proposing films, and editing lea tines, In other words, this was a massive effort to study and advance particular kinds of film usage, this enterprise fell immediately on the heels of the Kiyne Fund Studies. That famous project offered a varied assessment of the i11 feet s of motion pictures upon children and helped galvanize a sense of con-i nil about him entertainment, but to fully appreciate the period, we must also recognize the lasting contribution of the film educationalists to the developine nt of ideas about how Elms are made to he "usehil" and to the expansion of ,ni institutional structure to serve those notions.
On the place of character education in this history, Eric S moo din precisely dfHiiihes it as a shift in American education to erase boundaries between i l.isM'oom subjects and social life.1*' Most surely, the commitment to the idea nl l haracter education was a reason why the character education expert Mark May was swept into work with the mj'PI'ja and the Payne Fund to begin with. And yet, reviewing the activity, it is important to understand that character >• duration goals connected with other pedagogical, industrial, and Organiza-Honal ^nals. 'lhe language of making education keep step with a changing win Id modernising lhe classroom and making it relevant—was evident in many initiatives, not all ol" which re fleet the specific approach of character edu< at ion as a subject. Character education wa\ a way to generalize interests ami values, ami an ideolo^nally riddled enterprise, to he certain. As a first
Step, to test and break the perceived logjam to the development of modem lectin ologi zed education, and with it launch a new industry; character education was n way to produce material with the widest possible appeal to schools, Without .stepping on the iocs of state and school board curricula. It was the In'st wave, to be followed by programs, that responded to specific topics and subject needs, tied ever more closely to classroom lessons. The common element, as the subjects changed, was the situation, namely the promotion of screen-mediated teaching: the film occasion, with civil discourse, guided by a leader, prompted by some form oi screen engagement.
Tliis illuminates some oJ the work May published as an educational polemicist, in 194] his tract titled tiiticiitiw in <i World of Fmy began by proclaiming, 'The dominating emotion of the world today is fear. Sever in history has the behavior of as great a proportion of the inhabitants of Litis earth been so extremely motivated by a common anxiety.*** His concern was Hut the fear of totalitarianism would lead people to apathy and to reject the prospects of libera] democracy. Modern education figured as the best defense. He recommended an active management of fear: vlii critical times we must steer a middle course between the alarmists whose anxieties are unduly high, on the one hand, and those who would lull lis to sleep in a sense of talse security, on the other. 'ihe task of education is to teach people how to manage their anxieties and hold them proportional to the realities of the danger."" The voice of a future "cold warrior" is already making itself heard. Postwar, he devoted more effort directly to the advancement of psychological warfarej while continuing as the director of the vrc:, he also acted as the chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Information, from 1^53 to tr>o"o, where lie centralized all propaganda and psychological warfare operations, and drew stronger ties between government operations in this area and academics.^ This was a liberal humanism that could sidle up nicely next to a cold war policy of infor-mation management.
In closing., what we confront in the figure ot Mark May is one career-long illustration of the lasting impact of psychology and social science upon the emergence of a coordinated field of educationally useful film and of the involvement of major media corporations in the supply of educational materials to U.S. teachers and community leaders. Accordingly, this did not produce a generic national spectator or unified ideological form at ion at the level of subject matter. In fact, if anything, we see the methodological implements and categorizing schema*, from the surveys, evaluations, interviews, group discussion, and empirical experiments, pulling fnrw.11 d ways to organize
and segment a public as a fledgling educational market. This often addressed grade-level in addition to age, in so doing fortifying an idea about development and maturation. This is r^ot the first moment of an interest in educational media, but it did represent the consolidation of ideas that put technology in I he classroom, redefined the space of where learning takes place, made media appear to be indispensable to modern education and .sktli acquisition, offered evidence of the perceived advantages in quantifiable results, and saw a new ha I anting act between industry; government, and the engaged, albeit technocratic, scholar, in short. May and the organisations he led helped establish the procedures for participation in screen-mediated publics. This was a hegemonic moment in which industry and education contributed equally to postwar ideals of liberal citizenship while solidifying a stratum of media experts who spoke on behalf of that screen public and a business sector, eventually converting what began as good public relations into the lucrative world of educational technology.
NOTES
Ihe iasting institutional inline nee ofthr Payne 1'utid Studies can be found in edit* CiUk'.n, esr>oci;i".ly at what wul come to b<r called "media lireracy" but even here this influence Iv.is been only ureas ion ;Jly acknowledged.
l-'unnan, Our M:\-c .Wade CJmHwj. "To the Movie* —But Nwf to Sleep!," "Movie \tedoeiv and "Molded by Stales?
Sc.* for instance Mark A. Miy. op ed.. O'irtfffijn Swtcc Ainnifo-, Januarys, wjj, is. .|owult,J.UTie, Lind Fuller. Cniltk'Cn iWaff'ti: AJiHir.;. iol a.
John Marshall Diaries, interview with Leo Kosten, September 17,1^40, KnuirteLier l:i'initiation, Rockefeller Archive Center (hereoflei rac). ■^.iniruond, (.'! TaiMOrl'd 111« Nif, 61.
Iliid.. r>6.
Urndi.vw, Miller. .next Marquis, ClnLlr&i's S!cLf>, iss.
I liutshorne, May, ind Mailer, 6'fiicffcrfii fhc'Rftljtrt e/O":;!ratio; [I: MihUci in Serna> urn / Mf-Ci'friroi, 13ti Hud, .j 17.
Slillllluwortll and May, TJjl' .SitwI Conduct \Wii AdiludiS i-fArloiit Fairs.
"I'<>r I jeuil, tor Nik-i cry, for Vale." It*hc, March 6, i$J4<S, ii-4-i.
I >■ ■ 11      CaHluhJ Chili ill 1! Southern Ton'ilj vii-ix.
Mm M.n.sri,ill Diaries, interview with Mark May, August 1,19.(3, RJ,C,
.A 11 l1h-j -., >n ." I '.hlc i 11 ^ I. rJn-rt i e V
"Urme,"' J.unuty is*, nj W, 'li'.ulsing lilru t 'imUnlians lile, Marg.net Heniuk t Unary,
A, .i.leinv "I -Motion JVlim- Ails and .Stu'ii, o (lieivaHer a Ml1 as), 1,
111.it luib^ lilru [ '11 si 1 nil.ins," llu' TH .Sim y," J". I'<>"< eining Ins MwnUvun-iit mi (tic
in 'I I ^ W"' '|i' ■ I mi All if.
s L ja £ £
	
	
	ľ"
	?;
=-	
>	
	
j-	
	
-m:	
	
	i.
	
f	
—	Ír
	
?	
	
	
_	
r	>
s"	
	í
	
c-	š
	
	>
=	
	
^ t:
?3
■T' "ľ r'j
c- f= í
■h ŕL -1í
L? 0 3 tí -
-1
-í
c
Ě—
2 3
Ch
r i
On r;
?     TI í
o if d.
í >
G ^
ŕT,-'		1 ?	r-i
Pi r.			3:
rj:		r,-'	Or:
■in			íC
TI			■í
			
			
			
			
í!			r:
0			
i±"			ŕŤ
		■Tj	y-
		f.	s;
—			
p:		Ír	
_j		l.	ŕ:
-r			,-'
f-".			r.
í>*1			7Í
O			r: ~r r;
ľ--			
			
h-			
3 3-
T_".	1-n	ľ-*
ÍL	r.	O
hi=. O. p		Or
1 Oc	>	
r-;'
B1
ŕ-1	7: ■Oj		t-
g		□h	
	|_v		
■3-.	o		n
	5"		
	G	u	
ŕ.			
íí	_		
■>:			
E?			
•r-; ŕT.-	■TÍ	■-it	í*.
	0		r.
^		—	
r.	■-h		
ŕT	G		■Ti
g"'	■		
r*>		C	
	ľ		
			í!7
		r.	g
;t	M		
	ľT.	■TÍ	Íri
	0'		
TI		--Ti	
			
ľ.'	f--	^r"	
J| íl	íä	ii-ľ	■"í c-
	v-	r;	r:
			
P	5'	r*-.	
ŠI	-■	■:Tj	
ct	0		1
o ■k		c	í;
	r		c
Irl			
		"t	
	iq	—:■	
	?d		
■"l	<l		V'
[L ^_.
5
i' -■i
3
TD
O
f
TO			■--rJ Š g
	BI	■T i—í	
		■_/ ľ;	■Ť
-í	ŕT		
			b:
		"C-	
p		|i ľT	
			
			
		■1,	
		ŕ'.	
			
— ľ^-
S. Ó
n
ÍT	
r:	í:'
	■-*-■
%	ľTJ
	
	"i
r*'	"12
ŕ1	
J.	
	ŕT
	Íri
	""J
:j6	■1'
^:   *? ti
d .J í
"y-		g-
[l		
y.		0
>i		
■5"	>	
		
i_		
		
		v-
Gl,		O'
■i r*
IL ^
— ^. ^
cji : (A
p p
n K r
— it ^
É? Š f.
^ ft
			TI"
rr			í-.
rl		^j.	
		n	
O	■-t"		B
			n 0
LF "-ť		O'	
r-.		G	
		—|"	
		m	
		n	
		.í	%
-r.	ŕ	h—	
c ■		g1	r.
r" l--J		■,	
	■31		
íí		E"	
'—H	■-i		G
			
--y			
jC-		SP	
í. 4-		0	
■^1 -i-
f> ŕ.
o
■c
Ů
n
> r; ^ p-
lT)
r,
5     r>- p*
r.
-■1
x,  rr- j^.
■■i
D-.- rj
■ľ. > .
-r: v*
r; C
~.   4- -S:    t ľ?)
I
TI □
C .ľ
17)
5;
J-i.
H
ŕ—.    ľT- i-í"
11
—I    7^ g
o
'k
r:
^1-. -T*
rr		d	f, ľT" [_i	C
■3			I-i"	'"T-■
	g		ŕ^	
	jzj.	T	C-i	
g' :j TJ	ľT	í/>	rr g	
3'		p-	<-j"	
G -c	^>	ĚL	Ů	
& 0	0 ■7.	g"" -1		Fj
	n	y-1		
		ŕ;		5
Ó				
	ď	lj-J		
■/^	ŕT		m' íl	r?-
g	ŕt 0	g	g 5|	G
(y.	r-	=	C	
&			■■■*■■■ iTJ	v; ■í
	=		g	ix"1
				
£;		H		p-t
	c	-■		
	v-		p ■	p"
■_.	5'		ii-	-r1 ■1'
	ĚT	■j;	n	--.^
				
>_i	O			C-
V?		■-		Ir
^ j		-í	F-i	G
1	f		c	TJ.-
			Ľ',	[T
r"; _
2 §
3-
	<		—			
r.					F-	Bl
rj	"He		Ír,	J-		J-
-r
Si ? 3 =
p' ^ C lží.
TO (ré
o 3-
LA
■^3
2 I
67
9>i
S3
i><> </o
[ ,1; ttct,      mtary, t f C., to I. Ii.   ltLviLn ho n. Ti k p1, A p ri] l j, 1 y .yj, a \s p a S, j.
rhid-. 1.
Teaching Film Custodians, "Tho'iTC Story," .iO.
Jacobs.. "Re feinte is ami Spectators," nukes this mistake, which many who refer to her ground-breaking ankle Iben repuat.
[olio Mat*tjjll Diark:,, talk with Al in.' Kclibxr. \1 a rub 13, lyjy. RA:i';. John Mnvsball O.fjuiiiv;, in "cr view ^^itVi G.rjrl MiLhktn, May 17, n>i5, RAf. The address fo 1: tili: H11 mjlti RcIations nlm d istrihiition i* tht same ns tliat of thx .M- C, 45 Rockefeller Plaza, in Oiito^er 19]!a (Association of S; boo! Film LiLii;WieJj jfiS.H-i-Icüi'y, Octobur 19x9, 4,&, G hb setk's 1.2, box us, fodder li<ü*, r At; 1. Kelibet resigned from tke associate Ji rector gitviitimi tö rütiini to her ti'icluni; post in eilairntin:i at MVtr in tk.e spring of iy40 (John Marshall l}iariiis, inti:f.vicw hli ]\inHild SI using;; r, March 13, 1940, n\C, 1).
Jokn MariiiidJ Di.tries, Cüntewate on Motion L"liL,tLU,ti, April 6,       rau, l,
'iSjicJiifit. Wiiii Cuslodi.ins, :"Ihe rt-t: Stcuy," ;to.
Ibid.
"An Aunivuii,\ry for 1+--(.'," F.JjjciiIw;.;J AV Qn'i/r. Decern brr 19^. Cm.
Tc Icking Film Custodians. "'lite tlx Story," 1?, L bid .j .no. [bid.
M. May, "Films and Teaching Functions," ny. 14a, 14 s. M, May, PLi."..'\\i\g F:\tuf fur il.es 5, "The Literature in Audio-Visual Instruction," Jbid., jjjj'i--
\] ay acid Lu 11 isd aim:, Ll\\r jii117 r'ru.n 1 J J j 1.1. \1. May, "Educational Projects," mo-iviij
"Ftmd Süt to Test Clnss!"oom Films." .Wiv liij-^TiApril 1, ai.
Tl^o 111 a? M, Pryot, "Grangel Reluses Role Lit L'.-I, Ftltii," Nr.'-' 't\v>; Tinm-. Koieni-
bit 6, i^i, ß
"Of LtiCal Origin,"        ^ii.'t irjjiLi, Apjril ;y, i^jii l^.
Witt, "l![)iv Mo]ly^v(u;d ^^rvts Evdiitatioii thrtmyb r rc.üirt..
ThLd., r>47.
Ibid,, (fyl'S.
SitiooLÜit, J^lCiJI'liJ'Jj JtifhJI' Ciitirii, rS, M. .May, L-.hii^iiüH in ü IVoWif qfi t^r, 1. Ibid, 74-
\[. Siay, "Wliit Sb du Iii tbt- New Administration 1);> about I'.syt ho logical Warfare?," 4. (*, .1 nil "PsvTho 10 üi ca I ^ Va 1 fn tc ,". 1 <j 1,
UNESCO, FILM. AND EDUCATION
MFD I ATI NG POSTWAR PARADIGMS OF COMMUNICATION
.nnw rruco of Hie ^crid'o ftn-^nd ^^e.i^n '-o^ L.ixraiv a-:d i^n-i-r;n;e  i; inip^si'hle to S2y'. BA time can bt ra dcub: thi:t Ljruat ceai of 'Is -me'v'     E^ffci-'g dc, a'd !uivesc3|is tf-trfifo-t Jltatk'-g ^hs;e ma; or Ills, at tli^i- r;o:s to d eve! a a nip to.   ivev.ods cf td. cm Ion (Tri insfurt^n   'vi5^a", t'cir.jn.^ pro:e;r: an a.l t-ecc1^ nens.
' an visLt^l educstion. be ,\ pan.uwi lor tninery and üuf-• fcrtn^? AUhoti^li this littk may scctn iiLtivc ami hopelessly date A, it is not so far removed (Vom lite idiM öilswciill improvement tritwgit the aiStghtened applies Li on of Vjich-nn legy tli at nontinties to tharactcri/o ou( own d,\y. in the years immediately tollrm"in£ World War II, Uie ittasi media tu ok mi a netv significance ^nd the study of coamumk'iUion emerged to analyse the effects tii thest soeial techno logics and tc direct their imjilenientation, legacies- of ^'hicli arc with qs üttil. Ihe wartime experience of propaganda as well as the poiarination of the glohe into the uneasy entente ol the Culd war- a war of ideologies - gave ample reason tint" jtttriding tu the importance of the mass dissemination of idtas. The United Kations Educational, Scientific <ind Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was intimately involved with the new klndstape of mediated international communica' lion. Although the interest in mass media took many forms in this period, iu> at ti vi ties in the fidd touk place with a.s much mor.il authority tliost.' fiidorsod Ly an urg.nligation wilii I lit" m.uul.tlr nl j;hi[>.il pe.lee. Ue,-sij;iteij lo JmkT ptMce-