HARVARD'S HOLLYWOOD IN HOCK

Finest example of a garden ungrown is the Harvard Film Service, which has been running under its own power since 1934. Although the H.F.S. can, from the outside sale of films and the rental of projection equipment, eke out its own living, its sources of potential value to the University are being wasted through the indifference of officials. Unlike Dartmouth and Minnesota, both of which provide budgets, Harvard is not yet sold on the usefulness of a department of visual education. Thus, the Service runs on precarious finances, since its income is impossible, to estimate beforehand and the fixed sums contributed by the departments using the Service comprise only about two months of salaries. But the fact that if it loses money, it may lose its head is probably not so annoying to the Service as that of being unable to plan its working schedule and to indulge in needy visual research. Combined with shaky security and checked development is a third deterrent of unnecessary conflict over production and projection with other departments. These troubles form the reasons most favoring a budget that will permit the H.F.S. to operate with confidence and freedom.

Two functions of the Service are projection of films for classes and the production of instructional films; both suffer shoddy competition from certain departments also interested in movie work. Since the Service has no central control, because it lacks official support, these departments are free to purchase movie equipment. Not only are they unable to buy the best, but they make little use of what they get. Most instructors, too, have no knowledge of how to operate such equipment. Eliminating this duplication of effort would mean that the Service could produce a picture free of charge, exclusive of cost of film and of the laboratory work--which is almost negligible.

It has been proven by the Graduate School of Education and the defunct Film Foundation that visual education increases the rate of learning by 25 per cent, that of retention by 38 per cent. Progressive schools and colleges are depending more and more upon moving pictures to supplement oral and book teaching. Realizing that the field is still in rompers, the H.F.S. would like to work with the School of Education in doing research. But any research and any end of the waste now rampant because of financial insecurity and duplication of movie equipment are unthinkable without the donation of a reasonable budget by University Hall.