Signs of Life Cinema and Medicine Edited by Graeme Harper and Andrew Moor WALLFLOWER PRESS LONDON and NEW YORK 11 11 r-w.vM- «k J in, «-at Britain in 2005 by H ílľli.'.i ]'.. i-hll.u.r :..v|,„i|, *ell Lane, London E8 2EZ " l" l''i'i ■' n i co.uk t »P.1..J.I i,., Harper & Andrew Moor 2005 ^^ i- . .. *ted m accordance w,th the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act -T-U ■ -V ./13f0rm0;b}rTmeans'eIectro^mechanicaI)Photo- --.....*-:.:■ Sr;^ Wi-.k m ■.. ,', i, -k is available from the British Library. HHNi-onr. , I, -.^k) MiN Mm, , y i ,.lSk) 1'rii.n.i!, *..,..,, n rLtdr, Chippenham, Wiltshire Contents Acknowledgements vü Notes on contributors ix Foreword xi Sii Kenneth Caiman Introduction 01 Mdgic bullets, dark victories and cold comforts: some preliminary observations about stories of sickness in the cinema 07 Brian Glasser Birth traumas: medicine, parturition and horror in Rosemary's Baby 19 Lucy Fischer 3 The mainstream AIDS movie prior to the 1990s 33 Kenneth MacKinnon 4 Health education films in Britain, 1919-39: production, genres and audiences 45 Timothy M. Boon 5 Sex, death and stereotypes: disability in Sick and Crash 58 Tom Shakespeare 6 Past imperfect, future tense: the health services in British cinema of the mid-century 70 Andrew Moor 7 Just a story or a 'just story'? Ethical issues in a film with a medical theme 82 M. Roy Jobson & Donna Knapp van Bogaert 8 'Either he's dead or my watch has stopped': medical notes in 1930s film comedy 92 Graeme Harper 9 Angels, battleaxes and good-time girls: cinema's images of nurses 105 Julia Hailam 10 To catch a star on your fingertips': diagnosing the medical biopic from The Sfnrv of Louis Pasteur to Freud 120 11 12 Bibliography 166 Index 176 Y*, Acknowledgements Manv thinly irt due to Linda Jones, Research Administrator in the English Department at the IVu«.-*» of Wales, Bangor, for her skilled contribution, to the BFI Stills Department ibi c!k '. I id assistance, to Greg Thorpe for helping at the proofing stage, and to Yorarn A"i,n "■ ' his constant support and enthusiasm. A great many thanks also to Sir Kenneth Ciln ' for showing interest, even during his busy schedule, and for taking time to write ^u«.li 11' ely foreword to this book. Thanks also to Brian Glasser for the invitation to loin in ill * I dicsussion at UCL. GH would also like to thank Andrew Moor; it has been .i r-'■ I1'1 " ';re to work with you on this one, Andrew, from start to finish. Sincere thank'. \n*i '• <-ľe thanks, finally, to each and of all our contributors, whose work has modi *']i^l i,,l» -hat it is. Grover, J. Z. (1988) 'AíDSrkěywords'; inD.Crimp (ed.) AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cul Activism. Cambridge: MIT Press, 17-30. Hancock, G. and E. Carim (1986) AIDS: The Deadly Epidemie, London: Victor Golla Hoberman, J. (1987) 'The Other, Woman', Village Voice, 1 December, 68. Jones, A. (1990) 'Brian Yuznas Soa^'. Starburst, 140,9-12. Leayman, C. D. (1976) "'They Came from Within": Siegels "Pods" have in fact won < Cinefantastique, 5, 3, 22-3. McGrath, R. (1990) 'Dangerous liaisons: health, disease and representation', in T. B( and S. Gupta (eds) Ecstatic Antibodies: Resisting the AIDS Mythology. London: R Oram Press, 142-55. McKay, P. (1988) 'Fatal Attraction', Evening Standard, 7 March. Newman, K. (1989) 'Skin Deep', Monthly Film Bulletin, 56, 215. Rogin, M. P. (1987) Ronald Reagan, the Movie, and Other Episodes in Political Demono Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. — Schmidt, C. G. (1984) 'The group-fantasy origin of AIDS', Journal of' Psychohistory, 37-78. Sontag, S. (1978) Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ____(1988) AIDS and Its Metaphors. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Walker, A. (1976) Evening Standard, 29 April. Weeks, J. (1985) Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexual London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wood, R. (1986) Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York: Columbia Unive Press. 04 Timothy M. Boon Health education films in Britain, 1919-39: production, genres and audiences Hi "ill education films, unlike most of the other cinematic subjects of this book, did not i| I represent medicine and health, they were conceived as their instruments: each film s, in one way or another, intended to alter public behaviour to enhance health. The éf compass of this chapter provides space to discuss the first 20 years of the genre in tain. The films I discuss here have received little serious attention from film historians niembers of the film studies community.1 Scholars usually opt to study better known, simply better made, examples of the cartoon, melodrama and documentary genres with ich they are associated. But the size of the genre is sufficient in itself to demand study [explanation. Between the foundation of the Ministry of Health in 1919 and the break of the Second World War, approximately 350 health films were produced or iwn in Britain. For the historian of medicine, this provokes questions: who made these is and why did health education matter so much to them? Why did the films differ so ch in style? And who saw them? Fortunately, survival of films is good enough (mainly in National Film and Television Archive) and just sufficient paper documentation persists "he archives to be able to answer many of these questions. Most of those responsible conceived of these films as part of a broader health ication enterprise. Health education of the public was chosen as a mode of quasi-iticai activity by groups of activists, very often organised into voluntary health >ciations. These organisations were an established part of the mixed public/private momf of the interwar public sphere. The CCHE s 1939 Health Education Year Book i 76 such voluntary associations, of which 38 had films in distribution. Most active - the arrangement in place before. .19.19 - was the correct way to deliver the s< that it should continue; for them health propaganda was not the state's busi heterogeneous groups of people who made up the associations included aristocra to retain a type of political role in a period of decline; aspirant middle-class pre - including doctors - making a political place for themselves or asserting a partii of medicine; and women, before 1928 deprived them of the vote, finding a type c stage on which to act. The voluntary health associations differed over what the mattered to public health; for some it was particular diseases, whilst others won the moral state of the population, their uptake of medical services, or their genet Later, questions of public health became entangled in issues of more general soc and citizenship. The effect of these differing concerns was magnified by the policy of the rv Health, whose ministers and officials confirmed in 1920 that practical health should not normally be undertaken centrally, but should be delegated to these health associations and to the Medical Officers of Health employed by all local c Ministry officials developed a fundamentally hierarchical model of communicatic educated intermediaries sitting between the State and the public. As George Newn first Chief Medical Officer, put it: governmental action is the outcome of public c and this in turn is formed by the more educated section of the people and by in< i ľ 0% exponents'(Newman 1925: 17-18). The voluntary associations were seen as keym ■ u\, editorials, newspapers, posters, leaflets and broadcasting. Films were generally ecu • i« d as tools of persuasion of the general public. Going to the cinema was a highly sig •*'• nc aspect of British social life, as Jeffrey Richards (1984) has shown, and health ec ■. •. , hankered after a share ofthat audience. The Health Education Year Book stated in f ■»'> that 'the value of the Film as an impressive visual medium of education needs no er ' ■ (CCHE 1939: 111), betraying a commonly held faith that the power of celluloid c i'u I -put to use for propaganda purposes. Alien Daley, Medical Officer of Health for Bla '' v.» speaking about health education lectures, commented that practically eye ik-audiences of 1,000 to 3,000 can be obtained: the former for lantern lectures, tl ' for those where cinema films are shown' (Daley 1924: 308). Äs films were expe i. ■■ make - according to Daley in 1924, even the cheapest were normally beyond the individual local health authorities - the fact that so many were made confirms ť. ■ ■ i ' estimate of their propaganda power.2 For all groups commissioning health films, there came to be a choice to t ■■ ■»■ between types of film and filmmaker. Over half of interwar health education tit1 made by professional filmmakers, of many complexions, including then well . ■• companies such as Bruce Woolfes Gaumont-British Instructional (British Instr ' Films before 1933). But large numbers were also made by tiny companies, for ". the National Progress Film Company, which occupied what Rachael Low descriDes a; 'a hinterland of filmmakers and agents, largely unknown to the rest of the film indmtrv arranging for the production *ňA j;«.-----■—.-•- E3Í, ľ - more familiar names of the documentary film movement - including Paul rjgir *nstey and Arthur Elton - were increasingly involved as they began to ply .Jj-'in rhe commercial sector, fijn"-. "n be seen as products of occasions of agreement between the organisations lion n ■ them and filmmakers. This was so at the general level, for example that ft-rs or h'l-ds made possible the production of films. But it was also so at the level of gj |K*.> , i tion of the contents of films and how they were cinematically expressed. e\i:nple where a production archive survives reveals the influence on the final film ji> different types of individual: specialist doctors, local government officials, flinders u)l» is of one kind or another. A particularly striking example is the way that nutrition jst John Boyd Orr rewrote the last third of Paul Rotha's 1943 film World of Plenty \ l'Ju7). In other words, individual films are cultural artefacts contingent on the ded ^oups responsible for their production. Similarly, the long-standing generic inn ■• of the several sub-classes of film were products not only of the adoption of t: «. nres, but also of long-term relationships between public health organisations ilni íakers. The director Mary Field (1896-1968) for example, who worked for h In iructional Films, sat on the propaganda committee of the British Social Hygiene til f i >m 1929 for at least a decade. Orr was associated with the documentarists from ti i least 1947. And the instances of agreement that produced films often extended id «. nsensus about the form the film should take to shared political and cultural ,il m 1999: 149, 245-7/9-12). itary health associations and 'moral tales' rbi-. i11 ■' icy of health education films, certainly up to 1939, were 'moral tales': fictional äcoui i tented as entertainment films using moral narratives (often featuring sequences ^f mu i uce, transgression, punishment and atonement) intended to convey a health íjnisl i iii. This genre drew on traditions in melodrama, themselves deriving from popular jthnui ' :raditions of the nineteenth century, as Raymond Williams has shown (1983: Mr-'' I was the voluntary health associations that particularly favoured this genre, from th m f the venereal disease film Whatsoever a Man Soweth, in 1918, onwards. The onli i lation consistently receiving substantial central or local government funding, the ^.......council for Combating Venereal Disease - renamed the British Social Hygiene _(' ■'! i ÍSHC) in 1925 - generated, or handled British distribution of, as many as 45 fil i - :en 1919 and 1939- Over 130 films were produced by other, privately funded, w 1" m i issociations. The Health and Cleanliness Council (H&CC), responsible for 19 hi u- ■ I i ding the Giro the Germ cartoon series, was dependent on concealed commercial ■J l'liii I om the electrical industry, and probably also from soap manufacturers (Daley " ■ Of local voluntary associations, it was the housing associations that produced h u numbers of films. Two examples will give a clear idea of the genre. d Payment, made by Mary Field in 1929, was the first collaboration between ín[ u { British Instructional Films. It was described as a dramatic film dealing with 11 I ar ante-natal treatment of an infected mother and emphasising the danger of ľ' ' äatmenť (BSHC 1928-29: 34). The film was described as being made with ne co-operation of Dr Marjorie Smith-Wilson, Dr Margaret Rorke (Medical Officer in harge of the female VD department at the Royal Free Hospital) and Dr Morna Rawlins ■-prt»Z■! 'gestive shots to accompany abstract statements on the soundtrack, as for \c u I -re the pitch forking of hay is used to accompany a speech from Lord Astor ldiruls. ■ir \ "itey, director of Enough to Eat?, later described the film as 'a scientific 'mtiic d ployed by scientists'.5 According to contemporary categories, it was a ipc>\* 'i reportage film, as opposed to the more poetic and formalistic impressionistic nunc' SEV'e (R°tna 1936: 225). It is clear that the adoption of the reportage style j deliberate choice to represent a social and scientific subject in the supposedly more tral '"d 'scientific5 style of a film lecture. This choice may have been compounded by copnoversy surrounding the nutrition question in 1936; those involved had made * lib«.rite choice to intervene in a politically disputed area, and the adoption of an n.-' form was a sophisticated move.6 overnment * Mn istry of Health, because they had delegated health education to the periphery, were jficth i sponsible for the production of very few films in the interwar period. But officials th<. 'Vinistry were discussing the possibility of a publicity film about its responsibilities u'ftly after the reintroduction of an intelligence and public relations infrastructure m "ü 5, after 15 years in which financial stringency had prevented any such activity, th <.l -ct from March 1935, a combined Intelligence and PR Division serving the "mv-~r of Health and the Board of Education was established, with the civil servant S. \d I as its Director. New emphasis on public relations was typical of government ■•. [•: riod. The film historian Paul Swann explains: 'as a consequence of the arrival of :\ 'I suffrage and the growing extent to which government departments intervened in i t if the general public, politicians ... were compelled to pay much greater attention iNu opinion in Britain than they had previously' (Swann 1989: 2). A «od was quick to clarify the three different roles of the new division as he saw them: [igence was ensuring that 'information relating to subjects with which the Department t\$ readily available when and where it is wanted'; public relations was the giving of ligence information on request; whereas publicity was 'the provision of information \e initiative of the Ministry rather than at the request of the public'. It was this last fevered role which was performed with new energy in the second half of the 1930s. object of publicity at its best,' he argued, 'is to try to make the work of the Ministry a er of legitimate interest to ordinary men and women (Wood 1935). Torn 1936 the Ministry had a fortnightly meeting to 'determine from above' what xts should be publicised. The suggested shortlist of items for discussion at the regular ings included both films and responsibility for direct health propaganda. Both pre-Health Ministers, Kingsley Wood and Walter Elliot, viewed the public relations mittee as significant enough to chair its fortnightly meetings. It was only with the if public relations that the conditions were right for a new mode of health film to t into being. The documentarists, who had been nurtured within government at impire Marketing Board and GPO, were creatures of government publicity. And it Jieir model of film-making that appealed to the officials at the Ministry of Health; stry civil servants saw themselves as experts in administration, and they looked to the This eventually producedron the eve of war, a film called Health for the Nation by John Monck, sometime associate of Robert Flaherty. From the start there was that the film should be a film about England, its history, its consequent health p and the work of the Ministry in alleviating them. Not tied to a particular campaign i issue, it was designed to create in the public mind a picture of the concerns of the of Health; in Woods terms it was 'publicity'. Health for the Nation, in contrast tc to Eat? is an impressionistic documentary covering its material at a stately pace, co: following the principles of dialectical montage - structuring via thesis, antith synthesis - enunciated by Sergei Eisenstein and Vsevelod Pudovkin (see Boon 1 features lyrical orchestral music, dissolving scenes of English countryside, industry people at work and in their everyday lives and sporadic, poetic, commentary Ralph Richardson. The thesis of the film is the industrial development of the cot impressionistic cinematic 'English Journey accompanied by industrial location introducing the coal, iron, steel districts of England, the textile industry, transp closing stanzas of this reel introduce the antithesis, that 'out of iron and coal and st built... slag heaps and smoke, soot upon the fields, forests of chimneys. In a hun fifty years we have changed the face of Britain. We have changed it forever.' The is amplified by a section on 'The people', and the impact of industrialisation on thei The catastrophic interpretation of industrialisation is then given a forceful expressi impressionistic sequence of panning shots of industrial areas, accompanied by the its most sombre: 'Overcrowded, poor, under the shadow of disease. Into filthy hoi ill-ventilated factories and mines was crowded the manpower, the driving force of i men, women and children.' The synthesis is introduced by a sequence of the d titles of Public Health Acts, culminating in the foundation of the Ministry of Hea film builds on this with a series of cases, many of them compared with the state < in the nineteenth century, presented in impressionistic manner with sparse comi water supply and drainage, house building, refuse disposal, medical services, infant school meals and milk, the school medical service, National Health Insurance, r. The concluding sections give an upbeat account of progress in responding to tfi problems of the previous century. In sum, the film is a portrait of the English nj visual language presents established characteristics of the English Nation, the rurality, a people defined by industrial work. England here is an essentially pr< modern nation; the achievement of this modernity has had a serious cost in terms > problems, but these are presented either as already solved or as in process of solurio 1999: 286-300; Boon 2004). Audiences The archives, periodicals, histories and biographies can yield a rich picture of th< of health film made during the interwar period, as the first sections of this chap« sketched. More problematic is the question of who saw the films. For us, who in] world saturated with surveys, focus groups and audience evaluation, the interwar is a foreign country. It seems that those responsible for these films simply assume health education worked. All they asked was that significant numbers saw the Data on mainstream cinema-going reveal that 18 million per week went to 'the (Rowson 1936). For health education films specifically, some specialised archive 2 Th . arid industrialisation has wrought, from Health for the Nation (John Monck, GPO Film Unit, 1939). F i rs and Designs, courtesy The Royal Mail Film Archive. epMnb r 1922, where a total of 1,700 people saw films at three venues: 'At each nnP ill 'lalls were full, many having to be turned away. In many cases it was necessary i i public an hour before the beginning of the showing' (BSHC 1922: 29).7 «u^e of the BSHC's policy of targeting some propaganda films separately at i women, there are disaggregated data about gender split in audiences. So there potential to draw up a picture by mapping these geographically-specific reports; lple, at Stoke on Trent in February 1923, 3,834 men and 4,274 women watched LS in a period of a fortnight.8 There is sufficient information to make comparisons, *|t?_we can only say how many men and women saw particular films in particular t particular times. And the records are remarkably short on references to any >n behaviour. i more intimate sense of the impact of these films, we would have to turn to more ical sources. The first organisation in Britain to apply sociological technique to the audience was Mass Observation, the home-brew social anthropology organisation, ch programme outlined in 1937 directed observers to record details of the size, Ltion, appearance and behaviour of cinema audiences, reaction to films and ~d conversations. A questionnaire was also circulated to cinema audiences in spring ichards and Sheridan 1987: 4). None of this study was directed to health education titer it traced responses to the ordinary diet of cinema-goers, which from at least ts 95 per cent Hollywood product (Corrigan 1983: 26). One can be too pedantic s, and the generality of the responses does give a sense of the context within which ■«u no ■ Im? leim the questionnaire responses-show that drama and tragedy, into which category v c place the majority of the VD dramas, was the second most popular genre, with 2] *T of women and 17 per cent of men placing it as their favourite. So we may conc'uj*" the VD film producers had selected a popular genre, but we cannot say that the audi, believed them to be particularly fine examples. In the absence of detailed contemporary analysis of what films meant to indud we are obliged to fall back on what can be said about spectators in general ?n*J relationship to the films. We may say that the different genres of health film ..c i already encountered, by using different modes of address to their viewers, asserted* in- -relationships to exist between the authority they represented and their audience In case of health education films produced by voluntary associations, the address drev t,n I traditions of the class authority associated with aristocratic power and nineteenth-vín charitable activity. This carried political implications of an older deferential politi. ^ case of documentary, the address drew upon a newer professionalised yiew^of hoi should be run, and it carried a citizenship discourse in which the films' audien invoked as active and responsible members of the state. The documentary-maker and theorist Paul Rotha touched on the difTeren of action of different genres in his landmark text Documentary Film (1936). H that documentary demands 'from an audience an attention quite different fron1 J-u a fictional story. In the latter, the reaction of the spectator lies in the projection her character and personality into those of the actors playing in the story and the result of a series of fictional complications ... [whereas] in watching documen- audience is continually noting distinctions and analysing situations and probing th and the "wherefore"' (Rotha 1936: 141-3). Rotha is here outlining in a parti what Bill Nichols' essay 'Documentary theory and practice' later called 'mode of (Nichols 1976/77). This mode of analysis has the value of directing our attentio choices of cinematic technique made by directors and other participants in the pre of health films, and to the way that has led to the construction of a cinematic ' public health'. The mode of address of individual health education films embo voice of medical authority in public health to potential patients. As such, it is a v< the power relations of medicine. Briefly, in Nichols' formulation, mode of address 'indirect', as is found in fiction films such as Deferred Payment, where the viewer the action of the film through identification with the characters on the screen; is generally literal, showing the fictional world the characters inhabit. Altematn mode of address may be 'direct', as is found in most documentary films, Enough for example, where an individual - sometimes seen on the screen - speaks dir viewers; visual images are either the literal footage of the speaker or illustrative backing up the argument. Each of these modes ofaddress implies a position for th< in relation to the film and its authors; passive in the case of indirect address of thi film and active in the case of direct address of the documentary. In the context o health films, filmmakers and their production allies may be seen to be making assur about the degree of active engagement in health issues by their choice of film genre the address of the moral tale' fiction-based health education film implies tak opportunity of the viewer's passive state to convey health 'messages', documentary the active engaged citizen.9 This approach can take us one stage further with the question of the cinemat nf , ■ »luntary associations, members of the private sphere of medical practice Hit. naking allies, private sector companies. These groups tended to have w ., „ ws about society, as about medicine. In many respects they conform to no« 'i-odel of conservative thought proposed by Karl Mannheim and discussed liíoor. Under this view, 'organic images of family unity' dominate, and it is Lt, duties, obligations and authority ought not to be spread uniformly. They juld be unequally distributed according to generation, rank and role. Furthermore mstíce . -. naturally adopts an autocratic but flexible and benevolent form, ■in*i gradually adjusted to the changing ages, responsibilities and conditions of its Jerrys. (Bloor 1991: 63) fvievo if the mass audience held by these groups tended therefore to be hierarchical lip- 'lmost literally of'the great unwashed'. But, for them, the appropriate address . hit- audience was via appeal to them not in the mode of oratory to the group, but nul., to an audience of individual subjects, each separately identifying with one or i ot th films characters. At the level of simile, we may see this as being like a series of >r'f l "nt encounters with docile, respectful, social subordinates.10 The ddress of documentaries, on the other hand, is also to the audience as individuals, in i different mode. The wide groups responsible for the production of these films ied t * \ave liberal or left political affiliations, and assumed that the audience would »d -. .rning in cinematic technique as it was expected to be in political matters. In -umu les to the mass audience, they can be seen as exhibiting characteristics of the ghh.ii tent or natural law' style of thought opposing conservative thought style in inlu i s account: si I hi i 1 individualistic and atomistic. This means that it conceives of wholes and colki 'i 'ities as being unproblematically equivalent to sets of individual units ... mál i ual persons are made up of their reasoning or calculating facility and a set of im J id desires, plus, of course, their kit of natural rights. (Bloor 1991: 63) le »nil cal metaphor applies more directly to documentaries; the audience is conceived Jlective of individuals' 'reasoning faculties'. The action proposed for them is colne it is that which 'we ought to do as members of society. This mode of address )ii tes with public health as mass intervention via the state. inclusion il\ 'Age of the Dream Palace', millions of people every year also went to see health Jll ition films in town halls, mechanics institutes and other public venues. Their precise ipt r nice of this genre is lost to the historical record, or at least dissipated throughout very low concentration. But, by studying the surviving films, the written records d <- ntextual evidence that persist in libraries and archives, it is possible to recognise the mp' "lance of a genre that, if only in the sheer numbers of films and spectators, formed ii *i ficant part of how health and medicine were cinematically represented for our 1 My PhD thesis (Boon 1999), of which this chapter is a brief statement, is ! of the whole range of interwar health education .films. Readers seeking n ■ the matters discussed here should refer to this. Rachael Low's two works on fiction films are invaluable catalogues (Low 1979a; 1979b). Annette Ku'i VD films is a useful analysis of part of this territory (Kuhn 1988). 2 Daley 1924: 31;1> 313- For discussion of costs of production see Bo« i 56 177-8. 3 BSHC propaganda committee, 9 July 1929, CMAC SA/BSH/C, Londc Library. The role of flies in public health campaigns is discussed in Rogers 1989. Anstey interviewed in On the March,'series on the history of the M.* Newsreel, Flashbacks production, 1985. ........... - For the nutrition debate, see Smith 1986. BSHC Propaganda Committee meeting, 16 Oct 1922, CMAC SA/BSH ' 8 BSHC Propaganda Committee meeting, 19 Mar 1923, CMAC SA/BSH ' 9 Several authors have explored the implications of Nichols' distinction for . of documentary film; see Pearson 1982, Kuhn 1988. 10 In H. B. Brackenburys book, Patient and Doctor (1935), 'The patient is a passive object, expecting from the doctor certain qualities - knowledf fulness, judgement, sympathy, understanding, moral character and ech * (Armstrong 1982: 113). References Armstrong, D. (1982) 'The doctor-patient relationship: 1930-1980', in P. A. Treacher (eds) The Problem of Medical Knowledge: Examining the Social of Medicine, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 109-22. Bloor, D. (1991) Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chica; Boon, T. M. (1993) 'The smoke menace: cinema, sponsorship, and the soc of science in 1937'» in M. Shortland (ed.) Science and Nature. BSHS A Oxford: BSHS, 57-88........................................ ____(1997) 'Agreement and disagreement in the making of World of Plenty', (ed.) Nutrition in Britain: Science, Scientists and Politics in the Twenti London: Routledge, 166-89. . (1999) Films and the Contestation of Public Health in Interwar Britain. \ PhD dissertation, University_of London. __(2000) '"The shell of a prosperous age": history, landscape and the mocl< Rotha's The Face of Britain (1935)', in C. Lawrence and A. Mayer (eds) /' England: Science, Medicine and Culture in the Interwar Years. Clio Amsterdam: Rodopi, 107-48. (2004) 'Industrialisation and catastrophe: the Victorian economy in !' documentary, 1930-50', in M. Wolff and M. Taylor (eds) The Victorians Histories, Representations and Revisions. Manchester: Manchester University British Commercial Gas Association. (1939) Modern Films on Matters of M H i ľ*35) Patient and Doctor. London: Hodder and Stoughton. iO) *-t. •■h Education Year Book. London: CCHE. 11 o^ ■* ■ Film entertainment as ideology and pleasure: a preliminary approach ■s[on , [ .udiences', in J. Curran and V. Porter (eds) British Cinema History: r\\ „\l ■ ifeld and Nicolson, 24-35. jo« i. Ith Propaganda, Ways and Means. Leicester: Bell, (jo^n I he Central Council for Health Education: the first twenty-five years', Ai'i ation fournal, 17,24-35. A 11924) 'The organisation of propaganda in the interests of public health', fitt h, (September), 305-13. "(l^I*) Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925- London: Routledge. / jqo^) '"When every street became a cinema": the film work of the Bermondsey iah t- »uncil's Public Health Department', History Workshop Journal, 39, 42-66. I*»"*"-1 i) Documentary and Educational Films of the 1930s. London: George Allen n \m * "K)V Hirns of Comment and Persuasion of the 1930s. London: George Allen and . ilu )0) Questions of Power: Electricity and Environment in Interwar Britain. e-i-i Manchester University Press. , G 1925) Public Education in Health. London: HMSO.