Third Cinema

Conclusion

To look at the work of Humphrey Jennings within the framework of Third Cinema enables the reader to suggest possible explanations for some of the apparently strong contradictions in Jennings the person, and his films. The seemingly contradictory elements of left-wing, patriot and propagandist are less troublesome when discussed through the frameworks of Third Cinema, and become useful as part of an overall concept of his work, rather than as definitions in themselves. That they are all relevant within the Third Cinema manifesto is important. The critical work on Jennings has too often elevated him above an overall theoretical framework; his status as poet of the British cinema has apparently negated the need for in-depth, rounded work on what it was that Jennings was actually doing with his wartime films. This is not to denounce their power, their beauty or their importance, rather to confirm that in not looking at the cohesive whole of Jennings work (primarily between London Can Take It and A Diary for Timothy), readings of Humphrey Jennings can become adulatory praise.

As he so often goes beyond the boundaries of documentary and propaganda, using these definitions are more restrictive than enabling. To look at Jennings in a fresh light is necessary to give his work longevity. Now that he has a genuine reputation, constant re-appraisal of what makes his films work, what he made films for and what his films say to us, will give them yet more relevance to both the contemporary filmmaker and the contemporary audience.

I believe that in looking at Humphrey Jennings as a filmmaker of the Third Cinema, his work can be more clearly understood, and enjoyed. His work is of such importance and has had such influence on British cinema, that to place him within an accurate context is vital in making his work more accessible and tangible. Jennings is not only the true poet of the British Cinema, he is the first poet of the Third Cinema. To look at the work of Humphrey Jennings within the framework of Third Cinema enables the reader to suggest possible explanations for some of the apparently strong contradictions in Jennings the person, and his films. The seemingly contradictory elements of left-wing, patriot and propagandist are less troublesome when discussed through the frameworks of Third Cinema, and become useful as part of an overall concept of his work, rather than as definitions in themselves. That they are all relevant within the Third Cinema manifesto is important. The critical work on Jennings has too often elevated him above an overall theoretical framework; his status as poet of the British cinema has apparently negated the need for in-depth, rounded work on what it was that Jennings was actually doing with his wartime films. This is not to denounce their power, their beauty or their importance, rather to confirm that in not looking at the cohesive whole of Jennings work (primarily between London Can Take It and A Diary for Timothy), readings of Humphrey Jennings can become adulatory praise.

As he so often goes beyond the boundaries of documentary and propaganda, using these definitions are more restrictive than enabling. To look at Jennings in a fresh light is necessary to give his work longevity. Now that he has a genuine reputation, constant re-appraisal of what makes his films work, what he made films for and what his films say to us, will give them yet more relevance to both the contemporary filmmaker and the contemporary audience.

I believe that in looking at Humphrey Jennings as a filmmaker of the Third Cinema, his work can be more clearly understood, and enjoyed. His work is of such importance and has had such influence on British cinema, that to place him within an accurate context is vital in making his work more accessible and tangible. Jennings is not only the true poet of the British Cinema, he is the first poet of the Third Cinema.