This paper examines the making of the US government documentary film, Power and the Land (1940), in terms of how views about science and technology are communicated to the public. The paper argues that the film was shaped by a complex ideology of technical progress shared by the film's maker and sponsors (the Rural Electrification Administration; the short-lived US Film Service, headed by the award-winning director, Pare Lorentz; and Joris Ivens, an internationally acclaimed Dutch director and leftist), tensions between goals of producing a `factual' and `propagandistic' film, and perceptions of the rural audiences' response. This paper thus argues against the view that science and technology communication is simply the mediated diffusion of knowledge from scientists and engineers to the public (in this case, knowledge about the social and economic aspects of rural electrification) and supports an interactive model. The paper also compares Power and the Land with the better known documentaries by Lorentz, The Plow that Broke the Plains and The River, and with other `fact films' of the New Deal era that portray a relationship between technology and social change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
and Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn), 1989 (Oxford University Press).
2.
Elena, A. , 1993, Exemplary lives: biographies of scientists on the screen. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 205-223.
3.
I use `ideology' in the non-pejorative, cultural sense advocated by Geertz, C., 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books), Chap. 8.
4.
On these models, see Lewenstein, B. V., 1995, Science and the media. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen and T. Pinch (London: Sage), pp. 343-360.
5.
and Alexander, W., 1981, Films on the Left: American Documentary Film from 1931 to 1942 (Princeton University Press).
6.
and Snyder, R., 1968, Pare Lorentz and the Documentary Film (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press). The agencies of the US Department of Agriculture that funded Lorentz's first two films were the Resettlement Administration (The Plow), and its successor, the Farm Security Administration (The River).
7.
Brown, D. C. , 1980, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport Conn.: Greenwood Press), Chap. 1.
8.
Kline, R. R. , 1997, Agents of modernity: home economists and rural electrification in the United States, 1925-1950. Rethinking Women and Home Economics in the 20th Century, edited by S. Stage and V. Vincenti (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
9.
and Robert Craig to Paul Appleby, 29 July 1939, REAA, Entry 13, Box 12.
10.
Edith Hertz to Harry Lamberton, 20 April 1939, REAA, Entry 16, Box 7.
11.
and Kline, R. R., 1997, Agents of modernity: home economists and rural electrification in the United States, 1925-1950. Rethinking Women and Home Economics in the 20th Century, edited by S. Stage and V. Vincenti (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
12.
The script is attached to Arch Mercey to Marion Ramsay, 7 August 1939, REAA, Entry 16, Box 7.
13.
and Lee, C. A., 1989, Wired help for the farm: individual electric generating sets for farms, 1880-1930. Unpublished PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
14.
His five-page report is attached to Udo Rall to Administrator [Robert Craig, Acting Administrator], 24 August 1939, REAA, Entry 76, Box 1. On Steinbeck's suggestion for a fire scene, see Marion Ramsay to Arch Mercey, 9 August 1939, REAA, Entry 16, Box 7. Steinbeck is mentioned as a possible narrator in the 7 August script. For Rall's criticism of co-ops, see Dora Haines and Udo Rall to Administrator [Harry Slattery], 4 October 1939, REAA, Entry 76, Box 1.
15.
Marion Ramsay to Arch Mercey, 9 August 1939, REAA, Entry 16, Box 7.
16.
On Lenin's aphorism, see Coopersmith, J., The electrification of Russia, 1880 to 1925. Unpublished PhD thesis, Oxford University, pp.144, 168-169.
17.
and Anon., 1941, REA movie of interest to all Americans. Rural Electrification News, January-February, 7, 21.
18.
Ivens, J. , 1969, The Camera and I (New York: International Publishers), p. 195.
19.
Ivens, J. , 1969, The Camera and I (New York: International Publishers), p. 189.
20.
Snyder, R. , 1968, Pare Lorentz and the Documentary Film (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), pp. 123-124. Snyder says that an electrified farm was desired in order to provide appliances as an inducement to make the film. I would also imagine that it would be easier to portray the `after electricity' scene with an electrified farm.
21.
and Cowan, R. S., 1983, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books).
22.
Hilgartner, S. , 1990, The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-539.
23.
Kline, R. R. , 1997, Ideology and social surveys: reinterpreting the effects of `labor-saving' technology on American farm women. Technology and Culture.
24.
Proceedings of REA General Staff Conference, 1-5 February 1937, pp.228-228, REAA, Entry 96, Box 5.
25.
and William T. Templeman to C. A. Lindstrom, 10 January 1951, REAA, Entry 87, Box 5. In conjunction with releasing its more famous documentary films—The Plow that Broke the Plains and The River—the USDA released a video version of Power and the Land in 1992.
26.
and Snyder, R., 1968. Pare Lorentz and the Documentary Film (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), p. 192.
27.
and Brown, D. C., 1980, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport Conn.: Greenwood Press).
28.
and Neth, M., 1995, Preserving the Family Farm: Women, Community, and the Foundations of Agribusiness in the Midwest, 1900-1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).
29.
and Nugent, F. S., 1936, Raw deal for the New Deal. New York Times, 24 May, p.IX: 3.
30.
Hartung, P. T. , 1940, I remember, I remember. Commonweal, 20 December, 232-233.
31.
Ivens, J. , 1940, Collaboration in documentary. Films, Spring, 2, 30-42.
32.
Alexander, W. , 1981, Films on the Left: American Documentary Film from 1931 to 1942 (Princeton University Press), pp. 283, 287.
