The most have neglected the careful study of the cinema. When they think of the cinema they think only of sex and immorality, they do not think of the good things about the cinema. Many of them seem to have a closed mind on the subject. They are suffering under a complex, caused by the age-old prejudice of the so called genteel folk towards any kind of show business and the men engaged in it. Even in countries like England and America which are certainly more advanced than India, they look down upon actors and actresses with an air of superiority. The main reason for this prejudice is perhaps that members of this profession always depend on public support and patronage for their very existence. The showman, like a politician, exists only at the pleasure of the public. He is always dispensable, not indispensable. He is always to bow down to the whims and fancies of his public. Here the public becomes superior to the showman and the showman accepts the position of superiority assumed by public men because public men like showmen depend on the same public. If public men work for the good of the public, showmen do, as a matter of fact, work for the pleasure of the public, the two are different spheres of activity. That is all the difference. Another reason for the inhibited growth of the cinema is the confused thinking about its use, its scope and its purpose. It can be and is, as a matter of fad, to a very large extent, used as a means of propaganda, publicity and advertisement. It can be developed as one of the fine arts in its own right. It can be used as a medium for the enlightenment of other nations about our own culture, customs and manners. It has often been said that one of the potent causes of international misunderstanding, hot and cold wars, is the people of different countries do not have the means to appreciate and understand each other adequately. We are all familiar nowadays with the international exchange of students and professors, permanent culture establishments in foreign countries, tourist information bureaus, and hundreds of good-win missions. There can be no gainsaying that the cumulative effect of all these activities in establishing mutual international understanding and paving the way for permanent world peace is very great. No wonder, therefore, that all modem States consider the film industry as a ?key? industry which has to be preserved and fostered at all costs. The scope of cinema being so wide, and the purpose for which it can be applied so varied, it is obvious that the agencies employing the medium of screen for various specific purposes must also be necessarily as varied. Its use as a medium of advertisement, for instance, can be sponsored only by commercial interest. Its use as a medium of mass education is pre-eminently the domain of National and State Governments. It is, indeed, a great pity that our educational institutions have not begun to exploit the immense potentiality of the film for educational purposes. A careful consideration of the different agencies which can exploit motion picture for specific purposes leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only scope for private enterprise is the field of public entertainment. I take it that it is agreed on all hands that recreation and entertainment are almost as important as food, clothing and shelter. Apart from recreation, being good of the people themselves, it is in the interest of the State itself to keep the people contented and well provided with wholesome pastimes during the time when they have no work. The idle man's brain is indeed the devil's workshop. That is why all successful governments, from time immemorial, have made it a policy of high statecraft to keep the people away from mischief and discontent by means of State-sponsored recreation.