The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

74 The Journal of the Association of Cine-Technicians February, icj^b Apparent Success of Quota Act More than 36,000 million feet of registered film were projected on the screens of cinemas in Great Britain in the year ended 30th September, 1934. 9,500 million feet were British; nearly twice the statutory footage of the 1934 quota of 15%. This figure is exclusive of news-reels, educational, advertising, interest and certain other types of film, which do not come within the quota liability. Therefore the Act has apparently achieved its object. Whether the British film industry is now sufficiently established to continue its present output if the Act is not renewed is problematical. Probably not. Further, the removal of the Act might well lead to a drive for reduced production costs, as a means of successful competition against foreign films, the first economy of which might well be reduced salaries and wages for employees. Abuses of the Act The Act tends towards low salaries and bad working conditions for those employed by the smaller companies in the production of "quickies." Renters engaged on such films generally cause technicians to work excessive hours — fifteen hours a day or even longer is not unusual ; a sevenday week is a general practice ; meal rests are conspicuous by their absence or remembered for their brevity ; and economy is the watchword. The less a film costs, so generally is the profit proportionally greater. Quality of films naturally suffer as a result of the sheltered market. Mr. S. Rowson at the 1935 C.E.A. Conference expressed the opinion that certain British films were bad, simply because no effort had been exerted to make them otherwise. He quoted figures to shew that 25% of British films were adversely reviewed, as against only 7^% of foreign. A British technician tells of the retort to his criticism of the set constructed for his film. "What does it matter, anyway. The film will never be shewn." Such a state of affairs is all wrong. A Studio Manager informed me only recently that, while the saving of a week's floor rent is uppermost in the minds of most renting companies, actual results frequently show that overtime and other additional expenditure often exceed in cost an extra week's rent. The old story of penny wise and pound foolish, ignoring altogether deterioration in the quality of work which must follow from continuous long hours. Possible Remedies What remedies of these abuses are possible ? To (juote Mr. S. Rowson again, he stated to the C.E.A. that one possible remedy for the present abuses of the Act would be a stipulation that a certain minimum sum — between £10,000 and £12,000 exclusive of the cost of the storyshould be spent on a British film before it could receive a quota qualification. On the whole a sound suggestion. I should, however, go further and stipulate how part of this money should be spent. There should be some provision as to the salaries, hours and general working conditions of employees, and particularly some safeguard to retard the operations of "fly-by-night" companies, of whom there are far too many in, or late of, the film industry, leaving behind a considerable sum of unpaid salaries. Most of the British films which have been made under reasonable conditions have proved a box-office draw and have on occasion established box-office records. There is, indeed, a call for some kind of official certificate of competence to be held both by the producer and senior technicians. Doctors, lawyers, etc., cannot practice without registration — thus ensuring a certain minimum professional standard — and a similar registration in the film industry appears reasonable and advisable. The present Act provides for a committee to advise the Board of Trade on the administration of the provisions of the Act. It is at present composed of representatives of (a) film makers — employers and not employees, (b) film renters, (c) film exhibitors, and {d) persons having no pecuniary interest in any branch of the film industrv. As the Act, however, covers many matters which directly affect employees, and it is hoped that the next Act will include still inore clauses of this nature, it appears both reasonable and advisable that the Committee, and its powers, should be extended. The film industry' is responsible for the employment of a very large number of persons and, as it is their livelihood which the Act aims to protect, I feel that employees' representatives, appointed through their respective organisations, should be on this Committee. In conclusion, I trust we will keep the Quota Act, but when it is renewed its provisions shall be tightened up in an effort to prevent its present abuses and shortcomings. There should be stricter supervision to ensure compliance with the Act and failure to do so should carry far greater penalties than at present. I trust that the icholc of the fihn industry will be consulted in the near future to ensure that the Cinematograph Films Act will be continued to benefit the British film industry generally and to make credit titles something to be sought and coveted rather than, as in certain cases at present, a questionable honour. THE FIRST REPUTABLE FILM LIBRARY im ENGLAI\1D fILM LIBRARY fILM DESPATCH EDITING BAYS Income Tax It lias iieen brought to our notice that the treatment of film technicians with reference to Income Tax allowances is not uniform. The Association has consulted H.M. Principal Inspector of Taxes on the matter, who asks us for specific details of any anomalies, when lie will be pleased to meet representatives of the Association in order to discuss regularisation of the whole matter. Will any member who has had difficulties please inform us of the nature of them ? We should also like to ha\ e details of any apparent discrepancy between treatment in different districts.