The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

October 1955 CINE TECHNICIAN 147 CINE TECHNICIAN EDITORIAL THE CHANCE THEY MISSED BY its decision towards the end of September to extend the Anglo-American Film Agreement without alteration for a further year the Government has missed two golden opportunities. By insisting on certain long overdue revisions it could have taken a step, however small, to improve the balance of payments position and at the same time it could have made a practical move to encourage the production and presentation of more British films. Everyone concerned with the British Cinematograph Industry is entitled to ask why neither of these things was done. The Agreement, it will be recalled, which was originally signed in 1948 and was designed as a substitute for the import duty which had previously been imposed, sought to restrict the export of money earned by American films in Britain. Under its terms no more than seventeen million dollars of these earnings were allowed to be remitted to the United States each year. The balance was to be frozen in Britain or to be used in certain specified ways in this country, including payment for productions and of general operational overheads. As things stand today there is a very wide gulf between what was intended by the agreement and what is actually happening. There appear, in fact, now to be no frozen assets in the country. With the basic annual remittances of seventeen million dollars and various bonuses and allowances everything is being taken out either in cash or in kind. Moreover, the American film industry is even seeking permission to transfer blocked sterling from Australia and New Zealand, where it cannot be used for production purposes, to Britain, where it can be used. In these circumstances the original agreement begins to look something of a farce. Prior to the routine annual Anglo-American meeting in September, at which the Agreement was extended as usual, A.C.T. represented to the Board of Trade the desirability of varying its terms in order still further to restrict the amount of the remittances which can be made direct to the United States. We also urged that consideration should be given to a further restriction of the number of American films which are allowed to enter this country. It certainly never has been our intention to exclude the best foreign films from British cinemas, but it was felt that the policy of allowing several hundred American films to be imported every year is, to say the least of it, a questionable one. Such a restriction would not affect the best money-earning films. They would continue to come in any case, but, even so, it would lead to a reduction in the number of second features and shorts to be imported and this, in turn, would make for some degree of improvement, though certainly not a sensational one, in the balance of payments position. A restriction such as we suggested would, furthermore, provide an added stimulus to British production in the field of second features and shorts and, as a result it would lead in time to a further contraction of the amount of foreign exchange leaving this country. We shall continue to press for revisions on the lines that we have indicated whenever the opportunity to do so may arise. GEORGE ELVIN AND RALPH BOND REPORT ON THE SOUTHPORT T.U.C. A FEATURE of the Southport Congress as far as A.C.T.'s delegation was concerned, was the number of friendly contacts which we maintained with the representatives of other Unions in the entertainment industry, particularly those of N.A.T.K.E., ACTORS' EQUITY, the MUSICIANS' UNION and E.T.U. Our informal discussions with the delegates from these Unions, both inside and outside Congress, proved to be most helpful. A.C.T. this year had two resolutions on the agenda and the delegation was also requested by the Executive to move the reference back of the section of the General Council report dealing with our 1954 resolution concerning workers' fares being a deductable item for income tax purposes. Our first resolution asked that the T.U.C. should not assist the claims of organisations not affiliated to Congress. The General Purposes Committee of Congress asked us to withdraw the resolution. This we would not do until certain specific assurances were given in satisfactory terms. We then agreed to withdraw. Our second resolution asked Congress to affirm its complete opposition to all forms of racial discrimination in whatever country it manifests itself. Unfortunately, this resolution was not called until Friday morning when Congress was nearly two days behind schedule. As a resolution in similar terms had been moved and carried earlier in the week, the President of Congress asked us to move for (Continued on page 148) CINE TECHNICIAN Editor: MARTIN CHISHOLM Editorial Office: % Soho Square, W.l Telephone: GERrard 8506 Advertisement Office: 5 and 6 Red Lion Sq., W.C.I Telephone: HOLborn 4972