Film and TV Technician (1957)

March 1957 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN 41 for whom? Of course everybody wants to see trade barriers between countries being broken down but we don't want to see it done at the expense of killing our own production and killing our own industry, and it is clear to those of us who are not completely blind that laissez-faire capitalism would permanently limit us to the position of Hollywood's 49th (or is it 50th?) market. And the outlook of boom or bust in this industry would be fatal to British films. "I believe that Britain is entitled to claim for British filming, as we claim for British farming, guaranteed and expanding markets, fair returns to producers and full employment for the workers in the industry, and we should constantly press upon our political representatives who go to international trade negotiations that they should stand up openly and honestly for the rights of the Government in this country to subsidise British film production and to give special tax relief to the exhibitors to encourage them to make British showings. No Museum Piece " We don't want just to preserve the British film industry as a static museum piece. We want to see an expanding industry and a fostering of the best talent we have. " The Government takes enough money out of cinemas and they should put more of that money back into production, and put it back directly in my opinion. That is why I want to see enlarged the agitation for a state film corporation in Britain and for a national circuit of cinemas because, in my view, these are the only ways in which we can ensure full employment in the industry and its expansion. " Your industry, like all industry, depends in the last resort on the living standards of the people who go to the cinemas, and we are not going to maintain the habit of cinema-going or maintain the payments on the purchase of TV sets by a policy that takes profits out of the pockets of the poor and puts bigger profits in the pockets of the stockholders and landlords." Mr. Swingler said he was constantly told one must not raise certain questions because it would annoy America at international trade conferences. " That is why," he said, " we are told we should not raise the question of state subsidy for film production, or special tax relief for encouraging home production because it would be contrary to G.A.T.T. and Hollywood would not like it." Members in Debate Below are summarised some of the more important debates on individual A.G.M. Resolutions TV ORGANISATION One of the most important items on the A.G.M. Agenda was the resolution (No. 18) on Television Organisation moved by John Warrington. This resolution noted the excellent work accomplished in the field of television, particularly in regard to the new draft Agreement and the formation of the Television Branch. It asked the incoming General Council : (a) to be unremitting in its TV recruitment drive; (b) periodically to circularise all television members with a bulletin informing them of the working being done on their behalf; and (c) that all provincial centres should be visited by an Organiser at least once a month. Not A New Medium Moving on behalf of the TV Producer/Directors' Section John Warrington stressed that TV was not a new medium. It was over 20 years old. It had been a major part of entertainment for 10 years, had been a tremendous industry for five years, and two years ago commercial television was in operation. It was not a toy or a Government play-thing. He calculated that the output of Independent Television in London alone was equivalent to nearly 40 " We have a Government that was prepared to defy Washington on certain important things and to accuse other governments of pursuing evil policies in other cases, but it is not, apparently, prepared to ' go it alone ' in the right direction. I think that to stand up for a state subsidy for British films would be a right policy. I think that to introduce a discriminatory taxation relief for British films would be a good way of standing up for British national independence." first feature films per week. The staff needed for television was sufficient to make nearly 12,000 feature films per year. The staff were young and enthusiastic. They were Directors, Cameramen, Engineers and Sound Technicians, all with the ideal of putting out the best programme that they were allowed to put out by a very unambitious B.B.C. or advertising executives, but these young people knew nothing about A.C.T.T. One Indivisible Union While raising this criticism John Warrington stressed at the same time that " We are one Union, indivisible. We are not against A.C.T.T., we are fighting on your behalf." He then referred to struggles against the Association of Broadcasting Staffs, and declared that its real aim was to prevent any extension of A.C.T.T. "We are fighting not only the B.B.C, not only the Contractors, but those who are well organised and are determined to prevent the extension of our Union." He urged the need for increasing the staff of A.C.T.T. in order to provide a full-time first class Organiser for Television. He also stressed the need for continual publicity regarding what A.C.T.T. was doing in the Television field. Monthly Visits Urged Vivian Milroy, seconding, urged that the provincial centres should be visited by an Organiser at least once a month. He was critical of the amount of information on Television in the Journal and urged the need for a bulletin being issued to every single member at least once a month to inform them of what was going on. It was very likely, he added, that there were good reasons why negotiations for a Television Agreement should have taken over a year and still no final agreement had been reached, but (Continued on page 42)