The Cine Technician (1939)

so THE CINE-TECHNICIAN June-July, [93; What's Wrong? An Involuntary Symposium By H. CHEVALIER, GEORGE H. ELVIN, K. C. FAIRBAIRN, "FLICKER," & C. A. LEJEUNE This is an involuntary symposium, because the contributors were not asked to write specifically for this feature ; but, taken together, their articles are an opportunity for comment on, and restatement of, A.C.T.'s general policy. As one of our contributors says, finding fault with the industry is a game of which people never tire. A.C.T. finds many faults itself"; but it can claim to weld its criticisms into an integrated and self-consistent policy. The following articles reflect, as it were, facets of that policy. Mr. Chevalier's article, reprinted by kind permission from "The Kinematograph Weekly of A.C.T.'s policy an particular issues can exist: — shon s how distorted a conception MR. CHEVALIER writes The time has arrived when we who earn our livelihood in British studios should face up to the facts concerning the employment of foreign technicians. The Association of Cine-Technicians is urging war against the retention of foreigners, but is its attitude really in the best interests of our craft ? Is there not a considerable measure of justification for the action of the producer in introducing these technicians ? My own opinion is that both the Industry as a whole and all the various grades of technicians have benefited very considerably by the presence in this country of these highly-skilled workers. It cannot honestly be argued, either on patriotic or business grounds, that this country is self-sufficient where the making of motion pictures is concerned. With hardly any exception, the only pictures to measure up in technical quality with American output have been largely the result of international team-work. Hollywood s Example Hollywood recognised long years ago that the film industry could never be confined within national boundaries, and offered monetary inducement to attract the best brains in every department of production technique. There is no bias in California against foreign technicians, and, indeed, anyone who can contribute to the advancement of picture quality or the improvement of technical resources is welcomed, irrespective of country of origin. Why, then, should Britain in its endeavour to establish a British production industry, choose to ignore the experience extending over twenty-five years, derived at heavens only knows what expense, of the American technicians. Lack of Opportunity What opportunities have the majority of our studio workers had to acquire such experience ? As recently as three years ago there were only 38 floors available. These, with the possible exception of Shepherds Bush and Elstree, were small, insignificant stages, totalling in area 297,798 square feet, a rough average 0! 7836 feet per stage. The equipment of these stages, at the time, was perhaps adequate for the type of productions being made, but even the most nationalistic-ally inclined must admit that it compared unfavourably in up-to-dateness and efficiency with installations in the average American studio. No British technician who worked in some of these badly-equipped and out-of-date studios can deny the deplorable conditions under which thev were called upon to work. But while these conditions have prevailed only three years ago in England, Hollywood was equipped with highgrade plant, and was spending hundreds of thousands of pounds perfecting still more accurate and efficient studio equipment. Suddenly there occurred the whirlwind development of the new British production industry. By December, 1936, 40 new floors were added, making in all 73, with a total floor area of 765,588 square feet, an increase in three years of 467,790 square feet, or two-and-ahalf times the original figure, with a new average per floor of 14,734 square feet, double the original figure. Some £3,172,890 of new capital was invested in new film companies registered between January, 1935, and November, 1936 ; a peak total of £24,000,000 being sunk into the industry in 1936. Stars Stipulations Of this £4,100,000 was spent on production and international stars were brought over from Hollywood, together with top-rate cameramen, sound engineers and laboratorv men. The reason for the increase of the latter is that stars with big reputations would not risk their future careers with technicians unknown to them. No one ran blame them. American companies were also establishing key feature production units here, and naturally employed people who they knew could deliver the goods. Another all-important factor in this situation is that not at any one time was there a sufficiency of high-grade experienced technicians available to fill the positions open in our suddenly enlarged studio business. Consequently, we drew on outside sources, chiefly Hollywood, although the internal national troubles in Germany made available other highly-qualified technicians. Pushing The Door To advantages It might have been thought that the accruing from the presence of these men would have been patent to everyone acquainted with the conditions. The newly-formed technicians' association thought otherwise, and initiated a campaign having as its aim the expulsion