The Cine Technician (1943 - 1945)

71 THE CI N E T E C HNI C I A N September— October, 194 I facilities. This is what is meant by a "horizontally-integrated" monopoly or combine. All these aspects of British film industrial activity have been sifted and analysed by the committee set up by the Films Council to investigate monopoly tendencies. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the Board of Trade, and the committee appointed by the Films Council consisted of three of its independent members ■ — not persons connected with the Trade who would have been unable to avoid sectional biases affecting their judgment. The members were: Mr. Albert Palache (banker), Sir Walter Citrine (secretary of the T.U.C.), Professor Arnold Plain (economist) and Mr. Philip Gruedalla. The lastnamed retired on account of ill-health at an early stage. The three remaining members of the committee took evidence from an impressive number of representatives of all sections of the industry, and in six months produced a reporl which gives a clearer and more comprehensive picture of trade practice in the film industry to-day than anything which has yet been published. Now, T started off by saying that we ought to sec that this report gets the widest possible circulation. Why should we consider that trade practice in the film industry is a topic of importance to the general public? The answer is that it is wholly due to prevailing trade practice that we don't get the films in the cinemas of this country which, broadly speaking, we should like to see. And as far as we ourselves as technicians are concerned, it is the reason why we have never had continuity of production and consistent employment. To amplify this answer one looks for a fewrelevant sentences to quote from the Report. They are difficult to find when every sentence is to the point and worth reading. In the introduction the committee states that it conceives its task to be to investigate "tendencies which appear to threaten the future prospects of an independent and unfettered British Film Industry. By indep lent we have in mind both freedom from foreign domination and freedom from dominating British control. By unfettered we mean enjoying mable access both to means of production of films and to screen time, and freedom from res! five practices in the field of film distribution." The Mbyne Committee which sat in 1936 was concerned with the American dominance ol the British market, but now a new danger has arisen by the emergence in this country of one oi two dominating British interests, apparently threatening, equally with American influence, the survival and development of what in war conditions is lefi of independent British production." 'The \ iew is held in some quarters," the Report continues, " that the British cinematograph business is to regarded merely as one business among otl which may claim no special consideration, and that it i out oi place for Parliament to show sp concern for its conduct and future development. We do not share that view, and we are confident that Parliament will continue in its endeavour to safeguard its future by means of special legislation not applicable to industry in general. A cinematograph film represents something more than a mere commodity to be bartered against others. Already the screen has great influence both politically and culturally over the minds of the people. Its potentialities are vast, as a vehicle for expression ot national life, ideals and tradition, as a dramatic and artistic medium, and as an instrument for propaganda .... The British public are vitally concerned that the British cinematograph industry should not be allowed to become either a mere reflection of a foreign atmosphere or a channel for disseminating the ideas and aspirations, matter how worthy in themselves, of one or I dominating personalities in this country." Now. this does not imply that the America1: film is to be banned from British cim mas nor that the combines are to be ruthlessly broken up. though the more hysterical sections of the trade press tend to assume that to be so. Cogently, the Report builds up a ease, backed by logical reasoning which no (dear-thinking individual could deny for a complete review of the means of ensuring screen time to independent British films, of ensuring that the money will be available to finance 1 1 and a return sufficient to cover their produd costs obtainable on their merits. It recognises I importance of fair access to studio space and < " the indispensability of continuity of production as a condition for attracting and maintaining § adequate supply of competent technical personnel on a permanent basis. As we understand the p tion. even in Hollywood, the most highly organ film production centre in the world, produ* companies find it necessary to engage on long-1 contract a large proportion of their technical si and actors. This is not to say that a strong active market in free-lanc< professional workers is not equally indispensable. No producing c pany, however large, could afford to maintaii long-term contract all the personnel required a well-diversified production program] films. Staff wit! spei lised competence, eii as pla^ ers or as produ i hnicians, always be recruited on short-term engagements for individual pii groups of pictun Tl existence of a sufficient body of specialists d. p upon the total volume of Eeature film produc over the area in which product <n oncentrati The volume of feature film production in tins country I'd at present by two thh