The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

82 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN July-August, 1952 EDITORIAL "l^EGOTIATIONS continue through the Joint Inx ' dustrial Council for a further salary increase to A.C.T., E.T.U. and N.A.T.K.E. members employed in British film production. The Unions have applied for a £2 a week increase in addition to the 18/4 recently negotiated. The British Film Producers' Association are insisting that if an increase is to be considered, the Unions must be prepared to make concessions on the working conditions and remuneration attached to locations, particularly foreign locations, and on the minimum crew requirements. It seems clear that the B.F.P.A. attitude is directed primarily at the A.C.T. as the other two Unions have neither the comparable clauses in their present Agreements, nor are they affected to the same extent as A.C.T., as fewer of their members travel on location. The Unions agree that there can be no objection to either the employers' or the workers' side of the J. I.C. raising any matters for discussion which they consider relevant. On the other hand, as a general rule, Trade Unions object to an increase for salary advances being tied to depressing working conditions. One of the principal arguments of the B.F.P.A. is its members' inability to bear an increase without corresponding concessions by the employees. The industry, and particularly its trade unionists, should, therefore, be aware of recent developments which have made substantial alterations in the economics of film production. The Unions fully supported the producers in campaigning for the establishment of the Eady Fund. In fact it was during the first stage of the discussions which led to the establishment of the British Film Production Fund, the Eady settlement, that the then President of the Board of Trade referred to the " sinister unanimity " of the film industry. We can now get a fairly clear picture of the benefit producers will receive from the Fund. During 1950. they received between them an additional £lm. and had the Fund been operating for a full year this figure would have been approximately £U million. Since August 5th, 1951, the British Film Production Fund has been working on its revised basis, the result of which is an extra £2?, million annually. This sum, a total of £3i million, is nearly equivalent to the total earnings of British films in the home market prior to the setting: up of the Fund. In other words, despite the continued gross maladjustment of the formulae under which cinemas' receipts are shared between Entertainments Tax, the exhibitor, the producer and the renter, producers, on their own figures, are now breaking even. But the position is even better than these figures indicate. According to the recently published Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation for the year ended March 31st. 1952, there has, in the past yen. been ;i reduction in production costs of approximately llr;, that is a reduction of about £1 million on the £11! million spent annually on production. The N.F.F.C. has reached its conclusion on its experience attached to the films which it has helped to finance, but these, in the words of the Report, " cover a wide field and are representative of the whole production industry." The N.F.F.C. Report also states that the saving in costs has not been achieved at the expense of quality. Thus the benefits of the British Film Production Fund, plus the benefits from economies, give the producer a general profit on production of nearly £1 million per annum. This is direct profit which excludes the more substantial profits made by those producers which are part of vertically integrated combines, having their own exhibition and distribution organisations. Particularly significant is the analysis of production costs made by the National Film Finance Corporation. The costs of production are divided under 13 heads, 9 of which show economies, and 4 show increases. The 9 which show economies are: Story and Script (11%), Producer and Director (25%), Production Unit Salaries (17%), Craft Labour (8%), Film and Laboratory Charges (9%), Type Factor (38r; ), Finance Charges — Interest, Legal, and Completion Guarantee (8%), Insurance Premiums (20%), Sundry — Transport, Publicity, Entertaining, etc. (29r; i. The 4 which show an increase are — Sets Materials (lrr), Acting (5%), Studio Facilities (4rc), Producing Company's overheads (29%). From this it will be seen that the workers in the film industry have made a considerable contribution towards making production profitable whilst the employer and property owner have operated in the opposite direction. The figures show that A.C.T. members, from the highest paid, such as the film director and scriptwriter, to the less well-remunerated grades included in the production units, have all received per picture substantially less remuneration than in the previous year. The division " Type Factor " covers the main items that vary according; to the type of film that is being made, and include location expenses, music and costumes. The figure is not broken down into its component parts, but we assume that the location expenses are responsible for a substantial amount of the total figure. If, therefore, the economies are in line with those under music and costumes, it means that there has been a reduction of location expenses during the past year of 38%. Yet producers now wish to reduce them still further at the expense of the technicians. The employer, on the other hand, has charged more for his sets, more for his studio facilities and substantially more for his overheads. Before the producers renew their charges against the unions for making production uneconomic through enhanced salaries, and onerous conditions of employment, they should set their own house in order and start revising their own charges and overheads. Finally, it should be noted that the Union's claim for a £2 a week increase which covers 3.874 workers would, if granted in full, cost £403.000 a year. This is only 10rr of the additional receipts producers have received from the British Film Production Fund, and the benefits they have received from the economies reported by the National Film Finance Corporation. Is this claim still held to be unreasonable, particularly in the light of the foregoing?