The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

20 CINE TECHNICIAN February 1955 GEORGE ELVIN PROTESTS STUDIO GRAB BY TV ACT Moves to save Beaconsfield rpHE imminence of commercial J television has led to the purchase or leasing of so much studio space as may well cripple cinema film production. A.C.T. has taken the initiative in drawing attention to these dangers but regrettably up to the present the Government has taken no steps to prevent the very necessary studio space leaving the industry. The matter is still being pursued in Parliament and elsewhere. The particular dangers are in connection with the studios which are suitable for small first feature, second feature, specialised and short production. Until recently there were 16 of these studios wholely available. Today there are only four, and of these four, one is in the final stages of lease to commercial television, a second has been sold to new owners who are going to concentrate on television whilst at the same time making some films, and a third has already announced its interest in television production. This will leave in splendid isolation Bray Studios which, of course, is almost solely used by Exclusive, although they are prepared to make some lets when their own needs permit it. We all know what the next step will be. Certain interests in the film industry will scream for a reduction of quota on the grounds that space is not available to make the films to enable them to meet their quota requirements, although significantly many of the studios concerned are or were owned by production companies or related to distributors who may very well be in the vanguard of the protestors. It is said that these studio changes will not affect technicians and other film workers as they will continue to be employed in them. This is, of course, true, but neither we, nor we hope the Government or public, want to see a development of commercial television at the expense of the film industry. If studios are required for commercial television purposes, and naturally we welcome the fact that they are, they should build or convert new premises and not cripple the film industry in their mad rush to be in first with commercial television programmes. It is said, of course, that film producers can build studios now that building restrictions have been abolished. This is just as true as the old tag that justice, like the Savoy Hotel, is open to everybody. How many producers of second features and shorts are in a position to embark upon such enterprises? The final shame is that amongst the studios which are likely to go is the Beaconsfield Studio, which is leased by the Ministry of Works for use by Group 3. Surely the State, as far as its own property is concerned, could show a little more devotion to the public interest. Fortunately there has been some delay in the disposal of Beaconsfield Studios and A.C.T. has asked Kings College, Cambridge, to intervene as they are the ground landlords owning the land and buildings. Let us hope that this college, with its traditions, will show more public spirit than the Ministry of Works has lamentably failed to display. Editor's Note. Since this article was written, " Cine " learns that negotiations for the sale of Beaconsfield Studios have been suspended " for the time being." KODAK-ACT PARLEY by George Elvin T7~ODAK, representing private •^-industry, shares the inglorious honour of appearing in the final with the British Broadcasting Corporation, representing public industry, as the last major contestants in the crumbling resistance to trade union recognition. Kodak's story follows a pattern which was perfected in America although our good friends the American trade unionists appear to have got on top of it. By operating conditions which compare favourably with trade union standards (although A.C.T. claims that in its case this is not so) and by the extra carrots of sports grounds, pension funds and profitsharing they tend to lull the individual worker into a false sense of security which makes him feel that after all trade unions may not be really necessary. Occasionally an issue arises which shows how false this assumption is. Such a case arose last month at Kodak when an A.C.T. member was dismissed after 13 years' loyal service. Procedure through the usual machinery had no success, any more than did the action of the Workers' Representation Committee, which is the nearest the Kodak workers can get to any form of joint machinery with the management. A.C.T. Head Office was therefore asked to intervene. Paradoxically, whilst the management will not negotiate with A.C.T. they are always courteous enough to meet any official who has a problem to raise, although generally, if the official gets anywhere, the result is put into effect in such a way as to take all credit away from the Union and leave such glory and honour as there is in the hands of the Workers' Representation Committee which is not, of course, a trade union body. On this occasion I met members of the company's Board of Directors and our talks turned on the issue that our member had been informed that one reason for his dismissal was not any mistake he may have made but the fact that he falsified the records in an attempt to hide it. This allegation was vociferously denied by our member and I made clear that if our member was right, and I felt he was, then he should not have been dismissed. It was agreed that this was the key issue and it was left to the Deputy Managing Director and myself to make further inquiries. At the same time, with credit to their persistence, the Workers' Representation Committee renewed their approaches to the company and pressed for reinstatement. After some five weeks' unemployment and after the further inquiries had been made, our member was informed that he would be taken back in the firm.