The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

CINE TECHNICIAN January 1956 The General Secretary Writes: "THE TIMES" SHOULD THINK AGAIN OVER Christmas, when presumably ideas were at a premium, " The Times " published one of its less well-informed and wise leaders. It reminded readers that quota, the continuance of the National Film Finance Corporation and the Eady Fund have to be considered before autumn 1958, and after a dissertation on the profitability of British film production said that " the starting point in Government policy-making must surely be the judgment whether for aesthetic, social, trade, or political reasons it will be essential in future conditions to have a large British filmproducing industry." By implication " The Times " leader leaned towards little help, if any, for British films. This, as we all know, would mean the industry's demise. Donald Taylor answered part of the leader's arguments in a subsequent letter to " The Times ". He quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the surprising air of affluence which was attributed to the industry did not apply to independent production but to the distributors and exhibitors, who hold the producer at their complete mercy. The vertically integrated groups are prosperous enough. As A.C.T. has repeatedly said, there is no lack of profits in the film industry. The fault is in the distribution of the profits, which is one reason why we supported the Eady levy which now increases slightly the twopence out of every shilling taken at the boxoffice, which was all that previously came back to the producer. There is good point in Donald Taylor's suggestion that one form of future help might well be a guaranteed price to the producer, and A.C.T. has advocated " fair trading " in the past. No one can possibly refute the argument that the combined profits of British film exhibition, distribution, production and auxiliary functions such as processing and studio-owning are more than sufficient to maintain a flourishing production industry. Last year's trading profits of the Rank Organisation and A. B.C., together nearly £10 million, make this clear. But these arguments are largely sparring with the problem, which is, as " The Times " asks, whether we need a British film production industry for aesthetic, social, trade or political reasons. I would have Remember These Dates 23rd ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Saturday and Sunday, 10th and 11th March, 1956 at the Beaver Hall, Garlick Hill, E.C.2 RULES REVISION CONFERENCE Sunday, 4th March, 1956 at Denison House, S.W.I thought these arguments were disposed of by the Parliamentary debates at the time of the first Cinematograph Films Act and the Moyne Report, prior to the second, or indeed on a parallel issue in the Parliamentary debates on the recent Television Act when the Government, after pressure from all sides of the House, conceded that the programmes must be predominately British in tone and content. That the same issues are now being raised again is deplorable. Would "The Times" have an industry so small that it is, for example, unable to gear itself to making Richard III, or at the other end of the scale, The Bespoke Overcoat? Would it deny us the means to make The Cruel Sea or the typical British comedies for which we are so famed? Would it kill our documentary industry? In films, as in all other industries, it is impossible to stop and start at will. An industry geared to a thirty per cent quota is small enough in all conscience. To dismember it still further is to destroy all opportunity for a steady output, without which we will never make the outstanding film, nor the bread-and-butter one, nor evade the occasional flop. After all, no one expects every manuscript to turn out a best seller, nor every play produced to be a boxoffice hit. And, on aesthetic and social grounds, would any parent, schoolteacher, or even editor of " The Times ", greet with equanimity a position whereby in this cinemagoing age our children saw nothing but American films, as would be the case if there was no British production. On the question of trade, the short answer was supplied by President Woodrow Wilson many years ago in his dictum " Trade follows the films ". But since then the problems of hard and soft currencies have taught us another aspect of the value of films in trade. The points mentioned by us in this month's editorial indicate how much more valuable films could be as a dollar-earning medium if there were a little more goodwill and reciprocity by the American industry. True, British Government representatives have lamentably failed to press for fair international trading in the negotiations on the successive Anglo-American Film Agreements. But that neither destroys the principles nor opportunities. On the broad political point there is no easier nor surer way than films, if properly used, through which to portray the British way of life throughout the world. On all counts, therefore, " The Times " should think again.