Le Courrier Cinématographique (Oct 1920)

44 LE COURRIER CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUE LE SAC DE ROME The French Film World By Pierre-A. D'URVILLE The french productions and export. + It is very surprising to some peoples in England to-day to. notice how a very few french productions have got through to the british film market. The demand for french films here is not only justified by the quiries of film renters but as well by the opening left to all good productions, and, english peoples have been teached that frenchmen could make good things. The statements made by Mr. Charles Pathe has certainly made a deep impression on some minds but it is not generaly considered as a clear explanation for the present rest that apparently lay over the french film market. The big thirst of the british film market for our productions is by no mean known of french producers. Those who have tried to send their films to british agents may have found dif. ficulties which will prevents them from having another attempt on the british market. The Custom Officer rules and the high rate of duties are not mades as we know to encourages our exporters, Whilst there is not much difficulties to brings big quantities of films into the French territory. We hear from reports that the addition of screens, buildings, film factories, studios, electrical staff, artists, authors is making the kinematograph trade of America the third of the States iudnstry’s by the importance and mouvements of cash. The Trades Ministry at Washington has published a fresh statistic on Kinematograph films exported from America. It states that U. S. A. sold in a single month over 2.208.294 metres of films to Great Britain alone! Altogether America export bill represents for that single month about 2500 programms, lasting approximately two hours, shewn through out univers, out of America, to about 125 millions of picturegoers In France we have bought to America in that one month mr et mn 1.276.680 metres of film. What have we exportedof ouf own production for this praticaly.no thing Why? There We must put the correct answer: thé explanation that is aske for. Our laws are not made to help the exportation of ouf films. That part of administration beign at a stand still, som chow blinded, A evision of this part of the legal systeme 1 France is no doubt what is needed as its present form kills french productions to the benefit of the foreign producer. Cnrcumstances, easy to make out, favour through our own law the developpement of foreign firms against the national p'® duction. Scarcely few peoples at the french Communes car to notice that kinematograph trade has grown up, and laW$ which are now out of dates remains in force whiülst eveï} whére else our opponents, America at their head, understo® the place the Industry was entitled to. This is one of the mal points which makes French film export’s a so small item latelÿ: Nevertheless American invincibility in film production hf been definitely shaken. The doctrineof « America Ubeï Ales » which was almost unchallanged for at least tel years, and British filmmen have done as much as anybodW to propagate has been defnitely countered, not by pañ sionate argument, but:by clear demonstration and proof. France, Italy, Sweden, and great Britain lately, haw produced during the last year pictures which are not onlf on technical equality with the best U. S. A. work, but which w have exhibited qualities, artistic and imaginatives that n0 americans pictures has yet possessed, To the British producer, who for so long has had 10 listen to that ceaseless and senseless contention—not merel} that American films are the best, but that American film must, and for ever, be the best—the discovery is parti cularly gratifying. To my mind, there have always beel certain clear and definite drawbacks to American films, but they have been largely cbscured by one tremendouf fact—that the American producing companies have no! stinted either trouble or expense in the production of thelf films. The British companies, on the other hand, have generallÿ been somewhat nervous as regards expenditure, have hesitated to sink vast sums in buildings and equipment, and haÿt considered the outlay which Los Angeles might considel suitable for a two-reel comedy to be a really lavish allowancé for a full-length feature. In consequence, while the America! has had full scope to carry out his ideas, the British pro’ ducer has had to consider expenditure at every turn. In othef words, while American pictures have been as good as theif producers could make them, the best British films, though running them close in the matter of technique, have bee more remarkable for the immense possibilities they open® up, in the way of subject, atmosphere, and imaginativ® treatment, than for their final perfection or « shop finish. ? American films possess a hard, machine-mad brillianct that in itself conveys a sense of unreality, particularly wheñ depicting scenes and emotions with which we are unfam/ Kar—off the screen. Not truth, beauty, or imagination aff the qualities that enable the majority of American films t° « get across, » but rather expenditure ne efficiency —an