Documentary News Letter (1944-1945)

38 DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER THE CZECHOSLOVAK FILM INDUSTRY Contributed by .IIRI WEISS, who established a Czechoslovak unit in Britain in the war, and who has now returned home when signing the decree nationalising the resources of the Czechoslovak cine-industry, Dr. Benes said, "If anything in this country is ripe for nationalisation, it is the cinema." The decree involved four studios with twenty well-equipped stages, laboratories and some 2,200 cinemas. About 22,000 technicians — from film directors to projectionists — were concerned . The reasons for nationalisation were clear and understandable even to those who did not hold socialist views. Before the war, Czechoslovakia had 2,200 cinemas — a large number for a country of 14,000,000. While providing an excellent market for foreign films distributed in subtitled versions, Czechoslovakia was unable properly to support home-produced films. At the best, a box-office success earned only 1 ,000,000 crowns in 1938 — just over £7,000 sterling at prewar values! — so films had to be made very cheaply indeed if they were to earn profits. To support better home productions, an import tax on foreign films was introduced. The revenues were used to subsidise those films which had artistic or educational value but would not be likely to be box-office attractions. A special board was set up to handle this scheme, and so some measure of "direction" was visible in the Czechoslovak cinema even before the war. At their peak, Czech studios produced some 35-40 feature films per year. Production was very speculative. In spite of this, a few pictures of quality were produced, such as Extase by Machaty, Young Love by Rovensky and Death and the Dictator by Hugo Haas. But these were exceptions, and though Czech films were fairly well distributed in central Europe, they could not compete with Hollywood's technical virtuosity or France's artistic depth and qualities. Before the German occupation, the owner of the biggest Prague studios had both started his own production units and bought several cinemas. Thus the Czechoslovak film-industry had already started on the path followed by the U.S. and British industries, by which the small operators are swallowed by the big, and the film industry controlled by huge vertical concerns. The Germans speeded up this process, partly by pressure and confiscation, partly by infiltration. German companies opened branches in Prague and expanded the existing plant, for the city was relatively bomb-free where German studios were disturbed by Allied raids. The Czechs defended themselves as best as they could, clinging to their own units and forming underground resistance committees. In 1941 one of these cells, centred around the noted novelist Vladislav Vancura, was unearthed by the Nazis and its leaders shot. It would be wrong, of course, to suppose that all Czech filmtechniciansand artistes were heroes. TheGermans used not only terror, but also gold. And they knew how to use it cunningly, so that many surrendered, though others refused up to the last even to speak a word of German or to collaborate in any way in Nazi productions. Victory found not only Czechoslovakia's production units intact, but also a leadership ready to take over. The German orgy of centralisation, forcing the Czechs to form a so-called "Film Centre" (a kind of Fascist Chambre de Cinema), proved a boon to those who desired not only a centralised but also a nationalised film industry. Indeed, even with the best will in the world, it would have been impossible to unscramble the deals made under German pressure and to return to the status quo. Besides, the Germans left behind a hugely expanded plant. Who would be the owner? That is why it was clear that the only solution would be complete nationalisation. Only, as there was no precedent, nobody knew what form such nationalisation should take. To bridge the interim period, Mr. Kopecky, Czechoslovak Minister of Information, formed Councils of Plenipotentiaries, the majority of whom had been members of the underground committees mentioned above. These councils ruled in the period before the formation of an entirely independent Czechoslovak Film Corporation.* For a few months there were plenipotentiaries for production, distribution and importexport. A special plenipotentiary for finance acted as a film bank, granting money for new productions, collecting monies from cinemas and auditing the accounts of all other departments. Even in this preparatory stage, the industry was largely independent and was operated, not by the Ministry of Information, but by its own experts. Its economy was strictly on a basis of profit and loss. It was to have no subsidy, and all investments in films and cinemas had to be made from existing income. The Films Division of the Ministry of Information had — and still has — a supervising function only. The fact that all income — even the exhibitor's share of foreign pictures —flowed into a common fund for the first time, gave the industry a chance to produce pictures of quality, for the question of profit and loss on an individual picture was less important than the overall position. The whole pattern of the industry as seen today is comparable to the Rank empire or to the huge U.S. corporations which embrace production, distribution and exhibition. But in Czecho * Set up in April, 1946, by a decree of the Minister of Information, to concentrate and operate all resources of the industry. Slovakia all takings are applied only to the production of better films or to the building or reopening of cinemas. Now for that most important question which worries creative workers in the cinema. In a nationalised film industry can there be freedom for the artist to say whatever he likes in whatever way he wishes? In Czechoslovakia there has been, so far, more freedom for the artist than in the former privately owned companies. Today all questions of film policy are decided by a special "artistic board", which is composed of various elements with various political opinions, so that dictatorial decisions are out of question. The prevailing trend is to produce pictures of high artistic quality and good entertainment value together with a certain proportion of propaganda films — about a fourth of the total output. Party politics are banned, and an eye is kept on the box office, for the industry has to keep itself alive by its own income. On the whole, the reborn industry' seems to be shaping well, though it still has its teething troubles. As everywhere else, the film industry in Czechoslovakia is a difficult body to organise, and there were several still-born children. One of those is the Film Council which it was thought would become the supreme organ of the industry, a sort of film parliament where all major issues were to be decided. Also, the functions of the various boards are not yet clearly defined. Production proper is now in the hands of two production units, each headed by an able and keen producer. Here there is furious competition, each group trying to get the best directors, writers and cameramen, and the best studio-bookings. This competition went so far that floor-space had to be forcibly divided according to the production programme of the two groups. In 1946, the Czechoslovak industry hopes to produce 15-20 features and some 40 documentaries, though the plans are hampered, not only by lack of personnel, but also by lack of film-stock. The only large supplies have so far come from the U.S.S.R. The British and French have sent in only a trickle. The Soviet productions now being made in Prague are produced on a strictly commercial basis. The Soviet film organisation has hired, by a yearly contract, a few stages in which to produce a certain number of films as their own stages have been destroyed. The French, who also negotiated for floor-space, found the costs too high. (This statement will help to dispel the fairy-tale of Soviet "occupation" of Czech studios. The Czech industry will gladly hire available stages to any foreign company desiring to produce in Prague.) DOCUMENTARY NEWS LETTER Owned and Published by Film Centre Ltd., 34 Soho Square. \\ . 1 Annual subscription times ; Editorial Board: 6s. (published six Edgar Anstey Donald Taylor Bulk orders up to 50 copies for schools year) ._,. _.. . . _. . and Film Societies Arthur Elton John Taylor Geoffrey Bell