Film and TV Technician (1957)

May 1958 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN 253 done a great deal for the working conditions of its members, but I hope I am not committing a heresy in saying that up to 1933 (the year your Union came into operation) and in fact in the immediate years following we did not really have much cause to grumble at our lot at Shepherds Bush. All was not well, however, despite the excitement we felt about our work in those days. We had not made the progress we had anticipated in the creation of a native school of film production. Many of the films (with notable exceptions, of course) even if they were not slavish copies of the American type of picture, could have been better made in Hollywood. There was even a period when we fell for the idea that the importation of American stars, directors and American-type stories would somehow provide the necessary ingredients for conquering the American market and producing vast revenues. It was a mirage — nor did we make any great impression in any market oversea. Their Own Idiom It was not until the war period that the British feature films began to express themselves in their own idiom (the British documentary, to its everlasting credit, had already done so, and I still look upon the work of the early documentary units as being the greatest single influence in British film production). Naturally one thinks back on one's own work, and the immediate post-war years at Ealing Studios were spent under ideal working conditions, and produced, I think, not only a typical Ealing picture but something that was indigenous in its conception — and proof positive of your President's belief that the truly international picture is the film of national appeal. We are always hearing about crises in the film industry. Each one I have experienced in more than thirty years in the business has been heralded as another nail in the industry's coffin. Each time, however, the film industry has risen again and found a fresh and stronger voice in the world. As I look back over the last few years — and I recall that there was yet another " crisis " in 1949 — I must say that I consider some ground has been lost in feature film production. Although for some time we have been facing falling returns, the inflationary pattern in production still continues. In fact there is some parallel with the situation in America, described not very long ago by a well-known commentator in these words : " The motion picture industry has functioned without noticeable adjustments to economic realities . . . for four decades." In a sense, of course, the end of the silent picture was the end of to the shorter working week) but — and this is infinitely more important— in relation to content. We must realise that we have a different, younger population who are intelligent and capable enough to respond to our films provided we deal with subjects that are of vital importance and interest to them. Sir Michael Balcon, producer of " Dunkirk ", chats with director Leslie Norman and star John Mills an era and it may well be that we are moving into something of a similar nature today. There is much adjustment which needs take place and much of it is self-adjustment. It is no use our saying that the responsibility for our present troubles lies exclusively with television or the exhibition or distribution side of the film industry. Although many changes must inevitably take place there, we must be thoroughly introspective and see what we ourselves can do. The easy solution is not the employment of gimmicks, whether in the technical developments of screen dimension or negative size, or the production of horror or sex features. We must reconsider our whole approach to film production not only in relation to shooting schedules (which in the lifetime of the Association have increased in many cases far out of proportion Much has happened in these twenty-five years. We have seen the gradual concentration of film production in the four main studio centres, Pinewood, Shepperton, Elstree and Boreham Wood, and in the more recent years, the significant development of Anglo-American production. We have seen also the establishment of the National Film Finance Corporation and a statutory production levy. During the life of the Association taxation on the industry has developed from the punitive to the lethal; and, to his everlasting credit, John Davis for the first time in British film history has built up a world selling organisation of significant proportions. We have witnessed the development of another great medium of mass communication and entertainment. I would not, however, like to forecast the pattern of film production over the next twentyfive years !