Film and TV Technician (1957)

May 1958 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN 259 GEORGE ELVIN (Continued) would wish to finance in the near future. On a long-term basis it should have both sufficient capital and powers to act as a kind of cushion to the vicissitudes of production. Whenever there is some temporary crisis in films that may be caused by outside dictates over which it has no control, for example, the recent changes in the Bank Rate which have added burdens to independent producers and indeed to the bigger companies as well, it is surely the job of the N.F.F.C. to buttress production to make sure that the industry is able to overcome such difficulties. Target for Industry What I would like to see is some kind of annual budget or target in which the industry sets out to make a stipulated number of films each year, preferably on a rising scale. It should be a prime job of the N.F.F.C. to play a prominent part in ensuring that such a target is met. It should also have power to take over productions which, whether for wise or foolish reasons, are about to be cancelled by producers so that we avoid the sort of experience which has been suffered at Pinewood recently, when no one has known whether the productions on which they commence work were likely to be completed or not. There is another aspect of the future to which we shall have to give considerable thought long before the next quarter of a century has expired. The British Government is shortly entering into discussions with European Governments on the part which films could or should play in a European Common Market. A.C.T.T. has not yet discussed this and I would not like to prophesy what its attitude would be, but I anticipate it will be along the lines that, while it would welcome co-operation between the British industry and continental industries to protect and help each other, it would strongly oppose any move which would seek to replace British film production by continental production or by coproductions. I have talked to many people both in France and Italy on the co-production scheme which has operated between those two countries for the past few years. The scheme got off to a good start and it is possible there was initial expansion of production in both countries, but now there are many in those two countries who are opposed to it, partly because the concentration on reduced production costs, upon which emphasis has been laid in the schemes, has not led to the production of either outstanding films or indeed films which have managed to recoup their cost of production. False economy in production is no economy at all. It is quite clear, too, that only certain types of stories are suited to co-production and even then there has to be meticulous care in all facets of making the film itself. We must at all costs avoid making films the object of which is, for example, simply to substitute French for British labour or British for Italian labour, irrespective of the story to be filmed. On the other hand some form of European Common Market would be worthwhile if it were used to stimulate development of native productions in each country and to restrict the amount of screen time which is at present commandeered by American productions. Must Co-operate With TV Above all, films must reach a modus vivendi with television. It is significant that, after the initial hostility of films to television, a number of the leading film interests are now directly concerned in operating television stations. As long as we realise that basically the type of production which is most suited to exhibition in cinemas is not the type of production which is best suited to the television screen there is no reason at all why there cannot be fruitful co-operation between the two media. Turning to television, the future is far less uncertain. As long as the public continue to buy television sets in increasing numbers so we are almost sure to have an expanding industry. But it is equally certain that when sets have been acquired, and paid for, the public are likely to be much more discriminating in what they see on television and some of the lessons of the past few years will have to be learnt if the public is still going to look to television as one of its main sources of entertainment. Some of the pitfalls were discussed and received headline publicity at our last Annual General Meeting and I need not therefore go into them here. But in my view it would be wrong when we have another competitive channel to act on the assumption that the B.B.C. should operate as a Third Programme for Television, and that the I.T.A. should be regarded as comparable to the Light Programme in Radio, leaving the new channel to operate a kind of Home Service. The only way to get the best service available to the public and, indeed, to give technicians every opportunity to do justice to themselves is to have networks which are completely competitive in all senses. May I in conclusion say just a few words on the past quarter of a century within A.C.T.T. It has been an exciting twenty-five years, and fruitful in many ways. On more than one occasion, and particularly at the outbreak of war, it was the trade unions who were in the vanguard of the fight to preserve the industry. With all due modesty we can say that the size and importance both of British films and television today are in some measure due to the successful struggle which has been carried on over the years by our own Union and others operating jointly with us. We have naturally enough been at all times mindful of the jobs, salaries and working conditions of our members, but we have equally tried to be farseeing on the broader issues and we have lost no opportunity in advocating proposals designed to foster the wellbeing of British films and British television. May Unity Continue We have built up our membership from a handful of pioneers to nearly 8,000. We have developed from an unorganised rabble to a cohesive and strong force. We have seen the conditions of employment of our members advanced from terms which were scandalous into Agreements which are as good as those held by any other British trade union. We have developed from a collection of individuals unused to organisation and inexperienced in how to go about improving their lot into a trade union which is as strong, even if numerically small, as any other collection of employees in Britain. And in making this progress we have managed to retain that degree of unity and sense of comradeship which should pervade the trade union movement. May it always be so.