The screen writer (June 1946-May 1947)

s. W. G. BULLETIN France and we want to bring this as quickly as possible to your notice. “If you could communicate this to your members and perhaps publish it in your bulletin, we would be infinitely grateful to you. “It goes without saying that if a pole¬ mic were opened in this connection, we would be glad to submit, to the news¬ paper Speetateur and to all the magazines in which our members write, any reac¬ tions you might send us. “I insist on pointing out to you the extreme interest which the film indus¬ try is taking in these agreements and the importance which we put upon your reaction.” The enclosure, of course, was the arti¬ cle which appears on Page 19 of this issue. On the Film Agreement Under separate cover, as announced, we received the first issue of FILM, the bulletin of the Coordinating Committee of Unions of Technicians and Workers of French Motion Picture Production. From its columns, we translate the illuminating article by Louis Daquin, Secretary-Gen¬ eral of the Union of Technicians, titled The Agreements and the Prestige of France: “It is abnormal for agreements to be reached concerning the motion picture in the course of discussions covering over¬ all commercial and industrial questions. “We do not deny that films are a commodity, but what is the ‘economic value’ of this commodity as against its ‘human value’? What would this com¬ modity be without the cooperation and contribution of the creators, the techni¬ cians, the engineers and the workers who participate in its making? “No, it is not decent to try to settle the future of the films at the same time as that of machines or automobiles! “Moreover, if we put ourselves, as the contention has been, on a strictly com¬ mercial basis, it is curious to note that, for a branch of our industry which was among the most productive, we permit ourselves the extravagance of purchasing $3,000,000 worth of merchandise per annum, while we are lacking in so many objects of primary necessity. “In reality, and we must have the courage to say so, America is shoving its films down our throats, for commercial reasons of course, but especially to get the advantage of the influence which can be wielded by the prodigious and power¬ ful means of expression which is the cinema. “There are weapons other than the atomic bomb, weapons so important that some people would like to have a mono¬ poly over them. “We want our American friends in the ranks of creators, technicians and work¬ ers to know that we feel that American films of quality, on the same basis as all foreign films having a real artistic or intellectual value, must show on our screens and must be seen by the entirety of the French public. “But we want these international ex¬ changes to be established on a footing of equality and in such a way that they may not be interpreted as an attempt at colon¬ ization. We want the French creators, players and technicians also to have the right to express themselves and to bring to the world, through the cinema, the imprint of our culture, the evolution of our artistic and intellectual tendencies, the expression of our social life and of our historic traditions. “It is not only the freedom of work, the right to work, which we are defending with our demand that these agreements be revised, but also the freedom of thought, the right belonging to every creator, whatever his means of expressoin, to address to the world, through the medium of his work, the message of his country.” SWG Action Daquin’s reference to “an attempt at colonization” is based upon the BlumByrnes agreement on showing American films in France which, in the guise of protecting French productions for four of the 13 weeks in each quarter, actually puts a limit on how many French films 43