Variety (January 1951)

Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Forty^ fifth J^A^IETY Anhiversitry IXTERXATIONAL 193 Britain Had Some Top Pictures in 1950 :By SIR HENRY L. FRENCH ( Director General, British Film Producers Assn.) London. The year 1950 was One of mixed results for the British film production industry— some gOod, some bad. I will first mention some of the good things. The British industry had in distribution some outstanding films during the quota year which began Oct. 1, 1949. It is only necessary to mention films such as “The Blue Lamp/V “The Happiest Days of Your Life/’ “Odette,"' “Seven Days to Noon," “The Third Man/’ “Trio” and ‘ The Wooden Horse’’ to prove that British technicians, directors and actors are capable of providing for cinemagoers all over the world entertainmeht of the highest quality. After making representations to the Government year after year, without result, about the exeessive proportion of cinema boxoifice receipts taken for Entertainments Duty, it came as a welcome change to learn last June that the Government had devised-^without much cost to itself —an ingenious scheme to enable producers of British films shown in cinemas in Great Britain to receive a small sup-; plcmcntary payment from the boxoflfice. British producers also greatly appreciated the cooperation of distributors and exhibitors who agreed to operate this voluntary sehemc. Exhibitors agreed to make the voluntary payments into a national fund brought into existence for the inaintenance and support of British film production. Di.stiibutors (including American distributors) agreed to ex^ cinpt the payments from film hire in. the case of percentage bookings. These results were not obtained without . a great deal of discussion during which individual views difl’ered Widely. But it was, nevertheless, a remarkable achievement that the four trade associations concerned all put their Signatures to a joint .memorandum of agrees ment within, a period of two weeks. This unanimity could not have been reached Without the concurrence of the major American exporting companies. . Although the scheme is a voluntary one, exhibitors, exc('])t for an almost negligible minority, are now making their weekly payments to the fund. The manner in which the fund is to be distributed among the producers of British films of all kinds (including, of course, films made in. England, by American companies) has not j'et been sctllcd by the four trade associations. 1 estimate, however. that the payments for the 52 weeks beginning Sept. 10. 1950, when the scheme began, to the producer of any British fihn with quota life shown during that period will be about 12* '2^0 of distributors’ gross. Meanwhile, other happenings have occurred Which have been far less acceptable. The volume of British production has continued to fall during 1950, with the inevitable Jesuit that the exhibitors’ quota for British fir.st features lias fallen from 45% in 1948-49, to 40% in 1949-50, and to 30% in 1950-51. It must further be admitted that, were it not for American production in the London area, the quota now in operation Would be even lower. Whether this situation is viewed from the point of view of the prestige of the British industry generally, or from the point of view of the welfare and prospects of its staff of skilled workers, of whom a substantial proportion are oitlier transferred to other occupations or are unemployed, the effect is exceedingly depre.ssing. Kelationsliip Good Between Yaiiks-Brilish U.S. Companies To Overcome Many Foreign Pic By NATHAN D. GOLDEN Since the meeting in Washington in April, 1949, attended by three representatives of the Motion Picture Assn, of Ajherica and the British Film Producers Assn., the relationship between these two bodies has been excellent. The contacts between the two bodies have been IVoqucnt and valuable to both. It was, therefore, a matter of much j-egret among British producers that the ^'O associations could not reach agreement over the pinnciple upon which a film should be shown at the Royal Film reiTorniJince held in London Oct. 30, 1950. The BFPA considered, after the decision had eventually been taken contrai’y to its views, that. until the performance was over the loss said about the difference of opinion the belter. C'onsequently no statement of its views was given to the press although a great deal on the subject was printed in IJopci's on this side of the Atlantic, some of which was very misleading. The issue can be stated quiet bi'iefiy. In 3 948 (after it had been agreed that the film for that year should be British) it was decided by the Ginemalogi’aph Trade Benevolent Fund, which is the body that organizes the annual Royal Film Performance, that the film should alternate, American one year and British the next. In accordance with this decision “The. Forsythe Saga’’ was .shown in November, 1949. AVhen the question of the film for 1950 v.as under consideration, it came as a shock to the British iiulu.stry to learn that the American indu.stry claimed that films made in London studios by American companies, $hd llici'clprc “British films’’ for .quot^ purposes, should, be eligible; for consideratipn, . This was a; nevy point which had never been raised before. The MPAA, to which the .issue \yas referred, toOk the yiew that the AmcriGan indu.sti y had been assured ohthe highest authority that a film luado; in England by an American cojhpany would rank as a British film for all purposes. They could not, therefore, .a.s.scnt:^^ what appeared, to them to be a variation of tins clear and comprehensive understanding. The BEPA, like the MPAA, vyas concernGd not with “The Mudiark’’ or ‘•ny other individual film but with a question of principle. Jl considcrod tfiat the 1948 decision (to which they were . U(Jt a party although they accepted, it after it was taken ) .clearly intended that the film selected in futiire years •‘^liould. be the product of the American indu.sU-y one year apd the product of the British induslry the^ next year. The Benevolent Fund, with which the responsibility for a decision rested, had no hesitation in agreeing \v4th the American view. Unless the 1948 decision, as now interpreted, is modified, the first three performances, at least, to which that deciJ^ion applies, Will each be of a film produced by an American company. That is a situation which the British indus|i'y will not accept without protest. It feels, at pi'esent, to the position of a schoolboy who has been told I9 divide a cake with his friend and is subsequently staggered to find that hi.s friend, having eaten his half, ■ claims, as a t'iglit. a slice of the remaining half which is still iiitacL and show.s signs of wanting to eat the lot, if he is allowed b) do so Washington. Probably the most important recent development in the distribution of U. S. films abroad has been the legislative activity of certain foreign governments which has helped to develop their national film-producing industries. Directly or indirectly most of these measures seek to limit exhibition of U. S. films and to provide incentives for productibn, distribution and exhibition of their own domestic films. During 1950 negotiations have been carried On by the American film industry with the tJnited King^dOm, Italy, Germany, Argentina, France, Spain and other countries— seeking mutually satisfactory solutions to the problems involved in this trend toward aiding the home industry at the expense of the U. S. film industry. During the early postwar years, the major concern of American film companies operating in the foreign market was that of obtaining dollar exchange with which to make remittanees of their film earnings. Actually both problems are closely related, but of the twO the legislative actions by foreign goyernments may have longer lasting effects on the U. S. industry and could even cause a considerable shifting of world film markets— if pursued purely on a nationalistic rather than an ecoriomic or eultural basis. What was at first a foreign exchange situation has developed into an attempt to penalize a foreign industry which has been responsible for many kinds of progress in the world far beyond the range of the film business ■’itself; These legislative actions by foreign governments have taken many and varied forms. Some governments have, imposed definite import quotas which limit the number of U. S. films that may be brought into the country fOr distribution. Major countries having impOrt quotas are France and Germany, with the eyeir-present threiat that Italy and perhaps other producing countries may impose similar restrictions. Other itieasures include regulations requiring a specified guaranteed playing time for nationally produced films, reduction in taxes when domestic films are shown, direct arid indirect subsidy of the. industry, dubbing restrictions, and the negotiation of reciprocal film exchange agreements with other film-producing countries. Import licensing systems in some countries have caused U. S. film distributors considerable concern and have caused delays and uncertainties in the distribution of their films. Some of these probleins are being overcome to a large degree as more and more countiies become contracting parties to the General Agreement ori Tariffs and Trade, which provides for the elimination , of quantitative import quotas, but does allow a country to establish reasonable screen playing time requirements for nationally . produced films. Then, too, it has been reported that a large number of foreign productions have failed to return a profit to the producers, and private capital for further ventures is becoming more difficult to obtain. In France the Joint Franco-Ariiei'ican Declaration of Sept. 16, 1948, continues in effect. This agreement limits the number of dubbed features to be imported from the U. S. to 121, provides that French films must be shown five weeks out of each 13, and limits annual remittances to $3,625,000. Negotiations were expected to begin in November, 1950, on the rOvision of this agreement, and an attempt will be made to increase the numbef of U. S. films that may be imported. Also in September, 1948, the French Government created a fund for the temporary subsidy of the French film industry. Revenue for this fund is supplied by two taxes, one on theatre admissions and the other a meterage tax based on the length of the film. As of July 1, 1950, approximately 2,400,000,000 francs had been put at the disposal of the French film industry from this fund, about 1,500,000.000 francs of which was used for assistance to feature film producers. (350 francs equal U. S. dollar.) under consideration for purposes of ratification by the Argentine government; however, as of this writing, it has not been ratified and as far as is known no import permits have been granted and no dollar exchange has been made available for remittances of film earnings. The Argentine government issued a new decree, dated Aug. 9, 1950, affording Argentine producers further protection in the exhibition of their films. Previously, firstr run theatres had to show Argentine films one week out of every month, and other theatres Were required to exhibit Argentine films two weeks out of eveiT five/ Under the new decree, firstrun til eatres and other principal theatres of the Suburbs, called intermediate theatres, must show Argentine pictures one week out of every month, while all other theatres must exhibit Argentine pictures three weeks out of every six. The decree also states that should the receipts from the Argentine film be equal to 80% of the “holdover requirement’’ for foreigii films, the Argentine film/will continue in the first-run theatres for another and Subsequent weeks. The new decree augments the miriimum percentage of gross receipts which the Argentine exhibitor must pay as a rental for Argentine films. First-run theatres must pay as rental at least 50%, intermediate theatres 45%, and other theatVes 40% during the first Week of exhibition, and 30% during subsequent weeks. Not Operaiin*^ in Turkey 160 German Quota for 1949-50 During the 1949-50 film year the quota for U. S. feature films to be licensed for import into Germany was .set at 160. The film prograjn for 1950-51 (beginning September, 1950) is still under discussion. Negotiations have been carried on for several months in an effort to eliminate a fixed quota and to establish a voluntary control on the number of films to be imported which would be agreeable to both the Germans and the U. S. film industry. As late as the middle of October, 1950, nO agreement had been reached. The alternative is a federal law governing the number of films to be imported. A. draft law to this effect has already been submitted to the Gernian par-: liament by the German film producers’ association. Government trade restrictions on the showing of foreign films have been in effect in the United Kingdom since 1927. Effective pctober 1, 1950, 30% of the first feature films exhibited in British . theatres and 25%. of the Siipporting films (second features and shorts) must be Brifish productiohs. The , so-called Eady Plan to'^assist the British film industry vvas pdt into operation in September, 1950. This plan calls. for an increase in the entertainment tax on tickets costing over; i shilling 6 pence (about 21c) to establish a subsidy to be used by British film producers, distributors arid exhibitors.. It has been estimated that approximately 3.000,00() pounds ($8,400,000) will bemade available annually to the British film industry from this .fund. ;/ An everit of great importance of the pa.st year was the new A,nglo-Amcncan film agreement \vhicli again calls for the annual remittance of $17,000,000 but contains bonus provisions which are expected to biMng total remittances to about $21,00(3,000. American film cii’cles ale hopeful that the British dollar position will be so impi’oved at the end of this dne-year agreement as to make a further extension unnecessary. Since March, 1949, the Argentine, goyei’nment has not issued permits for the importation of U. S. film.s and no remittarices of .film ; earnings have,;been authorized for several years. Negotiations carried on in Washington _ and New York early in 1950 between the Argentine Minister Of Finance arid the major U. S, film companies resulted in a new five-year agreement covering Yanqui film Operations in Argentina. Major provisions of this agreement are the unrestricted entry of U. S. films into Argentina and remittances to be authoriized at the rate of $1,100,000 annually. Since .Mav. 1950. 1h'‘-< h-'’« beer Because of the' nature of exchange regulations. U. S, film . companies are not ppei'ating in 'Turkey as dislribntoi's of their films. Copies of their films are sold outright to Turkish distributors rather than leasing them on a percentage basis as is done in pi:actiCally every major market, in the world. The absence of use of the lease b^sis of distribution arises from the fact that the proceeds of any foreign capital invested in: Turkey are blocked and can be transferred only in the form of cex'tain dOinestic products. American films imported into Turkey are subject to a transaction tax, which is. assessed at the rate of 18?r of landed cost plus the royalties or their equivalertt received for sale of their films. There is also a substantial ad mis.sions tax differential in favor of Turkish films which gives a strong impetus to the domestic industi’y. . All efforts of. importers and distributors to have these taxes removed or reduced have failed. In view of the more favorable attitude towards foreign capital recently expressed by the Turkish government, it is believed that there is a' imssibility that U. S. film companies may be. permitted to operate in Turkey in the near future and handle the distribution of their own films in this mailcet. . Mexico, which has been a comparatively ^ree market for Yank films in former years, issued regulations on May 15, 1950, requiring the exhibition of Mexican motion pictures . on a minimum of six Sundays every 13 weeks in all cities in which there is no more than one theatre. At the same time it was announced that exhibition time would be e.stablished in the future for cities having more thrn one theatre, implying that further limitations were to be imposed On exhibition of U. S. films. Other iinportant foj'cign countries which re.strict playing. time are Italy, which requires domestic: films to be shown for 2() days each quarter, or 80 days a year; Brazil, with regulations calling for the compulsory exhibition of at least six national featui'e films annually; and the Philippines, where legislation was enacted on June 18, 1949, stating that no license would be granted to any theatre unless the applicant agreed to exhibit pictures made in the Philippines to the exlcnl of 10% of their annual exhibitions. Foreign exchange regulations, limiting the dollar exchange available for i‘emittance of film earnings, is still a matter of great concern to U S. fihn companies in a large number of the more important foreign markets. Sevei’al foreign countries have established fixed allocations of dollar exchange available for film imports while others still maintain limitations on the amount of fiim earnings that may be remitted abioad: In the Philippines, only 72% of film earnings may be remitted, while in Greece the annual allocation for films is $.500,000. Other markets greatly affected by dollar shortages are Australia, Norway, Denmark, Chile, Egypt, and Oie Union of South Africa. In soirie foreign markets there is no official exchange made available for film imports and dollars for remittances must be bought on the free market at a rate much higher than the official I'ate. In Spain the number of foieign films that may be imported is limited by an import licensing system. ImpoiT permits are issued only to Spanish film producers, the number of. permits bcin.g dependent upon the classification of the filip produced. The . producer may use this import license to bring in undef his own name fore i.gn films or he may sell .the license at whateyer the: market will bear/ During the first .seven months Of 1950 only 31 import permits were awarded for the productiori of 26 Spanish, feature film.s. No foreign exchange .. is. being granted by Spanish authorities for reriiitting film carfi•■■■ingS. ■ /:■■■• :'<■ /■ _ KcTi|>rocal Exchange In an effort to secui’c film.s from sources other than the dollar areas, a number of foreign countries have negotir ated film agreements, providing for the reciprocal exchange of films Such mutual exchange; agreements have been completed between Argerilina and Snain, Argentina and Mexico, Mexico and France, France and italy; and between Austria and Germany. ^ It is evident from the above that foreign governments in film-producing countries are going to great lengths to protect and promote their own national riiotipri pictiii'C industries. This trend has a two-fold effect on the di.slribution of U. S. films in foreign markets. Not o.rily do protective measures tend to restrict the number of ij. S. films that may be imported and exhibited, but as the dofnestic industries ot thc.se countries develop, their films ai’e offering more sei’ious competition to U., S. films. Tlvis is particularly ti’ue in Italy, France, Germany, Mexico and Argentina. Filins produced m these countries are increasing in number and improving in quality, and are being exported to other foreign markets, reducing U. nim ‘screen time in those markets.