Variety (June 1957)

X ¥Ki*«3ti& Tr ^bifSdir, i«n*s; 19^ pGommon Mart-Banana Peel for Uncle Sam j I COMING STRUGGLE FOR EUROPEAN SCREENS NEEDS LONGRANGE U.S. STRATEGY f ■ BUT NEW YORK‘ EXECS NOT LISTENING ' ■ The American film Industry, already plenty troubled In its home market, is facing a bitter struggle for sur¬ vival In Europe over the next few years. It Is a battle which will be fought on all levels, from the polite conference tables of government down to the rough-and-tumble relations in the distributor-exhibi¬ tor precincts. The final outcome of this power match, with its eco¬ nomic, political and social overtones, could well spell out the “To Be Or Not To Be" of the American film busi¬ ness as it stands today. The U. S. film executives abroad, and particularly the sharp-eared representatives of the Motion Picture Export Assn., have caught the sounds of danger. Many are anxiously aware: V (1) that the threat is real and (2) that the American industry is failing to meet it properly. * . g Film policy Is dictated by New York, often in delib¬ erate disregard of local conditions, against the advice of local representatives, and motivated by a “get-the-dol- v lar 1 ' immediacy .which, while possibly born of current economic necessity, ‘nevertheless tends to work against the longrange interests of the Americans. ) Intrigue Everywhere 1 Europe today is seething with film intrigue. All over thet Continent, some of the best minds are at work on grandiose schemes with the “Help Yourself” label all over them. There is, perhaps for the first tim£ a sharp awareness of the potentials of European unification on the trading level. „ The “European Common Market" has caught the imag¬ ination, if not of the broad masses, then at. least of the planners, the men who ultimately make decisions, par¬ ticularly in the realm of the screen. They see She Com¬ mon Market as uniquely applicable to film and as a salva¬ tion to the ailing local industries, dependent on gov¬ ernment handouts and suffering from the lack of export markets. They are working ceaselessly towards this new goal of the common interest. The aim is to create a Europe in which the Europeans Europe Likes ‘Escape/ Too Berlin, June 4. One of the evident advantages the American films have over their local competition in Europe is Holly¬ wood!? willingness to shoot for laughter and escapism rather than concentrate so heavily on t drama. Europeans, .like Americans, go to a film theatre to he entertained and to forget about the cares of the day. Since the war' and to an extraordinary extent in the past year or two, production on the Continent has veered in the direction of the stark drama, mirror¬ ing trying living conditions. ‘ Almost all of the European film shown at Cannes had this somber streak In commpn, and some of the more alert local showmen are sharply aware of it. That, incidentally, is one of the explanations of why the comparatively lighthearted “Friendly Persuasion” with iis direct and upbeat approach, got the Golden Palm at the Cannes fest. The top European entries at Cannes—“Celui Qul Doit Mourir,” “The Seventh Mark,” “Kanal,” “A Condemned Man Escapes,” “Rose Berndt,” ‘The Great Betrayal,” and to a lesser extent the Italian “Nights of Carbiria,”—had the same depressing, desperately searching quality in common. It held true, too, for Japan’s “Kome.” A European close to the film scene observed here that one of tl>e reasons for this persistently down¬ beat approach was the European critics, who take a very highbrow intellectual view re pix and help force producers into a certain rut. However, there appears to be no question that the onetime success of the Italian neo-realist films still has its influence on film- makex-s. There are those who believe that many among the European audiences are thoroughly fed up with see¬ ing their own problems mirrored and dramatized' on the screen. . mm ■ mmmm By FRED HIFT ■■■■■■ ■ mmi own product flows freely between countries, unimpeded by duties and taxes and quotas, but aided by a common European screen quota. Tho aim is, too* to stimulate coproduction for this huge new “common” market. Implied In all this is the realization that in unity there is strength. And the result, if not necessarily the frank¬ ly stated goal of all these plans, is accumulated pres¬ sure to cut down America's share of the vital Euro¬ pean market. Jacques Flaud, head of France’s Centre National du CInematografie, and one of Europe’s leading film advocates for a Common Market, but it very suc¬ cinctly: “Our Qjans are by no me&ns aimed at the Ameri¬ cans. But there is no question that, if we are sue- . cessful, the Hollywood interests will he hurt.” Flaud, and other leading film politicians on the Con¬ tinent, including the Rank Organization’s John Davis, are well aware that, today, some 50% of the American industry’s total foreign revenue derives from abroad, and that Hollywood has by now geared itself to such., an ex¬ tent to this ratio that a sizeable drop in these earnings would have severe repercussions at the production leveL The total (potential) American remittance in 1956 ran to $217,000,000, according to MPEA prexy Eric Johnston, W'hich is a record take. Some $185,000,000 of that total were actually remitted in dollars. A tour of Europe brings the impression that never before have so many worked so hard and diligently to bring about common European film action. In France, in Italy, in Germany and in Britain, the talk is of uni¬ fication at the top, of economic solidarity. Underlying this are two important factors: The concern over the future of local production, which in Italy for instance has hit a low-point, and yearning to break the dominating position gainedrby Hollywood. |_ Exhibs Favor Yanks _ The Americans have their greatest ally in the Euro¬ pean exhibitors. Sympathetic as some of them may be vis-a-Vis, Common Market plans, the theatres still need product, and product that draws the public. This be¬ comes the more true since television is gradually b$* coming a factor in Europe. Apart from this, European audiences enjoy the Ameri¬ can films and demand them. Some Americans in Baris and Rome argue that, if the supply of U. S. pictures were to be cut down, people would still go to see them, and that the French, Italians and Germans would have lit¬ tle to gain by having their attractions play to empty houses. # To this line of thinking, Flaud has a noteworthy reply: “People go to see American films very often because they are so frequently and conveniently available,” he argued. “The American industry is economically superior at the distribution leveL If more of * balance were) to be established, we would do hotter.” ! It must be realized that, in several countries, the local product over the past few years has made definite prog¬ ress, at the expense of the American pictures. In Ger- • many, the local films- get some 60% of the German screentime right now, though the percentage is less in the bigger cities and in given houses. } Not All Sanguine | Also, the enthusiasm for the Common Market is by no means uniform. In Rome, for instance, Eitel Monaco, head of ANICA, the Italian producer-distributor organiza¬ tion, told me: "I see the Common Market as aiding par¬ ticularly to get more European coproduction going. But even if that happens, I believe we would not have to cut down on the number of American pictures In our thea¬ tres.” In Germany, a Walter Koppel is lukewarm in his comments on the CM,* yet Wolf Schwarz is fire-and- flame for it. What many Americans in Europe fear most is that* European film leaders will, eventually, distort the basic meaning of 'the Common Market and will bend it to their own restrictive purposes. There is’no question that the establishment bf a common European screen quota would be hurtful for the American interests. Be¬ yond that, however, it is not inconceivable that Europe may at one point elect to deal as a bloc with the -States, giving it a bargaining power that would be difficult to beat. “If they ever get around to adopting a common Import policy, we’d be in a nice spot,” admitted one of'the * Continental managers in Paris. There is a good deal of complaint in Europe about the rigid policies of the American film companies. It is entirely possible for the local U. S. managers in one city to reach a certain conclusion, and to communicate it to their counterparts in the respective industry, only to have to make a complete turnabout the next day, on orders •from New York. American film policy abroad is -dictated by global ne¬ cessities. For instance, the companies may consider it okay to make a deal in one spot, hut will refuse to do so on the theory that a concession here may set a prece¬ dent for a country a couple of thousand miles away. The authority -of the local managers has been cut to a mini¬ mum, and even the Continental managers do not carry as much weight as their closeness to a situation Would prescribe. j _ N>Y. Seen Short-Sighted _[ The rules are laid down in New York, and New York gets its facts second-hand and gauges situations not in human but in strictly commercial terms. If the industry abroad ever knew the value of give-and-take, its current stringent needs have obscured that knowledge. Holly-* wood today operates on the theory that a penny given is a penny lost. It is an attitude that is as short-sighted as it is harmful in terms of goodwill, a commodity that Americans in Europe today miss sorely. This is not to say that the Europeans do not practice their own economic squeeze policies. They have beaten their heads against the Hollywood colossus for decades. And, today, the pronounced antagonism against the Americans in many of the European countries is a plus factor for those who seek to dethrone Hollywood. It is, unfortunately, not a simple case '‘of Communist hate, 'though the Communists contribute, their share to the hate campaign. A tour of Europe brings the impression that the U. S. is extremely unpopular. Some Europeans say this dates back to Suez, though it seems that Suez merely served In expose slumbering resentments. Many in Britain are disgusted with our “variable” policies, and the feeling doesn’t lack expression. We are openly disliked, even hated, by many French, who make no hones about this in their conversations and attitudes. The Americans are the subject of much resentment in bustling West Ger¬ many, and they are the subject of considerable criticism in Italy. It is the combination of these attitudes that must, sooner or later, translate itself into official policies as they affect the American film business. French Economic Distress Rome, June 4. Possibility that current internal French economic dif¬ ficulties may upset the European Film Union time¬ table has been voiced with alarm in Italian film eir- * cles following reports from France that the French government is considering immediate stoppage of all plans for freer economic exchange within the frame¬ work of the European Economic Union (OECE). . According to reports, Rene Pleven, charged by French president Coty with finding a solution to present financial-economic crises in chat country, has • proposed an immediate suspension on the part of' France of all moves towards liberalization of ex¬ change between OECE countries, at least until the present situation resumes its balance. Italo pic circles imply this means a block will be placed on current moves to free pic. exchange be¬ tween France and Italy. A team of top Italo officials is currently in Paris meeting with French counter¬ parts In an attempt to reach just such an easing of filmic interchange. Furthermore, it’s pointed out here, the French move—if carried out as voiced—would also seriously delay the founding of the European Film Union, to which the liberalization of pie exchange was an im¬ portant premise. Without French support, the Ital¬ ians say, the groundwork for such a >ic industry tie- up on the continent is unthinkable. ‘1957 Will Be Tough Year’: Johnston In Annual Report He Ch&rts Host of Obstacles For U. S. Pix Abroad With many of the foreign mar¬ kets faced with developments of: serious import, “the coming year j Will be an especially critical one I In foreign territories,” Eric A. j Johnston, Motion Picture Export Assn, prexy, stated in the Associa- tion’s annual report. “A basic force, at work in world markets today is growing national¬ ism, fostered, by world events and expressing itself in barriers against world trade,” he wrote. “Our in¬ dustry is affected by the desire of many nations to protect and ex¬ pand their own motion picture pro¬ ducing industry. Currency depres¬ sion is a second basic element of concern. Another new force, that of rapidly growing television com¬ petition, has struck heavily in ,a few foreign markets. “Finally, the economic strin¬ gency created by the Suez crisis in a number of European and Asiatic countries is another factor which may adversely affect motion pic¬ ture earnings in those countries,” the report held. Johnston noted that “Other prob^ lems stem from the spread of bi¬ lateral agreements which are dis¬ criminatory in their effect on American films. Such agreements, containing distribution guarantees, coproduction, provisions, import quotas and release tax exemptions, illustrate the growth of new trade practices overseas which are di- (Continued on page 61) WB Adding Footage To ’Janes Bean Story’ Warner Bros, has acquired dis¬ tribution rights to the George W, George-Roberl Altman production of “The James Dean Story.” Stu¬ dio will supplement the picture with neW footage of Dean, acreen- tests. WB released several of the Dean pix. E&fopeto N. Nate J. Bhnnberg William Dozier Jean Goldwunn Ben JHecht Edward L. Kingsley Robert Lewis Joe Moskowitz Mannie Reiner Earn Rosen Ann Rutherford Robert Trout Robert Weede Jr. Jane Wyman Y.