Variety (January 1959)

18 PICTURES _ . _ PftRlEff _ European Common Market Seen Creating Difficulties For French Film Industry Speculations On An Involved Trend Under Existing But Stale Treaty ■# By CLAUDE DEGAND 1 Editorial Note: The author of the following is the Press & Statistical Representative of Centre Du Cinema hut wishes it stressed that he here writes wholly as a private individual.) * Paris, Jan. 13. The Rome treaty creating a European Economic Com¬ munity is a fact. It follows that only one attitude is con¬ ceivable, a realistic one: each profession — and the French film industry is no exception to the rule — should ask it¬ self: (a> What are for us the obligations of the treaty? (b) What advantages can we draw from the treaty? For if the treaty is definite in its letter, it is imprecise in its application, so that the quicker and clearer it is made the easier will be international film integration, and the better the result. Well, what is being done about it? Can it be said that the European film people are fully aware of the urgency to make an efficacious start in order to secure the film in¬ dustry a comfortable place in the sun of integration? I must confess that. looking around everywhere, I find very little ground to give an affirmative answer. And still, 'the Rome treaty was signed in March 1957, came into legal force Jan. 1,,1958, and implies important steps — a 10% decrease in custom duties and a 20% in¬ crease of import quotas — to be taken on the 1st of Jan¬ uary 1959. Maybe, after all, European — and to an even greater extent, non-European — filmites do not realize the exact meaning of European integration. So maybe it is desirable to stress a few points; for in¬ stance: — that the E. E . C. implies much more than the ordi¬ nary liberty of circulation and action which has been the gospel of economic liberalism, for a com¬ mon economic policy is in the end , to be worked out by all six partners. — that the common market of Europe will be an inter¬ national Common Market, that is to say, led and controlled by legislative and executive bodies. ] Films* Own Needs _ _ f As to cinema, we discover that the European film in¬ tegration will have not only to find its internal laws — the laws which would, in theory at least, lead to the bet¬ ter possible unification of the six industries — but also to abide by the time-table rnd comply with the regulations edicted by the official European bodies set up by the Rome treaty. Three stages, each of four years, have been planned, at the end of Which all moves (persons, goods and serv¬ ices, money) should be completely free; the three main bodies of the E. E. C. are* <1) the Assembly (which controls). (2) the Council (which decides). (3) the Commission (which executes). | _ Modus Operandi _ _ _ ] Before starting to tackle the problem of devising such an integration process which would both profit to the Eu¬ ropean film industry and be in line with the 248 articles of the Rome treaty, it should be clear in everyone’s mind what makes the difference between (a) several fenced-in markets and <b) one single big market. For those who still think in terms of economic nationalism, let us en¬ deavor to outh'ne what the coming European Film Mar¬ ket will look like: (1) With funds freely raised in one or several partnercountries, a picture will be filmed in studios, and with the help of technicians and actors freely cho¬ sen inside the six countries, which means that only financial and technical aspects would be taken into consideration. (2; And once the film is shot and ready for release, it would be handled by the distributors established in several — or even m all six— countries, so that the film would be presented to the highest' possible number of theatre-owners among the 26,000 that at present constitute the front of the European film exhibition branch: and there again only the techni¬ cal and commercial factors would be taken into consideration. (3) Moreover, it should also be borne in mind that the Common Market will bring “liberty of establish¬ ment,” that is to say the possibility for anyoneto invest his money, among other things, in the building pf a theatre in any one of the other five countries; in other words, a ' French exhibitor may discover one day in the adjoining street a new cinema which would turn out to be a property of the UFA-Munich, just the same as nobody will forbid the French Gaumont Co. to invest its profi¬ ts in the purchase of show-places in the best film markets of the Community, Germany for example. I am well aware that this description is, up to a large extent, of small interest to American film people used to travel or -to making commercial deals from New York or San Francisco without difficulty. But. we Europeans do not have the same opportunity since between Paris and Hambourg, and between . Amsterdam and Rome stand quite a number of custom duties, import quotas and all sorts of regulations. But the weight and the number of problems to be solved is such that they represent*, in the end, a kind of moun¬ tain blocking the way of those that would rather feel in¬ clined to start the journey leading to unity. It follows that nothing could be now more useful than attempting to list and briefly describe those problems, at least the most important and urgent ones. Ho\v many films are required to "feed” the 26,000 screens of Europe? The customers must be presented with the kind of entertainments they want; the exhibi¬ tors must have a Certain amount of ease in their choice of film titles; care must be taken to ayoid a film over¬ flow in the market with a number of films so evidently out of tune with the capacity or absorption of the market that the rentals would also be disproportionate with the film-costs. It is evident that only a market-analysis could bring some light in the matter. But once the film-demand would have thus been evaluated two other elements of a^European film, policy could be outlined: a production policy and an import policy for the total of films produced inside and imported into the community should not exceed the above mentioned number of films required by the Euro¬ pean screens. But how could a minimum of discipline be obtained from European film-producers? Not only should they not overproduce but also should they turn the right kind of films in a period when *it becomes evident that the public is no longer attracted by small, second-hand pictures. It appears that such a policy could be implemented' by some sort of central and official (or semi-official) body to which the European producers would have to apply every time they started a picture, especially if financial help was needed. Which leads us to another problem: the financial policy of a European Film Community. It is a well known fact the film industries of Europe — ■ or to be more precise: the film-production branches of Europe — have always been wading through financial difficulties; on the other hand It can now be taken for granted that an integration along the lines of the Rome treaty excludes aid-laws and governmental subsidies. In consequence, it should be clear that a financial setup, at European level, is to be J!ound and founded quietly. In fact it is high time to revive certain earlier plans about a film-bank: whereas it never could come to life inside the narrow frontiers of national territories, there is reason to believe that it can be made into a workable scheme within one European big market. And this, for several reasons. Why should financial circles take interest in film credit as long as aid-laws and state subsidies exist? And just the same why should producers have recourse to bank credit when they get money on much easier terms from the state? But once these facilities will have vanished, new ways and means will have to be put into operation. And, precisely, if the film production at European level is able to work on a rationalized basis, with a minimum discipline and in observance of the market imperatives,* its product — the European films — will have a far better chance to amortize than they previously had (on a na , Wednesday, January 14, 1959 tional basis), and. at the same time will find their way back to the confidence of finance-men, and . . . more im¬ portant, to their bank deposits. In other words, a little effort on the part of the Film people will get a high reward: fewer and better films produced, that is to say a better chance of amortizing and, because of this, an opportunity to get money from’ still untapped sources . Here we are led to another and no less important aspect of the unification-process: what I would call the “foreign policy” of the European film. No doubt that the merging into one block of all six film industries will give to Euro¬ pean film a bargaining power which it never had as long as the French film or the German film or the Italian film was acting each on its own in the export field as well as in the import field. | Foreign Policy Aspects _ | In theory at least a “bargaining power” is but the practical expression of a common will to attain certain goals upon which the partners previously came to an agreement. It is only too evident that the foreign policy of the European Film Community of tomorrow cannot be des¬ cribed in a few lines; }n fact, it cannot even be clearly outlined “in abstracto” without any knowledge of what would be the standpoint of the different European film¬ ites if they were made to discuss the matter. One can nevertheless stress some points. For one, that this foreign policy of the European film implies, above all things, the definition of its relations with the American film. For another, that the letter and the spirit of the Rome treaty as well as the true interest of the European film forbid the adoption of strict protectionism. The young European film industry will need foreign product to help in feeding its screens (import policy) and will also need foreign markets to help amortizing its films (export policy). As far as relations with the U.S. are concerned a middle way should and could be found, but how? . It is one acknowledged goal of Washington’s foreign policy to favor European unification; U.S. filmites cannot and will not forget it, and in fact, Eric Johnston, as head of the Motion Picture Export Assn., has more than once shown by his talks that the European efforts towards uni¬ fication in film matters will be met with understanding instead of hostility. Accordingly, it can be expected that if Hollywood and the European film pool will come to terms : it would not so much be a question of tariff walls and quotas than, maybe, of a kind of self limitation of U.S. films exported to Europe, and some sort of American dollar investments in European film business (for in¬ stance a part of U.S. film rentals in Europe could con¬ tribute to finance European films). At least should such an arrangement be necessary in -the first years during which the unification would progressively take place. And once the European film pool would have asserted itself other foreign relations could be devised inasmuch as the Common Market would begin to bring fruits, in the form of an increase of private consumption in general, and film attendance in particular, which would bring benefits not only to European pix, but also to American films. Also related to the foreign policy, and no less urgent, would be the definition of the attitude of the film pool towards certain European countries such as Great Britain, Austria, Switzerland, etc . . . and, more generally speaking, towards the free trade area (in fact it is going to be called the “European Economic Association”) which has been for nearly two years, and still is, in discussion. Many more problems, be it in the judicial, social, or economic fields, are waiting to be examined and solved. But, at the present stage of development — or better said, of absence of development — there is only one main and real problem. Either the film industries of Europe intend to take the opportunity of the treaty to attain a form of unification that would solve their main present problems, or they prefer to “wait and see” with all the disadvantages attached to passivity in a world of speed, movement and. struggle. In the first instance, which implies creative work, an instrument is to be placed at the service of the European integration policy. There is a lot of reconnaissance work to be done, of studies to be conducted, of statistics to be established, of contacts to be taken and, above all, #f co¬ ordination to be applied permanently: how all these tasks could be fulfilled without the help of a permanent body, I really cannot see. The insurance branch, the publicity branch, have their European committees, and even European Agriculture is ahead of the film industry in the matter of coordination and community of action. It is high time that European film people were aware that there is next to no chance for progressing towards unity if they do not set uo in common some sort of European coordination bureau. That it be established on a strictly private and professional basis pr — probably better — with inter-governmental help, that it be or not the result of a European film conference, is not so very important: the only real thing that matters is, for the filmites of the six countries, to realize that they have much to win with an integration operated in accord¬ ance with the treaty lines and that this implies a minimum of administrative set up. Means have to go along with ends: this should be understood without delay in film circles. 4-~ | BURSTYN GOES FRENCH ■ Kassler-Released ‘He Who Must j Die’ Wins Prize ! The French import, “He Who Must Die,” directed by Jules Dassin and released in -the U. S. by Kassler Films, Inc., is the recip¬ ient of the sixth annual Joseph Burstyn award as the best foreignlanguage film of 1958. Ballotting established the Swe¬ dish “The Seventh Seal” and the Indian “Pather Panchali” as run¬ ner-up. Previously, films like “Gervaise,” “La Strada,” “Umberto D” and “Gate of Hell” won the award. The N. Y. film critics, vot¬ ing last week, picked the French “My Uncle,” starring Jacques Tati, as their top import for ’58. FILM ELEMENTS OF EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET EQUIPMENT SPECTATORS BOXOFFICE POPULATION Theatres Seats Annual Aver. RECEIPTS IN Aver. Seat (in thousand) Attendance DOLLARS Price (per capita) Aver. Film Expenditure (per capita) $ COMMON MARKET— 175,260,000 .... 26,052 11,505,530 12.8 647,000,000 28c $3.69 GERM ANY-r-52,600, 000 . 6,438 2,657,000 15.7 228,000,000 27c $4.33 ' SAAR — 1,003,000 . . 153 52,500 12.9 3,360,000 27c $3.34 FRANCE — 43,780,000 . 5,701 2,738,000 9.6 170,000,000 Unreported Unreported ALGERIA— 9,530,000 . 350 183,030 2.2 8,280,000 39c 86c ITALY— 48,178,000 . 10,629 4,793,000 16.3 185,620,000 23c $3.85 BELGIUM— 8,900,000 . . 2,208 811,000 12.02 33,680,000 31c $3.78 ' ' LUXEMBOURG— 340,000 . 46 19,000 13.6 1,300,000 27c $3.82 NETHERLAND— 10,8:0,000 . . Source: "Vie et Productivite” n° 16 — 4eme trim. 527 58 252,000 6.4 .. 21,290,000 30c $1.95