World Film and Television Progress (1938)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

this remarkable decision an exhibitor is not to know whether a film is classed as "A" or "B" unless he takes the salesman's word for it. A highly dangerous procedure. To avoid unwelcome competition the K.R.S. have decided, too, arbitrarily to arrange among themselves the release dates of their various productions. To the exhibitor this has the appearance of a Machiavellian attempt calculated to deprive him of good pictures at the very times that he most needs top-line attractions to lure his patrons from other pleasures. For, says he, it is extremely unlikely that the K.R.S. members will offer of their best in the summer off-season when the returns are less likely to be as comforting to the eye as in dank November or chilly January. And yet top-line attractions are necessary to the cinema in summer, for nothing less will successfully rival the multitudinous pleasures of seaside and rural pastimes. True, reasons Mr. Exhibitor, there may be a supply of pictures rated as "A". But will they be really in the "A" class or merely seasonably promoted "BY'? In the view of some cinema proprietors it may well be said later of the summer of 1938, "What so rare as an 'A' in June?" But there is another and, to some minds, more serious aspect of this cafe conference arrangement of release dates which may merit the attention of those numerous M.P.'s who so stoutly took up cudgels not long since on behalf of British film production. Dare it be suggested that the British films on the renters' books will be offered for the off-season dates? As "A" pictures, of course. "Look what we are doing for British production", the warm-hearted American magnates may boast. "Why we are grading British films in the 'A' class just like the best of our own." Another development of the situation is the suggestion of a clearing house where all contracts would be vetted by the Film Star Chamber in order to make sure that two "A" films were not booked together. And so, as in the modern practice, without a formal declaration of war, the hostilities have begun. The K.R.S. barons maintain with conscientious conviction the Christian justice of their cause. They say : — (1) Film programmes are too long and for the good of public and trade (exhibitors included) they must be shortened. One feature is enough for the English public, says the K.R.S. (2) Two good features in one programme are uneconomic. The filmgoer is getting much too much for his money. (3) The K.R.S. is well qualified to judge the standard of its own pictures for all parts of England. (4) There is a shortage of films and this renders the two-feature programme policy impracticable. (5) The cost of film production is rising, due partly to higher labour costs, and partly to an ever growing public demand for better and better entertainment. The coalition opposition under the C.E.A. banner, made up of countless independent exhibitors and supported by the big circuits, retorts : (1) That the public are accustomed to and demand an adequate return for their money and will desert the cinemas if programmes fall off in entertainment value. (2) That the renters cannot and will not be impartial in classifying their own films. (3) That the grading policy at best means inflicting one bad picture on the public for every good one even supposing all the "A" films are good, which they are not. (4) That only 1|% of the increased cost of picture production can be attributed to rising labour costs. 98^% is due to extravagance and the absurd fees paid to executives, stars, directors, writers and producers. (5) That the K.R.S. is trying to make British filmgoers pay for Hollywood squandermania instead of reorganising its production on a sane basis. (6) That, since American representatives are the backbone of the K.R.S., British films will not get a fair deal and will be placed in the "B" category except for off-season bookings. (7) That the K.R.S. Americans here are practising monopolistic methods for which they would be indicted under United States laws. (8) That there is no shortage of pictures that justifies these dictatorial methods. (9) That the whole scheme is a device to squeeze the British market dry since it is to this country that Hollywood looks for its profits. Already £10,000,000 a year is taken out of the British market by the American producers. (10) That film hire in America is more than 10% cheaper than it is in Great Britain. (11) That the American public has killed a high pressure campaign staged by Hollywood to force single feature programmes. The public, who is in this case the body over which the rival forces are fighting, knows little or nothing of the tactics being pursued or of the leaders on each side. Let us throw some light on them. The K.R.S., whose offices are by a significant coincidence in the old Bank of Italy premises in Old Compton Street, is made up of most of the film renters — and most of 73 Joe Friedman D. E. Griffiths Ralph Hanbury