BRITISH FILMS

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1929, Page 2

BRITISH FILMS

(By H. Bruce in “London Mail.” The first year of the Cinematograph Films Act is now nearing its end. Five years ago the making of films in Great Britain had sunk so low that only three firms were regularly producing. In l!)2(i, 20 pictures were made. During the present year, thanks to the stimulus of Government action, the financial-:,support of the public, and the steady backing of the press no fewer than 7 ( J films have already been made, and half as many more arc nearing completion. Some 15 companies are now engaged in production on a scale which is developing rapidly. How far, then, can we say we have succeeded in putting British films back on the world’s screen ? Jt is true we have given the lie direct to the small but vocal band of croakers who said we could not make pictures in this country. But making an article was always easier than selling it. We have made the pictures. Where are we to sell them? Let us look abroad first. The Americans reply to the British film drive lias been to tighten their grip on the world distribution of films. 1 realise that not a day passes without tbe announcement of some fresh agreement for the exhibition of British films in the United States but I am not moved by these reports. Despite some progress in European countries, in the Brnisli Empire, and South America, we are little nearer to establishing our products in the profitable markets of the world than we were 12 months ago. Yet. we have produced more than double as many pictures and are going on producing. How can they be sold? And how many of those that are sold earn a profit for their makers? The American producer can rely upon a profit in ms own country. Acceptable though returns earned abroad by American films may be. the United States can cheerfully forego these to kill competition from other countries. Sue can “dump” pictures more easily than the pre-war German could ‘‘dump’’ toys; she can underbid us in foreign markets and even for the 95 per cent of our own home market—and she is already doing it. L is a far more effective method ol defeating legislation than by openly combating it. And at home it is not only foreign competition which has complicated the position. When the Act was mooted its proposals wore received by a violent outcry from the majority of exhibitors, many politicians, and a section of the pro-American press. The Act would mean the exploitation of the public in general and of the exhibitor in particular. “We shall he ruined,” wailed the exhibitors. “We shall i>e forced to show inferior British pictures at prohibitive prices.” So vigourous was the opposition from this interested section of the community that safeguards were included in the Act to protect the.poor exhibitor from tlie ravening producer. As 26 films had been produced by British firms out of a total of 800 shown, it was thought fair if the percentage for 1928 was set so low as 5 per cent, or -10 films. The stimulus to production has resulted in 79 pictures being made, proving conclusively that all the exhibitor’s fears were groundless. He has a wide range of choice, since for every four pictures lie requires lie lias 7.9 pictures from which to choose. As a man of business be has been quick to see the strength of bis position. Where he once offered about £8 for a film, he now offers £4. Thus, even in our protected home market, prices for Brtisli pictures have dropped by almost 50 per cent. It is hardly patriotism. It is just business. But if in 1920 the British producer found it difficult to make a picture pay which he could book- for £B, how is he going to make one pay at £4 ? It is no good the Brtisli public and British producers clapping each other on the back and saying what good fellows they are. The outlook is frankly a serious one, and the horizon is further darkened by the “talkie” cloud—no bigger as yet than a man’s fist, but full of significance for tlie future. There is only one possible way to resist tbe force of foreign competition and the fall in prices, and that is combined action at once between British producing companies. Delay is fatal. I suggest that producers must get together, agree to make fewer and better pictures, combine for the exploitation of overseas markets, and agree definitely as to which of the numerous “talking’’ picture devices they will adopt and standardise. Agreement on tbe first two items would be very beneficial to British producers. On tbe latter it is vital. Such co-operation in marketing is the order of tlie day in other British industries. Why should it not be so in the Film Industry?