"Taranaki Central Press” SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1937. THE BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 335, 16 January 1937, Page 4

"Taranaki Central Press” SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1937. THE BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.

The announcement that the British film industry is facing a crisis because of. losses totalling £2,000,000 in the last year is a matter of serious concern to the whole Empire. It was recognised several years ago that ,in view of the powerful effect of films on cultural standards and, latterly, on speech, the overwhelming predominance of American films in Great Britain and the Dominions was not desirable. The result was the introduction of the quota system, the immediate effect of which was to make British film concerns an attractive investment for the first time. Prosperity was, however, shart-lived; tbe advent of the talking film threw the industry into confusion just when it seemed to be finding its feet and brought heavy losses on silent films which had just been produced or were in the course of production. Since that time, although there has been rapid expansion, the industry has never attained financial security, as is evidenced by the attitude of investors to film shares and debentures. The ‘‘Daily Herald’’ mentions as one cause of the present crisis “absurd overspending and waste on pictures made at a cost of from £lOO,OOO to £150,000 on unpopular subjects’’; and it is undoubtedly true that some producers have been more lavish than competent. It is as well to remember, however, that occasional spectacular and expensive failures are not a feature of the British film industry alone. On the whole it docs not seem that British producers are noticeably les? successful in gauging public taste than Hollywood producers. The difference is that most of the great American film corporations are better able to stand the shock of an occasional failure. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the fundamental weaknesses in the British film industry come under the headings of finance, organisation, and management. The larger concerns are believers in the system of “tied houses,” and accordingly maintain subsidiary companies for the acquisition and control of cinema houses. This practice has two unfortunate results. In the first place, it makes the true financial position of the industry almost impossible to ascertain; and in the second place, it has led to a war of cinema'-building which is now beginning to have unfortunate results. The “Economist” has lately drawn attention to another practice which has obvious dangers—that of financing individual productions by means of new capital issues. Ihe present crisis will serve a useful purpose if it directs attention to these evils and produces some consolidation of interests. If it does not have these results, action by the Governmenl will probably be necessary. The industry is of such great and growing importance to the British peoples that it cannot be allowed to languish.