28 FEBRUARY 1964, Page 13

SAVING THE CINEMA

SIR,—The Rank Organisation appears to be in a state of hysteria, imagining attacks where none are intended. I suggested that United Artists were using the power they derived from distributing success- ful films like From Russia With Love and The Pink Panther to force inferior. shorts on the Rank booker because I did not believe that he was suf- ficiently incompetent to book them willingly. Mr. Harker, however, suspects an attack on the compe- tence of the booker. Mr. Harker cannot have it both ways. The adverse audience reaction at various levels (social levels, obviously) is only too apparent in the cinemas where these films are shown. My comments on the programming abilities of ex- hibitors applied to the independents. With Rank, one would not attack the booker's ability so much as the idiocy of believing that one centralised office could book satisfactorily for 346 assorted cinemas scattered throughout the country.

Mr. Harker's letter demonstrates admirably the Rank Organisation principle of attempting out of duty to its shareholders to rule the cinema by looking entirely to economic precedents. Much of the harm Rank has done stems from its inability to recognise the uniqueness of the cinema's position, for which there are no useful precedents.

More distasteful, though, both in the letter and the firm's attitude, which it reflects, is the hypo- critical pretence of altruistic intentions for Rank. Let me answer a couple of Mr. Harker's 'honest questions.' 'Who contributes most to the British Film Production Fund?' The firm with the most cinemas, because the Fund is a compulsory levy (not the voluntary contribution Mr. Harker would like it to seem) based on admissions. 'Who showed British films well in excess of the quota last year?' Almost everyone. While Rank certainly financed This Sporting Life and gave Bryan Forbes his first directorial job, two good deeds do not make up for a multitude of sins of omission. Mr. Harker does not report, or perhaps does not know, that the 'full

factual report' of Hollywood's decline, screened by

the BBC last year, was produced by MCA Tele- vision. As MCA is the most recent and perhaps

the most severe sufferer from the anti-trust laws, one can hardly accept its account of dire effects as entirely unbiased.

My 'chilling . account of terrorist tactics within the film industry' I believe to be quite accurate.

While the circuits and the big distributors loudly deny any suggestions of business terrorism, it is significant that no independent exhibitors, whose word one would believe in this case, have come forward with similar denials. If Mr. Harker would like an instance of persecution, he will find one summarised in paragraph 50 of the Cinematograph Films Counci. Report of June 24, 1963: '... said to be forced on the renters by the major circuits was the attempt to prevent independents from installing 70 mm. equipment by threatening to refuse to supply•the necessary prints.'

It seems to me indicative of the atmosphere in the film industry when Mr. Harker's own position as public relations officer to the Rank Organisation is officially described as Information Controller. IAN A. CAMERON 3 Antrim Mansions, NW3