Letters to the Editor
THE FILM FRACAS
SiR.-1 hope that you will be able, to find space for this letter in reply to the article
entitled 'The Film Fracas' by Nicholas Davenport which was published in your issue of April 30.
Mr. Davenport is a skilled writer, but he does not consider it necessary to restrict his articles to facts. Members of the film industry have for some time been aware of his eccen- tricities, and, speaking generally, have not replied to his criticisms, He has now been given the opportunity of repeating these through a new medium, and I trust, therefore, that you will allow me to make a few com- ments upon his article.
, The Film Fracas ' is examined carefully It will be seen that, in Mr. Davenport's °Pinion, governments have been wrong in devising and maintaining the British Film Pro- duction Fund, which was established for the encouragement of British films, and Parlia- ment has been wrong in supporting govern- ments in their decisions. Mr. Davenport !flows a better way of supporting British Ldiris. Exhibitors in this country have been "'tong in not lowering their seat prices. British producers are incompetent because the average screen time shot per day in British Studios is less than in Hollywood. The Chan- Feller of the Exchequer is also wrong in agree- rmg to reduce cinema Entertainments Tax because a part of the benefit will go to American companies who provide about 70 Per cent. of cinema entertainment in this ec°,11uttY. Indeed, everyone concerned with the film industry is wrong: everyone in the regi- Ment is out of step with the single exception Qf Mr. Nicholas Davenport. He has made this clear not merely in the article which you published last week .but in everything that he has written on the film industry for a very Lena time.
It Would require a long letter—as long as Davenport's article itself—to correct all
his mis-statements. I will, therefore, limit rlYself to his first paragraph on which the title his article is based. He there referred to 1e film industry as " having been reduced to egging off the Chancellor of the Exchequer." !.1 the film industry the only industry which toto the Chancellor of the Exchequer a reduction in taxation this year or last Year? Is it reasonable in a periodical of the wabt,ua of the Spectator to describe an industry redch applies, previous to the Budget, for a b uction in taxation.. as " reduced to ettina or ? Mr. Davenport, in the same sentence, asserts that the film industry " are now squabbling madly over the share-out of the concession granted to them in the Budget." This is nbt even a half-truth. I do not believe that there is any industry in the country which, if placed in the position that the film industry is of being called upon to decide how a Budget concession is to be shared between manufacturers and retailers, would behave with more dignity and restraint than the film industry has done since the Budget announcement. So far as I know, not a single leader of either the exhibition or production side of the industry has used on this subject intemperate or unreasonable language, It is, therefore, quite fantastic that a writer to the Spectator should say that the industry " are now squabbling madly."'
Producers and exhibitors both did their utmost to persuade the Chancellor that a reduction in taxation this year was urgently necessary. The co-operation between the two sides of the industry before the Budget was complete and whole-hearted. No responsible person could describe what has happened in the industry since the Budget announcement in the terms used by Mr. Davenport, namely, " Instead of being grateful for small mercies, film producers, renters and exhibitors sprang at one another's throats." There is no founda- tion for this statement whatever. It describes something which exists only in Mr. Daven- port's imagination—wishful thinking.
The remaining part of ' The Film Fracas' could be criticised in the same way as I have criticised the first paragraph; but I am not going to ask you for further space, or ask your readers to waste any further time on an article which has no justification in fact.-- Yours faithfully,
B L. FRENCH
49 Mount Street, W.1
Previous page
