The film crisis

“We all thought that the forty-five per cent. quota and the promise of other measures to come …. heralded a new day fnr British Film Production …. How wrong we were. The business of making Britain’s films has not been so unstable since the crisis of eleven years ago. Equally therefore the employment of A.C.T, technicians has never during the same period been so uncertain …” Thus reads the editorial of “The Cine-Technician” for November-December, 1948, and this is indeed not one wit an exaggeration of the position confronting workers in the film industry today. It indicates (in admirable fashion) the hopes and aspirations of workers which have been ruthlessly smashed against the bedrocks of capitalism which constitute the film industry—as indeed all industry. It is estimated that sixteen out of twenty seven feature studios are idle with an unemployment figure of twenty-five per cent. of all personnel, whilst those retaining their jobs know just what a serious threat is presented to wages and conditions when negotiations on a new agreement between unions and employers commence in April this year.

Those who thought film making was in some measure “different” from other sections of industry were rudely awakened by the same old demand last year to cut costs, step up output and increase efficiency. The first strong protest against the worsening conditions was the Denham film strike of November, 1948, following the issue of notices to ninety-two employees. The union executives refused to back the strike which lasted three days and failed to prevent the majority of these workers being dismissed.

From then onwards the situation rapidly deteriorated. Hundreds more sackings occurred as studio after studio closed down and with the recent introduction of “Independent Frame”—a method of production which drastically reduces the labour employed on any one film, the unemployment is sure to continue and will pi-obably worsen. This is not denied by the British Film Producers’ Association (the employers’ body) or the trade unions concerned, the latter not having previously opposed the method.

Now that a typical capitalist crisis appears to have hit this industry, many are the “remedies” advanced for the solution of the problem. For example “The Cine-Technician” for November-December advocates “fair trading conditions and state requisitioning of idle studio space . . . “, whilst all are agreed that a considerable portion of the “entertainments tax” on films must be refunded to the producers’ section of the employers. According to the Kinematograph Year Book for 1948 (p.51) this tax amounted in 1938 to £5,600,000 or sixteen per cent. of takings, compared to £41,390,000 in 1947 and £38,000,000 (or forty per cent.) in 1948. Yet conditions in the industry in pre-war years were wretched, with sweated hours, low wages and severe unemployment. It is estimated by “The Cine-Technician” (Nov.-Dec., 1948) that ninety per cent. of the technicians of one of the film unions were out of work in 1938. Clearly, therefore, lower taxation for the employers is certairly no guarantee of better conditions for film workers. Besides, labour-saving production methods will be in full swing by the end of 1949 and are unlikely to be discontinued even if tax relief is granted. Of course, the press has wasted no time in launch in the all too familiar attacks on the trade unions concerned. The Evening Standard(14/2/49) for example in an article by Milton Schulman calls for the abolition of “restrictive practices and feather bedding” and the “curtailment of the jealous guarding of individual trades leading to unnecessary costs …. as in other industries the trade unions must learn that more production means more employment and more wages.” Again the Evening News (22/2/19) condemns the previous “toughened attitude of technicians” while lauding the “more conciliatory attitude of the workpeople under the stress of growing unemployment” and admits that the “current clearance of studio staffs” may be due to the impending revision of studio agreements between bosses and workers.

All this is indicative of the return to “normal conditions” (so earnestly sought, after by the Labour Government). The brief period of “prosperity” for film workers is rapidly drawing to a close. The situation needs little explanation. The market for films is just like any other market and subject to the same fluctuations. While it may be true that there is a struggle between producers, exhibitors and renters over the division of box office takings this is only a subsidiary factor and takes little account of the increased competition from America, France, Belgium and Italy in the realm of film making. American film capitalists alone can cater for the needs of the Americans and the rest of the world market and with their massive studios, filled with costly equipment, in which has been invested vast sums of money, they are not likely to sit idly by whilst their pre-war markets are filched from them one by one by their foreign competitors.

The prospect for British film workers is correspondingly grim. The employers have already made demands for cuts in wage rates and we may expect these to be vigorously pressed in the next few months when the battle is joined between employers and unions. How strongly workers will resist these attacks it is hard to say since their bargaining power has been seriously weakened by the recent events, but one thing is certain—any relief obtained can only be temporary. The lessons of a life time of trade unionism in any industry should have taught workers that. There is, in fact, no permanent cure for these ills short of Socialism.
FILM WORKER