Notes

Introduction

1. U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Overseas Information Programs of the United States, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 235.

Chapter 1

1. Political and Economic Planning, The British Film Industry (London: May, 1952), p. 242.

2. Vernon Jarratt, The Italian Cinema (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 30.

3. Enrico Giannelli, Economia Cinematografica (Rome: Reande Edit-ore, 1956), p. 29.

4. Forsyth Hardy, Scandinavian Film (London: Falcon Press, 1952), p. ix.

5. In some respects, the sale of films to television has tended to offset higher production costs. For example, in 1966 the American Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broadcasting System acquired more than 100 films for a price said to be about $92,000,000. Included in this figure is the approximately $5,000,000 which ABC reportedly paid for Cleopatra.

6. U.S. House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on the Impact of Imports and Exports on American Employment, Impact of Imports and Exports on Employment, Part 8 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 465.

7. Negative cost may be considered as the price of actually making the picture, exclusive of advertising, distribution, and similar fees.

8. U.S. Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Select Committee on Small Business, Motion Picture Distribution Trade Practices—1956 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), pp. 352-353.

9. Ibid., p. 403.

10. Ibid., p. 395.

11. Ibid., p. 356.

12. U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Overseas Information Programs of the United States, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 273.

13. Ibid., pp. 292-293.

14. U. S. Senate, Motion Picture Distribution, p. 6.

15. Nicola de Pirro, “Post-War Expansion of the Italian Film Abroad,” ho Svettacolo, Volume 5, Number 3 (July-September 1955), p. xx.

16. Political and Economic Planning, op. cit., p. 241.

17. Ibid., p. 121.

18. British Film Producers Association, Seventh Annual Report 1948-1949, p. 27.

19. Board of Trade Journal, June 25, 1949.

20. Terence Kelly, Graham Norton, and George Perry, A Competitive Cinema (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1966), p. 89.

21. Federation of British Film Makers, Ninth Annual Report 1965-1966, p. 17.

22. Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler (New York: Noonday Press, 1959), p. 5.

Chapter 2

1. Political and Economic Planning, The British Film Industry (London: May, 1952), p. 41.

2. U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Overseas Information Programs of the United States, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 272.

3. The Film Centre, The Film Industry in Six European Countries (Paris: UNESCO, 1950), p. 21.

4. Political and Economic Planning, op. cit., p. 43.

5. Ibid., p. 99.

6. Board of Trade Journal, May 1, 1948.

7. Centre National de la Cinematographic, Bulletin, Number 6 (1948).

8. The Film Daily Year Book of Motion Pictures, 1960, “Trade Restrictions on U. S. Motion Pictures.”

9. A person active and influential in American film industry affairs during this period told this author that Secretary Byrnes “laid it on the line and extracted” the agreement from the French representative.

10. Georges Sadoul, French Film (London: Falcon Press, 1953), p. no.

11. British Film Producers Association, Seventh Annual Report 1948-1949, p. 28.

12. Variety, August 10, 1960.

13. Nicola de Pirro, “Post-War Expansion of the Italian Film Abroad,” ho Spettacolo, Volume 5, Number 3 (July-September 1955), p. xii.

14. The Andreotti Act is credited with providing an important economic stimulant to Italian film production. On the other hand, one writer has suggested that it simultaneously worked to kill Italian neorealism. George A. Huaco, in The Sociology of Film Art (Basic Books, 1965), makes his case by stating that it formalized the sources of finance under the state and provided for closer scrutiny of film scripts prior to production.

15. The Film Centre, op. cit., p. 90.

16. Variety, November 1, 1950.

17. Variety, May 30, 1951.

18. Variety, June 8, 1955.

19. Variety, May 2, 1962.

20. Early in 1963, the distribution activity in Spain of Columbia Pictures was forced to cease operation because of a restriction imposed on the company by the Spanish government. This reduced the number of American companies with regular offices in Spain authorized to distribute pictures to four: Paramount, Fox, Metro, and Warner Brothers. In effect, Columbia was not permitted to receive licenses under the baremo system for the importation of films. This ban on Columbia was lifted in January, 1966. The restriction was brought about by Columbia’s participation in the production of Behold a Pale Horse, which allegedly portrayed a Spanish police chief in an unfavorable light.

21. Variety, April 26, 1961.

22. British Film Producers Association, Sixth Annual Report 1947–1948, pp. 15-16.

23. British Film Producers Association, Seventh Annual Report 1948–1949,p. 19.

24. Political and Economic Planning, op. cit., p. 78.

25. U. S. House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on the Impact of Imports and Exports on American Employment, Impact of Imports and Exports on Employment, Part 8 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 472.

Chapter 3

1. A step toward standardization has been taken by the Committee of European Cinema Experts. In its first meeting in Brussels in December, 1966, the Committee decided that one of its functions ought to be the assembly and maintenance of an up-to-date file of European film industry documentation. It is to be hoped that collection of statistics will lead to greater compatibility and uniformity in their presentation.

2. This figure of 30 percent should be taken as an approximation for the entire Italian market and applicable to the films of many nationalities in it. Of course, it is obvious that certain films—notably some American features—are often rented on terms much greater than 30 percent of the gross. In practice, it can reach double that for an exceptional film in a key theatre. On this basis, the 30 percent figure applicable to American films across the board is an underestimate. What the actual average, mode, or median is for any given year depends upon those films accepted for exhibition, the localities or types of theatres and the frequencies with which these films were exhibited, the duration of exhibition contracts, and, of course, the variety of rental terms and scales which might be applicable to each of these contracts.

3. Excellent data on this matter are presented in Resultats d’Exploitation Par Annee d’Anciennete et Par Nationalite de Films, Centre National de la Cinematographie, Paris.

Chapter 4

1. This does not mean that sex was not used to sell films before European pictures came on the market. Quite to the contrary, indignation over “immoral” themes and advertising prompted the founding of the Production Code in the 1930’s. The difference is that while many American films promised daring themes and scenes, many European films actually delivered them.

2. An interesting reversal of this preference is known to the author. In a university community in the Midwest, a theatre showed a dubbed version of an Italian film. After a number of patrons complained, the manager apologized and issued free passes permitting patrons to return the following week to see the subtitled version of the same film.

3. An excellent treatment of this legal action is provided in Michael Conant’s Antitrust in the Motion Picture Industry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960).

4. Variety, September 29, 1954.

5. More recently, the reverse also has been the case. Outstanding performances in wholly foreign films caught attention and the names were soon found in films financed by American companies.

6. Variety, May 19, 1954.

7. Variety, March 6, 1957.

8. Variety, March 18, 1959.

9. Variety, September 23, 1959.

10. Variety, July 16, 1952.

11. Variety, August 1, 1951.

12. Variety, February 17, 1954; also The New York Times, February 16, 1954.

13. Variety, ibid.

14. Variety, June 9, 1954.

15. According to the Federal Trade Commission, several investigations were conducted between 1951 and 1957 involving the MPEA and its agreements with certain foreign governments and industries, IFE being only one of them. For example, in 1953, the FTC’s New York office investigated the relationship between the MPEA and IFE. The 1953 investigation as well as the action taken on IMPDAA’s 1954 complaint have been classified by the FTC as “confidential” and can be disclosed to third parties or made public only with Commission approval.

16. Variety, August 11, 1954.

17. Variety, July 7, 1954.

18. Variety, July 14, 1954.

19. Variety, August n, 1954.

20. The American parties involved in the dispute over the arrangements with France have denied any memory of the event.

21. Variety, February 1, 1956.

22. Variety, December 26, 1956.

23. Variety, January 30, 1957.

24. The ways in which Variety dealt with the problem are noted here:

1957—”[The tabulations do not] take in several important American productions shot in Britain and technically British, but too American to be included here.”

1958—”It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ‘pure’ British films and those which, while British quota pictures, were financed by American money and, being produced by Americans, carry considerable U. S. flavor.”

1959—”For purposes of this survey, the term ‘British films’ includes not only those pictures made by strictly British producers, but also those films in which American majors have had substantial financial participation but which still are classified as ‘quota’ films by the British government.”

1960—”For purposes of this Variety estimating, any film which qualified for Britain’s Eady plan [production subsidy] is considered ‘British.’ Thus the 1960 total would include as ‘British’ the earnings of two Walt Disney pictures, Third Man on the Mountain’ and ‘Kidnapped,’ even though to the naked eye they would seem as American as apple pie….”

1961—”…it should be made clear at the outset that the swollen totals for Britain and Greece, in 1961 as opposed to 1960, reflect business done by ‘British’ and ‘Greek’ releases actually made with American money and talent.” [Referring to The Guns of Navarone, The World of Suzie Wong, and Swiss Family Robinson, Variety declared:] “1961 was a bonanza year for such American-sponsored Eady product, and these three [“British”] films alone racked up domestic rentals aggregating $24,800,000.”

“The totals include rentals on those pictures either wholly or partially financed by Americans and which are either in a foreign language and/or qualify as ‘local’ productions under the laws of the countries in which they were made.”

This definition of a foreign film also was used by Variety in 1962, 1963, and 1964.

25. Terence Kelly, Graham Norton, and George Perry, A Competitive Cinema (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1966), p. 132.

26. Variety, December 29, 1965.

27. There seems to be no adequate definition of an “art” film although the term does conjure a distinction between, on the one hand, some films of Ingmar Bergman and Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad, and on the other, films starring Peter Sellers and the more recent ones of Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jeanne Moreau, and Sophia Loren.

Chapter 5

1. For example, see “Functions of the Association” in 1956 Annual Report, Motion Picture Export Association of America, Inc.; and Jack Valenti, “The ‘Foreign Service’ of the Motion Picture Association of America,” The Journal of the Producers Guild of America (March, 1968) Volume 10, Number 1.

2. Variety, October 10, 1956.

3. Variety, March 4, 1959.

4. U.S. Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Select Committee on Small Business, Motion Picture Distribution Trade Practices—1956 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 408.

It is interesting to note how this view of the subsidy has changed. Today, the subsidy is one of the major causes of runaway production and runaway investment. American companies, including United Artists, have availed themselves of such assistance.

5. Variety, April 16, 1958.

6. Variety, December 23, 1959.

7. Ibid.

8. Variety, May 7, 1952.

9. Variety, September 9, 1953.

10. Variety, August 24, 1960.

11. A source within the American industry has revealed that a short term halt in shipments to Nigeria was initiated for the purpose of adjusting rental terms. When it was terminated, American films resumed their flow, but at higher fees.

12. UNESCO, Developing Information Media in Africa, Reports and Papers on Mass Communication, Number 37, 1962.

13. Variety, August 24, 1960.

14. Henry P. Pilgert, Press, Radio and Film in West Germany, 1945-1953 (Historical Division of the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, 1953), p. 85.

15. The MPEA had been active before this to keep West Germany an open market. As early as June, 1949, for example, Eric Johnston lodged a protest with the then Secretary of State Dean Acheson concerning a proposed import quota on American films in West Germany.

16. Department of State, Germany igy-igg: The Story in Documents (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950), p. 609.

17. Variety, October 25, 1950.

18. Pilgert, op. cit, p. 97.

19. halo-American Film Agreement, September 1, 1959 to August 31, 1962, Appendix G.

20. Op. cit., p. 105.

21. Albert Norman, Our German Policy: Propaganda and Culture (New York: Vantage Press, 1951), p. 62.

Chapter 6

1. U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Overseas Information Programs of the United States, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 235.

2. Variety, October 6, 1954.

3. As an example, one can point to the period during which Stanton Griffis was ambassador to Spain, from early 1951 to early 1952. From the late 1940’s, American distributing companies were having difficulty in bringing American films into Spain. While Mr. Griffis was ambassador, the problem was resolved, and beginning in 1952 a greater volume of American films flowed to the country. Relaxation of restrictions on film was connected, perhaps, with American financial aid and the exporting to Spain of certain foodstuffs and materials. It should be mentioned that Mr. Griffis was on the board of directors of Paramount Pictures at this time. He resigned from Paramount in 1966.

4. Variety, April 25, 1956.

5. Variety, May 21, 1958.

6. Variety, August 16, 1950.

7. Variety, April 20, 1960.

8. Variety, April 15, 1959.

9. Federation of British Film Makers, Second Annual Report 1958–1959, p. 5.

10. Ibid., p. 4.

11. Variety, December 2, 1959.

12. British Film Producers Association, Eighteenth Annual Report 1959–1960, p. 6.

13. U. S. Senate, op. cit., p. 278.

In discussions with former officials of the MPEA, this author heard even more fantastic ways of freeing blocked currency. Unfortunately, most remain unconfirmed, without the cooperation of the film companies themselves.

14. Variety, July 28, 1954.

15. Variety, September 21, 1955.

16. See Italo-American Film Agreement, 1956-1959, Rome, August 8, 1956, and halo-American Film Agreement, September 1, 1959 to August 31, 1962.

17. Variety, April 20, 1960.

18. Memorandum of Agreement Between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Motion Picture Industry of the United States of America, dated 1st October, 1950. Cmd. 8113, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1950.

19. Centre National de la Cinematographic, Bulletin, Number 6 (1948).

Chapter 7

1. Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Volume 96, Part 3, p. 3766.

2. Variety, January 7, 1953.

3. Variety, January 28, 1953.

4. Of course, manipulation of film content has existed for decades. While government interference with content has been resisted conscientiously by the industry, film producers have accepted nongovernmental forms of content management. These center on the specific and formal provisions of the old and new Production Codes and the general informal provisions imposed by banks which grant loans for production and thereby influence content. (See George E. Yousling, Bank Financing of the Independent Motion Picture Producer, The Graduate School of Banking, Rutgers University, June, 1948.) The film situation is analogous to that of broadcasting, whose content the Federal Communications Commission is legally barred from censoring; however, program content is subject to the controls of the codes of the National Association of Broadcasters and the wishes of specific sponsors. For example, see the censorship provisions which have been used by the Procter and Gamble Company (.Broadcasting, October 2, 1961).

5. U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, Overseas Information Programs of the United States, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 236.

6. Ibid., p. 272.

7. Ibid., p. 279.

8. U. S. Senate, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Select Committee on Small Business, Motion Picture Distribution Trade Practices—1956 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 357.

9. Ibid., p. 353.

10. Ibid., p. 356.

11. Albert Norman, Our German Policy: Propaganda and Culture (New York: Vantage Press, 1951), p. 9.

12. U. S. Senate, Overseas Information Programs, p. 232.

13. Ibid., p. 285.

14. Norman, op. cit., p. 60.

15. Ibid., p. 61.

16. Ibid., p. 61.

17. Ibid., p. 64.

18. Ibid., p. 64.

19. Contracts Officer, Informational Media Guaranty Division, United States Information Agency, letter to the author, Washington, October 23, 1963.

20. Henry P. Pilgert, Press, Radio and Film in West Germany, 1945-1953 (Historical Division of the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, 1953), p. 97, and U. S. Senate, Overseas Information Programs, pp. 264-268.

21. Print media also were covered by the IMG program. For example, in January, 1949, The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., signed a contract for $41,000 for distribution in Germany of about 30,000 copies per issue of the monthly English language edition of Reader’s Digest. This six-month contract went into effect in March, 1949. Similarly, Time, Inc., had a contract worth almost $17,000 for distribution in Norway of about 5,600 copies per issue of the international edition of Life magazine. The six-month contract began in October, 1948.

22. Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 86th Congress, 1st Session, Volume 105, Part 7, p. 9128.

23. Variety, September 22, 1954.

24. Pilgert, op. cit., p. 87.

25. Ibid., p. 87.

26. Office of the U. S. High Commissioner for Germany, Report on Germany, September 21, 1949—July 31, 1952, p. 116.

27. Pilgert, op. cit., p. 89.

28. Variety, December 20, 1950.

29. Ibid.

30. The New York Times, August 12, 1949.

31. Pilgert, op. cit, p. 105.

32. John Dornberg, Schizophrenic Germany (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 158.

33. Ibid., p. 168.

34. The deconcentration effort in Germany bears more than casual similarity to the antitrust program in the United States—not only in terms of objective but also in terms of results. The of times hollow success of antitrust action, resolved in the majority of instances by consent decrees, suggests compromise rather than enforcement. See U. S. House of Representatives, 86th Congress, 1st Session, Report of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, Consent Decree Programs of the Department of Justice, January 30, 1959.

35. Ludwig Erhard, “A New Bond Between Economists,” The German Economic Review, Volume i, Number 1 (1963), pp. 3-4.

36. Variety, September 11, 1963.

Chapter 8

1. Robert L. Heilbroner, The Future As History (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 103.

2. Ibid., p. 106.

3. This is indicated clearly in Article 1 of the Italian film law: “The State considers the cinema a means of artistic expression, a cultural form, a social communication, and recognizes its economic and industrial importance. The activity of production, distribution, and exhibition of films is deemed to be in the general interest.”

4. The general governmental policy in Europe toward assistance of the arts bears some analogy, perhaps, to the American government’s policy on postal rates. The Post Office Department handles second and third class mail (periodicals and advertising matter) at a considerable loss. This is rationalized by pointing to the advantages gained by having a broad dissemination of information, literature, and advertising matter. In a sense, the government, by providing low rates, is subsidizing the publishing industry and that portion of the business community which advertises by mail on the assumption that they contribute to the general welfare.

5. The quality prize is divided among those people responsible for the film in the following way: 71 percent to the producer, 10 percent to the director, 7 percent to the script author, 3 percent each to the scenario author and the director of photography, 2 percent each to the composer of the musical score, the set designer, and the film’s editor.

6. National Film Finance Corporation, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended March 31, 1959, p. 7.

7. The NFFC also has advanced funds for television films and episodes. Between 1950 and 1967, 583 received such assistance with the largest number, 403, in 1959. This large number is somewhat deceiving as almost 400 of them were five-minute episodes and accounted for only about $450,000 in loans.

8. National Film Finance Corporation, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended March 31, 1967, p. 3.

9. Ibid., March 31, 1963, p. 4.

10. Ibid., March 31, 1965, pp. 3-4.

11. Ibid., March 31, 1967, p. 4.

12. Ibid., March 31, 1966, p. 6.

13. Ibid., March 31, 1967, pp. 4-5.

14. halo-American Film Agreement, 1956-1950, Rome, August 8, 1956, and halo-American Film Agreement, September 1, 1959 to August 31, 1962.

15. Gazetta Ufficiale delta Repubblica Italiana, Volume 106, Number 282 (November 12, 1965).

16. One charge levelled against the subsidy based upon box office receipts is that films which need it least get the greatest rebates. A high-grossing film, one with considerable box office revenue, receives a larger subsidy than a not-so-popular film which is, perhaps, only breaking even at the box office. In this case, the marginally profitable film would be in greater need of a rebate. One way to avoid this inequity is by arranging the percentage rebate on a sliding scale—the higher the gross, the smaller the percentage of rebate, with grosses over a certain figure receiving no subsidy at all.

17. Irving Allen, “Subsidy Creates Mediocrity,” The Journal of the Producers Guild of America, Volume 9, Number 2 (June 1967), p. 19.

18. British Film Producers Association, A Guide to British Film Production (London, 1962), pp. 15-16.

19. Political and Economic Planning, The British Film Industry (London, May 1952) p. 128.

20. Ibid., p. 131.

21. British Film Producers Association, Fourteenth Annual Report 1955–1956, P. 7.

22. Films Act, 1960, 8 and 9 Elizabeth II, Ch. 57. The phrase “requisite amount of labour costs” is defined in the Films Act by a rather complicated formula. In practice, about 75 percent of labor costs must be paid to British subjects if the film has one foreign star. If there are two foreign stars, then the figure becomes 80 percent.

23. The Monopolies Commission report (Films, A Report on the Supply of Films for Exhibition in Cinemas, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1966) gives on page eight the terms of an exhibition contract. The rental fees, on a sliding scale, range from 25 to 50 percent. The midpoint, 37 percent, was selected for the computations.

24. Variety, January 26, 1966.

25. For films with labor costs of less than $56,000, the distributor’s share (for purposes of payment from the Fund) is reckoned at two-and-a-half times the actual amount.

26. Décret No. 59-1512 du 30 décembre 1959, Portant Application des Dispositions du Decret Modifié du 16 juin 1959 Belatif au Soutien Financier de l’Etat á l’lndustrie Cinématographique, Textes du Cinéma Français, Centre National de la Cinématographie, Volume 2, Title 4, Chapter 1.

27. A synopsis of twenty years of financial assistance to the French film industry is presented in Le Cinéma Français, a study prepared by Claude Degand and Dominique Corbet (Notes et fitudes Documentaires, November 29, 1966, Number 3341, La Documentation Française, Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement, Paris).

28. See Arrêté du 30 decembre 1959, Fixant les Taux de Calcul des Subventions Allouées aux Producteurs de Films de Long Métrage, modifié par Arr£te du 8 novembre 1962, and Arrêté du 10 septembre 1963, Fixant les Taux de Calcul des Subventions Allouees aux Producteurs de Films de Long Méttage, modifié par Arrêté s du 29 avril 1964 et 23 juillet 1965, Textes du Ciné ma Français, Centre National de la Cinématographic, Volume 2, Title 4, Chapter 1.

29. Gazetta Ufftciale della Repubblica Italiana, op cit.

30. The principle of restricting television’s access to new films also was embodied in the Film Industry Defence Organisation which formerly existed in Great Britain. There, exhibitors among themselves contributed to a pool under FIDO which bought television rights to films. If a producer refused to sell such rights, theatres could threaten a boycott against his pictures.

31. State autonomy in the area of culture also proved a handicap in television. To remove the danger of a centralized broadcasting system under government control being used for propaganda purposes, the allied occupation authorities segmented the structure of German radio and gave the parts to the various states, excluding the federal goverment from possession of any station. When television service was inaugurated, it was realized that its high cost necessitated the sharing of programs among the stations. The First Network was started on the basis of program swopping, which proved rather cumbersome and difficult to administer. Plans for a central Second Network were worked out by the Bonn government but the supreme court decided that it would be unconstitutional. To resolve the dilemma, and to institute a centrally-operated network, the German states delegated their control rights for a Second Network to a newly created state agency in Mainz which would administer and program it. This network began transmitting in 1963.

32. Les Industries Cinematographiques de VEurope des Six et le Marche Commun, Notes et Etudes Documentaires, March 10, 1966, Number 3271, La Documentation Française, Secrétariat Général du Gou-vernement, Paris, p. 22.

33. Ibid., Annex 4, “Directives de la C.E.E. en Matiére de Cinéma.” The terminology used is “the nationality of a member State.”

34. In March, 1967, after much study and research, a Canadian Film Development Corporation was established with a capital of $10,000,000 payable from the general revenue fund. The CFDC is empowered to invest in Canadian feature films in exchange for a share of the revenue, to make interest-bearing loans to Canadian producers, and to award prizes for outstanding achievements in Canadian feature production. Thus, the measure provides two of the three possible forms of state support for film production. See An Act to Provide for the Establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation, 14-15-16 Elizabeth II, Ch. 78 (1967).

35. There is growing interest in some form of subsidy for American films. As early as 1963, Carl Foreman, an American producer and director, advocated a production subsidy in the United States because of the film’s “contribution on the cultural level and to the economic community.” According to Variety (October 16, 1963), Mr. Foreman believed the subsidy was the “means to producer and exhibitor survival.” Apparently he speaks with some authority as he has been involved in the production of “British” films which have qualified for subsidy there. More recently, The Journal of the Producers Guild of America devoted its June, 1967, issue to a discussion of subsidies and their application to production in Hollywood.

Chapter 9

1. A similar situation occurred in Canada more than twenty years ago. Presumably to augment tourist trade and to solve currency problems, the Canadian government developed a Canadian Cooperation Project with the Motion Picture Association of America. American film distributors in Canada were permitted to export their revenues providing that the MPAA encouraged its members to make American films in Canada and to mention the country in Hollywood scenarios. According to 1’Association Profes-sionnelle des Cineastes (Twenty-Two Reasons Why the Canadian Government Should Encourage the Establishment of a Feature Film Industry in Canada, Montreal, February 1964):

During the ‘40s a number of films conceived in the United States were produced by American artists and technicians in Canada. Canadian scenery was shown while the human dimension was overlooked. This was a short-sighted policy (even from the viewpoint of the tourist trade), for though it sometimes acquainted the foreigner with an aspect of our geography, we in fact exported our natural scenery as raw material just like iron ore or pulpwood.

2. Portions of the discussion of the British industry originally appeared in: Thomas H. Guback, “American Interests in the British Film Industry,” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, Volume 7, Number 2 (Summer 1967), pp. 7—21.

3. Variety, April 15, 1959.

4. Federation of British Film Makers, Second Annual Report 1958-1959, p. 9.

5. National Film Finance Corporation, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended March 31, 1967, p. 4.

6. Walter Wanger and Joe Hyams, My Life With Cleopatra (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), p. 19.

7. Ibid., p. 31.

8. The New York Times, January 24, 1967.

9. Variety, December 3, 1952, and December 29, 1954.

10. Variety, January 26, 1966.

11. Ibid.

12. Variety, May 4, 1966.

13. British Film Producers Association, Twenty-Fourth Annual Report 1965-1066, pp. 5-6.

14. National Film Finance Corporation, op. cit., p. 4.

15. It will be recalled that the NFFC suspended lending activity for a ten-month period in 1966 and 1967 because of its inability to borrow from commercial sources.

16. The Monopolies Commission, FiZws, A Report on the Supply of Films for Exhibition in Cinemas (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1966), pp. 6-7.

17. Terence Kelly, Graham Norton, and George Perry, A Competitive Cinema (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1966), p. xi and p. xiv.

18. The Monopolies Commission, op. cit., p. 74.

19. Federation of British Film Makers, Ninth Annual Report 1965-1966, p. 8.

20. Decret No. 59-1512 du 30 decembre 1959, Portant Application des Dispositions du Decret du 16 juin 1959 Relatif au Soutien Financier de 1’fitat a l’lndustrie Cinematographique, Textes Reglementaires du Cinema Frangais, Centre National de la Cinematographie, Volume 2, Title 4, Chapter 1.

21. Associazione Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche ed Affini, Ordi-namento Legislativo della Cinematografta, Rome, 1962.

22. Ibid.

23. Variety (January 31, 1968) reported that fourteen Italian directors issued a manifesto urging implementation of direct sound recording in the film industry. This suggests that provisions of the 1965 law were not being followed and that interpretation of them was quite elastic.

24. Italo-American Film Agreement, 1956-1959, Rome, August 8, 1956.

25. Italo-American Film Agreement, September 1, 1959 to August 31, 1962.

26. Quoted in Centre National de la Cinematographie, Bulletin d’lnformation, Number 108 (December 1967), p. 233.

27. In an unpublished study conducted by this author in 1963, a number of films were selected from those listed in Unitalia catalogues of Italian production. At least in Italy, all these pictures were “Italian.” Official agencies in West Germany, Norway, France, and Great Britain were asked to reveal the nationalities under which these selected films were registered when they entered these countries. Some interesting points were uncovered which indicate that the nationality often reflects neither the producing country nor the source of production financing. A few examples are in order:

Sodom and Gomorrah, “a film by Robert Aldrich, directed by Sergio Leone,” was produced by Titanus and starred Stewart Granger, Stanley Baker, and Anna Maria Pierangeli. In Germany, the film was “Italian-French”; in Norway, “British”; in France, “French coproduction”; in Britain, “Italian.”

El Cid, backed by American and British money, was “a film for Anthony Mann, directed by Giovanni Paolucci.” It was produced by Samuel Bronston Productions (Madrid) and Dear Film (Rome) and starred Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren. Although “Italian” in Italy, the picture was “American” in Germany, Norway, and France, but “Dutch” in Britain. Further investigation of the “Dutch” registration indicated, according to the Board of Trade, that the maker of the film was listed as Bronston Distributors, N.V., Netherlands Antilles.

The Fair Bride, directed by Nunnally Johnson and produced by Ti-tanus, starred Dirk Bogarde, Joseph Cotten, Ava Gardner, and Vittorio De Sica. Although the film was registered “Italian” in each country surveyed, its financing came from an American company.

Barahhas, directed by Richard Fleischer and produced by Dino DeLau-rentiis Cinematografica, starred Anthony Quinn, Silvana Mangano, Jack Palance, and Vittorio Gassman. In West Germany and Great Britain, the film was “Italian” but in Norway and France it was “American.”

Considering these fluctuating identities, it is apparent that data concerning nationalities of films imported, and their earnings, must be viewed with a degree of caution.

28. Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler (New York, Noonday Press, 1959), p. 5.

29. Presidential address to the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, London, March 23, 1963.

30. Association Professionnelle des Cineastes, Measures Recommended by VAssociation Professionnelle des Cineastes to the Government of Canada in Order to Encourage the Development of a Feature Film Industry Compatible with the Country’s Economic and Cultural Aspirations, Montreal, March 1964.

Chapter 10

1. Some coproductions have reached levels of excellence: I Vitelloni, 11 Bidone, Notti di Cabiria, La Dolce Vita, Generate delta Rovere, La Notte, L’Awentura, Casanova ‘70, Boccaccio ‘70, Marriage Italian Style, Moment of Truth, Last Year at Marienbad, Gervaise, Masculin Feminin, and La Guerre est Finie. Of course, not all coproductions are of this calibre. The list must be balanced with such films as these: Terror in Space, Two Against Al Capone, The Sheriff Doesn’t Shoot, A Gunman Called Nebraska, Monkey Woman, and Sexy al Neon (Neon Nightlife).

2. See Article 1 of the French-Italian coproduction agreement of October 19, 1949, and “La Coproduction des Films en Europe,” speech by Claude Degand to the Second Congress of the International Secretariat of Entertainment Trade Unions, London, September 25-29, 1967.

3. National Film Finance Corporation, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended March 31, 1967, p. II.

4. Associazione Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche ed Affini, L’lndustria Cinematografica, Rome, 1966, Appendix 2, p. 7.

5. Limited data are available for comparison on production costs in other countries. Figures from Britain’s National Film Finance Corporation indicate that the thirty-six films it financially assisted and which started into production between April, 1962, and March, 1963, had an average cost of $346,000. The figures for the years following are: 1963-1964, eleven films averaging $255,000; 1964-1965, fifteen films averaging $374,000; 1965—1966, fourteen films averaging $520,000; 1966-1967, eleven films averaging $779,000. It should be noted that these figures exclude films costing less than $56,000 and films which received no financial backing from the NFFC. In the latter group would be many films financed by American interests which did not have to rely upon the Corporation.

6. Figures for 1966 from Unitalia catalogue; 1967 figures from Unies-pana catalogue.

7. Associazione Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche ed Affini, La Coproduzione Cinematografica, Rome, 1966.

8. The name of the third group of films is somewhat difficult to translate into English. The original Italian is “coproduzioni bipartite di valore spettacolare.” In French, the term is: “un film de caractére spectacu-laire.”

9. See George A. Codding, Jr., The Universal Postal Union (New York: New York University Press, 1964).

10. While the United States and Great Britain calculated weight by the ounce, France, Belgium, and Italy used the gram. Germany, Austria, and other states used the zolloth or loth, which even differed from region to region. Postal rates, different in each country, became a nightmare as international letters passed from country of origin, through other countries, to country of destination. Rates were a function of distance, either weight or number of sheets in a letter, and the route the letter was to follow. Thus, a letter from Germany to Rome could travel by any one of three routes, each with a different rate.

11. See George A. Codding, Jr., The International Telecommunication Union (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1952).

12. Codding, The Universal Postal Union, op. cit., p. 25.

Chapter 11

1. Leo Model, ‘The Politics of Private Foreign Investment,” Foreign Affairs, Volume 45, Number 4 (July 1967), pp. 640-641.

2. Presidential address by John Davis, British Film Producers Association, Fourteenth Annual Report 1955-1956, pp. 6-7.

Appendix A

1. Translated by the author from Annuaire du Film Beige 1964, Cinématheque Royale de Belgique, Bruxelles.

Appendix B

1. Translated by the author from Textes du Cinéma Français, Centre National de la Cinematographie, Volume 2, Title 5, Chapter 6.