HC Deb 10 February 1949 vol 461 cc612-26

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Follick (Loughborough)

This evening I wish to speak about the treatment that our films are receiving in Latin America. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the size of the population of Latin America. It is very important that I should bring this to the notice of the House because this territory could very well be a great export market. The official population of the Latin American countries is more than 150 million, but actually the population would be nearer 170 million or 180 million. It is a matter of great interest to this country to see that we get very fair treatment in a market which holds a great future for film production. I am afraid that at present we are not getting fair treatment. I am going to produce proof of my statements.

For various political and other reasons the British people are very favoured in the Latin American countries. The film industry is the third biggest industry in the United States, and its export side is built up mostly in the British Commonwealth and in the Latin American markets. If the United States film industry lost those two great markets, it would become a more or less domestic home product without much export possibility. When I was in those territories last year I received complaints that our films were not receiving recognition. It was generally hidden from the population of these countries that these were British films. The word "British" was never used anywhere in this distribution and unfortunately our films in that part of the world are distributed by American companies. They have no interest in the spreading of our films in those countries where the markets would probably be lost to them as our markets increased: our films would dislodge theirs.

I received so many complaints when I was there that I took up the matter officially and this is the reply I received. This is an official letter. It is rather a long letter but it is very important: British films distributed in Latin America, and more especially in the Caribbean area, merely carry the notation Distributed by Universal International. 'Sometimes this is prefaced by the phrase J. Arthur Rank Presents.' My contention is this: in Latin America, neither the name J. Arthur Rank, the Archers, Ealing Studios etc., convey the meaning of a British product. In a market which has consistently known but American films, any film spoken in English is automatically presumed to be of American origin. It is essential that the flat statement 'this is a British film.' or something of this nature be included as a preface to the title, sub-title and screen credits, since only in this manner can adequate safeguards be assured for the prestige accruing to British films so that it may redound to the credit of Britain and its motion picture industry directly, and indirectly to British industry as a whole. I cannot prove that distributors for Universal International have received instructions to obscure the British origin of worth-while films, but in conversation with several distributors, their indirect remarks leave me no alternative but to believe that it is to the advantage of certain sectors to preclude the possibility of British films because of their high standard gaming a foothold with Latin American distributors which might prove difficult to dislodge. At the moment of writing, there has come into my hand the 'hand-out' for the British film 'Black Narcissus' which is being most widely publicised in this Republic. Of the hundreds of thousands of words written in the newspapers, in paid advertisements and in screen 'trailers' there has been not one single mention of the fact that this is a British film. I enclose this for your perusal, and upon reading it, would ask you, with your knowledge of the Latin American mentality, whether there is anything in it which gives credit where credit is due.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Mosley)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but who is the writer of this interesting letter? Who is responsible for it?

Mr. Follick

If the hon. Gentleman insists I will answer but I would rather be reticent on that point.

Sir P. Hannon

The letter is important and we in this House ought to know who is responsible for this criticism.

Mr. Follick

This is written by the chargé d'affaires in one of the Latin American countries. He has sent me these hand-outs to show that there is not a single word in them to show that they relate to British films. It is no use having a man banging a pan and expecting American audiences to understand that that indicates that the film comes from Britain. The word "British" must be clearly written.

In this country when American films come over, we get trailer after trailer in the cinemas, until it becomes very boring indeed, announcing that an American film is coming. Yet in these Latin American countries where the population is somewhere near 170 million, a terrific market, there is no indication at all that these are British films. The reason for this is very easy to understand. Latin Americans, in the first place, prefer our films because they come from us. There is a long-standing sort of liking for the British people. They always tell one how we played an important part in their country's fight for independence. The Americans themselves have been a bit too much on the dollar principle in those countries and it was only when Franklin Roosevelt introduced his "good neighbour, policy" that that has been put on one side to a certain extent.

Again, they do not want "Westerns." They have their own charras where riders are infinitely better than anything to be seen in a Western film. Again, always the dirty cad, the lounger, is a Latin-American. They even use the expression mal hombre. It is never a member of the American United States who is the dirty cad, it is always a Latin-American, and these people get fed up with that sort of thing. We would get fed up if in the films sent over here an Engishman was always depicted as the cad. But that sort of thing is happening in Latin America and they naturally give preference to our films.

In addition to that, our films are much better and more attractive and more their idea of what a film should be. Our films contain ideas. In our films we try to solve problems. The American distributors know very well that if once we dislodge them from their position they will never get back again. That means to say that one of their greatest markets will be taken away from them and that is the reason why they conceal the fact that these are British films.

I have seen time and time again an analysis showing the different films and the voting on those films. In each case where it was a British film the voting was very much heavier in favour of that film. It is no use telling me that they know the names of British actors and actresses, because they do not. In fact, in one competition, in which there was voting for the best foreign actor on the films for that year, J. Arthur Rank got the most votes, and I never knew before that Rank was an actor. What we have to do is to insist, in the first place, as our Government are providing large sums of money for our films, that we have British distributors in Latin America in place of those now coming from the United States.

Mr. O'Brien (Nottingham, West)

How are we going to do that?

Mr. Follick

The British public are providing large sums of money towards the films and it is up to us to find a way to do it. Secondly, we must insist that on every British film the words "British film" are written in plain language, so that the people will know that next week in such and such a cinema there will be a British film and then they will go to see it. That is the way to extend our markets in that great area. It is a most important market because with our films, go our ideas, the British way of life, and industry.

There are several industries which have been built up purely by the use of films. We must take care of this. We must ensure that, though our films here are not doing too well now, we develop this market which will bring prosperity to the studios in Elstree and Pinewood. I have here a cutting which says that we are to dismiss 270 members of the staff of the studios at Denham and Pinewood. Of course we are going to dismiss them: of course they have no work. Our films are not receiving a fair chance in countries where the people would prefer to have them. The reason is plain to see. I appeal to the Board of Trade to see by every means within their power, that this is remedied and that British films claim their fair place in these most valuable markets.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

The House is much indebted to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) for presenting this case. I am certain that the Board of Trade with its broad outlook on the question of Latin American expansion in our trade relations will give sympathetic consideration to his arguments. One of the most serious considerations before us at the moment in the development of our export trade is that of securing, as far as possible, our continued influence in the markets of Latin America. Is is true that just now we have serious restrictions arising from exchange difficulties and so on. But the use of the film as the expositor of the quality and character of British products and even as a means of indicating the nature, variety, and benevolence of British culture, play an important part in our relations.

I have a personal interest in this matter because I am the President of the British and Latin American Chamber of Commerce. Part of my public work is to develop in every possible way the sale of British products in Latin America. In a large measure we have been successful over a long series of years in maintaining good trade relations with this great sub-Continent. I am certain that the project of using the film to create an interest in our products, in our way of life and in the cultural influence which this country exercises in every part of the world, would have immense value in improving this relationship. The hon. Gentleman did not make any reference to the work of the British Council in Latin America. The British Council have been strongly advocating the use of films in their educational work in connection with that area. In that respect, the Board of Trade would find the co-operation of the Council extremely useful in meeting the proposals submitted by the hon. Member for Loughborough.

I am a child in matters concerning the development of films. On the opposite side of the House we have hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) who has made use of the film as one of the expository means of promoting his researches both at home and abroad. I am only a simple person in this connection, but I recognise the importance of the point that in working for film distribution in Latin America, we must not he controlled from the United States, much as we respect them and grateful as we are for what they are doing in these days to enable us to escape form the morass in which, in some respects, His Majesty's Government have placed this unhappy country.

The film is of great importance in the expansion of our trade. On that account I strongly support the plea which has been made. I am sorry to say that Latin America is almost wholly unknown in this country. From me to time I have urged in this House that teaching of the Spanish language should be encouraged. I am glad to acknowledge the action of the Minister of Education in using his influence in that direction. In view of the immense importance of the great Republic of Brazil, I have urged that Portuguese should he encouraged in our secondary schools, and the Minister of Education has been responsive to the suggestion. This is a vast sub-continent embracing all these republics with all their immense natural resources and possibilities, with markets capable of development almost to an unlimited extent. Above all, there are great possibilities for harbouring the refugee population of Europe who wish to make a living for themselves in the future.

From that point of view the proposal submitted tonight is of great importance. The hon. Member for Loughborough emphasised the use of the word "British." I am grieved to say that some of my old friends on the Front Bench opposite do not attach the importance and value to the word "British" that we do on this side of the House. Let their process of conversion be hurried and complete. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has entered the Chamber. If we ever had a statesman in modern times who has upheld the word "British" it is the Home Secretary. I wish that he had heard the stress which has been placed on that word in connection with our international relations especially with Latin America. We have had tonight a plea for the use of the film in order to develop our trade and cultural relations, and to emphasise our friendly contacts with the Latin American continent extending from Mexico down to Patagonia. That is a vast region with great possibilities for the development of a market for British products. The hon. Gentleman has rendered a great service by the speech he has made tonight.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien (Nottingham, West)

In the first instance, the best action we can take is to try to get British films shown in Britain rather than in Patagonia, Uruguay or anywhere else. Judging from the way in which things are going, we shall need every encouragement to put on the screen "J. Arthur Rank presents "over here, rather than in Latin America. I am not out of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) but obviously——

Mr. Follick

If we can have this tremendous export market we shall be able to pay stars high salaries and we shall be able to show all our own films in all our own cinemas. I believe that today, the British public prefer British films.

Mr. O'Brien

I will come to that in a minute. One or two comments should be made to put this matter in perspective. I have every sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend and also by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). We all want to see British films getting into the markets of the world, and some of us have been fighting for that ideal for many years. Why Latin America should be singled out as one of the markets into which we should make a great drive I do not know. The great English-speaking market into which our films should be sent is that of the United States, where there are 18,000 cinemas, presenting a vast market into which at present we cannot get our films.

Mr. Follick

Can we get fair play there?

Mr. O'Brien

It is not a matter of fair play; it is a matter of hard commercial facts. In Latin America there are various technical and also psychological reasons why, in such countries, it may not always be to the interests of British films to say at all times, that they are British. I need not develop that point, but it is perfectly true that we must leave the exploitation of films in various parts of the world to the trade. The methods of exploiting or selling films in the Argentine would be quite different from the methods that would be applied in selling our films in Rumania or France. However, the idea is the same and we must get our films into the Latin American market and every other market that we can possibly develop.

It is said that trade follows the flag, and I agree with the hon. Member opposite about the immense advantage obtained and the great progress made by American industry as the result of American films. It really is phenomenal, and there is hardly an industry in the United States that has not greatly benefited as the result of American films We could and should do the same, but I want to mention that the greatest enemy of the British film industry at the present time—perhaps not an enemy by design, but an unwitting one—is not the Board of Trade but the Treasury.

The Treasury is following a policy which is bound to bring utter ruination to the British film industry in a very short time. My hon. Friend should realise that the British Government are taking nearly £40 million a year from the British film industry by way of Entertainment Duty. Over one-third of the entire revenue of the industry is being taken away when the industry is fighting for its existence. Why it should have this basic obligation is something which is beyond the understanding of most of us. We are told that people in the industry are unemployed, but we cannot make films without money and we cannot have markets unless we have films, and so on.

On the other hand, the currency difficulties of the Latin American countries are many, as are those of parts of Europe, and the earnings of British films abroad remain frozen in those particular countries. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I offer my belated congratulations on his appointment will I know bring to his new Department all the skill and experience that he gave to the post which he has just vacated. I am sure that he will have a little more entertainment in his new Department in his dealings with film actors, than in looking at hard-faced doctors. I am sure that in his new post at the Board of Trade he will do a great job of work for the British film industry, since the President himself has taken a lead in the matter and has gone out of his way to apply his mind and experience in helping to solve many of the problems which are unfortunately pressing upon the industry.

My hon. Friend referred to the fact that we should have more films. By the end of next week there will be nearly 1,000 people dismissed from British studios, five-sixths of them being members of my own organisation In that respect the industry has a very dim future. It is no use talking about crisis after crisis in British films or crying "stinking fish," when we in the industry, under the leadership of the President of the Board of Trade and his working party, are getting down to the fundamental difficulties and problems of the industry with a view to putting it on a definitely permanent, sound and efficient basis. In the process there will be a great deal of difficulty and heart-aching, but Latin America is only one part of the world which we should exploit. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all we can to see that the films which the people of these countries like are supplied by this country, but I beg of him not to underrate the difficulties of our salesmen abroad. Even in Latin America we are trying to encourage the British industry to keep its head above water. Not only are we doing that in Latin America, but in other parts of the world as well.

Sir P. Hannon

With the leave of the House, may I express my apologies to the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? I had it in my mind to offer him my congratulations at the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Follick

I should have done so, too.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Reeves (Greenwich)

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this subject tonight. I realise that it is only one aspect of a much bigger problem and that it is not a problem which has suddenly occurred. So far as the British film industry is concerned, this is a long-standing problem. There are some who say that it is only within the last few years that the British film industry has awakened to the part it can play, both at home and abroad, in presenting what we are now pleased to call the British way of life. The Americans learned this many years ago and they blazed a trail all over the world. There is no doubt that the American film was the forerunner of the trade representatives of a whole series of American industries, which entered the various markets of the world and have, in many ways, almost completely captured them. We have to bear that fact in mind when discussing this matter.

In the South American Republics the major part of industry is practically in American control. We have American distributors and a good many cinemas in this part of the world are owned by Americans. It is natural that American pictures should be preferred because they have their own friends on the spot. My hon. Friend has made the suggestion that we should attach to our films an indication that they are British made. There are two ways of looking at that. People might say, "Well, of course we know that because it is such a beautiful product." On the other hand, they might say, "My goodness, and cannot we see it!" Our films must speak for themselves. Their quality must be such that people want to see them. If they are of that standard, they will gradually work their way by sheer quality into the markets of the world.

Mr. Follick

How are the people to know that these beautiful films are British unless we say they are British?

Mr. Reeves

I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Americans have never gone to the length of saying "This is an American film." Everybody knows it is an American film, and we want everybody to know that it is a British film. Because it is of such a character it will speak for itself. It seems to me that to put "British made" on a film is rather the wrong way of doing it.

There is no doubt that during the last few years the Board of Trade have done a great deal to assist the British film industry. That is not because it happens to be a British industry, but because we depend so much upon the film for presenting abroad the story of British life. It is becoming more and more important that the British film should be seen on foreign screens. The Board of Trade have got to do a great deal more to assist this hard-pressed industry. Because of its wide-flung influences, American competition is terrific. We cannot play to such a vast population as they can. They can earn all their costs from the home market and sweep in the profits from their foreign distribution. We cannot do that because our population is very much smaller. We cannot afford to spend the money that the Americans can on films. That is a disability, and that is why the Government must encourage by all possible means the production of good films in this country, and assist the industry to put their films, not only on British screens, as my hon. Friend who has spent so much time in the industry said, but also on the screens of other countries.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

I agree with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and particularly with those made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien). I should like to put what I have to say into four sentences.

There is not the slightest chance that by our exports of films to South America, or to all the rest of the world, we can make the British film industry pay. That is the first sentence. At the moment, we have not got our own British film industry, and I think that the correct figures are that something considerably less than 35 per cent. of the films shown in this country are British, and over 65 per cent. are foreign. That is the second sentence. I agree that the Board of Trade have done more under this dispensation—and I welcome my hon. Friend's accession to that Department, coming as he does with all the conspicuous success that he and his former colleague have had in relation to the medical service—but I say that, despite the fact that the Board of Trade have done so well, they have still not really tackled the problem. That is the third sentence. The fourth is that it seems to me that, as my hon. Friend has said, an approach must be made to the Treasury on the lines which everybody concerned with this subject has approved.

Not only my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher)—who is, as is well known, a vice-chairman of the A.B.C. circuit—not only my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, and not only Mr. George Elvin, the other trade union chief concerned, but also the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and Lord Swinton in the other place yesterday, and Mr. Arthur Rank and other representatives of the industry, have urged that, in view of the fact that the Government make £38 million a year out of this industry, a proportion of that sum should be remitted to the industry. This should be done in order to make sure that we have our own British film industry and also that we have, as I believe we certainly can have, a British film industry which will lead the European industry, and fulfil the purposes which my hon. Friend has in mind tonight.

8.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards)

May I begin by thanking all the hon. Members who congratulated me on my new appointment? In starting a new job, it is always encouraging to begin with good will, and I appreciate it very much. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) painted an alluring picture of the pleasures I may find in the film industry. As he knows, my right hon. Friend takes a very close personal interest in this matter himself, and I suspect that my work will lie in more pedestrian though, I hope, no less useful fields like cotton, furniture, and so on. Therefore, while not, perhaps, having the benefit or the pleasures, I may avoid some of the temptations. If, however, I do enter this difficult field, I shall look to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham to keep my feet in straight paths.

Mr. O'Brien

It is a great responsibility.

Mr. Edwards

Obviously, I cannot take up tonight the points raised about Purchase Tax; it would not be proper for me to do so. I should like to make it plain that I entirely agree about the importance of the film as a cultural medium, and also about the importance of Latin America as a market for British films. Anything that we can do at the Board of Trade to help, we will do. The recently amalgamated departments of Commercial Relations and Treaties and Export Promotion exist for the very purpose of helping industry and trade of any kind in any part of the world. While we are always wanting to make that organisation better, it serves, as it is, a very useful purpose to our industry and trade.

Having said that, I must turn to the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick). Let me say at once that I will look into the points made in the official letter which he quoted. As a matter of interest we might, I think, just see the extent to which we have been able to do trade in Latin America. British films appear to have obtained a good foothold in those markets, and, as far as I can see on the figures, to be gaining ground. Most of the business has been done by two British companies, General Films Distributors, for the Rank organisation, and Patheacute. Since the latter part of 1946, they have had a total of 69 films released in all the Latin American countries taken together. The total revenue which these films have earned amounts to the equilavent of £312,000. It is not possible to make any estimate of the Proportion of screen time which British films have secured in these countries, but, on a rough estimate. there were about 200 American films released last year, as compared with 25 British, and about 100 from Mexico and Argentina, who are the next strongest competitors after the Americans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough thought that the right thing to do would be for British companies to set up their own distributing agencies. So far, the more important work in those countries has been done by the Rank Organisation, and all their films have been distributed through American companies. They seem to be satisfied with the results, and believe that, for the time being, at any rate, this is the most profitable way of trading in those particular countries. In time, the future development of our trade may possibly justify the setting up of our own local distributing organisations, but I think that is a matter which we must leave for the companies to judge for themselves.

I ask my hon. Friend and the House to consider the economic aspect of setting up a separate distributing agency of one's own. I well recollect what I learned from Adam Smith, who, in the first chapter of "The Wealth of Nations," amongst other things says that the division of labour is limited by the size of the market. Here is a case in point. It would be a very expensive business to set up new distributing agencies in overseas countries, and our film companies, who have only comparatively recently started to export to those particular countries, certainly have not the resources at the present time to embark on this. I feel that in a matter of this kind the companies must themselves balance the pros and cons and decide what will be the most profitable way to operate in any particular market.

Now I come to a particular point to which my hon. Friend drew our attention—that the British films are not properly identified in the Latin-American markets. As I understand, all our films are released with sub-titles in Spanish or Portuguese, as, indeed, are the American, and all the films carry their usual trade marks, with all the original credit titles in full—to the artists, the technicians, the British production companies, and the studios. That, I think, so far as it goes, is good.

If the information which my hon. Friend has really is to the contrary, then, of course, I will look into it, but I would say to him that it does seem to me that it may be that in this business of the clearer identification of British films there may be some progress to be made, and we should be happy to discuss this particular aspect of the problem with the production association at any time. It is important that British films, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, should be known to be British, because although we may have to take a certain blame for the bad, we shall then be able to take the credit for the good; and in comparison—perhaps, it is being ultra-British to say it—I should have thought the films we have been making in recent times stood comparison with the best films being made in any other country in the world.

Mr. Follick

That is true.

Mr. Edwards

It is desirable to identify British films, and I will see whether there is any way in which the Board of Trade and the British Film Producers' Association can improve on the present position.