_____________________ Internátu i Film Industries ■ !• Lfilm made abroad Ims co. have sud in t]l£ klmtyi U, ! Si rdu< ing rcstrii jn. I \meric in Rims through d I n t,s ňnd "othf minating information o! i; 111 bIkiui ' ndition abroad, negotiating íil 1 -, ncgotiatii ntal terms.1 1 líc n reľi I tn is " I he 1 ittle State I) irtmcnt" its funel nd metlu I ire not unli those ol tlie I v nem ma n office in tlie l Inited States q i well as an ork ■ in k» \ dim markets. It negoti ind - ■ k hieve it: [vjcctŕ ]t i inflm c l'\ '1 poliev, li even 1; been ■known i ns and subsidies and to !' b) virtue I Vmerican film IU( (J QUI n a''v- ■■ llllidll r_n, cwpoinl ': not pro • M PEA in en ning for- n diffi "v,!: ; has,. n .m-,, theappn ich r activities, the A an film industry '"'' " ' rm ol tl MI'I'A whose • Llv : Sil I '• in"it Solidarity ; in »1 n liTc MP1 \ hopel will ' :'!l1" ,! MPEAcan be fatal , , i '«* hieb can yield . lien in.ii.ir Monopol) and I I fade 9 \ annuall) Foi Vn in Blm I In a worldv ide . the i ol olid froni i an bi more - - \ dy. Mor« than a de< ad >, Eric Job • pr, m of tli«' MIMA, i laimed thai Amcri« an companies woul |ose $| , a ye m il i cr they i : d to individu I m in dcalii with foi i I« v | d iting: Out pictures fill aboul 60 pei t of I ic sa in Fo n I countries. V oru of them wanl toimp* frictions 1 go to the I m.Mľ . 11 n * -, nol thn iteningly, but to 1I1 it «.ur lili ep 1 ! than half of the thi ipen. 1 his n\t emp ■ men id a bolsi ; m ■ ■■■ iich< country is involvi d. And I « an l Vlini of the » revenue which tl Hut if only two ot thi meri pani pi tl ! a :, ú tion 1 on then ovt i ith Ů \ M r would 1<»,;'-* its wei] I . : dd ! us i our ranks .ire to be broken. We mu e the unU of polii It would seem that not onlv is uniformity nei 1 - trv '' he lion ní policy, ii has become a policy in itself. The M A has : I this point continuously, alth ;h n lení I r indi- l vidua! companies have rridden the »r a solid Front. The trade pr< h ob; ed that even th • American companies are joi: he M ram ,\ >rk the Ften main-tain an individual and mpol aanner 1. I lie observarj tion added that this type of absolutely geared to th< of 1 ait. w t much consideration cither For the ovei ill 1 e b j of unit) or the »norni hape of thinj . . . With the squeeze irder than ever 1 i revenue, the companies in Europe aren't I the rug From bc- nc.ith one another's 1 I Ins is illustrated, perhaps, by events which luring th MPUA's bo) :t ol the Danish and Spanish mat ^ The icial ' declaration ol the MPEA was that meml panies were halting all shipments ol films and thai thev would no L distril American pictun : until grievances had ' n eliminai ! ["he plan is to withdraw American films From the market, create a shortage, ind cut heavily into exhibition revenues. The 1, how did not lu^ciiou »v i uceived hecavi me Am npanies .. 69 9878 r I Spanish, , ... lunJK- ilH-ir 111,;, - l.iK-inl)-,,.- made available to a Damah istrib,.....■ , an An an company. ofviewi - .mplementary to the monopoly foundation ch tlie MPEA operates, lor the organization m c the Act, is entit] • ! repu UgH*™ lhľ Lomh" int nJÜffl 1SSÜ Ü2L21 cony .~[h7ÜH^ \ k lb MPEA i- monopoly in its activities, it ^pursues die < trines of competition, free- trade, and free enteqnisc. These U - arc- not necessarily at odd with monopoly for, in reality, they work to create market - " r for American companies. Fi < trade slo •.S.U gans and certain actň MPEA work to eliminate restric ns on the importation a .tion of America; lms in foreign mark e is. Reduction of barriers means easier access to the market for American pictures and a or ' rtunity to exploit them. The unified export activities of the ' ry. v> i v-i. lil ohtained. facilil a gn :er hold on I so operate to L discourage any su; ent restrictions v might he d. p Ti screen oui-M1- and import quota- a: restrictions on Free I . that is, rest on the e Bow ol American films into ma:k< • . Th t that companies have, at tii s, looked unl ly upon pro ms of Foreign governments h su] m product n through subsidies and rebates to produc . The belief v. t the unbination of quotas and produc- rmit forei n industries to operate with a competitive adv American films brought into these markets. Quo-• hmi i imp n .nd reserved a portion of exhibition time for while subs s permitted inducers to make films could compete with American products. rhe president in charge of foreign distribution for United 5 discussed th e mi ce a United Si H s Senate com-in 1956. He dealt specií, illy with 1 , as an example, and how Italian film producers benefit from a subsidy program. T he vice president said that this "has not served to te a healthy indi ■:.." He added: U1 : - pinion that subsidies and artíGcially creat« arl nditions only a ubsidize med :ritv, and the publj 1 not p:,; ,be such a medium to the extent n, iry to keep it '-";--Uhl- tin ,|] pi, . „ri! health,, . n.:. d C allows ability to be the t; l of whethet | Qrodi j »r ( (h j bi 101 1 ' ' "''M hiil ■■ ' *'' : ;' J re ults ol hi j efforts/ J This verbalization of 'i*'1 ! iterprise phil n i international seal nils for a co [rej in wl li n, ; of di! ni rigin can com] lor Favor, [n centering urely P_n ccpnorni tnd business considerations, the view overlo« the fact thai film is, in addition, a vehicle of creative and culti ral ,1.m. The film has been I cd into a business commor by those pcopL who h come to control it, but this does no1 and mnul, negate its role as a canŕ of images, iď ! In many ountri« . lue to economic factors v/hidi have been imposed on the film, it has perl e been considered in business terms only, from an economic view, film production in these countries may not be "healthy industry" hut the value of film as :• ionalizi makes it worthy oF state su irt in order for du( n to_c titim ^ The contention that "a free market allows ability to be the test" may seem plausible, but only in a business context. The American"! Indu; iryi in its campaign against restrictions in ovc markets, is clearly following its own economic interests, because th esc restrictions have been devised almost solel y * o pro t forei j ! ustries from being crippled or put out of business. The MPEA, legally em s d to monopolize export business for its members, in combination with demands for free trading in for n markers, has become a tv. -pronged instrument of policy. On the one hand, there is pr are for the elimination of trade barriers, and on the other there is an organization whose purpose it is to enter and secure foreign markets : r American films. With restrictions inoperative and foreign industries in a poor competitive position, the organized American industry could become as strongly entrenched abroad as it has been in its own domestic market. ^ The development of the European Economic Community (T.FC^ has posed a problem for the American industry7. In gei 1. the-' Common Market aims to reduce barriers over a period of . ars so, there can be an increased flow of pita!, and labor among its members, A key objective of the Community is the elimin tion of internal trade restrictions, which is wrovide the impetus for augmenting the circulation of commodities. In the Krst and Sceon. Directives pertaining to film of the EEC Council, s have ! :n taken in this direction. Import quotas applying to films made h' ... ' :v panded l n- í .• ■ ukl ! i,! tliai the aim the c • : ': Wl m ' ' 1 to how the ( nmj A:r.c: other non-Comi t.unlv. Ar.iorie.m hv. unil^i ! indeed, 1 I poliq illinth nental sta; There ,n industr ' :1 uni n b mmunity could both favoi .....u'es. c Johnsi ndorsed thi principle of the Common Marl h in i . He dec! American n p up in the functioning of the ic Community. Ni I nly lid he support the El he- mitar trade bli in ' .Africa, not clear v ther Mr. J n ston v the MPEA Ivis) to President T The position ' Ml '.. h' vcr, has been urc which contribul ĺ - - ■-' inomic sta: y and securi ist i J 'g run 1 cric.'.n business, including American film 1/____ 1 •' opinion in the r I has not I ■ n as optimistic, - reduction of western Europe's internal restric--Š2U -jmean an increase of external restrir But this has not the realm of the film. Noneth< I a belief within the lustry has been t those people in Europe who favor I ar Community principles to film would like to better their position 2: the expense of the American film. In 1959, var -ported tfc .1PEA executives :- more or less publicly what heretofore was Str; PŤate ». *« is. that the real purpose of the Com- T? ns was a «** defense against the domination or the U. S>. 1 on pietu n the European screen.« Th. k^cWdth !PE, cut„c. , he ^ sce jh n Marke, cold hop- in fa, thc ^„„^ „f the Eu.up,.jn sim lnduMly tIm m.g!]t mjt be at| ined tfjj I í 7/u: against ': . n economic conti pean production and distributi Vlthough t3 American companies ty be influ hen in ual European countries gen< 111 eir influence on a su; j r 133 is not as great and they can only assume the role of powerful, in ted observers. Because of thisj nd the uncertainty which has prevailed concerning the film industry's position within the Community fr rnev >rk, the American industry has recognized that it must adapt itself to pr bable changes in the European film industry's structure. American film com p a nies have one overriding raison d'etre: they are in business to make motion pictures which make money. They owe allegiance to the profit motive :. >ng a. oes not co. h the laws, poli , or v. the - ican g mm t. L05 ilty to profit does not put them b< nd producing picture in foreign countries; in fact, it encourages them. This b g so, they find I elves free to shoot films abroad as well as to invest in foreign-made films which are legally not American but 'Trench" or "Italian/' for example. This is important as far as the Common Market's application to the film industry is concerned, for it is one method by which Ameri-can industry can coexist with an organization which might have initiated policy unfavorable to the importation of films from the United States. The American industry's policy vis-a-vis the Common Marker has ' not been developed as a frontal assault on trade barriers which the Community could erect. Rather, it has been aimed at bypassing possible restrictions by a flanking movement. This entails direct and indirect investment in European film production, which removes the -American" ]\\\}g\ from a film and substitutes the na: 1 ality of the country in which the film was m ide. By this means, American companies can have their films, their revenues, but not the res:rictions which * tógu»- » -.....■•• -..... - - - curred in Múí nd ils ľ ns. WhiJe colonial 1 policies wot in force, the African market v i rviced From pa it countries in Europe. As the < tatus w I and Afri in dependencies I- me nations, the How of mi n pictures began to restructure itself and opportunities appeared t p new mad 11;. The Air.; n industry's ttention to .'. did not t hen new r. ns w< born. This only added new interest an u a plan which 1. n und consider n For almost a L c ind which hadi ndeveli I und r a different rat nale. T As early as 1952, Eric Johnston noted that American companies should 1~ 1 considering how to exploit new marke :r than nl ■ S'l...v on.e>:i>ting ones for • enu I le felt that some markets were then yielding as much as they could and that American companies : not exii t themselves trvinp to extract a few additional /iroin areas. Mr. dollars/-vhen the effort could be appl ^^^ ton ď red th '. rican companies would do well to look to s u ch mulcts as Afri; .nd the Far East where, as he emphasized, tl -. He beli' J that these L r red potentially ■. althy markets.' A : later, Mr. Johnston : the point in, 2 £u . was sti]l a major source of r< ue, it is ra] ming a static market In discuss- g f-u: : bili: • yield revenue, he deci i that "we have to g*1* hould ' gin to e...... more attention on • aari I like South America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa" even though initially "they m be 1- incone areas."0 Significant action apparent] n on th« : proposals until im^1 i:!c; which su; hat the compani. pohcy might ]>;.-. n decidedly short range in contrast to of the admini tivi I diplomatic side of the industry, which had urged action at least 'ts earlier. In 1959, MP] Ueon eni ,ere author ' ■ I • . ordingto ruing , . rican compani« ; .fnm •;:- -p , It was bJliev( : LPr^ndhng, the area , aid b, iad.....yield a go ,1 T h red" H-founded,l> :byi96( Afa > market was wordvclose , \rnJjcoZ£ oly and ř;r. Vrade 99 During iQÓo, Eric Johnston toured the Afri n mark to survey hibition iliti« tn ] : ict African government officials. ( reported purpose of thi tudy n u hich might wen ■ ict the c irculatíon of American films in the area. In noting that in it a i %.p{ the fill* distribution Variety reported: With the comii of indi endence, and the rising tide of nationalen, i! old ribution patterns are bound to change, and the result could be haos unl the LI. S. film industry can a :ncc local j mení hiefs of the i momic in mcc of trade as unrestrictive pos le. In Guinea, For example, [an Američanu ex© utivcj said, there have been m< the government to take oveT all film distribution as a : ernment function. "In Mich a situation/' [thecxecut; . "doesn't it make sense to have someone like Johnston go right to the top man and talk the matter ovi - In many t ises, tl 's no one beneath the top man who is empowered to handle the problem." In this case, the MPľA pressed for elimination oF restrictions, whether they were actual p,r pot_en' L\ continued to re] rl lis anonymous American executive's remarks, and in discussing trade harriers, added: Typical of the kind of ''protectionist" and/or unrealistic thinking in many of these areas . . . was that to be found in one newly independent African country . . . which has decided to build its own fdm industry bv placing prohibitive taxes on all foreign distributors. . . . The Johnston tour is designed to check this sort of situation, if possible, before it starts. The anonymous executive was quoted as saying that "we have to make them aware of the II. S. film industry and of the fact that we arc interested in the futures of their countri "10 Alter bis tour, Mr. Johnston indicated that Africa offered a substan-T tial opportunity i or the development of a new A n film market and predicted that revenue could be conside !v larger than it was at ic time. Before [960 ended, the MPEA had .ucho; d a o n nitt to consider developing a corporation for exploiting the west African market. The m ijor functions ol the new 1 iation were to be distri Uting films of member companies, developing exhibition facilities, an initiating a pr^Min <>l •: rnnieut reltti >. The last point can be ' *■ * f ' \ f - * • ■ : - i ..f - -. — . . . ---------: - - . .. - 1_ ' ' - : _ - rr.:: . . * JVm I - ". * — ' - Fhe rcici small m a own prints of H - - * T I _ '...... - - -------------- - : r- * — - -. " . - • .. - . _ - - ' • a 1 , t: ___ "^ .*-*«- T : ■ juítc the ..... --------- c- l led to pi ' t T] . v • " - .1 ■ 1 vnvr Lin -v in i the flow ol inc. as Amei iin which rn< m-In : then, the M i < w< :it United King ihsi s. The M ■-• inv • ■■ : '.. The - U) I] the ' us heir In the com ny ■' ' ■ tions, tl the ma HI: - ns of f:hn West Gernnnv u Uter. Th I T e how events! fe with ^ - difficult • in hi I f.Cn ■ produc-■ ,in. d fib a. In •ml supplier, and little n tin: 1J* In ■ In Marcl VV ■; 1: • them Ives 1 hundred picru into '•-'■•• had agreed on . ling ol 3 V- , I he n -'nrr= he/ ' : latter as a n e to bl n- All \V mmi! don could to items they did not contribute to I Germany, or if d The occui ion sta Law Five on ''Freedom of Pr ment." The proposal of tl West ( ; the Commissions Ltt< nd in J :. :-.- «je >arli n < im; i Ameri • films. In its rej< ction, the C • was an informal n an applied to matt«: con( rning the immediate threat A: feature pictures. Law Five, h r, was \ refer explicitly to h ton. Article I < - .., The German pn be free .... [and that tl W I ligh C . cancel or tive, or fi ial. h th ._• I he law did i the Al 11 i C ■.t .. W German Is for ir rts w ' i eoun industry. M ni i to invali measi West German goven ni [*hu impoitouv was . . \c 1 *+ • - ' ■ I I . «; - , " „ _ : i ... 5 . ^ - . ___ 1 I • * - x - ^ r - _ ■ f * - " f* m ; .n ■:: r.: s r\ : * - II- S. 1 I- -i-Ä * * * • - • . r> ■■» . - • i . V ■ :■ 1 ■ i lem 1 :.: ': i:. Fr:r: "/he stancf in! : ti the U. S. Hic e * ;--■ ..... • - . - - - ■■ ^ iiiz:-^...... ^. —-■------- _. ______ - r: •- : ;- r:5 : - t • r* J U MT-" -" - - - " for ^-- v ,<----■• ■ v V * ^ K I___ W s- v' . :rroe:;y 1 ] I_____> I \c ■ I \ *' - -I . > M ^H : W>*W*V; ■ M International 1 i [ndu9TRii B ________ Y :h íi.is evcj ajípJj« I • i man 1 I. . ■ a t 1 i X I * «* 1 T ^ » * t '■ crmittinc American com-í almost twice the number i IQ U offi ns hef - • tiu\ mid bccQi TTifcsfc, I not imply th -"ill: ' ns™K anjque the West G man markei or thai they Functioned only in .he;mr The 1959 film lent between the "\lpEA ■ . le, call« or similar proteel in that the agreement bound Italian film authorities psnc rywi thelta] pvernmerrt to insure that .], , ch n Italian film i lation which would ;tiv: FtheMPEA I its members in Italy. M he 1 lian film industry, through AXICA. pledged to n From demi s which would fun her newbi • imporl tion, dubbing, or distribu- nging to M PEA member companies.1' In p P. P; that "l . I nan motion picture indi till täte oF uncefl tv and insolvency."10 That P ■ could he made n much truth. The second war, in ; the German war machine. > largely destroyed the film Jn . try which 1: The 1 m in p ;twar West G( ny g the An indu an rtunitj L JQ ai nposing its own c the market. One writer. I the h the Uníti I States Forces in Thcanc. has contended d - the [Ami through its European repn i ntatives in Paris and on ; Military G nt in Germany as distribution •In:uit ' to convince occupation authorities that ir ! uld in ei i lounted to a tion pictui li tríbution, bul of production hipoftheaö ell. The índusi n intern I ' thesho g of German films for fear of competition. ; fdv ' ; í the showing of I man filnu 1 its< itrol of the markei in Germany." . . - - lA- n iiliM history is revii ■y.IlMlusualconclusion is that W~r G«mfl„., }• m vítal a ; u ,\\u\ a yj tble ej "wmic production force. Ordinarily _is attributed tg tilg Bighl o( lilm peoplq ! t ( ierrqany in tin >Ws. the moral drain <>n the country due to th war, aiul the rccon difficulties after the war. I h r. one must add to this li a the [oi o]n I the Ai n industry, for it 3 was significan shaping the postwar lilm climate in Germany as well as in r nations. J 6 r 11 ■ i i ■ ,1 : lions abroad in ! <■ -^"»i«n I iciure Association of America and ( uraii 1 1 I »' *e producers' . ,tion. The on in the Arne . ,n marl I 1,in iations which v mid lie to maintaining or increasing their secu, ,lCl , - ;. rc Itcd within l li Fi i in the : I. it oin- : .. . i . t i« ' mm int everywhere in that it In ! n 1 1 t I ' ' ' * • «i * * * ■ • 4 ' 1 ■ [n 1 * ■ the n »IT: t p] • ]•.- lu • nd i , 1 1 • i i t; i m rallcl -i ; trium: ilL I II truc in [n h I'm th .' í 111 the the u lil / of view m i more tli i in K\ . . I ■: has woi n gain of both p irties. Italy, perhap ypifie ■ this In >r ol Ií.tl I h i ind; n, AN I< 1 the h u the i ordial i >n- sh rid II ili in industrie add develop from a ! interchange i happy tatu of mine co-pi Since th I itions b veen the i in lu strieš have developed e; ively. ľ have American companii done a consie amount of sh< ting in Italian studios, but they ha participated directly in making [talian films by providing production financing and al by di tributing them. The same general conditions dd hold true for An Americ . film rel ns, although those have a loi r history. The advantages I lined by belonging to a trade association are r unevei^fc :i one ex nnines the < ; T ;e Luropcan indust: • . •* r*** ■ k ■ * ■ . i * • 4 ■ - I ' ^^^fc ' . ■ . I i ' • ]vn . M. In M [nDUST] riy or by the French distribui only. Both nationals .ndforthe ' «rantee the placní I fth« ' ble. Concern ; rental terms, distribui pn ofTei I,lms on ntage ba whilc libit, prefer to rent pi« r i Bal fee. Hius, mai differences which do with.n the industry would be there i ven Amen companies w t present, because they are built into the Iu:, |, n wholesaler and retailer. i deny thai Ann ompanies i powerful and ., : . jn ■ poli ions. \\ hen mov< m< l hich could thn n n their position in ovei n market th, iil ai in brin nt pr< n in th( pri he ] ■ ntial harm. The i \;u ric in companii play in fii ly upportinj »n trade i ns is i through h uch ] iure can I> en 1. In Belgium, for i imple, the de la ( matogi phi< ives m than fur. i Amei in companies which belon to it. I!i • com; units: American compani« . ' indepi h member contributi ■ on il busini turnover. In recent \ rs, American companies ha' irribi I ! bout 60 percent of the associa 'liri mpani ut 25 pera nt, while come I 1 th< 1 ndents. The votii g pi ;',;n tn< ini2 I on r n uč contributed; rather ' • 'ľ • ■■ on 1 le council which mala •■ ! 'tíon 1 licy question Althi h American Hy . as far as number 1 main- ■ third . : in determining polic) 11 in balloting as the thre. zen 1 . panics. ilethi ' itructur, of die ltion, th i q 1 ■. o, .:i .1 ■ .. ;'V' 1S' '**» «iation is considered on an industry rep* Entatii in Europe de- ,al oUh ' ognize the power and /;, eni ition and R< mie n3 vhen policy wa d< eloped for all distributors, íl d that it nerally originated with Am< ri< an com md that othei ly I Uowed, recognizii | : I whai w 1 fot Americans also would ! I for them. Ii seems that because Am« ri in compa ;pply the mo | films ;,,,,! are the : I money ■ rs in the Belgian market, they ;,,. in i position to de t] more i ffectively with exhibitors than \ II, c and il "i Fren< h and in i lent distributors. I The drive by American distributors for hi r Bim rental fees h | n linked in some i vith their member ip in local tr ■ -, rations, the number of American produ< : films declined and the investment in them in< ed, American companies found th returns from box offic< Europe were h nate to support this more costly style of production. While rr-nt.il term »f 30 or 35 perceni of the exhibitor's gross n e sixffic 1 film -ts were small, they have been deemed inadequate for multimillion doli pictures. So, American distributors ha pn ed f01 - r portions the toial box office p ■ In Switzerland in the early 19' s the exhibit' I distribui associations were locked in battle for more than thre ears over film rental fees. Exhibitors had agreed amoi 3 not to accept 1 film for which rentals would be more th 70 percent of gros-; receipts. This rate was the ceiling for " pedal" film-more extravag mt, and more costly than "regular" pictur< vhich rented at a lower percentage. While exhibil ; had establis ceiling, distributors were engaged in trying to desl : complete!1.', or at least moving it to a higher h 1 of, perhaps, 60 or it. When negotiations bctv. en \hibitors and distributors rcac' impasse, the matter was taken to Swiss court be distribui association. It is reported in Switzerland that about h fun collected to support the campaign came from American In the A sociation Suisse des Distributeurs de Films, h r, there •■i«: some forty members hut only seven of these were American distributors or representatives of Vmerican distributors. "I I nil by virtue oi American leadership in the realm 1 E cpensive film "1 u in \ had the most to gain : m 1 viel m^\ were th ;st finan< i ,1 1 ontributors to the action. rhe campaign foi higher rental term. ! 0 has < d in Norway. Immecliah [y after World War II. then vas a drive ai 'A ian distributors for an ii í in the rental fee which v ^o p< r of the exhibitors1 ■ s n rdless of the type of film being off Fit m Indus-™ fictilti lAi her rental pc ly, Am n I'e prevailing Icrm and in the i irly i ■ . as urc . \ipF . he fight bycallin n e D and the ' ncn ssy in Osl ; were held on nment il >utor-exhibitor level. In-•nd em ind go'- rrmenl the rental ibil-> per This re stni( re ce th * the Norwegian the new t rms I them municipally ho:c< to the new rental e ľ ins jld be off d in mij t bei ■ uld receive - ..... film for ■ • i • i - r. • § m 7 '•'•vr'; arjŕ ■ ■ * * ■ -■ ■ can be • 1 * i .i nn - - ■ n r h ^ ( ä- R I '.-, It "' have The n D*ni i in in i n—th< I b in D mark 1 • it did in [( il exhibit' 'in film : rom : pen nt r b pi ed. Danish I. The of d MPEA that ti tn D tine in n ; mtínue to | nt in tl the r-ame films I nt. Discu ns \y n Am brought little result. To break t its memi would r offer film i i i - market. This move, annou iy, 5, that sti: ng the theati i in Dei line. The MPEA market would create a shorts admission r nue also \ íld tur, lieved they could sacrifice the return De mark (about $1,000,00c a y : ř bul cope with the lack of An the boycott to last thr< le lc The MPEA, however, 1 production of Britain, Frai that portion of reen ie : films. In effect, the : tl did created a ;c of Arne ns. to do l in I h it on American inde ;. 1 ; the . Llll) I Vraeri r With ft «... I I! I I ; : . . the I i i • \ 5 . an . l icn Si i . . . : : I c overseas i I \ ' null I to "n — boon i Is . m orts will ■ lc ham id of the inci in . da nd - • . . ' •>, 3-. L : I ..... I ended ' [95 three . :irs ■ It had lasa lor, of could bť ill rep- - :t i that the it can no ded [and] can't afford to s q«! of: "The i Den: 1PE.-V and the fact co: s against one a: - alid.is ,e ,, few./ ■ v.r.- ■ . - lhe nu: • dependenc • - fordu . ri- 1 n> \\ hile thi : * ' i tercel on inci ' rship in ! hicl ! I imi ' - in V 1 jn íl-, ie cen- r the ( . 1m ir m com nies felt m hip in ' \ n in ti. rr. beca th iati thii ' *e equal to thai nd thu to c is all cl una mous. In add ' : /Oting ' n c enefit Belong ; to SPIO meani at all time ing and planning nd can 1. gov app s c: am* : 1 \ eto be , am! the c are pie I that tl SPIO at American distril rs were convinced . SPIO "result in improved ( rm n-Amei n f —; cause the Germans "h in . . . px own indusl y at the ex] of Holh These statemen re not 1 - the American companies could hold in the G :. On the contrary, they demon I. -.:c the tec . n di used to secure a firm p ion I V. i 3 w made in 195c, the following de< belonging could be 1 tool in the An n policy. In 1963, the M PEA n e in V. : G 1 trade journalist 1 there wei ntínuing e I ts on th protecti( 0 curb our ition my. 1 r, he*, to declare: I Feel that while we lu\ position, n confident í/1..... I aiv\ Italics mine} c x fr, an Au» m rep] ;entatíve in ( many declared tha, : a showdown in the distributor n oJ b\ IU, n members could blot* any policy they Felt was unfav. ble :r -; . This wee indicated that through annual dues paid :!lc ion, American companies were indirect!) sup- porting SPIO. The advantages of association membership ' :o were demons!i l d i the United Kingdom when the government and the industry W( o drafting the 196c Films Act. This legislation was to replace earlie laws which regulated the film indu ' in the United Kin an. An nt part of the Act was the definition of a "British" film, for on it hi : á the subsidy allocated to producers. On this point, American a direct inter. for their subsidiaries in Britain were, making pictures which at that time were meeting the official and legal for being labeled "British.'" As such, they were eligible government-approved subsidization. Any modification in the definition of a "British" picture which would make it more difficult for films of American companies to acquire this label would work against the interests of American producers. In 1950, the British Film Producers Association (BFPA) submitted memorandum to the Board of Trade setting forth its position on the proposed legislation. Among other points, the BFPA felt the "British" : sl; ! noL be : «fed on the same basis as it had been in the st. The nation believed that employment of non-British direc-nd producers should be more limited, and that this, when . ould make it more difficult for the productions Tif°mP J8* ed "British» and have access to the aid BH red it was improper 11 fiW l0 bavc lll(: hePr< fon«M n imp]; k upon Ameri "": I "British" films and dr, payments from IU" P-d. T^e Association 1 5Te sus2 » hoc. SĽ ' ltotheBoard ,,.... of a film,, ,.,„...,. . f.«m be of British nati ! resident in the D ' ,""" ' ""' ilj ' Mis the, • 'w Ufge that if one p( ,n on hi Kaa: rose n taúon and 1 119 řulfi] one or the othei of thi se requirements; i.e., he cannot I e tl. , person mention« who need not fulfil the This s tion struck at American c ipanies who, althi h cm- ploying the legal minimum nun E British technical nd a in their filn had often used Am n produce] and directors. It meant that British nationals, nominally at least, would have more introl over "British" film production and perhaps that m Bi .h producers and directors would be empl< I- Ac< in Ameri- can industry i ntative in London, the BFPA reo md >n as "dead against our intcre " For it would h pi clcs in the p ith of draw i the Bril h subsidy fund. That this was the intent of the hen t! Federation of British Film Malo (FBFM submitted its r len- dations to the Board of Ti The FBFM, criticizing the A lions memorandum, stated it w igned to "im Aj ri- can co-operation' and coulcl be regarded as a "reo 'for ti British film industry. In outlining the need of ision A more than one foreign producer and direc . the F There are some cases, not large in number but f cc d- crable importance, when finance will be available for a film . foreign producer and a fo* ;n director but 11 not be otherwise. We think it quire unreas* e that acr should be taken because of a handful of c ..... We cannot afford to drive awaj from our studie. A im [Anglo-American] productions.9 The key to understanding the »n ' .tion. ostensibly an organization fur British produc ! in th group's annual report for [958 fO: A nid p 1 ■ foi tti : the Fed« m was 1 that an important bod i of h film 1 mse they had An in 1 . With a m- hip that includes 1 ■it 01 itions, the the climate 1 and t i th< - on 1 he ' ! fuithcr subini year, and in mam I I m I- ifir kroner, shipped it to ftaly in c lire, re we have used the lire to build or rebuild ships to go r>" rseas to be sold for American dollars; we even raised a sunken French : . harbor of -Marseilles and repaired it, p >r it with French francs, and shipping it to the United S For dollars; we have made Scotch-type in C sold it in America for .American dollars. All in all, we ve a very •- organization constantlv work; to get our dollars over . that beset vou nowada ; in foreign tr ide. Senator Fulbricht: You are verv ingenious. Mr. Johnston: We have to be. "I tt is the on!-. v e can our monev out. I will >ure vou.13 Other arrangements with blocked ;• . n the ship- building business in Italy. Beginning in 1 ;$, as par; m men between the Italian and American industrie . pr -ere made for the use of blocked American r 1 inues. The initial ag ■-ment provided that about 25 percent of the« rnings 1 uld b< im ! In American companies in Italy' emi ' hu company, Finme a. The compan) n guarai . repay . '"•'in amount of American dollars, but .11 ,1 di ed rate, wl h was reported to be about 14 p . Evidence sug 5 thai the American companies used this nt on .! nee is ! For substantial sums. By July, 1954, American companies were said to have just compli ted their third compensation deal with ! 1 ca '"'' •" I'ourtccn months later, it was reported that ■» ** ^H** *-'■••> "^^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^p^H ■in . Internationa] índustri of ...... • * - ■- . »"WS - - i * * * * . I. 1 * •' * • . < ir blocl i ' - * 1 1 " ' 1 D * ■ -1 re ■ -— — o v a*- **' • • i * • r. ■ - Ar .r. I - r^A í ^ . - r- ' - — : :he : - . . r * ? j ^1- ' i ? :t i 4 . r * *o a # * - 7: The American Film Industry and the American Government in Postwar Germany Bi , the « hip of the govern nt and the film mutual support. The nment pc..... 3 the c: in which all ry oper I md industry has an I i" P" existing sc :r. The film industry, ind motions, can be a powerful ally of nd '■ ' oic order, both at home and abroad. The film : dul in ument of prop nda v !ved in irdes« Id war and grew to maturity in nd early 19 At this time, occupation forces in V , ':Jlt10 educate the (ierm in p. le. I low was the C U,M ,of d( ^ «i ideas and inculcating those of demo- to be accomplished? Hov ( munismt.be *®™>* lying "our" point of view, seemed tument which could be aimed at 1 J) opponents. }J ™ and the film industry are tenuous, W ' oincide. Tie profit motive on 'i'1 ':- - =.n; ■- Ů other, may pull th. ,0 : ilar,howi ulJĽľľJ ely for mutual >. Even when ir me ultimate mir - A'(Y í s " v,,,( '"' '->— °uSeid......„I ;et! »Private and publi. teres* 1 >"........' U'/3A niore re. oeni /,; Postu^or Germany I25 ,;,„, of the role film could play in thi irnmcnťs prop nda rk. In a Senate sp< ch, he discui 1 film, radio, and printed matter, claiming thai "for all practical pur; ;, it may be said we are not using them at all." I [e d< 11 ired: Their impai 1 today, in our intere ts, ia that of a midget. I make an exception of the I lollv od motion picture, with its varying type of impai 1. They do have the pi ' rength of a tnt, and m plea i< v i-, that '■ them a chance. Nothing equals the motion pii ture In its capacity for gripping and holding masses of people, and communicating information and attitudes in vivid, remarkable form.. . . We need l jet the pictures. We do not have them now. We 1 1 to show them. Their impact can indeed change the fact of history.1 Senator Benton introduced a resolution asking that "the in !onal prop: lion of the democratic creed be m n instrument of na- tional policy. . . ." With governmental needs favorable to employment of film for propaganda purposes, the film industry wa3 quick to support this policy. If the government actively pursue t r dispei 1 of Am can films throughout the world, the industry likely to gain in a business sense from the additional revenue such cli-; »rings. 1 he dual advantages were recognized bv the film i lustry, for it realized that a push from the government could be useful in developing new markets and for making old ones yield 1 : revenue. I 0 assist the drive for favorable operating conditions abroad, the indus rd to follow up the government's belief that film could be u ul fc rop ganda. Spyros Skouras of Twentieth ( iturv-Fox once urged industry to "work harder and harder to create [a] mi i mary spirit." "This will not only be of great importance to the motion picture industry economically," he said, "but it will also en ible 1. to diligently discharge the sacred duty of our great medium to help enlighl humanity." Skouras added that it is a solemn responsibility of our industry to incre n \ picture outlets throughout the free world because it has ' n shown that no medium can play a greal part than the m in picture in indoctrinating people into the Frei way of life and h stilling in them a compelling d ire For Freedom and hope For a brighter Future. Therefore, we as an indi y can plav an i tv important part in the worldwide tdeolo al stru ;Ie for the mind of nirn -mJ confound the Communist propa indi J have us ßlm c p, because, basically, the; , c 'em and noi b< con- ,nl nnwith n cooperate with the n tl- uni • Qts rather than which pi hi would call films alread ' point of nphasize it. th< lly I ■ tation of the I all g the pi duction ol films .-. 11" th< me pictures _ mment, so much the ■ nmunic.itions \r ...... is been rion of frei lom of ion of g r»l '.rom the ( -ion and I of n ion. This —freedom of the p the film industry and tent are involved. Eric d that "H ood is i I in the business g out ; use as weapons in the ^d i business," he md believed by U- . ompanies' belie f thai a ■ " ' °f: n industry and government is not likely to 1 ill decline .md p ibly a ::I n; u independently, is impli< I nai mmitl 'in i* Pictui an idea ' h it is difficult in , and i. the main r< n, we think. 1 ■ ■ - iou i . "I! p] nd ' Icct i m un an ma te and the í> m i hich they mine) . . V ire n m I ireful and set u tcria as to tures hould be sent to and ť have doni that on I ir own. I ha\ i i ] ■ ... of what ] 'del go in: hat . and whether a picture is h nd whethet it will mí deal i pod. The th .... The ire a goo OUT pietu that ar Ot sh . . ,e Senator 1. William Fulbright w n the coi litte I Mr. Johnstons si nt. In light of thi film s a n. Sc tor Fulbrighl pushed th< itter I her and the foi ie resulted: Senator Fulbright: What de: etui Id abroad or not"? Ir h a commercial determin ion, is m think will sell? Mr. Johnston: Yes. Drama sells abroad bette~. but I n n; pert. . . . S: NATOR Fui BRICHT: You don't have t d that your test, the criterion you usv > v er or not money. Isn't that vour ob ti Mr. Johnston: Of course, we we - - mmerci. \ Hollywood cooperates with Wasi n bul i it does not forfeit its autonomy. A vice - Pai tures. in discussing film pi / has S I th/.; . . . we try to find out whet : th. : matter at w handli would he m\ ofl m a the area v. r Government is havii í. it' so, not to do i:. \\"e try, where we i, to ini things that will ' > ; friendlin i in r tion to that cou thai BA . ■ V e loni l it under th.1 md Ot I : th< atiol * I dv in the ^ nment.* lluie is another i ment im 1 in tl m nul it is the ob> ' aei that A in aud lso • ■ ■ ' I ^» te c :n ... the C í I - an ; produce« W.11,1 dunk, ■ tv n indv try and gov- ;,. Germany, he Allied ... rm the coir l uld not be of "h« : e ideologies of superior ke war for purpose of ^ territorial , ■ . ' iny's physical tím ill : For an intensive program of ny and for controls over all lucts ttives of American ; the m< ■ they carried ■ r ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ índi h d in its libraries thou ands of pic-bieb i Id be pla at the disposal of the Military Govem- lu( atii i n. In recalling this period and - | :;- e obi erved: In i * ts oř top United Stales occupation American I were s< nl into Germany . . ■ a topped.. . . American leaders recognized that íl; i iida pictures would I during the critical post ■'I in to ilľ E the occupied an i tn : Am« rii .m lifi demo« ratíc institutions. Tl Bin i i. i ! i,, i n Ameri a and the fonftei ■ ■"' ''" '']i! indu tiy I the pictures at no profil t" l(»v. I'.ii- i ■ ,| j....!..-: (-xucsscs.ri^^H . i " c , .. t íanv until * 4 AC Amen- ___ft mi The n ol operating md showin . \meri n films pro m for the reopenii of h rapidly ns was d • One w M affairs at the time, has stated that real difncul motion picture houses opened lay in the short v ,;. Military Government did n I have enoi i dill which to select, and of th it did have, prints. Even though theatres could enough films available to show in them. The problem might have been solved es the American motion picture industry ď lin laid down by the United States G tip i Germany."15 The film industry and particul irly the »1 ling the reservoir of thousands of pietu: ho] i re e sions from the Military Government which would gi\ . minanl position in the German market. In partial pop, to this -military officials decided they would have to auth< tl i. nings, the its . of films ---------- ... 0 thin the An n July. Decern! to \' t Ťovcrn- I of hi inly in G ny our of the thoi - : Milii y Gov- .. "* -" - T ^* ; e in.' trickle of films. - Clure had umber of conferee í n an effort the reeducation re : :ed to Germany, he could re to "utilize the • n e irion for American 17 He felt the government . and then only if es. Ev the summer of ' l t the film industr ,as not films . .ble ■ m companies on pEA insisted it on] it should have .should be ™«> rong opposition «H -hichUnted to , - ;•• Římany ana ej the Bav in Fill ,; n production pur •jj, rv ( rnn .hile, . I prohibited American impanies from pu t in- ring in r md from buy- ing items in ich nd type-. rs. 'I'j md r prop made by the American : ran contrary ■ object»"- the [ilitar n men 11 mind. Tne latter called for the rebuilding f a film industi it would 1 iermanino] tionandinf ancialsuj 11 as pol d economic f independent. The Mili r< lent fe md try had to be rebuilt as a German en not :n American subsidiary, and that there should be no min :.:on policies. As a step toward this, ( :an film n i non- Nazi records were encouraged to as! vet n permission to start production companies Hollywood continued to use its control of films as a inin weapon. Militär.' officials found th ems.! ves in a » t h ss position because they needed pictures and these could be n ble only by the companies. When finally the policy it allowed American companies to e: md disti j- tion of films in the American zone of Germany. H r. it con- tinued to forbid American investment in : -es. ana prol : the acquisition of German raw stock for the makinr. : . for trade. The effect of the new policy pted by the Milii ry G vem-ment was to give American companies entry into i of the three levels of the German film indu —: roducrion and disti m— and to establish a virtual monopolv of Him du ion in the . sri- can zone. Plans for film production in Germany by Arne nies were never undertaken on a large scale, for : ons to be discussed in a later chapter. 1 In February, 1948, the MPEA officially began di ; Ameri- can films in West Germany, taking over the function of the Inforr tion Services Division of the Military Government. The MPEA ex-panded its own organization and established seven main branches r service theatres in the American, British, and French zones. TT. earnings of American films, however, continued to be fn n, but instead of going into an account und Mili: y C . mm© fell into an MPEA account. 1 [] he question of withdraw money from the market was unsettled and the American indu ill wondering how it would convert reichsmarks into dollars. 1 his problem touched other American media doing I in ! many. i^^Mv the print media. Some Ann n authors. >m- nttoseJlC manpubi( n nghts to their wi Id» « their blocked cm.. TT»« was then pn .m, and oíRaak in Wash ps to,, it. In i . the informational Media n : am (IMG carted as part ol the! conom» I oop ration. The pi run perm d the converring i ,cíes into dollai w i »res, providin the . v the money reflo • I the besi elements hi w .i d ded advanl to the film companii ilirm ind exhibil theii tures in difficult n vvith that some ol the resultin .-.. uld I to them in di rs. im] ' itly, it i p mded :I;._; i,- ber ol luld be ! by the American industry, and pul an I" label on Hol lyw ľs work. American ill die ' mb; Al the I the IM( I laum ■■]. German cur- d the I unii ! amc the deutsche Uilii . i . ■ official i ; o\ cr tin' md the o i up ition rk. 1 íowevei i n version of ■ th' was noi authoi ! and I e the frozen eam->n| I theIM( ■ m. '' I thai IMG did m i u rant« i lars for all :" ( \n Ami eligible to : ' I by the ! ' ,: ide oni» Ů hi, h 1 : :' ': I A, m life, or • « ■ hav, id ie„, ,|„......,;„„ ,,, I •' «*......b.c.........„r,l,, Í .....t "',l"" .......'"■......IvaJuí .,," < K «I». la. Gl.....»s no, x: ;:......r° umis to Hic (.ťrnian /;; / ' |)nmi.. the i,j: ; rental ir, only xty-four American Hin weľC rP], .,| in Germa In the following rental ir the number jumped to i \$, in i yi to i, and in i . to >. I i of the [MG pn im is ppareni when call that I n VI'. Day and Maw 1947, "n'v '^'v- 'Vm' '" ^ms were r'''' Germany, in th< ime i Am< an films were re! rem [anuary i, 1950, to April i, i ;i, a sharp conn to the 170 reh 1 \ E I >a) and the i nd of í nd the ,,.,, ,,-ily new oni . for of the .| [8 American films reh 1 up April, it, i, about 20 pei nl had been madi prior to I! imulus to relea ime from the availability of doll nd the availability of dollars temmed from 1 need ŕ pro] pnda. Tlie first media contraci e: d by [MG ned with tl [PEA in D< mber, 194 ind covered films r< í cd from August r id December 31, 1 I. ľne valne of this contra I w .It later was ■ tend ! ax months to V •' l r, i . increased to 457,000. The MPEA proposed to listribute during thi ri I th prints each of forty-four black and white featui and a number of shi . in thi . month I h :nd . IM guaranteed >,ooo for MPEA films, in 195 . for more than $3,000,00 md wl took place for Ů 1951 program, the American indu I -" . in. $4,000,000.ľl The paymenl policy of [MG underwent some m s tl . program functioned over die years, reflectii appropriated for it and the way funds v\ dr media. 'I he arrangemenl under the t motion picture For conversion of marl up to the ual dii attributable to the proji its vered. ľ [inning in 1 . the tees were isstn d On a more lib d b tsis. [n tual ni of pockel 1 incurred by tl ibul ble to have an amouni equal ti n nil . -m 1 . !l||n converted From marl mm dollars. V industry e m M' s, thi 1 nl of pockel expen iw s \ and the f th ( ■«•nnm langti 1 version) normall) ' foi film. I hus, foi ev( n Feature the [MG led Í. it iy 8DOUI ,. I d u the \m n ind y beneři .1 finai illv 'muh the IMG sul !\ i am I i rom the fi retro to Au t i, 19 |8, until the e »n on ; '95 I. °' !'lr Ilv| contrjet under which Jol! r »3 N Ti ÜRNATIONAL FlLM . lts by IMC W mi film compani. amount. | ram working, and with approaching I >Ue rb]oc]< n„; int. lollars, me American indu try s n market drastically chai 1. Its policy I :man? Ims as it th< ht the m nly that, but th< i industry thwarted the nentofan rt quota in ( m ny. Di ussions in Wash-en MPEA tariA and the State D nt the U.S. High (lomm r in ( rmany that ! D ment wanl no quota on the importation of American '.-cr m d. T nee i American coir p a nie s to nd films to West Germany prior to the IMG pn ram was a result of concern with .'cnue. I n the Military Gm rnment's obii tive, to reeducal Ger- mv, w cic: icentivel i the companies. The evenl which tu: I tb I Am •) films inti torrent was, clearly, the r initial s by the American vemment. Th I the IMG pn lucrative to Hollyw .....ent when the House of - consi n appn n to the U.S. Information in : - Congrc n H. R. C attacked film industry ton and the IMG, declaring that through i •: -he "M< n Picture ' n has been given a •d ride on itional medi n. . . ."" noffiln toGerr istrates one Facet it relations, ... her area can be illuminated by : of the antimonopoly issu< it , i red in the postwar German film ú ry. At tl of the war, there existed no private ' jr. Tl tire industry had been organized b, d« regraie under thi «vernment- ned UFI, a gigantic hold ľľaCUF? QaíntaÍned C0mr01 °VCr ik "W '"*' Univaium ^eUFI«nJ ^ ,ted . reat economic power as it in- • «*y« ,;v:\ '?'■-■■. ■• ■ ■•■•■■•■■ . "■ '" n ite, 90th ' •' • ' '«t P- ... Office fet,0Wfl' '■' ''"' G™<> eluded not only produ m, distribution, and exhibition facilities, but labor . music publishing, cripl publishing, «lie niH| other in h carried the UFI influence into broader Ids. W tern occupation authorities r ignized the dangero» :• that a : instituted UFI could exert upon postwar German business. They beli d a n ly in the motion picture busine ould not be con nt with the best interests of a new, democrat •rmany. In contrast to .t Gen oy where only one large company was authorized, the Americans, British, and French agreed to place the new \\ t German film industry on a thoroughly competitive basis. This called for the restructuring of the entire industry and the destruction of the UFI trust. The V, e tern Powers believed that the new German industry should be composed of small independent units. The three levels of the film business—production, distribution, and exhibition—were to be separated, and within each level there to be competition among companies. This policy was al in broad agreement with v it the Air can industry desired in Germany. The industry preferred to see Germany become a free market and it felt this could not be ach: x! if UFI were to regain the strength it had during the Mitier era. A reconstituted UFI would have offered competition, especially in view of the American industry's desire to establish its own control in the German market. The MPEA was active in pressing for the destruction of UFI and for the sale of former UFI properties. Eric Johnston transmitted his association's concern to occupation authorities on numerous occasions. As Variety once reported: With the monopoly powers of UFA under the Nazis still c irly in mind, MPEA doesn't propose to let this threat to one of its mo valuable foreign markets go unchallenged. ... In terms of dolla remittances, Germanv in 1954 will deliver in í ess of $13,000,000" Hie desires of the American companies in the UFI problem wei concisely stated to this author by an American industry representative: "We would not want í j a mon< v here." En addition. American interests had expressed a wish to buy some of the UFI properties. J he policy ol the western * Ltion authorities was put into el -t as soon as the war ended, and continued during the immedial it-war years. Independent German producers were licensed in the th western zones and by [948 mo than twenty companies had been : G i ■ * * i m i . . . . i C ; : in be ; ' -. : : .. ; polii rties, : ees of U ition. fhe I 1- at - - rding t . - j • + H :e s L - In - - ": I . I 1 \ - - • - 1 ' : í 1 In P z37 I : n Commi í, Yet th n to c UFI num, s- \\T T \Y -' ' "lni in :" law, the High ( UFI j rties. Th< r t< n in . er, 1 oeitt did rr Fruitful. The il : American High ( mmi á: e b ........ c but 1 ucc ____ >us : ere ľse perties. T maj r < ; them hasl ( v. : have been un purchase since vei rai be n- tg má\ * - loa picture industry. "' High Co: ission efl rts to sell rts c I ronibii criticism from the C ■jgnient of the p:. 5 beli the n nt motion pic:.:re busine greater danger to ment of the £ c than another mc: the hands of a few big comi le government rr.er :he High Commi -ait ui it law for the c :;: ~ . UFI pr pertie . C ment were critical : the Com- \ Dr. chair": an of the parliai ■ - :- ing. j that : UFI n act mi :.:"-;: companies v ith B Hioh C Gen . Dr. \ ■ n< five v 1 1 1 Toe: x * rt :;. 1 ľ - - , - ld pudern German E, i» Uministratfoi hedestru« n of the Go Im monopoly was purely B the High Commissi announced it would make no further attemp de HB and d ction would depend upon the German ;1t dev( a pr n for this purpose. In the months which foil d, pi> of the in-'l combine gradually were handi .cr to the West German government by the l ligh Commission. 1 he curred in December, i ■.. and ai thai time the fate of UFI r hands of the Bon vernment and German ts nd í : 1\ nwhile, i E the UFI combine had been leased and - independent film companies which had ' stablished mder the Military Government licensing procedure or under ;. Thus, when the German government in-rited cor UFI. it was an operating entity and in a structure that of the Mr riter has [ tha: by 1953 the "deconcentration of tbc 11 partii into, nomically viable and competitive units implished." He noted that experience with • ů, iron, and steel indusl : id demonstrated that "deconcentration n out matter." In discussing the film industry's a id n 10 other media of mass communication the author stated: The G n democratic press has a good chance of survival. The f sahe teningcont iousness of its public service í »ft* "* a ''—*■ to main^ L g^ut » »ndusny, ,t is perhaps too much to exp. r that future ; f be along the lines desired by^^edlíth Commi on for Germany]." 7 8 *ÄL2 of4eUFIr 1....."-956 • a resuli tin- ľ ln lm ' •' •''<• «■S S iLb' ■.....<........I! «x* remain, í vir |] ;„,,,.. ",, '"' "'»»"n in the western y intact, although i, mershin^s no longer smr. i,„ |, )] 1 05iw(ir LrCniiany <^yr in government hands. One p on in the Biro industry in V .t Germany. He writ« that d pi All iffori > decern« :ntra and the UFI properties would have aggravated the film industry crisi . he government, according to this source, wanted "a strong pillar" around which the entire industry would revolve, and decided this should be the old UFI properties. This is supported by John Dornberg in bis book Schizophrenic 'ermany. I le writes that despite Allied efforts to deconcentrate and di rtelize German industry, "most of the big industrialists have mad a grand-scale recovery" and "arc virtually all back at the throtde today."" Dornberg adds: It would be unfair to say that the Germans or the Allies have tried to forget the plans to decentralize large industries which played a major role in supporting the National Socialist regime. But there is also no question, understandably, that the Germans affected by the orders and laws have dragged their feet. Most of the firms involved are vital to Germany's economic recoverv and, con-sidcring the change in attitudes and the turn of events for Germany, many officials and many Germans in private life cannot understand why there is still the demand to decentralize and deconcentrate the industries which will strengthen the country economically.33 In the case of motion picture deconcentration, both the American government and the American film industry believed the destruction of the former Reich film monopoly would serve useful purposes. The government felt that monopoly had to be replaced by competitive and independent companies on the assumption that only this could contribute to a democratic and economically strong Germanv under lens-sez-faire principles.34 The Americnn film industry wanted to see the end of the UFI monopoly because this would have removed an obstacle in the path of the American industry's own desire to control the West German market. This joint industry-government poliev came to nought, however. Only the government could actively initiate dismemberment of UFI, even though the American industry could support such a move. In the years Following [945, the were no serious at opts by the Military Government to dissolve UFI, and when the I ligh Commi !lv em gan the job in the early [95 's, it met with strong op n From the West ( lerman government, In the five years after the end of h tilities, German government officials and industrialists had ! un ...... - .... • - ^^1^ /v : - ■ ' * • ^ *» M - - " - ■• š discussed ■ -. : - - ...... . ■ • : ;■ • _- - : state - BOt 1 i . and ent- :., ... - i a : i th< .. "' ■ i ť ; . if ] to reign, mi ba hole: for v e tb i ■'■ c is t: E it order wil out i im, it all t n b: lies mil 1 that the policy ol •' B ;im govern: ni railed ř< '■ an :!m indi try i n lom thi h private own« ttářorin ■ . , ..:, ,j ÍMh. ■■ ■ U FI combine. out' " ; tHe ó • Lion pi . ram w • i o .....Fot »J« / »n Bim indusl .. because Uli , I n ■ '«■ to parallel UFľs bu , independcnl I ndihi , functioned with 1 »-°»to other hand, than.,1 llIIU.nl d v ^ - » I iV r- , k V * > N ■ Kva % h 4 f \ » » \ V ..... 1 r\mc i ■ " contact m pl. , c in ts ovct.i ■ i í i f I c lohns ■- Y Auvrici. ^^^^^^^^^^ v. cc< ssor, - ■. n ex« 1 louse [and respcel . / Z1 • Perhaps these rcvju *nts hav< WA presii , h \ ilenti i to Pr< n 1 \ nd \ ! * * * * * w ■ f%