Ministry as movie mqgul
Sir: Mr Davenport in his article on the National Film Finance Corporation (23 August), misjudges the past, the present and the future. His indictment of the NFFC is unfair. If one sets aside the Korda loan, which was a governmental decision, the NFFC has averaged a loss of £165,000 over twenty years, during which it has paid £2.5 million interest to the Government. The films which it has supported have brought home a substantial volume of foreign currency and have advertised Britain and British goods abroad. This could not have been done if Mr Davenport was right in stating that the NFFC had backed only the occasional good film. Indeed he can be refuted by long lists of good films supported and of creative talent encouraged by the NFFC. Altogether the NFFC has been a good national investment, though everyone agrees that future losses must be avoided. It is more needed than ever today. Mr Davenport suggests that a present abund- ance of finance leaves the •NFFC with no function to perform. He admits that American investment in British films has declinett he should know how precarious will be Mir future if we depend entirely on its revival and continuance. He refers to /tan and British Lion programmes, but both of them will be using NFFC. If we are to develop a British-financed sector of production, we will need a NFFC which will invest and stimulate investment by others.
Of course it has to adapt itself to chang- ing conditions. In working out its new role and procedures, the NFFC will have the full support of all sections of the industry. It is of significance that in June the three trade associations of producers, distributors and exhibitors sent a joint letter to the Board of Trade reaffirming their view that a NFFC is necessary and pledging their full cooperation. They offered to advise and help, in whatever manner may be desired, in its operation and administration and to discuss with the Government ways and
,,means of protecting the Corporation'
- Nicholas Davenport writes: Mr Filson ignores my main point which is that there is a better way—and a less expensive one for the tax-payer—in whkh_to bring pahli, money to the support of private film pro. ducers. I am not alone in believing that the NFFC is the wrong set-up for the job. 01 course, it has helped some individual, Who have brought credit to British film craft bar it has also helped to perpetuate the old- fashioned screen rubbish which has been driving young people out of the cinema. In the twenty years the NFFC has been operating cinema admissions in the UK have dropped from 1,500 million to under 250 million a year. The 700 NFFC films cannot altogether escape a share of the blame for this remark- able exodus.
Previous page
