Cultures of Innovation at Pinewood

Abstract

This chapter is based on documentation from the British Film Institute’s Special Collections which offers new, primary information on visits made in 1945 by British technicians to film studios in Hollywood. The visits aimed to gather information on and insights about contemporary Hollywood practices which then informed Pinewood’s post-war policies around equipment and studio infrastructures. The documentation sheds light on strategic areas such as special effects, set design, the evolution of Independent Frame technologies as well as attempts to change working practices at Pinewood during a time of economic recession. The chapter provides an opportunity to reflect on how British studio practices differed from Hollywood’s, with commentaries from technicians and leading figures in the film industry including Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger, and cinematographer Ronald Neame.

In the immediate post-war years studios faced considerable problems re-adjusting to normal operations after being requisitioned, physically damaged, and subject to the severe material shortages which had affected industries and the population during wartime.¹ The film industry was entering a period of instability as it waited for information on state legislation, and experienced fallout from the ‘Dalton Duty’ imposed on American films in August 1947 which resulted in Hollywood’s embargo of the British market which lasted until March 1948.² In July 1947 the Kinematograph Weekly anticipated that the following months would place great stress on the capabilities of British studios as they attempted to cut costs and increase production by reducing the time it took to shoot a film. As a studio associated with ‘quality’ pictures Pinewood was of strategic importance in meeting these challenges, even though its more complex productions such as Blanche Fury went seriously behind schedule.³ The pressures to produce British films of sufficient quality to respond decisively to the temporary absence of American imports were evident in the trade’s scrutiny of rising costs. Several strategic areas were identified as having risen sharply since 1938: materials, particularly plaster, paint, and timber; equipment; processing; technical and manual labour, including the relatively high salaries of stars and directors.⁴ Timber, in particular, was in short supply so that studios had to use materials such as plaster as a substitute. This did not however solve the problem entirely since increased demand for plaster also made it more expensive. It seemed as if the industry was caught in an impossible situation at the very time when it was required to take major steps forward. Much depended on British studios’ ability to turn out the films desperately needed in cinemas. While re-issues were an obvious help, the temporary absence of Hollywood’s films placed emphasis on both the quantity and quality of new British films as well on how best to sustain the industry’s reputation in the longer term.

This challenging context prompted studios to review their practices, and Pinewood was particularly keen to develop methods and facilities that would ameliorate the short-term production crisis while at the same time future-proof the studios. Hollywood was looked to as an environment which encouraged technical and scientific research that made it practically self-sufficient. As Marzola has demonstrated, with the establishment of a technological service sector catering specifically to the needs of the film industry, ‘Hollywood became not just a cultural force, but also a technological hub demanding recognition’.⁵ Access to knowledge was a key driver in maintaining a vertically integrated studio system that for many in Britain was the epitome of technical quality and professionalism. As an integral part of the Rank Organisation’s vertically integrated operation, it was essential that Pinewood was a centre of technical innovation. It was in this spirit that in the spring of 1945, a few months before the cessation of the Second World War, a few key British technicians visited Hollywood. As this chapter details, these visits were crucial drivers of Pinewood’s technological introspection which occasioned the formation of several committees. These examined current kits, methods, and practices making some key recommendations and actions which helped to set Pinewood on a path to recovery and longer-term survival. This resilient ethos was underpinned by Rank’s own ‘unimpeachable’ commitment to research and innovation at a time when such attention was rare.⁶

Learning from Hollywood

One of the first technicians to visit Hollywood was Jack Harris, supervising editor at Pinewood who was widely regarded as one of Britain’s leading editors.⁷ Editing practices are not often documented, so the reports provide some key information on practices and equipment in Britain and Hollywood. Harris’ visit was motivated by more than mere interest in how other film industries functioned. He particularly wanted to investigate allegations that British films were notoriously ‘slow’ compared with Hollywood’s admired brisk transitions between sequences.⁸ Harris’ report focused attention on the cutting rooms, sound effects and music cutting departments, and film libraries at the major Hollywood studios.⁹ It noted that while methods and systems varied from studio to studio as in Britain, the organisation of cutting rooms and staff was directly controlled by an experienced, ‘keystone’ supervising editor. Rather than edit films the supervising editor oversaw all editing functions including inspecting daily rushes, liaising between editors and directors, and organising the administration associated with editing. Dialogue and action cutting were sub-departments, as were sound effects and music cutting. Harris was impressed by this system since it freed up editors from ‘much of the irksome responsibilities of his British counterpart’. He summed up the benefits: ‘If there is a Hollywood secret, it is specialization, co-ordination, and organization’.

The report in addition gives some insights into health and safety issues arising from hazards associated with editing. Studios were often dangerous environments for workers and occasionally the reports provide glimpses of these realities. Sound equipment firms were trying to design a compact editing machine that reduced the risk of migraines commonly suffered by editors, as well as replacing incandescent with fluorescent lighting to reduce eye strain and ‘frayed nerves’. The Moviola editing machine, designed for use by a single editor, was used in both Hollywood and Britain. Harris noted some improvements to aspects of the technology including converted synchronous rewinders and numbering machines which assisted in keeping track of rushes. The technology was considered important in allowing editors to exercise agency in cutting films since its focus on lone viewing militated against too much interference from a director.¹⁰ In Hollywood retakes of scenes considered deficient following a preview screening were possible but only permitted if vital. Even so, Harris found that ‘in spite of its lavishness’, an impression which reflected popular impressions of Hollywood excess, the emphasis was on exercising ‘extreme economies’. Previewing films to assess a film’s box-office potential was however a far more common occurrence in Hollywood than in Britain. This perhaps influenced the somewhat slower editing pace of British films which were more often altered at the script stage rather than after shooting. In 1949 Ealing’s chief editor Michael Truman was sent to Hollywood to observe how to make British films more acceptable to US audiences. American preview reactions to Passport to Pimlico (Henry Cornelius 1949), a film he had edited, included restlessness during its slow opening. To rectify this Truman made cuts for the film’s US release.¹¹

A series of meetings were held in the autumn of 1945 to discuss the reports produced by other technicians, with a view to assessing the direction British studios might take in introducing improvements in methods, production technologies, and organisations. The attendance list included Tom White, Chair of the Research Committee representing Independent Producers; the Archers’ filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger; cinematographer Ronald Neame; David Rawnsley, head of Rank’s Research Department and developer of the Independent Frame (a system discussed later in this chapter and also in Chapter 4); and art director L. P. Williams. The meetings brought out differences between the two production environments, with Hollywood rated superior in the following areas: greater cooperation between art and sound departments; superior post-synching; greater ‘mike-consciousness’ in ordinary recording and for later post-synching; better equipment and laboratories.¹²

Michael Powell, in particular, took on board the observations about ‘mike-consciousness’, recommending that post-synching should be used for exterior locations, and also for crane and tracking shots in the studio. The practice was indeed more prevalent in Hollywood where Ronald Neame discovered the average American film involved at least 25% post-synching, especially in studios such as Disney where dialogue and music were pre-recorded when ‘live’ characters were used. Another issue was how built ceilings on sets could interfere with the sound, especially if they involved beams and were ‘over built’. Art director Maurice Carter later reported that although art directors in British studios did confer with sound and cameramen concerning ceiling pieces ‘unfortunately these people were usually unable to appreciate the full implication of a drawing or model at pre-planning stage’.¹³ Art directors were also urged to avoid using rough flooring which could also cause difficulties with sound. Enabling conversations between the various specialists who had visited Hollywood therefore encouraged the sharing of useful information which connected the various departments as a joint enterprise, rather than each operating discretely without knowing what might be problematic in relation to other areas.

While there was a tendency to rate British methods and facilities as inferior to Hollywood’s, the tone of the meeting was to make constructive suggestions about how to improve British studios, such as by importing new equipment such as Bell and Howell printers in the laboratories, and Inter-Modulating Testing Equipment for Western Electric Sound that would improve testing the quality of sound recording. This was an example of how ‘technological sharing’ between America and Britain was being promoted at this time.¹⁴ While Hollywood’s possession of experience, knowledge, and up-to-date equipment was seen to benefit the British visitors, the investigations were by no means a one-way conversation. In some cases, they led to somewhat strident nationalistic comments about what might be possible in Britain. David Hand, for example, an American animator who at that time was employed by Rank to set up GB Animation at the Moor Studio in Cookham, stressed the long-term benefits of developing new techniques and equipment in Britain: ‘Too much stress should not be placed on Hollywood’s methods—given equivalent equipment, British brains and aptitude would more than equal Hollywood’s products—we could overtake without catching up’.

Hand had worked for Disney where pre-production preparation was intense, involving sketching shots and camera angles that were then shot on 16 mm film so they could be studied very precisely prior to the commencement of floor work in the studio. Given the stress placed on the importance of pre-production planning in subsequent schemes such as David Rawnsley’s Independent Frame, it is significant that these recommendations were made as early as 1945 when filmmaking environments were being scrutinised in the context of post-war reconstruction. While Hand’s prior experience working for Disney in America might have influenced him to promote Hollywood’s methods, he argued instead for taking steps forward in Britain that would make the industry more self-sufficient. This aim was also evident in his development of GB Animation which did not tightly replicate Disney’s style. Hand aimed in some respects to rival the American company by recruiting former Disney employees; importing equipment and materials; devising British cartoon characters; and establishing specialist training schemes for animators. GB Animation did not however survive the crisis facing Rank in the late 1940s, and when its first animated cartoons were not commercially successful the unit was closed in 1950.¹⁵

The inclusion of Powell and Pressburger (see Fig. 2.1) in these discussions placed the culture of independent production they represented with their company the Archers and its involvement in Independent Producers, at the heart of future planning. Powell was especially interested in exploring new approaches and methods. He enthusiastically endorsed David Rawnsley’s ideas about the Independent Frame as early as 1945, advocating the cost and labour-saving scheme to Rank as a ‘revolution…[and] a big step forward’ with ‘consequences as far-reaching as the introduction of colour and sound’.¹⁶ Rawnsley had worked as an art director and devised effects for several of the Archers’ wartime films. Powell was impressed by what could be achieved in a studio and made full use of pre-planning methods and preparatory drawings and sketches for subsequent films such as The Red Shoes (1948) and The Tales of Hoffmann (1951), both of which aspired to achieve his aim of ‘total cinema’.¹⁷

Fig. 2.1

Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell, 1947. Alamy stock images

When they visited Hollywood Powell and Pressburger examined how casting and writing were organised, as well as how films could be tested with audiences before they were finalised and, depending on the result, whether they should be adjusted or even dropped. They noted that while methods differed between studios more than one writer usually worked on a script, a practice they did not recommend was adopted in Britain. On the other hand, they recognised that the work of writers was better known in Hollywood where scripts were published as plays. These publications drew attention to how scripts could be appreciated as texts while also creating advertising opportunities for the films.

An interesting debate arose from differing practices concerning the extent to which projects could be revised, scenes re-shot or even scrapped before being released for cinema exhibition. As reported by Jack Harris and others, scripts were more readily revised in Britain than making alterations to a film after it had been shot; this was the reverse in Hollywood where films were more often changed after ‘sneak previews’ with audiences to gauge their reaction, a practice that was rarer in Britain. These differences can be linked in part to geographic and logistical factors. Shooting retakes in response to the reaction of audiences to rough-cut previews was easier in Hollywood because actors were more centrally located than in Britain where actors generally had long commutes to studios located some distance from central London. Another difference was that in Hollywood there was no danger of actors being unavailable on account of theatrical work that competed for the time of British actors. It is also the case that re-shooting scenes in Hollywood could be done more easily in view of the greater number of available stages. Practicalities apart, in Britain, retakes were regarded as ‘a shameful process’, a view those at the meeting considered should change to ensure that films were at their best when released.¹⁸ An advantage of Britain’s less centralised studio system however was identified when Powell informed the meeting that he would sometimes talk over a script with the art director, or a carpenter, or any other member of the unit, and he would rewrite it if they made useful suggestions. In Hollywood scripts were nearer their final stages on commencement of shooting, leaving little room for changes prompted by expert advice from technicians. This meant that there were fewer opportunities for revisions prompted by the consultations Powell was used to having with the team in a spirit of co-operative ‘individuality of thought’. Observations such as this give an idea of prevailing cultural and organisational norms at British studios, particularly the idea that scriptwriting was a craft to which all members of a team could contribute.

The related issue of British films being thought of as ‘slow’ that had been raised in the discussions about editing practice was however in this context connected with the view that stylistically British scripts were less ‘tight’, with ‘many unnecessary shots of people going up and down stairs etc.’. Pressburger advised that such transitions were often unnecessary because audiences were quick to grasp plot points; rewriting a script would avoid unnecessary repetition or redundant shots. It was clear from these discussions that perceived qualitative differences between British and American films might be related to the ways in which films in production were revised either at the script stage or once a rough cut was available. Underlying questions of film style can also be connected to debates about whether a British pictorial film aesthetic, based on longer takes for showcasing scenery as developed in the silent era, persisted once sound film was introduced.¹⁹ This was an especially pressing issue at Pinewood since Rank was keen for British films to be successfully exhibited abroad. The extent to which they adopted Hollywood’s editing style or presented something more nationally specific remained a tension throughout this period. As noted above, British films distributed in the USA were on occasion previewed there, and as a result changes were made to make them acceptable to local audiences and local censors. On the other hand, British films that were simply seen as poor imitations of Hollywood’s were likely to be criticised. A few British films were successful in the US market precisely because of their perceived national difference.²⁰

When visiting Hollywood Powell and Pressburger found that prevailing organisational principles in studios had important consequences. The specifics provide excellent examples of the impact of different workplace cultures and conventions. Conditions and practices could differ in Hollywood from studio to studio and from film to film, but generally crews were not necessarily carried from film to film as they were in Britain, a practice Powell valued highly for forging a strong team spirit. The visitors also gleaned that the higher salaries paid to technicians, directors, and producers in Hollywood resulted in hyper-specialisation; very rigid discipline on the studio floor; and the prevalence of ‘time is money’ attitudes. The higher salaries meant that technicians such as lighting gaffers could prepare sets to a very high degree of technical precision using skills usually undertaken by higher-graded pre-lighting engineers. In Britain, the generally more cramped studio stages meant that set building and shooting often took place on the same stage, and this could result in on-floor chaos. L. W. Williams condemned the practice in Britain of destroying exterior sets and advocated building sets that could be re-used or modified for different productions as they were in Hollywood. These points accentuate how structural issues such as space impacted on productivity.

Further organisational differences emerged between the two production cultures. One advantage of working in Hollywood was that five or six stages could be used on a film so that as soon as scenes were completed work could continue seamlessly on a different stage. This helped productions to be turned out quicker than in Britain where this was not possible because studios had fewer stages. Timekeeping was thought to be better in Hollywood, as well as ‘discipline of artistes in co-operating with technicians and craftsmen’. The impression of greater efficiency impressed the visitors who observed that even though salaries were generally higher for skilled workers, hierarchical organisational structures meant that American directors ‘would not think of consulting senior technicians for advice about camera set-ups’. On the other hand, it was recognised that this resulted in a factory-like operation whereas in Britain there was greater respect for individuality, specialist knowledge, and closer collaboration between directors and producers. They were involved in many more aspects than simply being given a finished script for shooting without alterations.²¹ These differences which Powell had identified in his contributions about making important changes to a script as a production progressed, haunted subsequent discussions of how to preserve beneficial elements of British conventions while at the same time addressing the urgent requirements to cut costs and increase production. In terms of Powell’s own reputation as a filmmaker associated with occasional extravagance, it is interesting to see him firmly on the side of economy and innovation. The good levels of collaboration found in British production environments were seen to promote valuable cultural values not so evident in Hollywood.

Special effects and process work was a major theme which the visitors to Hollywood were interested in observing. Every studio had an effects department within which most techniques were controlled including optical printing; matte artists; the creation of rain and weather effects; a processing laboratory and sometimes a dedicated stage. Screens and other equipment for techniques such as back projection were maintained to a much higher level than in Britain. The lack of efficient equipment in Britain forced visitors from Hollywood to bring kit with them such as sprinkler-heads which worked silently and quickly to achieve the desired rain effects.²² This observation led to some progressive recommendations by Michael Powell who was keen to reform prevailing British practices. His ideas were inspired by the technical achievements of The Thief of Bagdad (Ludwig Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelan 1940), particularly its deployment of effects such as travelling matte and Technicolor. Above all, Powell stressed the need for imaginative painters, with one person leading the design of a whole production and conceiving sets and costumes as inter-related determinants of a film’s ‘total’ style: ‘There should be someone to take a bird’s eye view of all the processes involved, so that imagination was not subordinated to stereotyped design’. To advance this aim Powell suggested setting up a new department specifically tasked to experiment with design and colour. He was also keen on establishing special effects departments that would co-operate closely with art departments. These, and Powell’s other suggestions, demonstrate how the visits to Hollywood inspired visionary ideas about how production cultures and practices could be improved. Several of these ideas were subsequently incorporated into Pinewood’s activities and enhanced its reputation as a technical hub, such as the integration of set design, costume, special effects, and colour design in Black Narcissus (Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger and 1947) and The Red Shoes (Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger 1948).

New and Existing Equipment

David Rawnsley was particularly inspired by the tone of the meetings which promoted the experimental culture he was advocating for the development of projects such as lenticular back projection screens and apparatus for more advanced rain and wind effects. Rawnsley was not only interested in testing new equipment but, importantly, in refining existing methods such as back projection that had been in use for over a decade. As Edgerton has noted, older technologies are not necessarily inferior to new; there are typically several alternatives at any given time which may or may not be adopted.²³ Consulting technicians about how equipment fared when in use was a crucial part of Pinewood’s review of post-war conditions, and some technologies which had been used for years were reassessed and modified rather than abandoned when newer, more expensive equipment became available. Repair and maintenance were important forms of skill and expertise in the studios’ workshops which enabled the ‘tools’ of filmmaking to be adapted to changing demands and priorities.

A recurring issue was indeed the need to repair, replace, and make new purchases of equipment that was badly needed in British studios. In the war it appeared that only two kinds of British cameras were used mainly by the Service Film Units: Vintens’ studio cameras and Newman Sinclair for filming exterior locations. Stocks were however depleted, and the pre-war reliance on and preferences for American equipment persisted when Rank, as chair of the British Film Producers Association (BFPA), led representations to the Board of Trade in the summer and autumn of 1945. While the Board wanted to encourage the development of British-manufactured equipment, the importation of American kit was authorised.²⁴ The Board of Trade was keen to support re-equipping studios as quickly as possible, stating that: ‘Equipment is to the film industry what machine tools are to the engineering industry. Without first class equipment the quality of British films must suffer’.²⁵

In October 1945 Rawnsley discussed projectors and lenses for back projection with a representative from the British company Taylor Hobson, as well as collaborations with British Acoustic.²⁶ Representatives of Vinten, the British company that manufactured studio and laboratory equipment, went on tours of the rest of Europe and Scandinavia to promote their stock as part of their 1949 export drive.²⁷ For the Independent Frame experiment in 1948–49, Rawnsley used British manufacturers to develop and supply equipment which was designed specifically for its application at Pinewood.²⁸ Although some of this equipment was considered problematic, such as the rostrums and scaffolds that caused sound problems, on the whole the absorption of the new kit was received with positive recognition that it contributed significant improvements to Pinewood’s technical infrastructure. The benefits were more fully appreciated later by visual effects specialists such as Charles Staffell.²⁹ Director and producer Peter Manley attributed Staffell’s highly regarded experiments with process projection to his early experiences working with Rawnsley’s ideas.³⁰ Manley recalled that the Vickers rostrums were another very positive legacy of the Independent Frame. These were still working excellently at Pinewood in 1999 when he was interviewed, especially because they could be adjusted to any height. Manley considered the Independent Frame to be ‘very fine’ as a studio tool, but it could become ‘unwieldy’ if expected to do ‘everything’.³¹ But when it was used strategically, as for some back projected and effects shots in The Sound Barrier (David Lean 1952), the results were ‘excellent’.³²

In this way the discussions about how to boost British production were connected to a desire to learn from Hollywood but at the same time future-proof the film industry to be more self-sufficient. This was evident in subsequent experimental testing of various pieces of equipment. The special effects department was permitted funds in 1948 to try new equipment for multiple effects projection, and a Cyclops Viewfinder, normally used with television cameras, was tested to assess its potential to assist film directors. Its advantages were that it permitted instant examination of what was being transmitted, allowing the director to see exactly what would appear on the screen when a scene was being shot, instead of waiting for rushes to be developed and then deciding on expensive retakes.³³ Rawnsley was keen to learn from television, and one of Pinewood’s stages was modified to test techniques he thought would be beneficial for film production.³⁴ At the time Rank was interested in television but conceived it as a public rather than a private medium for cinema exhibition rather than in the home.³⁵

At the same time Rank was learning about the visits to Hollywood he was caught up in broader discussions with officials about the future of film production and its contribution to saving dollars. The BFPA was also pressing for British employees to be trained in specialist roles such as directors, producers, production supervisors, model and trick artists, cameramen, make-up artists, and back projection technicians. The suggestion that the best people to provide training would come to Britain from America was objected to by the Association of Cine Technicians (ACT), unless the scheme was a reciprocal one which ensured that British technicians were trained in the specialist roles. In subsequent years, British technicians did indeed go to Hollywood for a few months under ACT reciprocal agreements with unions in Hollywood.³⁶ These discussions make clear that a studio such as Pinewood’s physical infrastructure was about more than bricks and mortar. Equipment, old and new, was crucial in testing its past, present, and future capabilities. It was also vital to employ and train technicians who could make use of it to the best advantage.

The Joint Production Advisory Committee

The minutes of Pinewood’s Joint Production Advisory Committee (JPAC) provide further insights into cultures of innovation which operated at the studios. The Committee was formed in 1948 as a forum for ‘constructive criticism’ and the promotion of new ideas which would ‘contribute towards more production and less costs, without detriment to quality’. All studio employees were invited to make practical suggestions to the Committee, and an incentive to do this was that ‘should a person submit a suggestion that was worthwhile and was ultimately acted upon, he would be worthy of some recompense’.³⁷ Notices were put up in Pinewood’s works canteen, cafeteria, south corridor, and outside the Carpenters’ Shop. An Awards sub-committee was established to consider suggestions and to recommend those it considered feasible to the JPAC. Ideas that were submitted included a method to site lamps on stages that would save time. While this was considered too expensive the employee had nevertheless identified ‘an outstanding need for improvement in lamp rigging to save lighting time’.³⁸ Another suggestion was to use metal rails manufactured in duralumin, a strong, lightweight, hard alloy of aluminium, to improve the spotting of sets and to facilitate the positioning of individual lamps. This was rejected because of likely vibrations unless the lamps were lighter in weight. Other technical ideas were received more favourably, such as when an employee was awarded five guineas for suggesting a beneficial gadget for diesel engines that would eliminate the sticking of any individual fuel pump and so avoid piston seizure. Another proposal was for a lift for raising lamps onto rostrums on location. This was rejected but the head of the electrical department was asked to discuss with staff to see what apparatus could be evolved, using part of the suggestion where practical. While the committee did not address health and safety issues, this and other suggestions bring to light the heavy physical labour often involved in studio work. Not all issues were technical. One employee thought better catering arrangements would improve the efficiency of staff. The sub-committee agreed to ask the person who made suggestions for ideas on how this might be achieved. Looking at the committee’s responses to employees’ suggestions and the lack of documented follow-up on many of them however indicates limits to the collaborative methods and team spirit identified by Michael Powell.

The JPAC’s core work was grappling with problems such as how to increase production and improve set building with the available stage space. The visitors to Hollywood were struck by the ‘colossal wastage of set material in England…the reason being the almost complete lack of storage space for set pieces. We were at present spending two to three thousand pounds a year on sets, of which practically nothing could be retained until we had storage space several times larger than the studio area’.³⁹ One approach was to plan and build sets as accurately as possible to avoid the wastage of materials and taking up unnecessary space. The JPAC’s sub-committee on drawings resulted in recommendations to improve the accuracy of preparatory working drawings by making them bigger in scale and with more precise measurements.⁴⁰ Stock materials such as cornices, mouldings, doors, and windows were used whenever possible. Rather than maintaining large stores a small stock of armchairs and settees was kept. This was made up with a calico or cheap white material base and loose covers which were then fitted to suit art directors’ requirements.⁴¹ In this way studio methods and materials were deeply affected by post-war shortages, a reality that emerges as a key theme driving the committee’s work.

A major issue was where to construct sets, many of which were built up on rostrums or on scaffolding to save space, but this method caused sound problems and was expensive. Changes were made to improve the situation such as to erect sets wherever space became available. Another approach was to place greater emphasis on pre-production planning with art departments working closely from shooting scripts so that fewer sets needed to be built. George Archibald, JPAC member and chair of Independent Producers, identified this as one of the greatest difficulties to overcome since at Pinewood ‘none of the films could be called “factory-produced”, scripts were often being amended and improved’, benefiting from new ideas as they evolved. He further stated: ‘It would obviously be worth-while to introduce these even though the film had already commenced’. Producers tried to make scriptwriters aware of a greater sense of urgency, but ‘although we have tried every means of argument, persuasion, and even threats, we still don’t know the answer’.⁴² This debate exposed the ongoing tensions between the drive for detailed pre-planning, especially the time and cost-cutting methods advocated by Rawnsley for the Independent Frame, and the need to retain some of the creative spontaneity inherent in film practice.

The JPAC formed a sub-committee on Production Delays in August 1949 to identify and target key areas for improvement in seven departments. The reports are an instructive record of prevalent production practices, identifying problems that needed rectifying. The sub-committee’s recommendations serve as a guide to attempts at Pinewood to address the issues being raised in the trade press and in government about increasing production, cutting costs, and reforming practices, particularly in preparing and building sets. One key issue was the need for greater coordination and communication between departments. Employees working in the Drapes Department, for example, needed greater co-operation from art directors in clearing sets before drapes could be hung, and it was recommended that floor layouts should be provided so that the necessary materials could be made correct to size by day staff so that night stagehands could then lay and fix them.⁴³ Other recommendations that were accepted by the D & P Studios management included greater pre-planning and phasing of work when constructing and striking sets; more accurate carpenters’ drawings; improvements in moving equipment and technology; greater interchange of views between supervisory grades and management; better communication between day and night-time staff, and the need to use props held in stock at the studio rather than hiring them from outside suppliers. Highlighting these specific, practical ways of moving forward was complementary to the higher-profile methods and technologies associated with the Independent Frame which attracted more publicity. When Poet’s Pub (Frederick Wilson 1949), a film made using the Independent Frame technologies, was being shot night-time work was re-introduced at Pinewood to ensure that the stages were working at full pressure. Since each production unit had its own stage and no more, night working was ‘imperative’ so that night floor staff could strike the sets overnight and set up each stage in readiness for the unit to shoot at once the next morning.⁴⁴

Special attention was also paid to delays in post-production. A report is detailed how costs would be saved if a film was more quickly ‘finished off’. Sixteen films were completed at Pinewood in 1947 and 1948. With an average budget of £250,000 for each film, it was calculated that an average of over eighteen weeks was taken for all the finishing-off processes.⁴⁵ These included editing; post-synchronisation; recordings of effects and music, and dubbing by the sound department before completion in the laboratory where picture and sound negatives were cut. It was recommended that time would be reduced if the director and editor discussed a film’s sequences during shooting, and that post-synchronisation could also take place during shooting rather than afterwards. Having the producer and director view a film with all departments concerned with finishing-off according to a detailed schedule was also recommended as a means of improving communication. A contemporary account of the work of a film editor by Sidney Cole, who was at that time working at Ealing, bears out this schedule. As an experienced editor, his account records typical practice as it operated in most studios. He described how the editor worked with assistants towards producing a rough cut which was then projected in the studio theatre and seen by the director, producer, and editor: ‘This is the first of many journeys it will make thither during the following weeks or months and it will undergo many changes’.⁴⁶ The latter steps were those the sub-committee on post-production delays sought to quicken by placing emphasis on anticipating a film’s shape as early as possible in pre-planning and greater collaboration between departments.

Pre-planning in Practice

Specific examples from films did not feature much in the reports except for So Long at the Fair (Terence Fisher and Anthony Darnborough 1950) and White Corridors (Pat Jackson 1951). Both films were cited as examples, respectively, of poor and very good pre-planning. So Long at the Fair, a thriller set in Paris produced by Betty Box, was considered instructive because ‘lack of planning and adequate collaboration had hampered’ a set constructed at Pinewood of the Gard du Nord.⁴⁷ In this case the back projection set-up was poorly operated and modified at a late stage; late alterations to the script resulted in ‘considerable scrapping and “late panic” demands’, and there was little correspondence between the drawing office’s plans and the directors’ intentions. Box later recalled that employing new methods such as those of the Independent Frame was difficult because ‘we were all working so hard that we didn’t have time to absorb a new technique. It was quicker to get on the way you had always done than to sit down and try to learn a different way of doing things’.⁴⁸ So Long at the Fair was however one of the two most successful films to be made at Pinewood at that time, doing ‘reasonably well at the box office’.⁴⁹ This was an early example of Box’s production of successful films at Pinewood, building on her experience as Gainsborough’s head of production where she managed to ‘crank up production at Islington, meeting her production target, and making some genuinely popular British films into the bargain’.⁵⁰ In view of this, the issues identified as problematic with the Gard du Nord set preparation on So Long at the Fair seem less significant than the JPAC judged them to be, since the film ultimately delivered the profits that mattered to Rank. This set a precedent for Box’s work with director Ralph Thomas, especially the box-office success of Doctor in the House (1954) and subsequent run of Doctor films which ‘played no small part in keeping Rank [just about] financially afloat’.⁵¹

White Corridors, starring Googie Withers and James Donald as seen in Fig. 2.2, was set in a hospital and filmed almost entirely at Pinewood. The film was referred to by John Croydon, head of Rank’s second feature film unit at Highbury who went on to work for the completion guarantee company Film Finances, as ‘a producer’s dream’.⁵²

Fig. 2.2

Googie Withers and James Donald in White Corridors, 1951. Alamy stock images: KLC Films

It was seen to epitomise good practice and new ways forward, showing that lessons had been learned from the technicians’ visits to Hollywood and subsequent debates on how to improve production schedules. The key factors in this case were the studio’s efficiency, noting that services were readily supplied, and requests were carried out ‘with the maximum of despatch and a complete absence of panic’. The film’s uncomplicated sets were also thought to have assisted its efficiency. A slightly higher rate of shooting was achieved at a daily average of two minutes fifty-one seconds per day (Pinewood’s normal rate was one minute nineteen seconds); the script was well-prepared ‘with a complete director’s breakdown, so that the production was “cut” on paper before going on to the floor’, and continuity reports showed that there was a very close correspondence between what was shot and the shooting script. Thomas had spent two years in Hollywood which was thought to have increased his ability to achieve a high rate of shooting. The film was shot by Cyril Pennington-Richards whose ‘unconventional’ methods were advantageous to the film’s quality and speed. Collaborating closely with the director on the script and during shooting, he managed to reduce the film’s schedule to such an extent that Rank asked to see him to explain what had happened.⁵³ Croydon summed up the film’s success as being due to very good organisation, the fast assembly of rushes, and working from a director’s breakdown of the script which anticipated any likely problems. When asked about the differences between American and British shooting methods he described the latest working practices in Hollywood such as simple set-ups, a reduction of camera angles with longer dialogue sequences, having a director’s breakdown, and a blue-print script. Hollywood’s directors started earlier in the day than their British counterparts, and artists were also made up and on the studio floor earlier. Directors discussed preliminary scripts from which art directors designed and planned sets; the final shooting script was then written according to these plans. The positive experience of White Corridors was very much aligned with Hollywood’s studio practices. The report on Pinewood’s services and the efficient work of all departments contributed towards an impression that the visits to Hollywood and work of the JPAC had been worthwhile.

The Independent Frame

The background of the committees and initiatives to both review and improve practical operations and working methods at Pinewood was the Independent Frame. David Rawnsley’s position heading research at Rank until the end of 1947 and the subsequent establishment of Aquila Films with Donald Wilson, resulted in a highly publicised scheme involving a slate of low to medium budget films released in 1949 that were produced using the technologies and pre-planning scheduling with which the Independent Frame was associated. As I have discussed elsewhere, even though in the short term, the experiment did not transform production, in retrospect the Independent Frame was much more than an expensive gamble by Rank. Rather, ‘it was an innovative response to the problems facing the British film industry at the end of the 1940s. It also helped to change Pinewood, both physically and in its production practices, contributing to its evolution into the effects hub it is renowned for today; it is thus a key part of Pinewood’s history’.⁵⁴ Many of its key components surfaced in the discussions about Pinewood’s future, including the ways in which special effects and process work could reduce the number of sets that needed to be built. Another means of saving time and money was using scenes previously shot on location as back projections in the studio which were then filmed with the principal actors completing the action. As we have seen, the use of mobile rostrums on which sets could be built was also referenced in several of the JPAC’s meetings, and the benefits of pre-planning were raised on several occasions, culminating with the ‘model’ example of White Corridors.

Notes of the JPAC’s meetings include a few examples of how the Independent Frame was working in practice. These included the use of assembly bays which kept stages clear until sets were required, and interlocking back projection set-ups that could be tricky to operate. On detailed pre-planning, it was further noted that ‘considerably greater care and greater co-operation on the part of all personnel concerned might be desirable from a production, artistic and economic point of view’.⁵⁵ Although there was some enthusiasm for the general approach and innovatory spirit behind Rawnsley’s ideas, their practical application often left much to be desired. The dependence on coordination, sharing of information, and updating staff on the requirements of new technologies exposed a gap between aspiration and the reality of operating Pinewood in the immediate post-war years. Although some staff working there had been employed in the 1930s and had worked with the service film units during the war, there were also new recruits with less experience. The Kinematograph Weekly described the Independent Frame as a challenge to producers and directors to adjust their practices to ‘factory conditions of film making; they must learn to co-ordinate their ideas with the technical methods offered by their heads of departments’.⁵⁶ Essentially, it was ‘a system of pre-production planning – with a difference’, in which effects, or tricks of the trade were utilised to the full to speed up production and reduce costs. This meant deploying back projection, process shots, miniatures, and glass shots into a precise scheme of pre-production planning. Detailed storyboards informed the planning phase as well as location shooting using extras instead of principal actors.⁵⁷ While the Independent Frame promised in the longer term to increase production it nevertheless felt threatening to some technicians who feared that its cost-cutting rationale might result in lay-offs of studio labour.

The technical innovations associated with the Independent Frame were widely praised, particularly the development of still and moving background projectors by British Acoustic. In addition, mobile lighting rails to carry lamps and crew were constructed by Vickers-Armstrong. It therefore offered encouragement to British manufacturers of such equipment, connecting with the aim of being less reliant on American kit. Lighting set-ups were typically indirect: ‘An ingenious reflector system is employed which dispenses with light rails and reduces the candlepower of the normally lighted set by almost two-thirds’.⁵⁸ Sets built on mobile rostrums, shown in Fig. 2.3, could be moved through pre-production and production departments.

Fig. 2.3

Mobile rostrum and projection tower for the Independent Frame, The Engineer, 26 August 1949, p. 225. Printed with permission from The Engineer, www.theengineer.co.uk

Some reconstruction had been necessary in Pinewood including the two smallest twin-sized stages, fitted with a collapsible insulated partition between them. The principle of the assembly line was evident in the rational, spatial flow for the organisation of materials, construction stores, and the assembly bay where sets were mounted on the mobile rostrums. A ‘waiting bay’ next to the stage held the sets until required when they would be flown into position by an overhead gantry. A similar approach had been applied in Hollywood when Fred Pelton, MGM’s studio manager, used mobile sets. But they were too large and unwieldy to be fully effective, which convinced Rawnsley that the Independent Frame would work best with smaller mobile sets and rostrums. He also studied Disney’s planning methods and was inspired by how the BBC’s technicians were effective despite working in cramped conditions at Alexandra Palace.⁵⁹ The rostrums proved very effective in later years once sound issues had been addressed, and the emphasis on back projection prompted research and development of travelling matte techniques which were also in the longer term very beneficial.

In all, as I have argued elsewhere, ‘even though the Independent Frame experiment lasted only a few years, in the longer-term it contributed to the establishment of a robust technical infrastructure at Pinewood which laid the foundations for the studio’s subsequent outstanding reputation for technical excellence as well as streamlined methods of production’.⁶⁰ This is a good example of what Edgerton terms ‘use-centred’ history, in which the uptake of technology is the dominant factor, rather than focusing solely on invention, to demonstrate how ‘technologies do not only appear, they also reappear, and mix and match’ across time.⁶¹ In this way technicians’ experience working with back projection technologies fed into travelling matte solutions, creating a circular link between past and present, research, development, and uptake.

Pinewood’s Infrastructure and Taking Stock

A Pinewood Producers’ Handbook accompanied by a studio plan gave an upbeat account of the studios’ basic infrastructure at the end of 1949.⁶² The three largest of the five sound stages had tanks, and it was noted how dressing rooms, production offices, and workshops were arranged for easy access. Four of the stages were grouped so they could all be approached and serviced by means of covered ways, a key factor in view of the vagaries of the British weather. As noted in Chapter 1, these were flagged up by Helmut Junge as advantages when compared with Denham in a detailed report on British studios published in 1945.⁶³ Other benefits were Pinewood having its own power supply and the ability to accommodate three to four films in the studios at the same time. During the fuel crisis of 1947 and power shortages, studios with their own powerhouses such as Denham and Pinewood were able to continue production.⁶⁴ The equipment listed confirms the dominance of American-manufactured Mitchell cameras, Western Electric sound apparatus, and cutting rooms fitted with American Moviolas and with Bell and Howell film splicers. One detail that appears to link directly to the work of the JPAC was the greater use of standard working drawings to assist set construction. Other organisational and administrative arrangements were detailed so that producers were guided through what Pinewood could offer them in-house. The studio was clearly being positioned as Britain’s most modern and efficient, despite issues the various sub-committees had identified as problematic.

The impact of the debates on technicians’ visits to Hollywood and the work of the JPAC in the following years needs to be considered in relation to the long-term ambitions of Rank and John Davis to control productions on a tighter basis than the more relaxed conventions which had been appreciated by Independent Producers. In the spring of 1949 announcements were made that Rank was ‘telescoping’ production in a streamlining process that reduced the number of independent units working at Pinewood.⁶⁵ Having to cut costs accelerated the trend towards a more rigid regime of retrenchment and economy exercised at Pinewood in the 1950s. As Macnab has argued, a different style of production emerged at Pinewood, ‘one that in its regulation and efficiency, if not its inspiration, was as close as Britain ever got to a Classical Hollywood Cinema’.⁶⁶ The material presented in this chapter has indeed shown that this tendency began earlier with the visits to Hollywood in 1945 which concentrated on a number of issues which it was hoped might help transform British production methods and technologies. As we have seen, there was tension between the desire to replicate Hollywood’s example and establishing levels of national specificity, particularly regarding technology and innovative techniques which it was hoped would result in a more global, competitive film industry. As Marzola has observed the role of managing technology, pooling knowledge, and ‘creating ties across competitive interests’ in establishing Hollywood’s stable infrastructure, was to some extent influential in Britain.⁶⁷ On the other hand, Britain lacked the force of major organisations such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Society of Motion Picture Engineers which helped studios to take advantage of the latest research, collaborate, and standardise equipment. While the BFPA brought the studios’ general issues and technical requirements to the attention of the Board of Trade, and J. Arthur Rank’s chairmanship put him in a strong position to represent Pinewood’s interests, its functions, and influence were more limited. While Britain was clearly not Hollywood, the British visitors to American studios and backlots took away ideas, learning from ‘the system’ to revive an industry which needed to re-equip and re-group after the war. When Denham was closed in 1952 even greater stress was placed on Pinewood’s role in this process. In retrospect, the years 1945–50 were crucial in ensuring the studios survived and in the longer term thrived as a hub of ‘facilities, services and expertise’.⁶⁸ The desire to embrace new technological experiments became one of Pinewood’s hallmarks, notably Rank’s interesting, yet under-appreciated in terms of its aesthetic merit, adoption of the American VistaVision widescreen process for popular comedies including Doctor at Sea (Ralph Thomas 1955) and Simon and Laura (Muriel Box 1955).⁶⁹ This tradition continues today. The studios are now the keystone of the Pinewood Group which in addition includes a global network of studios at Shepperton, Toronto, and in the Dominican Republic. Described in publicity as exemplifying a ‘Pinewood brand’, the foundations of this identity can indeed be traced back to the infrastructural and material changes Pinewood underwent following the Second World War.