The transformation of Spanish cinema in the last decades of the 20th century and the emergence of what came to be known as New Spanish Cinema owes much to the creation of the Official Film School of Madrid in 1962, which replaced the Institute of Arts and Sciences. Cinematographic Experiences, created in 1947, and to the order for the Development of National Cinematography of 1964 promoted by the Ministry of Information and Tourism of Manuel Fraga. Two measures that had a decisive impact on a practically amateur sector that could not stand comparison with the film industries of France or Italy, without having to go any further.
The policies promoted by the General Directorate of Cinematography and Theater, in which Fraga himself promoted a great connoisseur of the seventh art such as José María García Escudero, helped the creation of its own industry. For its part, a new generation of filmmakers emerged from the new School, such as Mario Camus, Carlos Saura, Pilar Miró, Manuel Summers, Manuel Gutiérrez Aragón, Antonio Mercero, José Luis Borau, Claudio Guerín and Víctor Erice. Before the end of the decade, fifty directors from there had made their debut in Spanish cinema with their own feature films.
The increase in the volume of productions was also revealing: if until then they did not reach a hundred and there were years that were around 50, in 1966 Spanish cinema reached a record of 164 feature films. Of them, 97 were co-productions with international capital, a measure promoted by García Escudero that proved successful.
In this context, the ministry led by Fraga wanted to evaluate the situation of the sector and its professionals and the Institute of Public Opinion –predecessor of the current Center for Sociological Research (CIS)– carried out two opinion studies in January and October 1966 to know the opinion of the actors and directors. To do this, he interviewed 168 performers registered in the magazine Cineguía and 142 filmmakers registered in the Registry of the General Directorate of Cinematography and Theater.
The surveys confirmed the crisis and amateurism of the sector and endorsed from a professional point of view the measures promoted by the Government. But they revealed the strong demand for freedom of expression that this new generation of film directors demanded. It should be noted that the decade began with the scandal of Viridiana, Luis Buñuel’s film that won the Palme d’Or at the 1961 Venice Film Festival. It was a Spanish co-production that had passed through censorship, but was considered blasphemous by L’Osservatore Romano, media spokesperson for the Vatican, and banned in Spain and Italy.
The first thing that the two studies reveal is that the job was vocational for both directors (59%) and actors and actresses (46%), although in the latter case the theatrical origin of the professionals and the jump to the cinema of a good percentage of them (23%). This largely explained why the majority – both directors and actors – did not have cinema as their only occupation, but rather combined it with other jobs. This was stated by 52% of the directors and 56% of the actors. As for the latter, a clear 62% felt poorly paid.
Despite this precariousness, a clear majority (81% and 66%, respectively) showed their firm conviction of continuing in the profession they had chosen despite having other interesting offers that could take them away from cinema. And that, in the case of performers, work was not plentiful, since 41% acknowledged not having acted in any Spanish film in the year prior to the survey. In the case of actresses, this percentage reached 49%. In the case of co-productions with Spanish capital and, in particular, foreign films, this participation plummeted.
Another sign that showed both the job insecurity and the situation of Spanish cinema was that up to 70% of the performers combined their intervention in film productions with appearances in plays and on television. In this case, actors and actresses did it equally. In fact, theater was the preferred option for 65% of those surveyed, compared to 23% who opted for cinema. The directors also combined film and television, and 51% indicated that they had projects exclusively for the small screen.
Directors, actors and actresses agreed that the sector was in crisis. This is how 82% of the former saw it, for whom censorship (27%), the disintegration of the industry (25%), the lack of solvent producers (24%) and the excess of films of dubious quality (20%) They hampered the national industry. For their part, 70% of actors and actresses also pointed out that Spanish cinema was in a crisis from which it could not escape. For them, the causes were the lack of economic resources (44%), the immaturity of the industry itself (16%), the lack of producers (14%) and the lack of public protection (12%).
Regarding measures to reverse the situation, the directors appealed to “adequate censorship” (26%), the production of better quality films (18%), the creation of an “authentic” industry (17%) and the suppression of dubbing (12%), which for 91% harmed the national production market. For the interpreters, to get out of this crisis it was necessary to economically strengthen the industry (25%) and state aid (12%), among other measures not included in the new law. Those surveyed also pointed to the suppression of dubbing as a lever of change for Spanish cinema. A large 61% considered that it harmed national production, and for 66%, its suppression would be a clear boost for Spanish cinema.
The “new legal regulations on cinematography” were well received by the majority of directors (68%) and actors (51%). The former even considered them by the majority (48%) to be a solution, completely or in part, to the problems of Spanish cinema. The latter were more skeptical about the impact they would have on their work, to the point that 46% believed that it would change “little” or “nothing” for them.
Regarding the new censorship rules, which did not leave the ‘scissors’ to the censor’s free will, the majority of directors considered that they continued to lack specificity (61%). Actors and actresses were more optimistic, although without being very clear that they would resolve the situation. The majority (39%) responded that they were not going to change anything, compared to those who considered that they would (36%). The rest preferred not to get wet. When evaluating them, the majority believed that they were “good” (33%), others described them as “more tolerant” (21%) and others as “inaccurate or vague” (another 21%). The answers were in any case suggested.
Maintaining this line of protest, in a time that could well be described as revolutionary, the directors considered that the necessary conditions to develop their work to the maximum of their professional and artistic qualities were freedom (84%), far ahead of something as basic as having sufficient financial means (52%). For the interpreters, the conditions were less striking, although no less significant: good management (45%), training (36%), economic security (33%) and full dedication (32%), more in tune with the postulates pointed out by Garcia Escudero.
The directors, even so, celebrated the abolition of the Censorship and Classification Board, which until then evaluated films. A resounding 86% saw this decision as correct. There was also consensus on the new measure on box office control, which until then had not been carried out and should have a direct impact on the income of the film industry: 89% considered it “very effective” or “fairly effective”, even though 77% saw that until then it had been applied with little rigor. Likewise, the screen quota that the law granted to Spanish cinema was also celebrated by 73% of the directors, for whom it was “very effective” or “fairly effective.”
Other legal measures applauded by the majority were the period of protection of Spanish productions for their commercial exploitation, subsidies for exhibition abroad and participation in international festivals or the new consideration of “films of national interest” and “films of special interest.” . It was not convincing, however, that co-productions had the same advantages as Spanish-only productions. 54% of directors were against it. For 55% of the actors and actresses consulted, it did not mean an improvement in the quality of Spanish cinema.
Finally, regarding the best directors of Spanish cinema, those who could mark a change of direction, their own colleagues were clearly betting on Luis García Berlanga (30%) and Juan Antonio Bardem (14%). For the actors, the references were also Bardem (20%), Berlanga (19%) and José Luis Sáenz de Heredia (11%). When asked if they had to perform with some of their references, the performers most chosen were Francisco Rabal (31%), Fernando Fernán Gómez (25%), Julia Gutiérrez Caba (32%), Irene Gutiérrez Caba (14%) and Aurora Bautista (14%).
Regarding the ranking of films directed by Spaniards – which are not necessarily Spanish productions –, the directors placed Welcome Mr. Marshall (14%), El Verdugo (7%), Viridiana (5%) and Launt Tula (5%) in first place. %). And they sent a message of optimism as the majority (66%) considered that new films directed by young talents could bring about the desired change in the profession by providing “new styles, themes and forms of expression” (31%).
