Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on Cinematograph Films (1936)

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 13 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fennelly. ( 'mi I iwued. the Colonial Office and the Colonial Governments concerned require to be assured that an adequate and regular supply of British films can be made available for exhibition in the territories concerned. It may be mentioned that the enactment of such legislation is not possible in the majority of the African Colonies owing to international treaties. 92. The revenue derived by United Kingdom producers from Dominion and Colonial sources is not substantial except in the case of Australia, but it is obviously necessary for the purposes of British prestige that good British films should be exhibited not only in the Empire but elsewhere in the world as widely as possible. 93* The budget of production costs of a film must obviously depend upon the market which is to be anticipated. In the case of a film produced in this country the main market at present is the United Kingdom, and producers can estimate with some degree of certainty the revenue to be expected from a particular type of film, provided it is well made, and can plan its production accordingly. There are, however, limits to the revenue which can be expected from the United Kingdom and this consequently sets an upper limit beyond which producers cannot afford to go unless they have some assurance of a market outside the United Kingdom. The exhibition of British films in the Dominions and Colonies assists in this respect, but it is often stated that the production industry in this country cannot take the next big step forward unless it can be certain of finding a market in foreign countries. particularly the United States. A certain amount of progress in this respect has been made in the last few years. The Gaumont-British Picture Corporation have started their own renting organisation in the United States and arrangements are understood to exist which ensure the release to exhibitors in the United States of films of other British producers. 94. There is no restrictive legislation in the United States. Various Continental Governments have, however, taken steps to encourage the production of films in their own territories and a summary of the measures at present in force is given in Appendix VII. In general there is a tendency to regulate the exhibition of foreign films by quotas on imports; in some cases the local industry is assisted by loans and subsidies, while some countries require the " dubbing " of imported films, i.e., the re-making of the sound track in the language of the country concerned, to he carried out locally. X. — The Question of Sub-Standard Films. 95. The standard film used in the ordinary cinema is of a width of 35 mm. There are, however, other sub-standard films of widths of 16 mm. and 9 mm., which are largely used for educational, scientific anil similar purposes and in home cinemas. Cases have arisen recently, however, where sub-standard films (usually reproductions of 3-5 mm. films which have been registered under the Act) have been exhibited to the general public. The application of the Act to exhibitions of sub-standard films raises some awkward problems. For instance, the line between long and short films is drawn in the Act at 3,000 feet and this was clearly based on the 35 mm. film. The distinction on this basis has, however, little meaning in the case of 16 mm. and 9 mm. films. So far as the Board of Trade are aware, however, the exhibitions of sub-standard films of a registrable character to the public have only taken place in a few cases, but as such exhibitions may increase in number their place in any legislation appears to require consideration. 1. (Chairman): Mr. Fennelly has given us a very excellent summary of the position. It was mentioned last week that we should be glad of an outline of the objects of national film policy. That is not covered by this evidence and perhaps Mr. Fennelly would in that respect supplement wluu he has given us. He will remember that Sir Arnold Wilson as\e<l whether there was any change in the attitude of the Government on this matter. Mr. Fennellj said that the conditions were the same and that he would b • able to give us an outline of what objects we should set before us to advise the Government how to achieve a satisfactory film policy. Could he tell us what was laid down when the Act was passed? The beginning of the memorandum shortly summarises the position, I think, but possibly the best way of dealing with that question is to read to you some extracts from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on Second Heading, when the Bill came up in 1927. The extracts are not very long. He started off by saying : — " 1 think the importance of securing greater production and wider distribution of British films is generally recognised throughout the country. The necessity was enforced in the strongest language by the Imperial Conference last Autumn " . . . . He then went on to recite the Resolution which you have in the document before you, stressing the importance from an Empire point of view of British films being as widely shown as possible. He said: — " I believe that that Resolution expresses a sentiment which is prevalent in the House and the country and throughout the Empire. It is based on a realisation that the cinema is to-day the most universal means through which national ideas and national atmosphere can be spread, and, even if those be intangible things, surely they are among the most important influences in civilisation. Everybody will admit that the strongest bonds of Empire — outside, of course. the strongest of all, the Crown — are just those intangible bonds — a common outlook, the same ideas, and the same ideals which we all share and which are expressed in a common language and a common literature ". . . . " To-day films are shown to millions of people throughout the Empire and must unconsciously influence the ideas and outlook of British peoples of all races. But only a fraction, something like 5 per cent., of the films which are at present shown in the British Empire are of British origin. That, as I submit and as the Imperial Conference held, is a position which is intolerable if we can do anvthing effective to remedy it". That deals with the national aspect. He then went on to deal with the trade aspect of the cinema and to stress the importance of the cinema from the advertising point of view on our trade abroad. 2. I do not think you need read it in detail if you mention the points that we have to bear in mind as being cultural? — With regard to the trade aspect, he drew attention to the importance which the United States of America attached to the film as a means of attracting trade, and made a referenc to some evidence given before an American Committee by the man in charge of the cinema section of the Department of Commerce, in which he said he had been shipwrecked on the coast of Peru and went ashore to lie re-outfitted, and found that in the shops there were no longer British articles; but that American articles had taken their place. On making inquiries he found that a great deal of that change was due to the fact that the people were constantly seeing American films. It was a direct, consequence of American films being exhibited. The President then quoted statements made bj the Trade Commissioners in Canada and Nen Zealand. Canada says, for instance : — "The cinema film has also operated against British trade. The production, distribution and exhibition of films in Canada is almost, entirely emit rolled by foreign interests. The effect of the