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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 15 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fennelly. [< 'mi H a mil. 18. Yes? — They are practically all over three thousand feet; it is very seldom they buy any films below three thousand. 19. The drop in the exhibition of short films is therefore nothing to do with the bad qualities of the quickies, it is simply due to a change in the arrangement of programmes. The statutory requirements which you give us in Appendix I have been found ineffective in several respects according to your evidence. Do you think that there is a case for getting some change about the restriction. The kind of case which occurs to one is when there is a scene" in Tahiti; it must be of enormous cost to British film producers to take people specially out there. All the wages they have to pay to the Tahitian natives would have to be excluded from the seventyfive per cent.? — There have been proposals that the seventy-five per cent, requirement should be dispensed with altogether. We have not heard much about that lately, but in the early days of the Act it was the subject of representations to the Board of Trade on more than one occasion, the producers holding if they had to employ such a large proportion of British artists and technicians they could not make films for the world market. In other words they were prevented from employing the best talent the world could produce. There is a tendency for films to be partly re-made here and foreign material to be incorporated, and the Act says they are not British films for quota purposes. We ourselves recognise that cannot be pushed too far, and in practice we apply the de minimis principle, and if a man introduces a small amount of foreign material for the purpose of getting foreign atmosphere we disregard it. 20. You do not apply this? — Rigidly, no. In a case which went to the High Court the Judge himself said " substantially in its entirety," which I think implies de minimis. 21. The provision that the author of the scenario must be a British subject has broken down too. How do you administer that? — Nowadays there are so many people engaged. There are the continuity writers and the treatment writers, and it is difficult to know who is the scenario writer under the Act. 22. (Mr. J. S. Holmes): I would like to follow ii]) what the Chairman has said with regard to renters' quota. The necessity for putting the quota on the renters as well as exhibitors was that the exhibitors would not have been able to get British films and would have had to have made them themselves ? — Yes. 23. That does not occur at the present time, and I am wondering whether if we abolished the renters' quota it will not have this effect, that the renters who were attached to the foreign makers of films would probably give up troubling about the rental of any film but their own and new firms would arise in this country who would devote themselves to the supplying to exhibitors of British films only. They would therefore take far more interest in British films, and would probably exercise a good influence on the makers of British films in seeing their quality was improved and only those that were good were likely to obtain contracts from the exhibitors? — I think it is perfectly certain if there was no quota obligation on the foreign-controlled renter he would make no films in this country. That is not his business. Whether you would get a sufficient supply, on the assumption the exhibitors' quota remained at its present level, to satisfy them I doubt. Most of the production of the foreign-controlled renters are not good films, in the sense that the exhibitor does not want to show them if he can possibly avoid it. Therefore there is a very large market for good British films, but the exhibitors say there are not sufficient good British films produced to satisfy their requirements disregarding the renters' quota altogether. 24. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Will Mr. Fennelly be good enough to add. as an appendix to bis evidence, the full text of the President of the Board of Trade's speech on the Second Reading? It would certainly be of assistance to us.* Secondly, will be add, as an appendix, (a) details of import duties so that we may have that on record? Thirdly, much has happened technically since 1927. The President of the Board of Trade referred to a " common language.'' He was anticipating events, for sound films had not been invented in 1927. Can Mr. Fennelly say to what extent the administration of the Act has been made more or less difficult by the advent of the sound film? — It has made extraordinarily little difference in practice. 25. Did it on the whole encourage British films':" — That, I think, is undoubtedly true. It is really to my mind a moot point whether after 1920, when the sound film came in, the Act itself, or the English voice had the greater effect on the growth of British film production, and it is a point on which trade opinion might be asked. I have always thought it was a point that wanted investigation. The British public do like the sound of British voices, there is no doubt about that. 26. One of the main difficulties of the Board of Trade in administering the Act is to interpret Section 27 of the Act, i.e., to decide to what films the Act applies and whether certain films have special exhibition value? Can Mr. Fennelly tell us whether " Felix the Cat " and " Mickey Mouse " had been invented in 1927?— I think " Felix the Cat " was in existence, but not " Mickey Mouse." There certainly were the beginnings of cartoon films even in those early days. 27. I should have thought myself, Mr. Chairman, that such films ought to be excluded from the Act. They do not deal with news or current events; they are mechanically made and have a universal appeal. They are not " cultural." No sentence of the President of the Board of Trade's speech can conceivably refer to " Felix the Cat." Does Mr. Fennelly think that they should be excluded from the Act in future? — Speaking offhand I should have thought not. The Act was intended to apply to what are commonly called entertainment films, the films normally shown in the cinema, and these are probably the most widely shown apart from news reels. They are produced by mechanical means, but I should think they have helped very largely in the technical development of the industry, especially more recently on the colour side, and no doubt in photography. I am not a technician, but I should have imagined so. 28. If they were to be excluded from the Quota Act would it not facilitate their export? — From this country ? 29. From this country. Are we not hampered in our dealings with foreign countries by the application of the quota? Has it not led to retaliation? — Do you mean foreign retaliation? 30. Yes? — We have not seen any signs of it. Of course, it has been very difficult not only for the British cartoon film, but also for the long ordinary feature film, to break into the American market, but I do not know that has been due to the United States taking objection to our quota law. T think ii is a question of getting into the market, as with most other trades, and selling your product on its merits, and the position seems to be improving rapidly there now. Some of the more recent British films are said to have obtained extraordinarily good bookings in the United States of America. 31. Paragraph 44 of Mr. Fennelly 's memorandum says : — "The Board of Trade are not in a position to estimate either the capital invested in the production side of the industry or the cost of British films." * Not re-printed. (Official Report 16th March, 1927, Columns 2037-2048.) (a) Appendix VIII.