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

16 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fennki.iv. [ ( 'on l in tied. That should be covered to some extent by the census of production? — Yes, the cinema industry has not been covered by any census of production so far taken, and the question of doing so has not at present been considered. J have put it to our Statistical Department and they see no objection at all to it being done. The earliest it could now be done is in 1937 in connection with the census taken under the Import Duties Act. 32. It is a recommendation that might properly come from this Committee? — I think the Board of Trade might be prepared to accept that. The cinematograph printing trade is included, but that is rather a different side. 33. The Orders in Council were issued in 1936? — There are two forms of census at present, the quinquennial census and also an annual census taken under the Import Duties Act, and a section of the Finance Act, 1933, which extended that enquiry to goods covered by duties other than those under the Import Duties Act. It is not so wide in its scope as the quinquennnial census. 34. We can consider that at leisure? — The forms are going out to all the industries now. .35. (Chairman) : There is no urgency about the quinquennial? — The next one will not be until 1940, I presume. 36. The forms have gone out? — For the 1935 one. 37. (Sir Arnold Wilson): It is too late for the Board of Trade to do it now? — I gather it is. 38. (Chairman): The same forms do not go out to everybody, I mean the same details are not applicable to all industries. Would it be possible? — I will inquire, there may just be time, I do not know. 39. (Sir Arnold Wilson): I would be satisfied with a census under the Import Duties Act. Has the Board of Trade any data as to the production and export of cinema films in the United Kingdom? — By production do you mean production of all films? 40. Of all films not under quota? — We have no figures at all of total production. The only figures Ave have are of the ones that are registered and it is safe to assume they represent a very high proportion of the total. On the export side, the export figures of films are very difficult. You do not export your original production, but a copy of it and the trade figures themselves are useless for the purpose of deciding how much trade is going on in them. Mr. Rowson made some remarks on the subject in the paper read to the Royal Statistical Society and suggested that the form of the trade statistics relating to films might be altered altogether and put on an entirely new basis. That will be taken into consideration when the time comes for revising the trade stal istics. 41. I noted particularly that suggestion of Mr. Rowson's; would you regard it as a proper recommendation that might come from this Committee?— I think so. 42. 1 think unquestionably it would have greater weight coming from this C0111m^tfee> anc^ if would make it possible for the Board of Trade to keep a closer eve upon the operation of the Act than they can at present? — Tt would enable us to see what is happening abroad, I think. 13. Can you add to your evidence a statement showing the number of persons engaged in the various capacities as film producers, and in connection with film production? — I will put in a statement, (b) but I can give some figures now. 44. Can we have the rough figures? — The latesl official information is in the 1931 Census. The occupation tables show 454 persons employed as film producers in film studios in England and Wales, and one in Scotland, making 455. The occupation tables du not show separately electricians, Ac employed in film studios. tlie\ are all classed under their occupation and not their actual employment. The industry tables show that nearly 6,000 persons are employed in film producing ami film studios, of (b) Appendix IX. which 4,000 are males and 2,000 are females. The operative employees were 5,500. 15. (Chairman) : What is the date of these figures? — This is the 11)31 Census of Population. 46. (Sii A i i<i,ld Wilson): That is after four years of the Ac! that is a net gain to industry ? — Nof net, I think, because there was a certain amount of employment before. 47. Has there been a further increase since then? — I have no doubt that the number employed in the industry has increased since, because of the growth of new studios and larger output of films. The National Association of Theatrical Employees, if they give evidence, and possibly the Association of CineTechnicians, could perhaps give information. 48. (Mr. Stanley Holmes):"! should not think the 1931 figures are of any value. 49. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Has the Ministry of Labour any information as to wages and hours and conditions of labour in the film-producing industry? — The Board of Trade has no information. I understand the Ministry of Labour have none either. 50. Is there a special Board dealing with employment in the cinematograph industry as. for example, there is in the insurance industry ? — I have never heard of such. 51. I have only one more point. I can find no statement in your admirable report of the number of British films registered annually, firstly, as having special exhibition value? — I must apologise for omitting those figures. I have them here. Shall I put them in as an appendix ?(c) 52. If we can hear them roughly, you can put them in later? — This is proviso (i). Since the Act came into force we have registered 14 long films and 53 short films on the ground of their special exhibition value. 53. Special exhibition value was described by the President of the Board of Trade as " box office value " ? — Yes. 54. Do you consider that in view of their ten years' experience the Board of Trade considers that to be the last word? — I would not like to say it was the last word, but I think that the trade woidd continue to take that view nevertheless. I think some regard ought to be paid to the cultural aspect, but I think too much regard can be paid to that aspect. It is rather astonishing to find how few short films are actually exhibited. The table in paragraph 59 of my memorandum shows that the proportion of short films exhibited is tending downwards now. It did go up, and now it is going down. Tt dropped from 6-28 per cent, to 4-21 per cent, in the last year and that at a time when there was an increased amount of short subjects available, because we have been registering far more films for exhibitors' quota only in the last year or two than we ever did before. namely 56 short subjects in 1934-35. and 46 in 1935-36. That is in addition to four long films in the two years. 55. Have you reason to think registrations have in fact been excessive? Has the experience of the trade s 1 1 ggested you have registered too main ? For exhibitors' quota?' 56. Yes? — The films are entitled to exhibitors' quota as of right . 57. Have too mam been registered: Not judging bj the showing of films. One would assume offhand then' have not been enough registered. It i difficult to know why the exhibitions have fallen so rapidly, unless the ordinary cinema public or the proprietors do not care about them, or unless under the twoteat ure programme there is no room left lor the short feature. 58. Is not that fact tin' more probable explanation? — Yes. 1 think it is. The average exhibitor does not care about short exhibits, lie concentrates on the long film. .V.). If I may go back to exhibition value, the President of the Hoard of Trade weakens the Hied (c) Appendix X.