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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 17 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fbnnelly. {('mi fin ui',1. of the Act in his reference to linguistic and cultural value by going on to box office value in the second reading. Are the Board of Trade satisfied with the operation of the Advisory Committee to whom this question of "special exhibition value" is referred? would they be prepared to consider an independent tribunal of qualified persons to decide this issue? Would such a tribunal not be preferable to the present rather unwieldy Advisory Committee who in point of fact have often not seen the film? — It is rather a large question. In the first place it is asking the Board of Trade, so to speak, to throw over the present Advisory Committee and say they are not satisfied with the way they have assisted them so far. 60. Only in respect of special exhibition value? — It is a thing I should rather like to think about, and I would not like to commit myself at the moment. 61. You are not required by Statute to refer the question of exhibition value to the Advisory Committee at all? — I agree, but as inexpert civil servants we go to an expert Committee for advice. 62. There is nothing in the Act which would prevent you setting up another body to advise, you in regard to special exhibition value? — Nothing at all. 63. Thank you, Sir. That concludes my observations?— If I might make a remark on what you were saying, Sir Arnold Wilson ; all the films you are talking about, put up for special exhibition value, are in most cases entitled as of right to registration for exhibitors' quota, that is any exhibitor who shows them can count them against his foreign films. The application for registration on the ground of special exhibition value is made in many cases because the film obtains full quota and the maker can sell it to a renter for more money than if it has exhibitors' quota only. That is the whole secret. The renter can count it against his foreign films, and it is much easier for him, when he has not sufficient short British films to meet his quota, to acquire extra long British films to cover the deficiency. If I may add a further word on this documentary type of film. You will no doubt see when the Associated Realist Film Producers give evidence, that the difficulty about the short documentary film is that when it is produced and a fair amount of money spent on it the principal market seems to be the foreign-controlled renter. 64. (Mr. Cameron) : Is that why it has been suggested that the renters' quota as distinct from the exhibitors' quota should be substantially increased? It is the opposite point to the one that the renters' quota should be abandoned. I have seen it suggested there should be a considerable increase in the renters' quota ? — The idea behind that theory is that there are far too many bad British films about and the area from which the exhibitor can choose in the ordinary way is restricted. It is argued that competition will raise the standard of output and if you make it much higher the renters will fall over one another to make good films, because their market becomes restricted. The proposal comes from the exhibitors' side of the trade. 65. There is only one other point that has not been covered, the question of European films coming into this country which are of cultural value and of a kind one wishes to see coming freely. The position was that bodies like the London Film Society, were unable to get any renter to take on its quota a foreign film that would only be shown two or three times and so used to import them without a renters' quota. The Board of Trade allowed them to do it, and the film came to England and went straight back again after being shown, say, at the London Film Society. It was thus not available for distribution among a good many repertory cinemas and film societies where it would not have been in competition with British pictures and might have done a good deal of good. I do not know to what extent that is tile position now? — We have always recognised that the Film Society deals in the rather specialised films from abroad, and is in a special position. They pass on a number of films to other renters in this country who let them out to repertory theatres and places like Studio One. Whether the trumbers ar< growing I am not sure. 66. (Chairman) : Is the Film Society a public bodyp It is a question of renting, is it not? — The Film Society are renters. 67. They short-circuit and it does not go through a renter ? 68. (Mr. Cameron): That is what I understand is the position, the London Film Society show, for example, " A day of great adventure," and the Board of Trade trusting the Society and knowing it is a benevolent body takes no action. That is the position? — When they show at their own meeting there is no exhibition to the public; but occasionally they rent a film of this specialised type : they register the film and act as renters themselves. They may at times have been in default, but in view of the special circumstances we have not felt it necessary to take action under the Act. 69. But actually for that film to come in it ought to hare appeared on a renters' quota before being shown to the Film Society? — Not before being shown by the Film Society, because that is not an exhibition to the public. 70. So it need not appear in a renters' quota ? — No. it need not appear in a renters' quota. In 1935-6 there were forty-three foreign films registered other than U.S.A. films, including fifteen from Germany, five from Austria, thirteen from France, and five from Russia. 71. I have raised this point because I think that for the circulation of foreign films of genuine but limited entertainment value it should not depend on the Board of Trade exercising discretion not contemplated under the Act? — I agree that the Act does tend to impede the exhibition of these foreign films for the reason that a renter knowing he is going to get very few bookings for them, because they appeal to a very small clientele, does not want to go to the cost of acquiring a British quota against them. 72. (Sir Arnold Wilson): The Committee is doubtless aware there has been a great increase in the last two years of (German films shown in France, which is an astonishing fact due to the skill of the Germans in getting French actors to go to Berlin in order to take star parts in films made in Berlin which are thereupon shown in Germany and equally freely in France? — Yes. 73. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : There is that aspect as well. 74. (Mr. Cameron): I quite realise you have got to be careful. It is not a means of introducing any films that are undesirable in any way, but I think it is a point that the Committee should consider, whether it cannot safeguard the distribution of foreign cultural films somehow by amending the Act. Has Mr. Fennelly in mind any suggestion as to how that position might be improved without opening the door to abuse? — I should like to be convinced it does not work satisfactorily now. I think if the Film Society were asked they would say that they had not suffered any harm. The real sii.il; is that some renter has got to have this film sooner or later if it has got to be shown to the general public, and the average renter will not take this film because he has got to produce British quota against it. That is perhaps one reason why foreign films are not shown in this country except in special circumstances. 75. That is a thing I am suggesting should be made more possible, not so much lor the Film Society but for the repertory theatre thai is aiming at catering for an adult audience in a particular locality. I want to see it made more easy for them, but I know it is working better new than it did at one time? — What sometimes happens is thai these renters who take this class of film combine together under Section 14 of the Act, and where one renter 36452