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

18 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fennelly. [Cont'ui vh d. has got one or two British films and more quota than he wants he takes under his wing a number of other small renters (I presume for a consideration, but we do not know that), and they all satisfy the quota together. 76. What about a film like " Emil und der Detective " which might have had a big circulation in this country, but which went straight back to the country of origin? — I think if it is a good film, and it is the kind of film that will have a big circulation, it gets it. Take, for instance, that German film, " Madchen in Uniform," that was brought in by the Film Society. They handed it over to another renter and I believe he did very well out of it, at least it had a large number of bookings. 77. It happened to get written up by the Press; but I do not want to keep the Committee on this point. I have called attention to it. There is one other question I wanted to ask. In paragraph 56 in the last sentence you say : " The renters have now set their face against any extension of this practice." I want to be quite clear what that means. It means, does it, that the renters will now not rent films to a group of companies or theatres unless there is a properly organised circuit which is really one company, is that it? — Unless there is financial control throughout, excepting in the case of some existing booking circuits. I believe they will not do business with any more new booking circuits where there is no financial inter-relation between the companies. 78. There must be a definite financial control of a circuit, that it is a genuine circuit and not a kind of customs union? — Yes. I think you will find that the exhibitors will give some evidence on that subject. 79. Are we to take it as a statistical fact that the two-feature programme is on the increase? — I only judge by what I read in the trade Press, and the general impression I have is that it is on the increase. Of course it starts in the big towns first and I think it is spreading outward. 80. In spite of this new growth of so many documentary films in this country, you still think the use of the two-feature programme, as a fact, is growing? — Yes, I think the public want more for their money, and competition between theatres brings that result. There was a tendency to give a fourhours programme, but the renters put their foot down and they will not rent to anyone who shows a programme of more than three and a quarter hours. 81. (The Hon. Eleanor Flumer): Most of the questions I wanted to raise have been put, but there is one point about the exclusion of documentary films. That comes under paragraph 29. Of course, when the Act was passed the documentary film was hardly in existence. It was very much in its infancy, was it not? — Yes. 82. Now, surely is it not a fact, that because they do now cost a good deal to make and there are a very much larger number of them being made, would they not, in their present foim, come within the scope of what the Act was designed to promote ? — Oh, much more now than they did. 83. There is a good deal more studio work in them, is that not a fact? — I agree, but the trouble is to draw the line between that class of film and the film where a man goes out with a camera and turns a handle. 84. There is a very great diHereiiee between that and the documentary film as envisaged by Paul Rotha? — Yes, the introduction of sound makes an enormous difference. 85. There is one other point on paragraph 45, Table (', "here you give particulars of British films and particulars of films made outside Britain registered for lull quota. Practically all those films were acquired by foreign-controlled renters. I suppose that is because the British companies do not waul the imported films — these are Dominion films, are they not? — The real fact is that they are, in general poor films. 86. That is what I was getting at? — And the foreign renters acquire the United Kingdom ri^'m of those films remarkably cheaply. 87. There has been a very slight increase, though the number was eleven in 1934 and eleven at the present time. It is a fact, is it not, that there is a batch of films made in Canada which has just qualified for quota? — One only, I think. 88. No, I have seen three? — Do you mean feature films ? 89. Feature films, yes, and that seems to me to be new? — Yes, there were two in 1935-36. There may be others being made. I think they have started making them in British Columbia. 90. Yes, they have? — But they are not very good films. 91. They are terribly bad, but that seems to be a point which we shall have to look into? — As regards that we might expect an increase from Australia in the near future because of the operation of their quota legislation which makes the exhibitors and the renters in Australia acquire and show a certain proportion of Australian films. It is rather a complicated arrangement, but as those films, as matters stand, can count for quota both here and in Australia, obviously if an American renter is renting films in Australia and has to acquire Australian films he will bring those films over here and register them for quota purposes. To that extent, of course, there will be less films made in this country than one would otherwise have expected. That is the general effect of the Australian Acts. 92. (Dr. Mallon) : About these American companies, they are not interested in the production of good English films ; that we can understand. "Would you put it higher than that and say they are interested in the production of bad English films? — No, I would not put that against them. 93. Then there is no reason to suppose that they do desire to go about and secure that the reputation of the English film is lowered? — That has been alleged, but it is difficult, of course, to get any proof of a thing like that. It must be recognised, of course, that United Artists, for instance, do distribute some of the best British films of London Film Productions, Ltd., and one or two other American renters show signs of wanting to make films here, not for quota purposes but for world markets. Fox-Twentieth Century, I believe, are going to make films here. There are other ideas in the air, but, of course, there have always been other ideas in the air ever since the Ait started. We are always hearing that American renters are to make good films here. At times some of them have made an effort. They spent a lot of money on them, but they do not seem to be able to produce films to make money. 94. So far as bad British films go about the world the Americans have no responsibility for them? — I have no doubt that thej export their poor British films to the Dominions. We have seen that stated, but whether they get many exhibitions out there I do not know. I should imagine not. 95. And so far as they do that, so far as they export British films it is not necessarily with a base intention? — I would not like to say that. no. 96. You think it happens in the ordinary routine of business Yes. they ^are in business to run foreign films and they regard this quota as something to be done as cheaply as possible. It is a matter of business in the long run. 97. Where a British firm secures the booking oJ :i film of the inferior type, does it get fair treatment? It has been alleged, has it not. that in certain i ases a film ot the kind I have in mind is run off in the morning to almost emptj houses?— Oh. yes. that is the tendency in one or two of the West End theatres tb.it are real); controlled by a renter. They have to show a certain proportion ot British films