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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 19 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fennelly. j ( 'on i ii in d. and they start showing them early in the morning when the only people on the premises are the charwomen. 98. Whose morals and whose cultural sense will not, one may expect, be very much offended? — Well, I do not expect they have very much time to look at the screen. 99. Supposing there were a practice of that kind, would you regard it as desirable that something should be done to check it? — I think if it could be checked it would be desirable. As I say, as the Act stands, these films are shown in the morning, but they are shown in the normal hours when the theatre is open and anybody who likes to pay can go in and see them. 100. (Chairman,) : It would be easy to show it once in each programme? — Yes, that could be done. The tendency at present is to show these bad films very early in the morning and very late at night. 101. (Chairman) : Then you could get over it if you said it should be Shown four or five times, once in each programme. 102. (Dr. Million) : Where this occurs, does it occur in houses that are controlled by American companies or does it occur in other fiouses also ? — It occurs in some of the West End theatres which are controlled by American companies, and it occurs to a certain extent with other exhibitors who have no objection to British films as such, but through circumstances ouisfde their control cannot get all the good British films they want and they occasionally get a bad British film that they have to show in order to meet their quota. There is undoubtedly a tendency to showr it early in the programme before the house fills up. According to the returns made to us, they often show a bad British film four times in a day as compared with three times for the average feature, so I presume they get in the first showing when the theatre opens and before the crowds arrive. 103. Then on the question of documentary films, does that bear, in your view, upon this difficulty of the shortage in the supply of good films ? Supposing that documentary films did count for quota, might they be used to an increased extent by the exhibitors for quota purposes ? — Well, in a large number of cases, of course, an exhibitor can use them now. They have got exhibitor's quota. On the assumption that they were given a renter's quota, a renter would of course be more inclined to push the sale so as to get some of his money back, but it is always a moot point whether the average cinema-goer is very keen on looking at a large number of documentary films. 104. The documentary film people say they have difficulty in getting a satisfactory verdict on thenproductions. Is it not a fact that before they can get a Press show they have to have the documentary film booked up by a renter?— No, that is not so. The documentary film can always be shown, and it is shown to the Press and to the trade very often before any question of registration arises. In fact all films are trade shown before they are registered, they have to be trade shown by law before they are registered. 105. I thought the difficulty was on the one hand a Press show might be difficult to arrange if the film had not been taken up by a renter, and on the other that the renter insisted on a quota before taking the film? — Undoubtedly the renter would, if it was a foreign-controlled renter, or even a British renter who wanted the film for quota purposes. 106. You are familiar with this objection, are you not? It has been made, I think, by Mr. Grierson and others. They have alleged the existence of a vicious circle which works in that way, that they cannot get their show unless they get a renter, and they cannot get a renter unless they get the quota ? — Yes, it does work that way, but it is possible to break it nevertheless. 107. Well, we shall have them before us to tell us about it? — Yes. (The Witn 108. I think that is all, thank you? — Might I just add one more word. There is one aspect of the film trade which may assume a certain amount of importance in the future, and that is the question of substandard films. The average film is a 35 mm. film, but there is a growing practice now which members of the Committee will know of, of showing the 1G mm. film for educational purposes. There is also a tendency, which has not grown very far yet, to show the 16 mm. films to the general public in halls and similar places. As far as I know these halls are not subject to the 1909 Act, in that they have to have a licence from the local authority, or anything of that sort. Hitherto in the few cases that have come before us we have rather taken the view that these exhibitions are outside the Act. Undoubtedly when the Act was drafted it was designed to meet the 35 mm. film — length and everything else are based on that assumption — and to apply the Act to the 16 mm. film would be in many respects difficult. We have rather taken the line that we would not apply the Act to the 16 mm. films. That is as matters stand at present, but I think the Board of Trade would be very grateful if the Committee could look at that aspect of the matter and obtain some evidence from the trade as to the extent to which it is prevalent now or likely to grow. 109. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Are those the non-flam films? — They are the non-flam films; they are mostly reproductions on the entertainment side of ordinary feature films brought down to 16 mm. and there are a number of travelling cinemas showing these in one place or another. I do not think they have grown to any extent yet, but one is never sure of what may happen in the future. 110. (Chairman): They are right outside the Act? — Well, we have not applied the Act to them. I would rather put it that way. 111. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Is the interest of the Treasury affected? — They pay entertainment tax, but I am not sure whether the local authorities have any jurisdiction over them under the 1909 Act. There was a test case up in the North of England, but it failed. 112. (Mr. Cameron) : Is not the point this, that in the Act of 1909 there is no definition of what an inflammable film is, and these are non-flam films? The Home Office endeavoured to prove a non-flam •film was inflammable, because it would burn slowly, and the test case was taken and reported. They did not really get a decision, but I understand there is no secret of it, that the Home Office have for a long time been contemplating issuing regulations. I do not know whether Mr. Fennelly knows how far they have got ? — I do not know that side of the business, but we are a little concerned about the growth of this 16 mm. entertainment film, and it is extraordinarily difficult to bring it under the Act as it stands at present. 113. Does not consideration of that depend on the action of the Home Office in the first instance? — I should not have thought so, with all respect. 114. I am only asking the question. I thought if they took steps to bring these halls under the jurisdiction of their Act it would imply a greater degree of official relation with shows of that kind and so might involve consideration for quota purposes? — Yes. The two Acts are, of course, quite distinct, and I think our problem is an entirely different one from the problem of the Home Office, which is the safety problem. Ours is the problem whether the Act can be applied to the 16 mm. film. There are all kinds of awkward snags arising once you si art to consider these 16 mm. films. 115. (Chairman): Is that in addition to your evidence? — I will include it in the memorandum. We are not clear to what extent these films are a pre' yet. but we feel it may be one. Thai is the most we can say. ess withdrt w, I 36452 I '