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

40 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 12 May, 1936. ] Mr. F. W. Baker. Mr. M. N. Kearney. Mr. A. Kokda. .Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. nued. that a proportion of home-produced films shall be exhibited, without extending the advantage of such quota legislation to films produced in the United Kingdom. This state of things is dangerous to United Kingdom films as they will be eligible for quota in Great Britain only, whereas, unless the terms of the present Act are modified, Australian films will be eligible for both Australian and British quota, which will make them more attractive to the foreign renters who supply both markets. Furthermore, there have been instances of films made in the Empire for purely local purposes being acquired by foreign renters here at negligible cost for the sole purpose of serving as quota to match foreign films. It is felt that in equity the provisions of the present Act should be amended so as to exclude from its benefits films produced in other parts of the Empire except to the extent to which the laws of such countries accord commensurate advantages to United Kingdom films. The modification of the Act in this respect in the manner indicated would not debar the adoption of an Imperial quota scheme, should such a scheme be agreeable to various of the Dominions at a future date.) Proposal 11. — Abolition of the clause in the present Act requiring that the author of the scenario of a British film shall be a British subject. (Note 9. — This clause has always been a hindrance to British producers and, while all of them are anxious to use the services of British scenario writers, it is strongly felt that this work should not be limited by law to British subjects). Proposal 12. — Section 1 (2) — in conjunction with Section 5 (4) — of the present Act makes it illegal to show to the public a film for which application for registration has not been made, except in one theatre only for a number of consecutive days. This restriction has been found in practice to operate to the disadvantage of British producers as compared with their competitors abroad. While the purpose of the sections quoted is obvious and their desirability recognised, it would be to the advantage of British producers if a modification could be introduced in the law to permit of their " trying out " a film at consecutive performances in a reasonable number of centres before application for registration. Public reaction to a picture in various parts of the country is a most useful guide to producers in finally deciding upon the completed version of a picture for general exhibition, and a modification of the law to permit of this would be of considerable help to producers without reducing the value of the general requirement that all pictures shall be trade-shown before application for registration. Proposal 13. — That the existing penalties for failure to comply with various provisions of the law should be amended in a new Act as follows: — Part 1, Section 3. — Increase to £250. Licence liable to cancellation after third offence. Part 4, Section 28. — Increase penalty to £100. Proposal II. — That steps be taken to provide for the supplying to the Government particulars of films made for public entertainment other than those required to be registered by the Act. (Note 10. — This is merely a recommendation. It would be extremely useful if more statistics of the ill iii industry were available, and at present there is no record of films other than those required to be registered). IKS. (Chairman) : I understand that Mr. Baker will in must cases answer. If there is any matter on which some other witness has anything to say. of course, we shall be glad to hear you; buf in the ordinary way we do not expect five answers to each question, and it may be that in some case Mr. Baker may wish some other witness who is specially interested in a particular point to answer for the whole side. Since we have had your memorandum of evidence we have also had a very interesting table put in, I think only this morning, showing the remarkable development in the industry, i Annex III.) I am not proposing to take you right through the evidence, we have all read it very carefully, but I would like to ask a few questions which seem to arise out of it. Before we begin on the detail could you tell us on what conditions producers are eligible to your group. You mention that companies technically British but controlled by foreign interests are not admitted. I wonder how you measure the control by foreign interest? — (Mr. Baker): My Lord, all British producing companies are eligible for membership to the Federation of British Industries, presuming that they have at least made one British picture. That is to say, there must be evidence that they have made a British production and being a British company they are eligible for the Federation of British Industries. That includes all the British producing companies in England. 117. Do you not here say that: — " These latter producers " — that is those who make films in this country but whose activities are confined to the making of such films as are needed by their principals to enable them to comply with the law relating to British quota — " are not members of the Federation of British Industries Film Group and are ineligible for membership since they are foreign-controlled and — except in the strictly legal senses — are foreign companies." ? So that it would appear you ride out people who do produce films in England. How do you measure the foreign control? — The question of capital and the regulations applied to membership of the Federation of British Industries generally. The companies or firms must be mainly financially controlled in this country. 118. You get a list of shareholders? — Yes. 119. And you see the majority? — Yes, that, of course, is decided by the Federation of British Industries, of which no doubt you know. 120. It is not you who exclude? — No. it is the Federation of British Industries who elect. 121. It is a committee of the Federation of British Industries? — And similar rules apply to all manufacturers in this country. 122. Are there any' important producers outside the Group with studios? — No. my Lord, there are no important producers outside the Group. One may assume that the Group represents British production. 123. There are many films produced by companies backed by foreign capital? — Yes, but those individual units in the main are members of the Group, my Lord. 124. Really this provision about foreign control does not apply? — I think it can be dismissed, yes. 125. These foreigners who produce films in Great Britain, but who only produce fur these foreign principals, are excluded. You have just told us there is no important producer in this country who is not a member of your Group? — That is so. 126. I am a little puzzled as to what that means —I will explain it at length, my Lord, if you .:■ sire. L27. It us clear this up. You sa\ the people ,\ 1 1 h Foreign control are not members, and yei you tell us that all the .substantial producers are members. Is there not a considerable number ot substantia] producers in this countrj who are under foreign control': No, they an' not producers in the strict sense of the word. American companies engaged in business in this country are not able themselves to produce films because they would not be termed British films if they made them and