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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 41 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, [Continued. Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. It. Norton. therefore they contract out and engage small companies or persons some of whom are members of the Film Group of the Federation of British Industries to make films for them, and in that way some " quickies," or the cheap films referred to in the memorandum, have been made by members of the Federation of British Industries. 128. So the controlled organisations over here are not members? — That is correct. 129. I see. You speak of the importance of the industry. Have you any figures as to the amount of labour employed on production? — Well, my Lord, the film producing is mainly in the studio. Producers are large purchasers of manufactured material. We have evidence, if it is desired we submit it, that about 5.000 persons are directly and permanently engaged in the studios in this country at the present moment, but that does not by any means represent the amount of labour engaged in British film production generally. 130. In regular employment? — That is regular. That takes no account, my Lord, of artists. You will appreciate that artists have varying salaries and therefore we take no account whatever of artists of any description or casual labour in mentioning that number. 131. What sort of number of artists is there? — That is very difficult to say, and I could not really furnish the number of artists who are regularly or irregularly employed. Of course there is a considerable number. 132. Have you any figure as to the annual cost of production? — We have that on the statement handed in. 133. £5 million? — The fourth column gives the cost of productions during the last year as approximately £5 million and a third. 134. That covers everything? That is gross? — That covers the whole of the films therein referred to. 135. This is " Form C " expenditure? — No, it is not " Form C." It is the cost of production. 136. And, of course, this is only feature films. I probably ought to know. Do your companies produce many non-feature films? — In this country there are not a very large number of short films made for reasons that are known to some members of your Committee, but one is pleased to say that the number of such films is increasing. 137. But your Group is concerned with whatever is produced in way of short films? — We only mention the features here for the purpose of clarity. In addition to those features there are a considerable number of short films made, not so many as one would hope, but we believe our proposals would stimulate further the making of short pictures. 138. The cost of those films is outside this £5 million? — Oh, yes, that is entirely apart, as also is the cost of news reels, etc. 139. The majority of more important renters in Great Britain, you say in your foreword, paragraph (2), are, although registered British companies, in fact the controlled distribution organisations of foreign producers and the object of their activities is to distribute foreign films. I am rather puzzled .about that, because I think I have seen there are nine foreign-controlled renters and altogether 65 renters licensed? — The majority of principal renters in Great Britain are, although registered British companies in fact, the controlled distribution organisations of foreign producers and the object of their activities is to distribute foreign films. That is a statement of fact, my Lord, and if you refer to the number of renters that are licensed by the Board of Trade that might be very deceiving because there is a large number of comparatively small renters. We are dealing here and looking at it from the point of view of the number of films that are produced and distributed. 140. Taking the actual output of films? — Yes. 141. The majority of films rented are controlled by people under foreign influence? — Yes, and when the Act came into force it was generally recognised the amount of film so controlled varied from 91 to 95 per cent. The Act has met that position to a considerable extent. 142. In the same way you say there are a number of theatres controlled by organisations representing foreign producers, and I have not appreciated that foreign producers had a very large interest. We have heard there are 12 Paramount theatres, and a lew in the West End of London. Are there any other considerable groups under foreign control? — We say in the case of theatres controlled by foreign interests the British quota of films is limited to legal requirements and in many of them poor quality " quota " films are shown. We do not say the number of theatres, my Lord. 143. But 1 rather infer it is a considerable number. It is not really very large? — We do not say it is a large number. 144. In fact are there any other groups larger than the 12 Paramount? — No. Unless one takes into account the American capital in the Gaumont-British organisation. 145. In paragraph 2 of your " General observations," you say the Act has been successful in its main object. Would you say it is the Act, or the invention of the sound film which is primarily or mainly responsible for the increase of British films? I would like your opinion as to the relative importance to be attached to the Act, or the comparative importance to be attached to the Act and the invention of sound films? — Oh, well, my Lord, there is no doubt in our minds that the Act has been mainly resrjonsible for the increased production of British films. My mind goes back to the year following the War, when the screens of this country were almost exclusively occupied by American films. In 1920 and 1921 British producers were very much concerned because of their difficulties in getting British films on the screen, and Lord Beaverbrook, who then had considerable interest in the film business, called the whole trade together to see what could be done to correct this very important matter and also to permit the public to see newer films because at that date the exhibitors, the theatres, were booked up for a period of not less than 18 months ahead with the result that the films, foreign and British, on the screen were very old. A considerable amount of money was spent by British producers in those days in an endeavour to find a solution, and arising out of that, His Majesty the King (then, of course, Prince of Wales), interested himself by attending a luncheon and the British National Film League was formed. The main ideas of Lord Beaverbrook were not successful because we could not get the foreign renters or distributors to agree with the British distributors of those days to limit the number of pictures. There was an endeavour to control releases and so on, and in 1921 I associated with Colonel Bromhead, and I wrote to Colonel Bromhead in November, 1921, and said, " As a trade we cannot correct this evil of blind and block booking but let us British producers endeavour to do so," and arising out of that the British National Film League was formed, and in 1921 one of the conditions was that films should not be booked until after the trade show and that no booking should be arranged more than six months ahead. So you see we were anticipating many years before the Act came into force some such regulation as did eventually come into force. 146. Tn fact that voluntary arrangement >vas not altogether successful? — That voluntary arrangemein was a complete failure. 147. Block booking became an even greater problem among British producers than American? — Colonel Bromhead on behalf of Qaumoni Company and other producers at the time and mvself wore verv interest d and probably put our businesses in jeopardy in the endeavour to break down the strangle-hold the American companies had in those days on the screen. 36452