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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 47 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. 1 1 'ontinued. quota purposes? The exhibitors will still provide them, because of the difficulty of the small man in getting an adequate supply of British films? — No, the American renter will still be compelled to make his quota of British pictures. That looks after the exhibitor's requirements, but this is a class of film, as I repeat, which would not be made by the American distributors. 221. Not by the Americans, I quite see that? — Because they do not carry any advantage, but other people, British companies, might make those pictures and it is a fluke, in a way, if it was a cheap picture and a good picture. Well, then the exhibitors can book it and show it, and it carries exhibitors' quota, and if it is of a certain value, one can conceive certain pictures that might be made which would be a help to a certain class of producer. (Mr. Kearney.) They would sell on their merits. 222. I gather from that that you recognise that the cost test is not the sole test which is applicable in all cases? — (Mr. Baker): Oh, yes. 223. Well, would it not be better, rather than to risk the confusion of the output of very cheap films of poor merit with the good films in the minds of the public, to have some test other than cost in exceptional cases, that people should be allowed to go to the Advisory Committee or some other suitable body and put tip a case for special exemption from the 15s. requirement on the ground that the films are so good?— (Mr. Kearney) : Yes, we were going to propose that too, that they should in certain cases, if a film had particular merit (Mr. Baker) : The provisos to Section 27 of the present Act would continue. 224. You recognise special exhibition value as justifying exemptions from the 15s. limit? — Yes. (Mr. Kearney): Perhaps I might give very briefly the reason for that second qualification. The reason is this : if the suggestion we have made, that no films costing less than £1,250 per reel, on Form C, should be allowed to serve as renters' quota without the "label" is adopted, the foreign renter might say, " I am acquiring a British picture and it is going to be labelled; it is going to have the stigma of the label anyhow," and instead, therefore, of acquiring a picture costing over 15s. a foot (Form C), he might acquire one for a couple of thousand pounds or less and use it for renters' quota with the label. That is the reason for having the second qualification, that no picture costing less than 15s. a foot shall be eligible for renters' quota at all. (('apt. the Hon. B. Norton) : I think the Chairman has put a very trenchant question that we have not answered. The question was whether the exhibitors would make bad films for exhibitors' quota. We have not answered that. (Mr. Kearney) : They can do that to-day, but they do not. 225. Yes, but there is less incentive to-day, because they can get lots of cheap bad films without producing for themselves? — The trouble is not that there are plenty of bad films, but it is the exhibitor who takes exception to the bad films, because he cannot make money on them, he does not want to have any more. 226. (Mr. Cameron): It is against his interests? — It is against his interests if he likes to take bad films, and it depends on whether his public will let him do it. 227. (Chairman) : Then you would rely entirely on special applications on grounds of merit to let in these cheap films? — (Mr. Baker): I do not think too much attention ought to be paid to those films, because in my view those films do not exist and never will in any serious quantity. It does not warrant the amount of time we are spending on it, because they will not be made. 228. Then in paragraph 18 (d) you mention the tendency to show bad British pictures in slack hours. Have you any definite remedy in mind for that? — It is very difficult to suggest a remedy, my Lord, but it is a known evil, and I think that the Board of Trade have prosecuted in one or two ca I think the classic case was at Weymouth, it I remember rightly, where the exhibitor reduced his prices during a certain period of the day, and during that period of the day showed a British picture and said he was showing a British picture at reduced prices, and his programme proper came on at a later period. In another town, I think that was Horsham, an exhibitor said, " Well, we are showing British films at a certain theatre early." 229. But I suppose you can get over that by saying that each programme must be repeated in the same form? — The Act does prevent it now, but the suggestion is here that it might be strengthened. I do not think we want to put it any higher than that. 230. You do not think the Act is enforced. It is failure to enforce the Act? — It is failure to enforce the Act. It is difficult to enforce it because obviously it depends on your inspectors, or do you call them " common informers," who report these things to the Board of Trade for prosecution. 231. Well, it must be a false return? — Not necessarily, my Lord, because they return the films as having been shown during the normal hours of showing. Perhaps their conscience prevents them stretching the normal hours of showing to commence, we will say, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon or in the morning. 232. Yes, but if you made each programme the same, however many times they repeated it in the day, then you would be sure that the quota should apply with each programme? — The Act does not compel that. (Mr. Kearney) : The Act says, " The registered British film which has been exhibited during the normal hours in the ordinary programme," so that the Act does say so to-day. 233. It does not say you shall have two ordinary programmes in one day, that would be the remedy? — (Mr. Kearney) : There is a way of getting round it. The intention of the Act was that exhibitors should only show the British films in the ordinary run of the programme, but some of them show poor quality British films in the " dead " hours only or mainly. 234. Then we come to " short films " in paragraph 18 (e). I understood that the production and exhibition of short films was declining, but I was rather surprised to hear to-day Mr. Baker say that it was not so? — (Mr. Baker) : The production of short films has never been a very serious factor in the British film industry. I think I said that the outlook was a little more encouraging. 235. Is it because of the convenience of exhibitors, they like to have two long feature films? — One of the reasons is the fact that most of the exhibitors in this country require or desire to show two long feature films, but another reason is it is economically difficult, if not impossible, to produce short films in this country commensurate with the return that one can reasonably expect from those films. 236. So far as it goes the quota helps them, it is worth keeping them in the quota? — Yes. 237. If you omitted them from the quota it would be even .worse? — Yes. 238. Would you recommend that the stigma requirements should be applied in exactly the same way to the short films? — Yes. 239. Would the cost be modified at all? — Yes, the cost is set out differently? — (Capt. the Hon. I'. Norton): In paragraph 18 (/). 240. Is it not the case that in these films there are a smaller number of artistes employed generally in the shorter films? — (Mr Baker): Oh, yes. 241. Therefore would the Form C basis be so suitable ? — There are a smaller number of artistes, but I think it is in proportion to a more important picture. (Capt. the Hon. B. Norton): Labour is included in Form C too. (Mr. Baker) :