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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 51 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, [Continued. Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R, Norton. bottom, " If a good British picture were produced cheaply it should not suffer from the ' label ." Is not that rather contradictory?— (Mr. Baker): No, Mr. Cameron, but I think perhaps it is wrong that that word " stigma " should be used. I look upon this in a similar way to that in which I look upon a safety razor or any other article that is marked " foreign made." This describes the article. If it is a good article, if the film is a good film, that label cannot be considered a stigma, that is the argument there. If it is a good picture nobody minds what it is labelled, but if it is a bad picture there is the risk that the public and exhibitors will appreciate why it is a bad picture and blame will attach to the renter who handled it. 295. You argue on the one hand that the public will refuse to patronise such films, and that exhibitors would refuse to show them? — I think we can if they are bad. 296. But you go on to say, "If a good British picture were produced cheaply it should not suffer from the label." That is the point you intended to make? — Yes. It should not suffer if it is good. 297. Is it the same point as you made to Miss Plumer? — Yes. 298. Then surely they should not bear a label if disparagement were not intended? — No, not suffer from the label. 299. No, not bear the label?— (Capt. the Hon. R. Norton): No, the memorandum says, "Suffer from the label." (Mr. Loudon): The memorandum is right, they would not suffer from the label. The argument is that a film would not suffer by reason of the label if it was a good one, but if the picture is a bad one, the label accurately describes the picture, and who is renting it. 300. I should have thought it was a dangerous argument from your standpoint. In paragraph 18 (e) (i) and (ii) there is, of course, a great difficulty of definition there? — Yes. 301. I suppose that has been considered? — (Mr. Baker) : Yes. 302. I do not know, I should tremble to have to draft it? — That has always been the difficulty that the Board of Trade have had to contend with in the existing Act, and it will continue to be a difficulty, but it is not too serious a difficulty to define what are documentary or what are scientific subjects. The experience of the Board of Trade has been fairly satisfactory. 303. Am I right in thinking that there are very few quota " quickie " shorts being made? — (Mr. Kearney) : Very few. (Mr. Baker) : None. 304. Then you are rather dealing with indifferent shorts made abroad and imported and good shorts made in this country, is that a fair statement? — The first part of your question, there are no short films made as " quickies ", because they do not want to bother to make the short films for quota, they want length. There are only 54 registered. (Mr. Loudon): That is for the foreign distributors. . 305. So that the position in shorts is rather different?—(Mr. Baker): Yes. 306. It is rather nursing a very promising part of the industry? — Yes. I said that I thought our proposals would encourage the production of more shorts and particularly of what might be termed shorts of a documentary nature in this country. I think that is the general desire too. 307. Yes. Now in Proposal 10, Note 8, you say, " 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 ". Is that a serious danger? — Oh, yes, definitely. There have been definitely very bad films, as bad as one can see, poor Australian films made that have been imported into this country or purchased by American companies to fill -the quota and, more alarming perhaps, Indian films that are to all intents and purposes unallowable in the country, 36452 although they comply with the provisions of the Act, and are British films. They have been purchased for a few hundred pounds. 308. And you anticipate real danger if that is not checked? — (Mr. Kearney): There is danger. (Mr. Baker) : It has been quite an evil during the running of the Act. 309. Then one last question. What is the exact implication of Proposal 14? — (Mr. Kearney): There is not a great deal in that. The only point is that there are to-day produced in England a large number of films which are not registered and there is no record of them at all. For instance, thousands of feet of news reel are produced, and of documentary films, and they are not recorded anywhere. It might be useful to have some record of them. 310. You have in mind 35 mm., they are not 16 mm.? — Yes, 35 mm. Most 16 mm. films are originally produced on standard size stock. This proposal is really only a suggestion of no special importance. 311. It is simply for keeping track of them? — There is no track at present, as you know, there is no record of so many films, and it might be useful to have one. 312. (Dr. Mallori) : Might I ask as to the total number of British films made per annum? — (Mr. Baker) : Per annum, that is given in the statement. If you have the schedule Annex, III. Actually the Board of Trade returns were 215. 313. I want to get the number of those films which are made under what I may call American inspiration?—111. 314. Would it be fair to say that those 111 films are on the whole films which will not assist British prestige? — Apart from nine registered by United Artists and a few others. 315. That means nearly one half of the total British films produced are produced by persons who are not interested in the good name of the British industry but have almost a contrary interest? — Yes. 316. At present they are able to put the total discredit of that production on to the British industry?— Quite. 317. As regards other bad British films, or not good British films, whose is the responsibility for the production of those? Is the responsibility to be laid at the door of small British producers who are inexperienced or have not enough capital or are labouring under some commercial disadvantage? — They are spread over. Every company, whether the largest or the smallest, will make a proportion of poor films — not deliberately? — (Mr. Loudon): If you make a poor film you, of course, stand to lose the money put into the picture. 318. There is this distinction that the genuine British production of films is carried on under the threat that if the film is bad the firm will suffer? —Yes. 319. Now, as regards these other films which are produced under American inspiration, there is no such danger attached? — There is no incentive to make them. (Mr. Baker) : Even if they lose all the money put into the production it does not affect them very materially. (Mr. Loudon) : The American distributor will offer a contract to produce six pictures at a flat sum, £6,000 or £5,000 each, and the producer has to make them for that price, and if possible make a profit. He hands over the picture to the American distributor with no thought of making any additional money, and that is what creates the " quickie ". 320. And if that throws odium on the producer, it does not throw odium on the renter? — It is not issued with any trade mark that shows it is distributed by the American renter for a purpose. It is trade marked by the British producer and goes out as if it were a British production, but the culprit is the American renter who acquires that type of picture to fulfil the letter of the law. (Mr. Kearney): He does not make it. He causes its production. G 2