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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 65 19 May, 1936.] Mr. Paul Rotha. [< 'until) mil. Association of Realist Film Producers is not a production or distribution firm. It is a consultative body. It does not actually produce or distribute films itself. 457. Who does actually distribute a documentary film when made? — There are at the present moment I think four or five commercial producing firms of documentary films. There is Gaumont British Instructional Ltd., Messrs. Pathe, the Strand Film Company, London Film Productions Ltd., such companies as Ace Films and Gee Films, and several other smaller concerns. They are actual producers and negotiate with trade renters for distribution in the ordinary way. 458. Have you had any experience in that direction of getting home a documentary film taken up by a renter? — Have I had personal experience? 459. Yes?— Yes, Sir, I have. 460. To what extent do you think that the persons with whom you deal are really competent to form a judgment as to public taste in different parts of Great Britain? — To that I would reply, in my own personal opinion (and I am not speaking on behalf of my Association now), that I do not think some of the persons with whom I have had to deal are qualified to assess the public taste for the films we have heen trying to distribute through them. 461. What proportion of those with whom you have to deal for distributing films do you think are born and bred in this country ? — I should say perhaps 10 per cent, are not born in this country, considering that many are American, but that is pure surmise. 462. The most influential part is the 10 per cent. ? — That is possible. 463. (Mr. Holmes): Ten per cent, are foreign? — I should think 10 per cent, of the renters. 464. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : Now, in paragraph 3 (c), you say : " The members of the film trade of this Committee, however, are representative only of the production, renting and exhibition of fiction films. Neither film technicians, nor those who have made a special study of film producing or renting documentary films, are represented." How far is this because of the very recent development of the documentary market? — I think it is partly due to that. When the Act was framed there was no such thing as documentary film production. 465. Would you be in favour of the technicians being represented also on this Advisory Committee? — I suggest that one technician might he present. 466. Then have they ever made any application to that effect to the Board of Trade? — Not as far as I am aware. 467. Is there anything in the Act which would prevent the Board of Trade from modifying the composition of the Advisory Committee to admit them? — I cannot answer that question without reference to the Act. I think it is unlikely. 468. (Chairman) : The composition of the Advisory Committee seems pretty definite in the Act? 469. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : Yes, it is not possible for the Board of Trade to add to it. You could scarcely expect to he one of the two representatives of the film makers, you could scarcely expect us to have a technician as representing the renters or exhibitors, and therefore the Act would require alteration to meet your point. I wished to establish what the position was? — Yes, we suggested the establishment of a sub-committee rather than the addition of fresh members to the Advisory Committee. 470. Then in paragraph 4, has the substitution of the longer for the shorter quota film made it more difficult for documentary films to achieve results or not? — Quite definitely, more difficult. 471. Once full quota or exhibition quota has beet secured for a documentary, who is most likely to support it, the independent owner of a theatre or the circuit manager? — I think there is very little difference. 472. In paragraph 4. how far have renters and exhibitors taken advantage of this cumbersome machinery, as you describe it, in order to keep 36452 documentaries out of the cinema? — I do not think they have really considered it from the point of view of cumbersome machinery. I think that it has affected the producers more than the exhibitors. It is we who are trying to sell documentary to renters and exhibitors and not they who are trying to sell it to us. 173. Thank you, that is important. Then in paragraph 5, I have a certain responsibility for this, because the differences which you mention were decided on by the Advisory Committee of which I am Chairman. Is it your view that the two films, " The Key to Scotland" and ''Beside the Seaside," were handicapped by having been definitely made as documentaries by a firm specialising in this type of film, and therefore appeared at first hearing to renters and exhibitors, who are the majority on the Commission, as being too highbrow for them? — I am extremely surprised to hear that any renter or exhibitor could consider a film like " The Key to Scotland " or " Beside the Seaside " as being highbrow. They are the simplest of films 474. I am not saying they were, but the mere fact that they were made by a firm specialising in documentary films would have created a certain prejudice?— That is possible. 475. Like the declared approval of the Film Society ? — That is possible. 476. In paragraph 6 you imply discouragement. Now, as I came up in the train I recorded seven possible reasons. Lack of official awareness? — On the part of whom? 477. On the part of officials of the industry as a whole? — Yes. 478. Obstruction from the trade? — I should say no. 479. Lack of sympathy between the personnel of documentary companies, such as you and Mr. Grierson and others, and the trade ? — I would prefer to call it lack of understanding. 480. Lack of organisation and adequate propaganda and business acumen amongst the personnel of the documentary companies? — Definitely not. 481. The difficulties of proving special exhibition value in advance? — I think that has been difficult. 482. And is still difficult? — Yes, for the reasons given earlier. From the point of view of testimonials, no. That can be quite simply obtained. 483. Lack of funds? Is your finance adequate for the particular purpose, is the finance of the documentary companies adequate for the particular purpose at present? — Quite. 484. Has the trade press been fair to your documentary films in the last 12 months? — I think the important sections of the trade press have not only been fair but they have given us a very great deal of encouragement, as witness some of the press excerpts at the end of our memorandum. 485. Now we come to Part B, in what centres iti the United Kingdom do documentary films achieve the best audiences, the best support from audiences? — I would say in the key cities. 486. Is there a demand for British documentary films abroad? — There has been quite a wide distribution abroad. I would not say on a very good commercial basis because, as you probably know, distribution abroad at the present moment is difficult, but most of our documentary films have certainly circulated abroad. 487. And the Colonies and Dominions? — Certain! v. 488. Do you get a fair show in India? — To my knowledge no documentary films have been shown in India, Australia, yes, South Africa, yes. Canada, yes. New Zealand, yes. 489. Have you tried documentary films of India There is a documentary film of India now being produced. 490. Did the Ceylon documentary film have a good showing in Ceylon? — It was very successfully shown in Ceylon and received excellent press notices there. 491. Paragraph 3; do you think that the rein interpretation of the term "special exhibition value " would approach more nearly to the proper definition of that of the Advisory Committee or vice