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

G8 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS L9 May, 1936.] Mr. Paul Rotha. ' 071 turned. 539. But you also expressed the view that under existing machinery it was rather difficult to tell whether a film was a genuine documentary film or the kind of travelogue that you were contrasting with it simply by description. There is a danger, is there not, of confusion?— I think the danger at the present moment is this — that the producer is requested by the Board of Trade to supply a detailed description, shot by shot, of the documentary film, and 1 suggest that a detailed description shot by shot is not in any way a fair test of the value of that film. I would make the point in this way. One might go and photograph 20 scenes in Parliament Square, and you could put down as your description, " Twenty Scenes in Parliament Square," which is no test of what that film is about until you see those shots on the screen. I think that method of giving evidence by means of a shot by shot description is wrong, but I think that a description of the visual and oral treatment of a documentary film would give some idea of its creative value. 540. The essence of your case is that you want to distinguish between those two types of film, the documentary film with its contribution as a statement of the national culture, and a film that is simply made up with no particular artistic conception or skill in production. Is that the gist of your case? — That is the case. 541. Now in your answer to Mr. Holmes earlier you said that if the renters' quota were taken away altogether and you simply had a heightened exhibitors' quota, you thought that would on the whole encourage the development of the documentary films? — Yes, with one addition, and that is the fact that imported short films shown by exhibitors would have to be offset against English short films. 542. Yes, that is implicit in your case, is it not? — Quite. 543. That shorts should be offset against shorts? — That shorts should be offset against shorts and longs against longs. 544. But would there not be a danger if the renters' quota were abandoned that the exhibitor would be flooded with commercially made shorts that did not come up to your standard, or do you think there would be no more danger of that than under a scheme for the retention of the renters' quota ? — I do not think that would occur any more than it does at present. If that did occur I think it is up to the documentary film makers to prove the quality of their films. 545. I see: that is rather an important point? — Certainly. 546. In paragraph 2 (d) (iv) you mentioned the films distributed free of charge. There is one point that has not been made in connection with that. Have you considered the relationship between documentary films and the films sent over by the Dominions which are distributed free of charge? — Are they distributed free of charge to the public cinema theatres? 517. I am not sure myself; I am asking for information?^— Are you referring to films such as those produced by the South African Government which are admitted into this country? 548. Yes? — They are travel films, and are, I believe, distributed by a commercial company in I In' film trade and a rental is charged for those films. They are not distributed free of charge to the public cinemas. As far as the South African Government is concerned, they are free of charge for private showing, but the actual trade renter who undertakes to distribute those films through the public cinemas charges a rental. 549. So whether they are real documentary films or just travelogues they do not impinge on this case? — No. 550. Now. almost the last point that Sir Arnold Wilson raised, the clause where you speak about the scientific films, including natural history films., being fairly excluded, you then go on to say, in Part B, paragraph 7, clause (/) : " On the other hand . . . ." The words which follow " on the other hand " I take to be an actual recommendation? — Yes. 551. Not the first sentence? — Certainly. 1 would point out, my Lord Chairman, that our memorandum mainly deals with documentary films. The educational film, from the point of view of this memorandum, was considered as a secondary point. 552. But you would agree that the two are coming closer together? — I agree. 553. And that a documentary film may, in fact. have a wider educational value than a film made for purely teaching purposes. You would endorse that strongly? — I would. 554. (Mr. Cameron): Thank you. 555. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer.) In Part A, paragraph 4, where you are discussing the question of the production of shorts, you said you were working under difficulties, and you say: " This shortage would not have been so great if documentary films had been eligible for full quota," and so on. How far is the position affected by the apparently growing popularity of the two feature programme? Does that not in itself exclude a certain number? — I think the two feature programme has certainly done a great deal to hinder the distribution of short pictures. How long the double feature programme is likely to continue is a matter of speculation. I do agree it has to a certain extent given .stimulus to the longer type of documentary film. For example, with a two feature programme it would be comparatively simple, provided full renters' quota can be obtained, to distribute a four-reel documentary film which would come as a second feature to a main film, but it would be very difficult to distribute a two-reel documentary film. 556. I see, but you rather suggest that with the development of more intelligent public opinion, more intelligent audiences, a reaction against the two feature programme might reasonably come in and that there would be a wider opening for documentary films? — That is possible. 557. You hope that might occur? — Yes. 558. Then, in Part B, paragraph 6 (c), there is a matter of interpretation. You say: — " It should be noted that the term ' special exhibition value ' sometimes means appeal to specialised audiences." I do not quite understand what you mean by that? — I would suggest this, that the term " special exhibition value " may be used to define the appeal of a film like the " Song of Ceylon " to such audiences as go to cinema houses such as the Academy or the Everyman and Studio 1 or Studio 2 as distinct from audiences who go to a large theatre like the Plaza or the Empire or the Carlton. It is ,i specialised appeal as against a wide appeal. 559. I see. Then in paragraph 7. Clause (&), Sir Arnold Wilson raised the question of the filing depicting wholly or mainly natural scenery, and he pointed out to you the difficulties which might arise in connection with that. Do you consider those equally important with the other films that you include? Supposing films depicting natural scenery were excluded and the others allowed would you consider that a comparatively satisfactory result? — No, I would not consider it as comparatively satisfactory because I have yet to discover what might be done from a creative documentary point of view with natural scenery. I think it i^ perfectly possible to make an extremely entertaining and amusing film of natural scenery, and I think much might be done, as sir Arnold mentioned, with colour. 560. The interest would be entirely cultural; it would not help very much the employment of large numbers of people I think it would employ as many as the ordinary documentary film production.