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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 71 THIRD DAY Tuesday, 19th May, 1936 (Afternoon Session) Present : The Right Hon. Lord MOYNE, D.S.O. (Chairman). Mr. A. C. CAMERON, M.C.. M.A. | The Hon. ELEANOR M. PLUMER. Mr. W. H. L. PATTERSON (Secretary). Mr. S. H. Cole, Mr. D. Dickinson and Mr. G. H. Elvin (Secretary), representing The Association of Cine-Technicians called and examined. The Committee had before them the following memorandum of The Association of Cine-Technicians : — Growth of British Film Industry. The Association of Cine-Technicians is frankly appalled at the suggestions that have been made in certain quarters that renters' quota should be abolished or considerably reduced upon the approaching expiry of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. The Association is of the opinion that the growth and present size of the British film industry, with the consequent employment to thousands of British persons, is almost entirely due to the " Quota Act." There was a period in 1925 when only one major picture — " Satan's Sister^" directed by George Pearson and starring Betty Balfour — was being made. While this production was on location in Jamaica, there was no other major film in production in the entire British Empire. For the year ended 31st March, 1934, over two hundred British films were registered under the C.F.A., and actual British production was in excess of this amount, as, under the Act, certain types of film are not eligible for quota. It is felt unnecessary to enlarge upon the growth of the British film industry during the past ten years, as the information will be ascertained through replies to the questionnaire sent by the Board of Trade to British studios. It should be emphasised, however, that had there been an Association of CineTechnicians at one time in early 1927 its maximum possible subscribing membership on the studio side could not have exceeded twelve. At present membership is approaching 1,000, which figure does not include every technician in the industry. " The Quota Act " has largely enabled the British film industry to develop, not only as regards actual number of productions but also as regards the quality and size of such productions. Without the " Quota Act " it is felt that it would have been almost impossible to build up an industry which could have produced films such as " Henry VIII," " Home Express," "The Man Who Knew Too Much," " Shape of Tilings to Gome," " Thirty-nine Steps," "Escape Me Never," "Nell Gwyn," "Queen of Hearts," and " Blaclomail." Criticisms of the 1927 Act. 1. Bad Quality Quota Pictures. Bad quality pictures havt been produced in order to fulfil renters1 quota, and it is felt that most of these pictrues were bad, simply because no effort had hern made to make them otherwise. This is particularly so in the case of foreign renting companies, by whom the " Quota Act " was regarded more as an import tax on their foreign product than an aid in the building up of a British industry. Some companies are alleged to have purposely made bad pictures in order to show up the superiority of foreign productions. For example, one foreign company makes pictures in this country which are scheduled to be made in eleven days. There is a well-known instance of a British technician who criticised the set constructed for his film, and the retort received was to the effect thai "What does it matter, anyway , the film will never be shown.'' Several films made have had bad press and public receptions. If the intention to make good pictures was serious, then the same company would not continue to employ the same directors for subsequent pictures, as they have been known to do. 2. Retarding Progress of British Technicians. The moling of " Quickies " and inferior pictures merely for quota purposes is reflecting detrimentally on the British technician. The " Quota Act." as we suggest above, has resulted in the production of bad quality British pictures. Under the Act, British technicians must be employed in making such pictures. This has led to a bad general opinion of the competence of British technicians, and to foreign technicians (of whom there are over one hundred employed in the British film industry) being imported to work on the more ambitious British productions. The British technician has a pride in his work, and wishes to be employed on and help to make good pictures. We feel sure that this was the intention of the original Act, and trust that it will be possible to find ways and means to make this possible. Adrian Brunei, one of Britain's best-known directors, deals fully with the danger of " quickies " to British technicians in the May, 1936, issue of " The Journal of the Association of Cine-Technicians ", and a copy of this article is attached as an appendix to this statement.* 3. Non-compliance with the Spirit of the Act. While in many cases the letter of the law is complied with, its intention is broken. For example we quote the following article which appeared in " The Era " of Wednesday, 10th July, 1935: — " Charwomen and Quota Films. Drama and Dust. By G. A. Atkinson. " Cinema charwomen are the real — almost the only — public experts on quota films. They may be the only people in the theatre when quota films are given public exhibition by certain alien companies for the purposes of ' technical compliance ' — as the process is described — with the British Act of Parliament governing the conduct of aliens in regard to quota films. " Alien companies controlling West End cinemas have to ' show ' quota films as exhibitors, as well as to ' acquire ' them as distributors. They run them over their screens in the morning dust of the theatre, before handing them over to the 'distribution ' side to inherit more dust on cellar shelves. * * * " One young British director of my acquainl ance, having made an ingenious little film of which he was passablj proud, sam thai it would be showing at the theatre ' at ten o'clock '. * Not re-printed,