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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 75 19 May, 1936.] Mr. S. H. Cole, Mr. D. Dickinson and Mr. G. H. Elvin. [Contin in (I . In spite of the failings, pointed out in this Statement, which can hardly be avoided in a first Act of this description, this Association feels that the " Quota Act " has to a large extent achieved its original aims. The main purpose underlying the new Act should be to promote the production of good films arid to preclude the profitable exploitation of bad films produced under the protection of an Act of Parliament. If the abuses of this first Act are remedied, and a further Act is put in force, the Association of Cine-Technicians looks forward to the British film industry growing into one of the largest of British industries. 569. (Chairman) : I am sorry we are not a full Committee. Sir Arnold Wilson will be here later. We have all read your memorandum, and I am not going to take you through it page by page, but I will just ask you to develop a few points. I understand Mr. Elvin will talk for the three of you. If any of you have anything to add on a particular point, please do so. Please tell me how far you are representative of the cine-technicians? You mention 1,000 membership? — (Mr. Elvin) : We cater for everybody engaged on the production and technical side of British films, of whom at least 80 per cent, are members of our Association. 570. At the end of the paper you suggest certain classes should be left out from Form C, do you not? In paragraph (I) (b), is that a distinction at present, there is a list? — Oh! yes. 571. There is a list of eleven classes. That really covers all? — That covers the whole of the technical side. That includes the make-up artists who are members of another organisation and not of our Association. That is the only difference. 572. But the other ten classes are all included ? — In our organisation, yes. 573. Is there any alternative organisation, or are you the sole representative organisation? — No, there is no alternative, but there is one which I believe you have seen, the documentary film directors who have their own Association which is affiliated to us, the Associated Realist Film Producers, Ltd. We are the only organisation on the technical side. 574. The Associated Realist Film Producers Ltd. have a separate branch in the Cine-Technicians? — That is right, yes. 575. I see. Well now, on the first page you deprecate the suggestion that the renters' quota should be reduced. Do you purposely pick out the renters' quota as opposed to the exhibitors' quota, because it would appear the really effective quota is the exhibitors' quota? The renters' quota is merely a compulsion to offer films, but not to get them shown? The exhibitors' quota is apparently the more effective because it compels people to show them. Do you purposely attach more importance to the renters' quota than the exhibitors' quota? — Yes, we mention one should be a percentage of the other. We suggest exhibitors' quota be a definite percentage of renters' quota, and the exhibitors then have some choice. This year they have the same percentage quota and roughly an exhibitor has little choice of what he shows. If the exhibitors' quota is half of the renters' quota he has a choice of what films he shows and what he does not, and we feel there would be an encouragement to producers to make better quality films. 576. In fact he has a bigger choice than would appear from the quota figures, because there is a growing number of films which are registered and are available for exhibitors' quota but are not shown in the renters' quota figures as ranking against any foreign film, is not that so? — That is so. 577. And so there really is a greater abundance of British films for the exhibitor to choose from than the bare quota figures suggest? — That is so. 578. But you are not satsfied there is a sufficiency and think the exhibitor is sometimes embarrassed in finding his choice at the present time? — Could Mr. Cole answer that point? (Mr. Cole) : We agree that there is a greater choice than would appear from 36452 the actual quota figures, but from our point of view we are concerned with the quality of pictures. We would relate our answer to that question to our other suggestion which we make about the minimum expenditure clause, to the £12,000 minimum which we suggest with a view to such films as are made to comply with quota regulations being of better quality. If you have a smaller exhibitors' quota, which means they have to show less, from our point of view that would lead to the result that films would be made of better quality in order to induce exhibitors to show them from a purely commercial view point, and not merely to fulfil their quota obligations. 579. It is obvious you cannot do without a renters' quota at present. If you cut out the films produced probably rather against the wishes of the interests that order them, there would be a shortage; but if you could get a strong output of British films would it not be possible in future to work up to the condition where you could drop the renters' quota altogether and concentrate upon the exhibitors' quota? — (Mr. Elvin): We feel the renters' quota is more important since we are concerned more with the actual production of films. The renter takes a film from the producer, and if the films are made — and they are bound to be with the suggestion, as far as we are concerned, of a minimum cost — then a renter will not rent films which will not be exhibited. He will naturally rent films on which he will get his money back. 580. But you told us further on they do now produce films without any expectation of showing them ? — Quite. 581. And it does seem this system at present works to produce a lot of bad films which would not be made except for the system? — Yes. 582. It may be you will be able to provide against that by some other method, but for the moment it does seem rather a serious problem that the Act is causing the output of some very bad films that would not otherwise be made? — Quite. 583. Anyhow, you do not think we can deal with that by working up to the abolition of the renters' quota : you feel that has always to be kept and production will not look after itself? — That is our point. 584. You mention here, near the end of your first paragraph on the growth of the industry; that a circular has been sent to the industry. I understand that there is no such circular, and if you have any first hand information as to the growth of the industry, perhaps you would like to give it to us. Do not trouble if you have not brought it? — We have not brought it. I went merely by the Press, which stated it had gone out. Apparently it was erroiieous. 585. We have not that particular source of information available? — We relied upon the Press. 586. In paragraph 1 you say that it often happens that these films are produced without any expectation of showing. You quote a retort, '■ What does it matter — the film will never be shown." Does it in practice ever happen that these films are not shown at all? — Oh! yes. It happens in some cases that a renter particularly may not rent out the films if he has got them to comply with his quota. They may not on occasions be shown, but also it is bound up particularly with " shown " in the generally approved sense, and we mention films which in theory are shown but in practice are not. They are shown in the early hours of the morning, or late at night, when there is no public there to see them. 587. Are there any cases where a film has never been shown at all that comes into the renters' quota? — I have just been reminded of a case. There is a case mentioned in this report later on where one company acquired two silent films for quota purposes and the exhibitors' journal refused to mark them owing to their poor quality, and in practice I believe they were not shown at all. K2