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 79 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Continued. FOURTH DAY Tuesday, 26th May, 1936 Present : The Rt. Hou. Lord MOYNE, D.S.O. (Chairman). Mr. A. C. CAMERON, M.C., M.A. Mr. J. S. HOLMES, M.P. The Hon. ELEANOR M. PLUMER. Lt.-Col. Sir ARNOLD WILSON, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.P. Mr. W. H. L. PATTERSON (Secretary). Mr. T. H. Fligelstone (President) and Mr. W. R. Fuller (General Secretary), representing the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, called and examined. The Committee had before them the following memorandum of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland: — The Membership of the C.E.A. 1. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland has in membership at the present time 4.017 cinemas. A larger number of places of entertainment find it necessary to apply to the Board of Trade for a licence under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, hence their figures as to the number of cinemas will be larger than our membership. It may, however, be taken for granted that our figures represent for all practical purposes 100 per cent, of the cinemas open regularly six or seven days a week. The Effects of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. 2. We are happy to inform you that there is general agreement amongst our members upon the evidence which we now submit. We have also followed the course, which we have adopted on all previous occasions with H.M. Ministers and with the Board of Trade, of stating exactly what we feel we require, rather than to present a case on the basis that a compromise is inevitable and that a margin of over-statement is necessary. 3. We anticipate that the Board of Trade will furnish the Committee with a full and comprehensive historical survey of the Cinematograph Films Act (which we shall refer to in future as the Films Act). Therefore, our historical references can be brief, and directed to the points which we need to emphasise. 4. Before the Films Act came into operation it was calculated that British films were only enjoying 3 per cent, of the playing time at the cinemas in this country. The last return of the Board of Trade indicates that the Act has succeeded in its object of " securing the renting and exhibition of a certain proportion of British films " since exhibitors' returns testily that 26-09 per cent, of British films were shown during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1934.* To the credit of the Films Act may be placed the establishment of a considerable British production industry from which has emerged films that are comparable with the best produced anywhere in the world. By way of contrast, it is also responsible for some of the worst films. The " quota quickie " produced in this country is probably worse than the worst foreign film, and its only competitors have been some Dominion productions, which happen to qualify for registration as British films. 5. Nothing affects the prestige of British films so much as the exhibition of poor British films, and it is in the public interest that production of this type of film should be eliminated. * No figures for 1935 are yet published but it is understood that they are substantially the same as for 1934. 6. The measure of protection afforded by the Films Act attracted considerable finance to the cinematograph industry. Some went to mushroom companies and was quickly lost. Vast sums, however, were invested in the larger concerns, and to-day we not only have very fine studios, but also large circuits of cinemas. We want to emphasise the growth of circuits, which was more or less coincident with the passing of the Films Act. We shall refer to the circuits later in our evidence, but not in the illinformed manner of some who attribute a number of undefined deficiencies in an unexplained way to what is called a tied house system. Our emphasis will be upon the booking power which a circuit possesses, and its consequent ability to secure the best films against individual and independent exhibitors. It was apparent at the end of last year that nine circuits between them controlled 652 first run cinemas, which represented about half the first run situations, and these in turn dominated the booking situation. 7. Exhibitors have more than fulfilled their statutory obligation to show specified percentages of registered British footage, and their loyal support of the Films Act has been publicly acknowledged by respective Presidents of the Board of Trade, and testimony has also been paid to the very cordial relations which have always existed between the Board of Trade and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. In our turn we should like to express our appreciation of the smooth and considerate administration which has been an outstanding feature of the work of the Department. The Quota upon Exhibitors. 8. We regret to have to introduce a plaintive note amid such cordiality, and we therefore will proceed at once to the section of the Films Act which occasions us the greatest concern, which is the exhibitors' quota. 9. The ramifications of our industry, especially among apparatus for the equipment of our cinemas, bring us into contact with various forms of protective legislation. Some of our apparatus is subject to an import duty, and in such cases in the event of dissatisfaction as to quality, we can always pay a little more and secure the right article. This safeguard renders such recourse as a rule unnecessary. Some Key Industry Dut\ Legislation is protective, but in this respect we were consulted and had every opportunity of protecting ourselves in regard to quality and price. Quota legislation, as exemplified by tin' Films Act, has an entirely different mode of operation, and when designed to secure production and exhibition, exhibitors would be liable to detrimental exploitation by producers