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

84 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Cunt in ued. What we are really concerned with are the firms that are endeavouring to make good films. The difference is this, that when one of these small producers, to whom we have referred in our memorandum, makes a film, he makes it knowing that he has to sell it and make a profit out of it. Those are the people we want to retain, but firms making quota films for foreign companies for the only purpose of complying with their quota requirements, we would just as well see out as in. They are no advantage to the exhibitor. 674. Here again I am speaking for myself, and going by evidence we have heard. I take it no one would suggest the cost basis should be rigid and final. Clearly you .would risk great injustice unless you had some power of appeal for a really good film ? — What you mean to say is that if a film costs £5,000 and it has a special merit that it should not be debarred from quota because it did not cost £2 per foot, and a committee would be set up to decide this? 675. It would be a much smaller matter for them to decide than if they had to see every film. If the general production could be automatically tested on cost basis? — I would like to make this suggestion about any difficulty that this Committee might experience. We, the exhibitors, feel very strongly on this question. We want to see good British films and a very fine British industry set up, and we do not think any trouble that might be occasioned to five or six people in viewing films should be taken into consideration. The question is of such great and vital importance that, if five or six people have to sacrifice time in viewing all British films, that is not too much to ask. 676. If they have to see all the films they would have to be a paid Committee, the volume of work would be much too great for any other method. It would also be very difficult to get any Committee which would command universal support. It is a much smaller matter if you only view the exception ? — We would rather view the exception than the rule in this case. We think it is so serious. 677. In paragraph 29, it would be difficult to apply a cost test to British films produced in the Dominions. Is it not a fact that Form O basis is applied to them without any suggestion it is unfairly operated? — I do not know what the Form C basis is. 678. It is the qualification for British films ; certain elements of cost are excluded and certain other elements computed, and it is set out in Form C. We are familiar in this Committee with Form C. Tha only point on Form C at this moment is that it is a matter of certain analysed costs and, if that can be applied on the certificate of reputable bodies in the Dominions, ought there to be any difficulty about applying the cost basis generally to the Dominions? — Yes, we feel that it is going to be very difficult to apply a cost basis to either the films produced in this country or in the Dominions. 679. Could you develop that? — Yes, that is not difficult. Take the question of ordinary floor space, by the time it has passed through three different companies, the cost may be considerably increased. 680. That is the kind of case which no doubt is the reason that Form C was adopted. Form C eliminates those difficulties. It only includes wages and salaries, and, of course, you could get a figure to correspond with whatever was considered reasonable for a total expenditure to be the test for the expenditure on wages and salaries, and it seems to me that on those lines there ought to be no more difficulty with the Dominions than there is at the present time? — The whole cost would be based on wages and salary, nothing taken in for production, or electricity, or studio space? 681. Form C takes account of wages and salaries, which are, on the average, approximately 50 per cent, of total cost of production of films. So if the film costs £2 per foot, £1 per foot can be said to be wages and salaries. It has been applied to films from the Dominions and I understand can be applied without serious difficulty. In paragraph 33 you would like the admission of certain classes — which of the excluded classes? — We do not want it. 682. I know you do not want it? — At present there is no money in British shorts. If to salve your conscience, or for some reason unknown to us you still wish to include the British shorts and to prop up something that is uneconomic, ,we say, as exhibitors, wTe must not be burdened by having to secure long British films to compensate for the foreign shorts we use when you are not able to come forward with at least the corresponding 20 per cent, of British shorts. If you insist on propping up British shorts, then we suggest that news reels, cine-magazines, Pathetone. and that type of short, should be allowed for exhibitors' quota. 683. You have no special class of short in mind when you mention certain classes which might be used? — Yes, those just mentioned. 684. They have exhibitors' quota now? — No, they have not. They do not rank. 685. In certain cases, if there is special exhibition value. Then in paragraph 37, I do not know if this question about trade shows is of any importance to you. J understand in London they very often are for charity? — The point is this. It has become a habit these days for the renter to throw a very fine premiere, and invite the whole of society there, whilst excluding the members of the trade, and make the members of the trade pay their guinea or two guineas for tickets, or else not admit them. 686. Therefore the trade show need not be free? — Need not be at the moment. 587. What is the normal procedure. Do they generally make a charge ? — They are divided into two classes. (1) Film premieres (usually for charity), where a charge of anything up to five guineas a seat is made. (2) Special trade shows to which the exhibitor is invited. Certain renters who run these premieres do not invite members of the trade to see the film during its West End run. 688. Do the small exhibitors find much difficulty in seeing these trade shows? — They find a little difficulty, and that is why it has been put in. 689. In the following paragraph you wish to bring in the " non-flam " film? — Yes, my Lord. 690. Is this a big element at the present time? — Well, it is growing, and it is becoming very serious. 691. They are 16 mm.?— Yes. 692. The " non-flam " is the type that can be shown in the hall without the special fire requirement?— That is it. 693. What you say is limited to 16 mm. ? — Yes. 694. Are these commercially shown, or are they shown in the village institute, and that sort of thing? — Well, they are charitable, my Lord, but the object is to make a profit. If I might suggest, we would be very satisfied that those shows which comply with the requirement of the Customs and Excise for exemption of Entertainment Tax should be excluded; but those shows that would not comply with the requiremeTits of the Customs and Excise for exemption of Entertainment Tax, we say should come in with us and be as patriotic as we arc and run their quota as we do. 695. I suppose it is arithmetically impossible to work the quota out, if it is an isolated show? — They are not isolated. They are growing, and be? coming competitive. 696. (Mr. Holmes): Will you tell us the reason why some districts arc inimical to British films? You mention Scotland and parts of London, can you give any reason for that? — I cannot give you •any reason. I have a cinema at Walthamstow and I have a cinema at Watford. Now during the same week T show the same film at Walthamstow , it is successful. At Watford it fails or vice versa. (Mr. Fuller) : We submitted some experiences eighteen