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.

174 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 14 July, 1936.] [Continued. provided their .wider distribution is encouraged and their character and tone worthily represent Great Britain. Rumours have, however, recently boon current that the British Government desires to end the present entente between Hollywood and British studios, with hints in the local Press that America should begin to think of measures of retaliation, to meet what is feared may be British discrimination against Hollywood. It is certain that an abrupt and graceless break in relations now existing between the American and British branches of the motion picture industry would not only lead to retaliation, but to regrettable reactions upon Anglo-American harmony in general. There can be no question of the need for a readjustment, as between American and British films, but discord and a sudden dislocation should as far as possible be avoided, despite the fact that at the present time nearly half the gross earnings of important American productions are drawn from the British Empire, and thai British pictures are not yet a serious challenge to Hollywood's pre-eminence, in the United States or elsewhere. What is necessary to enable British films to play a larger part in the entertainment of the world, especially the English-speaking world? The answer lies primarily in the law of supply and demand. The demand is for good and everimproving pictures. If British films can supply their share of that demand they will be sure to prosper. British studios should, therefore, consistently make films capable, on their own merits, of winning publi • preference, rather than seek the encouragement of mediocrity by protective legislation. The final arbiter of relative entertainment value is the ticketbuying public. The only way to win its favour, and its cash, is by giving it good pictures. What can British studios do, to improve the general quality of their product, more than they are already doing? A criticism often heard in Hollywood, for instance, is that British producers do not fully appreciate the importance of the story as an element in films. The Americans have no illusions on this point. They pay high salaries to writers ready to learn and adapt themselves to the requirements of the screen, and give them every chance to gain experience. British producers are alleged to rate the British writer very low. and. apart from foreigners and those whose name alone has advertising value, to make little effort to make the screen writing career an attractive one. More attention will have to be paid to story structure, and editing, in this country, before we can hope to compete with the Hollywood product, at least in America. Another thing that sometimes brings a smile to Hollywood li] is is the fact that many of our pictures represent Hollywood, rather than British, talent, in spite of having been produced in England. It is true that the British industry had much to learn from the U.S.; it still has. The Americans have been very ready to instruct us, though not entirely from altruistic motives. The increasing demand for film entertainment in the British Isles did not pass unnoticed by the Hollywood producers, who, naturally enough, decided they would like the major share of the growing British market. They saw the futility of trying to stifle their sole potential competitor, and decided to assist in its development, thereby gaining a considerable measure of control over the British film industry. This has been done by making British producers depend mainly upon Hollywood for their supplj of talent, neglect the development of home resources and spare the Americans the prospect of a firmament of British stars competing .with their own. Actors who show promise are lured to the Pacific COast, hound by a contract, built up as only Hollywood builds up and thereafter only become available for British films on Hollywood's own terms. Anoth sr thing; the fact that distribution in America is almost entirely controlled by Hollywood gives it the whip hand over our producers who seek American outlets for their pictures. These are some of the reasons why so many of our films have a Hollywood complexion, and why producers favour foreign talent rather than British. Hollywood believes, not without some justification, that any unemployed actor, writer or director has only to come here immediately to find a job, provided he is not a British subject. As an example of this, an American acquaintance of my own. tried and found wanting in America, had no trouble in securing work in England. His contract provided for a salary, very moderate for Hollywood, higher than that of every British writer on that studio's staff. Presumably he was entitled to a premium, for not having the misfortune to be British. There is in Hollywood quite a number of British, experienced in various branches of the motion picture business. Why are some of them not brought to England? Is it because of the prejudice of those producing pictures in this country against all but foreign talent? Is it true that a British subject's only chance of a job with a British studio is to change his nationality? Or is it because it is believed that Americans will not go to see a film produced b3T British subjects and typically British? "Henry VIII " was essentially British in tone: so were " The Scarlet Pimpernel.'" " Sanders of the River," and " Thirty-nine Steps." all very popular in the United States. Jessie Matthews has a large following, in spite of being British. " Lives of a Bengal Lancer," though produced in America, successfully caught and faithfully present a British atmosphere and spirit (all a motion picture can hope to achieve, or that it need achieve). It was as great a success in the United States as elsewhere. The average American is by nature sympathetic, rather sentimental, intensely human, kindly towards the world at large and generally free of strong prejudice against foreigners. He likes pictures with a foreign setting, and to be shown how life is lived in countries other than his own, provided the atmosphere is presented with sincerity and truth. He is quick to sense artificiality, is tired of what in Hollywood is known as " Hollywood " and always welcomes something new. He has no objection to British ways and points of view. On the contrary, he takes a generous interest in Britain and the British Empire. It is a pity he cannot see more of us as we really are. rather than as Hollywood would have us. It is not intended to suggest that foreign talent should be barred by act of Parliament ; merely that British talent be developed in order to lessen our dependence upon Hollywood, and in order to build up a truly British motion picture industry. Legislation should aim at encouraging our producers to make pictures worthily representative of Britain, and of the standard of excellence that alone will give our industry a place in the sun. These requirements might be met somewhat as follow-. A special tax of, say. three shillings per foot, to be levied on every film, intended for release in the United Kingdom, whether produced in England or abroad. This tax. however, to be subject to appreciable deductions. In order to encourage the employment of British subjects a deduction to lie made for. (a) The proportion of British personnel's emoluments to the total nay-roll borne by the picture on account of. producing staff, actors, directors, writers. art and sot dressing departments, musician-, camera men sound engineers, special effects department, cutters and editors. Maximum deduction, if the above is 100 per cent. British, sixpence per foot of film.