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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 175 14 July, 1936.] [Continued. In order to make producers aim at a high standard, deductions from the special tax also to be allowed for. (b) Entertainment value. To be determined by an unofficial panel of critics. Maximum, tenpence per foot. (c) Educational and inspirational value. To be determined by the Board of Censorship. Maximum, eightpence per foot. (d) A special award, to be given for a film of exceptional excellence, on the recommendation of a majority on the panel of critics. Maximum deduction from the special tax under this head, fourpence per foot. With a view to encouraging their distribution abroad, and discouraging discrimination against British films. (c) A foreign picture to be granted deductions according to the proportion the total of British films' gross earnings, during the preceding year, in the country of origin of the foreign picture, bear to the total grosses of that country's pictures in the United Kingdom. For equality, tenpence. For a 50 per cent, balance in favour of British films, an additional deduction of fourpence. (/) For films made in England, a deduction of fourpence per foot. (a) British films that, during the previous year, had grossed as much abroad as they had at home would be entitled to a deduction of fourpence per foot. This to encourage efforts to extend the showing of British films abroad. 'The maximum total of deductions obtainable by a foreign film, with no British elements included in its making, would be as follows: — s. d. (b) 10 per foot of film. (c) 8 (d) 4 (e) 1 2 Total 3 0 The maximum total of deductions obtainable 1>\ British film would be as follows : — s. d. (a) 6 per foot of film (b) ... . 10 (c) ... . 8 (d) ... . 4 (/) ■■■ • 4 (g) • 4 Total ... 3 0 Any film that had won deductions amounting to three shillings (or more) would be freed entirely of the special tax. Although the maximum deductions only have been shown under each head, it is to be understood graduated deductions would be provided for. To help in this, each penny might be divided into hundredths and the deductions assessed in these terms, e.g. Fivepence expressed as five-hundred, tenpence as a thousand, etc. 21st September, 1936. (j) Memorandum by Julian S. Huxley, John Grierson and Paul Rotha on a Further Method or Encouraging the Production and Showing of Short Films of Good Quality in the United Kingdom. The production of an adequate supply of short films can be catered for by arranging a separate quota for shorts. With this system alone, however, there is no provision for encouraging high quality in the shorts produced. At the moment, short films are under a disability for a variety of reasons. (1) A deficiency in the quota for shorts can now be met by substituting long films of equivalent footage. This, as mentioned, can be met by insisting upon separate quotas for shorts and longs. (2) There is virtually no premium on exhibitors showing a good short as against an indifferent or even poor one. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the renting of shorts. (3) There is usually no means by which the public can know what shorts are being shown at any theatre, unless they actually ring up and inquire. Shorts are in general regarded as mere fillers, to fill up the programme; the price per foot paid for them iby exhibitors and Tenters is extremely low in comparison with that for good or even moderate long films; and the public has little or no opportunity of bringing their influence to bear in favour of good-quality shorts, although it is clear that good films of documentary, natural history, and travel interest are very popular. It is suggested that these disadvantages could be in large measure remedied if the advertisement of one short film were made compulsory in every advertisement of a long film. This would enable the public to know where a particular short film was being shown, and so would enable them to choose between two otherwise equally attractive long films on the basis of the superior attraction of a good short. It would bring shorts more prominently before the public, and lead to more appreciation of their interest and attractions. It would lead to greater numbers of cinema-goers writing to exhibitors to demand the showing of particular shorts. The precise method suggested is as follows: — That it should be compulsory, in all advertisements (including Press) to the public of cinema programmes, to insert a reasonahle advertisement, including the title, of one short film, this to be alternatively either (a) a British-produced short, other than a news reel or news magazine, or (b) any short, other than a news reel, news magazine, or animated cartoon, wherever such films are shown. The former alternative is more suitable if the primary aim is to encourage British production of shorts, the latter if it is to encourage high quality in documentary and allied types of shorts. There appear to be no technical difficulties in the way of such a regulation. In the case of large posters advertising long films, the provision oi a smaller poster for a short film would suffice, or the pasting across the large poster of a strip advertising a short. By this means, rapid progress in the quality of the shorts shown in British theatres and of those produced in Great Britain, would bo achieved. 22nd August, 1936.