The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

The Journal of the Association of Cine-Technicians Ediforial and Publishing Office ; 30 PICCADILLY MANSIONS, 17 SHAFTESBURY AVENUE, LONDON, W.I. Telephone: GERRARD 2366. Advertisement Office : 5 and 6 RED LION SQUARE, LONDON, W.C.1. Telephone: HOLBORN 4972 Volume Two: Number Eight. FEBRUARY-MARCH, 1937. Price Ninepence. Sidney Cole asks WHAT IS QUALITY? <v4 Review of the Tieport of the Quota -Act Committee and of the second I'olume of evidence siven before the Committee A QUALITY test for all British pictures before registration for quota, based on a viewing of the picture by a Government Films Commission. New quota requirements (for features) of 20"o rising to 50°,, for renters, and 15°,, rising to 50°,, for exhibitors. Separate quota for shorts — 15°,', rising to 50°,, for renters, and 10°,, rising to 50°,, for exhibitors. Block booking to join its twin, blind booking, as a legal offence. A Films Commission to be appointed to implement these recommendations and to deal with other problems that may arise in the industry. These are the main recommendations of Lord ^loyne's Quota Act Committee.* Other recommendations are that the Government should keep a close watch on transfers of interest in film companies, and take such steps as may be possible to encourage the financing of British film production. all films must be trade-shown. exhibitors' quota should be computed on a cjuarterly, and renters' quota on a half-yearly, basis. special foreign films may be shown without British quota against them if only one copy is rented for not more than 12 weeks in a quota year. government should endea\-our to secure reciprocal treatment in the Dominions for films made in this country. the requirement of a British author of the scenario should be withdrawn. previews before registration should be legalized, up to a maximum of 3. possibility of an annual census of film production siiould be investigated. The Committee has, on the whole, done an intricate job very capably, ingeniously dovetailing the demands of varied interests into the structure of prospective improved legislation. A.C.T. has no quarrel with the principle that informs the Report. The recognition, for example, of the need for attention to the financial structure of the industry, and for the extension of credit under proper control, has been strengthened by the subsequent strike of some of the major banks against the direct or indirect financing of film production. The provision of quarterly and half-yearly * Report of a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. H.M. Stationery Office. 9d. returns, the stiffening of penalties for infringement and the illegalization of block booking, are all desirable means of shortening the overlong gap between production and release which is such a serious financial handicap to the British film. Some of the detailed suggestions, however, seem, despite the arguments of the Report, unworkable ; and others need additions to make them completely satisfactorv. Other sections of the trade have already expressed their doubts of the practicability of the quality test based on a direct \-iewing of each film submitted for quota registration. The majority of the evidence given before the Committee favoured a test, but a test based on minimum cost. This the Committee rejected. Cost, it is true, is an arbitrary (lualification, but is the qualification of taste, applied through a committee, any less so ? The Report argues : — • "If it is possible for problems relating to censorship of moral \'alues of a film to be solved satisfactorily, there would seem to be nothing impracticable in arriving at a decision likely to command wide agreement on the much less controversial aspect of general quality." But have censorship values been solved to the complete satisfaction of everyone ? There are many persons, from all sides of the trade, who, privately at any rate, would disagree. And I deny resolutely that general quality is a "much less controversial aspect." The drafting of a scale of moral \alues, to be applied to a mass of films made by and for people of widely differing outlooks and beliefs, is, philosophically, impossible ; but practically it can be and has been done, by approximation. In questions of taste it is not only philosophically but practically impossible. What is the quality that is to be assessed ? The Report says it is "the entertainment value and general merits." Are the "chairman and not less than two, or more than four, other members, all being entirely independent of any professional or pecuniary interests in any branch of the trade" going, with all due respect to .their integrity and good sense, to be the best judges of entertainment value ? Does "general merits" mean technical quality ? If .so, there is the same query, with the addition that, as A.C.T. pointed out in their evidence before the Committee, an expensive film may lack entertainment qualities but be