The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

126 The Journal of the Association of Cine-Technicians Feb. -March, 1937 technically good — and a cheap picture may sometimes book to hundreds of halls though having little or no technical merit. Although the more expensive picture, within limits, is better than the cheap picture because it gives scope for technical excellence, which the latter does not. As the American industry has so abundantly proved, the entertainn'icnt, and so the financial, success of a film industry depends, over a period of time, on the maintenance and improvement of technical quality. The more expensive picture, on average, has the better box-office chance, simply because it gives technical scope. Cheap and badly made pictures may occasionally score box-office success, but the firms that consistently spend money for technical quality produce the world-beaters. This quality test has further hazards. I gather that the estimate of quality is to be a fluid one, based at any one time on the standards of the pictures viewed in the preceding period. Does this mean, as it seems to, that after a quarter of bad films, the standards for the next quarter will be lowered ? In such conditions worse and worse films might be allowed quota. Or is there really to be a fixed standard ? since the report talks about a "minimum" standard laid down by those responsible for viewing the films. And if so, what could it possibly be ? Whatever it is, to help determine it the administrative authority "should also have power to require a viewing of any or all imported foreign films at any time." The Commission is going to see a lot of films. And British distributors are going to feel very happy about having to show all their pictures to two committees before they can trade-show them. Legislators always try, and rightly, to avoid wordings susceptible of manifold and controversial interpretation. If law is to be effective it must, as far as possible, define clear-cut categories, precise and unblurred. A cost test is stick a category. Arbitrary, it is true, but administratively easy, and in an impregnable position against dispute. A picture should cost at least £2 a foot to qualify for quota — it doesn't, therefore it doesn't qualify. But a picture should have a certain level of "quality" — the Films Commission says it doesn't, the renter objects, the Commission reiterates, the renter persists, fresh screenings, the Commission gives way — which is bad for its prestige ; or it insists — which gives a recruit to a campaign against the Act and leads to a cynical search for cunning arguments and to behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to by-pass legal requirements. I share the resentment of the Committee at the attitude expressed in evidence* by the K.R.S. They declared the present obligation upon distributors of foreign films to produce 15 to 18 British films a year to be "an obligation so heavy as to be practically impossible of effective performance." They proposed that in future the number of films they are obliged to make should be reduced to 5 or 6. Under conditions, of course, "as to cost and otherwise that will ensure their being effective and creditable British pictures." In return for this consideration, they would be happy to give assurance that they would comply with the legislation so amended. This caused the following exchange : — Sir Arnold Wilson {for the Committee). "It is rather a pity that you should put in your evidence that if the obligation is reduced you will try to comply with the law." * Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee, fifth to eighth days. H.M. Stationery Office. 7/6. Mr. fohn Maxwell {for the K.R.S.) : "That was not the intention .... the American renters were willing to give any assurances in their power of their bona-fides, and they were really serious in trying to deliver worth-while pictures if the Act were altered to enable them to do it." Sir Arnold Wilson : "If the Act is not modified, you will sit back ? " Mr. John Maxwell : "Personalty I unll not blanw them if they do, to be frank with you." That, from one aspect, is an impudent declaration of prospective law-evasion. But, from another, it should have been weighed more carefully. I think, despite that declaration, that the American renters, faced with a very considerable quota increase over the next 10 years, miist begin to produce the worth-while pictures that they rather naively declared in their evidence they have always been willing to produce. They must, for purely financial reasons. They dare not each make, or sponsor the making of, thirty or more British pictures which will be deliberately non-productive. It would in\'olve too much mone^', however cheap the cost per picture, for it to be regarded merelv as a tax on imported Hollywood output. But if to increased percentage the law adds a provision that means each production season for the next ten years will start in an atmosphere of uncertainty, of worried estimates as to what will be the personal reactions to their pictures {however expensive) of four or five gentlemen "independent of any professional or pecuniary interest in any branch of the trade" — then I say, and am certain, that the threat of the K.R.S. will not be an empty one, impudent or not. Means will be sought, and found, to achieve that obedience to the letter and neglect of the spirit which the new legislation aimed to remove. No ! Let us have a straightforward cost-test of /2 per foot minimum, such cost, as A.C.T. suggested, to exclude certain items that might be susceptible of manipulation in order to defeat the law. And let us have the Commission as a court of appeal only, to which can be submitted films which do not reach the cost-level but which their sponsors claim to be of sufficient quality to atone for that lapse. The claimants would have to list concrete reasons, and there might be a requirement that they back their claim with the less prejudiced opinions of outside persons to whom the film has been shown. The Report does not consider this possibility. Instead, it considers the possibility of films already registered on a cost qualification being appealed against on grounds of bad quality. This would be ridiculous. The administrative body would find itself with twice the work and half the authority. But an appeal for those pictures which have been rejected is a practical, simple and normal procedure. I urge the Board of Trade to consider this particular recommendation very seriously before drafting it into the new Bill. A.C.T. agreed before the (\mimittee that the retpiirement of the author of the scenario to be British might be withdrawn, since the clause had in practice been a deadletter, owing to difficulty of definition. But I am sorry to see no reference to A.C.T. 's further suggestion that there should be instead a requirement that not more than one foreign technician be employed on any j)icture qualifying for cjuota. Foreign technicians who come here ha\e not