The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Apr-Jun 1922)

June .24; 1922. THE FILM-RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 9 A BURDEN WHICH HAMPERS THE FILM INDUSTRY. A. E. Newbould, M.P., Speaks on the Subject of Customs Duty on Films in the Finance Bill Debate, AND THE CHANCELLOR PROMISES TO CONSIDER POSSIBILITY OF RELIEF. R. A. E. NEWBOULD, M.P., took part on the subject M of the Customs duties in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill in the House of Commong on Monday evening. In his speech, in which he pointed out the effect the duty upon films had on British pictures produced abroad, Mr. Newbould said: I wish to discuss the effect of this duty on films. It is bad in all respects. The revenue derived from it is not worthy of consideration. There is a third of a penny on the raw stock. That has the effect of increasing the price of the raw material to the British producer of the pictures. The next duty is a penny on the print from the negative. That has the cffect of keeping the prints out of this country. We do not yet the best negatives from which the prints are taken, but a secondary negative of inferior quality, the result being that the prints taken in this country are inferior to those taken from the original negative, so that the second portion of this duty is bad. The 5d. Negative Duty. The third is worse than the other two combined. It ie a duty of 5d. per foot on the exposed negative. I have a letter from a member of the Royal, Geographical Society complaining that they are exposing some thousands of feet of negative film in a pictorial record of the ascent of Mount Everest, and they are going to be compelled, when they bring it back to this country, to pay 5d. on every foot of that negative which they have exposed. The possibility is that, out of the many thousands of feet which they will actually expose, only a few thousand feet will really be worth anything. Owing to climatic conditions many thousands of feet of negative will be exposed which will be valueless. Nevertheless, before the film is developed, before a print is taken from it to show whether it is any good at all, they have to pay 5d. a foot. They have already paid a third of a penny on the raw stock, because they have taken the film from this country with them for this purpose, and: they have to pay an additional 5d. per foot on the amount of negative they expose, : Is That the Way to Encourage Education? Does the Minister of Education think it is helpful to education that a film of such a description should be. subject to a duty ef that sort—not only the actual amount of film which is of value, but on the whole of the film exposed, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent? Is that the way he is endeavouring to encourage education? He is, of course, a Free Trader, who is naturally opposed to these duties, leaving education out of the question altogether. I have a second complaint from the same sourcee—the Royal Geographical Society—in regard to one of their members who has just come back from East Africa with a large amount of film exposed dealing with wild animal life. Google Again they have to pay 5d. a foot for the whole of the film, whether they use it or not. Commercial effect on British Production. Let us leave the educational aspect out of the question and come down to the commercial effect of this on British production. Probably 90 per cent. of the films shown in this country are of foreign origin, and it is desirable that there should be more films of British production. What happens? I want to produce a film in this country, and I want a scene laid somewhere on tha Continent—some historical event which occurs in the story I am trying to depict. I take my actors, artistes, and camera men over to France or Italy or wherever it may be, and there I expose several thousands of feet of film, out of which I shall probably want, when I come to put my story together in picture form, two or three hundred fect. On every foot I have exposed in that foreign country I have to pay a duty of 5d. when I bring it back here. Hampering the Industry. That ig the way the Government are encouraging British film production, struggling to compete with the Americans, Germans, Italians, and other people. The British producer is hampered sufficiently by other causes. This 5d. a foot on the negative which he exposes in order to give a correct historical account of any story he is trying to portray is a burden which brings no revenue worth mentioning to the Exchequer, but which seriously hampers the industry. I am sure if the SolicitorGeneral or the Chancellor of the Fxchequer were to examine the matter carefully, or refer it to their experts for advice, they would instantly agree to the repeal of this portion of the duty affecting film production. The Chancellor's Reply. Sir R. Horne: I regret I did not hear the main portion of the specch of the hon. member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould:. I only heard a part of it, and from the statement I have just heard it would appear I only imperfectly apprehended it. I understood the complaint of the hon. member was, that with regard to the Mount Everest film, they were bound to pay the duty upon the film as produced, although in point of fact they might not have desired to uee it in the shape in which they had paid duty upon it. I took up that matter at once and learned, in point of fact, that the duty is only paid upon the film when it is taken out of bond. Prior to that being done, either they may take the film altogether or excise any portion of it which they do not wish subsequently to produce. That, I understood, was the gravamen of the charge, and to that extent the reply is as T have given it. I think, with my right hon. friend, that (Continued on next page.)