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

12 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 5 May, 1936.] Mr. R. D. Fexxelly. [Cont rwed. their obligations under the Act. Cost is, of course. not the only or even the best criterion of quality, but it is probably true that a good film cannot be produced for the amount of money these renters are prepared to pay. 79. The necessity for some quality test for British films was mentioned during the course of the Debates in the House on the Bill and many representations have been received by the Board of Trade on the subject since. In general, all these representations have the same basis, namely, that a film should have cost a certain amount of money in order to qualify for registration as British. It is generally admitted, as mentioned above, that cost is not the best criterion of quality, but it is argued that it is the only method administratively possible. Proposals on these lines were made in 1929 to the Board of Trade by a joint deputation from the Federation of British Industries and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and were repeated in 1931 by a joint deputation from the Federation of British Industries and the Trade Union Congress. These proposals are discussed in the report of the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee made in October, 1935, which is before the Committee. IX. — The Export Market. 80. Since the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, was passed in this country legislation on somewhat similar lines has been introduced in various parts of the Empire. A summary of this legislation is given in Appendix VII. It will be seen that in New Zealand, Southern Rhodesia and certain Colonies the object of the legislation has been to increase the exhibition of British films. 81. In New South Wales and Victoria, however, the recent legislation has taken a different trend and its main object is to assist the promotion of film production in Australia. It is anticipated that this legislation may have repercussions on film production in the United Kingdom. Under the legislation renters in business in Australia are under an obligation to acquire a certain proportion of Australian films against their foreign films though not against their British (other than Australian) films. Films made for this purpose in Australia, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, can also count for quota purposes in this country, and it is therefore to be expected that a certain number of films which would otherwise be made in this country for quota purposes will henceforth be made in Australia so as to satisfy both quotas at once. Objection has been taken to this legislation by the film producers in the United Kingdom on the ground that it does not provide reciprocal treatment, but presumably it was felt that if British (other than Australian) films were entitled to count for quota purposes in Australia in the same way as Australian films can count in the United Kingdom the object behind the Act was not likely to be achieved. So far as exhibitors are concerned, the situation varies in the two States. In New South Wales exhibitors have to provide a certain proportion of Australian iilius against all the films including British (other than Australian) which they exhibit, whereas in Victoria the obligation only applies in respect of foreign films exhibited. 82. Australia has hitherto provided the best market for British films outside the United Kingdom and so far us inn be judged Mich films are increasing in popularity. 83. In Canada, where, as in the case of Australia, films arc a matter for the separate Provinces, legislation imposing quotas has been passed in two provinces, but has noi been put into operation. The I ;ress of British films has been slower in Canada than in Australia, presumably owing to the hold which United States interests have over flu1 Canadian cinemas 84. There is no quota legislation in South Africa, the Irish Free State or India. 85. Colonies and Mandated Territories. — The position here requires more lengthy explanation. In March, 1929, the Secretary of State lor the Colonies appointed the Colonial Films Committee " to examine the arrangements existing for the supply .... of cinematograph films for public exhibition in the Colonies, Protectorates and .Mandated Territories, and to consider in what way these arrangements could be improved, with special reference to . . . . the desirability, on political as well as economic grounds, of encouraging the exhibition of British films." 86. One of the recommendations made in the report of the Committee (Cmd. 3630) in July. 1930. was that an organisation should be set up in this country, independent of but working in close co-operation with the Government Departments concerned, to undertake the distribution of British films throughout the Colonial Empire. The Committee also recommended that this organisation, when established, should have the assistance of an advisory Committee nominated by the Government to assist in the selection of suitable films for exhibition in the Colonies and to advise generally on questions relating to the distribution of such films. It was not intended that this Committee should in any way replace the local censorship authorities who would still retain the responsibility for deciding what films could properly be shown in each of the territories concerned. 87. With a view to assisting in the establishment of this organisation, a number of Colonial Governments, at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in accordance with a recommendation made by the Colonial Films Committee, undertook to guarantee the Company formed for the purpose against loss in its total transactions in the first year up to £1,000. 88. In order to give effect to the recommendations made by the Colonial Films Committee, the Film Producers' Group of the Federation of British Industries formed in October. 1931, the British United Film Producers Company Limited, to undertake the distribution of British films throughout the Colonial Empire. This Company had on its Board of Directors representatives of some of the principal film producing companies in Great Britain. At the same time the Secretary of State nominated as members of the Advisory Committee to assist the Company m the selection of suitable films, two ex-Colonial Governors, the technical adviser to His Majesty's Government on Cinematography, and a representative of the Department of Overseas Trade. 89. The Company undertook the distribution of British films through local agents in the Colonies. and Colonial Governments were requested by the Secretary of State to afford to the Company and its agents such assistance as could properly be given. The Company shipped large consignments of British films to the West Indies and to West Africa. 90. Generally speaking, the Company were only able to cover those Colonial territories which were not already adequately served by existing arrangements for distribution; and as such arrangements increased in scope in the Colonial Empire, so the facilities for distribution of the new company diminished. There was no clause in its articles of association making it obligatory on the part of member firms to utilise its services. In consequence the character of the Board and shareholders changed in 1933 an.! 1931. so that by the end of the latter year the company had come under both the financial and directing control of the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, Ltd. 91. Quota legislation exists in certain West Indian Colonies ami in British Guiana and has been considered in connection with other parts of the Colonial EJoipire. but before any steps can be taken