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

44 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. X. Keabnby, Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon.' R. Norton. | ( <>n firmed. undoubted superiority or strength of the foreign companies. You see their strength is such to-day that the British film industry could not live unless quota and other regulations were framed to force renters to acquire, and compel exhibitors to show, British films. 175. (Mr. Holmes) : Shall we pursue this particular point? The point 1 want to put is this: supposing Parliament decided that in future every exhibitor in this country should have 50 per cent. British films for 10 years? That woidd encourage production of British films. I cannot see that it is necessary for the renter to be compelled to take any quota of British films, because the effect, il Parliament had laid down that 50 per cent, of the cinema theatres in this country should exhibit British films, would be that they would be made — that would encourage the film makers to make British films. There would then arise, surely, in London, a number of renters who would concentrate on British films and the cinema people, exhibitors, would know that they could go to these renters to get their British films. They could not fill up with foreign films, they could only half fill the theatres with foreign films? — Well, I do not suppose the producers would have any great objection to that, but I think our friends, the exhibitors, would say it would be very unfair to compel them to show 50 per cent, of British pictures without the similar compulsion on someone or other to make those pictures. That is the answer to that question. 176. I am talking about the renters, and they are not going to make the pictures? — They have to acquire them, and that is the same thing. The renters have to acquire the pictures, and in order to acquire British films they have to be made in this country. 177. What you are trying to get at for the moment is the making of more British pictures and the employment of more people than the ."3,000 regular employees you have got. The quota, as far as the exhibitors are concerned, will encourage the making of these British pictures?— Yes, that is agreed, and I do not suppose we, as producers, would have any grave objection. 178. I cannot see how the renters would come in either to encourage British producers to produce films? — (Mr. Korda): Foreign renters simply acquire or have made what they are compelled to. and do so as cheaply as they can. They acquire British pictures for £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000, and every Saturday and Sunday night one can go into some of the biggest cinemas in the West End, and the people go to jeer at the British picture and to make fun of it. 179. I thought you said the renters? — Yes, the renter is compelled so far to rent — to acquire — to put on his renting list — a certain number of British pictures. It is the renter who promotes the making of quota pictures of the type we are discussing. ISO. Yes? — And they have to go to someone to make them. 181. Yes? — And they go to some firm and say, " We need 10 pictures. For how little can you make them? " and they try to make them for £40,000 or £30,000. To-day renters can buy their pictures for £2,000 or £3,000 each. 182. I still cannot see why putting the quota on the renter will make any difference? — I fully agree with your point. The foreign renter so far did nothing to help the British film industry, and if he could be cut out we would be dealing with one opposition less and haw o\er 100 less had pictures. In my opinion the method you suggest of saying to the exhibitor, "You have to devote half of your screen time to British pictures," would inevitably lead to the growth of the British film industry. (.1//-. Baker): 1 do not think that. (Capt. the Jinn. I'. Norton): I think there is grave danger in this because it would automatically encourage a lot of cheap production taking up screening time, and the bulk of the revenues for screening would .still go to the important American pictures. 183. (Chairman): I think we shall have to pursue this separately afterwards. When 1 asked the question I did not at all wish to suggest that it could be done at the present moment, because I quite appreciate that there would be a disastrous amount of dislocation if you did such a thing suddenly, seeing that the foreign-controlled renters produced 35 of the .worth while British films last year as against 113 altogether, so that obviously the British production of films is not yet big enough to enable you to drop out these people producing in accordance .with a foreign-controlled renter-' quota. I only asked the question as to what might happen .when the industry got stronger, and your answer is that you do not foresee any prospect of that?— (Mr. Korda): I do not foresee any immediate prospect of that. 184. (Mr. Cameron): Is it the view of producers that eventually the renters' quota is a thing to be eliminated ?— (Mr. Kearney): Eventually, perhaps. (Mr. Baker) : Yes, with ^the reservation, of course. that there shall always be a quota of British productions on the screens. 185. (Chair-man): Yes, the exhibitors' quota is the effective thing? — (Mr. Kearney): I wonder if I might answer; I do not want to depart from your ruling that only one of us should speak, but you referred quite early in this meeting to our having said that the majority of renters were foreign and the minority were British. May I say that that really refers to the principal Tenters. That there are registered with the Board of Trade a large number of renters I do not doubt, just as there are hundreds or thousands of companies registered at Somerset House which never function. There are many renters who distribute one picture or a few pictures. Of the main renters (perhaps a dozen or fifteen), the majority are foreign, but they are technically British in that they are registered British companies ; but their interests are entirelv foreign. That is the position. 186. Well, shall we come to paragraph 14, wbere mention is made of " barring clauses " You say they are a handicap on exhibitors. It seems to me that they are rather to the advantage of exhibitors. It is a mystery to the people outside the industry ho.w you avoid overlapping, how an exhibitor can be sure that when he has arranged to show a film at a certain date, somebody within reach of his public will not have shown it just before, and is it not essential that you should have some such arrangement? — It is, my Lord; we must have a contract. A contract is entered into, we will say, by A theatre and automatically B, C, D and maybe others are prevented from showing that same film. and that operation is called barring. They exhibit a film and thereby one. two or more theatres are prevented from showing that same film because they are in the locality. 187. Well, you could not do without that. You say that if the operation of the " barring clauses " makes it difficult for exhibitors to obtain sufficient British pictures for quota purposes, they have the remedy in their own hands. They could not drop the barring arrangement, could they?— Yes. The complaint, if I may say so, is that certain theatres perhaps take an unfair advantage of their position or power and bar more theatres then they would reasonably be entitled to do. (Mr. Korda): Chains of theatres. (Mr. Baker): Chains of theatres; and we say, " Well, that is very unfortunate, but it is a contract between a renter and an exhibitor," and the remedy is in the bands of the exhibitors themselves to prevent these unreasonable barring clauses. 188. These unreasonable barring clauses? -{Mr, Kearney): You see. my Lord, the exhibitors claim that there are not sufficient British films to go