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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

46 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Lotjdon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. [ ( "iitniued. by our proposals we suggest that some films shall be " labelled." We suggest that films costing less than a certain minimum shall, if registered for renters' quota, be described for what they are and that the public shall know it; we also suggest that certain films shall not be eligible for renters' quota at all. At present all films must be registered and all British films so registered are eligible to serve for both renters' and exhibitors' quota. Furthermore any film not deemed by the terms of the Act to be British is classified as " foreign." If our proposals are accepted the result will be that certain British films will not be eligible to count for renters' quota, but they may still be distributed by renters, and should the latter have to acquire a percentage of British quota in respect of all films rented it would necessitate their finding British quota to match certain British films as well as foreign ones, and also to match films imported from the Dominions. This would be unfair to renters. We suggest, therefore, that in future the proportion of British films to be acquired by a renter should be a percentage of the foreign films he handles instead of a percentage of all films handled. This woidd in no way modify the proportions of British film to be obligatorily acquired for quota purposes ; it is merely a different method of arriving at the same result, which would be advisable if not essential if our other proposals are adopted. There is not the same need for modifying the method of calculating exhibitors' quota, but if the method be altered in computing renters' quota it would be desirable, for the sake of uniformity, that the methods of calculating both renters' and exhibitors' quota should be identical. (Mr. Baker) : May I give a simple illustration, my Lord? I am a British producer and during a year I distribute 25 films. Of those 25 films, foreign or British, I am compelled to have not less than 20 per cent. British, therefore my liability is 5 British films out of 25, British and foreign makes. Supposing, however (as I am), I am mainly concerned with British films and do not import American pictures and I put out 25 British films a year — this is an extreme case— my liability under our proposals would be nil, because I import no foreign films, and therefore I am free and encouraged to make films and live by selling those films on their merits. If I do not make successful films, quota or no quota, I shall not be able to sell them. 204. (Mr, Cameron) : You can do that at present, can you not? — Yes, but at present my quota is on the total footage, including those films that I make. 205. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer) : May I ask one question ? Does Proposal 2 depend on the acceptance of (h) lower down ? — Yes. 206. I see. I did not ifollow before? — Yes. For instance, Mr. Cameron, take Metro-Goldwyn, they have 50 films a year, and they are compelled to make 20 per cent., that is 10 films. That is their liability. There is no reason why a British producer who is mainly distributing British pictures should have the same liability ; he should only have the liability on the foreign films that he imports in the same way that the American renter has the liability on the foreign films that he imports. 207. (Mr. Cameron): I see. I thought that was the position now?^No, the quota is now on the total, they are all bunched together. If I had 50 English films and 50 American films they are put together and my quota is on the total. 208. T see that, but that is a mathematical point? — Yea, but it is important. (Mr. Loudon): Every British picture now is a quota picture, but we are changing it round so that a quota picture is a picture that counts against the foreign footage. 209. Then 25 per cent, on the proposed basis is more important than 20 per cent, on the old basis? — It is the same thing in actual figures but it is more important from the point of view of what it does. 210. Yes, T see? — I hope, my Lord, you appreciate the position we have explained. 211. (Chairman) : I am still not convinced that it is anything but an arithmetical calculation, but it is a preferable way in your opinion and if there is some difference I shall read the evidence and probably 1 shall understand it from that. You are satisfied that the cost test of quality is the best one, and you do not deal with any other test. Do you think that it is safe to rely on that, that it will not cause extravagant production measured by cost? — Well, we have kept the figure down reasonably moderately, my Lord, having that point in view. 212. And if you adopt the cost basis do you consider that Form C is the best measure to take for it, in preference to the total cost? — Yes, we are all agreed that it is better to have the cost on what is familiarly known as Form C. 213. To exclude the cost of the story and copyright?— Yes, only taking into account the cost for Form C. 214. Where you take the stigma basis that you propose, or any other basis, do you think that it is reasonable to legislate rigidly for 10 years, or should some power of adjustment be reserved to the Board of Trade? — Well, in a business such as the film business where plans are made so very far ahead (bookings for instance are six months ahead we know) production must precede bookings, therefore arrangements are made two or three years ahead, and anything less than 10 years, I am afraid, would destroy the confidence that now exists in the permanent establishment of the British film industry. Anything less than 10 years, I think, my Lord, would be worse than it is now. 215. Then your stigma proposals are embodied in paragraph 18 (b) and there you say, " for a maximum period of 30 to 40 seconds " — is that a misprint for "minimum"? — (Mr. Kearney): Yes, it should be " minimum." It is a clerical error. 216. I thought so. There is a point of substance which rather puzzled me in one of these proposals. The films which cost less than 15s. per foot are not to rank for quota, they are below the stigma class, and the films which cost more than 25s. per foot are above the stigma class? — Yes. 217. Is there not likelihood of considerable confusion between those two classes on the part of the public that see the films, and if they see films which are so bad as not to justify inclusion even in the stigma class, will that not do a great deal of harm to British reputation? — (Mr. Baler): Our view is, my Lord, that the first class will not be made. (Mr. Kearney) : We suggest they should not be admitted at all for renters' quota. (Mr. Baker) : In practice, my Lord, the first class that you referred to will not be made, or if they are made they will be booked only on their merits. Obviously the American companies will not make such films because they do not rank for renters' quota, therefore the American renters will not make them as " quickies ", as it were, and if other people make them they will not be shown except on their merits. There is no incentive to make such films and that particular category, in my view, is not very important. Those films will not be made. What I think may be made, ray Lord, is a certain number of semi-documentary films that can be made at less cost than in tlu second class by British companies, and they will be shown and exhibitors would be willing to book them because they carry exhibitors' quota. I see no danger there at all. The films will not be made for those people who are only interested to acquire cheap British films for quota purposes, because they will not rank for quota. 218. No. they will not be made by the present people who make them to satisfy the quota requirements :j No. they will not be made by those people, 219. But you told us exhibitors say they have been finding difficulty in getting British films to show? — Yes. 220. Is there not danger if the foreign-controlled companies give up producing these cheap films for