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

48 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Bakkh. Mr. M. N. Kearney. [Continued. Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. Yes, labour is included and labour is definitely proportionate to the length of the film. I'll'. Then in the same paragraph, Proposal 5, all films screened to bear a legible title saying whether they are made in the United Kingdom or in the British Overseas Empire or in a foreign country. How would you deal with films shot abroad by the British producer? — Well, that is covered in the proposals and in the present Act. It is a British film and it would be made in England. It would bear the label, " Made in England." There is only a proportion of that film which can ever be shot abroad. That is covered in the regulations?— (Mr. Kearney): The" present Act describes a British film as one made by a British subject or company of which " the studio scenes must have been photographed in a studio in the British Empire." A film partly photographed abroad by a British company can be British by the present Act if the regulations are complied with. (Mr. Korda) : At any rate the shooting of that picture, the place of the shooting, is really the place where the picture is made. (Mr. Baker): The studio. (Mr. Korda) : I did not quite mean that, but if you make half of a picture in France, but the picture is conceived and cut here in this country, it would not be fair to say that the picture was made in France. It is partly shot in France, but the picture itself would be a picture essentially made in England. 243. Then Proposal 6, " Provision to be inserted in the Act effectively to prevent renters from requiring exhibitors to hire a British quota picture of the type referred to in Proposal 2 (o) and (/) as a condition for the hiring of a foreign film "? — That is to prevent the block hiring of the quota quickie, if it is possible. 244. There again, how would you do it? You have failed to find any solution for block booking so far. Have you got any new idea ? — (Mr. Baker) : We agree it is very difficult, but at any rate there is some advantage in having in the Act that such an offence is a punishable offence. There is some deterrent, I think, even if one cannot get 100 per cent, observance of it, or discover the offenders, I think there is a considerable advantage in having it framed in the Act as an offence. 245. (Mr. Cameron): If the "quickie" is not to be produced it cannot be booked? — (Mr. Kearney) : But if the " labelled " picture, the " stigmatised " picture, which would obviously not be a picture up to the worthwhile quality, can be forced on the exhibitor by the renter together with other pictures that he does want, it would give it more showing than we think it merits, and we suggest that if possible there should be some way of preventing that' being done, making it a. legal offence. It may still be done but it is an offence. 246. (Chairman): Do you feel that any provision ought to be made against block booking generally. Do you all feel it is desirable to cheek block booking?— (Mr. linker): Yes, this is one of the means of doing it. 247. Would you go further and make block booking illegal, that it should never be a condition of taking a good film that you should take some other film? — Yes. (Mr. Korda): I think it would be very, very good. 248. Would it be practicable?— (Mr. Baker): Well, it would be difficult to find the offenders. (Mr. Korda): It would be practicable. (Mr. Baker): It would be practicable to do it. (Mr. Korda): It could be done. 249. It could be done just as effectively by declaration as in the other cases? -{Mr. Baker): Yes. the 9ame principle could apply. 2-50. If you are going to have these declarations I suppose you might apply them to both? — (Mr. Korda): Certainly. {Mr. linker): Yes. 251. There is one other question raised which seems to me to be rather outside the scope of this Committee, and that is about the child labour. I understand that you are in touch with the Home Office about that? — (Mr. Baker): Yes, it is outside the scope of your Committee. 252. We are appointed by the Board of Trade, so I think we ought probably to restrict our activities? — Yes, that is so. (Mr. Kearney): Might I make one very brief observation, with regard to the question of employment of children ? The reason we put that into our proposals was this. The conditions are more or less accepted by the Home Office, but the question is how the matter of employing children for portrayal in films shall be brought before Parliament. We have made suggestions that it should go into various Bills, but no decision has been reached. It would seem that re-enactment of the Films Act might, be an opportunity for bringing it forward — a practical method of bringing it forward. That is the only reason for our having raised this point. 253. I think the best course would be for you to remind the Home Office, when legislation is coming along, of their favourable attitude, so that they will not forget it? — We thought this might be the moment to introduce it if there is legislation. 2o4. Then you speak about the Dominions in Proposal 10. You say, " no British territories, with the exception of certain of the smaller Colonies, have introduced and applied quota legislation in favour of British films." Is not New Zealand an exception ?— No, because it is not enforced. 255. Is it only not enforced because a voluntary arrangement has been made for it? — It exists, but has not been put into force. 256. Does it not apply to renters but not to exhibitors, because exhibitors are already complying with the requirements? — The}" are showing more than the requirements now. 257. Well, in Proposal 11, you suggest that a scenario writer should be exempted from the requirement of British nationality. Is he not a very important factor in getting British atmosphere into a film? — (Mr. Baker): Yes, my Lord, that would probably be the right criticism to make, but producers have felt that they ought to have for the good of the industry generally and the works that they produce, liberty and freedom to consider it internationally in somewhat the same way as is done with music. One should not be prevented from using a man as author of the scenario who is a foreigner if he is a brilliant man. 258. Of course, we have the very definite object of helping the British cultural point of view? — Quite, my Lord, but I do not think it can be conceived for one moment because the author of the scenario is a foreigner that that will be reflected in the film. The film is made in England and I do not think there is any danger of any but British atmosphere being in that film. I do not think it is possible to get a German atmosphere with a film made here although the scenarist may have been a German. L'oi). The only other question I want to ask you, which does not arise in your memorandum, is in connection with the 16 mm. films. I understand they are shown a good deal in small halls throughout the country. Do you think any regulation should be applied to them Is there any importation of 16 mm. foreign films? — Oh, yes. but the amount of L6 mm. film gauge that is shown professionally is insignificant. I do not think wo attach any importance to it whatsoever. We do not discourage the use of the 16 mm. film. On the other hand. I think it is encouraged for educational and other purposes, but I do not think w e are very much concerned with it in these deliberation-.. 260. (Chairman): Thank you very much.