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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 49 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, [Continued. Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. 261. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer) : My first question is on your " General Observations ", paragraph 2, where it is stated, " The number of worthwhile British films available for exhibition in the near future will greatly exceed the present supply of such pictures ". Are those pictures, that increased number, likely to be available for the independent exhibitor or will they be made mainly by the large companies which control circuits? — No, the tendency is the reverse. The tendency is that new producing companies are springing up and are increasing. This expansion is mainly due not to the extension of existing producing companies, but to the inauguration and building of new studios under other control, and obviously, therefore, those pictures will be available for independent and whatever other exhibitors you call them. 262. I see, because that is the complaint that one hears from the exhibitors' point of view at the moment, that the worth-while British films are not available to them, that they have not the choice, that there are the two types of British films, the verv good and the very bad ? — Yes, I think you have a suggestion that the extension of the British producing industry is the increase of existing studios or studios that have been built during the early period of the Act. The increase of British production is not in that line at all, it is mainly in the line of new studios that are being built under other control, and with other brains and capital, and so on, which is all to the good. 263. Definitely, and that will tend to meet the difficulty ? — Yes, definitely. 264. And when you go on to say that the vast majority of exhibitors can readily fulfil their obligations, in paragraph 12, I imagine that you would not find at the present moment cordial agreement with you on the part of many exhibitors? — (Mr. Kearney) : That is a fact which is proved by the official returns of films which have been shown. The majority of exhibitors do not experience difficulty. The instances of hardship are few and if many more good British films are available, which is what our proposals seek to ensure, there should be no difficulty at all. (Mr. Korda) : I think the difficulty is not with the independent exhibitors. The difficulty is only and chiefly in cases where a company has four or five theatres in one town ; for instance, the Gaumont-British have five picture theatres in Oxford which they have to take care of, and it is difficult to find enough different British pictures for each of their five theatres, but if the independent exhibitor complains about not being able to get worth-while British pictures I do not think he is right. 265. And you think the increased production envisaged would be sufficient to meet the increased quota? — (Mr. Baker): I think so. 266. Then a good deal has been said about the point you raised in paragraph 15 on advance booking, and you say that it is a question of fundamental importance. Is it not a question of equal difficulty, because there does not seem to be any solution? Is it quite satisfactory to leave the solution to the Government's legal advisers, do you think? — I do not think we have any better suggestion for a solution than the Government's legal advisers. It has had their attention for a long time. 267. Yes, they drew up the Act?— Yes. 268. I wonder if they have had more inspiration since then? — (Mr. Kearney): They may have been inspired since that time, they have had eight years in which to develop inspiration. Experience has proved how the Act can be evaded, so it is necessary to tighten things up. 269. Then in paragraph 18, in connection with the scheme for proposed minimum cost, is it likely that that figure would be effective if and when colour comes, or would that figure be too low? — (Mr. Korda) : These colour pictures will not come in in quantity for the next five or ten years. 30152 270. Then in paragraph 18 (e) you suggest that documentaries should be included in the short quota requirements, do you not? — (Mr. Baker): Yes. 271. I see you suggest a minimum figure for them, but is it possible to lay down a figure like that, because is it not a fact that the cost of documentaries varies very considerably? — Yes. We rely upon Section 27 (I) (i) to take care of any films that may be below the price, for which an appeal can be made as being of special exhibition value. 272. But do you not rather suggest that they should have the stigma? — No. (Mr. Kearney) : Only, that is, if it is registered for renters' quota. You can register for exhibitors' quota under Section 27 (I) (ii). 273. And would it not take away the benefit? — No, I do not think we wanted to suggest that. 274. Then in the same paragraph I do not understand the force of Proposal 12 : — " This restriction has been found in practice to operate to the disadvantage of British producers as compared with their competitors abroad." 1 do not quite understand that? — In Hollywood they can always try out a film before they get the final version of it. They try it out in a certain number of theatres. They ascertain the public reaction to it and they modify it if they find the reaction is not favourable. Here you may not do that. (Mr. Baker): My Lord, we do do it in fact with the knowledge of the Board of Trade. Many producers in this country, desirous of getting the public's reaction to a new film, do show the film at a theatre unannounced, and the Board of Trade understand the position, and there has never been any action taken, but they have said it is quite improper to do so. It simply means provision in the Act could be made or should be made. 275. (Chairman) : I am told it is not allowed to the extent that is suggested here? — No, it would have to be controlled, as it were. What the producer wants is a try out of a film. (Mr. Kearney) : They may do it in the case of one theatre with continuous showing now. They have done it in many instances in more than one theatre with, I think, the cognisance of the Board of Trade, who have to some extent slightly turned the blind eye, if it has not been overdone, but the Board of Trade obviously cannot overlook an irregularity if producers or their renting organisation advertise the fact that they are going to do it. (Mr. Korda) : It is a help to see if a picture is not too dull or not too long, or partly not too dull and not too long, if a comedy has its comic effect or not. 276. Is it helping the cutting?— Yes. (Mr. Kearney): Before final registration. (Mr. Korda): That is the sole purpose. In Hollywood they show every picture before it comes out, it is tried out four or five times by different audiences and it is found very useful to judge the final cutting of the picture. (Capt. the Hon. It. Norton) : I think our memorandum should have stated that there should be a limit to the trial of five showings so that the Board of Trade could take steps if there were any improper trial. (Mr. Baker) : I feel that the Board of Trade understands the situation and when the new Act comes to be framed it will bo looked after. There would obviously have to be a limit, but on the other hand producers are not likely to be showing their new films all over the country because that would destroy the value of it. (Capt. the Hon. B. Norton): They do not get any money for it. (Mr. Baker) : They do not get any revenue from it. 277. (Mr. Cameron): Most of my points have already been covered. There are just one or two questions I want to put. I quite understand, Mr. Baker, it follows from the memorandum that ii' a much bigger quota were put up, as you suggest, there would follow production of British films by these independent companies, but from the point G