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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 53 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney, Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. l< 'nil I | 331. I will put this, and leave it at that. Under your proposals, production of bad pictures would be limited in two ways. First of all there would be the minimum expenditure on the picture, that would be the first consideration. Secondly, the attribution of the picture to the renter who inspired it, and that would make in the same direction. It would still be true that the renter was marketing a picture in which he was not very much interested? — Quite right. 332. And people were producing pictures indifferent ? — (With no heart in them. 333. Indifferent as to whether they were going to do good to British prestige, or not. I suggest if we can take off the renter the burden of doing something in which he is not interested, or which he does nut want to do. that would be a gain? — (Mr. Loudon) : There is one point, the Act at the moment is responsible for a production of 111 pictures of this type in 1935, which is more than half the total British production last year in numbers. If you remove that legislation for renters' quota it would mean production in this country would drop by over 50 per cent, in numbers — not, of course, so large a percentage in production cost. 334. But the exhibitor would have to show the same number of British pictures? — (Mr. Baker): The argument is the demand would create the supply. (Mr. Loudon) : If you legislate for the demand you must legislate for the supply, or put a hardship on the exhibitor. 335. You could easily provide for that? — (Mr. Baker) : I am not quite sure whether I could say the Film Group of the Federation of British Industries would agree to that. I think that you would have opposition from those particular firms who are interested in theatres in addition to production. 336. (Chairman) : Anyhow it is agreed you could not do it immediately. There would be a shortage. 337. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : Before I begin my questions, may I remind the witnesses a shorthand writer is taking down what they say, and they will do well to remember, as I will try to remember, that there is only one and not two present. May I first address my questions to Mr. M. Neville Kearney, as Secretary. The memorandum purports to set out the views and proposals of the British film production industry as represented by the Film Producers' Group of the Federation of British Industries, of which you are Secretary. Is that group unanimous on this memorandum? — (Mr. Kearney): Not entirely unanimous. There are certain conflicting views; with the majority of the sections of it, yes. 338. If you were to take the total capital represented by that Group, what proportion is definitely opposed to this memorandum? — It is difficult to say. (Mr. Baker) : I think it is a statement of fact. These proposals were adopted by the Federation of British Industries Group, and it is quite true that I think two companies voted against the increase of the quota proposals contained. That is the only point on which they took exception. (Mr. Kearney) : We do not deny they voted against the suggested increase in quotas. 339. Do they accept everything else? — They have not demurred from any other point at all (Mr. Baker): This is very important, and the question has been asked quite rightly, the definite objection that was expressed was simply and solely confined to the increase of the quota. There was no other known objection to the memorandum. 340. Is it a fact the two companies which objected are the two largest in the industry? — Producing companies? 341. The two largest companies in your group? — (Capt. the Hon. R. Norton) : I think we must answer that the companies most largely capitalised are not necessarily the largest producers. These big companies were arguing as distributors and exhibitors. (Mr. Loudon) : Their capital is very much greater than their interest in the production of pictures. (Mr. Baker) : Sir Arnold Wilson refers to two companies who have between them 500 to 600 theatres and they are, 1 believe, viewing lie e proposals, particularly the quota proposals, from the point of view of the exhibitor. 342. What proportion of the producing interest in the Group do they represent? — (Mr. Kearney): To-day? In numbers? (Mr. Loudon): I can give you the figures, Sir, 215 British pictures made for the year ending March last. Gaumont-British and their associated companies distributed 22 feature pictures and British International, or Associated British, had 13. Actually I am not counting the shorts. It was 14 over 3,000 feet. (Capt. the Hon. R. Norton): Of those 22 pictures distributed by Gaumont-British I happen to know only 17 were made by Gaumont-British and the other five were made by independent companies. (Mr. Loudon) : It does not represent such a large proportion of the production side of the industry. 343. One-fifth?— 215 pictures. 344. One-seventh? — (Mr. Kearney) : Although their capitalisation as companies within the industry is unquestionably the highest. 345. What proportion of theatres in this country are tied houses, that is to say in the hands of companies owned and controlled by aliens? — Very small. But there is control other than that of actual ownership. There is control through supply of films. (Capt. the Hon. B. Norton): But actual ownership is limited to about 20. 346. Control, although they may be in the hands of British lessees? — That is very difficult to answer, because control through supply is an important factor. (Mr. Loudon) : Sir Arnold Wilson is discussing the question of capital. (Mr. Kearney) : That is, I should say, very small. (Capt. the Hon. It. Norton) : Paramount have 14. The total of foreign-owned cinemas is under 20. 347. Can Mr. Kearney tell me what is the condition applied by the Federation of British Industries to qualify a company for membership? — (Mr. Kearney): I had hoped you would raise that because it was mentioned in the very early stages of this meeting. The qualification of membership of the Film Group, which is the point referred to here, is (1) that companies shall be British and shall have produced and trade shown at least one feature picture, (2) that they shall be elected to the Group by its members, and (3) that they shall be eligible for membership of the Federation of British Industries proper, according to its statutes. The rule, briefly, is that they shall be British-controlled companies and not foreign-controlled. That is how the Film Group is always able to keep out, if it wishes, a company who own studios in this country, and are a British registered company. But they are not members of the Group because the Federation of British Industries as such — its rules — would not permit of their being. Also the Film Group has preferred to have as its members genuine British companies and not companies which really are in another form foreign companies. 348. Does the Federation of British Industries make any elaborate inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether a company which is normally registered as British-owned is in fact a subsidiary of a holding company which may not be British owned and may be located elsewhere? — Yes. 349. Are yo)u satisfied that the Federation of British Industries are in a position at any moment to know if that control has been changed? — They consider they are. Whether they are in fact I could not say. Certainly so far as the Film Group is concerned we should know if a member company came under different control. 350. And in the event of any change of control the Federation of British Industries would at once notify the member that company was no longer eligible for membership ?— I should not like to answer definitely; it would bo firstly a question for