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

56 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 12 May, 1936.] Mr. F. W. Baker, Mr. M. N. Kearney. [Continued. Mr. A. Korda, Mr. N. Loudon and Captain the Hon. R. Norton. — (Mr. Baker) : I think roughly speaking, Sir Arnold, that it would. I think not the proposals, hut the building that is going on at present and the space that has been built during the last 12 months, and the capital invested, will give the necessary extra pictures that are required to fill the quota. 380. You have in fact sufficient production capacity, or you will have shortly, to undertake the whole of the programme you would like to see? — There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. (Mr. Kearney): May we put it in this way, the ratio of production capacity to the 20 per cent, quota will be vastly increased in respect of the ratio of production capacity with the new studios compared with what we propose should be the quota. (Copt, the Hon. It. Norton): I think it is important we have stated, " The value of the stages . . . £4^ million ", and of that these £2 million are just about to be completed and have not yet come into operation. (Mr. Kearney) : The new studios at Denham alone, which are just being completed, and would already have been in greater activity had there not unfortunately been a fire in one of the stages — those studios alone provide an important increase in production capacity. I have the figures here if you wish to see them. 381. I do not think it is of sufficient importance. The Chairman drew attention in his examination-inchief to the danger, if the quota was raised unduly, that there would be a reduced amount of competition for the suffrage of the public and that the exhibitors might be handicapped thereby. You retorted, I might say, that that had not been the case in the motor industry. But. in point of fact, in the case of the motor industry there has been a reduction in the last ten years of more than 50 per cent, of the total number of firms operating. There has been a steady reduction in motor manufacturing firms and competition exists only between, at the most, a dozen different firms where previously there were something like one hundred. Do you anticipate if the production of films in this country were to be increased there would be an increased concentration in the industry or not? — (Mr. Baker): I do not think the production of films will lend itself to that same degree of combination other industries do. It is more individualistic. 382. I attach great importance to this? — I am sure you realise and know the production of a film is not an automatic procedure. You can produce motor cars by mass production. You cannot produce films in that same way. There must be a thought and brain behind each individual effort to make a picture. (Mr. London) : The film industry is more like the publishing industry, Sir; I think that is a fairer comparison. (Mr. Baker) : It does not lend itself to the same combination. 383. I cannot accept the publishing industry as a parallel, because you do your own printing? — We do not do our own printing. 384. Using the publishers as an example. You actually do everything? — (Mr. Kearney): Not necessarily. Many films are made, where the studio shoots the film but it has it developed outside its own premises and the print made outside its own premises. (Mr. Baker) : That might be a point that has not been stressed in the memorandum, but it has been suggested to me by Sir Arnold Wilson. Apart altogether from the studio activities of which we have heard a great deal to-day there is an important section of the industry where the negatives, taken at the studio, are taken and the prints made, and that is a very, very big industry. There are very large laboratories in London and all round whose business is the developing of these negatives and making the necessary copies. It is the exception rathei than the rule that the studio should develop its own negatives and make its own prints. A few of them develop their own negatives, hut they look upon the printing of the copies as somebody else's job, and in consequence there are very important printing laboratories that undertake and do that work and employ a considerable number of people whose employees or the cost are never stated in this production. (Mr. Kearney) : They also print the positive prints taken from imported foreign negatives. 385. Therefore it makes no difference to that industry whether the film is made in Great Britain or abroad? — (Mr. Baker): It does not make any difference. 386. Does that industry have any laige export of films printed in this country? — (Capt. the Hon. It. Norton): No, small, chiefly to Australia. 387. Are there serious technical difficulties dtie to the highly inflammable nature of the product which makes ships unwilling to receive as cargo? — (Mr. Loudon) It is chiefly duties that affect them. (Mr. Baker) : The German lines refuse to take them. 3S8. When up against a difficulty you have repeatedly handed it cheerfully to the Board of Trade to deal with. Have you as practical men got any specific ideas in your minds whereby the Board of Trade could check some of these evasions without involving extra expenditure by the Excise officers of the Inland Revenue, or otherwise, or the police? — (Mr. Kearney): When drafting our memorandum we originally suggested, in respect of most of the paragraphs that you have in mind, that there should be reference of the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown ; and then we came to the conclusion it might be rather an impertinence on our part to suggest to the Committee how they should do things; so we left out any such suggestion because the Board of Trade know full well what the problems are, and I think they probably can explain as well as any of us can the manner in which the law is evaded. 389. Has it occurred to you it might be preferable for you to exercise over all your own members in all three branches some measure of control which might be conferred upon you by Statute, as is for example conferred upon the fishmongers of the City of London who .with the proceeds of a very small levy on the trade actually perform all the duties which in other trades are performed by the appropriate officers department of the Public Health Department?— It would be very delightful if we could bring it about, but unfortunately we have no Hayes organisation. (Capt. the Hon. B. Norton): The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America is an all powerful body within the industry, and it was formed, to a great extent, with the help of the Federal Government. If the BoaTd of Trade could help us to force exhibitors, renters and producers to get together into an association of some kind I think we «hould have made enormous steps. 390. My Lord Chairman, my point is really this: Parliament have already given to several trades certain privileges in return for which they have undertaken to keep a check on their own members. The Milk Marketing Board and the Pig Marketing Board do so. All Marketing Boards in greater or less measure do so? — (Mr. Loudon): There is our Censorship Board. 391. I would hesitate to draw a parallel. The fishmongers is another case, and the iron and steel industry have already got a very considerable degree of control over the internal operations of their own members by agreement amongst themselves although they are by no means united in interest. Is it impossible that some of these very disagreeable and dubious duties which you seek to place upon the Board of Trade could be carried out by an internal organisation with recourse to the Law Courts in case of a breach? — (Mr. Baker): I do not know whether we should lie in a better position or have any better information than the Board of Trade have. It is a very interesting proposal which had not occurred to me.