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.

62 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 1!) May, 1936.] Mr. Paul Rotha. | < 'ov ft n "< d. less than 3,000 feet in length) can be comprised of British long films (that is, films of 3,000 feet and upwards in length). We believe that in any new Cinematograph Films Act, or if the present Act is extended, it should be required of renters and exhibitors to balance all foreign short films only by British short films for which full quota has been given, (c) A Sub-Committee, carefully selected as representative of Documentary Film interests as suggested in Part B (5) above, should be appointed to deal specially with the field of Documentary Films. (</) That all short films should be considered as having a prima facie case for full quota by the above-mentioned committee, other than : (i) Weekly issues of news-reels, (ii) Advertising films for which payment is made to the exhibitor for exhibition, (iii) Trailers. (iv) Films distributed free of charge. (e) Leaving aside studio-made fiction short films, cartoon and trick films (the position of which does not concern us), the question remains : how are Documentary Films worthy of full quota, to be distinguished? (/) It is difficult to make a strict definition, but it is suggested that the following method would tend to exclude trivial material : (g) In order to guide an advisory committee or sub-committee, every maker of Documentary Films, who wished a film to become eligible for quota, should be required to furnish the Board of Trade with : (i) A detailed description of how the subject of the film is treated, indicating satisfactorily the creative elements represented in the film. (ii) Evidence that the film has been produced by a unit with a minimum personnel of a director and a cameraman working with a producer of documentary films. (iii) Evidence that the film has taken time and skill to produce and is not a " quickie '' job. (An analysis of effects would immediately reveal the great difference between documentary and other films. For example, under mute— the design, photography, and staging of effects : under sound — the original composition of music, choral effects and editing of sound, are important. It is for this reason that we suggest that applicants might be required to give not, as at present, a list of shots, but a description of visual and aural treatment which would indicate the creative treatment of the subject.) 408. {Chairman): I will not take you in detail through your statement of evidence because we have all read it, but I would like to ask you a few questions on points which might be a little further developed perhaps. We might take it more or less page by page. In Part A, paragraph 3, you deal with these documentary films, and you would like to see them more easily admitted to the renters' quota?— (Mr. Botha): Yes, Sir. 409. They already have exhibitors' quota, and 1 would like you to develop a little why there is a need that they should have the renters' quota as well. Is if that there is not really an effective demand for these films on the part of the public as reflected by the exhibitors, that you feel that you must stimulate their production by having them classed for renters' quota. If the public wants the films would it nut be natural to expect that the exhibitors would give effect bo that wish and arrange to show them independentlyp— I think the situation, Sir, is to a certain extent explained by the fact that the documentary film is lor the most part a short film, and the care with which short films are booked by exhibitors does not equal the care with which long films are hooked by exhibitors. There ha\e horn several cases, in fact mam cases, in the past whore exhibitors have booked short documentary films and have not even advertised these films to a public which wishes to see them. As to your first point I think that if documentary films were admitted to both renters' and exhibitors' quota it would certainly ease our case from the point of view of widening distribution. That is to say, it at the present moment our films are not giver, renters' quota, it means they must be taken by British distribution firms and not by. we will say. an American distribution firm. To a certain extent British renters are acquiring short pictures which do not fall into the documentary class. They are perhaps variety acts, or something like that, and which means that they automatically have renters' or full quota. I think it would certainly ease the position if documentary films were given renters' quota. I do not think the difficulty in any way reflects that the public is not desirous of seeing documentary films. 410'. It is very undesirable to do anything to encourage block booking or to assist the renter to force films on the reluctant exhibitor? — Quite. 411. If steps are taken to make it more difficuft to force films on exhibitors do you still think that you would get a benefit by ranking for renter-' quota ? — I do think so. 412. Or is it only because of the renter being able to force the exhibitor to take them? — I think it will work both ways. I think your last point is the most effective, it would encourage an exhibitor to take them. The exhibitor does not book his short pictures with a great deal of care perhaps because, for example, American short pictures distributed in this country are often given away free of charge. We have to meet the case where an exhibitor might say. " I have booked a long film from an American company and with that one long film I am provided with six short films for nothing. Why should I take one of your documentary films for a fee? " 413. Then in sub-paragraph (b) you mention the difficulty of proving a special exhibition value. You are perfectly aware that the Board of Trade do not have to get proof in the form of quotations of outside opinions. They are welcome if they are sent in. I understand, but it is not an essential part of the case. Do you not think that the Advisory Committee are already provided with sufficient discretion to judge the value of these films without any necessity for outside opinion? Is it a matter which you have found to be a difficulty, of getting the necessary evidence as to the merit of these films? — It has not been a case of having difficulty in getting the necessary evidence of their special exhibition value. On the contrary that has been simple. But I do feel that, as regards the Advisory Committee, the special interests of documentary films, which have been described at some length in our Memorandum, are not, I think, at the present moment assessed quite fairly by the members of the Advisorj Committee. I suggest that documentary films are a new development, and that there are no interests of documentary films, either from an independent point of view or from a production or renting company's point of view, represented on the Advisory Committee whereas fiction films are strongly represented. 414. Yes. You do not think that the live independent members are a sufficiently strong impartial element for you to appeal to? — 1 would not like to suggest that for a moment, Sir. but I would suggest that one member of the documentary profession, if I may use thai term, should be represented on the Committee, or on a Sub-Committee, as we I'ecommend. 415. Alter all. it is to the interests of the distributor and to the interests of the producer that these films should get fair treatment, and although you migb.1 not he very keen, i should have thought that it was a very good jurj lot you to appeal to. Anyhow you feel you ought to have direct ropro sentat ion : Certainly. 41G. You refer in paragraph I oi Pari A to the drop in short tilins which have go1 the full quota, but it is a fact, is it not. that short films which have