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

64 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 19 May, 1936.] Mr. Paul Rotha. [ ( 'on fumed. apparatus, perhaps with apparatus for colour photography, on a six months' tour of Britain and the result might not be more than something of the scenic film class. I think it is difficult to try and assess the value of documentary films in terms of money expended per foot on production. My association would oppose that method of assessing creative value. 435. I quite see, taking it as the sole test, but you do not think it would be an advantage which would admit a great many films without question, and that in special cases such as the first instance you gave us there should be the right ofj appeal to a committee such as you have outlined here? — Yes. 436. It would lessen the work of the committee enormously if you could admit a great many films automatically, I am afraid otherwise it is going to be a task of extreme difficulty? — Yes. 437. To examine the credentials of all these films? —I should not like, Sir, in view of that, to commit myself or my association to making any statement as regards the actual figure of cost of the documentary film. I would still like to put the point that it" .would be a difficult method. 438. Would cost let in a great many films which you would like to see excluded?— I think it would. 439. You think it would he a dangerous basis to take the cost of films?— I think so. I think we have noticed that in the question of " quickie " story films in the working of the present Act. 440. Then you say, in paragraph 2 (d) of Part C, that you wish to exclude certain classes and you mention advertising films. Is it easy or would it be possible to identify these films before registration?—I think if a film is made for direct advertisement and payment is made to the exhibitor for its showing that it is extremely unlikely that the film in question would be submitted to the Board of Trade for quota, but even if it was I think there should be no difficulty in observing its, advertisement matter. 441. But there might be a certain number which are not so obviously excluded on that, which would be rather difficult to identify, I should think. What exactly ia a " trailer " ?— A trailer is a short length of film, averaging 150 to 250 feet, comprised largely of excerpts from films, holding out inducement to the public this week to come and see next week's film. They are straightforward advertisement run at a cinema to advertise next week's programme. 442. I see, and a film distributed free of charge, is it necessarily valueless from the cultural point of view?_I would not suggest it would be valueless from the cultural point of view, but I feel that if a film is being distributed free of charge its production has obviously not been on an economically commercial basis. 443. No, but you are not now basing your case on a commercial basis from the point of view of giving employment, but rather from the cultural point of view. I should have thought there might be some of these films produced by cultural organisations which would be distributed free of charge. Does that not arise?— I do not think it is quite fair to the renter and exhibitor, or to the producer for that matter, if the methods which have been adopted in, say, three films made recently and which have been distributed free. It is not quite fair to the producers of documentary films if thej are meeting that competition. It is similar to the American distributor giving away free short films. 444. But you are, after all, proposing to let in films on quite a different basis from the claim which is made by the producers to have such special terms. It is a little difficult to see why you should draw ill., line at other good films just because they jj;o a little further in the non-commercial element, but I ill 1 see your point? — I think it is rather a rare occurrence, I should imagine that it is unlikelj that there would be a spate of films distributed free of charge. 445. Well, we have heard something of the evil of blind and advance booking, and it is generally believed that the present provisions are not entirely successful in checking it. Does this problem arise in the case of shorts? — As far as the distribution of British documentary films is concerned. I personally have not had experience of cases of blind or advance booking. I think our chief difficulty is that there is a different interpretation of the term " blind booking," in that exhibitors are inclined to book short films, particularly of our type of documentary film, on the sound of their titles, and probably in numbers rather than on the quality of the individual films. We have certainly suffered that, and know of cases where exhibitors say, " Please send me half a dozen short pictures." which is the attitude we are trying to fight. We are trying to persuade an exhibitor to ask for six films about which he knows who is the producer and that their entertainment value is of a high standard. 446. (Chairman): Thank you very much. 447. (Mr. Holmes) : The only thing I want to ask you is this. Will you assume, please, treat it as a pure assumption, that Parliament decides to abolish the renters' quota altogether and to increa-e the quota of the British-made films and reduce the foreign quota? Would that not give you with your documentary films a fair and increased chance of being able to rent them to exhibitors? — Do I understand that you are suggesting the abolition of renters' quota but the maintenance of exhibitors' quota ? 448. Yes, an increase of the exhibitors' quota? — I should imagine that that certainly would encourage documentary production. 449. (Mr. Holmes): That is all I wanted to put. thank you. 450. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Will you turn back, Mr. Rotha, to Part A, paragraph 3 (a)? I have got a good many questions to ask. Is it a fact that a large proportion of the renting and exhibiting fraternity consider the Film Society, to which you refer, as an amateurish group having no relation to the box office public and therefore of no importance?— That is so. 451. And would not the fact that a film had been shown to the Film Society really stigmatise a documentary or any other film in the eyes of any other exhibitors and most renters as being prima facie evidence that it was not suitable for the general public? — That is possible. 452. Has the trade and the national press respectively been on the whole encouraging in their attitude to these documentary films ? — The national press has been extremely encouraging. 453. The film trade press? — The film trade press has also been encouraging. I"il. Then in paragraph 3 (ft), how far have the renters proved to be obstructive either by ignorance or prejudice or lack of courage or all three? — I think it should be remembered that six years ago we started documentary film production in this country from scratch without any help from the film trade whatsoever. The documentary movement was started by the Government in this country by the Empire Marketing Board. It has ibeen a struggle, firstly, to find tin1 means of production for documentary and, secondly, to find the machinery of distribution. There are some renters who are favourable to documentary films, but it has been a struggle on our side to persuade other renters to take them. To-daj from our point of view, the situation is improving. 455. Did the Empire Marketing Board find difficulty in getting their films on the screen? — Sonic of their films, yes. The notable groups was the Industrial Britain series which was taken by Caumont British Distributors, which 1 understand was extremely successful. 456. Does your company offer its films to different renters and exhibitors by persona] application? — The