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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 77 19 May, 1936.] Mr. S. H. Cole, Mr. D. Dickinson and Mr. C. H. Elvin. [ ( 'on l in in ■! . 605. Could you not deal with it by means of declaration? — Put it as an obligation on those concerned that they have to make a declaration that there is no block booking taking place? — I do not know if it is possible. There has to be a certain amount of block booking, I imagine. 606. You think there must he? — There must be owing to the limited number of renters. 607. Yes, block booking in the form of the exhibitor saying he wants two films from the renters may be quite unobjectionable. But it is a very different matter when a renter forces a bad film — block booking by the renter is a very different matter, and free negotiation for two or three films at the same time on the part of the exhibitor would not be prevented. You think it would be difficult to get any provision which would not be oppressive? — If it is possible to put a provision to prevent undue force by the renter on the exhibitor it would be admirable, I think, if it is possible. That is the only point we are uncertain about. 608. In paragraph (vi) you wish to extend the requirement of British nationality beyond the scenario writers to cover certain technicians. Are you satisfied that there is an adequate number of technicians for this purpose? — Oh, yes, there are 120 British technicians out of employment to-day, and a lot of those are first-class men who have been responsible for making first-class films. There are in this country about the same number of foreign technicians, some of whom are ace men and indispensible, but as regards a lot of whom their work could be done by British technicians and at no time in our knowledge has there ever been a shortage of British technicians. To-day there are 120 of all types of technicians (camera men, sound recorders, cutters, and so on) out of employment. 609. Is this a new development owing to growth of the industry, or has it been the case for some time? — It is apparently since the growth of the British industry has attracted foreign people into it. The healthy state, in certain ways, of the British film industry is a magnet to foreign technicians to come here. 610. Then in paragraph (viii) you recommend that there should be representation of employees on the Advisory Committee. You are probably aware the main object of that Committee is to advise the Board of Trade as to whether quota defaults are within the control of the people concerned. Could you develop a little why you consider employees' representatives should be specially qualified to carry out that duty, which does not seem to be very much related to their experience as technicians?— No, quite. We assumed the Advisory Committee was to advise upon the Act generally, and not merely upon the actual question of quota as such and in accordance with our evidence here and the present provisions of the Act, there are a lot of matters which do naturally concern, and directly concern the workers of the industry. We understood the Advisory Committee was to advise on the Act in general and not on one or two particular points. 611. I understand that they have primarily that rather definitely limited function. But Miss Plumer is a member of the Committee and she may develop that point further. I think that is all I have to ask. 612. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer): I have only one or two points. In paragraph 2 you speak of your desire for British technicians to be employed on making good pictures, and you say you hope it is possible to find ways and means to make this possible. I suppose the ways and means you have in mind are the suggestions you make further on? Do you consider those to be adequate to bring about this desired result, or are you leaving it to somebody else? — It is bound up with our suggestions here. For instance the one about the greater percentage of British technicians employed, only one foreign technician on a picture, the salary clauses, and so on. All those things should, we hope, make it possible for British technicians to be employed in greater numbers. 613. You consider the suggestions you made .would bring about that result? — Quite. 614. And you think the minimum cost you would impose would ensure quality? — Nothing ensures quality, but it makes it much more likely. Our point is you cannot make, except in very exceptional cases, a good picture for less than the suggested minimum. 615. You could quite easily make a bad picture for more than that money? — You could make a bad picture for £100,000. (Mr. Cole) : If I might develop that point further, while even £60l,000 will not necessarily ensure a picture that is good from an entertainment point of view, it will do so from a technical point of view. That is to say, if a picture has cost £60,000 it may be a picture that audiences will not like, but it will be a picture, generally speaking, upon which the camera man, sound recorders, editors, and so on, have been able to do their particular job of work with time and opportunity to devote the best of their skill to it. 616. But if they have not produced the result, which presumably is to provide an entertaining picture, it may not be money very [well spent? — It is always worth while to have done a technical job well, because the next picture you work on you may have a better story and a better director. 617. In paragraph 4, under salaries and working conditions, would you be in a position, if you were asked to furnish specific instances in those cases that you quote? — (Mr. Elvin): You mean? 618. With reference to excessive hours, and so on? — Yes — definitely. 619. If asked you could furnish specific instances? — We could give details of hours, and so on, worked in different studios. 620. You say " salaries and working conditions," but you deal with excessive hours mainly and then speak of illogical restriction of expenditure. I quite see that may be so, but it does not seem to quite fit in with the rest of that paragraph? — It is the restriction on the labour employed in the film rather than upon the making of it. If they can get a bad camera man for £15 and a good one for £20 they will tend to employ the not so good at £15. On these pictures we know it is very hard to get the customary salary, and it is mainly on those points and the question of meals and meal allowances that the restriction is prevalent. (Mr. Dickinson) : May I say something about that? I am a camera man, and I have worked on some of these very cheap pictures made only for quota purposes. We have been going to make a scene which would look good photographically, and I have been told we cannot do it because we have not the time — their time meaning money — because they must be finished on Saturday. That is the trouble we are up against. 621. Then in paragraph (II) (d) you suggest rather rigorous penalties for renters and exhibitors who fail to meet their quota obligations; do you think you are quite taking into account the difficulties, which exhibitors state they find in fulfilling their quota obligation, particularly now it is 20 per cent.? —(Mr. Elvin) : Yes, but we suggested the exhibitors' quota be 50 per cent, of the present renters' quota, which would make it easily possible for any exhibitor to comply with his quota obligations. 622. Then again, under paragraph (II) (e) you say it is widely alleged that certain exhibitors have helped to discredit British films by the manner in which they have deleted portions of such films for exhibition after a film has been registered at a certain length. Again, in this case, could you furnish specific instances? — Yes, I have notes here. For instance, there was one programme with a foreign feature and a British supporting film. Two entire sequences of the British film were deleted and the film was cut down by eight minutes, and one complete character who had a credit on the screen was