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.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 81 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Continued. 26. In regard to the quota upon renters, we ask that it should be fixed at such a percentage as will produce a margin of selection of two films for every one which we have compulsorily to book. We ask for the opportunity of submitting our views as to the figure of exhibitors' quota if the Committee reaches any decision as to the scale of the renters' quota. 27. We shall oppose any suggestions which diminish the footage obligations imposed upon renters unless after consideration it appears that such scheme(s) is desirable and ensures a corresponding reduction in the footage imposed upon exhibitors and also secures a margin of choice to which we have referred. Cost Qualification. 28. We are not in favour of the suggested solution of cost as a basis of qualification as we are not convinced that it will be the means of increasing production. On the contrary, we anticipate that its introduction would be followed by a considerable decrease. The figure which has been mooted, namely, £2 per foot, is of little value. A good film generally costs in the making io-day from £25,000 to £30,000 at least. If either of these figures be instituted the effect would not be to produce more British pictures, but would shut out from this market a considerable number of foreign films — which it .would no longer pay to import on account of the attendant expenses of acquiring British quota. Any larger sum, if imposed, would simply lead to evasions, possibly by the manufacture by foreign distributors of British " quickies " in the Dominions. General increase in production costs will also drive out of business most of the smaller producers whom we should x,refer to remain. Quality clause. 29. When the Films Act was under consideration we suggested that a Committee should be set up which could review the registration of Biitish films on the ground that they were lacking in entertainment value. In other words, such a Committee would be empowered to disallow the type of British film which we know as a " quota quickie." We were told at the time that such a Committee would not be accepted by the Board of Trade as the President at the time did not approve it. He never advanced any reasons, and we bowed to his decision. We find that such a provision has since been introduced in the quota) legislation of the New South Wales Parliament Act, No. 41, 1935. It is as follows : " 3.— (1) This Act shall apply to all films except films of the following classes, namely : — (g) Australian films, in respect of which the Minister upon the recommendation of the Films Advisory Committee constituted under this Act has directed that this Act shall not apply on the ground that their artistic or photographic merrfc, or their appeal to the interest of the public generally, or their general quality is not sufficient to warrant their being taken into account for the purposes of computing the distributors' quota or the exhibitors' quota in accordance with this Act." The constitution of the New South Wales Advisory Committee is set forth in Clause 11, but we submit that a different constitution would be necessary in this country. We have in mind a constitution somewhat similar to the present Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade in which the proportions of the various trade interests are preserved, but perhaps smaller in numbers to enable it to be called together as frequently as required. 36452 K.R.S. Booking Policy. 30. Our references to the purchasing and booking power of the circuits may perhaps prompt the question why the independent exhibitors, who are numerically so much stronger, do not combine and pool their bookings and so protect themselves. The renters maintain an absolute solidarity in refusing to let any exhibitor already booking for a cinema book for any other cinemas unless he owns 51 per cent, in the second or subsequent cinemas for which he proposes to book. This is known as the K.R.S. booking policy, and as it is subscribed to loyally by the members of that Society, which comprises all the principal renters, British and foreign, no question of nationality arises. Exhibitors strongly protest but are helpless. In its application to British films the circuits through their alliances with the producers are always at an advantage and the independents are at a perpetual disadvantage. 31. The object of the policy has been to keep exhibitors in competition with one another, and for the purpose of increasing and maintaining high film rentals. In the earlier years of the Films Act we should have hesitated to have brought forward this point as we might have been met with the contention that it was not the object of an Act of Parliament to seek to endow one section of the trade with the means of securing the goods of another section at a lower price. To-day any such contention can no longer be advanced because circuits have increased, the number of cinemas have increased — as well as an enormous growth in their seating capacity — so that prices look after themselves. The effect of the K.R.S. booking policy today is simply to advantage the circuits in acquiring the best films — and, incidentally, the best British films — leaving the independent exhibitors to take what is left. We submit very strongly that this Committee should lay down as a condition of recommending the granting of continuing protection to the British producers that all exhibitors, whether circuits or independents, should be placed in an equally favoured position to bid for the British films suitable for exhibition to the public. The amendment would not present any serious difficulty merely requiring definition of " renting " in relation to films to rent or issue British and /or foreign films to exhibitors or their accredited agents. If academic protests are made concerning interference with the right to conduct business as one pleases, Part I of the Films Act affords a sufficient answer. The back door of the Dominions. 32. We would draw attention to the fact that the worst " quota quickies " come from the Dominions. We would refer to recent registrations of three Indian silent films, one Australian and a Canadian, which were without any value whatever and cannot be shown to the public. The quality clause, which we suggest is the simplest method of elimination of this class of film. We have doubts as to the manner in which a cost clause would operate in practice as an effective safeguard. We do not know .what means there would be of checking expenditure incurred in the Dominions. This back door must be closed. As it is ever open as a means of evasion we draw attention to it as a major point requiring remedy, otherwise the Films Act can always be defeated. British Shorts. 33. Briefly we may say that British shorts are not forthcoming in sufficient numbers because there is " no money in them." Instead of trying to prop up something which is not economic, we recommend that they be excepted from the operation of the Films Act. In practice as " long " quota has to be obtained when British shorts are not available their absence increases the burden of exhibitors' quota. If, however, the preference is to prop up