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

82 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H Fligelstone and Mr. W. K. Fdxleb. [< 'ontinued. something uneconomic we are prepared to urge admission of certain classes of short British films for registration as exhibitors' quota. Inelasticity of present Act. 34. We believe that the Cinematograph Films Act is unique in protective legislation in imposing a rigid and ascending scale. It is true that the scale was based upon expectations which seemed reasonable at the time, but which have not been borne out in practice. We submit that in future legislative power should, be given to the Board of Trade to vary the quota percentage after due enquiry of the interests affected. If this provision of elasticity is introduced the period of any future legislation is not of very great importance. If a rigid scale is to be introduced in future we submit that regard should be paid to the ever-changing characteristics of this industry and its period should not exceed five years. Section 2. 35. We are aware that a certain amount of evasion ensues but we are satisfied that for all practical purposes this section is of the greatest advantage to the cinematograph trade. We have heard a suggestion that declarations may be asked from renters, to which course we should not object, but we shall be quite satisfied if the clause is left as it is. Elimination of Silent Films. 36. Exhibition of silent films has ceased in all commercial dinemas and to prevent silent films being produced for evasion purposes there should be a definition that " sound " British film only shall rank against " sound " foreign film. Trade Shows. 37. Pre-release exhibitions are held complying with Section 32 (b) to which exhibitors are only admitted upon payment for admission. In many cases the opening night is made a special premiere, and it is either not possible to buy tickets or else at exorbitant prices. It is suggested that such shows should be confined to London and that the renters should be required to invite exhibitors to attend in the same manner as to a trade show. Exhibitors' Licences. (Clause 32— Definition of '• Theatre ".) 38. The Films Act should be extended to include any generally competitive -entertainments of nonflam films within its scope for purposes of registration. Persons exhibiting " non-flam " registered films should also be liable to quota provisions and be registered in respect of their cinemas. It would be unfair that competitive entertainment should be free of the patriotic obligations that attach to the showing of British quota. Television. 39. In view of the fact that television from film is anticipated from a central broadcasting centre doubtless the televising of a film for purposes of public exhibition will be included in any amending legislation. Section 27 (3). 40. In general we would remark that very little advantage arises by the continued retention of (3) (iii) or 3 (iv) in its application to films made in a British studio in ibis country. Tf it is practicable to limit the studio scenes in (3) (ii) to a studio in Great Britain and Northern Ireland we should support such limitation as an effective means of avoiding the production of inferior quota; in the Dominions for purposes of (nullifications in this country in due course. 642. (Chairman) : T will not take you right through the memorandum of evidence because we have all read it carefully. Might I ask you to look at paragraph 10 where you analyse the causes of the difficulties of exhibitors in complying with the quota requirements. You put the production of " quickies " very high among those difficulties. We have had some figures given us which I understand are available to anyone who cares to compile them from official resources. The figures are in the memorandum of the Board of Trade in Table L. You have not got this? — (Mr. Fligelstone): We will accept them, my Lord. 643. Those figures show that the British renters produced 65 per cent, of films in the year 1939 which were marked eight or over, whereas United Statescontrolled renters in the same period produced only 16 per cent, of that quality, so that it would appear, as you say here, that the production of " quickies " is the policy of the United States-controlled renters. You say that the production of usable British films has not made any material increase. Well I have not been able to check that. But is not that largely due to the output of these United States organisations?— Well, my Lord, I think we could quite easily give you the position as we see it in answer to that question which is this : that as an industry the exhibiting section of this industry has very little if anything to complain of the films produced by the British renting companies. Our complaint is of films produced to comply with quota by the foreign renting companies, so we agree with what you have just said. The British films produced to-day by the British companies are standing on their own feet. Our difficulty is with films made by foreign renters simply to comply with quota requirements. 644. You say public opinion in certain areas is resentful of the increasing number of British films. Is that because they are bad? — No, it is one of these things that I cannot explain to you in this regard. Some people like spinach, and others do not. Some districts like British films, and others do not. 645. It is not a matter of "quickies"? — No. British films in certain districts, however good they are, are not acceptable. That is the whole point. 646. Then you say there are not enough British shorts. Is the popularity of the two feature programme having much effect in decreasing the demand for shorts? — No, I do not think that is the position, because, in my own case I should say that perhaps out of -52 weeks in the year, although I use two long films per programme, I still have to fill up my programmes during, say, 40 weeks with a certain number of shorts. The position is that British shorts are not being made. 647. Are there foreign shorts which could be available if ? — I do not think that is the point, my Lord, because the foreign shorts are available in great numbers and are of excellent quality. 648. Excellent quality? — Yes. comparable to the best long films made. 649. Is there any reason why good quality shorts should not be made in this country ? Is there any particular handicap? — No, except that they are not commercial. We do not pay a great deal of money for shorts. That applies to foreign and British. 6-50. How is it that they are made in the United States? — Because in the United States they have a very different policy from our policy. In the United States in a great number of cases they run one long film only, variety, and short. Well. now. that is not the usual custom in this country. There arc districts where they do run one film only and fill up with shorts, but the majority of places we run on two long films and shorts. Then you do not use the same number of shorts as you would if you had just one long film and shorts. Variety in this country is not in very groat use in ordinary i inline tances. 651. Let us go to paragraphs 15 and 19. You loll us that the choice used to be one out of two, and you bad to take one film out of two as exhibitors. I am not quite clear about how it works out, because you say 114 films a year arc shown,