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

86 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Continued. difficulty in adjustment? — The group can look after all that. 715. It would equally cause an advantage to the big man, and a grievance to the small man? — The small man could always get on to a group. 716. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer) : Could he? Would he be taken? — Yes. 717. {Mr. Holmes) : If the renters' quota was abolished, and block booking was abolished, would not the American renter give up British films altogether and only devote himself to his own films? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : I think most of them would. 718. That would give a greater opportunity to a renter devoting himself entirely to British films? — We already have our British renting firms which are doing very well. 719. But this would stimulate them, and they would have more business to do? — What you do not appreciate is if you do not insist upon the goods being made there is no guarantee that they will be made. 720. You are going too fast for me. At the present time the renter who is dealing in British films has to stand the competition of the American renter who is also selling British films. If the American renter gives up the selling of British films, the British renter will have a bigger market in which to sell the goods that he deals in? — He will have less comrjetition. 721. He will have less competition and the chance of doing greater business and making greater profits. Therefore, it will be to his interest to endeavour to stimulate the British producer to supply good films so as to give him the opportunity of doing a bigger trade? — What it will do will be to give him an assured market with less competition and greater possibilities for exploitation. 722. Would not the very fact that a certain portion of the renters' trade at the moment would be disappearing, I mean by that, the American renter would be giving up British films, would not that have the effect of bringing other people into the renter business dealing only in British films, and would not they in their turn stimulate British producers to produce British films? — No, definitely not. 723. That is a matter of opinion. I am suggesting to you something that always happens in any trade, and not in cinemas ? — I say it is a matter of fact and you say it is a matter of opinion. I say it is a matter of fact ; if what you say is correct why is there not a greater number of English productions made now by British companies? 724. If we have changed places, then I will answer what I think is the answer. Because under the quota system the foreign renter has to acquire a certain number of British films, and in order to fulfil that requirement he gets them made as cheaply and badly as he possibly can, and if he were no longer compelled to do that it would give the opportunity for British renters to get better films and for British firms to be encouraged to make them. We have changed places, but that is my answer? — My answer to you is in your own words ; you say the American renter is already eliminated, because you say he acquires and makes such bad British films that they are unbookable. 725. No, I say he is able by the block booking system to force them with his good American films on to the exhibitors? — Which is not a fact. 726. But in the view of other people is the case? — That is not general. 727. It is not true in your case? — It is not general. (Mr. Fuller): Ten years ago I was very much occupied with this, and Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister made it \ cry plain that any scheme must prevent exploitation of exhibitors and therefore the machinery in this was very deliberately chosen that first of all you would assure the supply, and it went even further than it does to-day. You not only assured the supply but assured two films from winch you could select one, and I do not know of any protective legislation where there is not some corresponding safeguard either to assure supply or to protect the user on price. 728. You appreciate that we are just trying to explore this matter and get everybody's ideas with regard to it? — But do you know anything which does not protect the user, any kind of protective legislation which does not protect the user on price from exploitation ? 729. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not protect the user in this case ? — Then you come up against the next trouble which is if you do not leave the film to find its own price by the natural order of supply and demand, if you protect us on the ground of price that we should want to pay. you may automatically restrict jour production to an inferior article. 730. Yes, I will take that into account? — Quota is a particular form of protective legislation, and I believe in most of the other quotas they always assure the supply from which the user can make his selection by guaranteeing the producer a price and that is usually fixed in conjunction with the user so that it has some economic bearing on the thing. That can apply to an article which has a fixed standard of value, and you get into terrible difficulties once you try to fix a price for an article of entertainment which has no fixed value like a piece of steel or something of that sort. 731. (Sir Arnold Wilson): I will tak-~ you back to the first paragraph, " membership of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association." What are these surplus places of entertainment, not included in your membership? — Roughly places open one night a week ; places occasionally open less than six nights a week. 732. How many are there of that type? — You have all the information in the Board of Trade. Roughly, I suppose there may be, at any time, about 200 cinemas which have a licence, closed, who would be out of membership with us, or in process of some change, all round the country, and two to three hundred places open Saturday night. 733. What is the basis of membership. What is the charge? — It varies according to seating capacity. It ranges from two guineas to twenty guineas. 734. Per hundred seats? — It is on the holding capacity. The small cinema with a full house which would not exceed £12 10s. is two guineas. £25 is five guineas. £150 is ten guineas, and above that twenty guineas. 735. Under the title " Effects of Cinematograph Film Act," in paragraph 2, you say that there is general agreement. I should like to know how complete the general agreement is here. You purport to represent all exhibitors, both circuit and independent, and your evidence shows they often clash. How far is that general agreement real or temporary for the purpose of submitting evidence? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : It is very real ; this is a matter that has been before the members of the Association for the past three or four years. Evidence has been collected during the whole of that time, and this is absolutely a unanimous case that is being put before you. 736. Would it be true to say that in your deliberations generally the members of circuits dominate discussions as against the independents? — No, the reverse. 737. You go on to quote the Board of Trade return which states that 26 per cent, of British films were shown in 1934. 1 suppose yon mean 26 per cent, of the total of films shown by exhibitors were British? — Yes. 738. But in a footnote you say it is understood the figures for 1935 are substantially the same as those for 1931. In view of the acknowledged improvement and the quality of British film production during the past year I should have expected to find an increase in the percentage of British films shown during the last period. What is your