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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 87 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [( Continued. explanation for the figure remaining constant? — First of all I would like to know where the decided improvement has taken place. 739. It has been given before us in evidence? — By the exhibitors? 740. No, not by the exhibitors. You do not think there has been improvement in British films? — I should think it is static, would you not think so, Mr. Fuller?— (Mr. Fuller): Yes. We work on a figure of 125 British films for the last two or three years. If you were talking as an exhibitor, figuring in your mind what will be usable films during the coming year, a figure of round about 125 represents the usable films. 741. There has been really no improvement in the last year? — (Mr. Fligelstone): I would like to qualify that a little, there has been an improvement in one or two films. 742. How far was the 1934 improvement due to a possible shortage of the good American product? — I should say the American product was also static. I mean other than the ordinary process of films getting 'better or a little worse, but on the whole it is about the same. (Mr. Fuller) : I think we can show some improvement has taken place without affecting things very much. I think in the period to 30th September, 1934, you could content the public very well with a British film which was costing £12,000 to £20,000. In this last year or so the standard of money that you generally have to spend has definitely gone up into the region of £25,000 to £40,000. That is the measure of improvement which anybody going to the cinema would notice without knowing the reasons why it has happened. 743. In paragraph 5 you urge it is in the public interest that the production of poor British films should be eliminated. How far do you, the exhibitors, feel you can contribute towards the elimination of the bad British product; can you? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : We can contribute to that by showing less British films. 744. What steps have you taken to encourage the better British product in the past? — We are the consumer, not the producer. 745. You are the middle man, are you not? — No. 746. In a sense you are really the middle man?— No. The middle man, I would suggest, is the renter. I should say the producer, the manufacturer, is the first, the man that sells the goods is the second, and we deliver the goods to the public. 747. I am regarding the consumer as the public who pays for the article and you as the retailer? — Well, that is not a true description of the position. 748. It is not a true analogy? — No, the public is the patron. 749. And you do not think it has been in your power to take any steps to encourage better British production? — It definitely is not in our power to improve production. We are not the manufacturers neither are we the renters. We can only use the goods that are delivered. 750. I am under the impression that the increase in the last two or three years with new cinemas has been almost entirely the larger circuits, not independents who get money locally? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : I think that this is a matter that we should try and explain to you. (Mr. Fuller): These were our figures of last year. " An examination of the new membership of the Association indicates that 111 new cinemas have been opened in 1935. Of this number 19 replaced cinemas that are closed, so that the net increase is 92, of which 27 are owned by circuits and 65 by independents ". That was the analysis we reported for last year. 751. I cannot see that that is public money? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : Well, you cannot see that it is public money, but what happens in certain cases is this. A man comes along to a town or a man is in a town, he does not make a public issue, if that is what you mean. Do you mean public issue P 752. Yes? — But there are means of obtaining; money from the public without a public? issue. He gets his plot of ground, he gets his littli> company together, and he gets all the local people putting up their money. That is what transpires, but they contract big issues. 753. Is it not possible that a cinema loses something of its immediate competitive purpose and value when it becomes part of a circuit and is acquired as part of a real estate deal? — I do not think so. 754. Is it the practice of certain circuits to finance their new" acquisitions with local money, apart from the independent whom you referred to as picking up local money? — Well, I do not quite know where all this is leading to. 755. Well, it is really arising from your reference to the growth of circuits and your immediate reference to the public putting up funds. I am asking how far that is being put up by and for independents and how far it is being done actually by the circuits who are getting in local small 'money. — (Mr. Fuller) : We have given yon* the analysis for last year. 756. Yes, but those 27, I think that .was the number, were circuits? — -Yes. 757. Taking your figures in paragraph 6 for a moment; nine circuits between them controlled 652 first run cinemas, which represented about half the first run situations, which in turn dominated the booking situation, which means that the taste of a very large percentage of the British film-going public was, in fact, dictated by the booking managers of those nine circuits. Do you consider that to be a healthy state of affairs either for the public or for the British film industry ?— (Mr. Fuller): We do not find that we can ever adopt the role of dictators in our business. We are absolutely the servants of the public. We can put before them what someone might think they ought to have, but the public is never under any obligation to pay for it; unless they continue to come to our cinemas we cannot keep our industry going, so that there is nothing of the dictator element there. 758. But in fact the circuits are somewhat in the same position as chain stores in that it pays them better to have a few standard products common to all their branches rather than to specialise on the public's taste which might vary from one part of England to another? — No, Sir, there is nothing standard about the entertainment business, and there is nothing standard in the public taste. It is difficult enough to anticipate what the public taste will be, it is difficult enough to keep pace with it when you think you have gauged it. Actually production is now on a very high level and has been of an extraordinarily high standard in its range of subjects during the last year or two, and exhibitors make the best selection from what is produced which they think will appeal to the public. In the course of their experience they get a considerable amount of ability in gauging what the public is likely to want, hut if they make mistakes they pay very handsomely for it. and they endeavour not to make more than ono mistake if they can help it. 759. Is it the fact that the less powerful exhibitors who cater for what is left of the British public find it difficult to compete with their stronger brethren by being unable to get the best products?— That obviously follows. 760. So that, in fact, there is a certain dictation involved in the mere fact that certain areas are in strong hands and powerful hands and other areas are quite content to reduce the quality available in those areas where the more powerful companies are not represented ? No, it does not mean that at all. Actually what the selection of films does is to enable you to get the people in that area into your cinema if you have the power to book against someone who has not the booking power. The public is not deprived of a sight of tho films, what we are