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

90 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Continued. 812. You mentioned in paragraph 10 (4) that the necessity of acquiring long British films increases a 20 per cent, quota to about 24 per cent. ? — Yes, definitely. I can tell you myself, I can only speak as I find it, that when I show a British film it costs me money. 813. But so far as you are concerned the majority of exhibitors do not care and cannot afford to care twopence where a film comes from, their business is to get people to the box office? — To eniertain the public, but at the same time they are anxious to have a British film industry. 814. But their only real interest in the British film industry is a question of quota? — No, I think there is a genuine desire on the part of exhibiting members in this country to have British films, and they are prepared to make certain sacrifices for it. 815. Now, in paragraph 11 : can you, if necessary, post figures to Mr. Patterson afterwards, comparing the American releases in the same categories? — Yes.* 816. They would be of some value to us as a comparison?— Yes. 817. Good first features — in the same categories as you have got here. Paragraphs 12 and 13, would you say that this was a deliberate extension of the pernicious policy adopted by certain American renters and already referred to? — What I would suggest is — you mean the acquiring of bad British films ? 818. Where you say that the extra twenty were of such poor quality? — Some of this twenty may have been amongst the English companies, not necessarily the American companies. 819. And are certain of your members allied in one way or another to these very American renting companies?— To the American renting companies, no, I do not think so. (Mr. Fuller) : No, I do not think there are more than about twenty or thirty cinemas in this country tied to American principals. 820. How many of these 64 films were made or caused to be f'made by American; renters? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : I should say a considerable quantity. 821. Do you feel confident that the public would have endorsed 100 per cent, your statement that these 64 films would never have been booked by exhibitors with a free choice? — (Mr. Fligelstone): There is no question about that, it is definite. 822. Do you recognise the possibility that amongst the American films shown during 1935 there may have been quite an appreciable number which would never have been booked equally by a public having a free choice? — Definitely. 823. So that you are not as free as you would wish to be? — Well, that is not quite the point. You see, we see a film when it is trade shown to us and we say to oureslves, " Well, that is a good film, the public will like it," but when it comes to the acid test of the public paying money over the box office the public say, " We do not like that film and we shall not go in to see it ". 824. Then, in paragraph 15, you say " Unfortunately the T quickie ' was not envisaged". Who invented the " quickie " ? Is it an invention of the Board of Trade, is it an invention of Parliament, or is it an invention of the trade? — The "quickie" originates from an American expression for American films that were made on the quickie system — " quickies " to be made as cheaply as possible. That is how the word quickie originated. 824a. Paragraph 10, can you assure us that your members would bo anxious to show more British pictures than required by law if they were available and of an equal quality to the British competitors?— I would say in those districts where there is a preference on the part of the British public for British films, yes. In those districts where British films are not successful, no. 825. In paragraph 17 you say, " To-day in the populous areas there are as many as five or six cinemas competing for patronage ". Do you think * Annex. that condition is likely to be permanent? — Unless some of the weaker ones go to the wall. 820. Will it be the independents that are eliminated or will there be an agreement amongst circuits to reduce? — (Mr. Fuller): We do not know. (Mr. Fligelstone) : That depends on whether the independent is given the same opportunity of acquiring strength that the circuits have got to-day. 827. You mentioned in your evidence that the K.R.S. object to independents grouping themselves together for the purpose of booking. — Yes. 828. Has that been tested in the Law Courts? — No, but very nearly. (Mr. Fuller) : Very nearly. You can take it that legal opinion as to what they can do is clear although it is a difficult matter. The Board of Trade has stated the law in a report by Sir Wilfred Greene's Committee. 829. You mean the report of 1921 on Restraint of Trade?— Yes. 830. Because it struck me — I read that report this morning before coming here — that some of the K.R.S. regulations are perilously near infringing the Statute of Monopolies. — But they are just inside the law. 831. But that has never been tested in the Courts? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : It is just inside you will find. 832. So that the law is not as clear as you might wish? — I am afraid the law is clear but not helpful. 833. In paragraph 18, there are quite a number of second run houses in a great many districts. — Yes. 834. Are there not also various houses which specialise in the revival of popular films. — (Mr. Fligelstone) : A few. There are one or two, but very few that depend upon revivals, and the question of the runs is really a little involved. There are cinemas that run first, second, and even third runs on a film. 835. Now, in paragraph 19, you say that the 114 British films referred to in paragraph 11 are booked without any choice. Has not the enterprising exhibitor also got the opportunity of going out into the quasi-educational documentary, with just a little wider choice, and bring something new in? — From what is available? 836. Yes? — Well, that we have done with disastrous effects. We booked one of the best which proved very unsuccessful. 837. Has that type of film had a sufficiently large experience all over Britain ? — I should say yes, definitely, but the public will not be educated. 838. In paragraphs 20 and 21. if your Association represents all classes of exhibitors how is it that the independents among your members are unable to receive proper representation and fairer treatment. The paragraph suggests that your Association has not, in fact, been able to exercise the protection for the independents which it sets out to obtain? — That is perfectly right. (Mr. Fuller) : We have asked you to help us with the K.R.S. 839. But on the other hand you said that it was not true that the circuit members of your Association controlled its deliberations? — We do not control the luisiness of our members. 840. Or the policy? — We do not control their business policy. We are their protective Association but we do not book their films for them, and we do not control their finance or anything of that sort. 841. Referring to paragraphs 23-25, the argument you put forward appears to be based on the assumption that neither the quantity nor the quality of British films will improve in the near future, but in paragraph 25, you say that " British films, when good, have sufficiently established themselves that an increase in quota is unnecessary for their development. They can now increase in numbers on their quality without any further artificial stimulus." Well, il the last part of this paragraph is true you will automatically .met a wider selection of better class films? — That is so. 842. Assuming that the plan in paragraphs 26-28 would give exhibitors a wider choice, do you think it would improve the standard of production? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : We do not say that it will improve