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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 91 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstoxe and Mr. W. R. Fuller. [Contin U( d . the standard of production, all we say is that we want a greater standard of protection from exploit;; tion. We are the consumer not the producer. 843. Do you consider that renters will offer, as you say, twice as many films of a certain quality, that you may be embarrassed by a surfeit of good films ? — No, we shall never be embarrassed by a supply of good films, we shall always be embarrassed by a shortage. 844. Then you feel there will always be a surplus of unwanted films regardless of quality ? — There is bound to be that surplus in the same way as with plays. 845. That must always be the case? — That must always be the case, but it is not necessarily always the case that the intention is good ; but at least let us be certain that the intention is good. 846. Have you known in your experience as an exhibitor any large number of films which you as an expert thought ought to succeed and thought they would succeed and then your judgment has proved wrong and the public has declined to follow you? — Yes. 847. And is that a general experience in the trade, is the public as fickle as that? — Yes. 848. Your psychological experience does not give you any clear indication as to what the public are going to say?— Well, there are certain standards that you get from experience. You see a film and say " This will go or that will go ", and sometimes we are wrong. 849. You are still apt to make mistakes? — We are still very apt to make mistakes. 850. In paragraph 28, is it not possible that a decrease in quantity might be attended by an increase in quality? — (Mr. Fuller): I will put it this way, that we are always working on 125 usable films. 851. Well, if you exclude certain bad British pictures would it not be equally worth your while to shut out some of the worse foreign films as well? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : Well, as far as the foreign films are concerned we have got a margin of choice. The difference is this, for example the average is I think about two British films released per week and about nine or ten foreign films. Supposing out of the foreign films there are two bad ones and out of the British films there are two bad ones, we are left with no British films to select from, whereas we have still got eight foreign films to select from for that week. 852. You attach great weight to British " quickies " made in the Dominions? — Very great. . 853. Do you despair of legislation being enacted in this country to prevent that? — We do not despair, we must definitely ask for that legislation. 854. Have you made any suggestions at any time as to the general lines on which legislation against Dominion " quickies " might proceed? — I think this is a very important subject, because we should not like it to be thought that there is any question of prejudice on the part of the exhibitors in this country against Dominion production. Let us be perfectly clear on that point. What we do say is this, that the film — I am not dealing with Indian films now, I am dealing with Canadian ami Australian films, that is films made for Canadian and Australian markets — whilst eminently suitable over there may not be suitable for this country, in the same way as some of our very biggest successes over here are not acceptable in America, and so we say in a case of that kind that what is made and is not necessarily a " quickie " over there, but a good Australian film and which does excellent business in Australia, may not be suitable for this country, and should therefore not be admitted as quota over here. As far as the Indian film is concerned, which comes in on a quota basis, you know that India has a large illiterate population and the silent Indian film, the kind of film we receive here ranking as quota, could never be any use to us as exhibitors. 855. How is it that an American film made for America is generally acceptable whereas an 36452 Australian or Canadian film made for those countries is not? — There is a very vast difference in the population to begin with, is there not, and when we speak about Australia and Canada ami New Zealand we must realise, after all, that though they may be very big countries their population is small, and the money expended on their films must be small. 856. It is really a matter of expense? — A matter of expense and taste. 857. Because the polyglot population of America is unlikely to have a taste similar to ours? — Well, it so happens the American taste is similar to ours. 858. What are the functions of the smaller producers to whom you referred? Are they helping to improve British standards? — They are making a type of film that we can use, they also form the basis of competition and they are an incentive to an advancement in quality of British production and we should be very sorry to lose them. 859. In paragraph 29, your argument is to me of great interest, and I do not want to keep the Committee now, but I suggest it might be worth our while, my Lord, to have a further memorandum from the Association in writing developing this particular argument which is put. It is the most constructive suggestion that we have had on this particular subject, but it is much too briefly set out for me to be able usefully to cross-examine on it or for us to be able to make any very definite conclusions. Would it be in order to ask then! to consider sending in a further memorandum on this point? 860. (Chairman) : Certainly, and we can re-call them, if necessary. 861. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : We can re-call them if need be, but if we could have a preliminary memorandum, because here is something which is strictly practical. — You would like that developed, would you? 862. Yes, it is practical, but I am not sure whether it is practicable, and 1 would like a further development on that? — Yes, a further development of the quality clause as suggested? 863. Then in paragraph 31, K.K.S. booking policy. You say that 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. You say that the effect is to advantage the circuits at the expense of the independents. That being so, do the representatives of the circuits amongst your membership endorse your demand for legislation which will ensure a favoured position for the independents? — The circuits themselves are divided over this matter. Certain of them, I believe, would be quite happy to have an opportunity of our linking up with them even to secure greater strength. 864. But we can still accept the statement made in paragraph 31 as being the corporate opinion of your Association? — Absolutely. 865. It is remarkable that it should be so in view ' of the admitted division of opinion in your ranks, but I just want to be perfectly clear on that point. In paragraph 32, do you suggest that a special committee of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade should assess the quality of all Dominion and Colonial films before they are offered in the open market ? — Definitely. 866. Well, as Chairman of that body 1 should not be prepared to admit that we assess the quality, we are only concerned as an Advisory Committee in applying the law as best we can? — That is what we are trying to point out to you, that it is essential, and we make one point first of all that there is no prejudice on the part of the exhibitors so far as the Dominions are concerned, that we did not want to come into this argument at all, but we say we must have protection against unsuitable Dominion or Empire films coming into this country and ranking as exhibitors' quota which are of no use to the exhibitor whatever. M 2