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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

92 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 26 May, 1936.] Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fulij [Continued. 867. Do you regard the Advisory Committee as being a suitable body for that purpose? — We are suggesting it could be made a smaller body so that you could call it together more frequently. 868. Would it not be better to have an ad hoc body under the Board of Trade advising it on that particular topic apart from the Advisory Committee ? — I think it would. (Mr. Fuller) : The point we are trying to make was to emphasise that the various proportions should be maintained in any body. I do not think we should worry whether it was the Advisory Committee or an ad hoc body. 1 may as well point out that under the New South Wales Act, because someone else will if I do not, the three people who are appointed there to examine the films have no-one connected with the trade with them. The small amount of work that they will have to handle is such that it may not really matter that they are all laymen, but having regard to the magnitude of our business we should not like to see that in the hands of two or three laymen to judge the entertainment value. 869. You mentioned there is no money in British shorts. How far is that due to block booking? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : Not at all. (Mr. Fuller) -. It was expected to happen when this Act was framed. Films originally were in two watertight compartments, long films against long £hns and short films against short films. A lot was said then that there was no money in shorts and that would be the tendency for their number to diminish, and that has come about. 870. Can you, as consumers, suggest any way in which British shorts can be made to pay? — (Mr. Fligelstone) : No. 871. Then in paragraph 33, do you not think that the exhibitor must shoulder with the renter part of the blame for this state of affairs? — Definitely, the position is that we do not use sufficient short films to make them lucrative. 872. In New Zealand, I gather, they have got a universal practice of having one long and a variety. Who introduced the two feature system into England, how did it happen? — Strange to say quite a lot of people claim that privilege. It is the natural evolution of the trade that you naturally find by giving the public more you do better business. 873. I gather from other parts of the world, including your evidence abotit America, there is a far greater tendency to have a single feature followed by variety? — Yes, but also in America there is now a tendency to run a double feature programme. 874. So that they are following our example instead of our following theirs? — That is so. (Mr. Fuller) : The public begins after a time to ask for a double feature programme. 875. Have you any experience of Continental work in this matter? — (Mr. Fligelstone): I have been into one or two cinemas on the Continent, but they run their shows totally different from the way we run ours. I have been to cinemas where they have a pause of ten minutes between each reel, and they all have a chat and a smoke and are quite friendly. 876. You say in paragraph 33 that there are certain classes of short British films that you would be prepared to admit for short British film quota? —Yes. 877. Which are they? — The news reels, the cinema magazines and the pathetone gazettes. 878. Can you visualise elastic legislation satisfying the trades affected in paragraph 35 without a serious amount of controversy and appeal, and so on ? — This is a very peculiar business. When this 1927 Act was first thought of there was no suggestion of talking films. 879. In paragraph 36, what about modern films originally made as silent films but with sub-tit Irs or music added or dialogues synchronised where necessary? — The only one that we have experienced recently is the Chaplin " Modern Times." 880. Is thai lining to become a practice? — The thing is clastic, we cannot see what the future is for us, but the present trend of the trade is for talking films. 881. Now, you have already mentioned first nights as publicity stunts with charitable causes being allotted to them and even Royalty roped in for the benefit of the trade, and the costs put down to the publicity budget, 1 presume? — I did not say so. 882. I said I presumed the costs are put down to the publicity budget? — I cannot say, because we do not see the renters' allocation of that. 883. Touching your phrase " the patriotic obligations that attach to the showing of British quota," to what extent do exhibitors in this country feel themselves to be under any patriotic obligation? — They do feel themselves to be under a patriotic obligation; they like to show as the natural thing a British film. 884. Even though ? — Even though it costs them money they still like to put on a British film. 885. Finally in paragraph 39, television. You say briefly, " doubtless the televising of a film for purposes of public exhibition will be included in any amending legislation," but I confess my mind boggles at the prospect of legislating for anything which is in such an undeveloped state. I should like to have a memorandum on the subject as I cannot envisage it, and it is not the business of the Board of Trade to exercise imagination? — I think in that matter your mentality is the same as mine. 886. Then we must wTash out that particular paragraph of your report. Thank you, my Lord. 887. (Mr. Cameron) : Most of my points have already been covered. You refer to second feature films. I take it that you would always envisage there being a necessity for a supply of second feature films for the smaller houses and as second features in the larger houses? — There will always be second features for the larger and the smaller houses because the film that is made with the best of intentions and does not turn out right still has its uses, and its use is the second feature. 888. So there will always be a need for the films made not with the fullest possible cost but on a modest scale, but made as good as possible? — Definitely. 889. On this question of British shorts would it be possible to go back to the idea of British shorts counting against foreign shorts instead of bringing in short and long together. Would that help to give a chance to the British shorts ? — They are not being made, that is the point. The British short i:not being made. The producers are not making British shorts, they are making long films, they evidently do not think it is economical or worth while making the British shorts. 890. Are there not a lot of shorts being shown which are very bad from the entertainment point of view ? — Yes. 891. To put in something that is half education and half entertainment is of no value whatever; it is probably bad education and bad entertainment, but do you not think there are signs of some firms making shorts that are very good entertainment? — (Mr. Fuller) : Are you quite clear that if anybody chooses there is no opposition anywhere to anybody making shorts. If good shorts come we book them with both hands. 892. If they come along you are only ton glad to have them? — Yes. 893. And you would not object to seeing short set against short on a special short quota? — Providing you are satisfied that the shorts Mould be produced, hut we do not want to create another burden, we do not want to create further exploitation, and if it means that we are going to faced with the " quickie " short again then we would say no. we do not want it. If you could safeguard us, " yes," hut no exploitation.