Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on Cinematograph Films (1936)
Reading and Downloading:
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.
View OCR Text
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.
94
COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS
26 May, 1936.]
Mr. T. H. Fligelstone and Mr. W. R. Fuller.
[Coittiit tied.
would eliminate certain pictures? — They might not be as crude as they are to-day, but there is no guarantee they will be very much better.
920. I see that, but I thought possibly it would eliminate some necessarily poor films automatically ? — (Mr. Fligelstone). We think that quality is the only means of elimination.
921. And you insist on that. My final question is on paragraph 40, Section 27 (3):— "In general we would remark that very little advantage arises by the continued retention of .3 (iii)," which concerns the author of the scenario, does it not? — Yes, we would prefer that not to be.
922. Yes, we have had a good deal of evidence to suggest that, not that it is very important . . . ? — No, but we would rather it was not.
923. Then you go on to say: — "or (3) (iv)," which concerns the 75 per cent, of wages and payments made. Is not that a fundamental point of the Act? — Our point of view is that we want good pictures, that now that there is a general trend in the industry to put in more than one or two star actors and actresses in a picture who are paid very good money, we say we do not want it limited that 75 per cent, of that money must be spent on British artists. Whaf? we want is good films made in this country.
924. Yes, but you have rather casually dropped in (3) (iv) and it seems to me a good deal comes under (3) (iv), tlie 75 per cent, of wages and payments made. Does not that want amplifying? — (Mr. Fuller): It is really more a producer's point, and we just put it in to show our sympathy with their point if they were putting it up. You will notice the tendency in a very large number of American
films to put in two, a popular man and a popular female star. Some producers in some of their recent films have had as many as six, and we think that 75 per cent, of salaries and wages in this country may have a bearing in any reciprocal arrangements you make for Dominion films, but in this country the only thing you want is that it shall be produced in a studio in this country and once you do that you can get all the technicians you want and it means that on every picture you can get the best keypeople fit for the job that you want. (Mr. Fligelstone) : In other words, if I might amplify it, we do not want to put any restriction on the manufacturers of films to prevent them getting the best, whatever nationality they may be. to make good British pictures.
925. But the object of the Act was . . . ? — That has not worked out right. After all, the American producer in America can go to Germany, France and England and get the very best technicians and cameramen to make their films for them, and we want to see our producing companies in the same position, to be able to get the best from the world to make the best British films.
926. The Hon. Eleanor Plumer ; I see, thank you. — Could you give us an indication of when you want the furthei evidence on the quality clause?
927. (Chairman) : As soon as you can let us have a memorandum. — If I might summarise it. my Lord, what we are really anxious to see is better British fiims and to see that we have the margin of protection by having a greater number for selection. Thank you very much, my Lord.
928. (Chairman) : Thank you very much, we are very grateful to you for your evidence.
(The Witnesses withdrew.)
ANNEX.
Schedule of Markings of American Films Trade Shown in 1935. (Renters distributing one or two American films only omitted).
Renter.
None.
»*
9
8|
8*
81
8
n
7i
'2
7i
7
6|
H
6
5f
H
5
4
Total.
A.B.F.D. Br. Lion Butchers Columbia Equity Br. Famous F. Nat. ... Fox
Gaumont M.G.M. ... Para't. ... Pathe ... P.D.C. ... Radio ... U.A. ...
Univer.
Wardour
Warner
1
1
2
1
3 2
1
1
2 2
1 3
1
4
4
4
10
7
7 5
3
3
3 1
1
8 5
10 17
4
2
5 12
2 9
8
7
14 15
1
11
2
6 1 4
3
2
10
2
15
2 8 4 3 4 1
4 1 6
3 1
6
7
1
2 5 7 8 1
6
1 3
2
6
3
4
2
7 6 4
3 2 1
1 1
3
2
1
4 4 3
9 3 1
2 1
2 1 2
2
l
2 1
2 2
1 1
6
4
2
2
1
2 2
1
1
1
14 11
4 41 10
5 25 45
2 43 56 31 21 45 14
44 10 32
Total
1
1
10
9
47
68
80
65
51
41
37
11
8
16
1
4
2
1
453