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

98 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 23 June, 1936.] Mr. D. E. Griffiths, Mr. S. Eokman, Mr. J. C. Graham, [Continued. Mr. J. Maxwell and Mr. F. Hill. seriously injurious to the fortunes of the purely British producing companies. Any increase of quota would also in all probability be an inducement to a rush of mushroom companies and prospectuses as happened when the Act was first passed and also probably be followed in due course by a sequence of bankruptcies and liquidations as happened before. 929. (Chairman) : Your organisation covers both the British Renters and the foreign-controlled renters, does it? — (Mr. Maxwell): Yes, Sir. 930. Are there some that stand out, that have not joined? — Only one, Fox, an American Company. They are not in at the moment because of some difference on a question of policy not connected with this matter. 931. What is the bulk of capital involved in the renters' branch of the industry ? Is it British or foreign-controlled? — It is about fifty-fifty. The number of American-controlled renting companies is about equal to the number of British-controlled. A list of renters is given in one of the Board of Trade Schedules, page 24. Actually at the moment the K.R.S. has as members (a) British-controlled : A.B.F.D., British Lion, Butchers, Gaumont British, General Film, Pathe, Twickenham, Wardour ; and (b) American-controlled : Columbia, First National, Metro-Goldwyn, Paramount, Radio, United Artists and Warners. 932. I am not sure if the capital is given? — The list is on page 24 of the Blue Book. 933. Is the capital given or only the numbers? — There is no capital given, no. 934. It was really capital I was getting at? — It would be very difficult to give you that figure because these renting branches are mainly subsidiaries of large parent companies. 935. They are really subsidiaries of the producers? — Largely, and the amount of capital may be relatively small to the value of the goods that they handle. They are merely sales organisations that need very little capital. 936. Yes, and of the witnesses to-day you A are about half and half British? — No, I am the only British, the others are entirely American houses, but they are British registered companies. 937. The rest of the witnesses are all representing American companies? — Yes. Mr. Hill is the Secretary, of course. He is an official of our Society. 938. And are you all three American citizens? — (Mr. Griffiths) : No, I am a British citizen. 939. You are a British citizen, but you represent an American Company? — Yes. 940. Now, we have had your two memoranda, perhaps I had better take them in the order of date? ■ — (Mr. Maxwell) : Might I make one correction on my statement? In paragraph 8 of the second memorandum, where I give the output of the various British film companies for the last eight years there is a figure to be corrected in regard to London Films. I have given them as five in the fifth year, three in the sixth year, two in the seventh year and two in the eighth year. That figure of two in the eighth year ought to be three. There was some little doubt, because one film was registered as being a joint production of London Films and Capitol Films, but London should get credit for that. 941. I think in your first memorandum you talk about some companies having to produce fifteen to eighteen feature pictures in one year ? — Yes. 942. That is rather exceptional; from the figures that have been published I think only two go into that category? — Warner First National have to-day to net nineteen, and the next is Radio with seventeen. 943. But the rest all come below that? — Para mount is sixteen and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is sixteen. I have given them in paragraph 7 of the second memorandum of my statement. 944. Yes. Does this necessity to find British l-itures to cover your quota requirements in fact result in keeping any good American pictures out? — No, undoubtedly not. 945. They all come here? — They all come in, yes. 946. So that when the exhibitors say they have a difficulty in fulfilling their quota requirements, it is merely the British end, that they do not get as many good British pictures as they would like ? — Yes. 947. And an embarrassing choice of American pictures? — In some cases, yes. 948. And no good American picture is kept out by the present requirements? — No. 949. In the Board of Trade evidence — I think it is reprinted now in the Blue Book, we have been told that the United Artists' Corporation more than fulfil their quota requirements, they were able to produce twice as many British films as they were obliged to do? — Well, they do not produce any at all. 950. But they get them? — They were fortunate in being able, through the advantageous form of their structure, to get a number of British producers to give them the distribution of their British produced pictures. The United Artists' set-up lends itself to that kind of transaction. It was founded by Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford. Douglas Fairbanks and D. W. Griffiths many years ago as a distribution organisation for their own pictures, and it is still purely a distributing organisation. These artists were working then for the large producing companies like Paramount and the other American Companies, but they decided to separate themselves from their employers, and as they were wealthy they said, " AVe can make our own pictures, we have the money to do it, but we must have our own distributing organisation to get the best results ", so they set up this distributing organisation which was really a kind of co-operative organisation of famous artists to distribute their own pictures. That being so the number of pictures available to United Artists is never large, it varies according to the mood of their constituent members to produce pictures, and therefore they are always free to take other producers pictures and glad to do so if the pictures are of good quality. That is why they have more British pictures, because their set-up makes it easier and they have usually a small number of American pictures relative to the other American companies. 951. Do the London pictures find their market through United Artists? — Yes, through United Artists, and so do British and Dominions and a number of others. Their structure lends itself to assimilating artists from time to time and producers who will make new pictures for them. They have only a relatively small output of pictures from their American producers, being in this respect totally different from the other American renting Companies who have a regular annual output of about 50 pictures each from the parent concerns in Hollywood. 952. But it is American-controlled capital? — Yes, it is American-controlled capital. 953. And this American-controlled capital is marketing British pictures? — Some of the outstanding British pictures. Of course it is a very desirable thing for a British producer to get his distribution through United Artists, because in the first place they have not a very large number of pictures themselves, and therefore plenty of room to absorb more, and secondly the United Artists having a world-wide distribution — in America. Canada and everywhere — the British producer who gets his pictures through them is rather fortunate in getting a world-wide machine put at his disposal. It is also good business for United Artists, for as they make no advances and give no guarantees on these British pictures, they have no production risks, so all the British pictures they handle yield them profit. 951. [Mr. Cameron): I am right in thinking, am I not. that the United Artists is the only one of the big distributing organisations that has not got its own producing organisation? — Yes, United