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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 105 23 June, 1936.] Mr. D. E. Griffiths, Mr. S. Eckman, Mr. J. C. Graham, [Continued. Mr. J. Maxwell and Mr. F. Hill. 1068. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : I do not wish to ask any further questions of Mr. Maxwell. The questions I have to ask refer especially to K.R.S. memorandum, and I should like to ask Mr. Eekman, who represents the American renter interests, and not Mr. Maxwell, who has explained himself to he a neutral observer in this matter. — (Mr. Maxwell): With the qualification I am seriously interested, because if the Act remains as it is and with the possible perpetuation of these quota quickies our financial interests are seriously affected by that. It so diminishes the prestige of British pictures; it seriously affects us. 1069. Take paragraph (a) of the first memorandum. May I ask on what grounds you base your statement that — ■ ". . . the ohligation put upon distributors of foreign films operating in this country under the Act as it exists to-day involving, as it does in some cases, the production of as many as 15 or 18 feature pictures in one year, is an obligation that is so heavy as to be practically impossible of effective performance and results in the present deplorable position " Your words are well .weighed, and it is a very strong statement ? — (Mr. Eckman) : On the grounds I have already pointed out, the question of available personnel. We have definitely launched a production programme over here of four pictures to start with almost a year ago, and yet we have not been able to become organised simply because we have not been able either to engage the proper people here or to bring the proper people over from the other side for one reason or another, and as I have already said we are rather envious of the reputation we. have established throughout the world and before we place our trademark on any picture we want to be absolutely certain it will be a worth while picture. 1070. The Board of Trade tell us that they have not in fact insisted unduly on the scenario writer being British-born for the purposes of quota. Has that been a difficulty? — No, because as a matter of fact we have a rather large number of British scenario writers engaged in Culver City. 1071. You have no trouble in getting foreign stars to work here so far as the Board of Trade or the Home Office are concerned? — Our trouble has been in finding a producer who could produce films for us, a director who could direct films for us commensurate with the quality which we have established. 1072. Do you regard the British market as a valuable one in which to release foreign films? — ■ Unquestionably. 1073. Have you tried releasing other than American films here, German films for example? — No. 1074. I am told that in Paris German films are very popular, some of them had quite a remarkable success even in the last six months? — (Mr. Maxwell) : You mean French versions of German films? 1075. Yes. — (Mr. Eckman) : I have no jurisdiction over the continental market as far as my company is concerned. 1076. Have you seriously tried other than American films in this country? British versions of other than American films? — No, not except the British films which we acquire. 1077. You regard the British market as a valuable one in which to release American films? — Yes. 1078. What was your purpose in making, or causing to be made or procuring definitely and admittedly inferior British films for the purposes of quota? — T do not admit that. We have released films, British films, in some of which the producers have had a rather large investment, that have cost as much as £50,000, and yet those films have simply been proof of my statement that it is not money which makes films. 1079. Have you not been a leading exponent of the quota quickie ?— I do not think so. 1080. It has been suggested in evidence hero that you hoped to discredit British production by the extended use of the British quickie? — Well, I think if I knew who made those statements the laws of the land .would protect me in that respect. 1081. It has been explained in evidence before us, and therefore it is privileged. — (Mr. Maxwell) : But was Mr. Eckman's name mentioned? 1082. (Chairman) ; Perhaps Mr. Eckman misunderstood. 1083. (Sir Arnold Wilson): I am not referring to a particular individual, but to American renters generally. I asked you, as representing American renters? — (Mr. Eckman) : I see. 1084. You do not admit American renters have been foremost in using the British quota quickie to fill up, and made rubbish for that purpose? — I admit I have discovered that based on production facilities spending £20,000 to £25,000 for a film made by the companies that .want to make films for us are no better than the films for which we have spent £7,000 to £10,000. I have discovered that the companies that are willing to make films for us and that spend £20,000 to £25,000 to make them can make no better films than other companies who spend £7,000 to £10,000. They lack the ability even though they have the money, and even though we take them. It is a question of brains and ability. The best producers are Mr. Maxwell's, or Gaumont-British, or London (Films, and they refuse to distribute through us. They feel the preponderance of our own films is so extensive that we could not lend our best efforts to the distribution of their films. I tried hard to convince them otherwise, but seemingly without avail. 1085. It has been represented to us that the American renters as a whole have made a business of evading the Act by having quota quickies as cheap as possible — well under two pounds a foot? — That is untrue. Mr. Griffiths here representing Warners First National Company can tell you how much money they have spent on British production in this country. 1086. It is common ground that the quickie is an abuse in the trade. If you are not responsible, and American renters are not responsible, who is? — (Mr. Griffiths) : The law .which compels such a large footage to be made makes it impossible to acquire such n. large footage of quality. 1087. So that you have in fact used the very cheap British made quota quickie? — Not in my case. I have a studio that cost £200,000. I have spent nearly one million pounds over a period of y?ars. 1088. Can we identify the people who have to a large extent exhibited notoriously bad films made for next to nothing? — 'Whoever acquired them had no other choice if that was all they could purchase. 1089. Are any of your American members connected with any of the West End London or provincial cinema theatres? — (Mr. Eckman) : I am. 1090. It has been suggested to us that the British quota pictures have frequently been shown at times when the theatre is being cleaned, and at other moments calculated to throw discredit on the films at certain American controlled theatres? — As far as the house we own is concerned that has not been the case. 1091. Is the British film never shown at the time when the theatre is being cleaned? — Never. A British film at the Empire has never heen shown at any other time than during the regular hours of exhibition, which are from ten in the morning to midnight. 1092. (Chairman) : Is each programme the same, or is it a different programme at ten in the morning? — No. 1 093. It is the production of the same programme throughout the day? — I do think that on one or two occasions on account of the length of the programme a film has been shown at two performances in the morning and not later in the day; but speaking for 90 per cent, to 99 per cent, of the playing time that British film has played throughout the day and on Sunday despite the limitations of Sunday exhibition in point of running time.