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

114 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 30 June, 1936.] Mr. S. Row son. [Continued. (iii) Exhibitors' quota should be reduced to 12£ per cent, in the first year, 15 per cent, in the second year, and rise by steps of 2| per cent, every second year thereafter to a maximum of 25 per cent. (iv) Shorts should not be exempt completely from quota, but the burden of quota liability should be considerably eased. (v) The present insistence that the scenario writer must be of British nationality should be withdrawn. (vi) Steps should be taken to secure a more even spread of exhibition of British films throughout the year. (vii) Powers should be reserved to the Board of Trade for abrogating or suspending the renters' quota iiability in respect of the distribution of films produced in any foreign country in certain specified cases, and of corresponding reductions in exhibitors' quota. 29. Before explaining these proposals at length, I would like to refer to a suggestion which has found a measure of support in certain quarters, including substantial support from the American companies established here. Briefly stated, the suggestion is that any renter under liability to acquire, say, 100,000 ft. of British feature film now costing them, say, £100,000, should be permitted to spend this £100,000 on one or two films, even though the total length does not exceed 12,000 to 14,000 ft. This suggestion, with its captivating simplicity, is one whose merits disappear on very close inspection. Why did they produce pound-a-foot quota quickies in the past instead of the more elaborate, or at any rate, more expensive pictures which would be substituted under the new proposal? One of the most effective answers in the past to the proposal that the American organisations should assist in making real pictures has been that they could not be made here to show a profit. Does the support now being given to the proposal mean that conditions have now altered in this respect? If one or two pictures at £50,000 or more can be made to be profitable, surely the larger number required by a " footage " quota ought to be made, and not the kind of " quickies " which have brought so much reproach to British films. But if the new proposal was adopted the worst consequence would be the reduction in supplies to exhibitors which would follow from the making of 12,000 to 14,000 ft. instead of the 100,000 ft. which. ex hypothesi, would have had to be made. 30. There is, however, one aspect of this proposal which, though never expressed, does attract my strong sympathy. Apart from such considerations as injury to reputation caused by the exhibition of bad films, it must be recognised that good films are much more likely to receive extended showings than bad ones. It is screening and not production which is the definite and ultimate purpose of the Government's policy. For example, it is not improbable that a 6,000 footer costing £6,000 may get 300 bookings extending to 900 days, but a £40,000 picture of much the same length might have 1,600 bookings amounting to 7,000 days. iSome claim for compensation in respect of quota footage to be acquired by the renter may be justified in cases like these were it not for the fact that such virtue must have already found an ample reward in profits. The administrative difficulty arises, however, from the fact that a £100,000 picture could not count on twice as many play-days as a £50,000 one; and the exhibitors' difficulty would, in consequence of tinexisting trade practice as regards " bars ", be increased and not diminished by the replacement of one good picture by seven or eight inferior ones. The proposition in its last analysis really means that more weight should be attached to costly than to cheap fdms. If I knew how this principle could be administered I think I might agree with it, and in any case British films made directly by British companies would have to enjoy the same relative advantages. 31. My first specific proposal is for the introduction of a minimum cost qualification for British films. This proposal is one which I submitted to the Film Group of the Federation of British Industries some years ago, and which was accepted by them up to the time I ceased to be a member a few weeks ago. I hope the attribution will not be made to me that this proposal assumes that I suggest that more money is a guarantee of better pictures. What is indisputable I think is the proposition that it is much less probable that bad pictures will be associated with large expenditure than that good pictures will be associated with small expenditures. The proposal is cast in the suggested form so as to eliminate the necessity for further penalising a picture by depriving it of registration rights after it has been produced with considerable outlay of money. It will be sufficiently punished by the financial loss that follows in the wake of every bad picture, irrespective of its cost. 32. For facilitating the administration of this provision I am strongly in favour of the suggestion that the minimum cost should be measured by the Form C returns which have to be made under Section 27 (iii) of the present Act. These returns are for only a part of the total cost, but they are an approximately constant part ; and in addition they are certified by a chartered accountant and provide fewer opportunities for evasion by the producer. Assuming this principle, my recommendation would be in favour of a minimum of £1 a foot (Form C costs) but I am willing to support a beginning being made with a 15s. a foot minimum, to be raised in a few years to a £1 a foot minimum. Apart from other merits • this proposal would add at least £1 million in the first year to the value of the output of British studios. 33. It is because I believe the present studio organisations would not be able, in many cases, to cater immediately for both an increase in footage and a substantial increase in the average cost of their pictures, that opportunity should be given for the readjustment of all the existing studio organisations to the demands of the new situation. Many new studios with a large number of stages have, I am fully aware, been erected in the past year or are now under construction (Table IV Appendix). In these the new equipment is of the latest design and conforms to the most up-to-date and exacting demands and experience. But the corresponding personnel and other man-power are not so easily made available. 1 am greatly concerned at the risk we run in inflating still further the already too high remuneration demanded .by certain artistes and technical personnel. A small present reduction in footage accompanied by increased value of the average picture should ensure, at least, the present scale of salaries and numerical staff. It would be better therefore to avoid the risk of dangerous congestion in studios in -which, even now, serious ad*ministrative inefficiency is reported to exist. 34. Exhibitors are demanding that the Quota on exhibitors shall never exceed one half of the corresponding renters' quota. In my opinion this demand is based on a complete fallacy. The two quota rates are not strictly comparable. That would be possible if exhibitors were limited in choosing their British films in any year to the films registered by the renters in a certain previous year. This, "I course, is not tin' ease. To them all the films registered at any time since the Act came into operation are always available. Exhibitors also are too prone to put the assumed dignity of their cinemas as a reason for never booking a film, however successful, which has been shown by the " opposition " House. By this practice, carried out to the extreme conclusion, they frequently deprive themselves of opportunities for selecting and showing filing of considerable merit and with a good chance of profit. In tin' regime served by the proposed new conditions the reason for refusing to book many films because of