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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 117 30 June, 1936.] Mr. S. Row son. [Continued. for future exhibition of a picture which at the date of the contract has not been made. I may be wrong in this interpretation; if so, the question is answered. But assuming I am not wrong, on a strict reading of the Act, I suggest that means might be found for making a scheme on the above lines possible. It would merely extend to a combination of exhibitors the same practice as is now carried out by producer-exhibitor organisations at the present time, .without contracts because these instruments are then unnecessary." 1163. You do not make any other suggestions for dealing with the difficulty of the small exhibitor. Could you 'help us in any way in that respect P What we are told is it is not a difficulty which happens in the smaller areas, but where you have a large population served hy half a dozen cinema theatres, the theatres that are the weakest have a poor time? — I think there is a difficulty sometimes, but not quite so keen, not quite so serious, as is sometimes said. It is a little bit exaggerated, but there is a certain difficulty in many crowded centres, in populated centres, but that difficulty arises mainly, I think, through the concurrent demand of a number of exhibitors for one particular picture. 1164. You see no way out? — I see no way out of it except by some help with a scheme of this kind. 1165. Well, let us come back to paragraph 26, to the position in America. Blind booking is the regular system, from what you have told us? — It is. 1166. Is there any redress if the film booked blind is not up to standard? — None whatever. 1167. They have to take it?— They book the block and they show the block. Nowadays I think they are entitled to get about 10 per cent, rejections. 1168. Oh, I see, the exhibitor may reject some of these films? — -The new contract permits them to reject 10 per cent, of their pictures in the block. 1169. I see. Then, in the same paragraph, you mention the very long period before a trade show and nine or ten months before a release. Why is there this long delay, much greater than in the case of American pictures ? — In the case of American pictures in America? 1170. No, these are the British pictures, you say that after production several weeks or months elapse ? — In this country — you mean by comparison with America? 1171. Yes, .why is it so much slower here, why is it that this long lock-up of capital takes place? — 1 think on the whole they are not so administratively efficient here. 1172. Then in paragraph 39 you suggest that the permission of blind and block booking would help in these matters. Do you think it would shorten these periods of delay? — I think that the blind and block booking provisions in the Act are; not effective, and it would make very little difference if they departed from the Statute Book at the present time. 1173. But on the other hand, the positive side, what help would it be, how would it assist in the turnover of capital? — There would be no great help in that way so long as the American film dominates the situation, and they are permitted to book their pictures or make arrangements for the showing of them long dates ahead. The date hook will always be full, but I think that the suggestion I have made for possibly demanding that the quota shall be fulfilled every three months, and therefore compelling the exhibitor to reserve a quota number of dates in each three months, would have a beneficial effect. 1174. That would come in the quarterly returns? — Well, there would have to be a quarterly qualification anyway. 1175. That would probably be very much resisted by the industry and add very much to the reports and the statistics?— It would add to the clerical work but I do not think that is a sufficient objection. 1176. Would there be much opposition to it. do you think? Do you see a great advantage in it? — I see an enormous advantage. 1177. Do you think the industry would agree with you and therefore not oppose it? — I do not think the industry would seriously oppose it, but I have not consulted with them about it. 1178. But you think the advantages are so great that they would overcome the difficulty? — Well, there were the same objections on the clerical side when the Act was first introduced. 1179. Then in paragraph 29 you mention the suggestion of the American interests that they should be allowed to spend more money on fewer films, and I would like to know your opinion as to the possibilities of production over here by these foreign organisations. We were told by the renters' organisation that it is impossible for any individual organisation to make more than six satisfactory films in a year, therefore the necessity of making two or three times that amount makes it inevitable that the poor films should be made. Do you agree with that, that it is physically impossible for these people to control production on a larger scale? — In Hollywood the Paramount organisation makes about 70 to 80 major pictures a year under its own banner ; the Metro-Goldwyn makes .50 to 60; the Fox people make 70. 1180. But they are hampered, according to their evidence, by the lack of technical knowledge over here, the lack of personnel, and the fact that they have to comply with the requirements of 75 per cent. British, and so forth, and they allege that they cannot possibly do what is easy in America. You do not agree with that? — No, I have a good deal of sympathy with that. If they are going to make important pictures of the £50,000 or £60.000 or £100,000 grade it will call for a considerable increase in the present technical staff, and that technical staff is not at the moment available in this country. 1181. So that if we are going in any way to drive up the standard of pictures we shall probably have to go a bit slow over quota until things readjust themselves ?— That is my own view, Sir. 1182. If we continue with the quota which is too high a quota of British pictures, and too rigid in the enforcement of quality, the result would be thatcertain American pictures would be cut out? — They might be. 1183. Would that matter very much, do you think? — Well, we can very well foresee that it is only the inferior foreign pictures that would be kept out. That would not be in general a serious matter. 1184. It would not injure British interests in any way? — No, the interests that would be affected are the interests of the exhibitor, he would not have these play dates that would have been occupied by these inferior American pictures being competed for by British pictures. The exhibitors would certainly say that they had not got enough pictures to choose from. 1185. They make that complaint about British pictures now, and they would transfer that grievance to the American pictures? — They would certainly say, and I think they would be entitled to say, that the effect would he to boost up prices for the remaining pictures on the market, whether they are foreign or British. 1186. Then in paragraph 32 you suggest that a minimum on Form C hasis should be fixed of £1 a foot, but you are willing to support a beginning at 15s. a foot. This is a good deal lower than the recommendations which have been made to us from other quarters? — I quite appreciate that, but this suggestion is directed to improving the worst pictures and not doing anything at all or no1 taking any account of the pictures that are already better. and 15s. a foot on Form C is supposed to be substantially 30s. a foot on total costs, and a 6,000 or 7,000 footer would cost £10.000 minimum, and I do not think that the minimum would in this case become the maximum. The average would cortainh be very much higher, and I think the effect would be a psychological one.