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

122 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 30 June, 1936.] Mr. S. Rowsox. [Continued. 1253. But there is nothing of the sort at pre-eni r — Nothing whatever. 1254. And as far as you know there has been nothing envisaged? — I have never come across it at all. 1255. I see you carry a book upon the subject from America? — I came across this only a few days ago. 1256. What is the date of it?— 1933. 1257. Is there any such organised activity in the educational side in the United States? — Oh, yes — no, there are, of course, one or two Chairs at Harvard and places of that kind; I think there is one at Columbia, Chairs of motion picture work, and then there is the Academy of Motion Picture Art and Science at Hollywood. It is financed by Hollywood, and is fairly independent as such bodies go in America. It covers mainly technical, but also artistic. I do not think it does any education work, but it is prepared to do any examining, if you like to call it that, the examining of the attainments of various classes of technicians. 1258. How is it regarded by the film idustry at large? — Fairly well. Those who manage to get its diplomas each year are very pleased with them. 1259. That is not a reply to my question? — I could not put it any higher than that. I think it is a fairly competent body. 1260. There is only one more point I want to raise, and that deals with recommendation 5 of your twenty-eighth paragraph: — "The present insistence that the scenario writer must be of British nationality should be withdrawn." Why do you single out the scenario writer? — It is the only one that the Statute insists upon as a sine qua non for a British film, the only one of the technicians. 1261. I agree it is scarcely consistent with a generally very liberal outlook in this country to insist on British nationality, which is by no means a qualification either of competence, intelligence, or anything else. British nationality is unfortunately exceedingly easy to acquire ; scores of thousands of undesirable persons have had British people as their fathers and grandfathers, and their number is daily added to, as the birthrate shows. But would yon be inclined to leave that to the unfettered choice of the production managers? — Well, another reason. Sir Arnold, that I have suggested the cancellation of this provision is the point that since 1927 the term scenarist has become far more vague in its content. At that time the scenarist was a fairly easily definable person. Nowadays the scenario is a combination of the ideas and the writings and thoughts of a considerable number of people, and I do not know who is the scenarist. 1262. It is of no more significance than the editor of a great newspaper, who gives a certain outlook and decides the outlook of the paper, but is not ? — I am not sure he is even that, the scenarist nowadays. 1263. Who is the scenario writer when one of Shakespeare's plays is converted into a film? — That is a very interesting question. I do not know who did it in this particular case, but the work consiste 1 in preparing the scours in such a form, in such a sequence, that the camera-man and the director could shoot it in that form and then join it up in that sequence. 1264. It has no special significance when you are dramatising a great play? — Not if you are following fairly closely. It requires an expert knowledge of what is shootable and the number of shots into which a scene should be broken up. 1265. Tf you take an Edgar Wallace novel and convert it into a film, Edgar Wallace is not the scenario writer? — He is not. 1266. He is the story writer?— He is not the scenario writer, but take any recent production coming from Hollywood, say the " Pasteur " picture. which I saw the other day. There are several nam on it. Tin person who wrote the stor? and the person who wrote the continuity, which is •! different thing. They do not usually indicate tin* person who wrote the treatment, but the person who wrote the dialogue is mentioned frequently nowadays since id has come. 1267. The scenario writer ceases to have importance as an individual? — As an individual. 1268. Thank you, Sir. 1269. {Mr. Cameron): I would like to associate myself with what Sir Arnold Wilson has said on this memorandum, and I have very few questions to ask because the ground has been so well covered. There is just one general point, Mr. Rowson. You have very properly mentioned at the beginning the interest of the general public, with which I feel very much concerned as a member of that public. I take it that it is your view if these particular recommendations were translated into law, it would combine our two aims, providing a maximum of protection for an important industry and at the same time securing that expansion would not be so rapid that quality would suffer? — If I thought the public were not going to get better pictures, I would not be advocating these proposals. Whether these proposals will secure it is another matter, but my belief is they will improve the quality of pictures. 1270. And it will be the right combination of those two processes? — I think it will be a combination which will prevent somebody exploiting the public rather than selling something of value. 1271. Quite. And you contemplate that there will always be pictures deliberately produced as serious pictures, but as second feature pictures? — I contemplate a future when there might be some pictures being made at considerable cost because of an arrangement which exists that will provide for those pictures a market outside England. There will besides always be some less costly pictures which will not aim " at the stars " but which will bo interesting enough and entertaining enough to British audiences to fulfil the function not merely of a second feature but also in many cases of first features. 1272. Having particularly British characteristics? —Yes, an English cricket or football picture obviously could be made to appeal to English audiences where they would not appeal to any foreign audiences, and that is an added attraction and makes up for the deficiency of foreign revenue which such a picture would not be getting. 1273. Your cardinal point of principle is that the British film industry will only in its major pictures get real prestige such as is necessary for its expansion when it has a sufficient link-up, financial and administrative, with the American companies to ensure the entrance of British films into America, and consequently the wider market for the British products which justifies a larger cost on production? — That is my cardinal principle, we must look for world markets which in this case is Anglo-Ameri. an markets because of the English language. 1274. One small point of detail. I did not understand what you meant by the transfer of short quota to long. It seems to me that might defeat its own ends, might it not?— I do not think so really. You take a company which has 50 foreign shorts with perhaps an average of 800 feet. There is 40.000 foot of foreign shorts. The quota, we will suppose, computed on the basis of the foreign length is 25 per cent. That means that company has to provide 10.000 feet of British shorts. It has a very moat inducement to provide 10,000 feet of British shorts. be, lUse if i! does not provide them it will have to provide 5.000 feet of BriiM, longs at a very much higher cost, and in order to escape that particularly heavy burden it will use its best efforts to satisfy itself if possible with the production of shorts, especially as in order to induce it 1 am prepared to have no cost qualification on short v. ! '",'■">. Would you bo definitely against a cost qualification for English quota shorts?— T think it would discourage. First of all. I do not know what is a fair cost to apply to British shorts in order to encourage thorn. The range of subject is so wide that I do not think it is at all necessary. 1 think if they