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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

124 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 30 June, 1936.] Mr. S. Row sox. [Continued. the direction in which I am suggesting that this should take place. 1299. And do you think it is likely to be a prelude to further developments along the same lines? — What has happened there, Miss Plumer, is that an English company in order to acquire that has invested capital in an American Company. 1300. Is that how it has been done? — Yes, they bought a quarter interest in the American company. 1301. It is not the same scheme as you suggest? — It is not quite the same scheme, but the result might be the same. 1302. Is that the sort of scheme that might be developed by other companies? — Oh, no, it is not possible of development with other companies at all. Take any of them we can name, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, they are not for sale and nobody could invest with them and nobody could make a contract with them. It happened that Universal was for sale. 1303. It does actually bring about something of what you advocated? — Oh yes, in the eventual result certainly. 1304. But it is an exceptional method? — It was an exceptional opportunity that was taken advantage of by an English company. 1305. Thank you, that is all. 1306. (Chairman): Miss Plumer drew attention to a passage which I myself have missed, and which did surprise me, and encouraged me on reading it, that British films have been superior in your opinion to American films? — In their attractiveness. 1307. Yes. — For some reason or other the statistics seem to me to point to the fact that they have been showing more times in this country than the American pictures. 1308. We are told by other witnesses that audiences in some districts will not sit through a British film. What is the explanation? — It is true in some districts. There are so many British films that are not good. 1309. Are they chiefly films obtained by American renter organisations? If we can eliminate their production of quickies, do you think we can get over this? — It would get over that kind of film certainly, tlic inferior film would tend to disappear. 1310. The major factor of the production of these inferior films is American? — Unquestionably. On that, Sir, I wonder whether you would permit me before I go, unless you would prefer me not to deal with it, but there were some questions which I read in the evidence published a few days ago about the conceivable possibility of dispensing with the renters' quota. 1311. We will be very glad to hear what you have to say? — " Questions have been raised about the possibility of eliminating the renters' quota from any future quota scheme. The mere suggestion of such "a possibility seems to me of such importance that I welcome the opportunity of stating my views on it. "All sections in the trade have hitherto regarded the exhibitors' and renters' quota as essentially ' linked ' — the presence of one implying the necessary presence of the other. The only questions on this subject that have ever been discussed have been the conditions to be attached to the respective obligations. Some exhibitors have advocated the lifting of the exhibitors' quota altogether, but the C.E.A. on behalf of its members has refused to endorse this suggestion. They have formally proposed that the ' quota ' obligation on exhibitors should be continued; but this proposal was made when it was assumed, sine qua. non, that the renters' quota would be also continued. T can visualise a vociferous claim for simultaneous exemption if it was decided to end renters quota. "In my opinion the ' linked ' quota mu t, for many years to come, form an integral part of any scheme designed to aid the production and screening of British films. The time has not yet arrived when either the renters' or the exhibitors' quota can be dispensed with. Only when British films can compare favourably, both in quality and price, with the competing American product can the ' quota ' be lifted, and then it would have to be lifted simultaneously from both renter and exhibitor. "The British 'long' films registered in 1935 were as follow (taken from Minutes of Evidence p. 28). Major British Renters. Producer-Exhibitor companies ... 46 Others 34 Other British renters ... ... 6 United Artists ... ... 8 Other Foreign-Controlled Renters ... 89 183 " Clearly the first effect of lifting ' renters' quota. ' would be the non-production of the 89 pictures by ' other foreign-controlled renters.' The cost of these must have been about £600,000. and it may be assumed that the finance for these was wholly provided by the renters. Some of these were produced by special production units in studios leased by them (e.g. Warners and Fox). In the main, however, independent production units were given contracts for the production of these quota pictures. It is notorious that in these cases the productions were exploited at considerable loss to the renters ; and therefore in the circumstances contemplated the production of these pictures would certainly be discontinued. " Even if we assume the remaining pictures will continue to be made, there would be a shortage of 89 pictures unless the British manufacturers increase their programmes to make good this shortage. In its entirety this would involve a transfer of more than £1.000.000 of productions (having regard to the more costly productions contemplated) which would have to be financed by other than the American companies. I believe the producer-exhibitor companies would be unwilling to do so. One of these companies is already producing up to its technical capacities, and the other has declared its reluctance to make more pictures than is absolutely necessary. Some of the remaining producing companies might be willing to increase their programmes if they could solve the finance problem which, in existing conditions, would probably be found difficult. " In addition to the foregoing, mention should be made that over 30 of the British pictures registered by the British renters were required to satisfy their own quota liability for foreign pictures registered by them. It is not unreasonable to assume that some of these would not be made if the ' quota ' was lifted. These 30 pictures probably represent an expenditure of £400.000 to £500.000. "The only solution therefore is the maintenance of the existing volume of production under conditions which must give an improvement in general quality. The renters concerned would be able to provide any additional finance that wotild be necessary ". 1312. We are very glad indeed to have that on the note. 1313. (Mr. Cameron): Mr. Rowson. you said you were rather doubtful about some figures that have been given to us? — I think the figure I have in mind is the estimate of the total production output of the country. Si millions. T think was given, and that was said to be not the whole lot. That was produced by the Federation of British Industries. I am aware, of course, of the fact that the Department put in a figure of 2* million or thereabouts on