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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 129 30 June, 1936.] Mr. H. Bruce Woolfe. [l ontinued the Mercedes car as the one to be selected. Well, the film shows the way that car is built, and fulfils all its requirements as an educational subject or an instructional subject, but it still contains the propaganda. 1327. (Sir Arnold Wilson): Does it, in fact, sell an extra car? — Well, they do it quite a good deal, so I presume they must get some effect from it. Whether they can trace these things I do not know, but there are quite a lot of films made, there are even quite a number made in this country, so they must get some effect from it, otherwise they would not continue to make them. 1328. (Chairman) : I notice that in paragraph 8 you suggest that the British Board of Film Censors should be given responsibility for admitting to quota? — I do not think I suggested that, Sir. 1329. Did you not? You say, on the standard of quality : — '•' In this connection it might be found possible to use the British Board of Film Censors in order not to duplicate work." ? — Well, I merely suggested that because I thought it would avoid duplication of work, because every film is seen by the British Board of Film Censors, and I presume that out of the 100 per cent, films that they see there is not more than three or four, perhaps five, per cent, of them, that would call for any comment, and it would be rather a waste of time for all those films to be gone over again, but if there was somebody there who was authorised to be on the watch to say, " Well, I do not pass that particular film, I will leave that to the Committee (or whoever it is) who is responsible for that particular type of work. 1330. The difficulty would be that the British Board of Film Censors are under the Home Office, and it would be difficult for them to be also under the Board of Trade, which is obviously the Department which must be responsible for the quota administration?— Well, could not a Board of Trade official have a seat in the theatre, or somebody who is deputed to do that by seeing the films, just to avoid duplicating work. 1331. Then in paragraph 10 you fear that advertisements may masquerade as documentary films. If you could get over that, and really limit documentary films to those without any such tendency would you see any objection to admitting them, we will say, to the same advantages that you propose for other short films? — The straight documentary film? 1332. Yes, the straight documentary film ? — In my opinion it certainly should have full quota. 1333. You think you can get over the difficulty of the advertising tendency? — Yes. I think if once a film starts to contain advertising matter it certainly should not be awarded quota. 1334. It is a matter of very careful watching by somebody to see that advertising does not creep in? — I think I suggested that, because it is obvious if a film does contain propaganda somebody must have given something for that propaganda to be inserted in the film, therefore I do not see why quota should be given to give an added market value to something which is being put out as an advertisement or as propaganda, because there is no doubt that the giving of quota to a film does add to its market value. There are many films which receive quota now which if they did not would have no market value at all, therefore the giving of quota does give an added market value to any film, and I do not see why that should be given to films that are being made for propaganda purposes. 1335. (Chairman): Thank you. 1336. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer): You have mentioned, in paragraph 1. the difficulties in the production of shorts, and say that they are needed— you mean by other interests than the commercial cinema? — All types of short films are wanted. 37*73 1337. You think the shorts are wanted in the commercial cinema? — No, I do not say they want them at the moment, but we want them for the development of the non-theatrical market. 1338. Yes. I thought you meant that. Then the double feature programme to which you refer in paragraph 2 — that, I suppose, has worked very much against the need lor shorts, has it not? — It has because, as I explained here, 25 to 30 per cent, of screen time is taken up by the second feature. 1339. And do you anticipate that the non-theatrical market in time would be sufficiently extensive to enable shorts to be produced on a paying basis? — We anticipate that it will be a much bigger market than the theatrical market. 1340. You really think that? — In point of numbers. I do not think there is any doubt about that. 1341. Then what you need at present is a more or less temporary arrangement to help you until this development takes place? — Yes. 1342. But you think that given a temporary tideover eventually the non-theatrical market would be sufficiently extensive for it to be possible to make these films on a commercial basis? — Yes. 1343. You speak in paragraph 9 of the future of the short films. As a cinema-goer myself I should agree with what you say, because I think short films are nearly always appreciated, but do you think the short film would oust the second feature supposing it was granted quota ? You say : "' Placing the short film upon an equitable basis with regard to acquiring quota as outlined above will undoubtedly assist production. Making it difficult for inferior second features to occupy screen time would open the door a little wider to theatrical bookings for short films ", and so on. Do you think that the quota would do all that? — If we can get some means of making it either impossible or exceedingly difficult for a bad quality second feature film to receive quota, then we shall have more theatre time for the playing of short films. 1344. You say you do not recommend a special quota for short films. That is rather contingent on the bad second feature being eliminated, is it not? — Yes, I think it will have a cumulative effect. If we can get the quota extended, as I suggest, for short films, and at the same time get the bad quality second feature eliminated — render it much more difficult for those films to secure playing time — I think that in course of time we shall find that the short film will gradually work its way back again to the position in which it was before the Quota Bill was heard of. 1345. In spite of the popularity of the doublefeature programme? — Yes. I do not know that the second feature programme is so very popular in many districts; in fact I would say in the majority of districts. 1346. You do not think it is? — No, because everywhere we go we make enquiries, and we find, I should think, that in 95 per cent, of the enquiries that we direct that the people prefer to see short films. They do not want to see the sort of stuff that they say is a bad imitation of the first film that they saw, they do not want to sit for an hour through this horrible stuff in order to get to the first feature film. We meet that everywhere. 1347. That is interesting, because a great deal of the evidence we have had has been to the ell'eel that the two-feature programme has come to stay, and you cannot get away from that. That is not borne out in your experience? — No, not by the experience that we have of individual questions. 1348. Then one last point. Yen make a ingestion in paragraph 8 of a Committee acting under the Board of Trade Advisory Committee to decide as to quality. Would thai not be extraordinarily diffi< to. work ?— Perhaps quality is not quite bh< righl word. C 3