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

132 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 30 June, 1<J36.] Air. H. Bruce Woolfe. [Continued. I remember distinctly that there was a great hullabaloo because there was a British film to be shown there, and at the last moment they stopped it — it was one of the London Films' productions — because Bergner was playing a leading part and she was a Jewess, and they would not let iti appear, but Henry VIII was shown there ; quite a number of films were shown there. 1410. Has it had the effect of raising the value of such British films as are allowed to come into the country? — I do not quite understand. 1411. Most films have to be in German? — Yes. 1412. Therefore, their foreign quota becomes correspondingly valuable? — Yes, I should imagine it would. 1413. Have you any information as to that? — No, I have not; I started my enquiries recently. 1414. What about Italy? — Well, we are doing nothing at all in Italy. Quite a few years back — I cannot remember exactly how many — Italy was the leading film producing country in the world, without excepting America. Their production has simply gone all to pieces, and Mussolini is now endeavouring to resuscitate it by spending large sums of money in building large studios, but the fact remains that they are still in a pretty poor state. 1415. Was that due to the use of propaganda? — I think it had a great deal to do with it. 1416. In the only visits I have paid to Italian cinema theatres there was scarcely anything shown at all of that nature? — Do you mean propaganda? 1417. Propaganda — there was what you describe as the cultural film which appeared? — Well, we had very close negotiations with Luce to shown quite a number of their films, but we found that they were not usable because there was always that tendency in them that made them distasteful to this country. 1418. Is that at all noticeable in American films? — No, I cannot say I have noticed much in American films. I cannot recall having had any experience of being impressed with the fact that we are told what a wonderful fellow the President of the United States is. 1419. Do you not find, are you not impressed by being told what a wonderful fellow the local gangster is? — No, I find him rather amusing, as a matter of fact. 1420. (Mr. Cameron): So do I. 1421. (Sir Arnold Wilson): You regard the glorification of crime, excessive wealth and sexual immorality generally as pardonable and indeed amusing?— No, I said I found it amusing when I look at it from the point of view of a number of films, perhaps, but would you call that propaganda? 1422. Well, it is? — Every film is propaganda for something or another, whatever it is about. One may regret the gangster films, but I doubt whether you can call them propaganda. 1423. They are only for making money, are they not ? — It is something like the penny bloods of my young days, it was a means of making money for somebody or other, but I do not think they were propaganda. They had their insidious effect, because I know I was desperately keen to be a highwayman at one time; that probably had a deleterious effect on me, but I do not suggest they were put out as propaganda. 1424. No, I do not suggest they were put out as propaganda, but we might have been better off if we had had a little more propaganda and a little less gangsterism? — That may be. 1425. As Miss Plumer said, we have been told that there is really no future in the cinema for the short film, that the two-feature programme has come to stay, but I confess I have never believed that. You feel convinced that with encouragement the shoTt film would come back and come back rapidly? — Yes, I feel quite sure it would. After all, it was on the short film that the industry built itself up. 1426. Have you any experience of that in America? — No. 1427. In New Zealand? — In New Zealand they are using more short films than they are anywhere, because they have not got the double-feature programmes in New Zealand. 1428. Has that had any bad effect upon Box Office returns? — No, they do quite well in New Zealand. It is the only country that is left now where they do not have the double-feature system. 1429. Does the short film make it easier to adapt the exhibition of films to other entertainments, say in restaurants? I have seen in some parts of the world the short film in the restaurant, where people are eating and drinking and seeing a film simultaneously. You can only do that with short films in practice? — Yes, I should think so. 1430. Have you any experience of that? — I doubt whether that would ever become popular in this country. It would be rather dreadful to be eating soup and at the same time watching a comedian on the screen. 1431. A short film?— Yes, I know they do it, because I have seen it done in France, but I doubt whether it would ever be possible in this country. It has been tried. Various cinemas have been opened with galleries which have had tables set round for the serving of meals, but it did not last. 1432. You know it is exceedingly common in South America, and I believe in South Africa?— 1 have had no experience of those countries. 1433. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : Thank you. 1434. (Chairman): Well, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Woolfe, for coming here this afternoon. (The Witness withdrew.) Mr. J. Grierson was then called and examined. The Committee had before them the following memorandum by Mr. J. Grierson: 1. In preparing this case I have had the advantage of reading over the memorandum on the documentary film presented by the Associated Realist Film Producers Group. H will doubtless save the time of the Committee il I take that memorandum as read. 2. I have considerable sympathy with the A.R.F.P. analysis of the present treatment of documentary films by the Quota Act, and particularly in the following matters: — (a) The present Act does not take account of :l type of film which is capable of considerable exhibition value and which is of special interest from a national and cultural point of view. (b) Exclusion from renters' Quota on the grounds of subject matter does not lake account oi tin developing capacity el' cinema technique and its power to make many ordinary subjects interesting. (c) The operation of the special exhibition value clause has in two or three cases seemed less than just and Mig^ests a somewhat different composition for any committee which, under a new Act. would deal with exceptions. 3. 1 do not propose, however, to make the same recommendations as A.R.F.P. have drawn from their analysis. The A.R.F.P. recommendations would. :n ,. licet, give protection to films en creative or cultural grounds. Thej would seem to involve the valuation