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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 133 30 June, 1936.] Mr. J. Gkierson. [Continued. of all short films on standards which are open to dispute. One does not envy the task of any committee which must operate on these lines. The proposals involve indeed a more cumbersome machinery than that to which exception is taken by A.R.F.P. 4. The case for the documentary film has to be seen in proportion, and the following points should be taken : — (a) The documentary film is a relatively new type of film. It has a few achievements to its credit, but is principally important in the promise it gives that we shall be able to describe and discuss on the screen in interesting fashion, themes of public and national value. Describing the affairs and issues of ordinary citizenship, it must help to bring alive the life of the country to audiences both at home and abroad. On the other hand : — (b) The documentary film is still at the clumsy stage of growth and not all its efforts are exciting. (c) It still retains in some instances an element of highbrow or non-popular approach. It would, therefore, appear wrong to force it on a trade which depends on popular entertainment. (d) Without special protection of the type suggested the documentary film has had a satisfactory growth. Its reception by the trade was bound to be slow, but it has been more sympathetic than some of us expected. The disappointments and setbacks have incidentally been of some value to the documentary film and have forced its nose into more popular themes and warmer treatment. This is worth noting, though the strength of documentary has lain in its discovery of new materials and entirely new technical treatment. 5. The case I wish to make is, briefly, that the documentary film should not have special treatment but that it should have equal treatment with other films. 6. I shall propose, therefore (Paragraph 15) that, subject to certain exceptions, all short films rank both for exhibitors' and renters' Quota. 7. I suggest that the really important thing to effect is the production and distribution of short films in this country. The serious weakness of the Act is not that it has in a few instances made life difficult for documentary directors and has to some extent kept back the growth of documentary films, but that it has allowed a situation to arise where short films as a whole are not encouraged and where it has been possible to weaken the market for shorts very seriously. 8. It is true that an increasing number of short films has been registered for exhibitors' quota but this is not necessarily an indication of strength in the shorts field, and for the following reasons: — (a) Many shorts have been produced through the initiative of the documentary movement. The activity of this movement does not derive from the market demand for shorts, but from a desire on the part of some vigorous young men to do work of a social value. They have found their economic basis not in the film trade but in the money made available to them by the public relations departments of the Government and industry. (b) Some other shorts have been the work of amateurs who, unable to secure an opportunity in the studios, have sought in this relatively cheap field to break into production work. (c) Some other shorts like The Life of the Gannet, though produced by commercial companies in the ordinary way, have in fact been initiated by outsiders who desired to see particular themes covered and were personally influential enough to secure their production. 9. The actual position of the shorts market is as follows : — It is subject to serious dumping of shorts from America. Again and again I have been told when 1 raised some question of distribution that we can buy good American shorts for £50. Any success we have had with our British films has been in spite of this competition and it says much for the national spirit of certain renters that they handled our films at all. The situation is none the less grevious and one feels that in certain producing companies where there is already a shorts department the producers must constantly be tempted to buy cheap from America rather than risk more considerable sums in their own production of shorts. 10. The growth of the two-feature programme has limited what little market there was for shorts. The reasons for this growth are, I suggest : — (a) A real popular desire to have two stories instead of one. (6) The plenitude of second-feature films cheaply produced and cheaply obtainable. (c) The desire on the part of renters and exhibitors to back up a weak principal feature with, as it were, an alternative story. 11. In result neither renter nor exhibitor is adequately interested in shorts outside newsreels and cartoons. They are regarded as fill-ups, to be hired and supplied without any special consideration of their value. It is a matter of fact that renters show no developed art of salesmanship in presenting them to exhibitors and that exhibitors show no art of showmanship in presenting them to the public. 12. Yet in spite of the superior return of the Gables and Garbos there is a case to be made for the protection of shorts, and I beg that the Committee will consider this case seriously. 13. Commercial grounds: — (a) The short field is the logical training ground for directors and technicians. It would give employment. I have in my own unit trained some 38 directors, cameramen and technicians and 25 of these men have gone from the Government service into the ordinary service of the trade. In the past during the " quickie " and the " cheapie " era it has not seemed important to maintain a training ground for the personnel of the industry. Hole and corner direction has been the rule. If, however, with a revision of the Act a costing basis is adopted to secure better quality, a training ground is vital if the industry is to develop on healthy lines. It would appear to be important, therefore, to encourage the shorts field. In America many directors have graduated from the shorts field and it is possible to say that more strength in technique and personnel has come from the short comedy field than from any other source. (b) The shorts field permits the exploitation of capital too small for large-scale production. It permits the entry into the trade of new production forces. These smaller capitals are likely to be a steadying influence on a trade which, in its present stage of development, sadly requires steadying. (c) The shorts field, apart from trying out and developing new directors and new writers, provides for the trying out of new ideas. The technique of film comedy was developed in the shorts field. It is probable that the documentary film will one day emerge into the full-feature field as a new and powerfid type of realisticfilm. In general the possibility of trying out new men and new ideas within the safer financial limits of the short film, must tend to enrich the ideas of the trade. (d) On the exhibition side, I would urge that the leavening of the average programme with a single short item of more serious intention either