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.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 135 30 June, 1936.] Mr. J. Grierson. [Continued. market. We ourselves only put in .what we might call our flash spots, and the others do not appear in any list. Mr. Bruce Woolfe could possible give quite a large number. The figure which looks like 87 would probably rise to 225 or 250. The second point I want to make with regard to the shortage of shorts, is that apart from the effect of the twofeature programme on the market, there is also the effect of the limit laid down by the renting interests on the length of programme, which I believe is three and a quarter hours. It is a peculiar situation in the film trade that the salesman is actually in a position to tell the consumer how long he is going to run his programmes. If that limit were taken away it might possibly help the shorts market. The next point is that the shortage of shorts is made possible by the state of salesmanship in the film trade and the habit of throwing away shorts. It is again made possible by the lack of showmanship so far as shorts are concerned. Shorts are generally reckoned as fill-ups, and I think you have had before you the phrase, " There is nothing much in differentiating shorts." That is the general exhibitor policy with regard to shorts. It may be reasonable because the showman, that is to say the exhibitor, is mostly interested in .what " pulls in " his audience. Shorts do not, except in special circumstances, " pull in " the audience, and you have not only blind booking but blind buying. You have exhibitors actually booking shorts by numbers. I might cite there the classical case from Birmingham of a man who ordered 24 of the worst shorts because he maintained they cleared his audiences quickly. 1437. Then you want to tell us something about the reception of short films by exhibitors? — I would like, if I might, to withdraw the figure that I put in as the costing figure for shorts of 7s. 6d. a foot on Form C, because, on investigating the matter further I found the figure ought to be lower. I cited 7s. 6d. a foot because that is average cost of good documentary. But then we have to take account of the fact, that most of the shorts now appearing in the market and costing that amount are subsidised by public relations interests. From a commercial point of view the figure would have to be smaller, and for the following reasons. I find on looking into the money made by average shorts and good shorts that the gross takings range between £700 for an average short to £4,000 for what is a feature short. One short film which has built up a very large publicity throughout the country, and is reckoned on to give a dramatic account of current events, makes a good deal of money. I do not know what the actual figure is, but I suspect it may be in the region of £3,000 to £4.000. If you take a film like " Night Mail," which dips over into the feature class, and is booking twice as well as the ordinary short, both as to numbers and as to the amount of money received, its prospect is from £1,250 to £1,500. These figures apply to films of 15 to 16 minutes. I think you will find that the economic cost at the production end for the commercial operator is at the present time about £500, which brings your cost down to 6s. 3d. a foot all in, or 3s. l£d. on Form C. In determining a minimum cost, if you so decide, you will have to reckon on a figure of somewhere about 4s. on Form C. This allows for the fact that if separate quota were given to shorts it would increase the market. The figure must be put low, without any great guarantee of quality, as you can imagine. 1438. Then you are going to tell us about the value of the renters' quota? — A word has to be said not only against the American renter or the foreign renter, but against the bad British production which has brought ignominy to renters' quota film. There is something to be said for the renters' quota film. It represents a subsidy to production in this country. It represents something like a million subsidy for the independent producer. If the producer is worth his salt, he has considerable opportunity in renters' quota film and particularly if there is a condition of cost attached to his making such films. There is another point. Amid the fancy finance from which we are suffering at the moment, an economic school of British production is well worth preserving. With all its faults the renters' quota does represent a very economic school of production. The principal defence of the renters' quota is that if it were eliminated it would represent a hardship to the independent producer. The independent producer, if he had not the foreign renter to go to, would be forced almost inevitably either to the two or three major English renters or to the less effective circulation one gets through the smaller renting companies. The independent producer would feel limited in his access to the public if the renters' quota were done away with. The independent exhibitor would suffer too, because if only the British renters were making British films the tendency would be for the major circuits to get first choice of their own productions. At the present moment, with the wide range of renter possibilities, the independent exhibitor has a better chance. Speaking as a producer, I think juxtaposition with the American film is to be welcomed. The American picture has elements of technique and quality which represent higher standards and challenge us to further development. And contact with American facilities is very much to be welcomed. If one is producing for an American renter there is the possibility of getting a good deal of help from the American end. I can give one example. If we were making a quasi-documentary film for Radio Pictures one would imagine the contact with Radio Pictures with " March of Time " in America would be of great value. If one's film is good there is in addition the vital contact with American distribution abroad. There is a great machine there that I take it would be readily available if one's film really fitted the world market. 1439. Then have you something to tell us as to the possibility of a second category of films. Films of a different length? — Owing to the very small monies that can be taken in the shorts field, or the relatively small monies, it is not possible to produce certain types of short film. This represents a considerable loss to the country, for these short films (and particularly the short comedy) represent a valuable field of training. So I suggest a new category be created between 3,000 and 5,000 feet in which, by reason of a lower costing basis than may be applied to the feature or second feature above 5,000 feet, short fictional, documentary or quasi-documentary films can have special protection. The costing basis I propose is 10s. a foot on Form C for documentary and quasi-documentary and 12s. 6d. on Form C for fictional types. In this matter of minimum costs I make the general suggestion that they be graded up according to the state of the market. 1440. Those films would not be documentary, they would be cartoons? — Not at all, Sir, they would be story films, narrative, in one form or another. 1441. There is nothing to prevent their being produced under the present law, is there? They could be counted in for quota now, could they not, if there was the demand for them? — So far as documentary films are concerned they would not be, under the present law, except by the special agreement of the Board of Trade. 1442. There would be nothing in the present law to prevent this. The long film must be over 3.000 feet so this would come in that category? — Except that it might come under the classification of current events. 1443. I see, they might be documentary P— -They might be documentary of a narrative type. 1444. (Sir Arnold Wilson); Before we go any further will you give us your version of what documentary means? — I have defined it before as the creative treatment of actuality. What one means by tih a t is that actual events have been taken but analysed from a creative point of view and given some sort of angle, some sort of narrative, or dramatic meaning. That is to say it is not a