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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 141 7 July, 1936.] Mr. Ivor Montagu. [Continued. tion of the provisions of the Act would here destroy a beneficial activity, wholly uninjurious to British films. It announced its intention of acquiring a renter's licence, and acting formally as distributor of such specialised foreign films as might be required by the specialised theatres and for which they could make no other arrangement, always provided that such films should, in the Society's opinion, be such as from the cultural point of view should desirably be encouraged. This the Society has done. It should be noted that the Society has never engaged in the " business " of renting and propagandising the distribution of even such films up and down the country; where, for example, a film introduced and registered by the Society became in general demand (Madchen in Uniform) it was transferred to a commercial distributor. The Board of Trade gave no undertaking, but have in fact initiated no prosecution against the Film Society for this activity. In discussion the Board of Trade has explained this forbearance by the fact that the Society does not propagandise the films for which it acts as formal distributor, but awaits applications for them, and further that a single showing in London at a specialised theatre may be regarded as in some sort a trade show, the foreign film thus shown only to require a British film equivalent if, being successful, it becomes taken up elsewhere. Unsatisfactoriness of Present Position. 6. The present position is particularly unsatisfactory for two reasons, one of signal importance, the other of less importance except to the Society. In the first place the law and the attitude of the Board of Trade above described has made impossible the development of the specialised film theatre movement in the provinces. If there be any cultural advantage in the specialised film theatre movement, surely the provinces should not be excluded from that advantage. The reason for which the specialised theatre movement should be tolerated, and that activity which enables it to persist be exempt from prosecution, is surely not primarily to enable a show window that may promote subsequent sale of foreign films commercial possibilities of which would otherwise be missed, but to enable for their audiences the cultural advantages of the exhibition of films they should see but cannot otherwise see (it should be noted, of course, that admission to such theatres is much cheaper than private film society subscription for single performance can possibly be, and further that many persons, among them some film technicians, cannot attend at the times of the single performances of the film societies). If there be any case for encouragement of the public showing of specialised films at all, that case is surely equally strong for enabling them to be shown in the provinces. Second, the Film Society has no wish to engage in this work of registration. The technical work of the Film Society, except for that of the secretary. is conducted entirely voluntarily. Formalities which are too much of a nuisance to be undertaken by large British production companies that have British quota in plenty, as above, are a severe strain on the voluntary resources of the Society. So long as it is the only body in practice unprosecuted by the Board of Trade and therefore the sole body in a position to enable the continuation of what it regards as the culturally desirable work of the specialised theatres, it must of course strain its resources to meet the situation. It regards a modification of the position, however, as highly desirable if only from this selfish point of view. The Society would in general draw attention to the undesirable and inhibitory effect upon any praiseworthy activity of doubt about its legal status. and would advert to the point, cited above, that the general tendency of the present position is to discourage even the special theatre from showing the more experimental type of film. 37873 Necessity for Present Representations to the Committee. 7. The situation as outlined above has hitherto been acquiesced in in spite of the disadvantages ;is set out above. The compromise: that the society has registered foreign films without British quota and that the Board of Trade has not prosecuted, in view of the fact that it held such activity in this specific case non-harmful, could be tolerated only by virtue of the fact that it was a solution to a dilemma not foreseen by the Act. Had the society been obliged to face a prosecution, it would have been in a position to point out that its offence was committed to keep alive a cultural activity the Act had not intended to destroy. The appointment of the Committee has altered this position. It is clearly to consider and to recommend removal of such anomalies, as may have been the unforeseen consequence of the Act, that the Committee has been appointed. It is in view of this circumstance that the society has felt obliged to bring the position to the attention of the Committee. The society has felt that its moral case for exemption from prosecution would no longer hold good if it did not at least submit the matter to the Committee in order that it might have the opportunity, if it should so see fit, to recommend that the matter be dealt with by amendment of legislation. The Film as a Social Document. 8. Before proceeding to constructive proposals for such amendment, the Society desires to draw attention to one similar unforeseen consequence of the Act which would automatically also be covered by such proposals. This consequence does not directly affect the work of the society, since its objects land activity are entirely non-political. The society's concern with this matter is that it is jealous, in all circumstances, for the recognition of the film not merely as an article of commerce but as a vehicle for the conveyance of culture, of art, of ideas. The society submits that the film is just as much, at least potentially, an article of culture as a book, a play, a musical score. It is true that a film is not only an article of culture, it is also an article of commerce, and the result of an industrial activity by many people. From these points of view there is doubtless a strong case for not exempting it from protective duty, like a book, and for subjecting it to protective legislation, like that of the quota, as the Ministry of Labour protects play production by control of permits to foreign labour. But none the less its character as a vehicle of culture should not at any time be ignored. The Act of 1927 did make exception for foreign films of certain directly educational, geographical, industrial types, but the story film of any kind was subjected to unrelieved rigours of quota exactly as though it were solely a commercial article as is, for instance, a piece of soap. With this consequence : the considerations set out above in respect to the difficulty of complying with the provisions of the Cinematograph Act of 1927 respecting renters' quota, in circumstances of exhibition to the public of experimental films at the specialised theatres, applies with no less force to the exhibition of foreign social and political films. It should be emphasized here that there is no question of seditious or immoral films, which are always liable to police prosecution. The question is in respect to films which, possibly quite rightly, are held by the British Board of Film Censors not to meet certain requirements of non-controversiality of theme, etc., necessary when giving certificate for country-wide distribution. Many such films, from the British-made Cavell-film " Dawn " to various foreign films, have been subsequently approved by local licensing authorities for exhibition within their D