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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 145 July, 1936.] Mr. Ivor Montagu. [Continued. their own registration, and we do not want to be such philanthropists in that sense but are obliged to be because of the situation. 1566. You base your case more on the introduction of contemporary continental films, and a cultural interchange with other countries, than on the continued revival of old films? — Emphatically so, though the usefulness of the other should not b'e disregarded. 1567. Do you feel your actual proposal for solving the difficulty will be adequate? Supposing the number of specialist theatres increases, will the one copy in circulation and the 10 weeks in any one year be sufficient to allow free cultural circulation? — If the number of cultural theatres increased materially it would be almost a commercial proposition to rent them and, though it is never a commercial proposition to produce a British film against it. those who have plenty of British films will be prepared to go into the little difficulty noted in answer to the Chairman regarding supervising a special film for the sake of issuing it to 10 to 20 theatres if there became so many. 1568. Somebody suggested in evidence an alternative for dealing with the same difficulty by creating a neutral category of films exempt altogether from quota, on a certificate of excellence or cultural value given by some appropriate body: if that were adopted it would have the effect of taking the administrative side out of your hands. It would enable a small renting company, we will say, -who did not want to handle other films, to handle cultural films and circulate them as freely as it liked once granted the certificate of excellence. Do you think that is a workable alternative, or would you definitely prefer the way you have suggested? — A matter like that ia matter which can only be guessed when one gauges the capacity of the certifying body. In general one feels that any method that can have the certainty of not depending upon the opinion of the certifying body is better. If the certifying body say that the film is not good enough, then the whole expenditure of a considerable sum would already have been entered into. I agree it is an improvement, and an alternative to the present position, but I think it is open to the objections I specify. 1569. You prefer your suggestion? — Yes, with if possible a wider margin of weeks. May I mention in that connection even that margin of weeks would take the renting out of our hands because it would mean the theatre first wanting to show the film would register itself as a renter for that particular film. It it is running for five to six weeks then it is all right. We would not have to act. 1570. I rather think it is a point you want to stress, that these films are in effect a school for technicians? — Yes, emphatically so. 1571. They can see what are the possibilities, and it is important for them to see the current work of European directors? — Before the existence of repertory theatres at all it was frequently the case we would send films missed by the technicians round the studios for them to look at. It still undoubtedly happens. 1572. (The Hon. Eleanor Phimer) : About how large is youn membership? — Round about a thousand. rather lower. 1573. Is it growing? — No, it is declining. \Ve attribute that to the influence of the repertory theatres and as our task becomes successful we have to face it. 1574. It is a form of suicide? — For the benefit of making public taste less narrow. 1575. Are the provincial societies independent of your society or do they affiliate to it? — They are independent. We have a loose federation which meets once a year to discuss joint problems, but up to now it is a loose body without a single authority or anything. 1576. In paragraph 2 you speak of: — " (c) the introduction of films to new strata of British intellectual life (a factor which, it has been observed, has on occasions interested new sources of capital in the films generally)." What exactly do you mean by that? — Some of the persons whose work was first shown at our Society have later on become well known Directors or actors in British films, and capital can only have seen them in England at our performance (though they were, of course, known abroad to be goocl), and thus been interested to make films with them. I believe — it is difficult to put the case because it is difficult to state names, but I believe that many persons who have been interested to invest in British films first made their acquaintance with films by coming to these Film Society shows, largely because, at any rate when started, they were a social event which would tend to attract elements not otherwise interested in the cinema. 1577. You say you definitely oppose any method of certification. I do not understand the force of that in view of your earlier statement that " 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 "? — It is a question of the uncertainty of certification. There are many films on the dividing line, and it is difficult to organise any forward movement when it does not know for certain whether the films in which it is interested will be certificated or not. Certification is better than the present position with its complete uncertainty, but certification leaves uncertainty before each film is submitted. Each has to be imported and prepared and put in English first. Part of the objection to certification would be removed if it were provided that, unlike the Board of Film Censors, the certifying body would be prepared to look at the films before much money had been expended on importing and transforming them for England, i.e. would judge them in their native language and in bond. 1578. That is your objection ? — Simply the question of the practical harm of uncertainty. 1579. Is it not important that there should be some quality clause. You stand for cultural films? — I cannot imagine anybody bringing in these films, which after all do not make very much money, unless it is for some philanthropic reason. 1580. It would do no harm to have it in? — No, it would do no harm if it could be avoided that the film had to have a lot of money spent on it before it was judged. 1581. The Chairman raised the point about the total of so many weeks in any one year. I still cannot see the point of the " any one year ". Surely if the film were successful and was wanted for more than that period it would automatically be taken over by the renter? — That is the implication, not that it could not be shown for more than these w-eeks, but it would only be exempt if it were shown for those weeks. Supposing you showed it for four to five weeks in London in one year, that is the finish of the thing, but a year or so later it might show for four to five more weeks, which does not mean very great extra profit because probably a new print has to be brought in. and new duties paid and new " anglicisation " made, the margin of income over the cost of which would be so small that it would prevent a big profit or business being done. 1582. Repetition every year would seem to bring it into the category of films which wcudd need quota? — It might be a declining number of times each year. or. as the Chairman suggested after an interval <>f so many years, but there comes a time when it could be revived and still would not make large extra profits. 1583. (f'hiiii limn) -. YVY arc very much obliged to you. Mr. Montagu, for your help. — Thank you. (The Witness withdrew.) :iTS7:-t D 3