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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 147 7 July, 1936.] Mr. J. S. FairfaxJones. [Continued. main centres? — Well, there are cinemas of this type at Oxford and Cambridge ; there is one at Leeds, I believe, and at Glasgow, and there are quite a number of cinemas which do .show the best of these films from time to time, and would, I am sure, have a reasonably permanent policy of doing so if again this question of supply could be reasonably certain. 1.598. (Mr. Cameron): Did I understand you to say to the Chairman that the films shown by the Film Society were mainly films that had been introduced into the country for commercial purposes? — I do not mean the London Film Society. I mean the provincial Film Societies. 1599. But are not the films shown by the provincial film societies mainly ones that have been introduced by the London Film Society? — Very rarely, except in the case of short films. 1600. That is your experience? — Yes, that is my experience. In some cases the films shown by the London Film Society are commercially exploited, and in some cases they go back immediately to the country of their origin ; perhaps two in the London Film Society's season are subsequently exploited in the provinces. 1601. Yes, but the London Film Society has unofficially acted as renter for a number of the films it has brought over, that it has not returned directly. I know that some are returned direct to the cotintry of origin, but there are a 'number that the Film Society has retained acting as an unofficial renter, and has circulated them to provincial film societies, who, in effect, have booked their films largely through the London Film Society? — Not to a very great extent have they acted primarily as renters, for this reason, that films which are not commercially exploited are not titled in English — you know the English sub-title put on foreign films? 1602. Yes? — And the film societies prefer to show films which have got English film titles on them ; they are only titled in English when they are going to be commercially exploited. 1603. Oh, but some of the London Film Society's films have been sub-titled in English for their showing at the Film Society? — One or two have. They generally have some explanatory titles inserted, but I do not think in any case have they had the dialogue translated. 1604. No? — And that is what the Provincial Film Societies want in the main. 1605. Yes, to some extent; I would not accept it that that is wholly so? — No, it is not wholly so, there have been exceptions, but with very many of them I think it is so. 1606. I should have thought the exceptions were considerable? — I cannot think of any exceptions. I happen to be Secretary also of one of the Provincial film societies. 1607. Yes, I know? — And I know a fair amount about the actual supply of films. In one or two cases I agree with you, Sir. 1608. Yes. There would be more cases if some differential legislation were introduced? — Yes, undoubtedly. 1609. That is the real point that you make? — ■ That is the real point, yes. 1610. (Sir Arnold Wilson): I have no questions, thank you. 1611. (Mr. Stanley Holmes) : I have no questions. 1612. (Chairman) : Mr. Fairfax-Jones, we are very much obliged to you. (The Witness withdrew.) Mr. F. Green, representing Ace Films, Ltd., Ace Distributors, Ltd.. and Ace Studios, Ltd., was then called and examined. The Committee had before them the following memorandum by Mr. F. Green : ■ I respectfully submit the following observations on account of the fact that none of the Companies whom I represent are members of any Trade Association. If the Cinematograph Films Act 1927 is to be continued for a further period of ten years, the only observations I should like to make woxdd be : — 1. Section 27 (1). — During the running of the existing Act I have suffered hardship on account of the fact that many important films produced have not been films to which the Act applies and therefore unregistrable as British films because they have fallen under Section 27 (1) of the Act, and I claim that a British film made by a wholly British company is none the less a British film, nor does it fall outside the purpose of the Act — to employ British labour and materials — if the substance of the film is any which falls under Section 27 (1) of the Act. This section necessarily retards the production of British exploration films, natural history films, scientific films, pictorial song films and other important contributions to the art of cinematography and is a hardship to those engaged in producing and distributing films of this nature. 2. Section 27 (1) (i). — Although registration has on many occasions been subsequently allowed because of a film having special exhibition value, the same cannot be promised to the exhibitor on the film being rented to him and, in consequence, the British producer and renter suffer hardship. 3. Section 27 (1) (ii). — I suggest that the exhibitor has no right to have the benefits of films under this section for his Quota purposes if they do not also give to the renter the same benefits. 37873 4. Section 27 (3) (i). — The regulations in regard to what is a British film are not, in my opinion, sufficiently stringent, see Section 27 (5). 5. Section 27 (5). — I submit that a British film should only be made by an English, Welsh, Scotch or Northern Irish Company. It does the British him trade no good, nor does it create labour in this country, to have a British film made in the Colonies or the Dominions, or particularly in the Irish Free State. The restrictions in regard to foreign directors of companies controlling a business with English director nominees who have no financial interest in that business should be tightened up. 6. Section 30. — I submit that the Advisory Committee should contain a film trade member other than the representatives of the K.R.S., F.B.I. , C.E.A., and the five independent members. 7. Section 33 (2).— I submit that the Act should extend to Northern Ireland by reason of the block booking position in that territory. 8. I suggest that the renters' and exhibitors' quota of 20 per cent, (twenty per cent.) should continue for a further period of ten years. 9. If observation may be made upon the garbled reports that have appeared in the Press concerning submissions already made to the Committee upon the further working of the Act, I submit: — (1) that no change whatever should be made in the percentage of the renters' or exhibitors' quota and that under no circumstances shall the renters' obligation be greater than the exhibitors' obligation under the Act. I make this submission on two grounds. Firstly, that D 4