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

I IS COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 7 July, 1936.] Mr. F. Green. [Continued. it is fair and just to both parties that an equal obligation be shared, and that it is wholly illogical to impose upon a seller of goods a greater obligation than upon a buyer of goods ; secondly, that the evidence before the Committee will show that the expiring Act lias been a success, and that the expansion of the British film industry is entirely and absolutely due to the assured market created by the obligation of the exhibitor to show a percentage of British films. 10. It is reported that foreign influences are submitting to the Committee suggestions to alter the quota obligation on renters to one of price instead of footage. In my submission, this is merely a red herring drawn across the deliberations of the Committee. With one exception only there has been no bona fide attempt by foreign renters to fulfil their obligations under the Act by other than the cheapest possible means. The Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, was intended to, and did provide, employment for a vast number of people. Although fulfilling their obligation by cheap pictures foreign renters at least thereby provided work for a large number of people. If price instead of footage were to be their obligation under the Act it would put a premium on the services of the expensive type of film technician to the detriment of a large number of smaller British technicians, and British labour in general. 11. Although the cost of production of a film should be evident on the screen, in fifty per cent, of cases it does not do so and, in my submission, the Committee would wrongly put a premium on money against brains by making a money quota. It is not a vast expenditure of money that makes good films — rather it is the intelligent co-operation between money and brains that has made all the box office successes of recent years. If legislation were enacted whereby only films costing £12,000 (the price suggested by one Association) should rank for quota, undue hardship would be caused to many people bona fide engaged in the production and distribution of British pictures, and this legislation would also play into the hands of foreign distributors, as it would keep off the market probably one hundred British films per annum, the revenue from which at present goes into British hands and deprives foreign films of play dates in this country. 1613. (Chairman) : From paragraph 5, I understand that you do not wish that the Empire should continue to enjoy its present favoured treatment, Mr. Green, but you would make an exception in favour of Northern Ireland? — Yes, my Lord. The arrangement for importing Colonial films and films from the Dominions has not been very successful up to the moment. 1614. The quality is bad, or you are not satisfied that they comply with the percentage requirements? — I think they should not obtain quota, because they compete with quota produced in this country with no advantage to us. 1615. But is there any other way in which you find it unsatisfactory? — No, my Lord. 1616. Because, of course, there is something to be said from the other end of the story, that already in some cases, and we hope in other cases in future, we get reciprocal advantages for British films? — That is a very important point. 1017. Then in paragraph 1] you deal with the cos! test, and you point out that cost is not an infallible criterion, and I think everybody would agree with you on that view, but would you accept the view that if you had a cost test it would automatically exclude a great many pictures which should he es eluded, and automatically include pictures which in the ordinary way would he much more worth while than the present quickies? — No. my Lord, I do not think that. 1 do not think the solution is to be found in relation to either quality or cost, hut in the fact that a person or company makes a film for its own bona fide distribution — that means to say that the person or company making the film shall make a profit or a loss from its production and distribution, not that he can sell the film to someone who requires it, merely because it is a quota ticket to somebody who badly needs it. There is an enormous difference. 1618. That will mean that the foreign renter could not acquire British quota films from anybody < Ise, would it not? — He could make them, my Lord. 1619. He would have to make them, yes. — Or he could acquire them subject to a quality or test clause at your discretion. 1620. The trouble is that even if he makes them at present they are liable to be made extremely cheaply, and do you not agree that a lot of this cheap production for quota purposes is very undesirable and gives a British film a bad name? — Definitely, my Lord, but it has created labour. The Act was formed to stimulate the film trade. 1621. But it would give just as much labour if the film were worth while, would it not? — No, I am sorry, it would not. It would employ highly qualified technical experts, a few of them, at enormous salaries, chiefly foreigners, and it would put out of business all those very worthy people, those electricians, stagehands, property people, and so forth, who at the present moment are engaged upon the making of these films. 1622. But surely, if by some means these foreign renters were compelled to turn out good films instead of bad films, and had to turn them out here, just as many people would be employed, or more people, on the good films? — 1 should like to believe that, my Lord. That, of course, would be the solution, but it would put so many people out of business, either on quality or on cost, that it would not be worth the legislation. 1623. Would it not just be a matter of proper adjustment to see that the demands were not too high, that you could get the new output of better quality and of not less volume — if you could achieve that? — I very much doubt it, my Lord. I assure you that the solution rests upon a decision to permit and to encourage production of all kinds. 1624. Would you allow the worst forms of production?— Provided, my Lord, that they had to be rented to make the profit for those who made them. I object to the production of quota quickies for the foreign company which merely requires a quota ticket. 1625. You only object to it from that point of view? You do not see objection to it in the bad reputation it gives to British films, and the disgust that it inspiies, we are told, among many audiences who want to see a good film? — No, my Lord, it is entirely a commercial proposition. If a person has the money to produce a bad film, and he is prepared to lose his money, all of it, he has a perfect right to do so. 1626. Yes, but the exhibitor — ? — The exhibitor is not compelled to show it. 1627. The exhibitor has the same temptation to show these films, to fulfil his quota requirements, whether they are made by a man for his own profit in this country or on behalf of a foreign renter; it would not really eliminate this evil? — The exhibitor generally tries to hook good films, quite definitely. 1628. Yes; but we are told that the exhibitor cannot get good films at the present time, because it pays many producers, not only American producers, to produce bad films, and you cannot help us to the solution of the problem of eliminating these had films? You think thc\ should he allowed to go on? — No, my Lord, legislation could be found to make the person who must obtain quota provide films of a certain quality. 1629. Yes. Would it work to have an automat ie test of cost, to admit films above thai cost standard without question and to have any films which do