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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 149 7 July, 1936.] Mr. F. Green. [Continued. not comply with that test examined on quality, so that if they have got special value and are not a discredit to British film production they may be allowed a licence in respect of the low cost? — It would be frightfully difficult. 1630. Then what is your solution? How are you going to eliminate bad films? — A person who requires to make a bad film, and desires to make a film of any kind, be it good or bad, providing it is for his own distribution, should be allowed to make it. 1631. In other words, the bad film is to be allowed to go on, and to cut away profit from the good film, because obviously a good film will not be able to compete, in the case of certain exhibitors, with the bad film ? — No, my Lord, but he would not do it more than once, would he? 1632. Well, they have done it a lot of times already, and there is nothing to prevent them producing better films. If it paid the exhibitor to show the better films rather than the worse films it is quite open to the producer to produce better films now. and yet he does it more than once, he goes on producing bad films? — It does pay the exhibitor to show the better films always, but the foreign renter has an obligation upon him to provide a certain quota and he obtains his quota in the cheapest market. That is what is bad. That is primarily and fundamentally bad, because he goes to buy his film in the rag market. He will buy any film which has a quota ticket, one that was made by a person for the sole purpose of selling it for a quota ticket. but it was not made for the purpose of bona fide distribution, and for the purpose of making profit. 1633. You think that quickies would be eliminated, because if you cut out their production by the American renter it would not be worth while for the British producer to make them ? — Quite. I am positively certain. Sir. that if the two were separated from each other, quota for foreign distributors here in England, and the making of bad quickies for ordinary distribution here. I am perfectly sure that within one year there would be no quickies. "Who would make one? 1634. I see. Well, how would you deal with tin American renter? — That is the problem. 1635. You have got no solution? — No. 1636. (Mr. Holmes): Supposing we altered the Cinematograph Films Act so that the quota had only to be complied with so far as the exhibitor was concerned, and there was no quota on the renter at all — that the exhibitor had to have his quota of British films — would that help in getting rid of the bad film ? — Not a bit, it would automatically put hall the exhibitors out of business because there would not be enough films produced. 1637. But it would be an encouragement for them to produce? — It is no encouragement to produce, unless one is compelled to produce — if one is a foreign company. 1638. But if it is known in any trade that there is a definite market every year, then there are people prepared to produce for that market? — They do not do so, Sir, in our business. 1639. (Mr. Holmes): That is all, thank you. 1640. (Sir Arnold Wilson.) : I have no questions. 1641. (Mr. Conn ron) : I have no questions. 1642. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer) : In paragraph 1 of your memorandum. Mr. Green, are you referring to all films when you speak of Section 27 (i) or only short films? — I deal chiefly with any film that is a British film made for bona fide distribution by the person who made it, and not for sale to a third party. 1643. And you would include long and short films? —Both. 1644. Would you like a separate quota for short films ? — I think it would be a good idea to separate the two. I think it might stimulate the production of shorts in this country, which is so difficult. 1645. You are mainly concerned with the production of shorts? — Yes. Next year I shall have the biggest output of shorts in this counntry. 1646. And do you find that the market for them is adequate? — It could quite well become much better. 1647. How is that? — I think the second feature will be eliminated within a year or so, because it is indigestion to the public. 1648. We have had a good deal of evidence to the contrary on that point, of course? — I realise that. 1649. In some quarters we are told that the second feature has come to stay, that you cannot get away from that, but you would take the opposite point of view? — I would say it will come back again eventually; that the big film, which to-day is getting bigger and bigger, will be the main point in the programme, and that the balance of the programme will be short films of various kinds. 1650. You think that is the future development? — That is the ultimate view I hold, yes. 1651. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer): Thank you. 1652. (Chairman): We are much obliged to you, Mr. Green. (The Witness withdrew.) Mr. T. O'Brien and Mr. J. Rogers, representing the National Association of Theatrical Employees, were then called and examined. The Committee had before them the following memorandum bj Theatrical Employees : — the National Association of The National Association of Theatrical Employees is a registered trade union, and caters for and represents many grades of skilled and non-skilled employees in the entertainment industry, particular^ in film studios. It has within its film studio membership, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, painters, scenic artists, mechanics, property-makers, sta hands, riggers, projectionists, make-up artists and other general workers. The interest of the National Association of Theatrical Employees (afterwards referred to as " the Association ") in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, and in the future of British films, is decidedly one of employment of its members and workers in the British film industry. The Association realises that any progressive or retrograde policy in regard to the present and future production of British films will have far-reaching effects upon employment and unemployment of the grades of people referred to above, and to many other classes of employees, and technicians, artists, actors and executives. The Association does not propose, nor does it think it relevant, to submit any detailed or analytical case to the Committee of Enquiry. The technical. administrative, commercial and financial angles have, or will no doubt be adequately presented by the appropriate interests. The Association wdl be satisfied to approach the subject from the point of view of the employmenl of British labour, rather than to offer a solution to the general difficulties of the Act. Having regard bo these considerations, the Association offers the following observations: — 1. The British film production industry could not have reached its present substantial position had there not been the Cinematograph Films Act. 1927, which ostensibly had for its object and was intended