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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE lo I 7 July, 1936.] Mr. T. O'Brien and Mr. J. Rogers. [Continued. substitute for them an en masse series of shorts and documentaries and alleged news reels and so on —I am not referring to the present adequate news reels of Gaumont-British or Pathe type — you could flood the market with all kinds of pictures which were called news reels, and thereby fulfil quota purposes. 1664. Yes. You say if you eliminated the quickie and substituted the short— I take it there would be no suggestion on the part of most people that you should substitute the short? — No. 1665. If you kept the short quota separate, perhaps altered the law in that respect that it should definitely be separate — there are various ways in which you could do it? — Yes. 1666. Have you considered whether shorts are not a very valuable training ground for British personnel, and in any case if we eliminated this requirement that a certain proportion of the shorts which will be shown in the theatres should be British, is it not certain that the only people who would benefit would be the foreign purveyors of shorts, who would go on filling the programme in response to the public demand? — That would be problematical. I would not profess to be dogmatic about it, but if shorts met a public need — or. rather, the public taste — British exhibitors and American exhibitors producing in England would still produce shorts to meet that public need. 1667. Does not exactly the same argument apply to longs? — Yes, but whether they should be included for quota purposes is quite another matter. We feel that with the state of the financial control and other interlocking of the film interests in this country at the moment, a new Act at least should definitely protect British produced pictures from the misuse which is now obtaining in regard to quickies. It is no use eliminating quickies as suggested. You can have a seven reel quickie apart from a one reel quickie which is still a badly produced picture. It is no good eliminating that and substituting another form of abuse by way of shorts and newsreels, and so on, which could be done, and probably would be done if there was no adequate check on it. An English programme, if it provided, say — any figure will do for the moment — for 30 per cent, of English pictures, you could have an American picture, a very excellently produced American picture, on the programme and about four or five newsreels, shorts, and so on. all thrown in with the one picture to fulfil quota purposes, just as vou have to-day. 1668. Your case really could be dealt with by saying that we cannot count shorts against the long quota requirement? — That is really the point, my Lord. 1669. Now. will you develop the view you express in paragraph 6, that ". . . provision should be made that increases in the salary of ' Stars ' after the date of their original contract shall not be regarded as fulfilling the provision of the British salaries stipulation "? — Well, we are seeking there to anticipate what probably really is now going on. A star is engaged at a certain figure and in the line-up of expenditure, and so on, the producer finds that he is down on his expenditure, or down on his allocations on the wages and salaries stipulation. He will probably make a fictitious increase in the salary of a star or he may make nn artist into a star at a fictitious salary who is not, in fact, a star. 1670. Your object is to prevent the cooking of the returns ? — Eixactly . 1671. (Chairman) : I see. Thank you. 1672. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer) : In that same paragraph, paragraph 6. you say, " A British film shall mean a film made in Great Britain." Is your idea to exclude the films made in the Dominions? — No, not necessarily. We should have amplified that. Our Committee felt, when we put in " Great Britain," that we would not trespass too far afield in entering into the point as to whether films made in the Dominions were ranked for quota purposes, because the condition would still be equal in the Dominions. The Dominions would have their own difficulty, and 1 believe Australia is now at the present time, dealing with the question of their quota, so we would much prefer to keep to our point that a British film shall mean a film made in Great Britain, but personally I may tell you that we are not opposed to a film made in the Dominions, but at the same time we do not want to go into it too deeply in view of the fact that the Dominions themselves have not reached any parity or any agreement with this country with regard to the inter-exchange of British and Dominion produced films. 1673. Then you would really need to qualify that sentence in which you assert that a British film shall mean a film made in Great Britain, do you not? — Yes. 1674. You do not want to stand by that? — I do not want to make it too wide a case on the Dominion question either. 1675. It is a very important point? — It is, I appreciate that, but of the two evils I would much prefer to stand by the memorandum as it is and leave that problem to the Committee itself. 1676. But you realise it is a problem which has to be faced? — It is a very difficult problem, but representing our particular interests on the employment side we will allow our comparable unions in the Dominions to force their hand in another way. 1677. I see. Then in paragraph 7 you say: — " The Association offers no objection to the condition that the Scenarist being British, be eliminated from any new Act ". Would you enlarge that a little? — Yes. The present provision, as .you know, restricts the scenarist to a Britisher. 1678. Yes? — We feel there is no point to be served by maintaining that provision. It is quite possible that a good British picture, with all the traditions possible in race and so on, could be written and the scenario could be completed by a non-Britisher. That is quite feasible. We feel, therefore, that that provision should be eliminated from any new Act, but with the employment of an alien or a nonBritisher his salary and expenditure would not rank within the wages and salaries stipulation. We want to give the advantage to British producers to have alien scenarists, let them have the advantage of alien scenarists but not the advantage of including the salaries of such alien scenarists within the salaries provision, therefore it would not be detrimental to an English scenarist. 1679. (The Hon. Eleanor Plumer): Thank you very much, that is all. 1680. (Sir Arnold Wilson) : Your Trade Union covers a great variety of crafts, does it not? — Yes. 1681. There is no Trade Union that I can think of which embraces a wider range of different occupations?— Not within the entertainment industry. The nearest outside, I should imagine, would be the National Union of Railwaymen, where they would cover a number of crafts. 1682. What is the approximate number in your Union? — In the film studios? 1683. Yes ?— Approximately 5,000. 1684. Do you run any friendly, i.e. approved, society in connection with it? — Not as such. We have transferred those rights to the General Federation of Trades Unions in Woburn Place, .Mr. Appleton's organisation. We have friendly society benefits of the character of friendly societies. 1685. Have yon any observation to offer on the conditions in the industry as they effect the health of the employees as compared with other indnst r — As far as our grades are concerned we have nothing whatever to complain about with the general wanes or working conditions of the British film studios." 1686. You, as the Chairman has pointed out, are a bit hard on shorts, newsreels and documentaries.