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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 155 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. [Continued. Small Renters. 19. We have carefully considered the position of small renters to whom British films costing the prescrihed minimum might be financially out of scale with their normal business in foreign films. We recognise that renters of this class fill a necessary place in the film industry and that our proposal for a tribunal empowered to recommend the special registration of films which cost less than the statutory minimum does not meet the need of them and minor producers for the assurance that films that satisfy all the requirements of a British film except that of cost will be registered on completion. The grant or refusal of registration would appreciably affect the commercial value of such films and the absence of an assurance of registration would seriously handicap persons who desired to make and rent them. At the same time it would be necessary to secure that any concession made in this matter should not be taken advantage of by renters for whom it was not intended. It may be difficult to prevent the abuse of such a concession, but we submit in Appendix A to this report an outline of proposals for dealing with this matter subject to adequate safeguards. Special registration of films falling within the excepted classes. 20. We suggest an amendment of Proviso (i) to Section 27 (1) to enable films of any of the excepted classes submitted for registration under that proviso to be registered either for the renters' and exhibitors' quotas or for exhibitors' quota only. As such films would be submitted for exceptional registration on the ground of their special exhibition value, they could be admitted on that ground notwithstanding that they might have cost less than the prescribed minimum. 21. The main object of the proposed cost test is to prevent the making of films cheaply without regard to quality, merely for the purposes of the renters' quota. Films registered under Proviso (ii) of Section 27 (1) do not count for renters' quota, and accordingly there is little incentive to the renter to acquire them unless they are of marketable quality. Accordingly we think that films of the classes eligible for registration under this Proviso should not be required to comply with the minimum cost test. A i l.-FiLM Quota. 22. For the reasons stated in the Report on Short Films made by the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade in February 1933,* the substantial production of short films in Great Britain under existing conditions does not appear to be commercially practicable, and in consequence the number of such films registered has at all times been insufficient to enable either renters or exhibitors to cover their foreign short films by British short films. Tbe effect of tbe all-films quota, therefore, has been to compel the acquisition and exhibition of long films substantially in excess of the long films quota. 23. We therefore recommend that, if the proposed cost test be adopted, the all-films quota, which includes both long films (3,000 feet and over) and short films (films of less than 3,000 feet) should be abolished, and the renters' and exhibitors' quotas be limited to long films only. Renters' Quota. 24. We further recommend that the renters' quota should continue to be related to a percentage of the footage of the films acquired. The footage of British films required by a renter on this basis would determine his statutory financial liability. He should be permitted to discharge this liability either by acquiring the statutory footage at the minimum cost of £2 a foot, or by a less footage at more than the * Printed as Appendix B. minimum cost, subject to a maximum of £4 a foot. For example, the financial liability of a renter for whom the footage quota represented 50,000 feet would be not less than £100,000; this sum might be spent, say, on eight films of 6,250 feet each at £2 a foot, or on. four films of the same length at CI a foot. In so far as the alternative of acquiring fewer but more expensive films were adopted the quality of the films made might be expected to improve, but the number of films available to exhibitors from renters who complied with, but did not exceed the quota, would be less. The output of films from the major renters representing British interests would, however, presumably not be affected in that way and might be expected to expand so that the footage of British films registered by renters as a whole might be not less than the statutory footage quota for individual renters. Exhibitors' Quota. 25. The adoption of our proposals for a minimum cost test, for its application to the renters' quota, and for the abolition of the all-films quota would result in a substantial reduction in the number of registrations of British long films. On the other hand, the abolition of the all-films quota would also reduce the number of British long films required by exhibitors for quota purposes. Moreover, while the British films available, if they were equally distributed, would doubtless be more than sufficient to enable all exhibitors to comply with a quota equal to that of the renters, the conditions in competitive areas, from the pressure of circuits and in other ways, frequently make it difficult for independent exhibitors to obtain an adequate number of such films. We think it essential that the exhibitors' quota should be fixed at a lower percentage than the renters' quota and we recommend that the renters' quota being 20 per cent, the exhibitors' quota should be 15 per cent. " TBT-OUT " EXHIBITIONS OF FILMS BEFORE TBADE SHOW. 26. We understand that " try-out " exhibitions of films to the public before trade show for editing purposes are illegal but that provided a film is so exhibited on one occasion only without advertisement the Board of Trade take no exception to the practice. We agree that such " try-outs " should be permitted and we recommend that they be legalised by an appropriate addition to Section 5 (1). Duration of the Act. 27. In spite of the defect which experience has revealed, the Act has undoubtedly been an important factor in the remarkable growth of the film producing industry in this country in recent years. In our opinion its main principles have proved, during the period of nearly seven years which has elapsed since it came into force, to be sound and we think that, if the defects referred to in this report were remedied, it would continue to benefit the British industry. (Sgd.) ARNOLD WILSON (Chairman). On behalf of the undermentioned members of the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee, namely : — Mrs. H. A. L. FISHER Mr. P. GUEDALLA. Mr. CR. HALL CA INK Mr. J. HALLSWORTH. Mr. K. BEWITSON Mr. A. B. KING,* Mr. J. MAXWELL* Mr. S. W. SMTTH, Mr. B. TROUNSON, Mr. C. M. YVnOLF. * Subject to the reservations appended hereto.