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

156 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. [Continued. Reservations by Mr John Maxwell. With regard to the Committee's proposal for the retention of Sub-section 3 (iv) of Section 27 of the Act, I consider it desirable, in view of the fact that it is proposed to require foreign interests to make bigger and more expensive pictures, to give a little more latitude as to the salaries paid to foreign artists or Directors. I think there should be an increase from one to three of the persons who may be excluded under the sub-section. In view of the enlarged scale on which British production is embarking, in order to secure distribution in the American market, it is now recognised as necessary to introduce important foreign stars into British pictures to make them saleable all over the world. Even if two important foreign star artists and a Director were included it would not make a film any the less a British picture if it were made here, but to widen this clause would make it possible for American companies to bring over outstanding stars without endangering the possibility of the picture being entitled to quota. T think this is a very important point at the present time. Nobody would suffer in this country — indeed, it would help employment here by making it possible to make bigger and more expensive pictures. (Sgd.) JOHN MAXWELL. Reservations by Mr. A. B. King. I am in general agreement with my colleagues on the proposals contained in the report. I consider, however, that the 15 per cent, suggested as the Exhibitors' quota is excessive and should be 10 per cent. The proposal to include a cost factor to be applied to British films for quota purposes and the suggestion that films costing £4 per foot or more should count for double the quota so far as the Renters are concerned, will undoubtedly reduce the number of British films available to exhibitors. I do agree that these proposals will encourage the production of better films and discourage the production of cheap " quickies " which are doing so much harm to the reputation of British films generally. Having regard to this and also to the desireability of leaving the Exhibitor with some power of selection, I think there should be a substantial margin between the Renters' quota and the Exhibitors' quota. Without such a margin, the Renter is inclined to rely too much on the Quota Act to secure bookings, with the result that there is not sufficient incentive to improve the quality of product. In view of all these circumstances, I have come to the definite conclusion that the Exhibitors' quota should not exceed 10 per cent. I am also strongly of the opinion that, should the period of the Act be extended, power should be given to the President of the Board of Trade to vary the prescribed quota percentage as conditions in the Industry might render desirable. (Sgd.) ALEX. B. KING. Recommendations by Mr. O. P. Metcalfe. I have carefully considered the report agreed upon by the majority of my colleagues on the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee on the subject of the amendment of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927 ; and desire to submit the following observations upon it and also some alternative and additional proposals. 1. Blind Booking and Advance Booking. 1 agree that the provisions in the Act have been generally disregarded. Such disregard is evidence, 1 think, that the trade does not want them. Therefore my view is that those provisions should be abolished. In so far as they could be made effective they would have a had influence on the development of the industry because they would operate unfairly as between the independent producers and independent exhibitors on the one hand and those producers who are controlled by or who control cinema circuits on the other hand ; these provisions of the Act can never be operated against the last named class. If it is decided to retain the provisions in spite of their disadvantages I am of opinion that the recommendation of the Committee to provide for a " Statutory Declaration " would be absolutely ineffective because it would not assist in the detection of offenders. To assist detection the penalties should be limited to one of the parties only, and, as every contract for the hire of films originates in an offer made bj a renter, my view is that the penalties should apply to the renters only. Further, if these provisions are retained the Act should provide a simple system of registration of all film hire contracts with power to inspect them. 2. Quality Test for British Films. I am in full agreement with the object of the Committee which is to bring into existence better quality quota films, but I do not believe that a cost test, per se, would accomplish that object and I am strongly opposed to a cost test based on footage. My opinion is that all British Films should be allowed to rank for exhibitors' quota, but that only those British films which successfully pass a quality test should be allowed to count as quota against foreign film imports. In that way British producers and British renters would not be' interfered with. All the films they make are genuinely intended to be good ones, and if, occasionally they produce a bad film, as is inevitable, it is their misfortune and they should not be penalised for it. The foreign renters' case is different. They are undoubtedly unwilling to make good quota films, just as they avoid -making a foot more British film than the Act> compels them to make, so they will continue to make films of the poorest quality possible, quite independent of their cost. They will only make good quota films when they are compelled to do so and the only way to compel them is to impose a quality test. The British Board of Film Censors requires films to register up to a certain moral and ethical standard, so surely it is quite as reasonable to demand that they register up to a " production " standard, not necessarily based solely on box office values. The argument that it is impracticable to impose a quality test is apparently not shared by the Advisory Committee, for they recommend such a test in the cases of films costing less than the suggested £2 per foot. My opinion is that foreign renters' quota should be based on two dimensions: — 1st Footage as at present. 2nd Quality. 3. Cost Test. If it is thought necessary to add a cost test, the cost should not be based on footage. A cost test such as is recommended by the Committee would prevent certain types of films which do not earn large sums at the box office, but which are nevertheless in demand by many cinemas, from being imported, as the cost of quota against them would be prohibitive. Tt -would put a premium on extravagance, put some of the smaller producers out of business, would restrict expansion and would tend to create monopolies by preventing new production units from coming into existence, unless they were very heavily financed. Any cost quota should be based on the foreign renters' revenue from the hire of films. I suggesl it should be the same percentage of such revenue as the footage quota is of his release footage. Unless a quality test is imposed exhibitors' quota should be abolished entirely.