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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 157 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Cainb. [Continued. I am opposed to the recommendation that films costing £4 per foot or over should be allowed to count double for renters' quota. I am of opinion that power should be given to the President of the Board of Trade to vary quotas and other similar provisions from time to time, as conditions of the trade may make desirable, or they should be capable of alteration by " Orders in Council " or other similar means. The scope of the Act should be extended to provide a scheme of compulsory arbitration in the case of certain classes of dispute arising between different sections of the industry. (Sgd.) CHAS. P. METCALFE. Recommendations by Mr. F. W. Baker. I am in general agreement with my colleagues on the proposals made in the Report F.A.C. 164 under the following headings: — Blind booking and advance booking. Special registration of films falling within the excepted classes. All films quota. Exhibitor's quota. " Try-out " exhibitions of films before trade show. Duration of the Act. I am also in agreement with the main principles of establishing a quality test (for British films to fill Renter's quota) based on a value, but I am of the opinion that basic cost per foot would be more easily administered if applied only to British salaries and wages shown on the Registration Form " C " than if applied to the total cost of the film. I am opposed, for the following reasons, to the recommendation that the quality test should be applied to all British films. (1) The proposals are against public interest in as much as they are restrictive and cannot fail to discourage entry of new production units, resulting in a decrease of " worth while " British films. (2) That the recommendations would tend to reduce the number of films available to exhibitors and it would appear that any fixation of a minimum price per foot for films before they can be registered as British would tend to impose hardships on small or independent renters and a deterrent upon initiative. (3) The small or independent renter should receive full consideration as he has not the entry to the circuits controlled by the two major British Companies which, by reason of their exercising the combined functions of production distribution and exhibition, are able to ensure the exhibition of the product they have made and which they rent, and whose position for distribution would be favoured by a reduction in the total number of British films available for offer to exhibitors. (4) The proposals as to cost would tend to drive out of business small or independent renting organisations and would thus give a virtual monopoly to the few larger British Renter/ Producer/ Exhibitor concerns. During the 12 months ended 31st March, there were 106 long British films registered by foreign Renters and 88 registered by British Renters. Of these 88, 54 were distributed by the two larger British companies, leaving only 34 distributed by small British Renters. It will be appreciated that a vast number of independent Exhibitors are unable to obtain, upon terms satisfactory to them, any of the 54 films rented by the two major British concerns and are in consequence, forced to fill their British quota from either the 106 British films rented by foreign Distributors or by the 34 rented by small British Renters. Any diminution in this last number must be detrimental to the independent Exhibitor as tending to put him in the position that, desiring to exhibit some of the attractive films distributed by foreign Renters, he will find it an obligation, in order to acquire such films, to book at prices dictated by those same Renters, the British films distributed by them. At the present time, much of the opposition emanating from the Exhibitors against " Quickies " arises from the fact that in order to acquire the attractive foreign films rented by foreign Distributors, they are obliged to obtain the " Quickies " offered by the same Distributors to fulfil their Quota obligations. (5) The proposals in regard to British films placed in a neutral category are unsatisfactory as these films would, by their definite limitations not be required by Exhibitors and would therefore involve the Renters in considerable additional difficulties in distribution. I note in the Report that it is thought that the suggestion for the quality test might fall hardly upon small renters with the result that an appendix was attached to the Report, giving an outline of proposals for a modified standard minimum cost for such renters. In my opinion such proposals open up a grave difficulty that any small renter who desired to take advantage of such proposals would find the conduct of his business entirely dependent upon the attitude, sympathetic or otherwise, of the Board of Trade. I am also of the opinion that the suggested tribunal authorised to accept for registration British films which have cost less to produce than the minimum, could not be a satisfactory commercial proposition. The Report clearly shows the unanimous conclusion arrived at by the signatories is that the " Quickie " is a defect of the Act. I would suggest, therefore, proposals which, in my view, deal with that aspect but confine themselves thereto. I propose that the Act be amended so as to require renters to acquire British footage in proportion to the foreign footage registered and upon such British footage a quality test, by means of a price per foot, be applied. This would leave any renter free to offer in the ordinary course of business, and without the means of exerting pressure on exhibitors, other British films which have complied with the conditions of Section 27 (3) of the Act but have mo limitation or requirement as to cost. Any British picture would, under this proposal, be able to be counted as quota by the exhibitor, but would not count for quota for the registering renter unless it complied with cost requirements. I suggest that this proposal would not encounter any of the objections which I have indicated above as being applicable to the scheme favoured in the Report in Memorandum F.A.C. 164, some of which objections are so obvious that the signatories of the Report have had to suggest ways of overcoming them. On the question of setting up a price standard or> British films to comply with renters' quota, I would suggest that consideration be given to a formula which would vary the price per foot for different renters by a sliding scale based on foreign footage registered, the scale ascending in proportion to the rise in footage. (Sgd.) F. W. BAKER. 37873 !•'.