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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

KiU COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. {Continued. is growing in the Empire and even in the U.S.A. — the entire cost of " shorts " must be returned in the home market. These are therefore at serious commercial disadvantage in competition with foreign " shorts ". The enormous over-supply of " long " British features beyond what is required for " long " quota purposes, has restricted the demand for British " shorts " to cover the quota liability for foreign " shorts " shown. The demand which it was hoped therefore that the Act would create for British " shorts " has, in fact, not been realised. Finally, the operation of the " series " clauses of the Act — as administered by the Board of Trade with the advice and approval of the Advisory Committee — tends further to reduce the commercial possibilities of British " shorts ". In order that the sale of " shorts " should not be loaded with too heavy a burden of sales costs, the Act made special provision for the sale of any number of " shorts " up to 26, so long as the first three were booked from time to time, for exhibition within the booking period. For administrative purposes it has been found necessary to limit the definition of " series " very considerably, and some time ago the trade was asked to impose on itself, voluntarily, the condition that it would not seek to register more than 13 numbers in a series at one time. The result is that British manufacturers are compelled to limit their attention to subjects which will unmistakeably comply with the " series " test of the Board of Trade, and /or which can be sold separately to exhibitors. This, in practice, proves to be a very definite and appreciable handicap on the commercial exploitation of British " shorts ". The obvious conclusions for the foregoing discussion are as follows : — 1. If British " shorts " are desired by exhibitors, they must reserve a portion of their programme for them. This might be done either by reserving a small percentage of their playing time for British " shorts ", or by reserving for British " shorts " at least the quota percentage of foreign " shorts ". 2. The introduction of a wider definition for " series " so as to admit a greater variety of subjects for registration as a " series ". 3. The restoration of the practice permitting 26 subjects to be registered in a series. 4. An amendment of the two-weeks maximum interval between consecutive exhibitions of subjects in a series. 5. The introduction of a system whereby " shorts " might be sold to exhibitors on an indefinite service contract, similar to the " news " film. These changes would, no doubt, have the effect of making the manufacture of " shorts " a better commercial possibility than at present. I refrain, however, from saying whether I recommend them, until the views of other interests can be made known upon them. (Sgd.) S. ROWSON. 4th July. 1932. 1711. (Chairman): We have been looking forward to this opportunity because we appreciate that your Committee have been examining the same subject. They have had long experience in the administration of the Cinematograph Films Act and have given the matter much thought, the results of which "we should like to have at our disposal? — I shall be only too happy. 1712. So may I just ask you a few questions. The Report is very clear in its recommendations. In paragraph 6, as to provisions to combat blind and advance bookings, you suggest that there should be a statutory declaration. Would it be useful to go further and, where the offence is proved, cancel the registration of the film ? That would be a very strong penalty? — I think you can only tackle the subject by bringing in the strongest possible penalties. If I may just explain for a moment : this is a problem in regard to which you will find you have to protect somebody from himself. In the beginning, at the time of the introduction of the Bill which is now an Act, the exhibitors, if you remember, came to the Government complaining that they were under the heel, as you might say, of the foreigner, and saying that this blind and block booking was throttling the industry. Producers particularly said so. The point of the exhibitors with regard to block booking for two years, as they were doing at that time, was that in two years' time the film that they had booked was usually out of date. That was the problem which primarily the Act set out to solve: to make an outlet for British films and to release the exhibitors from the thraldom of the foreign renter and producer. It worked very well for a little time ; and then the exhibitor, being weak, gave way to the blandishment, shall we say, of the foreign renter, and gradually weakened and weakened and began to break the Act. Quite frankly, we have not found it possible to stop that gap. This docs not stop it. 1713. A declaration will not stop it? — We do not pretend that this stops it; we think it will act as an additional deterrent. 1714. We have had a suggestion made— it may lie in one of your minority reports — that penalties should only lie against the renter and not against the exhibitor. Do you consider that possible? — I think if you make the penalty on both sides you always have the difficulty of finding someone to turn King's evidence; if you make the penalty on one side, at any rate you have a little more hope of getting some evidence. Our difficulty always has been to get somebody to give evidence. 1715. Am I right in thinking it was in one of your minority reports ?■ — -Yes. 1716. You approve of that? — I think it should be on one side only, yes, I do. 1717. And you approve of the cancellation of registration as a penalty, do you? — Yes, I do certainly; I think the stiffer you can make it the more complete will be the deterrent ; but I do not think you .will completely stop it by this method. I am sorry ; but we put forward this recommmendation in the hope that it would add an additional deterrent. 1718. Do you think you can go further than this in dealing with block booking, because I take it block booking is a great evil apart from the blind booking ? — Yes. 1719. Could you deal with what we understand sometimes happens : the renting of a film that is much desired only on condition that less desirable ones are taken? — That it so. 1720. Do you think it is possible to deal with that by any statutory provision ? — I think it would be most desirable if we could stop that form of bribery. if I may use the word, by which they say: You shall have a Charlie Chaplin if you .will take a lot of this other stuff. That is block booking ; in a sense it is both blind and block, because they have not seen any of them. 1721. Have you got any definite proposal for dealing with that allied difficulty? — No; the difficulty with which you are faced is the fact that it is at present illegal but you cannot get any evidence to stop it. 1722. It is not illegal to block-book — to agree that you will take the whole of somebody's output provided it is not against the blind booking or the advanced booking? — I see what you mean, if it is within the ambit of the Act?