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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 16] 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. 11. Hall Caine. [Continued. 1723. Apparently it is quite legal within the limitations of time? — Within the limitations of time, of the 6 months and the trade show. 1724. And, of course, you cannot prevent it where the renter goes out, as, for instance, in this new amalgamation of which we have read in the last day or two ; then there is nothing to prevent blockbooking against the interests of other producers in this country? — That would be a block-booking within your own circuit ; that I am afraid it is going to be very difficult to prevent. 1725. There would not need to be any contract? — No. 1726. It would be the natural procedure: they would sell to their own subsidiary ? — Yes ; but then you get over that perhaps in another way, by the later date, where we put forward the test of what shall be. 1727. Yes. Then in paragraph 14 you recommend a cost test on the basis of not less than £2 per foot ? — Yes. 1728. And you go on, I think, to include certain specified headings and to exclude certain other headings in arriving at the cost. Could you tell us how your basis differs from that under Form C, and whether it really is better than Form C, which I believe works out to something like 50 per cent, of the total cost on the basis of experience? — Yes. It differs in this way : we sat down to consider in what way our cost test could be avoided ; I mean how they could still comply with it and yet spend the money in ways which would not be altogether shown in the quality of the picture shown on the screen. For instance, we felt that we should exclude the cost of copyright of the story, because it is possible to give very large figures for copyright.; of film stories. We also felt that the payment for directors could be very extravagant and perhaps out of all proportion to the value which the director contributes to that picture; at any rate, it was a means of avoidance. We felt that the author of the scenario might be used or the various authors might be used in some ways. In other words, to put it quite frankly, these are the best ways we know by which to make a picture seem to cost a lot of money and really not cost the company much at all. 1729. You think Form C gives an opportunity for cooking? — Yes; we think this is an improvement. 1730. As against the basis of Form C, you recommend this as being more watertight? — These are to the best of our knowledge and belief and the best expert advice we can get; any money spent on this; must definitely go into the film itself. 1731. I wondered whether there would be administrative complication in having two bases of computation?— I do not think so, because the four that we exclude are very easily ascertainable. 1732. In paragraph 16 you propose that films which do not qualify before the tribunal on your basis of cost should be placed in a neutral category? — Yes. 1733. And not be counted for quota. The producers have I think proposed to us that they should count for exhibitor's quota but not for renter's quota ? — Yes. 1734. What do you feel about that?— Well, I think there is some disadvantage to the young and enterprising and genuine British producer if you make a cost test the only test of the quality of a film ; and it was brought to our notice very strongly that there was in his country a rising number of young producers — when I say " young " I mean new producers— who were making perfectly genuine British films without having the overhead costs which some of the bigger companies had to bear; and this was put in in order to try and find a means of encouraging these smaller but quite genuine British producers ;is opposed to the people who are definitely trying to avoid compliance with the Act. 1735. These are British films and you recommend that they should be placed in a neutral category that does not require British quota; that really means 37873 it would not count for British quota? — Yes; what we mean is that they do not count against the exhibitor. 1736. They do not count against foreign. Well, would you see objection in the producers' suggestion that they should count as quota but that they should be stigmatised and labelled? — No. 1737. Or that they should be without the label of the quota? You .would have them right out of the quota altogether? — Yes; my Committee took the view that they would prefer that to be the case; but they do not like the idea that they should be stigmatised, because I know that that point was raised against us when we made this suggestion : that it would rather make fish of one and fowl of another ; but we do not feel that. If these films were passed by some Committee, whether it be the present Advisory Committee or otherwise, we think they .would rather be accentuated in value than lose in value, because we would have said that although this picture does not come up to the £2 standard, it is a very good picture. That is really what we are saving in point of fact. 1738. But those are for the pictures which are admitted to quota because of quality? — Yes. 1739. But the pictures which were not admitted to quota either because of cost or quality — it was not proposed that they should be stigmatised, and that was one of our difficulties. It is quite right : I misrepresented the suggestion. You would only stigmatise the low quality picture that does just squeeze through the cost qualification? — Yes. 1740. And it was suggested that both the worst pictures which did not rank for quota and the best pictures that had not been counted for quota would equally be in an unlabelled category? — Yes. If a picture is not of merit of that kind, I do not think it should. The .whole idea is to raise the standard of the quota picture, and if you allow any loophole of that sort I think you might open a gate. 1741. They would not count for quota, and there would be no inducement then on the exhibitor to show them? — Yes. 1742. Perhaps you would develop what you say about small renters and as to the necessity of complicating the qualification on the cost by varying standards? — Well, that is what I was saying just now, Sir: it is beause we felt that it might be a serious handicap to the coming new British producer, who is in earnest and trying to come in but who has not yet got sufficient capital and who is not handicapped by having very distinguished stars on his salary list and other very high expenses, but still can produce a thoroughly good picture, that we tried to find some means of encouraging that type of producer. 1743. Then perhaps I misunderstood it : these films .would only he registered but would not rank for quota ? — Yes. 1744. I am looking at Appendix A. You say it would raiA for quota? — Yes, we do let them rank. 1745. That seems to me to be rather a difficult provision ; I should have thought that the new category which did not rank for quota would give an opportunity for these young producers to sell their films on their merits; but if you once let them rank for quota, is not it going to be making a very big hole in your protection? — Well, the disadvantage of the scheme is this, as I am sure you will appreciate: that you are having a cost test and a quality test at the same time. The cost test was supposed under reasonable circumstances to give us <rood quality. Now these pictures, which are only a very small percentage of the numbers of films produced in this country, are very good pictures, but produced af under the cost test which we are putting forward. The difficulty is that if you made the cosl tesl rule absolute and give no loophole in that cost test, then you would be putting a severe handicap on the young and genuine producer. We had to find some ua\ of doing it. I do not like it — I do not i that