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

162 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 14 July, 1936. j Mr. G. R. Hall Calne. [Continued. any of us like the fact that the film, if it came below the datum line, had to be shown to a Committee, because that was introducing the very thing which we had tried to avoid all the way through, the quality test. 1746. You are providing very adequate consideration for the films which do not come up to the cost test in paragraph 15. I still do not see why that should not be enough without whittling down the cost test in addition. In paragraph 15 you have got this tribunal which you recommend, which is to allow films to qualify on outstanding merit. I should think if it passes for merit or for cost, it might rank on its merits of public appeal without quota — I think we do say that. 1747. Except that I think in Appendix A you say that after the Board of Trade have given a dispensation on cost it can rank for quota? — Yes. 1748. That is what rather alarms me ; but I am glad to have had this explanation. In paragraph 23 with regard to all films quota you propose to drop the quota on shorts? — Yes. 1749. We have had a report which your Committee made to the President of the Board of Trade as to the position of shorts; that report said that there had been a steady drop. I imagine it was written at about the worst moment, because since then we have had figures from Mr. Rowson showing that in the last three years the production of shorts in England has doubled ; it has gone up from 47 to 96? — Yes, they are coming back again. 1750. Do you still feel that this is workable with regard to shorts? — You are perfectly right, Sir; the reason which impelled us to make this recommendation was because there was a steady falling off in the number of shorts available and it became ridiculous : month after month and year after year the members of the Advisory Committee were compelled practically to disregard the failure to keep shorts quota when exhibitors were able to keep their all-in quota and their long quota ; and really the Act so far as that was concerned became more honoured in the breach than the observance. Therefore we said to ourselves : it is no use trying to make a man get something which does not exist or practically does not exist, because some of the shorts which were being made over here were very bad ; I mean there was a great shortage of them. 1751. You mention in the other memorandum that one of the difficulties is due to the excess 'of United States shorts over requirements. Well, is not it a natural and perfectly fair remedy to enforce the quota and in that way to keep out these surplus United States shorts : we have got no interest in them, and if there are too many of them and it is against the national interest, why should not they be kept out? — Yes; but I think you will find that the exhibitors' programmes are altering considerably since the days when this Act was first of all passed. In those clays a large number of shorts used to be shown and one fictional picture, and now there is becoming a method of showing a long feature and a shorter feature picture. So that the short film to-day does not play the same part that it did when this Act was first of all passed, when the short quota and the long quota were put in. 1752. That helps in several ways, because it means that there is less need for the British shorts and that therefore the difficulty has been largely decreased?— My Committee, if they had felt assured at the time they made these recommendations that there were sufficient numbers of British shorts available, would very likely have been prepared to leave 1 1 where it was; but I really do not see that there is the same necessity to-day to differentiate, and there had better be an all-in quota. 1753. We have been told that the shorts are such a valuable training ground for personnel and a very valuable source of culture? — Yes. 1754. And it may be that the public interest would be served by encouraging shorts and making a separate shorts quota; if they do not choose to show shorts they need not, but if they do choose to show shorts, there should be a fair number of British shorts and not all American? — I quite agree. 1 confess I had not looked at it from the point of view you are putting to me as to the educational value of the shorts. 1755. It is not effective now because it is counted in with the long, but it might be made effective by letting it stand alone? — Yes, I quite agree with that. 1756. You recommend that the renters' quota should continue to be related to the percentage of footage of film required? — Yes. 1757. Would you work this on the price of films?— Yes. 1758. You would be comparing like with unlike. You would not take that into account in the American films to be franked by the British films; they could be of any cost; but you would allow them an arbitrary advantage on cost whatever they had spent? — Well, we give them the advantage, that if a man says : I am prepared to put a really good film up and spend £4 a foot on it — which is usually regarded as a first-class article — that he should get the advantage of that, that he should get double value for it. 1759. Of course, one of the difficulties that would arise over this is that it would become even more impossible to foretell the output of British films: if the quickie is to be defeated, there will inevitably lie for the moment a decrease of British output? — Yes. 1760. You cut down quantity by putting up quality, and this would do so still more. It may be necessary, but it does seem to me the great difficulty at this moment is that we do not know what repercussions a change in quality is going to have? — Yes. In answer to that : I personally, and I think it is the view of my Committee, would prefer to lower the quota and improve the quality than raise the quota and decrease the quality. 1761. You would rather lower the quota for the moment and improve the quality? — Yes. 1762. You give your figures in paragraph 25 as to what you think might be the margin between exhibitors' quota and renters' quota ? — Yes. 1763. Do you think that that could be kept permanently ? — Yes. 1764. Or only for a start? — No, I think there nm-t always be a margin ; there must be a lag as between the renters and the exhibitors ; but I agree that we made the margin rather wider than it has been in the past. One of the reasons is the one you have just mentioned, Sir, that there may be a little more difficulty if the price of the cost of films is put up . there will perhaps be fewer films produced. 1765. In view of the difficulty of foretelling output under different conditions, would you advise rigid limits being put in the Act. or would you leave discretion with the Board of Trade to vary the quota on experience? — I should certainly leave discretion to the Board of Trade to vary the quota, because in an industry which moves as fast as this one sometimes, one of our great difficulties has been that the Act has been too hard and fast. 1766. A proposal was brought to me which I have not yet discussed with the Committee but by some one who had been in very close touch with the industry, and who is very anxious to see production in this country go up. He suggested that you should get some definite link between production and quota, that, having fixed what maximum you are to work to. you should assess the quota for the renters year on the production of the previous producers yearP 1 think that is a very admirable idea, it 1 may say so; and also it is reasonably possible for the President ot the Board of Trade to find out what the main producers m this country have laid out in their programme for future years: he can get a return of production very nearly accurately. 1767. Then it would give great assurance to the producer: ho would know that if he produces films