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

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE L63 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. 11. Hall Caine. [Continued. that rank for quota he would get an increasing market for it up to the maximum? — I entirely agree; I think that is an admirable suggestion and one which would also help the exhibitor to know that there were going to be films available to meet the quota which is put upon him. But that, Sir, could only be done if the President of the Board of Trade had the discretionary power. 1768. Quite; but it might be an indication to him as to the basis on which he is to proceed? — Yes, entirely; I think it is an admirable suggestion. 1769. (Mr. Stanley Holmes): May I take Mr. Hall Caine to Mr. Metcalfe's recommendations. You told us that you have been trying to avoid a quality) test?— Yes. 1770. And you will observe that his suggestion is that, all British films should be allowed to rank for exhibitors' quota, but he goes on to suggest that there should be a quality test for foreign films ? — Yes, I agree. 1771. That rather appealed to me? — I beg your pardon, Sir ; you mean that there should be a quality test for quota films which were made by foreign producers ? 1772. Yes. The complaint has been made that these foreign people, in order to supply their quota, have had very poor British films which have brought down our prestige all over the world? — That is definitely true. 1773. And this suggestion of Mr. Metcalfe that all the British films produced by foreign producers and sold by foreign renters should be submitted to a quality test appeared to me to be rather a good suggestion? — Of course, I do not know whether your Committee is going to consider the very important question of quality test. In my opinion obviously the quality test is the best test at the finish. This cost test can be defeated; and in fact after you have spent a lot of money on a film it does not follow it is necessarily a very good one ; it may still be a bad film ; but it was the only way which we could suggest to avoid what is I think obviously the sane suggestion, and that is that a film before it should ;rank for quota should pass a certain quality ; but if you are going to do that, if you will forgive me for saying so, you might as well consider that under any new Act which you woidd suggest you might codify the whole thing and bring them all under one Act. The cinematographers are governed under one Act to-day for fire escapes, the Cinematograph Act of 1909. Then there is the British Board of Film Censors, a voluntary institution. My own view is that the films should be controlled under one Act both as to quality and as to administration and quota and also from the point of view of censorship. That may sound revolutionary. 1774. (Chairman) : You would like to bring it all under one Government Department? — Under one Act. 1775. And under one Government Department, because it is now under three? — Under one Government Department. In my opinion that is the oneway to give the industry a fair chance. 1776. (Mr. Stanley Holmes): I think you told us you have been trying to avoid the quality test. Now you toll us the quality test is the best test of any? — Yes, because in my Committee we were not empowered or it was indicated to us that we wTere not to go in for revolutionary suggestions of the character which I have now been making to the Chairman and the Committee. We were endeavouring within the ambit of the present Act just to improve it; and the one which the Government up to now has, I will not say shirked, but avoided, has been the quality test — the question of entering into anything to do with quality or morality. 1777. But are you quite right there? Has mil the policy of the British Board of Film Censors been to see that the film came up to a certain standard of morality and ethics? — Yes, but it is nothing to do with the Government. 1778. But do you think it is a feasible thing to have a Government-appointed Board which vould look after not merely moral and ethical standards but quality as well? — Yes, I do. 1779. And if that were adopted you think all this difficulty would disappear? — I think that would be the better way to do it. 1780. And, failing that — failing every film both foreign and British coming under a Board for quality test — do you think it would meet the case if the British films made by foreigners for quota purposes came under a quality test? — It would be very difficult to be able to define exactly which is a British film made by a foreigner, because in 99 cases out of 100 they are not made by foreigners at all ; they are made for foreign quota purposes. 1781. But could you make it that every British film which was offered to an exhibitor by a foreign renter should come under a quality test? — I do not think you could administer that even; I should like to see it done, but I do not think you could do it ; there are practical difficulties. 1782. But it is the foreign renters' British films which have caused all the difficulty? — Those are the people who are causing the trouble, yes. 1783. (Chairman) : There are certain difficulties like the nationality of Fox-Gaumont about which we are in doubt? — Yes; and not only that, but the difficulty is that all films produced in this country, British films which comply with the 75 per cent. and so on, are available for quota once they are registered. Now how are you going to divide, as Mr. Holmes suggests, the sheep from the goats, so to speak? I know them at the present moment, I could go and put my finger on them at the present moment immediately — these quickies ; but it is not easy to do it if you are going to put some particular form of test upon that. 1784. (Mr. Stanley Holmes) : So that the only complete way of doing it would be to have a Government-appointed Board which would pass for quota purposes every film both as regards morals, ethics ami quality ?— Yes ; and then you would get a really good standardisation. To-day you lack that. 1785. (T)r. Mallon) : Mr. Hall Caine, do you regard blind booking and advance booking and block booking as evils in themselves or does their evil influence derive from the existence of the quickie? — Oh no, I think they are evils in themselves ; I think that the blind and block booking tends to strangle the industry itself and prevent fresh development and quick development. 1786. But if by other means you secure that only desirable films are produced would these matters to which you call attention be very serious? — They would not be so serious, but I think it is always a bad thing for anybody to contract too long ahead, particularly in these days when entertainment moves so rapidly. 1787. But is not that a matter which you could leave very well to the common sense of the exhibitors? ' In other departments of entertainment and in commercial life you do not in this sort of way come to the aid of the persons concerned? — No, I agree; and in no other industry except the cinema industry has it ever been necessary to protect them from themselves; hut the cinematograph exhibitor has for some reason or other got under the control almost — the moral control — of tin foreigner; they have a very great sway over them ami thej have compelled them by moral suasion to hook these t> in advance and blind-book them, even when ihe exhibitor has known that he has been breaking the law. 1788. Quite; but if the thing booked in advance were not in itself undesirable, would thai advance booking really matter very much? — No, not so much; it would only matter from another point of view. 1789. Would not you agree that in general it should be the purpose of legislation to deal with the central trouble in the industry, and, in so far as it can deal with that central trouble, to leave 37873 F 2