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

164 COMMITTEE ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. [Continued. other matters to settle themselves? — Yes, I do take that view. 1790. Then it follows from that that we should concentrate upon the elimination of the quickie? — Yes. 1791. Mr. Holmes was putting some questions on that and the same kind of question was in my mind. In paragraph 14 you set out the items to vvliich the Chairman has referred? — Yes. 1792. Would you agree that it might be very difficult to compel disloyal producers to deal with you honestly under this kind of specification? Imagine, for example, the case of the distinguished performer who worked for one of the big syndicates in America and in this country; would not it be easy to overpay that person in respect of an English appearance and to underpay him in respect of appearance in America? — Yes, but if you will look further down, Sir, I think you will find we do have the right to disallow. I mean it may be only in extreme cases, hut we have &■ right even to go so far as to disallow a charge or to reduce it if we think it is excessive. 1793. (Chairman) : You propose an average too? — I think we have. 1794. (Chairman) : It is towards the end of paragraph 14. I do not know whether that would be effective. 1795. (Dr. Mallon) : Yes, I see that, and that is to some extent a check ; hut generally might there not be considerable difficulty in ensuring the loyal fulfilment of the prescribed conditions by those who wish not to fulfil them? — I think there is always a difficulty about that; if a producer wished to be dishonest he could falsify to some extent these figures ; but I think the checks we put upon them are a sufficient deterrent, and we have not left open obvious methods of loading the cost. That is what I was trying to explain to the Chairman. 1796. Yes, but the point has been put, and I feci that it requires emphasis, that you might have a fairly substantial expenditure on a film and it might nevertheless be a bad film? — Quite, I admit that.. 1797. It seems to me there is much more to be said for some other kind of test if it should prove to be possible. Is it not true that the costs of film production are rising rapidly in all respects? — Yes. 1798. And, in so far as that is the case, is not there a public interest in doing all one can to prevent extravagant and unnecessary expenditure? Do we not, by emphasising these elements of cost to the exclusion of other elements, artistic, quality and taste and so on, rather encourage that tendency to be extravagant? — I think I have said that I personally would prefer the quality test ; but if that is ruled out for reasons which may b.e quite good, this is the only substitute that we have been able to discover. And as for what you were saying about extravagance and so on, this £2 a foot is not an extravagant production at nil. I mean that is not asking people to. be extravagant in production; it really is the minimum for which you can make a worth-while film. 1799. But such a condition might operate in favour of the more stupid of two producers if one of the producers were well prepared in the sense that he had money available and the other had not money available. Do you not think it is highly likely that in the next few years men will be coming into this business impelled to do so by their fooling that the films ought to be improved, and they will bring to the improvement of the film not necessarily money but perhaps brains and initiative? — Quite. 1800. Is not if vital in the interests of the improvement of British production to encourage that type of man? — Entirely; that was what I was rather dealing with in the remarks I made to the Chairman earlier on with regard to the exception which w<> have pul in here lor 1 he man who is able in produce a good English film but at lower eosi than we are putting it down at. That [ have always admitted. 1801. (Mr. t\n i, ron) i We had a specific suggestion put to us by the Film Producers Group, first of all that the quota should be a proportion not of the total footage of films hut of the footage of foreign films imported, which meant that the only people who would have to produce films for renters' quota would be firms desiring to import foreign films. They then went on to say that any film made under conditions to rank as British for that purpose which is over a certain figure should have no label attached to it, and should be eligible for renters' and for exhibitors' quota; that films within a certain range below that and above a certain minimum should be quota pictures, because ex hypothesi they would have been made by the people desiring to import foreign films, and should be labelled : This is a film made by so and so to fulfil quota requirements — that films below that amount, not being eligible for renters quota and therefore ex hypothesi made by British firms, should be eligible for exhibitors quota ; so that any exhibitor if he liked to take and show a film however cheaply made by a young English producer could show it, and it would count for his quota but not for renters' quota. I should like to know what you think of their scheme? — I have tried to understand to the best of my ability the evidence given by the five gentlemen who spoke from the Federation of British Industries, but, as they sometimes mutually contradicted one another, it was a little difficult for me. I see some objection to the idea of labelling a film which comes below a certain standard of cost. I take it that they are accepting the Advisory Committee's suggestion that there should be some standard footage costs, and then if the film which is produced for a foreign film renter comes below that it has to bear a label which says: This is a rotten film, or something like that : it has merely been made for renters' purposes ; that is what it comes to. It is here: " This picture is a Renters' Quota Film acquired by Messrs. to enable them to distribute foreign films ". Well. I think that would go further to discredit British pictures; I think that is the very thing that we have all been striving to avoid. I do not think it would be such a deterrent to the renter. When it was shown it would say : Well, this is a very rotten film; it is a British film, but it is a very rotten one and we label it as such. I should hesitate to do that. 1802. I quite see that. You prefer the recommendation of the Board of Trade Committee, to the suggestion that such films should be eligible for exhibitors' quota? I was not quite clear on that point? — I must say I was a little confused about the question : this is a film which has been made but which does not quite comply with all our requirements under the recommendation which we have made ? 1803. Yes? — Yes, we think that should be put in a neutral category — not count for or against quota ; it is still a British film, but it has not complied with our requirements. If you do not do that, if you give it exhibitors' quota, then all the work that you have done beforehand really is nullified. Renters' quota is not everything by any means. 1804. I quite see that point. If in order to increase quality you had to reduce quantity and lower the quota percentage, you would still keep that ratio, would you, 20 and 15? — iWell, I think it is a very good ratio. 1 mean I would not like to be bound by that, but 1 want to emphasise again that I think quality of British films is more important than quantity; and, as to employment, if you get the quality up you will give the requisite employment. You do not necessarily give more employment by producing a lot of rubbish. 1805. If you have your fairly high cost basis on the lines of your recommendation, thereby increasing quality and reducing quantity, and if you leave it to the discretion of the President of the Hoard of Trade to van the quota percentage from year to year, you would presumably, would you not. also have to Leave it to the Presidenl to vary the cost basis? — Yes; certainly there would have to be seine