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.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 167 14 July, 1936.] Mr. G. R. Hall Caine. [Continued. British writers; and that one of the things that the cinema industry lacks in this country — and it is almost unique in that respect — is any single institute where the art and technique of the film industry, which is a many-sided subject, is taught. Have you any observations on that? — Well, of course, anything that could be done on that line would he to the benefit of the British film industry as a whole. As a business man I am a believer in the hard school of practical experience, going through the actual studios of the big companies and learning the work rather in that way than academically. I do not know whether you could ever satisfactorily educate people to be scenario writers. I know you cannot educate people to become writers, because I had a father who was a writer and he was never able to educate me into becoming one. I do not know whether you could take a number of people who can express themselves well but do not know how to dc it in a way which would benefit the film and bring them into touch with what is wanted. That is what I think you meanp 1844. Yes. You are aware that there are in America a number of institutes which are purely technical institutes relating to the film industry, which have heen founded and subsidised by the industry?— In short, I think that once you have formed your board or your central organisation, you will give the British film industry a standing which I think it deserves now, and which will all tend to development on the very lines of thought winch you are now bringing forward. How it will come it is impossible to say, hut it will elevate the industry and put it into a position which I hope it will attain, that is to say, make it respect itself. For years it had no self-respect at all, and a part of the trouble which you are endeavouring to clear up and which 1 for eight years have -been endeavouring to clear up has been due to the fact that there has been a type of man in the industry who has had no respect for himself, and has not realised that he is part of a big business and a big organisation, which he is. If you can get him to respect himself, you will not have half the trouble which you have in this matter. 1845. In fact, the B.B.C. in this respect has lessons for us? — Yes. 1846. (Chairman) : I am very much indebted to you, Mr. Hall Caine. (The Witness withdrew.) MEMORANDA OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO THE COMMITTEE ON WHICH NO ORAL EXAMINATION TOOK PLACE. (a) Further Memoranda by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Ireland. Association of Great Britain and (i) A " Quality " Committee. If a committee he constituted upon the lines which we have suggested we do not think that it would be necessary for it to review all British films. We beg to suggest the following mode of procedure : — ■ When a film was trade shown it should be competent for this Association (or, if preferred, a given number of exhibitors — say five) to ask, within three days, for a re-viewing of the film. If the film failed to satisfy the " Quality Committee " the registration should be cancelled and the film would thereupon fall into a neuter class. It would be unfair that because a film was disallowed from registration as a British film that it should automatically be deemed to be a foreign film and, therefore, reregistration should be unnecessary. Once two or three decisions had been given by the Quality Committee we do not anticipate that it would be required to do much work, as the first decisions would quickly eliminate the " quickies " as the producers would know that they would not have any chance of being passed by the committee and, therefore, they would not be made. The committee would seek to establish as a standard that the films passed represented a bona fide attempt to produce a film possessing entertainment and exhibition merit which would enable the renter to rent that film in a free market in competition with foreign films generally acceptable to the public. We do not think that it is necessary to have a large committee. We suggest that it should be five in number — a producer, a renter, two exhibitors and an independent chairman in whom the public 87873 would have confidence. We do not anticipate that the Association would find any difficulty in obtaining the services of two exhibitors to act in a voluntary capacity, and anticipate that similar public service in the interests of British production would be forthcoming from other sections of the cinematograph trade. The remuneration of the independent chairman is a matter which we have left to the consideration of the committee, if such a course was found necessary. 9th July, 19.36. (ii) Sub-standard films. There are a number of halls showing performances of sub-standard film regularly and charging for admission. Some of our members have been endeavouring to secure village halls, etc., where cinematograph performances could be given regularly on sub-standard films. There is a difference of opinion amongst Licensing Authorities to-day on what constitutes an inflammable film as expressed in the definition clause of the expression " theatre." All films are inflammable, but some Licensing Authorities do not bother themselves to enforce any provisions of this kind in respecl of non-flam film, which is more accurately described as slow burning. The above performances are generally of an entertainment character and a charge for admission is made. The other type of performance is a mixture oi advertising and entertainment films. One of the apparatus manufacturers fixes up with a national advertiser that he will show in the various working F4