BRITISH FILMS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 130, 5 June 1933, Page 2

BRITISH FILMS

ADVANCE OF THE ART

THE QUOTA DEPLORED

MANY POOE PICTURES

There is a great deal of talk about the triumph of the British film indus* try. I deplore it. Nothing can destroy, the British film industry more rapidly] than self-satisfaction over the progress it has already made. This sense ot, security is a dangerous delusion. Therel are people who believe that tho mak« ing of British films is safeguarded bjj the Cinematograph Films Act. That iq not true, writes Seton Margrave, thaj film critic of the London "Dailjj Mail," in that journal.

Soon after the Act became effective^ five years ago, a number of new pro* duction companies were formed. Sciz* ing on the Act as a selling point, andl trading on boom conditions in industry} generally, these companies were floated into affluent existence on the optimism, of the times. In many cases, these com* panics found themselves, for the first time, with money to burn. How speedily] they burned, it is history. In the disas* trous years of 1930 and 1931, probably; £3,500,000 was lost beyond all hope olj recovery in British film making.

Another devastating result of thel Cinematograph Films Act has boon thai manufacture of British films of deplore ably poor quality. One provision .of thai Act compels all traders in foreign filmsj to acquire a proportion of British: films* This is called tho Quota. In "the-pre* sent year the quota of British films which traders in foreign films must ac* quire and offer for exhibition is 15 per cent. ■ FIT TO EXHIBIT. ; Now, it is stated in the Act that onat of its purposes is "to secure the exhi, bition of a certain proportion of Britisli films.'' The very fact that the exhi. bition of these films is made compul* sory proves that, in tho framing of} tho Act, it was assumed that thesat films would be fit to exhibit. Yefc these Quota films are generally of such] inferior quality that the reports _ in* the film trade journals usually describe them as "feeble entertainment for uiw critical audiences."

Last year 100 films wore made i% London. Of these, 83 were Quota. O£& these 83 I should say that 12 weraH reasonably good entertainment andi: that three more were borderline cases*. Let us say that 15 of the 83 did not^ let the industry down. That leaves 6S ? /ilms which, from the samples I havefy seen and the reports I have studied^ should be classified as junk. lam giv< ing these films the greatest possibly benefit of every possible doubt when It say that they are made for a fourth; of what is spent on the making of films' of reasonable entertainment value. I do not blame the makers of thesa*. films I do not blame- those traders. whajl cause them to be made. I blame .the..; Cinematograph Films Act for allowing^ them to be made. I blame the Act foiS being so badly drafted that it is power,.' less to enforce its manifest intention., Lot us take the 77 British films not.] made as Quota and let us add the lo fairly good Quota films. We have theifl 92 films commanding various degrees' of respect. A careful scrutiny show* that 26 of the 92 were definitely fine; ■fiims designed to advance the prestigaf POSSIBILITIES. Let us look, however, at the.possfc.. bilities of the British film Let{ us consider a talking picture whiek has earned just over £100 000^n British cinemas. This is a tj pi callv British film, but it does »ot^ represent, to my mind, the finest* £40,000, but to spend ,t .so c^ertty, that every penny appears m the comPISn PK Ciho British film industry, will merely have arrived at the first iS^a^wo^se^rS; 3s been exceeded. I have every reason to believe that one American, film exceeded £300,000. Quota films are made and delivered at prices varying from £1 to to- a. foot The £1 is the rule. The £- is the exception. I shall bo generous enouch to suppose that our 68 samples of jS havecost £1 10s a foot. Their avcWc length is 5500 feet. So wo arrive at the considerable figure o£ 374,000 feet of film junk. The makers of these films hay* argued with mo that they at least represent a turnover of more than £500,000 a year. They are quite right. . bu* °* a £40,000 basis of production they, should represent a turnover of noarly, £3,000,000 a year. They say this tonover on 68 films is i«"er. tha£ o n°M: I say it is not so good as the £2,000,000. which should bo spent on these films, wore the intention of the Act to bo fulflllCd" SMALL FIGURE. I say further that the, £500,000. snrrad over ton companies is a pmiui & compared with the £1,000,000 a year being spent on tho making of creditable British films by one comBritish films of this quality are urgently wanted. Last year Hollywood sent us fewer than. 500 films in place of the 750 or more we received in silent film days, every year from America. Now it seems as if Hollywood will still further reduce production. This year we may get only 400. We need an annual minimum of 600 talking pictures. • The clear duty of British studios this year is to mako 200 talking pictures. At least 50 of that 200 should be of (rood standard. There will bo no placa at all'for "feeble entertainment for uncritical audiences." The greatest calamity that could befall the British film industry would' ba to find these contemptible Quota films forced into widespread circulation by a general film famine. Therefore _an urgent need of tho moment is a revision, of the Cinematograph Films Act establishing the standard of production which was its original intention. ■

In outlining the facts- in a bylaw case at the Timaru Magistrate's Court recently, states the "Herald," SeniorSergeant Mathieson stated that the defendant had been earning £4 a week. The Magistrate (Mr. C. E. Orr-Walker) at this stage remarked: "That means doubling the fine. Is that the suggestion?" The senior-sergeant: "We have to get all we can these days." In inflicting the fine, the Magistrate again referred to tlio senior-sergeant's remark, stating that if he had to fix th« fines on a defendant's wages, he woul< be unable to fine- a lot of people in th« world today.