BRITISH FILMS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20290, 24 December 1927, Page 12

BRITISH FILMS.

COMMONS DISCUSS THE BILL. BLIND AND ADVANCE BOOKING (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON. November 16 The Kinematograph Films Bill. as amended by the Standing Committee, came up for consideration in the Commons this week. The Labour Party had a busy afternoon attempting to reconcile sympathy with the industry with opposition to the abolition of blind booking and block booking. Colonel Wedgwood moved the omission of Part 1 of the Bill, which imposes restrictions on blind booking, and advance booking of films. Ho protested against the restrictions this part of the Bill imposed on the kinema industry, which, he said,' did not apply to any other industry. In the present case it would be not only vicious, but futile, because renters had only to amalgamate with exhibitors to book as much as they liked, blind or in block. It would have been simpler, and avoided the entrenchment of vested interests. if such contracts had been made merely invalid in law. He asked that at least the whole Bill should be made to operate for only 12 years. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, though amazed at this complete reversal of Mr MacDonald’s approval on the second reading of the Bill’s restrictions, was very conciliatory. Ho claimed that the film industry probably knew what was good for it better than a Socialist Party turned individualist, and the industry had asked for the Bill, in order to protect it from foreign exploitation. He must adhere, therefore, to its principles, but would insert guarantees against costly administration, allow a free vote on the proposal to make London tho only legal centre for prc-rcleaso exhibitions, reduce tho penalty for illegal advance booking from £IOO to £SO, postpone the full restrictions on such booking tor two years, and allow up to 10 per cent, alterations in a film after registration. • How pernicious tho blind booking system is was shown by a later remark of tho president: ‘‘ I have seen contracts where 64 films have had to be taken in order to get one °i' two pictures. ’ The proposal to drop Part 1 was defeated lay 231 votes to 105. BILL VALID FOR 10 YEARS.

The House was proceeding to give effect to the promised concessions, when Sir Philip Cunliffe-Listor sprang a surprise by offering the biggest of all, which he had previously refused. Provided the House agreed to pass the Bill by Thursday evening, he would make the whole of it valid for ’lO years only, thus acknowledging that it should bo at once experimental and assured of a sufficient trial. The Opposition could not refuse such generosity, and after this none of them attempted much more than enough criticism to fiulfil their parliamentary function.

DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. “Neither criticisms nor concessions have as yet reached the most interesting clauses of the Bill.’’ says The Times commenting on the debate. “ It is clearly of the utmost importance that the films protected bv Parliament should in fact he British, ana not meu-elv foreign firms maspucrading under a British name for the purpose of obtaining privileged entry to our market If iliis cannot he ensured, the Bill will be a danger to the interests it is designed to protect. The definition of a. British firm, which appeared in the Bill atlei amendment in committee, was in .-ome respects admirably sirht. The studio scenes had to lie made in a sbidio.m the British Empire; the author of the scenario and tue producer had to he British subjects at the time when the film was made; and a pronortion of 111" salaries and wages had in he paid tn British subjects or per* oll * domiciled within (he British Empire 1 here remained two loopholes—first, ( »at the manufacturing firm wa, required onlv o he a ‘British company, winch, (hough n sounds satisfactory, means no more than a company with British registration; secondly, that, notwithstanding the Bill.requirements on the subject of salaries, no limit of anv hind was set on the payment that might he made to a foreign star “ The" position then was. and stil is. that foieign capitalist? who acquire British registration for their company, and produre work of which- the create,■ part of tlif' ro<t into t bo nor-kof of a fnrou'n actor or act res?, may claim for a film so producer! flw full privileges of the Brit.-h quota. The amendment tn he prr.no-.-o hv the President of the Board of 1 that the majority of Mm threeo,s of he mrinufash,ring firm shah G Brit-sh - ,b----leets is a Step in the rigid direction, hid it do"; not go far enough ; another aiiiemv ment which requires that the maionh- ot votin'” power dial! he ,n Br-nsh hand- i-n-i-eallv to he preferred in it ( oniP-nt'e-hell eO t 'll rr under the British. Act. ?|iou d he British hey mid all (pieu-on, and ..m use of foreign ‘-tars’ in Pictures entpymr quota privilege-, if it nilinn' prmen,| v pc forbidden, should he permitted on,v for a limited period. rhange= on Ltese line.are what the Bill most urgently needs before it leaves the House of Commons. ’