Towards Better Films .
The normal British citizen attends the cinema on an average once a week—people who don't see films, the bedridden and a majority of babies being regarded for this purpose as abnormal. The film indus- try, both in its producing and distributing phases, is riddled with defects and provides one of the classic examples of most of the evils (and, to be fair, some of the benefits) of monopoly. This coincidence of potentialities and shortcomings has inspired the appearance, at intervals of roughly ten years, of Cinematograph Films Acts. The perfect Films Act has never arrived and it is doubtful whether it ever will. The main objects of the measure now before Parliament are five. It divides the quota of British films which cinemas must show into " first features " and " supporting films " which is a slightly more sensible distinction than the old one between " short " and " long." It legalises the understanding that the big circuits must not acquire further theatres without prior agreement with the Board of Trade. It provides for the showing by these circuits each year of six British films chosen for their technical and artistic merit. It attempts to discourage bad short films by providing that no film shall qualify for inclusion in the quota unless its labour cost is at least los. a foot. And it alters the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council, the public's watchdog, presumably with a view to strengthening it. If this measure passes it will do good. If it were to raise the eligible minimum cost to 205., withdraw the exemption from quota now proposed for cinemas taking less than Doo per week, stipulate that a minimum percentage of box office receipts should go to " supporting " films, and increase the representation of film makers on the Films Council, it would do better. And if it paid closer attention to the excellent report of the committee of enquiry into monopolistic tendencies published in 1944 it would do better still.
Previous page
