Chain Theatres Not Menace To Independents

Chronicle (Levin), 8 June 1949, Page 7

Chain Theatres Not Menace To Independents

WELLINGTON, June 7. Chain organisations for the exhibi;ion of films did not "constitute a menace ;o the independent exhibitor whose protection was the Film Industry Board, itated Mr. M. J. Moodabe, governing lirector of Amalgamated Theatres Ltd., at the resumption today of the inquiry into the motion picture industry by a special Parliamentary Committee. V Another witness was Mr. R. J. Kerridge, managing director of KerridgeOdeon, who said there had been an abundant film supply for all independents. Mr. Moodabe and Mr. Kerridge are two of the leading personalities in the New Zealand motion picture industry. Cross-examined by members of the committee, Mr. Moodabe said heaithy competition was good for the motion picture industry just as it was for any other industry. lt was also to the pubiic advantage. Asked if it would not be possible to screen more pietures suitable for children, witness said that both chains had had special children 's programmes but the response was disappointing. Parents did not appear to take any interest in tkese programmes by sending their children to them. New Zealand got the same films as vvere screened throughout the world, acided Mr. Moodabe. There was not a good picture in any part of the world that was not screened in the Doininion. The theatres in New Zealand would more than hold their own with anytlung he had seen in Australia. The price for admission in New Zealand was just about a quarter of that in Australia. Keplying to Mr. R. Hardie Boys, Crown counsel assisting the conunission, Mr. Kerridge said the Ascot Theatre in Newtown, Wellington, had had a poolmg arrangement with the Tivoli Tlieatre there for the past six or eight" months. The two theatres were in close proximity to each other and the arrangement was a very logical oue. From memory he thought the proposal for that arrangement came from the management of the Ascot Theatre. The arrangement avoided uneconomic competition for film. Mr. Kerridge said that if there were an amendment to the licensing regulations forbidding tne acquisition of another theatre by buying shares, he would not resist it. No advantage had been taken by either chain organisation of any monopoly that might exist at present. Evidence ®of this was the price control pojicy and the theatres which were run as under coxnpetitive conditions. Mr. W. J. Broadfbot .(Qpposition, Waitomo) asked: If 'the industry is developed into oue holding, don't you think the situation could^ be handled by anti-trust legislation as in Americai Witness r There is that legijsjation bui it has not'.operated in Ameriea. Mr. %0. Wilson (Government, Pal-

merston North) asked: If the licensing provisions do not prevent it, you can continue to acquire independents? Witness: That is so. Mr. Wilson: And the time may come when you have acquired all independent theatres in the country? Witness: That is an unlikely development. Witness added that a real eft'ort had been made to provide entertainment especially for children, but the patronage was disappointing. However, it did not follow that picture sessions they did attend were unsuitable for them. With few exceptions, screenings of Continental' films had not been successful, financially or otherwise. In some of the smaller theatres profit margins were very narrow and these theatres were only able to earry on'by virtue of their being in a chain organisation. The inquiry -will be resumed tomor- ■ TOW.