Film Men Critical of New Film Bill

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 212, 26 November 1927, Page 1

Film Men Critical of New Film Bill

QUOTA AND TAX SOME AUCKLAND VIEWS While Auckland film interests approve of the principle of preference to British films, they are up in arms against the Government's new Cinematograph Films Bill. It is generally conceded that the Bill, like its progenitor in the House of Commons, which, incidentally, is not yet law, must necessarily suffer many drastic alterations before it goes to the Gover-nor-General for his assent. MR. HENRY HAYWARD. oL' the Fuller-Hayward Theatre:*, summed up the position when THE SUN to-day asked Auckland film men to state their views: *T am strongly opposed to the Bill as I consider it is an infringement of the liberty of ordinary trading. "It is out of -all reason to charge from 5 to 12£ per cent, on the turnover of a business. If the income tax of a business concern were worked out on this basis it would be only a fraction of 5 per cent, on turnover. It is admittedly difficult to collect income tax in respect of a film. The gcoss return method certainly has its advantages. However, I believe that the American film houses will be able to Pass portion of the business on to the exhibitor.” “NOT SO DRASTIC” MR. ERROL FULLER (First National): *T intend swotting over the Bill during the week-end to endeavour to ascertain exactly what is implied. I have only glanced at it as yet, and I do not think it is Quite as drastic as some people imagine." MR. T. VALOIS (Exhibitors* Alliance and Cinema Art Films): “Many alterations and amendments will be necessary before this Bill becomes law. At present it is absolutely impossible. Surely it is not the intention of the Government to penalise the people who Pay for pictures? We want British Pictures, and my firm is prepared to bundle them, but this is not the right Wa >’ to go about it.”

MR. W. E. KIRBY (Paramount Pictures): “It is easy to sell good British Pictures, as for instance “The Flag Lieutenant,” but we can only sell British pictures that will in turn sell theatre seats. Why force an article °n people who do not want it, and on which they will lose money? Money might be made in some New Zealand Picture theatres to-day, but I assure you it is not being made by the exhibitors.”

MR. PHIL HAYWARD (FullerHayward Theatres): “British films will have to win out on merit —we have always held that contention. All things being equal, people would rather look at British films than American. '* e do not quarrel against the percentage—that seems fair enough—but We d 0 combat the principle. Why should our business alone be controlled? Why should not the 'quota apply to motor-cars, pianos, or gramophones? The Government might just a f well say that all these businesses should sell a percentage of Britishmade goods.” MR. t. A. O’BRIEN (OBrien Theatres): “I notice that additional hcence fees are proposed. Already we have about four different licences to P a V- Surelv that is a legislative weakness. It looks to me that the taxation ° n the exhibitors, will be carried to *mch a point that the simple pleasures the people of the Dominion might become rather a costly affair.”