FILMS, FIRES AND "UNFAIR" COMPETITION

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 323, 31 August 1945, Page 16

FILMS, FIRES AND "UNFAIR" COMPETITION

URING the war years the use in New Zealand of 16mm. (or "sub-standard" ) film has considerably increased, To a large extent this type of film has been used for instructional or entertainment purposes among the Armed Forces, but its popularity with the civilian public has also been steadily growing. Indeed it has grown to such an extent that members of the film trade (that is, the people who screen the standard 35mm. film in commercial theatres) are apparently becoming alarmed at what they regard as an encroachment on their own preserves. At least, that is the inference I draw from a letter which the Chief Inspector of Films has recently sent out, suggesting that a conference be held in September to consider the question of applying the Cinematograph Films Act to 16mm. film. Since the full application of this Act to this type of film could have no other result, I think, than to curtail its use, the public has good reason to be interested in this impending conference. That is also my reason for drawing attention to it here. We shall, of course, not know exactly what lies behind this move until the conference has been held and its findings have been published, but in the meantime no jumping is necessary to reach certain conclusions, % * % HE letter I have mentioned (my copy, I should perhaps make clear, reached me from a non-official source) begins by stating that the general regulations under the Cinematograph Films Act have hitherto been applied to sub-standard film

only so far as was necessary to ensure that the film used was of the cellulose acetate (or non-inflammable) type, the reason being that until recently there has been a comparatively small quantity of this film in circulation, mostly of an advertising’ and educational nature, Nevertheless, most public screenings have been subject to licence under the Act. (The general regulations provide for the issue of a licence for the sum of 1/to cover projection in not more than ten places of cinematograph film solely for advertising, educational, or religious purposes, or exhibitions for which no remuneration is received by the licensee.) The letter continues: Conditions in the use of this film appear to be altering. The 16mm. film in particular, and its projection equipment, is much cheaper, lighter, and more convenient for occasional screenings than the standard type. During the war years it has come into considerable use for both educational and entertainment, purposes for the Armed Forces, and there now appears to be available a considerable quantity of purely entertainment film. The tendency to duplicate the regular entertainment films, both shorts and feature, on 16mm, stock, also appears to be increasing. The, question was recently discussed at a meeting a the Film Board, and representations were made to the Department [of Internal Affairs] t this type of film was now being used in a mner making it competitive with the standard picture theatre entertainment. Instances were quoted of screenings in country towns on the same night as the regular picture show-usually for the purposes of raising funds for charitable or patriotic purposes, but also on eccasion for clubs and other institutions not coming within this category. Attention was also directed to advertisements by trading concerns offering to supply both regular supplies of 16mm. film for public screenings, or to arrange screenings in private homes, or in a theaterette. It has been the desire of the Department not to interfere more than is necessary with the use of this "‘non-flam’’ sub-standard film

for private entertainment purposes. It would appear, however, that the question of reguleting its use for public entertainment should now be considered. It is recognised that the "non-flam"’ film is much less hazardous than the standard nitrocellulose type, but the conditions of projection are the same and there is much the same risk of panic should a fire occur. There is therefore the same necessity for ensuring that public projection is only carried out in premises with adequate exit facilities. A licensing system appears to be the only means of ensuring this. In view of the position set out above, the Department proposes to call a conference of all interests concerned in the exhibition of sub-standard films, including the owners of film libraries, advertising concerns, religious authorities, Education and Service Departments, together with the representatives of the regular film industry. It is desired to know whether you would be interested to attend such a conference, the purpose of which would be mainly to consider the following questions:(a) Whether, and to what extent, licensing is necessary to provide for the safety of the public in the exhibition of sub-standard "non-flam’" film, Whether the distribution of sub-standard film is, or should be, subject to the Film Hire Tax legislation and whether, and ta what extent, it should be regulated either in conjunction with the exhibition licensing}; or to. provide improved facilities for the distribution of educational film. (c) Whether, and to what extent, the exhibition of "non-flam’" film for various purposes should be regarded as competitive with the regular industry and therefore subject to the regulations limiting the number of licences issued. * * * Y inference is that the film trade has complained about the increased screening of 16mm. film, and that the Chief Inspector of Films, who is simply the authority through whom theatre licensing operates, as well as being the ‘officer who deals with such matters as fire-risks and the storage of explosives, has convenedsthis conference as the best means of coping with the situation. It may turn out to be a fairly explosive situation, for there is likely to be strong opposition in several quarters to any attempt by "the trade" to limit the use of 16mm. film. There is, for example, the Education Department, which is making wide and increasing use of films in schools; there is the Public Works Department, which not only maintains a film lending library, but also operates a film production unit; there s the National Film Library at Miramar, handling a growing demand for this type of material. The Departments of Agriculture and Health are also likely to be concerned, for both use 16mm. films as a means of furthering their work, On the non-Governmental side there are organisations like the Shell Film Unit, Educational Sound Films, and others which exist to circulate this type of film. Then there are all the amateur film-makers and cinematograph clubs; the Community Centres in being and others still in embryo which look to the 16mm. film as an important part of their programme; the W.E.A. groups which use it; the school committees and church groups and clubs up and. down the country which depend on 16mm, film screenings as an im t source of revenue, And so on. Nor does this take account of that already large and expanding army ~ loa ~ (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) of ordinary citizens who own, or occasionally hire, a 16mm. projector and a supply of films and amuse themselves and their families and friends with periodic entertainments in the drawing room. To a greater or lesser degree, all these groups and individuals are, or could be, affected by this forthooming conference. 2 " * E film trade obviously imagines that it has a legitimate case. I must confess, however, that I cannot feel much concern on its behalf. The entertainment industry once had the opportunity to develop and exploit the 16mm. film to its own advantage; but the industry wasn’t interested then, mainly because it could see no spectacular profits in the venture. On the contrary, indeed, the whole story of the documentary movement in general, and of the 16mm, film in particular, has been one of struggle to secure public recognition and support in the face not merely of indifference, but sometimes even of active discouragement from the established film industry. Distribution has always been the major problem for the maker of documentary films; the difficulty of securing theatres to show them in. It has only been by the persistence of a comparative handful of enthusiasts, and by the co-operation of Government departments and such commercial enterprises as Shell-Mex and British Commercial Gas Association, that worthwhile 16mm. libraries have been built up and the public has gradually been awakened to their value. Full credit should go to Shell-Mex and similar companies for sponsoring important films dealing with social problems and technical processes; all they get by way of advertising is a credit title, but they have realised that their financial support for films, which often have little bearing on the product they sell, will bring them long-term benefits in public prestige and good-will. But the entertainment side of the film industry, as a whole, has shown no. such public spirit. Some studios, admittedly, have made some very good documentaries and have screened them in 35mm: form on regular theatre programmes, but mostly they have fought shy of this type of entertainment, believing that the public did not want it because it was "too educational." Often the excuse has been that these films are too long to be treated as "shorts." Now, however, that public recognition has at last been obtained for the 16mm. film, now that more and more people are wanting to see what it has to offer in the way of instruction and entertainment, the film trade shows signs of becoming agitated. I am afraid it is rather too late in the day; they had their chance and they missed it. If, as they seem to complain, too many people for their liking are looking at films in places other than their established theatres, that is largely because they forced them there. They could have imported such films as Song of Ceylon, The River, The Plough That Broke the Plains, Battle of Britain, Battle of Russia, and World of Plenty, in 35mm. form; they could have put them on in their theatrés and many of us would have paid money to see them there. Instead, we have had to organise ourselves in little groups in the hope

that some of these pictures would come our way through non-trade channels in 16mm. form. This fight for the freedom of the 16mm. film and the documentary has already been fought in Britain, and has been won; and- one of the war-time methods used was for the Ministry of Information to place some 50 mobile film vans on the roads of Britain with full-length programmes of documentaries to be shown freely to audiences in town or village. What a howl might have gone up if that had been done herel » cod fod HE impression we are expected to get from that letter I have quoted is that the trade is primarily actuated by concern for the public safety. The implication is that it is worried about the fire risk when 16mm. screenings are permitted in unlicensed places. This, to my mind, is sheer pretence. Unlike 35mm, film, which is highly inflammable, 16mm, can be ignited only with great difficulty. In any case, if it is safe to hold a dance, or a concert, or a lecture in a church hall or schoolroom it is safe to show 16mm. films there; the risk of panic in the event of fire can be no greater for the one occasion than for the other. The mere taking out of a licence under the Films Act will make no difference; it will be merely an annoyance and an inconvenience. This idea of demanding a licence is, I would argue, no more than a device to limit the places where screenings can be held, and the absurdity of the suggestion about fire tisk becomes even more apparent when one considers the comparable situation in Great Britain. Censorship does not seem to enter into the question here, but the whole British censorship system largely depends on the fact that 35mm. film is highly inflammable, whereas the 16mm. isn’t. The British Board of Film Censors is an unofficial body, whose rulings are given official weight only because local bodies are able to impose them on exhibitors through the granting of cinema-opening licences based on a fire-risk clause. The reason why private film societies in Britain have been able to show uncensored films (particularly Russian ones when there was a general censorship ban on them) is because the fire-risk clause does not apply to 16mm. copies, and so there has been no need for an exhibitor’s licence. T probably lies behind this present move in New Zealand is the film trade’s old argument that, since people cannot be in two places at once, if they go to see a special 16 mm. screening they will not buy tickets for one of the ordinary programmes on that particular night, and may not, indeed, do so for the rest of the week or month. The theory of the trade seems to be that there is a kind of pool of regular picturegoers, the size of which remains almost constant, and from which the current attractions draw their audiences; so long as the number of attractions is not increased, all the theatres get their fair share of patrons over a period. This is a silly sort of argument, and shortsighted too, from the viewpoint of the (continued qn next page)

| THE SHOWING OF 16mm FILMS

(continued from previous page) theatre executives themselves.’ Most of the people who patronise specialised screenings of the kind under discussion are casual, not regular, picturegoers, and therefore have little effect on the "audience pool"-if it exists. And if it does exist, the only way to increase it is to turn the casuals into regulars by making them more interested in’ films and giving them the picture-going habit. In any case, the daily newspapers might just as logically object, say, to the fact that the Broadcasting Service publishes The Listener, on the ground that it is unfair competition! % * * O make out any sort of case at all, the film trade will have to prove that its takings over the whole country have, in fact, shown a marked falling-off as a result of these 16mm. screenings. I very much doubt if it can do so, for the latest available attendance figures from the Abstract of Statistics reveal that patronage in our theatres in 1943-44 was up by 21 per cent over the figures for 1940-41! Certainly those peak figures reflect to some extent the presence in our midst of the movie-going Marine and attendances at theatres in Army camps; but as against this many of our own men have been overseas and some at least of their wives and sweethearts have been staying-at home at night. On the whole, then, it does not look as if the "competitive" aspect of the trade’s case

against the 16mm. film can carry much weight. 1 "> a HERE are a good many other points which I have no space to deal with now. Some of them will doubtless be ventilated at the coming conference. It is to be hoped that it will be open to the press and that members of the public will also be permitted to attend and listen, even if they cannot speak. For it seems to me that this is very much a matter of public interest. All kinds of special interests have apparently been invited to be represented, but so far as. one can see from the letter calling the conference no provision has been made for the most important voice of all to be heard-the voice of the consumer; that is, the ordinary interested picturegoer. F Yet I don’t think he need worry unduly about the result of this conference. The 16mm. film is here to stay; its influence and popularity will continue to increase, and in the long run the whole cinema industry stands to benefit. Indeed I would suggest that, far from curtailing the screening of 16mm. film, the next move should be for the public to demand some form of community action whereby even greater facilities are made available for this type of show, perhaps by the provision of special theatres in each large centre for the purpose. If the trade will screen these pictures which it has hitherto cold-shouldered, well and good; there is no need for outside action. If it won’t it cannot logically object if somebody else does.