Order-In-Council Causes Disorder In N.Z. Film Circles

Radio Record, 1 July 1938, Page 6

Order-In-Council Causes Disorder In N.Z. Film Circles

HIS article

by

GORDON

MIRAMS

# reveals a conflict that has arisen in the New Zealand film industry through the passing of a recent Order-in-Council. Neither the "Record" nor the writer is" concerned with the inner politics of the film industry; but an explanation of the present trouble from both sides. is given here, without comment, because the question of the public's screen entertainment is involyed-and that is a matter of general interest.

AST month an Order-in-Council was gazetted which is causing a great deal of dissension . and heart~burning in the ranks of the New Zealand film industry. This document amends the Cinematograph Films ‘(Issue of Exhibitors’ Licences) Regulations, 1937. ° ; On the one hand, it is alleged in film exchange circles --that is, among the men who

represent the film studiosthat this Order-in-Council, by. giving arbitrary power to the Licensing Authority regarding the grading of theatres and films, imposes such severe restrictions on their freedom of marketing films that the supply of screen entertainment in this country may suffer as a result. They complain also that the amendment was brought down without any warning being given them. On the other hand, the film exhibitors contend that the amendment is necessary to give effect ‘to the general licensing laws set up by the previous Government, and that its purpose is to prevent uneconomic competition for film supplies, which in the long run must be detrimental to the public’s interests. Because this aspect of the public’s supply of screen entertainment enters into it, the dispute is of general interest. There is, however) another even more sensational aspect which has come to my notice

from an authoritative source. It is said that what is really behind the theatre licensing -regulations is an attempt to remove any possible danger of ° the New Zealand film industry falling under the control of foreign interests. The affair is so complicated and full of possible developments that any comment at this stage would be both undesirable and difficult.

. So all I shall do is present the case as it was given me. by. men in both sides of the business. One man on the Film Exchanges’ side expressed the opinion that it was doubtful if the exchanges would sell their films ‘for next year under the conditions brought about by this Order-in-Council. "We can leave our film.in America, and no Government in New Zealand can make us import it to this. country,’ he said. He also suggested that an amalgamation of film exchanges might conceivably result. If the various companies operating theatres could group togetheras they had done recently-to form at least a partial monopoly for themselves, there could be no objection to the film renters doing the same thing. In effect, say the film exchange men; the Licensing officer is now given power to put a tag on the license for every theatre, defining it as either a theatre in which first-run films are to be shown, or a theatre for return seasons. (Continued on page 41.)

Order-In-Council Causes Disordér

TWO SIDES OF A FILM ARGUMENT

(Continued from page-6.)

For instance, if the owners of a theatre which had been screening a mixture of first-run and second-run (that is, return season) films, wished to modernise the building with the intention of screening only first-run films, the licensing officer has the power, it is said, to restrict the ownere to screen no more new films than they had screened over the past two yearsthus more or less creating a monopoly for the existing first-run theatres. So far‘as the issue of licences to new. theatres is concerned, the licensing officer will have almost unlimited power. He can define whether it shall be a frst-run theatre or a second-run theatre, Another aspect of the subject deals. so it is said, with the right possessed by the exhibiting companies to reject 25 per cent. of a studio’s product. That right .is usually exercised to the full. but up till now the practice with most of these rejected films has been to bring them on the market again and re lease them at one of the smaller the atres. However, with the new law in force-strictly classifying theatres as "first-run" or "second-run"-it might be almost impossible to secure a re- Jease anywhere for a film that had been rejected as being not up to the standard required by the major firstrun houses. And so, if it was not given a first showing in the city, it could not be shown even in the suburbs, since suburban theatres would be for secondrun films only. This would mean a ¢on. siderable loss to the exchanges. With the present merging of theatre interests, the exhibitors would be in a position. to, hold out for a reduction in film rentals, : it was stated. If they refused to pay what, was asked for topgroup films,. it Seemed that that would automaticaly bring those films down to the second group. Said one’ film exchange man: ore is difficult to. see how these regulations can be excused on the ground of public benefit. Surely it must be to the benefit of the public’s entertainment to have competition? There are thousands: of pounds waiting to-be’ put into theatrebuilding in this country, but if‘is tied up by these regulations, , "This is the first time. ‘any regulaPions affecting the whole film: industry vere not. first referred. to both: sides. Whe film exehanges had no. warning.of this amendment. . . It seems’ like the thin end of the wedge of the Industrial Efficiency Act. It is time the whole Licensing Regulations were exposerl- " The Other Side Well, that seems-to be the-case from the film exchanges’ side, An answer to ir from the film exhibitors’ side was given to me by Mr: J. Robertson, M.P., who is secretary to the New Zealand fixhibitors’ Association. — {n the first place, Mr, Robertson pointed ont that the grouping of theatres which had been mentioned had nothing to do with the Licensing Regnlations. "About 500 films come to New Zea land annually. from.all sources,’ con-

tinued Mr. Robertson. "Of these, it » ean safely be said that not more than 50 could be called first-grade _ films. Therefore, no matter how much ¢vimpetition set in for the buying (ie. biring) of films, the amouut: of good pictures offered to the public would not be increased. ; "In Wellington, for instance, you ean say that, out of the eight or so :new films released each week to the public, there is one of first-grade quality. 17 you inereased the. number of first-run theatres to 10, there would still only be one film in eight that would be firstgrade, "fence the public would not benefit in any way by an increase in the num ber of first-run theatres. The only ef fect, it is obvious, would be to increast the competition among the ten theatres to secure the first-grade films for show ing each week. This fn turn would have the effect of increasing the cosi of films to the theatre proprietors: and consequently tend to make them pas~ on the increased cost to the public. "One important consideration. taken into account by the licensing author.. ity when a theatre licence is applied for, is the availability of film supply. of a good standard," continued Mr Robertson. "The intention of the new regulation, which prevents a second run theatre becoming first-run witb: out the approval of the licensing. authority, is to stop uneconomic com-. petition for film supply It is quite ob--vious that a, licence might be granted for a theatre to show second-run films, hecause the granting of such a licence would not affect the position of firstrun theatres; but its unrestrained conversion to a first-run house could have a. seriously detrimental effect on. the owners of the existiug first-run houses. without giving any benefit" whatsoever . to the public." Control of theatre licensing was instituted by the previons Government: and, according to a statement made by Mr. R. Girling-Butcher,. whois the Heensing officer, the purpose of the present .amendment is merely to give effect to the existing regulations. + Finally, there is a rather sensationai explanation of the whole. affair that .. has been. mentioned to mé. From ‘an ‘authoritative source I learned that after ihe licensing regulations had been, _ set.up by the previous Government and had been in force for about a year, their validity was attacked and they © were declared "ultra vires" the Board of Trade Act. In the period of non control which ensued, a large number -of-new theatres were puilt;-and, said my informant, ‘it is significant that. the bulk of those theatres are now at least partly under tke control of Ame’ rican film interests. It is quite pos-. sible that. by the ‘constant jacking-up of film rentals through unrestricted’ competitive buying, theatre proprietors would be pushed into such a position that their theatres might pass under foreign control. It is the desire to remove that possibility that lies behind the present action." -. .