Film Distribution And Audience Demands

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31255, 30 December 1966, Page 13

Film Distribution And Audience Demands

fSpecially written for "The Preet" by PITER BOYKS.)

For some time film distributors in New Zealand have been bemoaning dwindling audiences at most pictures, which are usually attributed to the advent of television; and it is certainly true that films are probably not the assured financial success that they once were. However, the pattern of distribution has not changed sufficiently to cope with the changed audience and the changed demands of the audience. Let us see what tends to happen to a film of moderate or excellent merit, released m New Zealand today. If it is a film like “America America,” plagued with a lack of name stars and an apparently unattractive title, it is unlikely to run more than a week and is very likely to be shown at a time (such as just before the Christmas season) when films traditionally are not expected to make money. The decision to treat a film in this way is not, however, a wild one, but is made on the overseas and New Zealand performance of this film. “America America” was not released anywhere here till years after it was made—an indication of its box-office potential in itself—and has not done well in New Zealand. Can we take it that New Zealanders are not interested in those films that are critically well received? I think that while there is some truth in this, the very distribution of such films tends to militate against their success. There is an audience for “art” films, or serious films, in this country, which will support Fellini, Bergman, and Godard; but this audience is not being catered for. Overseas the pattern has been, on the arrival of television, for films to try to attract people in two main ways: first, to make bigger, more spectacular films (“Magnificent Men,” “Mad Mad World,” “Sound of Music”), which provide experiences which television is technically incapable of producing; second, in producing more serious films, directed towards those with a real and abiding interest in films as art, and as durable and rewarding entertainment While films will no doubt always provide the light relief which was their traditional forte, this is a field into which television will continue to make inroads, and it is the two other directions which will probably ensure the survival of the film industry.

While we have not been starved of the “blockbusters,” we have been deprived of many films reputedly among the cream of world production, notable examples being Fellini’s “Juliet of the Spirits” (coming next year, at last') Antonioni’s “The Eclipse” and T/he Red Desert,” and Bergman’s “Winter Light,” made before “The Slience,” but not dealing with such sensational material and therefore presumably not expected to go as well at the box office. The reply usually given to the criticism that New Zealanders are being prevented from seeing some of the finest of the world’s films is that “foreign films and art films don’t make money.” But while this is generally true, is it not partly the fault of the distributors themselves? They are apparently not interested in “plugging” these films in anything like the way that they plug “The Blue Max” or “What’s New Pussycat?”, films which will probably make money anyway. A vicious circle has been created: art films are prevented from getting a wide showing by the preconception that they cannot possibly be a success The question whether these films could be successful will remain open until they are given a better chance.

Another factor which partlv accounts for the relative failure of foreign films is that because they inevitably represent a fairly small proportion of all films released, we are not yet accustomed to seeing enough of them to be able to work up as much interest and enthusiasm about them as about the latest Hollywood comedy or epic. A lack of informed and intelligent criticism also militates against the growth of film taste. Not many daily newspapers provide a weekly film column. Some do, admittedly, and many of these are of a high standard; but it should be an accepted part of our cultural life that films receive the same attention and consideration as the other arts. We are about 20 years behind the times. We still seem to be of the opinion that films are fun: they are relaxing, good for a laugh or a thrill, but essentially of the same genre as comic strips—not to be thought about or talked about too much. While films are fun, and are entertainment, this is not all they can be; and it is sad to find that we are missing what is per-

haps the most important art form of this century. We miss films because they are either never released, or released very briefly without any advance notice and never return, or because they are shown so long after their production that (in some cases) they have lost much of their point The situation is the fault of no-one in particular, and in the end is everyone’s fault. Because we have not yet shown ourselves ready to support films which may demand a bit of thought or effort from us, those who provide us with films have tended to steer clear of this sort of fare. This in turn has prevented distribution from improving. The year 1967 promises a singularly rich one: from a programme including “Juliet of the Spirits,” “Shoot the Pianist.” “Now About These Women,” and “Dear John,” we can expect some real excitement from our films. Let us hope that it will not be another case of failure at the box office through a certain shortsightedness on both sides, but one of a new confidence in films.