FILM SCENE IN N.Z. Importance Of Appeal Court’s Decision

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31340, 10 April 1967, Page 9

FILM SCENE IN N.Z. Importance Of Appeal Court’s Decision

(Written for “The Press’” by

PETER BOYES

Now that “The Collector” has finally reached our screens, it is time to examine the consequences of the legal dispute which developed from the censorship of the film. First, let us see why the trouble arose. It was not the censor’s decision which caused the trouble, but the remarkable course of action followed by the Appeal Board. Mr D. C. Mclntosh, the film censor, required four cuts to be made in the film before he would grant it an Rl6 certificates the distributors, Columbia Films, appealed against one of these cuts, and the Appeal Board took the unprecedented step of rejecting the entire film. It took two Court cases—in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal—to show that the Films Censorship Board of Appeal had exceeded its jurisdiction in banning the film. In a very significant decision, the Court of Appeal declared that to allow the Appeal Board to call in question the whole decision of the censor and not solely those matters being made the subject of appeal, would “discourage many of

the appeals which would otherwise be brought, lest the last state of an appellant should be worse than the first.”

In fact the performance of the Appeal Board gives small ground for hope when a distributor disagrees with the censor’s decision. Over the last ten years the Board of Appeal has upheld the censor in 21 cases, disagreed with him in 16; and some of these 16 were compromise solutions involving title changes, thereby taking another way out not previously considered. It is important too, to note the decreasing willingness of distributors to take their films to appeal. In 1957 appeals were made against 60 per cent of the censor’s decisions, and it was the same in 1959. Thereafter the reactionary decisions of the board deterred distributors so much that a steady decline set in, culminating in only 15 per cent of appeals in 1962, and 12 per cent in 1964. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment on “The Collector" serves to clarify a little the role of a body which has till now used its powers to strengthen censorship rather than provide any real appeal against it ♦ # #

A rather saddening trend of film distribution which has become all too clear in recent months is the inequable distribution of films to the main centres. Auckland, and more particularly Christchurch, are much better off than Wellington for gaining a relatively early release of top quality films; and yet occasionally an off-beat production will turn up in Wellington before going anywhere else.

Examples of this trend in Christchurch are “The Wrong Box,” which has still not been released in Wellington, “The Appaloosa,” “Gambit” and “The Venetian Affair,” only one of which has been shown even in Auckland. In Auckland we have Bergman’s “All These Women,” “Morgan,” “A Fine Madness” and “Hotel Paradiso,” none of which has yet been shown in Wellington. Christchurch is certainly fortunate in its greater number of cinemas, and often obtain films a very short time after their arrival here. It is at a disadvantage in having no foreign film cinema, but will probably see “Dear John,” the Swedish film which seems set fair to become the biggest money maker of all foreign films released in New Zealand (nine weeks in Auckland’s Lido). Rs # #

In Wellington, the bottleneck ’of films has been slightly aggravated by the closing of the Paramount International, an independent cinema which had been eking out an existance for several years, hard hit by the opening of Amalgamated’s Lido. Unable to obtain first runs, the Paramount was reduced to almost anything that seemed remotely likely to be a success, and its erratic advertisements (once “The Trial” was on one day, “The Silence” the next) and lack of advance publicity finally killed it. It showed “Accattone,” in February, 1966. Completely unheralded, the New Zealand premiere of this remarkable film went for less than a week—so far as I know it has been shown nowhere else.

In Auckland, KerridgeOdeon has opened a new, smartly-designed and fairly small theatre, the West End, to show high-quality British films, which have so far included “Morgan” and “The Trap.” This is a wise direction to move in—the smaller cinema offering side attractions such as coffee in the interval—-and let’s hope the industry takes notice. # » * Another factor in film distribution which is a constant source of dismay to those interested in films is the phenomenon of. “lost films." These are films which are imported to our country but somehow never get shown, or are shown years after theii arrival. So far neither “The Love

Goddesses” or “The Party’s Over” have been shown. ‘"Die Love Goddesses” is a film complied from clips of older films, showing such stars as Hedy Lamarr, Marlene Dietrich and Marilyn Monroe in scenes from their most famous films. It should prove of great interest to a wide section of people, and it is so to be hoped that someone will, soon have the courage to show it. “The Party’s Over” is an unusual British film by Guy Hamilton, director of “Goldfinger,” about upper class Englishmen when their inhibitions are down.

We are also waiting on two Lumet films, “The Group,” from Mary McCarthy’s novel, and “The Pawnbroker,” starring Rod Steiger. “The Love Goddesses” has been here since September 1965, and some of the others for nearly as long. I was fortunate to catch up with “Mickey One” in Wellington. It was shown during the year at the Tivoli in Christchurch, but the big circuits lost interest in it, and it remained for an independent—one of the very few left —to show it in the capital. This extraordinary film, by Arthur Penn, who directed “The Chase,” is a Kafkaesque fable of a haunted man, played by Warren Beatty, who is searching for a non-existent gambling game. Full of brilliant images, and creating effectively an eerie atmosphere, the film is an impressive piece of work, if somewhat empty. * * *

On November 25 a film called “The Wild Angles,” directed by Roger Corman, and winner of first prize at last year’s Venice festival, arrived at the censor’s office. He has rejected it, and at present it is under consideration by the Appeal Board.