THE PRESS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1980. More freedom to show films

Press, 17 November 1980, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1980. More freedom to show films

The Government no longer sees a need to license people who rent or exhibit films. An end to licensing is not likely to have such adverse consequences as those who are opposing the change have suggested. Some disadvantages can be expected to flow from the removal of restrictions on the numbers who can rent or exhibit films; but these disadvantages are matched by what promise to be advantages to the people who go to the cinemas. Their interests should be paramount.

The change should not lead to greater monopoly still in an industry that is already highly concentrated. Even if the major chains are able to exert greater freedom to their own advantage, the Commerce Act is at hand to prevent independent exhibitors being unfairly squeezed out. Public safety and comfort in cinemas and other places where films may be shown will continue to be assured by the enforcement of the building codes, bylaws, and fire-safety provisions of local authorities.

Delicensing is not likely to facilitate the illegal showing of pornographic movies. All films which are shown publicly will still have to be approved for exhibition by the film censor. Any claim that film censorship will no longer be properly enforced is an affront to customs officers and the police. Licensed film exhibitors have shown great responsibility in keeping within the standards set by the film censor, but they have not been the only or even the most important barricade against any supposed flood of pornographic films. By suggesting that there is a risk of a “multi-million-dollar pornography racket” established exhibitors lay themselves open to a charge of using a community concern to protect their interests.

The change is, however, significant In effect, anyone will be able to rent and exhibit films for profit, provided that thev observe all other appropriate laws and regulations. Those likely ; to take advantage of this new fredom are new, independent, and probably specialised commercial exhibitors, community organisation such as church or school groups' and sports clubs, ..which cannot, at -present use film.- showings ' to raise' funds. The way may also be open to the showing of films in restaurants, taverns, and licensed clubs.

" Showing films in such places as .hotel bars or nightclubs is hardly likely to diminish audiences of those whose primary business is showing films. ’Drinking and watching a nipvie are not activities that mix, comfortably. Few who want to see a film will choose to watch it in a bar rather than in a theatre. Showings by community organisations may, however, cut into the

audiences of small, local, and independent exhibitors and into the business of the surviving suburban and rural theatres of the cinema chains. Communities will not be better off for the loss of such cinemas.

The other serious risk arising from’ delicensing is that efforts may be made to cream off the profits to be gained from exhibiting films by showing them, perhaps in rented premises, only at peak times, notably school holidays. Those committed to providing a yearround service might, in these circumstances, find it difficult to keep going throughout the year and to keep showing films which do not attract the largest audiences.

The film-making industry and film societies, however, both support delicensing. The Federation of Film Societies believes that if bold, innovative people want to give the public onortunities to see a greater range of films in places other than the conventional cinemas, they should be given the chance. The country’s film-makers clearly feel that the change will provide more and more various outlets for their work.

The practice of the Film Licensing Authority has been to decline additional licences where exhibitors already seem to be meeting the need. Competitors who offer more films should be able to determine better than any three persons on a committee, however well informed or well meaning, what the people in any locality actually want. The in fact, promises to buck up the industry and encourage it to improve standards and adapt to changing cinema-going habits and preferences.

Admittedly, under the present system, New Zealand has a fair number of cinemas per head of population and relatively low admission prices. But in several important respects New Zealand cinemas now fall below world standards, though the main chains are rebuilding and improving many of their properties. The competition which will force improvements should be welcomed, although the nervousness of those who have been carrying on well enough in the past is understandable. ? If the restrictions are removed on film renting and exhibiting, filmgoers will probably be better served and eventually more economically served. This is not the only case in which the Government has been accused of pushing legislation without adequate consultation with the parties affected or concerned. The change will certainly shake up the industry, but this is not something from which a Government committed to freer enterprise and “restructuring” of hidebound industries should shrink.