FILM TAX CONTROVERSY

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 78, 29 September 1930, Page 11

FILM TAX CONTROVERSY

(To tho Editor.)

Sir,—The wyitei- ha's been very. ;lrrt«j> ieste'd. iii. the ■ correspondence that lias.jap» peayed' in. your •columns regarding" the ■"iicjj" positioil - of. the: film tax, by tho' ,'Goverfc •nieut.v It :is rather bewildering, at times, to read the statements made by aomewof your correspondents. • : : :~- ;,:'': -%C.t '-t

.Appareatly.the whole argument. fVib.e* twe,on the:film organisations and the<Gov« f ernment as,: the; incidence of the tax. .^Je find on ■injiuii'y that :the. Forbes ■G'pvexfy-' meht BucigeWd,''S3o,ooo. for;.'the^n^'jitf, this''imaricial '"year, which supir.)vas'~guav-. anteed by-tlte -film; organisations tlirouga . ■ the , president; ;Sir..'. Victor iWilson: '■ ■ ' *IDiia.■' ■ GoVernment have been pleased^not^,fa;ic»: cept- this offer, btit to go on withjthe fa'S'-. under the preseiat method, »"\vliicli' thdVfitni interests insist Svillryield, much'mororthaa" ; the ■ budgetedvr.jamount.. i'ln .<. 'justificatiDjv for this;:,''grab,'':;. Mi:. Ransom*^ ;only;^ex- : euse is that-if.:th.e film iiitcrestapay-tnore, they; should::, consider themselves;.. litckjvJas they are' niaking more. -~ Taking ..that ,i« , every/day life, it means -that .you .should , pay for- ordinary articles .according tjj"tha anlount of money you, have; to. spare;' ",'■. To get ;back; to'your correspondents,"''^! am very:;niue]vwith. :Hector;JL.Sroith,i wht» looks at .it from a, sane pojnt i; bf .Mew. 'Some of Jthe others' 'seem .to" jwsi.Uet- then* peii'run on witlio«t rhyme'orrea'son.'-TaKa "Anzae"^("The Post,"'"Thurß<Jay|'-258^. He. states" that he': has.■■■ftiffidtifli.. faitli-.:itt the Old'''Country, to /believe. tha.fe' the;;.requirements q£!: i.Kerf • Zealand,-as;-far ■-,'.ak film is 'concerneii,>.eau,-be;ainply/.supplies, I would; ask : ..this., gentleman, ■now? niany British airvfluality'lie! h,a£. 'aeeii in Wellirigtori iaVthe'past' tw,elye7.montH.6i and^']lfl;^^v6uic^'■..iind■.(thatllthere.^*are■'Ve^^ few; iu'iact,"":f'amvinformed.'thflt,'th'e;biitput of British pictures^'for 'this coming; year will;l)e:'"ab6ut•'"fifty.> '■''•.A. 'liicercharice Wellington/would ; liave-of, getting, thtotigb. with fifty ''pictures •« year- "

Then the same writer mentions that a picture of the type of "Disraeli" would run four to six weeks and would take ths place of at least six of the trashy serieE, The American iilin interests must thank '•Anzac'' ior such a wonderful tribute to an American product, for I would inform '•Aiwac" that although George Arliss ia ii vciy well-known English stage, per* former, '"Disraeli" was made in America. Jn fact, quite a. number of the good-pro-ducts, whichvhave had such a great appeal on account of their British speaking voices, have been made in America. "'The Slack Watch," ''Three Live Ghosts,",and •'Journey's End" were all American pro-" ducts. The purpose of , the foregoing is not to Belittle English productions (for British pittines need do greater advertise: meat than ''.Rookery Xook"), but just to prove to "Anzac" what Uttle chance '-fea exhibitors ha\e of getting through' with only British pictures. Re "Tax 'Em," who goes into a lot of generalities. He tells us that films are s,old to the highest bidder. My information on this is not so, that on the whole, the reldtioiibhips between distributors ia New Zealand and exhibitors are as amicable as they are in any other commercial undertaking. There aie instances where exhibitors deal with the same distributors i'or years without n. break. There" are cases, however, where the distribute? tells in a better maiket, nud in just .tha same way as the exhibitor, where he can, changes round to a better market for liiih* J.OW."

■: The value of film being potential,: ther*.' is the everlasting argument1 between 'exhibitor and distributor as to-'whsttf is"it«" , real value;: : Even on a percentages -baais, ■ •I expect it.would,-be a hard-thing to agree* ""Tax 'Em" ..mentions 50 ;per.v cent..-.;/.jsls!.;\ information oil.this, again'is different,'.?.ncC. I think that, "Tax" 'Em" would ,be^very.~ ■hard, put .'to!show any, -cases,' take '* We.l» ■lington- for instance, .where an''^libitM?'.■" paid- anything near 50 per cent, jfoiy.hi& film hire. •■We have'not' heard:any cries from, the Wellington, exhibitors;:iri: v'ihiS v controversy. Your v correspondent,-,' I'Tshc' 'Em" mentions the large .profits;' producers' have reaped in, the past' at the. expense _o£theatre proprietors, ami the public. .SurelyJ not theatre .proprietors.-, i' I have in;front.of■ me a pamphlet regarding a debeil't.Ul'a, issue' on a chain of .^theatres in.'this' verTT city, in which an audited' report',, stfftesi that the proprietors' profits;for .the "past/ three years average £30,000" per annum..' Well, if any personlin any line-of ;busi-'' ness could earn £30,000 in the past,yeari' in a time of depression such.as we hav.e;; gone through, "Tax 'Em", would not. ask me to believe that the suppliers who jveroproviding him with goods had treated hita\; unfairly. " -.. '■;.■'.'. " : '• ■, ■" ■■. :'::_'\'l-*. '■■ In' conclusion, Ii would simply remind '■ Mr. Kansom that as Acting-Prime Minis'-1' tei- in'this country-he has a duty to'pei>_.. form. If-' be is so sure • of: his ground,'; why ■ then is. he so scared to ie-opeiV thej matter? 'It would be just> as^« well,'■■'at}ihis juncture, to' remind the Aetin^-Prniie Minister.: -.-that those who areI.- shoutiagf loudest at the,;, present 'moment .will:,v€r,y:^ likely sing. a. very:.• different- song; when, . in the course of a few months, they, their friends or relations may-join the army o£ the unemployed, for the outlook \at. the present niom'eht points'' to''"tn'o"'"closing up:'of ••most ,bf' the theatres: in-, this coflntry- In. a very short; tinie.—l ,am,-etc.j ■ ' ' ■-"•'•—v-'

SANE'METHODS:'""";