The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1934. THE PICTURES.

Evening Star, Issue 21721, 16 May 1934, Page 8

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1934. THE PICTURES.

It is really an intrusion that the “ talkies ” should leave their spacious quarters on the back pages of the newspapers, and for once in a while receive serious comment, unrelieved by illustrations of the latest star herself, the latest star’s latest pet (biped or quadruped), or the latest star’s latest style of reception of masculine adoration. The film players and producers ought to be contented in their own location in the journalistic sense. They appear to be a happy family; their wealth, whether derived from salary or monopoly, is reputedly immense; their whims are treated tenderly; their kaleidoscopic changes in matters , domestic are regarded as like the innocent gambols of very young animals. If the voice of criticism is ever raised concerning their strictly professional doings in front of the camera, it is (with a few honourable exceptions) swiftly suppressed. The “ talkies ” have a world of publicity entirely their own. And we know that there are hosts of people, both ultra-respectable and rather above than below the general average of intelligence, who are as regular in their attendance at picture shows as were their prototypes in their attendance at church.

The film industry, however, lias its difficulties. The Government of New Zealand set up a committee of inquiry to investigate them, and from the order of reference with which the committee was furnished one judges the industry’s difficulties to be entirely financial and not at all artistic. One used to hear a good deal of “ tied houses ” in connection with the hotel business when public attention was concentrated on what is called the licensing question. Among other restrictions the tied house had to accept the liquor supplied it by the brewer or wholesale firm that had furnished the licensee with his working capital or “ put him in,” and freedom to purchase elsewhere was as a rule denied or greatly curtailed. It seems that exhibitors of films have also been tied by film monopolies. The committee proposes a modicum of freedom in this respect. The exhibitor is to be given the right to reject up to 25 per cent, of “ block-booked ” films, and “ statutory provision is to be made for the prevention of a monopoly of film supplies.” Thus docs a parliamentary committee declare its belief in the powers of the New Zealand Parliament as against astute commercialism with world-wide ramifications. This sort of challenge has been issued before, but no one with much experience ever has much doubt as to the ultimate result. Where a reportable section of public opinion has been behind a Government in efforts to maintain certain standards of behaviour some measure of success is probable, and in the film censorship one acknowledges indebtedness to authority for having performed a somewhat difficult task without undue emphasis on autocratic power and without hobbling those who cater for the popular taste, which we note with satisfaction is paid something of a compliment in the report because the box office attests the drawing power of clean, wholesome pictures. In another way the public is protected by Parliament, and that is in the matter of charges for admission to the cheaper parts of the house, for contract forms have made the exhibition of special films contingent on no one gaining access to them below a stipulated price. The supervision of contract forms before they are signed adds a novel form of responsibility to the manifold duties of democratic administration.

lii our cities film societies have sprung up as they have in the old world, and their sessions are usually held on Sunday evenings. Nearly two years ago the British Parliament allocated part of the proceeds of Sunday cinemas to the financing of a Film Institute, the purpose of which is the introduction into the unregulated coin-

mercialism of the cinema of an independent organisation charged with fostering those aspects of its development —artiatio, scientific, and intellectual—which are most liable to be dwarfed by the application of purely box-office tests of popularity. Its origin was described at the time by Mr R. S. Lambert, an English writer, as due to the fact that “ all over the country there are springing up groups of film enthusiasts who want to see the best of what is coming out from both British and foreign studios. They form local film societies, often in the face of grave practical difficulties, in order to see films that are above the average of anything they can get in the local picture houses. Such societies want advice, information, and assistance from London. More important, however, is the organisation of groups. of filmgoers to make their wishes known to the local cinema manager and back him with practical support if he decides to introduce a better class of film than heretofore to his patrons.” But in addition to this the Film Institute would have a separate, more specific, and equally difficult task to perform in the development of the film as an instrument of instruction aud an aid to education proper. In this field again the institute has the part of middleman to play. Instructional films will not take their proper place in the class room and lecture room until the trade collaborates effectively with the specialist teacher in producing what is wanted. Already learned societies such as the Historical and Geographical Associations have prepared plans of what is needed in their own field. A Film Institute commanding the confidence of scientific and educational opinion would build up a bridge for collaboration with film producers in this field, and at the same time help to ensure an adequate market for what is produced. From what little we have heard of the Film Society’s activities in Dunedin its work is chiefly along those lines, and the gaining of some measure of recognition from the Film Inquiry Committee may stimulate this and other societies in New Zealand to press for the filling of requirements of the public which undoubtedly exist for better films.