The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY JULY 17, 1928. THE FILM BILL

Southland Times, Issue 20540, 17 July 1928, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY JULY 17, 1928. THE FILM BILL

The Government evidently is proceeding with the nonsense of the Cinematograph Bill, this pseudo-imperial measure which is going to add to the already long list of failures due to Government interference with business. This Bill briefly proposes that film renters, the concerns which buy films abroad, shall take a certain quota, increasing annually, of British pictures, and the exhibitors in turn must show a proportion of British-made films, also increased in succeeding years. Although the avowed object of this measure is to assist the British film industry, the ultimate effect will probably be in the other direction, since the influence of this attempt at artificial assistance will be in the direction of encouraging the indifferent production. While the British film industry is facing the heavy competition of the Americans, which enjoy almost a monopoly, the fatal fact is that the Americans are turning out motion pictures which are superior to those coming from the British studios, and the causes of this difference are to be found in the American methods which excel those of the British: A few days ago we published an

interview with Mr Ronald Colman, a British actor who after being rejected as a failure on the stage and in British picture studios, crossed the Atlantic and became a star in the United States. Revisiting England, Mr Colman was driven to compare the British and American methods to the disadvantage of the former. He found that technically the same care was not taken, while the outlay on British productions led to “skimping” in comparison with the lavish expenditure in the States. The result was the production of pictures which technically were tragically inferior to the American and Continental films. Britain has the players, as the large number of British stars in the American studios shows, but the productions are distressingly inadequate, and while some of the American stories, in any of their bowdlerisms are farcical, very many of the British film dramas are no better. What then is to be the result of the Cinematograph Bill? The New Zealand film renter while he is compelled to buy British films has a compulsory market awaiting him, and he need not go any further than the purchase of the cheapest British products offering, because he will be able to dispose of these to the exhibitors who must show them, whether the public likes them or not. This Government measure compels the exhibitor to screen the British films, but it cannot compel the public to attend to see them, and experience has shown that the people who attend picture houses will stay away if British film dramas are being offered. A compulsory exhibition of British film dramas imposes penalties on the exhibitor and the public without giving any assurance that the standard of these films will be i raised. In fact it quite obviously provides an encouragement for the British film industry or a part of it to persist in the production of cheap films. In the Old Country this quota idea has been roundly condemned by the exhibiting houses. It is absurd to contend that these are fearful of the threats of the American producers, because the legislative compulsion under which they operate will over-ride any of their contracts. What they see, and what the New Zealand exhibitors see is that they are compelled to include in their programmes film dramas which will keep the public away from their theatres. A great deal is heard about the Government’s desire to refrain from interfering in business, but this proposed legislation constitutes an interference of the worst kind since it compels one section of the industry to provide a market for another. What would happen if the quota idea were imposed on the motor trade? The British film can be sure of a market if their picture dramas are good enough to win public interest, and if they are not good enough to do this they should not be imposed on audiences by compulsory legislation.