Investigating Australian Film Industry

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 25

Investigating Australian Film Industry

Evidence Before Commission HURLEY ADVOCATES TAX Captain Frank Hurley, in evidence before the Australian Film Commission, advocated a tax of 1s on every reel shown, which should be used as a Government subsidy of the industry; also that a heavy duty should be imposed on the positives or actual copies of films which were imported, in conjunction with a low duty on negatives from which the copies were made. This would compel American organisations to send the negatives to Australia, he said, and so provide work for many persons in making the posir tives from them. Captain Hurley went on to say that he considered the suggested quota of 50 British and 20 Australian films annually was too high. The former should be reduced to 40, and he thought that 10 feature pictures annually was the limit of Australia’s filmproducing power at the present time. He said he was not opposed to a combine of exhibitors, because a local combine could fight an oversea combine. Nevertheless, he had himself suffered from the refusal of Hoyt’s Pictures in Melbourne to exhibit his film, “Zeebrugge,” making any presentation of it in Victoria impossible, although it had been most successfully shown in New South Wales. NOT UP TO STANDARD He said that the complaint of film exhibitors that Australian productions generally were not up to standard was justified. He suggested that a board should be constituted to judge the quality of Australian and British films to determine whether they were worthy of presentation. It should consist of a member of the trade, the Commonwealth censor, and an inde-

pendent arbitrator. It was not enough that Australian films should be up to a certain standard as entertainment for Australian audiences. The film stories should have a world-wide appeal in order to secure a world market for them. Of suitable stories there was at present not a wide range to select from, but if a market were created many capable writers would be found to supply the material.

He would also recommend, he said, establishing a central studio at Canberra, where the climatic conditions were ideal. The studio would be the means of developing the city very quickly, making a second Hollywood of Canberra in four or five years. At least £250,000 capital would be necessary to establish the studio. An ordinary programme picture suitable for a world’s market would cost from £15.000 to £20,000 Snd occupy a producer’s time for several months.

Mr. Roy Darling, an Australian producer. declared that German films were able to obtain a screening at Australian picture theatres where Australian productions could not. He said that he knew of a picture coming to Australia under the guise of a British production in which all the actors were Germans and the leading lady was an Austrian. He did not think it fair that foreign-made pictures of this kind should be screened in preference those made in Australia.

Witness went on to describe his experiences with local distributors and his difficulties in arranging for screenings of pictures which he had produced. In 1922 he made “The Lust fox' Gold.” but was unable to secure a release, and lost £9OO upon it. ANOTHER AMALGAMATION? In 1924 he made "The Daughter of the Last,” for wixiflx he obtained a screening only after considerable

trouble through Paramount Pictures, and his receipts amounted to £SO. Other producers had been treated unfairly by Union Theatres, Ltd., which controlled the majority of the theatres in Sydney. He understood tha-t an amalgamation between Union Theatres, Ltd., and Hoyts, Ltd., was contemplated. If it were accomplished there would be no possible chance for Australian producers to secure screenings.

Raymond Hollis Longford, a Sydney producer, continuing his evidence, said that on many occasions the State and Federal Governments had refused to co-operate in the taking of pictures. He could not get permission even to take a scene in the Botanic Gardens.