BOYCOTTING NEW ZEALAND

Taranaki Daily News, 26 September 1930, Page 9

BOYCOTTING NEW ZEALAND

ACT OF AMERICAN FILM AGENTS.

EXHIBITORS EXPECT VOLTE FACE. The view of the exhibitors on the action of the American film companies in making no further film supplies available to New Zealand is that the distributors must shortly lift the boycott, stated Mr. Garnet H. Saunders, New Plymouth, who is a member of the executive of the New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors’ Association, to a News reporter last evening. The American distributors simply could not afford to lose the New Zealand market, said Mr. Saunders. The changeover from silent to talking films had considerably narrowed their markets. The only outside markets now for American films were English-speaking countries. Further, continental countries were beginning to produce talking pictures with English actors in them. Germany aud France, Jhrough their closeness to Britain, could engage English actors for short intervals much more easily than distant America.

The view of the exhibitors as -given by Mr. Saunders was that the policy of the distributors was • to force the exhibitors into action against the Government. The Government argued that the New Zealand film trade was yielding the American renters, after paying the taxation imposed, twice as much as in “silent” days, and considerably more than its fair share of the Australian and New Zealand revenue. Consequently, the reason given for stopping supplies, the reason of unprofitable trading, was not a bona fide one. Sir Victor Wilson had stated that he had a reply to the Government’s arguments, but refused to disclose it to the exhibitors. The exhibitors, however, believed that if Sir Victor expected them to enter the lists on behalf of the renters he should at least provide them with some adequate reason for doing so. Tile taxation of the film industry in Australia was approximately now the same as in New Zealand with its new taxation. In past years Now Zealandhad usually produced approximately 20 per cent of the total U7m rents received by America from Australia and New Zealand. The renters’ figures for the first six months of the present year showed that New Zealand was now paying about 26 per cent, of that total. The increase of 6 per cent, represented £67,000 for six months. Thus, if the rate of rentals was maintained over the remainder of the year it represented an excess of New Zealand’s ordinary share of £134,000. This excess amount would pay all their taxation and leave a considerable margin in excess pro rata of the rentals derived from Australia from which rentals the tax had still to be deducted. Consequently, the statement that it did not pay to trade in New Zealand did not stand examination, as it was evident that New Zealand yielded considerably more in proportion in rents than Australia.

The action of the distributors, said Mr. Saunders, might possibly squeeze some exhibitors with short contracts in the smaller towns temporarily out of business. He believed, however, that the boycott would be lifted by the American agencies long before the contracts in the larger centres expired. In New Plymouth, for example, the present contracts held for six months ahead.