Monopoly In Motion Picture Industry In New Zealand

Wanganui Chronicle, 27 May 1948, Page 5

Monopoly In Motion Picture Industry In New Zealand

DANGER OF FOREIGN CONTROL, SAYS WITNESS

(P.A.) Wellington, May 26. The development ot monopolies involved the danger of foreign control of the cinema industry in New Zealand, said the Hon. J. Robertson, M.L.C., making submissions for the Independent Cinemas Association, to the Parliamentary inquiry into the film industry in New Zealand and examined their effects. He said that in 1938 chain theatre interests, comprising Fuller and Fuller-Hayward circuits, Williamsons Ltd., New Zealand Theatres Ltd. and the Kerridge Theatres, combined their film-buying forces under the name of Theatre Management Ltd. Then they entereu into an arrangement with the remaining circuit—Amalgamated Theatres Ltd. —for a division between them of the whole of the Him supplies. This latter arrangement, known in the industry as the “KjQ.G. Agreement" ("keep off the grass”) made the matter of film supplies for any theatre outside the major circuit still more difficult.

At the same time as those activities with a view to bringing about this combination of forces were being pursued, the same agencies were active in setting up what became the Film Industry Board. Development of the Kerridge-Odeon monopoly actually began with the securing of control by the Kerridge-Odeon interests of New Zealand Theatres Ltd. (Kemballs). Then, later, Fuller and FullerHayward interests, and later still tha 1 Wililamson interests.

Some of the effects of the development of the monopoly were: (1) It in effect gave into the hands of two companies (even two men perhaps) complete power to decide wha* films New Zealand would be served with; (2) destruction of individua. “showmanship,” which previously gave the public a valuable service. (3) reduction in scope for employment; (4) monopoly control of film supplies through complete control of all screens and a resultant hardship to all other exhibitors in the selec-

tion of films and screening dates; (5) dictatorial power is exercised regarding all activities auxiliary to the main business and restraints are placed on other sections of the Industry (6) * tendency to depreciate values of theatre properties by limiting the scope of possible purchases to those who have monopolised film supplies. It was perhaps too late now to re--1 gret that action was not taken at an : earlier stage in this monopolistic dei velppment. It should, however, be possible to prevent further acquisition of cinemas by either monopolistic companies under a theatre licensing system. Development of a private monopoly had inherent in it a danger ■of foreign control- The committee would doubtless be able to ascertain the extent to which the Odeon Holdings, Ltd., had financial control over the Kerridge-Odeon group. Odeon Holdings Ltd., was registered as a private company in 1946, with a capital of £BOO,OOO. Two token shares were I held in New Zealand and the balance in London by the Rank Organisation. | It could be stated now, however, that as the result of the Odeon-Ker-ridge control of 143 cinemas New Zealand was nearer to foreign control of the industry than ever before. Af- : filiation of Rank with American pro- : ducing and distributing interests conI stituted the danger of American con- , trol, both in England and In New Zea- | land. The obvious way to save tha New Zealand film industry from foreign control was to break the monopoly. In the opinion of Independent Exhibitors, a system of restrictive licensing should be continued with amendments to the present procedure. The Film Industry Board as at present constituted was in no way fitted to be a hoard of arbitration. As an advisory body it was too unw’eildly. Existing conditions of supply of films to independent exhibitors were not reasonable. They were at a disadvantage in many ways in competition with chain organisations. Mr- Robertson suggested a system for zoning of film distribution.