TWO WITNESSES DEFEND CHAIN ORGANISATIONS FOR FILMS

Wanganui Chronicle, 8 June 1949, Page 5

TWO WITNESSES DEFEND CHAIN ORGANISATIONS FOR FILMS

Inquiry Into Motion Picture Industry In New Zealand Resumes Hearings

WELLINGTON, Last Niglit (PA). —Chain organisations for Ihe exhibition of films did not constitute a menace to the independent exhibitor whose protection was the Film Industry Board, stated Mr. M. J. Moodabe, governing-director of Amalgamated Theatres, Ltd., at the resumption today of the inquiry into the motion picture industry by the special Parliamentary Committee.

Another witness was Mr. R. J. Kerridge, managing-director of Kerridge-Odeon, who said there had been an abundant film supply for all independents. Mr. Moodabe and Mr. Kerridge are two of the leading personalities in the New Zealand motion picture industry.

Cros-examined by members of the committee, Mr. Moodabe said healthy competition was good for the motion picture industry, just as it was for any other industry. It was also to the public advantage. CHILDREN’S PICTURES Asked if it would not be possible to screen more pictures suitable for children, witness said that both chains had had special child vn’s programmes, but the response was disappointins. Parents did not appear to show any interest in the programmes by sending their children to them. New Zealand got the same films as were screened throuohout the world, added Mr. Moodabe. There was not a good picture in any part of the world that was not screened in the Dominion. Theatres in New Zealand would more than hold their own with anything he had seen in Australia. The price for admission in New Zealand was just about a quarter of that in Australia. Replying to Mr R. Hardie Boys, the Crown counsel assisting the commission, Mr Kerridge said th e Ascot Theatre, in Newtown. Wellington, had had a pooling arrangement with the Rivoli Theatre there for the past six or eight months. Th e two theatres were in close proximity to each other and the arrangement was a very logical one. From memory, he thought the proposal for that arrangement'

came from the management of the Ascot Theatre. The arrangement avoided uneconomic competition for a film. Mr Kerridge said that if there were an amendment to the licensing regulations forbidding the acquisition of another theatre by buying shares, he would not resist it. No advantage had been taken by either chain organisation of any monopoly that might exist at present. Evidence of this was the price control*policy, and theatres which were run as under competitive conditions. U.S. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opp., Waitomo> asked: If the industry developed into one holding don’t you think the situation could be handled by antitrust legislation, as in America? Witness: There is that legislation, but it has not operated in Amerlsa. Mr. H. O. Wilson (Govt-., Palmerston North) asked: If the licensing provisions do not prevent it, you can continue to acquire independents? Witness: That is so. Mr. Wilson: The time may come when you have acquired all the independent theatres in the country? Witness: That is an unlikely development. Witness added that a real effort had been made to provide entertainment, especially for children, but the patronage was disappointing However, it did not follow that the picture sessions they did attend were unsuitable for them. With few exceptions the screenings of Continental films had not been successful, financial or otherwise. In some of the smaller theatres profit margins were very narrow and these theatres were only able to carry on by virtue of their being in the chain organisation. The inquiry will be resumed tomorrow.