By David Gascoigne

NUMBERS:

At the present time there are 37 active film societies in New Zealand. During the past year, four of the smaller societies went into recess (temporary, I hope) but five new societies were formed and became affiliated - they are the Greytown, Hawera, Kaitaia, Tauranga and Waitati Film Societies. There has been a reduction in the overall number of film society members. This was not unexpected. You will recall that there was a very substantial increase in subscription implemented as a result of the Special General Meeting held during the course of 1975. This increase took effect at the beginning of 1976. We anticipated at the time that it would result in a reduction in the number of members but felt that the increase was necessary to have film society finances placed on a proper and more realistic basis. Quite apart from that, the stringency of the current economic climate must have had its effect. The film society movement is not alone in that regard; other cultural organisations seem to have sustained a similar drop in patronage. With any luck, the amount of time which the Federation has to spend in matters related to film censorship will diminish considerably from now on - because of the passage of the Cinematograph Films Act 1976. That will mean that the Federation will be able to spend more time on domestic matters, such as producing publicity material for member societies and helping those societies to promote membership drives. We will be talking more about this later in the day.

CENSORSHIP:

The topic of censorship has been the subject of an annual moan by successive Chairmen of the Federation in their annual reports for a goodly number of years now. Year after year, successive Chairmen have reported that high hopes were held for an early reform of the law, but that honesty compelled an admission that in fact there had been little really achieved. This year that sad refrain can be scrapped. There was, this year, a great deal of movement on the censorship front. There is now a good basis for cautious optimism about the future. While I think we must still be cautious about what the future holds, the prospect is that worthwhile films will now largely escape the dreadful treatment they have received in recent years, largely through the workings of an archaic statute.

LEGISLATIVE FRONT:

THE CENSOR:

I was saddened to learn of Doug McIntosh's death on Christmas Day. We certainly had our differences of opinion with him, but we had over the years reached a degree of accommodation. At least we each understood the other's point of view. Many of the decisions which he made which we disagreed with were made by him with, I think, a degree of regret. He felt himself a prisoner of the law. He had to apply the law as he thought, or was advised, it stood. He had said publicly on many occasions that he wanted wider and more liberal criteria to work with. I think it is a pity that he has been denied the opportunity of giving the new Act some shape and direction from its inception.

A new Chief Censor has yet to be appointed. I have no idea who, if anyone, may have applied for this unenviable task but I hope that the person who is ultimately chosen will be chosen because of his knowledge and experience and qualifications. Perhaps someone having a background in, say, sociology or education and - I think this is particularly important - having an understanding of and liking for films, will be appointed.

CENSORSHIP FEES:

During the course of the year the Government, as part of its review of Government charges, bumped up the charges for film censorship. It now costs $100 to have a film censored, it costs an additional $200 to appeal against the Censor's decision. That is a lot of money. We reminded the Minister that he had said at this place and on this occasion last year that in any review of charges the special position of film societies, film festivals and other non-commercial exhibitors would be recognised. We have learned from the Minister that Government has agreed to a reduction in fees for such bodies to a level of 25% of the rate charges to the commercial people. That seems fair enough to me.

FUNDING THE FILM-MAKERS:

When the Cinematograph Films Bill was first introduced as a Government measure in 1975, it contained some provisions setting up a tribunal to represent the interests of our commercial distributors and exhibitors. That tribunal was, brazenly, to be called the Film Industry Board. Now in a number of civilised countries they have boards with rather similar names. But those boards are concerned with providing finance and technical assistance for the making of films. In our new Act the local board is now to be known as the Film Trade Board. This is a more appropriate name. But the initial piece of naming was, I thought, significant. The commercial distributors and exhibitors have a specialist board, promoted by Government, to represent their interests. There is no specialist board to represent or assist our small band of talented but struggling film-makers. They are persistently neglected by Government and, for that matter, by the commercial distributors and exhibitors. (I should add that the Arts Council does lend assistance so far as it can. But in its present straitened circumstances and with competing claims for its attention its role can only be a limited one. What is really needed is a separate Film Development Board).

That is not to say that the problem goes unnoticed. For years now various bodies, the Arts Council, local film-makers, the film societies have been urging the creation of a workable film board, The mechanics of setting up such a board are easily enough resolved. The money is no doubt the stumbling block. And yet it shouldn't be. There are three ways in which such a board may be funded. First, by a diversion of the present film hire tax away from the coffers of the Consolidated Fund and towards such a board. Secondly, by the imposition of a seat tax - that is, a tax of a few cents on each ticket sold for commercial screenings. This is a device commonly used in Europe. Thirdly, by a direct Government grant. That is how the splendid Australian Film Development Corporation (now the Australian Film Commission) got under way.

Mike Nicolaidi will, I gather, be speaking this morning about how some of our local film-makers are actually getting their feature film proposals off the ground in spite of the absence of any central funding. The determination of these hardy individuals and the sacrifices they have to make are, I think, awe-inspiring. But they shouldn't have to struggle so hard. The need to encourage the making of films in New Zealand by New Zealanders should surely be self-evident. The present Minister for the Arts, Mr Highet, appreciates the point. He has spoken publicly of the desirability of setting up a separate Film Board to provide assistance to our film-makers, Towards the end of last year he said that he hoped that something - funded by Government - might emerge during this year. My hope is that he will have been able to say something today which will bring his expressed wish closer to a reality.

OUR FUNDING:

To my amazement, the Federation has finished the year solvent. Earlier in the year I felt sure that we would become totally bankrupt. I think that our solvency is due primarily to wise film selection on the part of Lindsay Shelton, and to careful budgeting on the part of Stephen Tustin. We must all recognise, however, that the cost of film hire and film purchase continues to rise astronomically. So far as the Federation's monetary policy is concerned, I would like to see increases in subscription rates held as closely as possible to the rate of inflation. That will mean, however, that we must seek more money from outside sources. (That is because the increase in film costs far outstrips the general rate of inflation).

During the past year we received grants from the Ministry for Sport and Recreation amounting to $1,425.00 (though a substantial increase in that figure has been agreed to for the current year's funding). We have also just received a special grant from the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council amounting to $3,000.00 to assist in the purchase of classic films. This will be included in the current year's accounts. Quite apart from that we intend, this year, to embark upon a policy of inviting commercial organisations of one kind and another to sponsor particular films selected by the Federation for its Catalogue. Those organisations will get the benefit of advertising which will accompany each film, You will hear more about this later today.

FILM HIRE:

During the year the Federation selected twenty new feature films and more than fifty new shorts for inclusion in this year's film programmes. These new films are adequately described in the Federation's revised new Catalogue. Lindsay Shelton, as you know, is the person who does most of the work in connection with seeking out and obtaining our films: I think he does a marvellous job. The new Catalogue - a much better publication than ever before - was the combined work of Lindsay, Rosemary Hope and Jonathan Dennis. It's a fascinating book, as most of you will know by now.

ORGANISATION:

The presence of Rosemary Hope as our full time Secretary has made an immense difference to the members of the Working Committee. The amount of work that has to be put in simply to keep film societies going at all is truly astonishing. Rosemary now does the vast bulk of this work on her own, and she does it very efficiently.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this report, we intend making a major effort this year to help publicise film societies as such, in the hope of attracting more members. The more members we have, the more money we have. The more money we have, the better the films we can hire. We are largely relying in this area of endeavour on the talents of John Brooks. It was he who designed the splendid letterhead that the Federation now uses. He will be talking to you later in the day about plans for promoting film society membership.

OTHER ACTIVITIES:

The Working Committee tries to maintain close relationships with other bodies which have an interest in films or matters affecting films. The Federation also continues to make its films available to those bodies who have a particular interest in the kind of films that we either own or are able to control. In particular, we supply from our permanent collection many of the films used in university film courses. In addition, Working Committee members continue, when asked, to give addresses to various intrerested clubs and other bodies about film societies and about that perennial topic - censorship.

We were busily shaping up to the task of making submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee upon the Broadcasting Bill when we learnt that submissions had closed. The Bill was enacted almost immediately. There were some disturbing features about that Bill and, because we feel that we have come to know something about censorship and the mechanisms of control, we thought we should speak up. We were not given the chance.

Once again we must record our indebtedness to the National Film Library. It continues to assist in the storing, despatch and receiving of our films. We must also record our gratitude to those embassies and cultural legations which have made films available to us. The Working Committee met on eight occasions throughout the year. They pondered long and ernestly, and hope that the decisions they reached were wise ones.

APOLOGIA:

Looking back on what I have been saying, I see that a large part - you may think a disproportionate part - of this report is concerned with the topic of censorship. I would like to make some comment about that. In the first place, a lot did happen on the censorship front this year: I personally spent much more time dealing with censorship matters than with any other topic affecting film societies. Secondly, it is an important matter: censorship is after all concerned with restrictions on the freedom of expression. Thirdly, it interests me: it represents a point where my interest in films coincides with my legal training. Fourthly, for all that, it is my earnest wish that the new system will work so well that this time next year there will be very little to be said on the subject.

David Gascoigne
February 10, 1977.    

Chairman, Working Committee.