1984 marked a new low for the Film Society movement in New Zealand. Membership plummeted to less than four thousand, five hundred. A record eight Societies ended the year too weak to survive into the new one. Major provincial centres such as Invercargill and Tauranga are now without Film Societies.

The accounts spell it out. The Federation was saved this year by its participation in Film Festivals in six centres. Without the income provided by these Festivals we simply could not have afforded to purchase and service a Film Society programme for 1985. We might have been meeting today to bury the Federation.

There is, I think, a growing pessimism amongst Film Societies, a tendency to think small engendered by the obvious facts; the declining memberships, the new competition from television, the growth of commercial interest in sub-titled movies and, of course, everybody's favourite scapegoat, the videotape. Now, some people might find these developments encouraging; an enrichment of the available leisure options. But I seem to hear these facts of contemporary life recited every day like some incantation of death for the Film Society movement.

It's true that all these factors have considerable bearing on the role and direction of the Film Society movement, but it does seem to me that Societies may be too ready to surrender. Many seem so daunted by the encroachments of technology and private enterprise on what was once their tidy, exclusive, little domain that they wear their dispiritedness openly. The collaboration with the chains which saved our skins in 1984 was greeted in some quarters with this very defeatism; having truck with the moneyed and acquisitive was seen as doomed to disaster. "We are the amateurs," seems to be the creed. And I'm referring to amateurism in the worst sense.

You need only look at the 1985 brochures published by the Wellington and Auckland Film Societies to see what I'm talking about. These are triumphs of amateurism from the two Societies who can most afford to pay for a professional job - and least afford not to. At a recent meeting of the Wellington committee, Jonathan Dennis's suggestion that Michael Houston might be employed to perform the Metropolis score was greeted with hoots of derision. The Canterbury Film Society in its video submissions has consistently ignored our professional advice regarding copyright restrictions on video screenings. Why on earth do they think we would try to mislead them?

The manifestations of the amateur spirit continue... Late in 1984 the Federation, at the instigation.of the Working Committee convened a publicity and programming workshop primarily for the benefit of the larger Societies. Peter Goodbehere's Napier brochure is the only evidence to hand that our time was not entirely wasted. The workshop was followed up with a lengthy report which spelled out the sales angles on our 1985 programme so baldly that it was almost embarrassing, So, what happened? Why are there brochures listing L'Age d'Or without mentioning that the film has been eagerly awaited for fifty years? What about the brochures that fail to point out that Colour Of Pomegranates had to be smuggled out of Russia? We really did go to some lengths to identify the sales angles on these and other films. So why do so many brochures continue to read like coded messages to the already converted?

At this same workshop Societies were plied with programming advice and a system was introduced to streamline bookings for the larger Societies so that each could have a greater hand in shaping their own 1985 schedule. Much of the advice was ignored and the streamlined system was completely stymied at an early stage by Auckland's failure to provide their bookings until several weeks after the due date. And, as always, many Societies failed to fill in their booking forms correctly. In the Federation Office Christopher was forced to catch up on the filing when he might have been doing the bookings. Catching up on the bookings deprived me of a Christmas holiday.

And there's more. At the recent AGM of the Wellington Film Society the chairman informed the thankfully small gathering that you've got to expect poor projection at the occasional Film Society screening. Well, maybe everybody's come to expect; but that's no reason why they should HAVE to. This inferiority complex, like most, is self-fulfilling. I am all too aware that some of the prints we supply are not in mint condition, and it's fair to warn members of this. The 1985 catalogue supplement contains such warnings for the first time. But Film Society projectionists are expected to check the prints they are screening and many screening break-downs are inexcusable. And they discourage the members who've joined.

If I seem to be hammering Wellington, it's because Wellington is where I live. And it also happens to be the largest Society in the country, the flagship. The end of 1984 saw the resignation from the Wellington committee of Sequence editor, David Lindsay, after eleven years in which he managed to transform a newsletter into something of an institution. I do hope my remarks here will not be construed as personal, but I think David's resignation highlights one of the most difficult problems inherent in any voluntary organisation. David, I think all will agree, could be called an amateur in the best sense,. He worked long and hard and virtually alone on Sequence. It will not have gone unnoticed by those present that since David's resignation, there has not, as yet, been another issue of Sequence.

A committee has been set up to work on Sequence and that committee has found out just how very much hard work David used to do. That recognition has not paralysed the committee, but it has forced them to face the fact that they simply cannot - or will not - find the time. Consequently there has had to be some cutting back on the service that Wellington Film Society members have come to take for granted.

While David was Sequence editor there was, inevitably, some criticism of his work. As a one-man-band he called the music and there were those of us who were occasionally dismayed by his taste in music. To its surprise that group has now inherited Sequence and what we've inherited is a set of expectations, along with the machinery that evolved in response to David's perception of his needs. It's not easy to adapt that machinery to a new set of needs and commitments. There's been a rather embarrassing hiccup, and it's another mark of the amateurism that Societies constantly need to guard against.

I think it's a common mistake for Societies to rely so much on any individual that they take that individual's contributions for granted. But neither should they allow anybody to become virtually irreplaceable, or, and this is important, to determine the terms by which they are replaced. It's always desireable to see some line of succession in a committee and to that end it's necessary to ATTRACT and to train new, younger people onto committees and into positions of some influence. I find Chris's remarks about tolerating the vulgarity and banality of youthful tastes a trifle unattractive. The young may have just as much difficulty coping with the safe, liberal whiteness of the tastes of their elders. But I do agree with Chris that new life is needed in this weary, dispirited body. It must be incorporated, not merely tolerated. And with it there must be some continuity of skills and knowledge.

It does strike me that some of the established one-man bands (I don't t know of any one woman-bands) that run Film Societies are very thin-skinned when it comes to criticism. Paranoia is another mark of amateurism. Admittedly it's the mark of a few professionals too, but there needs to be some freeing up in larger Societies if we are to evolve with the times.

And there needs to be some tightening up too, a heightening of standards.

One more point about amateurism - and it's a personal one. Some of the film appraisals that are returned to the Federation Office are not merely unhelpful; they're abusive. There's the suggestion in them that the films screened are the work of idiots and that they've been selected for your consumption by more idiots. Other appraisals merely use that space at the bottom of the form as a platform for prejudice. As I feared at this time last year Taxi Zum Klo brought the bigots out of the woodwork in 1984. Reading some of these appraisals is about as depressing as working for Film Societies can get. There are many times when I do not feel proud to be associated with this organisation.

But, you guessed. It isn't all bad. The new involvement in the Festivals provided some invigoration in 1984. I, for one, have never worked so hard in my life and I hope I never have to again. I do not deny that there's some pleasure involved in being at the epicentre of a sixteen day wonder, but it sure is exhausting.

Societies in six centres visited by the Festival rose to the occasion. In Auckland Philippe Hamilton and his committee finally got what Philippe had been writing editorials about for so long and they provided tremendous support and helped ensure the crucial success of the new arrangements. In Dunedin Cathy Fitzgerald and her committee took on a great deal of work and carried it out with exemplary flair and professionalism. The Wellington committee contributed their distinctive identity to the Festival there. Societies in Christchurch, Hamilton and Palmerston North had less to do, but did it well.

There was a do-or-die necessity about our involvement in the Festivals in 1984. Here, at last, was our chance to demonstrate to the commercial interests that the ideals of the Film Society movement could be successfully harnessed, as long as they were also respected. There was some scepticism amongst some Society committees who felt that they were merely being asked to provide free labour for the chains and to a lesser extent, the Federation. And, of course, they were providing free labour, but for the first time Film Societies were able to determine to a large degree the way in which the Festivals were presented.

The chains are not quick to acknowledge the contributions of Film Societies, although they did acknowledge something new in allowing us a fair share of the profits. It seems most likely that the new arrangement will continue into 1985, but it is by no means signed and sealed. Assuming that the new arrangement does prevail, I hope Societies will find the energy and the inclination to provide their time and labour once again.

The Festivals may have been the salvation of the Federation - and affiliated Societies - in 1984, but they're not a formula for eternal life. The movie business has the reputation of being more fickle than most. Our involvement in 1984 was soundly based, but it may not be that way forever. The Federation, through its member Societies, should do its utmost to sustain or increase its current level of participation in this new collaboration, but it would be most reckless to rely on it. We should endeavour to make ourselves indispensible to the Festivals.

And we must sustain our involvement by becoming independently strong. If we become dependents, we're lost, like the Auckland Festival Society before us. It's more crucial than ever to increase our memberships, to improve our public profile outside the Festivals, to become much more vitally engaged in the communities we are supposed to be serving. These objectives take me back to the earlier part of my address.

Chris's intimations of a growing film culture in this country are well taken. The Film Society has some of the machinery and a lot of the interested personnel to become more involved. I have worked for the Federation for six years now and during that time I have been immensely discouraged by the reactions to two issues. One, you may recall, was the aggressively apathetic response to the community involvement questionnaire some years ago. The second was the reaction to the suggestion that an age restriction on Society membership might-be a liability rather than an asset.

I do hope that these issues will be aired again and soon, and that the response from Film Societies will be much less conservative. But I'm not entirely confident that it would be. Conservatism characterises much about this sanitation. Look at the booking patterns for 1985. I thought I'd imported The Tin Drum for the smaller Societies who might never have had a chance to screen it before, but it was requested by virtually every Society in the country and many wanted to use it to open their seasons. Nicaragua - No Pasaran did not fare well at all, and Allies with considerable relevance to the major issue facing New Zealand today came in almost last.

Societies were saved this year by the actions of their Executive, but really the time has come for you to decide to save yourselves. If you want to remain as vaguely exclusive film clubs, then go to it, but your days are as numbered as you fear. If you wish to engage with contemporary issues, in business and society and in film culture, then there may be some hope. Some degree of professionalism is essential. As everybody here seems to realise we ARE competing for the attention of our potential membership. Some degree of community involvement is certainly in accordance with the manifesto in our rules, and it is what differentiates us from our business colleagues and competitors. Let's see some visible, communicated pride in what you are doing and a refusal to tolerate technical ineptitude. Let's also see some freshness in approach to the problems that beset us.

These qualities cannot be magically summoned up at Conference. They have to be promulgated at home and mostly at committee level. There has to be some shared conviction involved.

Too often committee meetings are dominated by the futile ravings of some stalwart who's been getting on everybody's nerves for years. Don't let them get away with it. They need you more than you need them, and there are ways of making this clear. These are the people whose presence on your committee dissuades others from ever becoming involved.

Ideally your committee might be composed of people who all loathe meetings and therefore keep brief and efficient. You've got to make involvement in the Film Society as attractive as possible to those who actually have some skills, not merely opinions, to offer. Of course your committee also serves some social role for all its members, but first it's necessary to get down to business. And don't just allocate tasks to whoever is prepared to do them then mercilessly criticise their work when it doesn't measure up. Keep an eye on each other and delegate carefully. So much Film Society work is drudgery, so spread it around. And if you have some wonderperson who's doing everything miraculously well, let them know you appreciate it. But keep an eye on them too. Watch what they do. For someday you might be expected to do it yourself.

I'm aware that my remarks apply chiefly to Societies in the larger centres. Societies in smaller communities seem to get it right more often and they seem more acutely aware of the precariousness of their position. It may, of course, be a great deal easier to become involved in your community when there's a lot less competition for your community's attention, but I do think that the larger Societies could learn a lot from the smaller. And, on a personal level once more, smaller Societies write better, more useful, more fully appreciative assessments. The feedback from Helen Aldridge in Waiheke Island and from Societies in Golden Bay, Alexandra, Greymouth and Nelson is a pleasure to receive, even when they didn't like the movie.

They're the sort of assessments that convince me we are doing something right. As did the day I spent watching Syberberg's Hitler or the afternoon we screened Parsifal at the Wellingt6n Film Festival. We screened some excellent films in 1984 and you can be sure that few of them would have made it to New Zealand without the Film Society. There is a need for us. There is work to be done. But Film Societies have to want to do that work. And they must recognise that we need absolutely to be strong in numbers to make ourselves viable. The Federation Executive saved your bacon in 1984. We can't do it again. You've got to decide whether or not to save yourselves in a radically altered environment. Amateurism is no longer considered quaint and endearing. It's time to smarten up the act or retire from the stage.

There are a few individuals whose contributions in 1984 should be recorded. Many of you may be sorry to hear that Christopher McKevitt is no longer working for the Federation. His company in the office throughout most of 1984 and the many thankless tasks he performed certainly helped make the year bearable for me and kept things rolling for you. I would like to add my thanks to Lindsay's welcome to Chris Prowse. Chris did not take on the exchequer in the easiest of years, but seems to have coped extremely well with my confusion and the Federation's new accounting requirements. The third and final Chris to thank is Chris Watson who took over the presidency at very short notice last year and has provided considerable support since then.

I'd also like to pay special tribute to the delegation from Dunedin. Since she's been back in the country, Aline Sandilands has abundantly displayed her continuing interest in the welfare of the Federation. And Cathy Fitzgerald probably deserves a share of the Dunedin Film Festival surplus for the vast amount of works she undertook on our behalf in July and August. Dunedin, under her presidency, remains one of the most enterprising and successful of Film Societies, having recently undertaken and survived considerable financial and mental risk by collaborating with the Archive in the presentation of The Adventures Of Ally.

I'd like to convey some general thanks to the Working Committee for the support they provided regarding the Festival arrangements and for the various tasks they have performed throughout the year. They may have taken a very long time to make important decisions regarding my salary, but generally they're an active group and their meetings are more genial and effective than many others I attend. Chairman Lindsay Shelton may not make it to Conferences very often, but he does make it to Working Committee meetings and he continues to provide invaluable advice and support between meetings - from all over the world. His involvement in the Federation remains a major one in an extremely busy life. Thanks too to Jonathan Dennis and his staff, particularly Peter Sakey. I can assure you that the facilities at the Archive are being utilised most fully by the Federation.

And thank you to Roger, Jan and to Noel Ruscoe and the Wanganui committee for organising this conference. Anybody who has ever organised a conference will appreciate just how little assistance the Wanganui Society has received from the Federation. All the credit goes to our hosts.

Bill Gosden
23 February 1985