NZ FEDERATION OF FILM SOCIETIES

The original name was probably suggested by the British Film Institute, a body with much wider functions. It controls the National Film Theatre in London, cares for the National Film Archive, published two magazine on films and one on television, as well as distributing films.

The New Zealand body would have pursued similar activities if its funds allowed, but the day that it could do so appeared (in 1962) to be in the remote future. The Institute's stationery had carried the sub-title "The Federation of Film Societies throughout New Zealand" so the newly adopted name was a recognition of the fact that this was its principal function. But the objects stated in its new rules were wide enough to permit the other activities should they ever become financially possible.

The NZ Film Institute was founded in February 1947, when it was realised that the Film Societies then operating in NZ and importing and hiring films individually, would be better served by pooling their films and resources. Since then, all importing of films for societies has been arranged by the Institute, the separate societies being thus spared the labour and frustration connected with such work. When the NZ Film Institute was established there were only five Film Societies requiring its services. Since then, with many fluctuations, the number of affiliated societies has grown to 55. Of these, the Wellington Film Society, with 425 members, was the largest, followed by Auckland with 354, and Christchurch (Little Film Society) with 229.

Remember that the NZ Federation of Film Societies consists of you, the Film Society members.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Below is the text of the address given by the retiring President, Dr. Philip Allingham, at the 1962 Annual Conference:

The N.Z. Film Institute has found 1961 to be a critical year; critical because as well as general difficulties of film hire, general costs, the Government allowance has been altered and the future on this question uncertain.

As well as a critical year for the Institute, it was also one for individual members of all film societies. International and local political situations being what they are, the future of State Aid is a doubtful one. This means that at Institute level and at Film Society level we must look again into the running, both financially and artistically, of our organisations. The concept of the 9 programmes a year, 2 and a half hours each programme, may have to be modified. If Government resources are not forthcoming we may be back on our own.

Firstly: Financial; there is clearly a limit to this and a variable limit for different societies; subscriptions cannot be too high and appeals by raffle, donations and similar aids have their limit in any one year. Hire of halls, projectors and supper costs are all factors which must be considered. Films being the cost they are, this problem will always be with us. Artistically, however, a much more extensive approach can be made. Annual Presidential adresses have repeatedly stressed ways and means of improving the societies from within. The Guest Speaker last year, Mr. W.B. Harris, in his address hit home with criticism of the 'sitters and lookers' (although 'sitters and lookers' are all we have in opera, music and drama), and suggested several ways in which this tendency could be overcome.

What value are Film Societies to the community? Are they little bands of enthusiastic cineastes who like gloomy or silent films, who meet in gloomy and silent places and whose comments are either gloomy or, more often silent? If so, then the movement will soon be as extinct as the silent film.

Basically the trouble today is with our education which repeatedly ignores the fact that films even exist and have as potent an influence on our lives and our children's lives (for teenagers are the most regular attenders) as any of the mass media. Film assessment and discrimination, in this day and age (and this applies also to a lesser extent to radio and TV) are, to my mind, important subjects in any school curriculum; and of far more value in the long run than the memorising of Shakespearean verse or a French declension. What can the movement do? The word 'movement' implies 'doing', a type of progress. It should be our constant aim to promote critical discussion, evaluate critical standards, on all aspects of film, new and old. And yet, how much is done? The bigger societies say their numbers are too big for discussion purposes which function is taken over by smaller specialised discussion groups; the smaller societies frequently bleat that they don't know enough about films to discuss them. If we are to survive, discussion, debate, argument education and knowledge must be our aims. Film Society is not just another night at the pictures. It is to our peril that such an attitude has even developed. The trend, commercially, has been for more foreign films to be screened: and these, as well as the better English and American films, can well form a working basis for several discussion evenings throughout the year. Not every meeting need have a film shown. An organised discussion on films such as Hiroshima and Dolce Vita can go on for hours and can do much more for the true aim of the movement than an evening spent looking at colourful documentaries which we forget as soon as we see them and never discuss.

It should be remembered that films have content as well as form; and in the long run, discussion of content is not limited by lack of knowledge. We need no knowledge of the background of cinema form at all to be able to discuss whether Arthur Seaton is amoral or immoral; or whether La Dolce Vita became too interested in the corruption it was attempting to expose; or whether the approach to racial relations in Broken Barrier is satisfactory today.

The Film Society movement, today, is the only body interested in this critical approach to the influence of film, a medium whose influence on the subtle side has not even been evaluated; the horror and violence film which is often singled out for criticism, on the whole wouldn't influence many. It is in the subtle attitudes towards authority, love, marriage, divorce, adultery, sexual realtions, where films can have their most pernicious influence,where impressionable minds are 'got at' without even being aware of it. Perhaps the time has come for the Film Institute to further crusade, to consider further collaboration with the Adult Education movement, the Teachers Training Colleges, the Universities and the schools. To use, where and if possible, the media, radio, TV, newspapers and literary journals, for this crusading: to bring a true awareness of the glories and horrors, the good and the bad, the big and the banal, the successes and excesses of this liveliest art.