Your Chairman and Director have both prepared reports that deal with the Federation's concerns from a 'global' point of view. Although I have been your Acting President, following Aline Sandilands' resignation from the position, and so part of the national picture, I am also President of one of the provincial societies, at Palmerston North, and thought that if you were to have three addresses from the top of the table it might be a good idea for me to emphasise the 'grass roots' concerns.
As far as success can be measured by enrolled members our society, like many of yours, has just held its own throughout the year. We are fortunate to have a very good venue, in a proper cinema with twin arc-light projectors and a good sound system. The quality of the venue does affect membership numbers as we proved in 1983 when the move to the cinema resulted in a membership growth of one third.
This year we have struggled to hold onto that growth and other factors must have been responsible for the basic situation. Could it have been the programme? We showed the same films as most of you. Two 'genres' drew the biggest audiences; both were controversial. One, Taxi Zum Klo, for its reported sexual content and the other, America-From Hitler To M-X for its political material. we also did very well with Missing, which we rented from commercial sources, billed as available to guests, and succeeded in attracting an 'ethnic' audience as well as a substantial proportion of the local membership of Amnesty International. On the night of Taxi we signed up over half our membership. America brought us a substantial number of half-year subscriptions. On the other hand Missing brought us many casuals and, although profitable for our society, did nothing for the Federation's coffers.
The rest of our programme attracted the steady core of our membership. It is tempting to value such people highly because they are those who come for the 'right' reason - an eclectic love of a wide range of cinema. But we are in a cleft stick because they are not numerically sufficient to keep the local society or the national Federation solvent.
I believe that recognising the 'facts of life' as set out in my comments so far enables us to design our programme to work for the benefit of all. For this year it is fortunate that Variety is a film of merit and reputation, but there is no doubt that it will attract members for the same reasons as did Taxi. It would also be an advantage if the censor chose to give it an RFS certificate. Tin Drum may be disliked by our Director, but it should pull in people who like their culture to be accessible and may work particularly well, as did Missing in provincial centres where commercial screening was perfunctory. Nicaragua will benefit from the politically aware. It would also be worth notifying any Latin American groups in your town.
The snag is that those who are interested in a single type of film do not feel it is worth joining for one such screening. They work it out as a $20.00 film. If they are allowed to attend as a 'casual' that is how they will come. I believe that the answer is to try to slot in two or three films with the same appeal and then to ensure that the links are spelled out so that those who think of attending one because it is considered to be on the edge of the censor's tolerance find others to their taste. If there is one film that has a political bite or a message likely to appeal to feminists then a society should try to programme a second and a third so that the groups interested in such themes find it worth their while to join.
Unfortunately only a few of these specialised customers may become so interested in film in general that they become committed members. The majority will continue to look at each year's offering from their own perspective and make their decision to join on the same basis. Our membership will fluctuate accordingly.
So, what can we do? We want the numbers. The Federation wants the numbers. Following suggestions made at the publicity workshop held in October last year, the Palmerston North Film Society is going to start 1985 with a 'Mini-Festival' at which we will show films which give a fair view of the types which we plan to screen during the year. We will stress clearly in the publicity and at the screenings that there are other films to be screened during the year of a similar type. We will link genres in the hope that those interested in peace issues might also want to be made aware of those we intend to screen on feminist themes; so that those interested in surrealistic classics are made aware of the 'cult' films we have programmed. We will issue those who wish to attend as casuals or guests with a 'part membership' card rather than a ticket to enter the single screening. This 'sample ticket' (which is not to be cheap) will be clearly inscribed as being redeemable in full towards the cost of membership. By so doing we hope to make the curious feel that there is both enough to interest them and that it is economically worthwhile for them to join. Nevertheless I believe that the future of the society will depend on those who love film for itself. The real hope of expansion lies in the development of a 'Film Culture' in New Zealand.
It is a mistake to think that a country is mature in matters of film because it has a viable industry of its own. Of course that is a cornerstone but countries, like France, which are notably sophisticated in such matters have a filmic 'infrastructure' that includes magazines, journals and newspapers which are widely read for their material on film. Their television examines and promotes films. They have film schools, both practical and critical, and they have cinemas independent of the main chains. Finally, they have a strong Film Society movement.
New Zealand is developing in all these aspects. It is true that taxation policies are currently troubling film production but since the renaissance of the New Zealand industry in the late 1970s, 30 feature films have been made and we are now developing the infrastructure. We have a glossy magazine in On Film and an esteemed critical magazine in Alternative Cinema as well as long-standing members' journals from the Auckland and Wellington societies.
Our newspapers are devoting substantial space to film matters and in depth articles on the local industry. Our own paper, the Evening Standard, publishes a film supplement each week and gives substantial space to the society's programme, publishing stills whenever we can supply them. TVNZ regularly screens programmes about film such as the Making Of... series, programnes in film techniques like those on SPFX and magazine programmes like Entertainment This Week. Many film makers have testified to the inspiration of various old and classic movies and it is television that provides the present generation the opportunity to see such films. I am even happy that 'World Cinema', which some members feel is in competition with us, screens movies from around the world. For New Zealanders to see and enjoy subtitled, foreign films must increase their sophistication and willingness to join us for more.
I cannot pretend that our education system offers the opportunities for formal training that have so long been available to students in Europe and America but here too things are changing. Both School Certificate and University Entrance prescriptions now have a place for film and television. At the tertiary level there is room for much development but Roger Horrocks' M.A. paper at Auckland University is enormously popular. Russell Campbell has two courses within the Drama Studies Department at Victoria and I am teaching one at Massey within Education. The Correspondence School has a paper on Media for teachers that has extensive material on T.V. and film. It is true that we lack the practical training available overseas (such as that offered by the Australian Film and TV School) but primary and secondary schools are inspiring many students to work with video equipment and the time must come soon when this practical interest spreads into the tertiary sector. Already the Ilam Art School offers a practical course and A.T.I. has one taught by John Reynolds. Still it is true that more will be needed in this area.
Film societies should note that this training in film is for the young who are also the majority of film goers. Although members might regard their tastes as vulgar and banal, they would be making a mistake if they disregarded the possibility that they were aware of the language of film. Some have seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show hundreds of times, and are aware of every word and the detail of every image. Such devotion to their cult movies means that some at any rate develop an interest that leads to an interest in other genres. Film societies screening Big Meat Eater and Smithereens will discover a new group of film buffs. Merging their interests with those of their older members will require a willingness and tolerance that must be developed if the movement is to grow and prosper.
I am optimistic that in the growth of this Film Culture the Film Society movement in New Zealand should be able to find an expanding membership interested in film for its own sake. However, in the meantime, I would suggest that we must continue to woo those whose interest is in the content rather than the technique and whose membership must be sought anew each year to keep us going until that happy day arrives.
Chris Watson
February, 1985
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.