Native Communities

How Our Films Can Influence Native Communities

By Lex Halliday

WITH the South Pacific Commission at present investigating the value of visual aids to native education and social development, and in view of its proposed intention (subject to the report of Mr. A. L. Moore) to use motion picture sound-film to further-its aims, the effect that Hollywood entertainment films already have had on native audiences is worth special consideration.

About January, 1948, one of the leading film companies began to supply 16 milli metre entertainment programmes to the RNZAF at Lauthala Bay, Fiji. This was the beginning of the rapid expansion of 16 mm. film distribution throughout the Pacific Islands and ultimately it brought films to the eyes of more natives, in more widely scattered comers of the Pacific, than had the war-time Almerican “in vasion.”

Within a matter of 12 months, small theatres sprang up in the Fiji Group, Tonga, Samoa and Cook Is., adding to those already well established in New Guinea. In some island groups (Thnga and Cook Islands) exhibitors established touring circuits of 14 or more villages each, and these were in addition to the bigger theatres already screening in Island capitals and other large towns.

This rapid development was due mainly to the characteristics of 16 mm film which in contrast to its big’ brother of 35 mm. width, is non-inflammable, much lighter (about one-fifth the weight) and consequently easily transported about the islands. Equipment for screening 16 mm film too, is small and portable.

MAJORITY of the films supplied in the initial stages were too sophisticated and over the heads of the average native who was, of course, handicapped by the language difficulty. Various at tempts with microphone translations in local dialect involved much work for the exhibitors and, mostly met with little success. But it soon became apparent that there was something greater than the language difficulty influencing a film’s popularity in the eyes of natives—namely, the lack of simplicity in production. If the movements and actions of actors and the plot were simple and self-explanatory, the film would be a success. Tnus, cow boy and Tarzan films because of their simplicity and preponderance of action sequences, were in constant demand, and in order to ensure sufficient profits to exhibitors and themselves, the film distributors endeavoured to meet this demand by supplying as much of this type of film as possible. The peak of “per fection” was reached with the supply of action serials which each week now keep native audiences agog with 'excitement and, despite a good or bad feature film (that is, good or bad according to native ideas) on the same programme, keen to return next week to “see what happens.”

In some cases the natives sit through the serial episode and leave the theatre when a non-action feature appears on the screen—a feature which, if properly handled and explained to them, would possibly be of considerable educational value. However, as we shall see later, this may prove to be a blessing in dis guise.

It is a paradox that the greatest edu cational medium invented by man for reaching the largest number of peoples throughout the world has attained this position of importance and high degree of mechanical efficiency, not through the efforts and research of governments and educationists, but through the initiative and enterprise of private industry. Over the past 25 years astronomical amounts have been spent on equipment research and the actual • production of films for

entertainment, without taking into con sideration the amount of capital invested in theatres throughout the world and money spent enticing the public to attend those theatres. The whole of this huge (now America’s third-greatest) industry is financed by the admission price you ana I pay at the box-office. Little wonder then that these magical words, box-office, have driven some of the best brains in the world to frantic effort to appease pub lic taste, to give us what we want, and as much as we want of it, and not neces sarily that which is good for us. The film industry has, therefore, become of necessity a keenly competitive business, primarily interested in commercial gain and trading on the public’s desire and willingness to be entertained.

IN the eyes of some, particularly edu cationists, it seems unfortunate that the type of entertainment offered by the film industry, may, in view of the film’s power to reach audiences both literate and illiterate, the world over, have a profound effect on certain sec tions of them. The medium of film has a dual role—that of providing entertain ment and that of affording education.

Where these two functions overlap is the point that brings us back to our original discussion —the effect entertainment films may have had on native peoples who have received the minimum or no formal edu cation.

Because box-office success is the prin cipal aim and purpose of most entertain ment film production, distribution and exhibition this has led to a maximum exploitation of the comparatively harm less Western and action type of feature with little or no effort given to developing a native appreciation of our better class films. In the writer’s opinion* this is just as well. The film industry, through purely unrelated motives, has uninten tionally spared Pacific Islanders much

confusion and possibly, harm: What the native sees on the screen, he believes; once he understands a sequence in a film, he accepts it as fact. The danger of in adequate or inaccurate translation of the language, as well as of the motive of a film can be readily seen. It is here that the function of education should take over from entertainment and such trans lation, if desired, be handled by experts with native welfare in view.

It seems, then, that the rapid develop ment of entertainment film distribution throughout the islands has had but small superficial influence on the lives and habits of natives and will no doubt con tinue that way provided the island censors remain vigilant and ban all scenes of brutality, sex and those which discredit Europeans in the eyes of natives. But from this development we can learn a number of very important points. Firstly, natives from Polynesia to Melanesia are so fond of action films that they will pay money to see them; perhaps educational films produced for natives could best de velop their themes around action plots.

Secondly, leading film companies have already established vast distribution systems throughout the islands, their advice and co-operation, even practical help, could be solicited. The co-operation of exhibitors is already assured for most of them, at present, screen British Gov ernment Documentary Films free of charge, as they became available.

Thirdly, large audiences can now be reached in the old and newly established theatres which are in effect, “ready-made” for educational purposes; perhaps island governments or the SPC could consider encouraging distributors and exhibitors to open up in even more remote situations by providing occasional transportation, etc. Theatre halls are an asset to any island community and can be used for a variety of purposes apart from entertain ment.

In time, deeper research may reveal that some entertainment films are having undesirable influence on the habits and thoughts of native peoples; if so, any such trends should be immediately checked. Full co-operation at this stage between governments and film distri butors in the islands would not only put a brake on these trends at an early stage but help establish film distribution, both educational and entertainment, on an economical basis, without one field of

activity perhaps undermining the work of the other. What is most important, it would result in Pacific Islanders receiving the film fare that is best for them from all points of view.

Mr. F. L. Smith, formerly manager of the Suva branch of the Bank of New Zealand, has returned to Fiji to become Financial Adviser to the Fijian Affairs Board.