Movie Works corrects Imthiaz Cader

Right of Reply 

With reference to the Daily FT article titled ‘Film industry debate rages’ featuring Liberty Cinemas Ltd. Managing Director Imthiaz J. Cader published on 6 August 2018, Movie Works Ltd. Managing Director Anura Jasenthuliyana sent the following statement.

As per the memorandum dated 21 March 2018 issued by the Chairman of the National Film Corporation, it is said as follows, “It was also discussed at all meetings, the procedure for the charges for 3D glasses from 2015 to December 2017, had not been clearly communicated to the cinemas either by the Studios, Importers, Circuits or the National Film Corporation and was considered as a gray area. Importers should not hold any dispute on the levy or 3D glasses against supplying of English films to the English film exhibiting cinemas.”

The accusation and the claim is nonsensically wrong. According to the 1971 NFC Act it is very clearly stated the authority levels of the Chairman NFC. When this false claim was forwarded to the NFC the Chairman NFC has carried out an impartial inquiry into it and given a very clear ruling on this legally not entitled amount which could be interpreted as a ransom. Unfortunately due to the forceful attitude of these movie importers, the authoritative instructions of the National Film Corporation are not being respected. Further, this matter was also referred to the advisor to Hon. PM, Mr. Paskaralingam too. He too has ratified the decision of Chairman NFC and requested the importers to abide by the rulings of NFC. 

On the other hand, if such a claim is to be tabled, it has to come through the respective circuit which distribute the movie. Surprisingly, most of the movies they have in the claim was distributed by their sister company CEL, which has an investigation unit that reports such practices. In a circumstance where all 3D cinemas has charged an extra Rs. 50.00 for the 3D facility they provide from the inception of the first 3D cinema in Sri Lanka. It was a known practice by all 3D playing cinemas because they have to bear the cost of the 3D system, filter, high gain silver screen and the 3D spectacle to facilitate a 3D movie. It is not merely a hiring of the 3D glasses as stated. 

Also it is not possible to use a 3D glass for three months as stated. These 3D glasses need to be sanitised and packed for each show by the cinemas. At the end of every show there is a certain amount of glasses that goes missing, broken or scratched. All these has to be replaced by the cinema. In addition, certain cinemas that are using Active 3D system has to use very expensive battery charged Active 3D glasses at their own cost.

All in all, all cinemas in Sri Lanka have charged a 3D glass charge from the day one. It was a known fact for all stakeholders in the industry and if it was treated as a wrongdoing these importers should have pointed it out to the authorities and taken remedial action to straighten it out at that time. It was very clearly stated in the ruling given by the NFC as a grey area and instructed all cinemas to continue charging the 3D glass levy going forward too. This is the kind of monopoly they like to implement in the future. Ignore the authority of the governing body of the industry and behave on their own will to dictate a virtual monopoly. On the other hand the agent of the other major studio is very fair in the distribution of their movies and never raises such claims for the 3D levy. 

Point raise on the point # 9 on the FDI on the film industry, I would like to mention that the first Cineplex in Sri Lanka was built by Mr. Buddhi Keerthisena 15 years ago with 100% local investment under BOI.    The very people who boast about bringing Dolbyatmos is sadly forgetting that the first ever Dolbyatmos cinema is one of the screens at that Cineplex. In terms of bringing in FDIs for the movie industry is more appropriate in bringing in Hollywood and Bollywood movie productions such as Mr. Chandran Ratnam and Mr. Ravindra Randeniya is doing presently.  

A multiplex could not be interpreted as a real foreign investment where a very minimal number of employments are created and no productivity involved. Therefore my understanding is that we should entice more local entrepreneurs/investors to contribute towards a development of the industry. For that the field has to be level playing and not discriminative or monopolistic acts by certain individuals be tolerated.

Film Exhibitors Chief Buddhi Keerthisena responds

Film Exhibitors Association of Sri Lanka President Buddhi Keerthisena sent the following response.

Is the supply of English films to exhibitors the main problem in the country today? According to media involvement and the space given by newspapers for this debate it looks like there are no other problems prevailing in the country.  

People are suffering with price hikes, heavy taxes, unemployment, drugs and the underworld; but these seem to be secondary to this debate considering the publicity given.

I am fed up with all these lies and don’t even like to comment, but I will say this briefly.

The answers given to my comments in DFT on 6 August 2018 are not true and correct. I would like to say the said English film suppliers are trying to build a monopoly in the industry, overtaking local film supply.  Some supplies are very fair, they supply English movies to all exhibitors under the rules and regulations of NFC.

Above two companies that are creating problems to the exhibitors and industry only looking for their benefits, not of the industry. They say they are blamed by their foreign studios. These studios do not have any say in the film industry of this country. We only have our rules and regulations by the NFC.  

These two companies are still forcing our exhibitors to sign booking contracts (unauthorised agreements) which is illegal. They can supply films to distributors but not to exhibitors according to NFC rules. Anyway, what I see today is not to waste time and energy and debate on this matter and spread lies, but to cooperate with all stakeholders and develop the industry. Not to try and undercut leading stakeholders and make money for one group only.