The Bioscope (Apr 1932)

April 27, 1932 THE BIOSCOPE 15 Season Tickets for Sovereigns Interesting Questions at West Lancs C.E.A. Here is a pretty poser — it was asked at the West Laaeashire [C.E.A. at Preston on April 19th — for those who like solving conundrums : — An exhibitor offers to supply for a golden sovereign a six months’ season ticket, entitling the holder to 37s. 6d. worth of entertainment. As the value of a golden sovereign is, say, 25s. 6d., on what amount should (a) the renter’s percentage and (b) Entertainments Tax be paid ? Attention was called to au advertisement hi a Preston newspaper, the iiroprietor of one cinema stating that one golden sovereign would imrehase a six months’ contract, giving 37s. (id. worth of entertainment. One member said he would like to know what amount of Entertainments Tax had to be paid on a golden sovereign. Was it reckoned as being worth 20s. or 25s., according to the value of gold ? The Chairman (James Atroy) asked how the renter was affected. People using contracts sometimes just showed their season ticket to the checktaker on entering a theatre. Renters Don't Care The .Secretary (Harry Hargreaves) reported that several theatres were still carrying on with the issue of contracts. He had brought the point, so far as it affected the renters, to the notice of certain firms, but they evidently had decided to take no action, presumably because the theatres were circuit houses. Several members said they would like to have information of their obligations, both to the renters and to the Entertainments Tax authorities. The Secretary was instructed to write to Head Office for information on the point. “ An Old Gag ” Mr. Ch.vlmers asked if it was legal to admit two persons to a theatre on one ticket of admission. The Chairman said it was, and that this was one of the oldest gags in the entertainment world. Mr. AVinlow said he knew one theatre which had nereased its takings by this plan from £140 to £4(i() per week. Sound Equipment Contract Four representatives of Sound Equipment. Ltd., attended the meeting to discuss with members their objections to the new servicing contract. The CHAIR5IAN stated that a good many Branches had already accepted the new service agreement of Sound Equipment Company, Ltd. £8 a Visit The Secretary said exhibitors in the area considered that the proposed new rate of £2 per week for one visit per month, which was equivalent to £8 per visit, was too much. There should not be a month between each visit, because as sets got older they required more attention. He directed attention to the statement which appeared in The Bioscope of March 30th, that the coinjiany’s service was based on efficiency and proposed to replace the old faders by more suitable aiiparatus, and that changes in sets would cost about £20 per theatre. The representatives of Sound Equipment said that statement was correct, but they were unable to state what would be the total cost of bringing all these sets up to date. C. SiMP,soN remarked that exhibitors thought they could obtain service of the quality they wanted at a much cheaper rate than So\md Equiinnent were charging. At one of his theatres he was paying only 15s. iier week. £30,000 Worth of Spares The Sound Equipment representatives replied that, having regard to the fact that they were carrying in different parts of the country stocks of spares and replac’cmcnts to the value of £30.000, it was inqiossible to provide first-class service at such a figure. What we object to,” said the Chair.man. “ is this idea of £8 per visit. What we have to reckon is how much we have to take before we can pay that fee. Our members think there should be a visit by the service engineer at lea.st once a fortniglit.” The visit is a minimum of one a month.” replied the company’s representative. ” but efficiency will not be lessened in any way, because the sets will he thoroughly overhauled once a month, and. if necessary, we are prepared to send a man at any time to lielp the exhibitor out of his difficulties.” The Secretary was of the opinion that the more visits by the service man, the less likelihood there was of anj-thing going wrong. W. Onpa : “ The price of Sound Equipment service is prohibitive and I think we cannot afford it. It means that we have to take £12 to pay tliat £8 per visit.” Work of Service Engineers Mr. .Johnson, of Sound Ecpnpment, in replying to various questions, said it was not the intention of the company to load up any service engineer in such a manner as would interfere with the frequency of his visits to halls. All the engineers would be able to give reliable service throughout the area. He was afraid the company would not agree to the suggestion that there should bo two service visits per month, thus making the cost £4 per visit. None of the service engineers, at the present time, had to handle, as some exhibitors suggested, 24 equipments per month. The proposal was then made to the representatives of Sound Eiiuipment that perhaps it could be arranged for the engineers on visiting a tomi where there was more than one set installed to do one equipment one fortnight and that at another theatre at the end of the next fortnight, but on the occasion of each visit to the tovni to make, a telephone call on each exhibitor, just to inquire if things were all right. Mr. Johnson was doubtful if his principals would be prepared to agree to that, though it might be possible to arrange for the engineer to do that. One Engineer, One Hall C. Simpson thought the proposed terms were too high and. if he could not get any inodificatiou. he was prepared to run lus old contract for the allotted span and then make arrangements that would be more favourable. Jlr. Johnson put that statement in a different perspective when he. said that the company had to keep an engineer in the Isle of 3Ian to look after The SECBET.AKY (Fred -A. Prior) read a long letter from Norman Hart, setting out in lull the legal po.=ition in regard to Sunday Opening. Mr. Wright said many of the leaders of the trade were agreed that if permission were given to the houses at present opening to continue opening, no steps would be taken to demand Sunday oiiemng for all cinemas. I think that that is entirely wrong ” said Mr. Wright. ■' If a principle is established, then, whether exhibitors take advantage of it or not, it should be established generally.” On the iirevious Tuesday he had interviewed 15 local Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. When he asked one member what was his opinion on Sunday Opening, the M.P. said he was in favour of Sunday Opening, but if asked to vote would have to take into consideration appeals against the Bill from 3,000 of his electors. The same, thing had happened in connection with the Entertainments Tax. The General Council ilecided not to issue postcards and to refrain from issuing trailer films until they heard what the Chancellor said in his Budget. Immediate steps should now be taken on both matters. Sunday Opening and Entertainments Tax. and within the next two or three days the whole of any scheme propounded should be before the Branches, so that they could get to work. Impossible to Deal with Effectively W. Langham Brown, in presenting the report of the General Council, mentioned that the GaumontBritish Corporation offered to go to the expense of printing a trailer, but that the sub-committee that dealt with tiic matter came to the conclusion that unless the subject could be brought forcibly to the notice of the Member of Parliament for the division in which it was shorra the exhibition of a trailer alone was useless. They came to the conclusion that it was impossible to deal with the matter effectively before the Budget. Mr. Brown expressed the fear that it would be impossible to get any unanimity of opinion among the Branches themselves on the subject of Sunday Opening. Percy Artingstall said that they would never get Sunday Opening unless they got the public behind them. E. C. Morris suggested that the Branch should send a resolution saying they did not want Sunday Opening. one hall there. Not far from Manchester they had an engineer who also had only one theatre to supervise. Before the representatives of Sound Equipment ^ withdrew from the meeting, they were asked to ^ convey to their principals the suggestion that 9 the engineer makes two visits per month to each ^ theatre, one of them being the official service visit. Death of Frank Foster Sympathetic reference was made to tiie death of Frank Foster, who was Chairman of the Branch in 1925-1926. It was decided to send a. message of condolence to the bereaved relatives, and members stood in their places with bowed heads for a few moments, as a mark of respect. Sunday Opening Position The Secretary reported that he had communicated with all the Members of Parliament in the West Lancashire area, asking them to support the exclusion of the charity clause from the Sunday Opening Bill, on the ground that the indirstry was already heavily burdened, and that, owing to the depression of trade, there had been a big loss of revenue at all halls in the West Lancashire territorj'. He had received acknowledgments from all the M.P.s with the exception of the two for Preston, who had voted against the Bill. Mr. Hargreaves then read to the meeting a letter he had written to the Editor o£ ‘‘ The Bioscope,” commending the attitude adopted in reference to Sunday entertainments. That policy, he thought, was deserving of every support. The Chairman said it seemed to him there would be a compromise on the fiuestion of Sunday shows. If what he had seen in the Press was true, then it would appear that only those cinemas which had broken the law in the past would be allowed to open, whilst those which had been law-abiding would be compelled to remain closed. Consideration for Staffs The CHAIRM.4N remarked that unless there was some suggestion made as to the alleviation of the labours of cinema staffs, the latter would ojipose Sunday Opening. He suggested that the Branch should take a lilebiscite of the secretaries of all cinema companies in their area on the subject of Sunday Opening. Mr. Brown expressed the view that the problem of Nottingham was different from that of the country places. In the country places, wdiere there was no fleeting population, Sunday Opening could not increase the average takings for the w'eek. Mr. Elton said that one of the problems of the small hall owner was how' to stop the flow into the nearest large centre of population. If they were going to secure Sunday Opening in the large centres and not in the small ones it would reduce the spending power of their potential patrons. Plebiscite Proposal Mr. Elton proposed, in the foim of a resolution that the Branch should take a plebiscite of all members whether they vvere in favour of participating in propaganda in favour cf Sunday Opening. P. Artingstall seconded. The CHAIRJL4N said that he would submit an amendment that the notification should be sent to the secretaries of the companies, and not to the nominees, to put before, the directors. Mr. Elton pirotested. The nominees were the nominees of their companies. There was no reason to go behind their backs. If it would meet Mr. M right’s views, he wvas quite prepared to amend his resolution so as to include two signatories, one to be the secretary or a director, if file former was not the nominee. Mr. Wright tlierefore withdrew liis amendment, and Mr. Elton’s resolution, as amended, was passed unanimously. Support Needed from F.B.I. Mr. L.angham Brown said tiiat it did not appear to him that thev had received much S4'inpathy from the F.B.I. He thought tliat tliey miglit perhaps get some alleviation of tax in proportion to the amount of British film they showed. The feeling of the House of Commons was, he tlionglit, in favour of British products. “ A ” and ” U ” On another General Council topic, Mr. Brown suggested that that body stiould liave given more serious attention to the wishes of the members with regard to the proportion of “ U ” to “ -A ” films. If tliey had there would not be such a preponderance of salacious films . L For or Against Sunday Opening? Notts and Derby to take Plebiscite After a lively discussion, the Nottsland Derbyshire Branch, meeting last Wednesday, decided to take a plebiscite of the whole of their membership on the question of Sunday Opening. The question they will he asked to answer is : ‘‘ Are you in favour of Sunday opening, or are you against Sunday opening ? ” It was agreed that the answers2should he required to bear two signatures, one to he that of the secretary or a director of a company, if this gentleman was not also the nominee. The twin questions of “ SundaylOpening ” and “ Entertainments Tax ” practically monopolised the whole of the meeting,\which was presided over by Thomas Wright.