The Bioscope (Jul-Sep 1931)

September 30, 1931 THE BIOSCOPE 23 “Bioscope” Readers’ Forum Open Platform To All in the Trade READERS of The Bioscope have frequently expressed a desire for the recommencement of our “ Readers’ Forum,” for many years an interesting feature of this journal. The Editor will be pleased, therefore, to receive from any member of the film industry, or anyone actively interested in its welfare, contributions, however controversial, to this feature. All letters intended for publication MUST be accompanied by the name and address of the writer and, unless expressly requested to withhold, the Editor will consider himself at liberty to publish names and addresses. If requested, however, a pseudonym only will be used, and the name and address will be treated in strict confidence. Letters should be reasonablv brief and, if possible, confined to one specific subject. E.T. — A SUGGESTION TO THE EDITOR, THE BIOSCOPE. Dear Sir, About this Entertainments Tax. As a cinema proprietor who was in active business when this was first imposed, my acquaintance with this imposition has been a very direct one ; and it seems to me that the incidence of the Tax should, from the very first, have been exactly as that now proposed for coming into force on November 9th. It has always seemed to me grossly unfair, not only that we should have to suffer under the Tax at all, but that all should not suffer in the same proportion. What could possibly be fairer than a fixed rate throughout ? With commodity prices going up and wage rates coming down, this is no time for increasing entertainment charges — particularly those for cinema entertainment. Speaking generally, the latter are already on the high side ; and it should never be forgotten that low prices of admission have done more than anything else to exalt the picture show in popular favour. The ideal plan, in my opinion, would be for British exhibitors, en bloc, to shoulder the tax, and even cut prices, for adults i.e., exclusive of tax-free admissions of 2d. or under for children, making these, without any variation whatever, 3d., 6d., 9d., Is. (and so on — every higher price divisible by three, i.e., increased by 3d. or 6d., and so forth), inclusive of tax, so that the latter always bears the exact same proportion to the seat price. From the exhibitors’ point of view, no easier prices to handle could be found. In uniform use, they could not fail, either, to be very popular with the public, especially when it became known to picture theatre patrons everywhere that each and every seat charge included the tax. In this way, far from a falling off of patronage, there should be a steady increase ; while it should, in the meantime, be a comparatively easy matter to maintain profits by slight variations in seating arrangements and programme lengths. I have a deep conviction that this would be far preferable to going hat in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an almost hopeless attempt to achieve the saving of halfpennies and the further muddling of seat prices. Faithfully, Arthur P. Brooks. Barton House, Halstead, Essex. September 28, 1931. A POLICE COMPLAINT TO THE EDITOR, THE BIOSCOPE. Dear Sir, Re article by “ Provincio,” this is the most sensible and truthful article any Trade paper could publish for the betterment and welfare of British films. It sums up the controversy that has been raging in the C.T. and what we have been trying to impress upon Mr. Dent. Will you kindly send Mr. Dent a copy of this letter together with The Bioscope page showing the^ underlinings ? I have just run "Man from Chicago,” September 21st, 2^nd and 23rd, and I had an Inspector of Police (Supt. Peake) in my hall only last night with a letter of complaint about the bad language used in the film, and he insisted on seeing the Censor’s Certificate. Need more be said ? Yours truly, (Signed) A. Parker. In response to a request by Mr. Parker we forwarded a copy of this letter, together with The Bioscope article ( marked ) to the gentleman named, who replies below. — Editor. MR. DENT REPLIES TO THE EDITOR, THE BIOSCOPE. Dear Sir, The copy of Mr. Parker’s letter sent with yours of the 25th instant amuses me. He certainly has an inferiority complex as far as British pictures are concerned. On the general matter of bad language in films, without in any form trying to justify " The Man from Chicago,” let me say that it is like pure driven snow to mud when you compare it with certain American pictures of a similar standard that I could mention were it not infra dig. to do so. In my opinion a discussion of this nature is definitely not in the better interests of the trade. Yours faithfully. Film House, Wardour Films, Ltd., Wardour Street. A. Dent. September 26, 1931. (Managing Director). We do not agree that discussion of any matter affecting so closely the interests of exhibitors and producers alike is not in the interests of the Trade. But personalities must certainly be avoided. — Editor. BRITISH OR FOREIGN— NO VULGARITY ! TO THE EDITOR, THE BIOSCOPE. Dear Sir, That was a fine article in last week’s Bioscope on the question of " Profanity Means Loss of Profit ” to the exhibitor. You say that producers must get rid of the idea that our audiences in the country like the same kind of stuff that goes down in the West End of London. Your article is right ; they won’t have haw-haw accents at any price. A man with an Oxford “ hawhaw ” is looked upon by provincial men as something of a reptile, but they call him by a prettier name which I’ll whisper to you when we meet again. But where I reckon you are wrong is that as far as vulgarity goes British pictures are no worse than any others ; not so bad as some Americans. I saw a picture at the Tivoli a little while back which made a ribald joke out of motherhood. Just fancy American producers not knowing any better than that ! English women and men, too, won’t stand for it, and anyhow, though I book, as you know, for several halls, there is not one where I dare put that picture on even if the Local Board didn’t object. You are usually so fair, and I know you personally to be so straight, that you wouldn’t want to let this go without putting it right. Vulgarity in any picture is, as you say, indefensible wherever it comes from. Please use a pen name because of my work for the trade ; I don’t want to commit any “ indiscretions.” Yours faithfully, Midlands, “ Brum.” September 26, 1931. P.S. — We agree that whether a picture is British or American it can and must be clean ; it is the Censor’s job to see that nothing vulgar is passed. The Bioscope merely commented upon and elaborated Mr. Snell’s sound arguments against “profanity.” We recognise that both British and American pirns have offended in this way. — Editor. MEN AND MACHINES TO THE EDITOR, THE BIOSCOPE. Dear Sir, I was very much pleased and surprised to read in your " Readers’ Forum” of September 23rd a letter from F. H. Richardson. I regret that reading matter for projectionists has been rather scanty of late with the exception of a few lines from David Robson, who is still going as strong as ever against “ film mutilation.” I am sorry to see that this practice has staged a “ come back ” on sound films, and it is now as bad as ever. However, to return to Mr. Richardson’s letter, I would ask projectionists to read it through again and see how true it is regarding conditions here. A projectionist is looked at purely from a monetary standpoint. I know of an example in Glasgow district where a reliable and experienced projectionist applied for a vacancy but it was given to what is called a "third” projectionist from a circuit simply because he didn’t want so much money. He certainly had not the experience. It is not " How much do you know ? ” but “ How much do you want ? ” Mr. Richardson’s words, " In England the men are not protected by an effective organisation (not a criticism but just fact) ” will make hard reading for certain people I have no doubt, and remarks will be heard about " working cards,” but they seem to be observed in the breach only. Mr. Richardson asks " What is the answer ? ” I am sorry I haven’t got it. Has anyone ? Let’s hear from you projectionists. It’s a long time since we did. Yours faithfully, Malcolm McLaren. Coliseum, Airdrie, Lanarkshire. September 24, 1931.