The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Jan-Feb 1923)

56 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. Kinema Activities in Liverpool Area.—Contd. great film, ‘‘ Way Down East,’’ as also did Mrs. Sharp, of the Seala, Birkenhead. This film has also been booked for early dates by the management of the Coliseum (Walton), the Bedford (Walton), the King’s (Oakfield Road), the Gainsborough (Bootle), the Regent (Crosby), the Magnet (Wavertree), the Adelphi (Liverpool, and the Marina (Scacombe). Tom Griffin, who is handling this picture in this area in the interests of the Allied Artists Corporution, tells me that he is also engaged in negotiations which he anticipates will culminate in hooking the same film at another seven halls in this district. When in Chester recently Tom did an excellent stroke of business.’ He booked the whole of the Allied Artists’ new cutput to the Glynn Picturedrome, of which one of the codirectors is now Mr. J. White, who was formerly associated with the Music Hall Kinema in the old city. Similarly, the entire output has been engaged for a kinema in Newtown, Montgomeryshire. It was Tom’s intention during the present week to make a business tour embracing the whole area between Liverpool and Aberystwyth. ‘« Three Masks "’—A Genuine Super. “.** Three Masks,’ a super film which Messrs. Hodson and Goddard ure handling in this arca. on behalf of the General Kinema Films, Ltd., was screened for the benefit of the trade at the Deansgate Kinema, Manchester, on Wednesday of last week, and at the Prince of Wales Picturedrome, Liverpool, on .the following day. 1t will be released in September. On the same occasions the audiences wore also introduced to one of the series of twelve-two-reel Eddy Lyons comedies, which are due for release for public exhibition in March. As short feature items theso comedies should be in great demand on the part of exhibitors. New Hall for Saltney. A kinema is in course of construction upon an advantageous site fronting St. Mark’s Road, not far from the tramway route, in the thriving district of Saltncy, near Chester. The main entrance will be in Coronation Street. The now venture will be both spacious and fitted out on thoroughly modern lines. The main hall will be eighty feet in length and forty feet wide, and will afford seating room for 540 persons. A commodious waitingroom and adequate cloak-room accommodation will be interesting features of the kinema, which will be heated through the agency of hot-water radiators, while a mechanical form of ventilation will be adopted. An effort is being made to have the building ready for opening in three months from now. PICTURES IN PLYMOUTH. HE attempt of the Plymouth members of the Devon and Cornwall branch of the C.E.A. to prevent the showing / of D. W. Griffith’s ‘‘ Orphans of the Storm ’’ at the Theatre Royal, Plymouth, has not succeeded. The film is to be shown next week, and will be the first thing following the suceessful pantomime. With regard’ to ‘‘ Flames of Passion,”’ which the exhibitors also objected to being booked to the Theatre Royal, the film has been secured by the Savoy, Plymouth (Biocolors). Mr. G. Mudge, the manager, mado an offer at the conference between the exhibitors and Mr. W. Bruce Hacking, the managing director of Fleet Photo Plays, but an agreement was not reached then. Subsequent negotiations, however, were successful, and in this case the exhibitors have the satisfaction of sccuring the film for the kinema. y ON January 27, 1923. DAMAGES FOR SCRATCHED FILM, Stedfast Win Case Against Glastonbury Kinema. HEARING of importance to the filin trade took place at Wells, Somerset, County Court, of an action brought by the Stedfnst Film Co., of 26, St. Annes Court, Wardour Street, London, kincmatograph producers, against J. S. Anderson and J. Evans, of the Electric Theatre, Glastonbury, to recover £41 8s. Od., the chief item being £25 16s. 8d. fora . damaged film, entitled ‘* Glastonbury : Past and Present.’’ Mr. F. V. Sugden, of London, who represented the plaintiffs, said the agreement was that the defendants should exhibit the film during a week in November and pay the plaintiffs a proportion of the receipts. The defendants wrongfully refused to show it at a matinee. The plaintiffs suffered loss in consequence and claimed £12 10s. By reason of the defendants’ negligence, the film was very badly scratched and damaged and the plaintiffs, being obliged to have fresh prints of certain parts of the film, incurred an expenditure of £25 16s. 8d. The plaintiffs also claimed £2 17s. 1d., the agreed price for the hire of films entitled ‘‘ Who Got Stung ’’ and ‘‘ The Pile Driver.’’ Mr. Sugden added that it would be necessary to initiate the Judge into some of the mysteries of the industry. Judge Parsons, K.C., said he already knew something of them, having tried a kinema action in Cheshire which lasted several days. Mr. Sugden said the plaintiffs were engaged by a numben of prominent people at Glastonbury to produce the film, the scenario of which was written by Miss A. M. Buckton. The plaintiffs were then authorised to exploit it. 1t was given a private view in. London, the film being then all right. Mr. F. W. Green, a partner in the Stedfast Film Co., said the exclusive rights were with the company. A film was like a suit of clothes; it lasted according to its wear. He had used_ a film for two years with proper care and attention. The Glastonbury film was disgustingly scratched. The damage was brought about by the fact that being a new film it was not given the necessary care and attention by releasing the spring at the ‘*‘ gates." There was never any danger’ from fire if an operator kept his head. He repeatedly, drew Mr. Anderson’s attention to the state of the machine. A machine should be cleaned after every film had gone through. Cross-examined, he said he did not know that the total receipts were only £9 18s. when the house was full. It was a perfect quality film. He denied the damage was caused by improper joining. Mr. Anderson, who has been proprietor of the theatre for six months, said he considered the film a cheap one. They did much better with it than they usually did. He did not show at matinee because there were not enough people to pay expenses. He suggested that the organiser of the production offered to pay for the Chaplin films to ‘‘ buck '’ the show up. . His Honour, giving judgment, said he was satisfied that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages. The first part ofthe claim was enormously magnified, but it was clear there was a breach of the agreement not to have given threo performances. He was also satisfied that the film was in a perfect condition when handed to the defendants, and that it was badly -damaged on being returned. His own opinion was that there was some inattention in passing the film through the gates and serious damage resulted, which was not challenged. The defendant was liable for the two Chaplin films: Phere would be judgment for the plaintiffs for £30 and costs. Defendant offered to pay £5 a month, which was accepted.