WHY THEATRES DO NOT PAY

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3418, 23 August 1913, Page 8

WHY THEATRES DO NOT PAY

The cause of “failure” is not the small amount of money coming in, hut the vast amount of money going out. The expenses of theatrical management are enormous; and very little, in rpoportion, is spent upon the play itsedf. A good deal is said about “bloated salary lists” and extravagant mounting. True, many players receive immense sums weekly (while others are lialf-starved), but, whether it be good for him or not, the player has a certain style to keep up, and cannot be expected to deny himself what all the rest of mankind is struggling to get. True, a great deal of money is being spent without either intelligence or taste on the mounting and decorations of plays. But the public demand lavishness, and even the best stage art is not cheap. The real point, however, is this: that plays could easily provide for the salary list and the cost of production if they were not asked to provide also' for outgoings of which the entertainment- offered to the public shows no trace. The most important of these outgoings is -.what is known as the “prot rental.” When a man sublets his house he asks, as a rule, the same rent as lie pays; and if he has spent a great deal of money on the house he mar ask in addition a reasonable

“premium.” When a man or a syndicate sublets a theatre, such modera-

tion is unknown. There must be a profit, and a very handsome profit, for the lessor. In these clays of readiness to “flutter” in theatrical speculation, managements come and go quickly. Theatres pass from hand to hand. There may be as many as three tenants between the superior landlord and the occupier; and each of the three is comfortably pocketing bis “profit rental.” A few years ago there was a case of a well-known dramatic author who wanted a theatre in which to produce his own play. The only theatre to be bad was one which he himself had built and owned. He had to pay four times the rent he had received, three-quarters of the sum being distributed between the members of a series of profit renters. Some managers of theatres actually find themselves in the heart-breaking position of having to give two or even three performances to full houses every week before they can reckon that they have received a penny towards theexpenses of mounting, playing, and theatre maintenance.

Under conditions like these the moderate support of the public is of no service. A play must make money at once, and in large amounts, or it must be withdrawn. And withdrawn many good plays are, before the public who would visit them, but who would not visit them so lightly and readily as a music hall or a picture palace — have liadi time to go to see them. There seems to be -o remedy—except a determination on the part of all sublessees to “cut their losses” and leave the theatres empty until all the subleases have expired. Moreover, tho theatre manager’s position would bo more comfortable if out of every halfguinea or 7s 6d paid for his seats ho received half a guinea or 7s 6d. in very many cases he receives 10 or even 15 'per cent. loss. Theatregoers are not, perhaps, aware that when they buy their tickets at a “library,” tho extra shilling which they pay on every scat is not the agent’s only profit; tho stall for which he charges 11s 6d ] ie bought perhaps for something under 10s. The librarian takes, of course, Ids risk; and he is undoubtedly a convenience to the kind of playgoer who wants to go to the play, but not to any play in particular. It may be concliidled that his profit is only a fair profit, or the theatrical manager would by now have seen that it was reduced. Though the loss is small, however, it is yet another hole in tho vessel into which tho theatrical manager pours his takings, and another reason for tlie untimely death of masterpieces.—“ The Times.”