LITTLE THEATRE SOCIETY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 117, 20 May 1931, Page 8

LITTLE THEATRE SOCIETY.

PRODUCER'S CONTRACT. REPLY TO CRITICISM. The committee of the Auckland Little Theatre Society, through its secretary, Mr. T. J. Spry, has issued the following statement in reply to comments made by Mr. Kenneth Brampton on his treatment as producer:— "It is unfortunate that Mr. Brampton lias published such utterances after his departure from New Zealand so that it is now impossible to ask him to modify them by reference to the records and his own letters. But as he asks the members of the society to fathom why he left New Zealand, it is necessary to publish the facts which constitute the explanation.

"In 1927 Mr. Brampton was employed upon a profit-sharing basis so that, whatever happened, the society could not be in his debt. He was to receive £30 a production and a half share of the profits of each production. From the moment of his arrival this agreement was interpreted strongly in his favour, the society bearing out of its profits a number of items that, according to the letter of his agreement, should have been borne by the society and the producer equally. As a result, during the four years he was with us, he received £2246, while the share of the society was £080.

Revision of Terms. "In the middle of last year Mr. Brampton opened negotiations with the chairman for an increase of remuneration. This brought into reveiew the figures, not then made up, of the last production, and they showed that while Mr. Brampton had received £123 in respect of the production, the society had actually netted a loss. It was then pointed out to Mr. Brampton that the present beneficent interpretation of his agreement could not continue and he was invited to consider the basis on which he would work for us in 1931. This occurred before the production of 'Peter Pan' was even mooted.

"At the commencement of this year Mr. Brampton submitted his new terms, which were to drop the profit-sharing basis and to receive a fixed salary of £500 per annum, whether the society made the money or not. In view of the disturbed financial conditions, the committee could not accept this proposal for what should, after all, occupy only half of his time. The offer was, accordingly, made to Mr. Brampton that he should continue upon the basis of his agree* ment, but that it should be interpreted according to its letter, subject to this improvement, that his £30 production fee should be increased to £50, and he would receive his full half of the net profits as provided by the agreement.

A New Producer. "This offer Mr. Brampton declined and suggested we ehoulcT look round for a

new producer. The terms that had been offered him were accordingly advertised in Australia, and whether they were liberal or not can be gauged by the fact that they brought in over 40 applications, many from producers of the highest recommendations. The difficulty was, therefore, not to get a successor to Mr. Brampton, but to select one. Mr. Brampton was again offered the first refusal but declined.

"It certainly seems a pity that alter the efforts the society has made to meet Mr. Brampton he should have let fall the unguarded expressions attributed to him, for after all Mr. Brampton was here for the society, and not the society for Mr. Brampton. His work in Auckland was excellent and his leaving was the subject of universal regret, as much by the members of the committee as by any others of his wide circle of friends. He bade us public farewell with expressions of friendship and good will and the committee thinks that the proper thing to do is to pass judgment on the facts and then forget his last utterance in his many good qualities."