3D FILM AT AUCKLAND

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27150, 21 September 1953, Page 13

3D FILM AT AUCKLAND

ACTION BROUGHT BY PRICE TRIBUNAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE EXCESSIVE (Ntw Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, September 18. An action lasting all day, in which the director of the Price Tribunal prosecuted Amalgamated Theatres, Ltd., Auckland, on nine separate charges of excessive, prices for the 3-D film ‘.‘Man in the Dark,” was heard by the Magistrate (Mr M. C. Astlfey, S.M.) in the Auckland Magistrate's Court today. Decision was reserved until September 29. Prosecuting, Mr H. Rosen alleged that Amalgamated Theatres had charged prices to a 3-D film considerably higher than those specified for motion pictures in the Price Tribunal Act of October, 1951. The defendant company had known of the approved prices but made no attempt to forward the special prices for approval. Mr Rosen referred to an exemption order gazetted in May, 1950, which removed all control from every type of entertainment except motion pictures. •

‘‘The . question arises,” he said, “does 3-D come in the category of motion pictures?*’ Mr F. L. G. West, for the defence, said he would deal with two questions --whether the prices were entirely ultra vires and whether “Man in the Dark” as a type of entertainment fell within the exemption order gazetted which removed all control from every type Of entertainment except motion pictures.

Mr R. H. Allen, secretary of Amalgamated Theatres, said 3-D was not known in the country at the time and they were under an obligation to maintain complete secrecy until the last possible moment. Special prices were fixed the night before the show’ started. Even allowing for the higher prices the profit was considerably less than with the normal film. At the time, Mr Allen said, all reference to 3-D, eVen the censor’s, was to a “new form” of entertainment. Special freight rates were paid for postage of the new film from the United States. A considerable loss was incurred by the public danfaging or failing to return approximately half the number of Polaroid glasses which the theatre possessed. It gave a set to each patron with his ticket.

“The sole reason for not referring to the Price Tribunal,” Mr Allen said, “was hot because we wanted to scoop the pool but because we believed that ‘Man in the Dark’ fell within the exemption order.” “The proprietor gives a licence for the public to enter the theatre in the form of a ticket,” said Mr West. “The relation is more akin to that Of landlord and tenant than it is a contract for services received. As such the tenant is liable to be rated. 3-D was then a new type of entertainment to the country, and we are said to be ‘caught’ by the application of an old meaning to a new process. The parties involved acted under legal advice and with complete frankness.”