NO LICENCE FOR PLAZA THEATRE

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30406, 3 April 1964, Page 3

NO LICENCE FOR PLAZA THEATRE

Appeal Authority Upholds Decision (from Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, April 2. A ruling by the Gnematograph Films Licensing Authority that the application by Mr H. L. Masters, of Christchurch, for a licence to operate a cinema at the Plaza Theatre, Christchurch, should be refused has been upheld by the Cinematograph Films Licensing and Registration Appeal Authority (Judge Stilwell).

“After much consideration, I am of the opinion that the application, now it has been re-examined, will, if granted, lead to unwarrantable economic waste, and that the finding on these lines and decision by the Licensing Authority was justified,” Judge Stilwell said. “The appeal is dismissed.” Mr P. Mason appeared for Mr Masters at the hearing, Mr E. W. Thomas for Ker-ridge-Odeon, Mr E. Bartlet for Amalgamated Theatres, Ltd., and Mr R. Cam Savage assisted the authority. In his judgment, Mr Stilwell said that from the evidence, and because of its specialist character, it was reasonable to envisage a theatre of superior equipment.

“I do not regard as unreasonable the comments of the Licensing Authority on the seating, a third of which would apparently be reconditioned,” Judge Stilwell said.

“The authority takes the view that, having regard to the standard to which the appellant claims he will bring this theatre, first-class projection equipment should be installed.

“Having regard to the fact that the equipment is 30 years old and a combination

of various makes I do not regard that requirement as unreasonable.” “Far Short”

He said it was clear from the evidence that the expenditure of £5OOO, which was the general estimate of the appellant as to the amount to be spent on the theatre, fell far short of reasonable amount It was established that a minimum of £lO,OOO would be involved.

“This expenditure, in the opinion of the Licensing Authority, having regard to the earning capacity of a theatre seating 300 persons, would make it uneconomic,” Judge Stilwell said. “I am bound to say on the evidence before me that I

find the operating costing estimates of the appellant difficult to accept.” Judge Stilwell said the authority had to be satisfied that the films of the required standard were available. It had also to be sure that economic waste would not follow the granting of a licence. “Good Ground” The authority had good grounds for forming the opinion that there was little prospecst, if any, of success in the screening of Continental films in Christchurch. Without doubt all firstrelease films of good standard would be shown in the firstrelease houses in Christchurch, which would absorb all films available, leaving none for the Plaza.

“The present film supply situation is such that the existing theatres in Christchurch city are dependent for the continuity of their programmes on obtaining a supply of return films,” Judge Stilwell said. “The applicant would find himself in direct opposition with exhibitors at these theatres for this class of film, with the result that his film hire would be completely uneconomic, having regard to the limited seating capacity of the theatre. He said these views had been held by the Licensing Authority and he had agreed with them.

Judge Stilwell said the dealer Natan Schinwald, of Sydney, was prepared to trade on the basis of £lOO in advance a film for a minimum of 10 feature films, with an arrangement to use other films available in Sydney. The films were not named and the standard was not ascertainable. Extra expenses as a film renter, including taxation and censorship, would involve Mr Masters in costs which, for a one-theatre situation, would be crippling. Soviet and Chinese Modern Films, of Auckland, had offered Soviet and Chinese films. Judg? Stilwell expressed some surprise that a representative of this company had not been available as a witness. He mentioned that these sources were also open to other exhibitors.

After hearing evidence. Judge Stilwell said, he thought that it was a justifiable conclusion that a licence for the Plaza would impose an unjustifiable hardship on other exhibitors. Evidence showed a decline in attendances because of television.

“I am of the opinion that the existing theatres are adequate, and that the authority’s remarks on the redundancy of the Plaza are fully justified,” Judge Stilwell said.

“I am very disappointed,” said Mr Masters after learning of the decision. “It seems to be a closed industry. If I had the best cinema available it seems I would still be unsuccessful in obtaining a licence.”