PRODUCING “CAVALCADE”

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 August 1935, Page 3

PRODUCING “CAVALCADE”

2,000 WOULD-BE SUPERS.

LONDON, June 24.

Mr C. B. Cochran gave further evidence and was cross-examined yesterday in the action concerning the film and tourjng rights of “Cavalcade,” Mr Noel Coward’s play, which was produced at Drury Lane Theatre. The case is being heard before Mr Justice Eve in the Chancery Division. Messrs Parnell and' Zeitlen Ltd. claim about £60,000 damages from the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, Lad., for alleged breach of agreement in respect Of their license to tour the stage production of “Cavalcade.” Mr Cochran has been brought in by the theatre as third party. Parnell and Zeitlen claim that, owing to the showing of the film version of the play—in alleged breach of the agreement—their profits on the first tour were greatly diminished and they were obliged to abandon plans for further tours.

Mr Cochran said in the Drury Lane production of “Cavalcade” there were. 22..ptincipals, 48 small parts, and 170 supers. “The super,” he added, “is a person who merely walks on the stage.” Mr Justice Eve: Who is seen and not heard 1 . So far as Drury Lane was concerned, said Mr Cochran, a “simper” ceased to be a “super” when he had “a line” tb speak. Even a man who had to climb a lamp-post in the Trafalgarsquare scene was given a salary. Sir William Jowitt: And if a man had to speak a line, what was the lowest salary?—Speaking from memory, I think the lowest was £4 a week for speaking a line.

Did you go to the Stage Guild to get the supers?—We were rather alarmed at the number of people required for the production of “Cavalcade.” We found that wo wanted between 150 and 200 more people for the crowd scenes. The customary wage for a super at that, time recognised by the Stage Guild was 2/6 a performance. After discussion with Noel Coward I asked my general stage director to go to the Stage Guild and see what could be done.

“I sent a message.” Mr Cochran continued, “that 1 would like if possible to give employment to actors and actresses who were out of work, and who might like to take 30/- (a week) for doing this crwod work, and need riot consider this wiis an engagement for u period. "The result was that something like 2.000 people came to the stage door. Mr Coward and 1 saw and spoke'to everyone of them at. a table in flic centre of the Drury-lane stage. I apologised that I had nothing better to offer them, but that if they cared to take this work they could have it. More than 00 per cent, accepted. In one case we had husband and wife, and in another case we had three of a family.” Mr Cochran further said many of the supers had day-time engagements elsewhere, and some had film engagements. They were let off in order that they might fulfil those engagements.

BIGGER SALARY ON TOUR. Cross-examined by Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., Mr Cochran said it was often the case that the leading lady received a larger salary when she

toured the provinces than she did in London.

Sir Patrick read a. letter dated November 18, 1932, in which Parnell and Zeitlen, called Mr Cochran’s attention to the clause about film production in their contract.

(The agreement was dated July 8, 1932. Mr Cochran sold film rights for £20,000 on March 4, 1932). Mi* Cochran said to the best of his belief he never saw the clause until after a lunch with Mr Parnell and Mr Zeitlen.

Sir Patrick: Are you really saying that between November and January you did not know whether that clause was in the contract or not? —I go further. I say that the letter of November 18 could not have been brought to my notice at that time, or I should certainly have referred to the contract.

Did you tell them (the plaintiffs) it would be better to wait until trouble started?—On many occasions I told them that they were making trouble that did not exis£. And the trouble was the production of Che film?—Yes. That could arise only if there were a clause in the agreement that no film should be produced?—l do not agree. We were obviously talking at crosspurposes. I had no idea they had power to prevent me. I thought they were grumbling at the release of the film.

“At the time of the letter,” Mr Cochran added, “I was preparing two heavy productions, ‘Dinner at Eight/ and the other ‘Mother of Pearl.’ During rehearsals I very frequently do not go to my office, and’ my instructions are that I am to be asked only about things that require immediate attention.

He agreed that the value of a theatrical production was now threefold, including London production, touring production and film rights. Successful London production was likely to affect the price obtained for the film.

What is the largest sum you have ever received for the film rights of a play—loo,ooo dollars; The amount you received for “Cavalcade’?’—Yes.

That was spoken of as £20,000; but at th(> time the dollar was a little over three to the pound?—Not. when we received our money. "I sold tho film rights of ‘Bitter Sweet’ and ‘Cavalcade’ for 150,000 dollars (£30.000) the two,” Mr Cochran explained. “There were a great many questions about the title of ‘Bitter Sweet.’ In France a man claimed title to the lyrics in French. Negotiations hung on for many mouths until we persuaded Fox Films to separate tho two and deal with ‘Bitter Sweet' on the basis of a price of 50,000 dollars (£ 10,000) and ‘Cavalcade’ on the basis of 100.000 dollars (£20,000).” Mr Cochran agreed that in a great many cases the production of a film was barred during the run of a play.

METHOD OF CONTRACT MAKING. Sir Patrick: I am a little puzzled' about your method of making a contract. Is it that, you do not know what, is in your contract, and when anybody tells you you do not trouble **’ look? When I make a verbal contrait it is generally in regard to ordinaty matters that occur in my business. Most clauses in a contract are very familiar. ’ll it is a question whether a man gets 5 or 10 per cent.. I know all about it.' Mi Cochran continued. "If it

is a question of whether the agreement shall be one year or five, I know all about it. I would not attempt to detail all the clauses in the contract, and they are generally customary clauses.

“As regards not paying attention to what is pointed out to me, I say I pay very great attention to that. I have been following my system for 40 years, and this is the first time I have bebn brought into a law court on a contract, and I have never brought anybody else. Mr Justice Eve: The Law is coming into its own! (Laughter). Sir Patrick: I suggest that this clause is one which every prudent theatrical manager inserts in his contract to Ifar a film during the run of a play?—l have heard' more about that during the last three or four days than I knew before, because I do not belong to any theatrical association. I can’t tell you whether it is in all my contracts or not. I am perfectly certain I have never asked for it.

Sir William JoWitt (in re-examina-tion): Is it not a fact that you have, from time to time, sold touring rights without such a clause?—Yes.

This concluded Mr Cochran’s evlence.

Mr A. S. Cruikshank, managing director of Howard and Wyndham, Ltd., and a director of 'various theatrical companies, said it was impossible to lay down any definite principle about the effect of a film on a play. Cross-examined by Sir Patrick Hastings, Mr Cruikshank agreed' that in 1933 he expressed a view that a film would “kill a play,” but then he was negotiating fox* a clause barring films. Bargaining for something you wanted?—Yes.

Because you thought it was useful? Yes.

Mr Robert Macdonald, theatrical touring manager, said if a film were good its publicity helped the play. Mr Walter James Hutchinson, managing director of Fox Film Co., said the film rights of “Cavalcade” would not have been purchased if they had been subject to restriction in Englishspeaking territory. Sir Patrick Hastings: Do you mean that tho French would like to hear it in English?—The answer may be yes or no. You are going into technical questions. Generally it would' be “dubbed” in French territory.

(To “dub” or '‘double,” would be to substitute French dialogue, spoken by French actors, for the English spoken by the English players in the film.)

"Cavalcade” hud been shown with success In France, Spain, and Italy, said Mr Hutchinson in re-examina-tion.

"All these big pictures have peculiar personalities,” he added. ‘Cavalcade’ is extraordinary. We find it lias ] radically no re-issue value.” Mr Gilbert Miller, half-owner of a company which is lessee of the St. James’s and Lyric Theatres, expressed the view that a bad picture—“as most pictures are" - would be a bad jtrivertisemenl for a play; but the film of "Cavalcade." being a good picture, would be a good ad vert isemnet for the play Judgment, was reserved.