LIGHTER SIDE

NZ Truth, Issue 1186, 23 August 1928, Page 6

LIGHTER SIDE

Where New Zealand Is Fair Game Even throwing m the muchcommercialized fact that New Zealand is a good deal off the beaten track for entrepreneurs, it is the painful truth that people 'in God's Own Country pay very dearly for their entertainment. AND, m taking a peep at the market to-day, we are forced to see how very secure is the grip on, the public when it comes to the lighter side of laughter and tears. If certain education is alleged to be embodied m some programmes by great artists, etc., it is abundantly clear, from the exorbitant prices charged for admission, that those unfortunately on the "average-man" stratum of life must go without. This should not be. •'•.". Deduction starts from two facts: (1) The present charges are excessive; (2) it costs a lot of money to bring entertainment shows to New Zealand. NOT WbRTHIT No one will deny that the ordinarily decent show that is heavily boosted before-hand, well stage-managed by advance publicity men and eventually unloaded allegedly for the benefit of entertainment lovers, is certainly not worth the admission charges now asked. / The great drawback about the whole box of tricks is that those who deal m the business can- afford to say: "Take it or leave it." Thus, the public knows where it should get off — tout cannot. Could anything be more grotesque and unjustifiable, say, than the. wanton exploitation of public gullibility by entertainment monopolists, even over [the average twelve and sixpence (plus tax) turn-out? First of all, you hang about m a queue, and, for what you consider a v good show, part up with the best part of a pound note, but your"incidentals" have not begun. I You have to pay* for the privilege of leaving your hat and coat somewhere from' thieves. This, of course, is not m the original price for seeing the show, t but, then, neither is the ; enjoyment of having a programme to see what the thing is about. Perhaps, most monstrous of all, is this sheer steal by asking you to pay for a programme. There was a time when ,enteriain-ment-house managers were particularly pleased to give you a programme^— even two — the reason being that the advertising matter thereon already defrayed the cost of printing and also afforded a nice margin for absorption m the fund proper. But' apparently the business showed such possibilities that, bit by bit, theatre monopolists gradually wearied the public of its milk of theatrical kindness and. virtually , dipped their greedy hands into the' pocket of Mutt and Jeff as they entered the door of the show. - HITS THEM ALL This imposition also applies to the allegedly cheaper parts of the house. The point is, that both these departments are militating against public approval, and, even on the score of bigger and better business for the dividend-holders, are calculated . to prove economic blunders 'm the- long run, ■ ■'. . : , .''.-.,_. ; ■" ' ■ '■■'.'.v-'-.' ■•■. If the public, cannot get to the N right shows, its taste will veer to something more akiri to cheaper palates and Demand will be. traiLed along by her inevitable hand-maiden, .Supply. V It. is not necessary to speak m terms of. class distinction when referring to the different parts of the theatre. A certain class has . endeavored — with some success — to affect the orchestral-T---or front — stalls fo^r .the average -show. Others, whose first. concern very rightly is for visual, oral and ■ acoustic advantages, still prefer ' the now socially declining dresscircle, whilst the democratic, pleasure-first-to-blazes- with -surroundings patron plumps persistently for the "gods." ; Now, all this is a question of taste and circumstance. People who like to go to most of the shows— often by themselves or with particular company, such as a party of men or a> party of women — will often be found sojourning m the top row.' . •• : But that does not alter the fact that m whatever part of tlie house they find 'themselves, they . have : paid just about fifty per cent, more than the' show is worth. The argument against high costs to the public is old, and, m a small measure only, correct. One must always remember, for instance, that 'some artists are highly, paid, transit costs are heavy and the overhead generally is not by any means inconsiderable. QUESTION /OF QUALITY As against that, however, it is very much open to question whether New Zealand always does get first-quality stuff by comparison with the bigger places overseas, for the theory, "the smaller the place the smaller the show," cannot be applied to the commercialising of laughter, and. tears. To argue— and only for the sake of argument — that, because, say, ''Rose Marie" met with electrical success m London , it should also do so here is working on a fictitious basis. The company that may come here may be very third-rate, yet the public over here are heavily mulcted on the English success. Admitting that costs of production etc., are heavy, the fact that' overshadows all other considerations is that the powers which govern are making tremendous profits and could well forsake a small margin for' the sake of giving ah opportunity of seeing the best of entertainment at a reasonable price which does not entail a cutting down of the allowance for daily' bread. '