The Cinema in Tewkesbury, Part 2

Episode 4 - In Between

From 1963 until 1973 the cinema lamp flickered and faded but was not totally extinguished. Mr Bernard Lee, an enterprising local man, invested in a projector and, with hired film to supplement his own collection, hired out to private parties and some public show­ings in the Watson Hall. This same venue was used by the Tewkesbury Guild when it under­wrote a season of films in 1967-68. The Borough Council also used the Watson Hall for its sponsored film sessions in 1969. Although the once-weekly shows attracted a good audience they lapsed the same year. Perhaps the cost of a bag of sweets and a free seat for all those children whose birthday occurred in the week of the show proved too great to bear. By that time plans were afoot for a new, permanent cinema in the town.

Episode 5 - At ‘The Roses’

Ten years after the closure of the 'Sabrina* the population of the town had doubled. There was a limit to what could be done in the Watson Hall. Despite extensive renovations it was not satisfactory as a permanent theatre and unsuit­able as a cinema. The Festival of 1971 had highlighted the lack of facilities for large-scale public presentations. It was at this time that the idea of a film theatre blossomed in the mind of the then Town Clerk, K E Smale, known in some quarters as 'The Father of the Roses'. Initially the cost was estimated at £74,000, but at the time of detailed planning consent in March 1973, Preece Payne Partners estimated the cost to be £140,000. This was an advance on a reference in Council to 'the £100,000 film theatre which would be handed over with no loan debt*. The actual bill for construction submitted by Spencers Ltd was £256,825, to which must be added the site price of £15,000 paid to First National Developments Company (a one-man concern not known to have any other assets), and grants of cash and equipment from the British Film Council worth £32,000. With other expenses the final cost of the 'Roses* was about £310,000. For this sum the purchasers received a compact red-brick 375-seat film and stage theatre described by two independent visitors from the theatrical world as, respectively, 'Very impressive, but too small^’, and ‘Thirty years out of date’

The purchasers mentioned above should have been the Tewkesbury Borough Council. They appear to have made all the correct moves, and, if they had been allowed to complete the project the story would have been very different Unfortunately the reorganisation of local government which took place in 1974 made a shambles of the arrangements. The Borough Council, which had made arrange­ments for the full cost of the theatre, was reduced to the status of a Parish Council and required to hand over control of almost everything to a new District Council. Thus responsibility for completing the new theatre, and the cash for the final payments, were transferred to the new local authority. The correct application of these funds would have ensured that the business started out debt free.

The District Council consisted of about 54 members, some 49 of whom did not come from Tewkesbury. They represented people who, if they visited cinemas at all, went to those in Gloucester, Cheltenham, Evesham or Worces­ter. Therefore they could see no credit for themselves or their electorate in spending £300,000 on a cinema in Tewkesbury. On the other hand, by not spending it they could pose as prudent and thoughtful managers of the local finances. Some of the comments are worth recording:

Councillor Mrs G S Ward, October 1974: 'It is a lot to ask the ratepayers to pay for. It is an extravaganza which is completely against what we, as a Council, should be doing.' Again, in January 1975: 'It might be right to have it some time in the future, but not now.’ She was, however, not averse to having her suggestion for its name adopted.

Councillor E P Say: 'Has the former Borough budgeted for this cinema? Is there enough money to do the job?’

Councillor T H Spencer-Cox: 'Not one hope hell of its paying its way’.

Councillor W W Norton was such a carping critic that he drew the rebuke from a non neutral Chief Officer that 'You are incurring loan charges as a result of policies.’

Salt was rubbed into the wounds of the c by the disclosure that a party of councillor enjoyed a trip to the seaside at Weston-super-Mare, all expenses paid, 'to see how a cinema was run.’

All this was due to the building being incomplete when it changed hands. Suggestions that work on the building should cease, or that it should be finished and then moth-balled, were ruled out on the grounds that loan charges would still have to be paid. It might as well be given a chance. Agreement to proceed was narrowly reached after the Mayor had reminded them, somewhat acidly, that were arguing about something they had passed the previous year. So why had the antagonism arisen? Simply as a result of the present Council's ineptitude. This Council had voted to divert the cash for the cinema into the purchase of a new £1.25 million headquarters for the Borough Council. All the four critics named above had voted for this and for a loan to pay for the cinema, which loaded the cinema with massive loan charges. By giving themselves priority they had made it impossible for the cinema ever to run at a profit.

Deep concern at the costs of the construction turned to indifference when it came to running the business, for business it was, far more any other recreational facility within the Borough. The District Council voted to leave the running of this multi-thousand business to the Borough Secretary, the Chief Officer and ‘any interested members’. An overall manager was vetoed. Restrictions were placed on external display boards by the Planning Committee; they would be 'intrusive’ in the area. Some idea of the level of architectural beauty in this area may be gained from the local names for the cinema and nearby block of stores, ‘The Kremlin’ and 'Colditz’.

For reasons which are obscure it was decided that the film and live shows should be run by different groups. The former were to be managed by anybody who was interested. The live show management was handed over to the Courtyard Arts Trust for an experimental six months, the Council to underwrite any losses up to a maximum of £5,000. CAT and Council were on different wavelengths. To the latter it was a business expected to show a profit; to CAT it was a new opportunity to stage what they thought might be interesting. What they so thought was of little interest to Tewkesburians. CAT departed after six months, having lost £4,376. The Council was not pleased.

Seat prices were fixed initially at 37p and 75p. To cover the costs for the first year this meant, roughly, playing to full houses 467 times a year. The maximum number of houses avail­able at first (no Sunday opening) was 365. Even after Sunday opening was allowed possi­ble showings were still short at 417. There were, of course, other sources of revenue; bar and confectionery concessions, advertising and daytime letting, to name but the obvious. Even so it was clear that the cinema had no chance of paying its way, even with maximum audi­ences.

Audiences were far from the maximum. During CAT's tenure live shows drew houses of from 22% to 45%. Films were slightly less well patronised at 18% to 40%. By some strange quirk films managed to show a small profit whilst the live shows made a loss. Estimates for the period October 1975 to April 1976 forecast a deficiency of £53,811, in six months. At the end of December 1975 an administrator was appointed. Alan John was in a difficult situa­tion from the outset, but he did improve the financial state a little. In the first four months of 1976 weekly income from films rose from £238.53 to £411.77. Audiences at live shows increased from 65% to 70%. These figures are nothing like those given at the head of this paragraph. They serve to illustrate the lack of facts and the availability of lots of wishful thinking and gloomy forecasts, both rampant at the time. Of the hard facts which were available there were none about cash; they concerned taste. Brass bands and massed choirs were sell-outs. Big films drew audiences of 70% to 90%, excellent houses, but this was only a 375 seat house. At the prices current a 75% take-up of seats over seven performances would bring in about £1,000 weekly. Average takings were less than half this. Some evenings attendances were no higher than 5%. At the prices charged the theatre was too small to be viable, even with full houses every night. It was clear that a lot of effort and thought would be needed to bring any financial relief. Before that happened there was the matter of the official opening.

In November 1975 the Borough were fortunate when Princess Anne accepted an invitation to the opening ceremony. It was made the occasion of a gala stage performance by actors and actresses never before seen live in the town, or since, for that matter. Seats were £5 each. Very few members of the Borough (as it now was) Council were present, it being common talk that they had expected free tickets. This left more room for those who are usually excluded from such events. One whose appearance will live long in the memory was the local cobbler, resplendent in shiny blue serge suit, with white pin-stripe, pale blue shirt, stiff collar, yellow cravat and brown boots, cloth cap stuffed into one pocket He looked a very happy man. As an economy the local amateur dramatic societies provided the floor staff free of charge.

These societies were encouraged to make use of the theatre as a venue for amateur shows by allowing them lower rates and flexible arrange­ments. It was a wise move. In all the years the amateurs have played this stage they have never played to less than full houses. Flexibil­ity was in the cost and in the space hired. Where normal hiring was £25 for a morning and £46 for a full evening, amateurs paid £36 for an evening. When the Evesham amateurs used the theatre actors and theatre shared half of the box office takings after £100 had been deducted for all expenses.

One year's operation provided plenty of statis­tics for the anti-cinema faction. Councillor D W Grainger led the opposition with the charge of 'a highly subsidised cinema for a few people’. 55,713 admissions in one year equalled just over 1,100 paying customers each week, far ahead of any other recreational facility run by the Borough, and far from being 'a few people’. Mrs P Roberts questioned, 'How much more is the theatre going to cost the ratepayers?’ She represented Churchdown, within easy reach of two large towns each having recreational budgets equal to the total income of Tewkesbury Borough. Most of the new Borough consisted of parishes that had never contributed to any large-scale recrea­tional facility, and found it difficult to under­stand now why they should pay for something which they were unlikely to use. Being under one name did not make for one Borough.

Lack of funds with which to do anything soon resulted in the resignation of a Publicity Officer with the comment, 'Not enough live shows’.

Estimated costs for the coming year were £101,845, with a possible income of £20,500. For three more years the staff struggled with an unbeatable foe. 1977 witnessed a temporary closure for two days a week in June to cut overheads by £3,800, whilst foregoing income of £1,000. Losses this year topped £80,000, exacerbated by the disappearance of one night's takings of £94.85, which was never explained, though the Police decided that it was 'not criminal’. 1978 was a year of considerable financial change. Loan charges were now £50,000, while wages had fallen to £10,000. By this time the Administrator Alan John had also left. Estimates for 1979-80 were £107,798 outgoings and £34,000 incomings. This was partly due to an increase in advertis­ing revenue. The Recreational and Cultural Services Committee finally accepted that the 'Roses’ could never make a profit under existing circumstances.

Advertising, bar and confectionery concessions yielded a useful income limited by the numbers attending the shows. Efforts to promote the bar as an independent business were dogged by the inability of the public to associate a cinema with drinking. Live shows were attended by a different class of people who expected to be able to drink before and after the show. So, the bar boomed during live runs and languished during film shows, but live shows were money losers. It was a no-win situation. A Saturday morning club for children was a success. Started on 17 April 1976, it was two years late but what else could be expected when there was no-one in charge?

A supporting group called the 'Roses Theatre Association’ was formed in 1976. A name change in 1982 to 'The Friends of the Roses Theatre’ was a sterile exercise, as will be shown later. At its peak it had over a hundred members. By 1982 it was down to 20 and falling, a good idea wasted.

Additional expenses continued to arise with a regularity that made one despair. In 1978 the four-year-old boiler heating system needed repairs costing £592. In 1980 the roof, all of five years old, required waterproofing at a cost of £24,623. Estimated losses for 1981-82 were £68,042.  The Council decided to do what should have been done at the outset, get a professional to run it. By giving up direct control it was required to return a grant of £32,000. Then all capital and loan charges were cleared at a stroke. Stan Sennett, a well-known actor/manager, was granted the lease for £10 per annum, plus a subsidy of £5,500 for live shows. The seven part-time and one full-time staff were sacked (including four assistant managers, Borough employees), Children's club terminated, Theatre Friends shut out and bar concession ended. By 1990 the subsidy had risen to £30,000 per annum, repair estimates were enormous, and Episode 5 was drawing to a close.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tewkesbury Historical Society. As with all our articles, we would welcome contributions expressing other opinions.