This question of the exemption of certain plays from entertain-
ment duty must be carried further. On the claim of concerns like the Old Vic or Glyndebourne to this privilege there is no difference of opinion But take A Street Car Named Desire, as that is the obvious example at the moment. The play is pro- duced by "Tennent Productions, Limited, in association with the Arts Council of Great Britain." Now Tennent Productions Ltd. is something distinct from H. M. Tennent Ltd., the largest producers of plays on a normal commercial basis in London. But just how distinct ? Is there room for the assumption that the common element, whatever it may be, in Tennent Productions Ltd. and H. M. Tennent Ltd. considers a new play carefully and decides, if it looks really promising that H. M. Tennent shall handle it, and if it seems a doubtful proposition that it shall appear under the aegis of Tennent Productions Ltd., with the sponsorship of the Arts Council or some similar body ? In that case what does Tennent Productions Ltd. get out of it, since there must be no profit-making in the business? I am not suggesting that there is anything at all irregular, or even necessarily undesirable, about the existing practice, but since public money, or potential public money, is involved the whole position should be made perfectly clear. Some sort of enquiry is clearly called for.
* * * *
Previous page
