Canadian Film Digest (Feb 1973)

Page 4 The Canadian Film Digest is published monthly by Film Publications of Canada Ltd. Editorial, Advertising, and Production offices are located at 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ontario. Subscriptions: $7.50 per year (including the yearbook) or 35c per individual copy. Individual copies of the yearbook are available for $5.00 per copy from the above address. Second Class Mail. Registration Number 2587. Postage paid in Oshawa. THE CANADIAN CTA DIGEST FEBRUARY 1973 EDITORIAL: Ontario Gov't Report The Canadian Film Digest. Serving the Canadian Film Industry since 1915. Encompassing the Canadian Moving Picture Digest, founded in 1915, and the Canadian Film Weekly, founded in 1941. Publisher: Garth Drabinsky Editor: Stephen Chesley Advertising Sales Director: Barry Silver LETTERS TO THE EDITOR More on preduction of Canadian Movies To the Editor: I wish to comment on the letter of Mr. M. M. Stevenson of N.G.C. (January 1973) regarding advertising expenses for Canadian-made movies. As my company distributes the posters in Canada for N.G.C., I wish to add that besides the expenses of opening campaigns that N.G.C. spent for The Crowd Inside, they prepared advertising accessories ‘of more variety and sizes than what other distributors would prepare for a Canadian-made movie. The amount spent was close to $1,500 and the items were prepared long before the picture was scheduled to open, so the exhibitor as well as the producer had ample opportunity tu expose the picture to the public. I feel, therefore, that people lodging criticism against Canadian distributors regarding Canadian-made movies are not doing their homework properly. They are irresponsible and they don’t have the facts available from the right parties involved. Yours Truly Max Candel Consolidated Theatre Services Toronto Readers’ comments are always invited, whether about a particular article or just something you have to say. Keep them concise, and send your comments to Letters, The Canadian Film Digest, 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5. | Recently, a ten man exploration team appointed by the Ontario Government, offered its recommendations to the Minister of Industry and Tourism on “how the private film sector in the Province of Ontario might jointly benefit, through co-operative planning and programs for the (feature) film industry”. The occupations of the committee were listed as follows: three lawyers, two film-makers, a film critic, a publicist, a TV personality, a film buff, and an exhibitor. Certain of the recommendations are to be well received. Specifically: censorship should be abolished and a film classification system similar to the United States be established; that an Ontario Film School be established; that a script development and pre-production fund of $250,000.00 be established and administered by a newly created Ontario Film Office which would also assume the functions and responsibilities presently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Theatres Branch; and an incentive for theatre exposure of Canadian feature films based on a rebate to the theatres and to the producer of a feature film made in Ontario and exhibited in Ontario. However, notwithstanding the admirable efforts of the committee, two of their recommendations demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the realities of the feature film marketplace. First, the report calls for the implementation of a quota system whereby every theatre in Ontario would be required to exhibit eight weeks of Canadian feature films over a two year period. Let it be understood, that although a quota system may ensure that a film is booked, it will never insure that people will pay money to see a film, especially when one considers the high ticket prices in 1973, resulting in a much more selective moviegoer. Since the advent of television (and even before then) people only go to see ‘‘what they want to see’’. No amount of coaxing or law making or any other form of persuasion will make it any different. Furthermore, the practical effect of such a measure will in essence be economic discrimination against the exhibitor. If the exhibitor is forced by law to play films that do . not attract audiences of a sufficient degree to The Canadian Film Digest pay his overhead, his economic status must be greatly affected. This would especially be so in small urban sites with one or two theatres to support the entire population. Feature film quotas have historically been impractical and unworkable even in England where it is the Eady Plan, not quotas that have stimulated their industry. The report also recommended an annual major international film festival, preferably in Stratford or Toronto, which would incorporate the Canadian Film Awards. Clearly, an international film festival of great magnitude would be important not only to stimulate interest in film from within the province, but to focus world attention on this province as Cannes has done to France. However, nothing could widen the present political anxieties between the English and French Canadian film industries than by fixing the Canadian Film Awards in Ontario. Since 1968 of the 83 Canadian films that have been produced, 41 were produced in French. In that period only three films recaptured their full production cost and reached profit positions, two of which were French. In short, French Canada is as important to our ‘‘Canadian”’ film industry as English Canada and we can ill afford a separation'of this segment of the industry which would be the inevitable result if such a decision were taken. No material yardstick can measure the contribution that film production can make on the cultural traditions of a country or as an effective ambassador for a country in other nations. The next decade in the Canadian Film Industry will be a highly productive era with the allocation of more investment dollars and human capital to aid its growth. The committee’s report exemplified the need for methods in which to encourage and foster film production in Canada. But, there are other ways to stimulate the industry and in our next edition we will be presenting a detailed proposal which should be of interest to filmmakers, exhibitors, distributors, members of both Provincial and Federal legislatures and, in the long run, the movie-going public, on whom we all depend. Garth Drabinsky Publisher. DOLLARS AND SENSE By PAULMORTON . For all Governments censorship is a major political nuisance. From their viewpoint there is no right answer; no matter how restrictive or how lenient they are, it will never satisfy both the civil liberterians who abhor the basic concept and the right wing elements who are convinced that explicit expression in film will lead to erosion of morality within our‘ society. In Manitoba, the election of an N.D.P. ‘Government, with its power base having an academic, rather than a labor orientation, signalled the direction to be taken by censorship in this Province. There is no question that several senior cabinet members had a philosophical objection to censorship and wanted it eliminated. It was change for the sake of change, as from a practical point of view the existing system was functioning in an intelligent and progressive manner. There was, however, one major potential problem in existence, which was of major concern to both the Industry and others, and that was the power held by the Board if it chose to exercise it. The operative section of the old Act set out: “The Board may reject any film or slide depicting scenes of an immoral or obscene nature, or which indicate or suggest lewdness or indecency or marital infidelity or showing the details of murder, robbery or criminal assault, or depicting criminals as heroic characters, and the Board may refuse to approve any other picture which it may consider injurious to public morals, suggestive of evil to the minds of children, or against the public welfare.” The key word in the above is, of course, “‘may’’. The power, though, was totally in the hands of the Board and a Government could theoretically load the Board with people who could unquestionably close down the movie industry in Manitoba, as at least 95 percent, if not all, pictures produced today would fall into one or more of the above restrictions. If this proposition seems far-fetched, consider the recent nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, who are appointed to reflect the views of the President in respect to interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. To create the illusion that the prospective changes were not merely arbitrary Government action, a Review Board was created by the Province to hear submissions from the public, to investigate the situation in other jurisdictions and to ultimately make a report which would be the basis of any revisions. Hearings were held throughout the Province and there were approximately 75 submissions made to the Board from representatives of industry, clergy, concerned parents and such other groups as diverse as the Association for Civil Liberties and the John Birch Society. The majority report of the review commission favored the total abolition of censorship. However, the minority report, while favoring the practical elimination of censorship, wanted to give the Board the power to reject a picture if it contravened the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code, specifically Section 159-8, which defines obscenity as follows: ‘For the purposes of this Act any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.”’ It was a minority view that if a picture was rejected on this basis, it could be appealed to a judge in chambers for a ruling, in the same manner as rulings are obtained from the Department of National Revenue in regard to tax matters. There would also be the right of further appeals to superior courts. This approach would allow a distributor or ‘exhibitor to operate with full confidence that they are within the bounds of the laws of Canada. The rejection of this approach forces the Industry to, in fact, commit a crime in order to find out if the Act is legal or illegal. The Government, after over a year of procrastination, brought down its revisions in early 1972. The new Act changed the name of the Board from, ‘‘The Manitoba Censor Board”’ to, ‘‘The Manitoba Film Classification Board’”’ and this in fact became its function. The Act totally prohibited the Board from either rejecting or cutting films. Its sole power is: “To classify any film or slide which in its opinion is unsuitable for viewing by children or by a family, by reason of sex, nudity, violence, foul language or other reason in such a manner that the film or slide shall be restricted to viewing only by persons 18 years of age and over.”’ This provision resulted in Manitoba being the only Province in Canada which had absolutely no film censorship, and placed the Industry here in a unique and difficult position. The preponderance of legal decisions in other parts of Canada (and in Manitoba in the ‘‘Stewardesses”’ case) have held the prior Censor Board approval of a film is, in effect, ‘lawful justification’” when a charge has been laid under Section 159-2 of the Criminal Code, which reads: “Everyone commits an offence who About Censorship in Manitoba knowingly, without: lawful justification or excuse, Sells, exposes to public view, or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever’’. There is still some question as to whether that Section is the proper one under which a charge should be laid for the showing of an alleged obscene film or should it perhaps be under Section 163-1, which is the approach taken by the Province of Saskatchewan. This Section holds that: “Everyone commits an offence who being the lessee, manager, agent or person in charge of a theatre presents or gives or allows to be presented or given therein an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation’’. If the latter Section is the correct one then the question of prior censorship may be academic. It is, however, immaterial for those in Manitoba because no matter which Section is selected it is obvious that there is no protection and that the Industry is wide open to charges if the Government wishes to proceed against a particular picture. This situation makes it virtually mandatory that an exhibitor view, preferably in the company of his lawyer, any picture which fits into the restricted category. While the Government changed the legislation to prohibit banning of pictures, they have, in fact, moved to a more subtle but perhaps just as effective means of prohibiting the showing of certain films. It is by the simple expedient of sending a notice to the distributor, with a copy to exhibition and to the AttorneyGeneral, which states in substance that ‘‘it is the opinion of members of the Board who viewed this film that because of its undue exploitation of sex and brutality this film could possibly be in violation of the Criminal Code’. The letter goes on to state ‘“‘That the Board is not in a position to render a legal opinion; it is, however, their view’’. To date no picture with this warning has been played although nothing specifically prohibits an exhibitor from doing so. The Government also made what I would Suggest is a gross error in selecting the categories which were to be used within the Province, even though they were warned about the dangers that would be created. They selected names for the categories which are both at variance with the MPAA ratings in the United States and the prior classifications for Manitoba. There was no change in the General category, however what was formerly Adult has now become Mature and what was formerly Restricted has become Adult Parental Guidance, with a new fourth category, absolutely banning anyone under the age of 18 Paul Morton is President of Odeon-Morton Theatres. from attending, being called Restricted. This has created a situation where Manitobans seeing the classification Restricted, could in the past take their children. They can now no longer do so. They also see on U.S. television, which is readily available within the Province, the classification Adult Parental Guidance. It has a totally different meaning under the U.S. classifications than it does in Manitoba and it has created significant amounts of confusion. For all the criticism which the writer has directed towards the Government in regard to the drafting of the Act, the Government made one enormously intelligent decision and .that was in the appointment of the Chairman of the Board. They selected Father John Pungente, S.J., a young Jesuit priest who is not only modern in his outlook and highly intelligent in his approaches, but also highly knowledgeable about film. He has approached a most difficult job with great common sense and as a result problems have been minimized. For example, only those pictures which can best be described as skin flicks have been put into the fourth or Restricted category. Any quality pictures have been put into the Adult Parental Guidance category, even though they may contain very explicit sex, language or themes. A further example would be the placing of pictures of particular interest to young people, such as Polanski’s Macbeth or Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five in the Mature category, probably the most lenient classifications they have received anywhere in Canada. In common with many other areas with this Government they have created their own bureaucracy. The Government approach has been that there should not be a censor or small group of censors. They have created a fifteenman Censor Board covering a relatively divergent cross-section of the community with three people sitting at anyone time. To a certain extent the luck of the draw as to which one of the five groups classifies a particular picture will determine the classification for that particular picture. The enormous size of the Board has, of course, resulted in substantially increased costs, and in fact classification fees are virtually double what they were under the’ prior legislation. We, in Manitoba, are still attempting to feel our way through the problems of the new legislation. It appears that in concept it makes great sense and perhaps will form a basis for changes in other provinces. However, the strongest possible warning must be given to avoid the pitfalls of the details created by poorly thought out regulations with which the Government in Manitoba has burdened this otherwise progressive and_ intelligent concept.