Canadian Film Digest (Mar 1973)

— Page 2 MARCH 1973 Forum On Censorship Calls For Completely New System By MELINDA McCRACKEN “If no one, will support censorship,” said Toronto defense counsel and panelist Aubrey Golden, “then why do we have it?”’ He was commenting on the liberal positions taken by five of the six panelists in the Toronto Star Forum on Film Censorship held February 13 in the St. Lawrence Centre Town Hall. Only J. Peter Rickaby, Crown attorney for York and local prosecutor of films under the Criminal Code, supported censorship and in an enlightened form at that. The other members of the all-male panel, Archbishop Edward W. Scott, primate of the Anglican Church, Hon. John Clement, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for Ontario, Martin Bockner, representing the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association and head of Astral Films, John F. Bassett, producer of Face Off and chairman of a nine-man task force on films, and Golden, advocated the abolition of censorship and cutting of films for theatre showings, in favor of some kind of classification system, and stressed the right of the individual to choose what he wants to see. The discussion centred mainly around censorship versus free choice, and various arguments in support of each. Unfortunately it did not attempt to define exactly what is considered obscene. That is, if obscenity is ‘sex, violence, frontal nudity, cruelty, brutality, cigarette advertising, or manipulation of audiences by sanctioning behavior exploitive of one human being by another. Also ignored was the fact that pornography is universally exploitive of women, as in the inequity in Last Tango In Paris, in which Maria Schneider, appears completely nude, while Marlon Brando is permitted to wear underwear. The double standard which censors sex, but condones the male preserve of violence and war in movies also went unexamined. The panel was moderated by Fred Hotson of the Toronto Star. Each speaker was allowed five minutes to state his position. Hotson introduced the discussion by outlining the various points. He said that those in favor of censorship feel it is necessary to protect children and to prevent immorality and degradation, while those against feel it inhibits their freedoms of speech and choice. Ontario, which has been asked to be more strict in its censorship, is the only province which still maintains a censorship board, headed by O. J. Silverthorn. Other provinces have a system of classifying films; police prosecution of films is based on complaints from the public after the film has been classified. Family movies do poorly at the box office, while sex and violence prosper; The Godfather grossed in one year more than Gone With The Wind has earned since its release in 1939. Some feel, said Hotson, that public acceptance is sufficient censorship; if the public doesn’t approve, the theatre remains empty. The danger of this point of view, he said, is that the public will accept more and more obscenity, thus reducing art to its lowest common denominator. He did not mention the escapist nature of movies, nor that they offer people the opportunity to participate in reality’s horrors vicariously and safely, thus offering exposure to the consequences of hurtful behavior, which can be an educational experience. The question also arises, he said, as to who is to do the censoring, who is to decide what sort of behavior people should not be exposed to. “Does sophisticated ribaldry appeal to the sheltered housewife in the small Ontario town? Sa movies be censored more strictly or not at all?” The first speaker Clement, whose department dealsewith liquor boards, the racing commission, the licensing of theatres and the’ censoring of film, in other words the racy side of life, said, ‘‘I don’t see how I can tell you what I think you should see. Captive audiences should not be submitted to anything they don’t want to hear or see. I am capable of making my own decisions. Strict censorship, he said, only produces a need for a blue tour hydrofoil trip to pweren: “He favored the individual’s right to choose’’. Bockner’s comments dealt with the legalities of censorship. ‘‘The provincial censorship board has the right to classify, control or ban film,’’ he said. ‘‘Then the attorney general can order the film seized. What this means is postcensor board censorship.” He cited the case of The Stewardesses in Manitoba, which was passed by the censor, then on the basis of.a complaint from the public, was banned by the attorney general. ‘‘Thus, said Bockner, “censorship arises not over degrees of obscenity but over points of conflict in the law, of which the laws defining obscenity are the most muddled of all.’’ He also said, ‘“‘Adults should be free to determine their own conduct in this regard,” and added, ‘“‘The motion picture industry has an obligation to inform the public in advance of the obscenity in a film. Films should be: classified, not censored or cut. It’s time Ontario Ontario did away with the censorship board, which has remained unchanged for 56 years, and respected the individual’s right to choose.” Archbishop Scott said he personally would opt for a society of maximum personal freedom,’”’ an open context with a sense of responsibility. We can’t legislate moral behavior; people have a right to choose.” Children, however, he said, deserve some kind of protection. With the exercise of power, adults confront children with situations they’re not mature enough to respond to, and some films encourage children to move in a direction ~ they really don’t understand, he said. Bassett, who said his committee to advise the government on film doesn’t believe in any form of film censorship or cutting, explained that its recent report recommends a classification code rating movies A for general audience consumption, B for children with parental: guidance, C for people 18 and over, and D as Xrated films, immunity against prosecution for the first three classes and prosecution of Xrated films stated only with the consent of the attorney general’s office, since prosecution commenced ineptly only results in more publicity for the film. He said also that the report recommends the formation of an Ontario film office, which would set standards for licensing of theatres and would classify films. As a producer, he said. he couldn’t understand why movies are censored and books like The Happy Hooker by Xaviera Hollander and songs like Bob Dylan’s. Lay Lady Lay, escape unscathed. Rickaby, who remarked that he was correctly positioned on the panel — ‘‘on the far right’, confessed to his own love of movies but argued for a policy of censorship which would not be a hangover of Victorian and Christian morality. ‘In a_ political system of democracy,”’ he said, ‘‘with majority rule, minority rights must be accessible.” He said that if the Canadian form of government is concerned with the quality of public life, that the government ‘‘cannot permit the people it governs to capriciously corrupt themselves. Movies have a fantastic potential for corruption.”” He assured the audience that cases brought to the courts would be prosecuted with vigor. Capitalizing on his opportunity as final speaker, Golden took issue with Rickaby’s professed love of movies, and likened his statement to saying, ‘“‘Some of my best friends are movies.’’ He said, ‘‘We all aspire to upper middle class aesthetics. We don’t want any phony orgasms. We say to the lower classes, you can’t have your aesthetic unless you add twenty minutes of deathless prose. Crombie’s standards are, Does your North Toronto housewife enjoy watching it? What it comes down to in the end is that there are different strokes for different folks.” Golden proceeded to rib Rickaby, and a repartee ensued between them about the case of the 2ist Century Love Cinema, run by the Martin Family, in which Rickaby acted for the Crown and Golden for the defense, and Rickaby denied Golden’s request for trial by jury. Questions from the audience were directd mainly at Rickaby — the only manifestation of conservatism — by annoyed but extremely articulate long-haired young men. Two women took the panel to task for its chauvinistic attitudes, citing the references to the “‘sheltered housewife in the small Ontario town’’ and the “North Toronto housewife,” remarked on the absence of women on the panel and asked if there were women on the censor board. Clement replied there are two. One 16-year-old confessed to having seen movies restricted to those over 18, and taking his nephew to see The Poseidon Adventure, restricted to those over 14 in Montreal. ‘‘He didn’t understand what was going on, and neither did I,”’ he said. He also cited his own evidence of particular movies having been considered to be an arbitrary fashion. Clement bowed to his superior research, Saying he was not in possession of such specific knowledge of movies, which, for the MP in charge of censorship, was surprising. The Canadian Film Digest MARKET REPORT ENTERTAINMENT STOCKS STOCK CLOSE CLOSE NET HIGH LOW JAN. 30 FEB. 28 CHG. FOR73 FORT3 TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE Baton 13% 13% sare 14% 12% Bushnell 9% 11% +2 114% 7Vs Canadian Cable Systems 17 185% + 1% 191% 161% CFCN 105% 9% ae 1034 914 CHUMB 1342 12% — 1% 1342 11% IWC Industries Ltd. 3.60 3.65 + .05 4.00 3.35 Maclean-Hunter Cable 17% 16% — 1% 18% 16% Premier Cable 17% 185% — | 19 16 Q Broadcasting 6 5% =e 6% 5a Rank Organization 235 124% —11% 261% 1214 Selkirk A 13% 15 + M% 15 9 Standard Broadcasting 134% 1256 — & 14 12% Western Broadcasting 1434 1414 — \% 15% 1334 MONTREAL STOCK EXCHANGE Astral 1:70" G5 Sean 2.60 1.45 VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE All Can A 2.80 2.90 +.10 5.90 1.00 AllCanB > 2.70 3.90 +,20 6.00 1.15 NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE Columbia Pictures 7% (hy a 147% 74 Walt Disney 107% 96 —11% 1237 945, Gulf & Western 31% 2734 — 3% 443, 25% Lowes 3858 361% — 23 6042 36 MCA 272 25 — 2% 5578 2315 Metromedia 2936 2042 — 8% 39 20 MGM 22 2158 — ae 2712 163% National General 33% 3056 — 3l% 365% 2112 Transamerica 16 1434 — 1% 2345 143, 20th-Fox 10 8% — 1% 17 855 Warner Communications 3142 272 —4 50% 263% AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE Allied Artists 3% 3 — as 7% 215 Cinerama 1% Ie — 3% liz Filmways 4Y% 89g) ene 8 35% General Cinema ~ 3356 31% — 158 5545 3142 Government Creates Festival Office — As the first step in what is expected to be a series of actions to promote Canadian Film, Secretary of State Hugh Faulkner has an nounced the creation of a Film Festival Office: in the Arts and Culture Branch of his department. The Film Festival Office will co-ordinate and administer Canadian representation at film festivals throughout the world, and will serve the Canadian film industry as a source of information about festivals in Canada and other countries. The purpose of the Office is to develop more effective methods of promoting, publicising, and distributing Canadian films here in Canada and abroad. The head of the new office is Jean Lefebvre, former TV critic, information officer for the National Film Board, and most recently head of the Festivals Office at the National Film Board. Creation of the new office is the first step ina more active film policy by the government. An advisory committee set by former Secretary of State Gerard Pelletier to advise on film is currently working on a number of proposals to help distribution of Canadian product. .One of the biggest complaints is that the major theatres in the country are foreign-' ‘owned — Famous Players in the U.S. and Odeon in England — so Canadian films are not given proper treatment. The theatres protest that it is a matter of economics: English language features won’t make enough money. The advisory committee includes ten men, among them the CFDC chairman, the NFB head, reps from the CBC, Canada Council, and public archives. Also on the committee is Famous Players president George Destounis. Mr. Destounis has recently favoured a quota system, but only in a personal capacity, not as a spokesman for his company. Among the suggestions being considered is a third chain of theatres nation-wide which would be compelled to show a certain number of Canadian films. No attempt was made to explain how the rest of their showing time would be filled, or even if foreign product would be included. The Canada Council would assist in financing the chain.