Canadian Film Digest (Mar 1973)

Page 4 THECANADTAN CTA DIGEST 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. EDITORIAL: MARCH 1973 DOLLARS AND SENSE The Dollar Impact of the Academy Awards 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 Don’t Raise Ticket Prices Recent rumours regarding increases in ticket prices may prove to be true or not; nevertheless now is an opportune time to discuss the matter, especially since we can look forward to an increase in hard-ticket prices for Last Tango in Paris, or so we are told by United -Artists in the U.S. Prices should not be raised; it’s that simple. At $2.75 for a single admission ticket, it is now incredibly expensive for a night out at a movie. The average person going to a film must calculate $5.50 for admission, four or five dollars for a babysitter, over a dollar to park or take a taxi, and three dollars or so for an aftertheatre snack. Which is a whopping amount to ask someone to pay for any evening. Only theatre patrons are asked to spend more. And the film can be seen on TV inno time at all after its theatrical release. In the last paragraph we have all the components: dollar outlay, legit theatre as a lesson, TV’s influence, and, most important, ‘‘the average person.” Who is the average person? He’s not really so average. The moviegoer today is above average in income, education, going out, travelling — in short, everything a movie patron should be to have quality films appreciated and regularly patronised. But he can be offended and lost too easily. One way is to charge too much. It won’t be the actual money itself, but what he gets for his money. Give him a quality movie, yes, and he’ll pay. But if there is a slump, he may not try, and try he must. Toronto, for example, is sorely in need of intelligent film criticism. But if all the public has to go on is the critic and word of mouth, why take the chance of discouraging the moviegoer to give a movie the benefit of the doubt and try it? If he likes it, he’ll try others he may only half want to see. If he doesn’t like it, he may still try others, as long as the obstacles are not unreasonable. And cost is a very basic psychological element in trying something new. If we are to rely solely on the Godfathers, Love Storys and Deliverances, the whole business will go out of kilter. Of course people will go to see a blockbuster, and they will pay anything to see it. But how can a business grow and expand when its entire financial base is predicated on a movie or two a year to provide its income? Where will the money come to expose, and thus teach, new directors, writers, producers, etc? A perfect example of which is Francis Ford Coppola. It is also undeniable that no one really knows what will be a blockbuster of the Godfather type. And that imitations don’t do as well: witness the crummy youth movies made after Easy Rider. Discouraging the one person who must put his dollars on the line and make a choice is suicide; what will draw him is quality; but he cannot be so discouraged by any aspect of filmgoing that he will lose his sense of adventure. : Television has an obvious influence on moviegoing today. Not only as a source of revenue for box office flops, but also because of its own made-for-TV movies. The latter have improved tremendously in the past year. Ever since they were made they have replaced the old Hollywood B movie; the television audience is now the B movie audience of old. Television is the great mass entertainment movies were in the Thirties; movies are seen on a huge scale, but their lowest common denominator existence, coupled with artistic uniformity, has been taken over by TV. Movies today can best be compared to books in the Thirties and how they related to films: there were author superstars like Hemingway, and new authors developed into prominence. But writing in the thirties was composed of great experimentation in style and diversity in treatment. Like movies today. And today’s movies are better than ever. There is nothing wrong with this development. In most ways the situation is better, especially for Canadians. How could a By Frank Mancuso Ever since the original Academy Awards presentation on May 6th, 1929, when the first best production of the year award was presented to Paramount's ‘“‘WINGS”’, the Academy Awards nominations and presentation has taken on a special significance in the motion picture industry. The most coveted of film awards takes on dual significance for its recipients. First to be judged as having achieved the very best in your individual specialized category by your associates is an artistic achievement of great accomplishment. Secondly, the financial rewards for pictures receiving both nomination and awards is obvious to both distributors and exhibitors. The effects of the Academy Award can be realized at the box office as early as when the nominations are announced. proximated time of one and a half months between the nominations and the actual presentations of the awards, the ticket buying public most inquisitively selects certain of the nominated pictures or performances to view prior to the award presentations. The reward for the public is generally the fact that they will see one of the pictures selected as the best of the year or that they will see a powerful performance by an actor or actress who has been judged to have achieved one of the finest performances of the entire year. When we look into the number of films that qualify for the Academy Award nominations each year, and realize that out of each category five pictures are selected, we can understand the motivation of the public to see those few select pictures. Currently from coast to coast showing in theatres the public can select from Cabaret, Deliverance, Sounder and The Emmigrants with The Godfather opening at academy award time. All of these pictures have been nominated for the best picture of 1972, Pz In addition to being able to select from these best picture nominations, also available are those actresses and actors nominated for best performance in a variety of other films, such as Diana Ross in Lady Sings the Blues, Maggie Smith in Travels with my Aunt, Liv Ullman in The Emmigrants, Cycile Tyson from Sounder and Liza Minelliin Cabaret, Paul Winfield from In this ap-_ The Canadian Film Digest Sounder, from The Ruling Class, Peter O'Toole, Michael Caine and Lawrence Olivier from the soon to be released Sleuth, and Marlon Brando from The Godfather. There’s unquestionably an effect of all of this product being available in the market place at this time of the year. Theatres currently playing this product are enjoying a consistency at the box office. Large sums of additional dollars are realized by the distributors as well when any of their pictures are nominated for the Academy Awards. Although I have indicated how important a nomination can be to a distributor in the overall dollar delivery of a motion picture, the ultimate in additional revenue is obtained when a picture is awarded an Academy Oscar in one of the major categorys such a best picture, best director, best actor, best actress and supporting actor and actress. The Oscar recipient in a major category can add several million dollars to its overall take in North America. The stimulant of these special pictures at the box office seems to be proportionally the same in the urban as well as the rural situation. The one exception in Canada seems to be certain parts of the province of Quebec. It is easy to understand the box office success of the Academy Award winners when we look at the number of viewers that annually watch the Oscar ceremonies on television. With major Canadian and U.S. network coverage, the Academy Awards presentation on April 15th, 1971 was estimated to have drawn a viewing audience of 31,250,000 homes. This broadcast is annually one of the top rated programs as the public watches the excitement and glamour of the awards presentation. The Oscar parade is currently upon us with the awards being presented Tuesday, March 27th, 1973 in Los Angles. The magic of the Academy Award time is not limited to the public, as most people connected with our industry have been making their own selection of awards. The guess work will shortly be over and those of us in distribution and exhibition will concentrate on bringing to the public those pictures and performances which have been judged the very best of all products released in the year 1972. Frank Mancuso is President of Paramount Canada. Canadian film industry develop if the theatres were constantly overflowing with Hollywood product? _ But more than this fact, how could the movies and moviegoing improve? Hollywood served a function — to train the people who were creating the art, to let them develop the art without impossible financial pressure — but we are at the next stage: diversity of choice. To maintain this diversity, every effort must be made to encourage the right audience to attend movies; nothing should stand in their way. Loyalty to the entertainment vehicle is the most important psychological element to be instilled in the moviegoer. If we lose that, no picture except the one Godfather of the year will make money. The best example of the dangers of overpricing can be seen in legit theatre tody. Huge houses stand empty; Broadway is dead, and shows gobble up hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s not that the shows are so bad. -They’re not great works of genius, but they are often worth an evening out. Nobody will go unless the show is Broadway's equivalent to the Godfather because the expense is enormous. Unless it’s great, forget it. That’s the future of moviegoing. Theatre is alive in small houses. Prices are reasonable and experimentation is tolerated and encouraged by the audience and the backers. The results are unforeseen hits and training for the future. But overall the theatregoing public is still small. And it’s not because of what plays. Over the years people have been actively discouraged from attending theatre by a vicious circle of bad or mediocre plays that cost too much to see. What it all adds up to is choice. Choice on the part of the moviegoer, not the producer, distributor, or exhibitor. To marrow the choices, inhibit the willingness to try something new, or discourage the physical displacement from the moviegoer’s residence is economic suicide. Maybe not this year, or in five years, but it will come before we know it. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR All about the Ontario Government Report To the Editor: One of the most common criticisms of the recent Ontario government commission is that no exhibitor sat on-the panel. The criticism is justified; all segments of the industry should have been included. But would the final report, or its recommendations, have been any different if one of the theatre owners or employees were included? I think not. The commission obviously felt strongly enough about a quota provision that no exhibitor spokesman could have swayed them. But still it is unfortunate that so little insight into the realities of the film business was shown through the lack of exhibition representation. One of these days somebody will do it right. M. Yanofsky Toronto To the Editor: done with them? Shelved? Put into effect in some useless watered-down version? Probably. We can’t let that happen. If we are going to get anywhere in film production in this province or in the country as a whole, we’ve got to act now. Perhaps we’ll have a few trying years, but the people who need the help most will get it: the production end. I don’t feel sorry for the exhibitor at this point; prices were raised in Toronto twice during the last year, and profits are still very visible. They are certainly eating cake now, so they can well afford to eat good bread for a while. The point is that not very much is being askea of them. Four weeks per year, or better still, eight every two years (Wedding in White’s nine week run anywhere would satisfy two years’ worth of quota) is not asking too much, In the future, if we build the base now, there will be fewer question marks as to the potential The Ontario government has seen fit to apsuccess of a Canadian film; at least we know point yet another task force, and that task force has come up with the recommendations that every task force does. But now what will be that an audience will give ita fair try. W. Burns Toronto To the Editor: Another commission advocates setting up more bureaucracy! Here we are with the Canada Council, The Ontario Council for the Arts, Cinema Canada, The Canadian Film Archives, and now a proposed Ontario Film Office whose job would be to do, in great part, what any one of these agencies can do. Why? We should have a way to train writers — the weakest aspect of the industry now — but why not simply give them a Canada Council writers grant. A script is writing, like poetry or a novel or a short story. Treat it as writing and who needs a new agency? I’m all in favor of drastic revision in the role of the theatres Branch, but no more waste, please. Ms. J. Hendry Toronto To the Editor: Congratulations to the film commission on a most welcome report. It’s about time actual detailed suggestions were made — let’s carry them out. Or rather all except one: the ratings game. In the U.S. today films rated X are automatically considered inferior — not in morals, but in quality. Simply because of the use of the letter X. Why not use A? Simply because people would think the film is good. No — let’s not put any designations using letters or numbers, unless something can be found which will inform, not pre-judge. L. Langforth Toronto About Censorship To the Editor: The question of censorship is rearing its ugly, reactionary head again, which is a good thing. It’s about time we settled the matter. The only way to do so is to abolish censorship entirely. After the expected rush of explicit, violent films, we'll have a settling down, and the whole thing will become just another component of a ee like choosing a setting in a bar instead of a ed. A.L. Myers Montreal To the Editor: I was very much dismayed to read your comments on the Toronto Star censorship editorial. As a long-time subscriber, I am happy to see your new format. But let's not get too carried away with new ideas. The fact is that our children must be protected. If every unscrupulous producer is let loose, the country will be over-run with films depicting violence, sex and foul language. Too much has been allowed already, so why ask for more? It's more important to clean up the present mess. In the ‘‘Golden”’ years of movies good entertainment did not mean explicit sex. Surely the talents of today are not so meagre that cheap language and filthy action if necessary to sell tickets. Vancouver