Canadian Film Digest (Apr 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 35¢ 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. LETTERS TO To the Editor: Iam rushing this letter out in hopes of having it reach you in time for publication in your April issue. I feel I must comment on the Academy Awards. I do not really care about the actual ceremonies. They were as awful as they have ever been. But there was such an improvement in the QUALITY of the nominees this year that I couldn’t help noticing it. Last year we had a few good nominees — George C. Scott, Hospital, and some others. But this year the nominees were excellent. I don’t mean the politicking and all that garbage. I mean the actual level of excellence of the films, performances, credits that were nominated. TEGANAN PM ces 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 THE EDITOR Look at Best acting: Caine, Olivier, Brando, O’Toole and Winfield. All great. Or actresss: Ullman, Smith, Minnelli etc. Or writing: Pete ‘N’ Tillie, Sounder, The Emigrants, etc. How long has it been since such a roster of excellence was assembled? And what it shows, especially after last year’s large amount of junk, is that movies ARE healthy at this time. Yours Truly, H. Doblin Toronto Readers comments are always invited, provided they are concise and to the point. Send yours to: Letters to the Editor, Canadian Film Digest, 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5. This article for Dollars and Sense is reproduced with permission from the J ournal of the Producers’ Guild of America. Don Carle Gillette is a veteran film writer and commentator, and former trade paper editor. DOLLARS AND SENSE The Decline and Fall of Moviegoing — wy po carte citete What should have been regarded years ago as the most serious threat to the stability of the movie business has become an actuality of alarming proportions — and still the industry has not joined forces and ingenuity to combat it. This destructive force is the persistent decline in per capita moviegoing. Why has it been allowed to go on for so long without any effective steps being taken to check it? Doesn’t anybody care? There are two big, important and potentially powerful trade organizations in the motion picture field — The Motion Picture Association of America, financed by the major producers and distributors, and the National Association of Theatre Owners, embracing the nation’s cinema operators. By acting cooperatively they could do what needs to be done to restore public confidence in the movies—primarily by working together in a cleanup campaign that will eliminate the pornographers who have brought disgrace to the screen and alienated millions of moviegoers. But these two influential organizations keep fiddling while the industry burns. It’s incredible that they should be unable or unwilling to get together on a problem of such vital importance to their individual as well as mutual existence. Let’s get down to some facts and figures. Statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce and other government agencies, backed up by a number of circuits and independent exhibitors who keep tabs on their operations, reveal that in the 40-year period from 1932 to 1972 the per capita movie attendance in the U.S. dropped at least 50% — despite the greater affluence and increased leisure time enjoyed by the populace. Coincidentally, and adding to the gloomy status, government surveys show that, whereas the American public spent some 22% of its recreation dollar at the movies 40 years ago, the cinemas in this country now are getting only about 5% of that recreation dollar. Any other industry, charting its trends, progress and operational results, would be panicked into action by such unfavorable figures. But not the movie business. As long as there is enough cash flow to permit the favored few to scoop their handsome emoluments off the top, the men in control don’t seem to care about anyone else, especially the industry in general. So the chart lines keep sinking, operations keep narrowing and the movies keep losing ground as a paid entertainment medium. The cinema means less and less to each new generation because the industry is doing nothing to attract and hold juvenile patrons during their early impressionable years when they form habits and develop interests. Occasionally, as in 1972, there will be an upturn in the industry’s gross income, but it is due mainly to higher admission prices and making pictures at less cost away from Hollywood, so the higher grosses don’t signify increased attendance but merely that higher prices are being extracted from patrons — and this in turn means that fewer persons can afford to go to the movies. In view of all the fuss made during the last few years over the importance of the ‘‘youth market,’’ a study of recent motion picture advertising i in the big metropolitan newspapers is illuminating. It is shocking to find that 75% to 85% of the films advertised are suitable — and mostly designated — for adults only. Adding shortsightedness to plain pandering, a large percentage of movie houses make no bones about the fact that they are showing pornographic films. Even the august Los Angeles Times is not above running ads with such catchpenny lines as ‘‘strictly erotic hardcore,” ‘‘homosexual films,”’ ‘‘super adult erotica,”’ ‘‘our new found sensual liberties — without any censorship whatever,” ‘‘best porno film ever made,”’ ‘“‘not recommended for women,”’ and other repulsive phrases sexual action. Scores of ads have ‘‘For Adult”’ lines, and the term ‘‘hardcore’”’ relating to sex is heavily used along with an increasing number of cinemas labeling themselves ‘‘Adult Theatre’’ — and this includes neighborhood spots where the family attendance potential is considerable, provided the theatre operators show suitable films. But very few ads label their attractions as suitable for children or the family. In many cities, either as a bait or because the title of the film is too obnoxious, there are newspaper ads that give only a telephone number to be called for detailed information including subject matter of the film, who’s in it (usually no-bodies), location of theatre (or converted hall), price of admission (as high as $5 — hello, suckers), etc. Can such furtive ‘‘underground” entertainment be called suitable for the general public? All in all, it has become a smelly business, and with bad-taste films taking up such a large amount of the newspapers’ movie advertising space there’s no way to avoid tainting the ads of implying explicit’ The Canadian Film Digest EDITORIAL: encourage the short subject Across the page you will see the recommendations put forward by the Canadian Film Digest in an effort to present an organised plan of support for our industry. Itis undoubtedly true that we are in the midst of a crisis. Not only because of the government's foolishness in offering no decision on the tax-leverage question, but also in the area of personnel. For if the ideal financial and technical conditions came into existence today, a feature industry would still be barely alive; we do not have enough competent people in key areas. Therefore we should consider carefully one of the Digest's recommendations: encouraging production of the short subject. Canada has a tradition of excellence and great activity in the area of the short subject. The National Film Board is noted for its work in this form, and the industrial film industry is very healthy. It is a just complaint that discussions about film in Canada refer incorrectly to ‘tthe Canadian Film Industry,” when the accurate designation is the ‘Canadian Feature Film Industry.’ There has been a film industry in Canada for decades; it is features that must be developed. Up to now the people who have undertaken features have come from the CBC, the NFB, or the industrial film sector. Usually they have promoted low budget features which received only limited distribution and very limited returns. Still, these three areas have provided training, and we would probably have had no features without them. But they are inadequate, and provide the kind of experience that is only partly applicable to feature film production. Where do we look for the right training? To Hollywood, Not, of course, to its Tinsel Town activities, but to how its incredible output was created. In the beginning there was no film. It’s hard to believe today, but in the first decades of Film history the makers were creating the art. They did it by using the short subject. Well into the time that sound was established, Hollywood was producing shorts in abundance. Every great director, not to mention stars, writers, technicians — in fact everyone involved, even producers — were schooled in filmmaking by the short subject. clean films appearing on the same pages. Imagine a fine family picture -such as Sounder being advertised next to a bunch of pornographic and erotic quickies! Segregating the professed and obvious hardcore porno and erotic film ads from the other pictures — which has been strongly urged and even demanded in some instances without much cooperation from the newspaper publishers — cannot do much to help the deplorable situation because the vast assortment of sex-film ads, bunched together, still would be a formidable bloc in relation to the other ads. This sad state of affairs is the result of the industry’s lack of leadership and the persistent conflict between the producer-distributor group and the exhibitors. Unified and coordinated action by the MPAA and NATO could have prevented the pornographic film scourge, the almost total loss of product to attract children as the audience of the future, the deglamorizing of movie personalities by the ‘yellow journals and fan magazines, the ‘Hollywood is dead’? propaganda, the scandal. minded gossip columnists including those on a trade paper who bite the hands that feed them, and other activities of the communications media that have contributed to the wrecking of the industry image. As an example of gossip columnists gratuitously smearing the movie profession, a fan magazine chatterbox who does a daily stint on television recently aired a year-end comment enumerating some of the Hollywood divorces in 1972. She made it appear that marital breakups in the film capital are more numerous than elsewhere — a canard that has been disproved many times. The fact is that one Hollywood divorce receives more publicity — before and after it takes place — than a thousand divorces in other segments of society, including many in the newspaper field that never get into print. What makes it worse for showbusiness is that perhaps half or more of the rumored divorces never take place, but the steady grinding of the rumor mill adds to the public impression. Without attempting to control freedom of the press, this continual and irresponsible smearing of movie personalities, often damaging their reputations to the extent of having unfavorable effect on their earning power, could be curbed by proper industry action. A lot of emphasis has been placed by MPAA on fighting censorhip, and there is much crowing whenever a federal, state or local censorship bill is defeated. Film is movement, economy, pace, and brevity. The short form necessitates straightforward, direct, characterisation, story; only the essentials are allowed. The same is true of the feature. More subtlety and complexity is possible, but the above key elements are still most important. To train the required personnel, to provide experience without the incredible risk of a feature, we must expand the making of dramatic short subjects in Canada. Our two greatest lacks are writers and producers. If a producer can get his feet wet by gathering together the elements of a short, investors will be happier to see him when he comes calling with his feature packages. If an actor needs experience before a camera, or a writer needs to feel the pace of dialogue and characterisation, seeing his efforts in the short subject actually produced, instead of having a shelf-full of second rate features, will help him and the industry. Exhibitors would be only too happy to show shorts, considering the grumblings in line-ups over the payment of ever-rising prices for only a feature and sometimes a cartoon. And apart from gaining the experience, the makers would obtain a track record to boot, We are not speaking about documentaries — there is ample opportunity to develop skills in this area in Canada today. What we need are dramatic shorts, comedies and dramas. The CFDC should have funds to grant individuals and film courses in universities and community colleges special funds for the making of shorts. Exhibitors should have some sort of benefit, such a tax refund, for showing them The overall objective is to lower the financial risk in this area, so that people will be encouraged to enter it. And we must counteract the attitude that exhibition of shorts, and therefore producing them, is futile because there is no return at the box office. A profit is not necessary; a loss should be minimal if at all. In this way the shorts will be shown. ~* It we don't establish some training program on a practical level soon, we'll continue to lose our best talent to the U.S. and England, because they know that in those countries they can learn their trades without risking their entire future careers. ; Ironically, at much less cost, the industry could solve the censorship problem by getting together and eliminating the causes that arouse censorship agitation — squelching the fastbuck pandertrs who have been replacing showmanship with smut. Don’t say it can’t be done. The red-light districts were decimated years ago, and there are perfectly legal ways of harassing stag movies until they no longer find it profitable to louse up a mass entertainment industry. Only a hardcore program can combat hardcore pornography, but the move can’t be made without all-around cooperation. Movie business today is not a new ballgame. It’s still the same old game — with a different cast — but it is questionable if many of the new players are qualified and trained to be in it. The masses will still go for honest heart interest stories, adventure, thrills, excitement, wholesome sentiment and laughter. They have been brainwashed by nudie sex, perversion, drug addiction and overdoses of violence, murder and permissive immorality. It’s just as possible to do a reverse brainwashing. ° Fundamental human emotions have not changed much, if at all. Nudity and explicit sex are not enough as “‘plot’”’ even for catchpenny attractions. It’s time to reawaken the natural emotions of moviegoers by the kind of screenwriting creativity that gave the public those classic dramatic, comedy and musical productions of the 1930’s in particular — the period, incidentally, when Shirley Temple was the darling of the screen in human interest stories which in repeat and re-repeat TV showings today still evoke delight, laughter and tears even in this hardcore sex era. Speaking of TV, the vast number of diver sified video programs suitable for kids, _ especially on Saturday and Sunday mornings, explains why the home screen has won the big teen and pre-teen audience away from the movies. Saturday kiddie matinees at theatres have all but disappeared. It’s no wonder the mass audience is more TV than movie conscious. There’s a big selling job to be done, and it must embrace many levels, starting with the new generation of producers and exhibitors and down the line to the communications media and the vast potential mass of movie-lovers who are now not moviegoers. Getting the ball rolling calls for unselfish leadership. Is there a leader in the house?