Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1924-Apr 1925)

Page Ten To understand present conditions and grasp the reason why the theatre owner’s “place in the Sun”. is. still more of a dream than a reality, it behooves us to go back to first causes This industry came into being as an invention or, if you please, as a grow of inventions. Inventions are legal monopolies, well protected by the state. When the various inventions upon which the motion picture industry rests were taken into court and subjected to judicial analysis, it, became apparent that a good many of the alleged inventions were not patentable. Consequently, the monopoly. founded upon these inventions was formally dissolved by law. Evidently, legal decrees do not kill traditions. The logical consequence of the monopoly’s destruction should: have been the open market. This open market actually did exist in our country. In 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907, no producer had any thought of leasing his pictures or distributing them to the theatre owner. Pictures were made by the producers and sold to the exchanges that were financed by capital entirely independent of the producers. The very producers who afterward joined in the monopoly, solicited the patronage of these independent exchanges and every print was sold outright.’ Later, as we all know, the Motion Picture Patents Company destroyed these independent exchanges, one by one and set up a system of licenses to control or attempt to control both the distributor and the theatre owner. You may say that this is a thing of the past. Historically it is, but in all our business dealings an overlaid spirit of monopoly still lives. Hence, with a policy of compulsion and an atmosphere of greed. ‘The milking processes as applied in this industry to the buyer, find no parallel in any other legitimate industry. While the motion picture industry in many respects is wholly different from other commercial activities, the business ethics—meaning the equitable dealing between wholesaler and retailer—should conform to the generally accepted rules of fair play and economic soundness. In our industry the producing elements are ever reaching out for control and possesion of our theatres, or else they attempt to obtain a larger share of the theatre owner’s earnings than they are justly entitled to. x * * x THEATRE owner because of the hazardous nature of his business, the large financial investment : ere) ‘the belt.” CANADIAN MOVING PICTURE DIGEST THE EXHIBITOR’S PLACE Putting More Sense IN THE SUN By SIDNEY S. COHEN Reprinted from the “ Exhibitors’ Herald” (Continued from issue of Dec. 6th) and the great effort put forth, is entitled to a fair opportunity for a reIn many cases even this opportunity turn on his money and his enterprise. has been denied him. Considering that his work calls for constant effort, that his hours are twenty-four in the day, even without daylight saving, and that his week knows no vacation day, he surely is entitled to a better return on his investment than a scant livelihood. Unfortunately, some of them find it hard to even get that. In other words, our industry is full of that illegitimate pressure or foulplay, for which the French employ the term “sabotage.” “Sabotage” means literally, kicking with the feet, or as we would say, “hitting below There was various forms of applying this illegitimate pressure to the theatre owner, who, is guilty of no crime other than trying to run his business in the way he thinks best. This practice of “doing” the theatre owner is so alien to our usual American business methods, that a new word had to be invented to express to operation. The word “gyping” has been coined and possibly it is the best translation of same. . I think quite likely that eventually this word with itst fine shade of meaning may attain the dignity of a place in the dictionary. These-lines represent an attempt at a survey of general conditions. In my next article I shall begin to enumerate the specific grievances from which the theatre owner suffers. I shall do nothing but catalog the facts, all of which are well known to every branch of the. industry. (To be continued.) Regular Matinee Prices Saturday in Ottawa Theatre Advancing the argument that there is little, if any, transient business in the Canadian Capital over the weekend, such as in the big American cities, the exhibitors of Ottawa are breaking away from the long-established policy of charging evening prices for the Saturday matinee. One of the latest to decide on regular matinee prices for Saturday afternoon was Manager J. M. Franklin of B.F. Keith’s Theatre. Joe Franklin declares that raised prices Saturday afternoon only tends to keep many young people away from the theatre altogether and that the transient patronage in Ottawa on Saturdays is seo" considering. Into Censoring Pictures By DUNCAN G. MacINNES (Continued from issue of Dec. 6th) Essentially it would seem that the Australian system would be successful in Canada. It is the claim of the opponents of national censorship that in the Dominion there are so many different classes, that it is necessary for each province to have a board of censors. They claim that the religious question of Quebec, and the Mennonite settlements in the West make each: province have a different code of morals. It is quite possible for a central board to have, as in Australia, thought for each of these peculiar problems. There is no reason why the Roman Catholic in British Columbia should not have the same protection as the one in Quebec, or the foreigner in Ontario the same treatment as the one in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is the difference that the cities of Canada are not as close together as those of. Australia. But, as the majority of film distributors have their headquarters in Toronto, the positives are brought through the customs at that point anyway, and a censor board in the customs there would deal with most of the films entering Canada. It would not be difficult to handle the films that are produced in Canada, as with the exception of the news and educational reels, there are no regular Canadian productions. The net revenue from the censoring of films in each province cannot be large enough to be of much consequence. After the salaries of four or five men, the office expenses, as many have separate offices from the provincial departments, have been paid, there cannot be'a great deal of the revenue left. On the other hand, a central board would be such a great saving to the producers, that an increased single fee would hardly be objectionable. The additional revenue would enable the federal government, or the combined provincial governments, to pay better salaries and attract men of greater ability. Censoring is a job that requires unusual qualifications, and few men have them. It is impossible to judge a man’s fitness to censor through the usual run of civil. service examinations. A prominent United States judge writes as follows: “Censoring requires a kind of reflective thinking which transcends all narrow, sectarian, human, and capable of understanding what the average man wants.” Censorship not done with these viewpoints makes fair pictures ROOK and bad pictures worse. (Ee) be continued.) ja 6 ee ee