Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1924-Apr 1925)

Page scan 000650 from Canadian Moving Picture Digest

Record Details:

Title:
Canadian Moving Picture Digest
Date:
May 1924-Apr 1925
Volume:
Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1924-April 1925)
Leaf #:
000650
Language:
English
Subjects:
Motion Pictures, Film Industry Trade Magazine",Canad
Collection:
Hollywood Studio System, Global Cinema, Early Cinema, and Canada
Format:
periodicals
Contributor:
New York Public Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:

Canadian Moving Picture Digest

Editors: Merrick R. Nutting (1917-18), Raymond S. Peck (1918), Ray Lewis (1918-19 and 1920-54), Walter Greene (1919-20), Jay Smith (1954-57)

Canadian Moving Picture Digest (1917-57) was initially a Montréal-based rival of the first film paper in Canada, Toronto-based Canadian Universal Bulletin (1915-18, edited by W.A. Bach 1915-17, J.W. Cambridge 1917-18, Raymond S. Peck 1918). The two periodicals were combined in 1918, keeping the Digest name, but moving production to Toronto with Peck as editor. Canadian Moving Picture Digest assumed The Bulletin’s volume numbering and always claimed 1915 as its year of origin. Ray Lewis (née Rae Levinsky) was a writer and playwright, who spent time in early Hollywood’s publicity departments. She briefly took the Digest helm in 1918, then long-term editor, later owner and publisher, from 1920 until her death in 1954. Under Lewis’s leadership, the trade paper claimed to serve as a voice for independent exhibitors and advocated for a Canadian cultural presence in cinema, particularly emphasizing British films as a way to keep a distance from Hollywood. Lewis's editorials were notable for their advocacy, wit, and critique of American dominance in the Canadian film market. While initially positioning herself as an outsider, she became integrated within the industry and a true insider. She even had an ongoing correspondence with Canadian Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, advocating for the industry as a whole and supporting British film imports. She was well-known at Toronto’s Dundas Square film row as well as in New York and Hollywood. Variety’s Sime Silverman called her “the Girl Friend in Canada,” and she delighted when U.S. writers not “in the know” presumed “Ray” was a man’s name. Lewis was later an inaugural member of the Canadian Picture Pioneers, eventually the group’s first female president and Pioneer of the Year. After she died in 1954, her son Jay Smith took over editorial duties until Canadian Moving Picture Digest was bought by Nat Taylor’s Film Publications of Canada in 1957. Taylor incorporated the legacy journal into a joint masthead for Canadian Film Weekly (1942-70), which subsequently dated its roots back to the 1915 origins of the film press in Canada.

– Jessica Whitehead and Paul Moore, March 2024

Further Reading

  • Whitehead, Jessica, Louis Pelletier and Paul Moore, “‘The Girl Friend in Canada’: Ray Lewis and Canadian Moving Picture Digest (1915–1957).” In Daniel Biltereyst and Lies Van de Vijver, eds., Mapping Movie Magazines: Digitization, Periodicals and Cinema History, 127-52. London: Pagrave-Macmillan, 2021.

Date Added:
August 07, 2025
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

ANOS TORONTO, ONTARIO. THE EXHIBITOR’S PLACE “IN THE SUN | By SYDNEY S. COHEN Reprinted from the “‘ Exhibitors’ Herald” (Continued from issue of Apr. 4th) MEETING NON-THEATRICAL ‘' “COMPETITION. | M\HE problem of non-theatrical en. tertainments in direct’ competition with the theatre owner, is, I think, susceptible of a simple and complete solution which ought to be satisfactory to all parties concerned. When ever.and wherever it is proposed to run theatrical programs by or under the auspices of non-theatrical organi zations, such as schools, libraries, lit erary institutions, etc., the theatre owners in these respective communities ought to endeavour to undertake the management of such affairs. In most communities, especially in the: smaller ones where such entertain ments are most likely to be offered to the public, the theatre owner en-: joys the esteem and confidence of his: public, and his offer of assistance with his superior knowledge of showmanship will be gladly accepted. An advantage to the theatre owner in thus handling these non-theatrical entertainments is that he can put on a show which will admirably serve the purpose of the school (or what not) and still will in no wise hurt his own legitimate theatrical business. The theatre owner can offer his theatre for a morning performance, or some other such time as may be convenient, in co-operation with the church or school. He will thus tend to make his theatre a community center and by his offers of co-operation and help and participation in local affairs, the people of his community will look to his theatre as their natural place of entertainment, and thus the exchange or film salesman will have no customer there for the establishment of a _ nontheatrical center. The church or school will have had its purpose accomplished through the theatre owner; more revenue will have been brought both to the theatre owner and the non-theatrical interest, and the public will have been afforded the safeguards and protection required by law in the conducting of a motion picture theatre. It will also discourage the non-theatrical interest from making the initial financial investment the establishment of such a center entails, and you will find that where there is now such centers, they will to a considerable extent discontinue their operations and utilize the theatres instead. Any intelligent exchange manager can take the last sting out of nontheatrical competition by co-operating with the theatre owner and 5 as ng su OOS the non-theatrical organization to do the same. In-every other line of trade a manufacturer sells only to the recognized dealer. This, as we know, is not always true of our industry, but we feel sure that the far-sighted distributor will see the force of our contention, and will cease to seek the dollar from any person or organization who may desire to hand it over to them to the detriment of the theatre owner—not only their principal patron, but their legitimate buyer. . DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. ESTABLISHED. T° what absurd and injurious con-. sequences present conditions or any other attitude is bound to lead, may be seen by what happened very recently in a small town in California. The facts were as follows. The church in that town was showing pictures on Sunday and taking up a collection for showing them. At the same time the courts decided against Sunday motion picture shows in the theatres there.. After one of the performances in the church a collection was taken up and the congregation openly taken to task for their small contributions. The statement was made that if the same show had been given them at the local theatre they would have had to pay 50 cents admission and they should therefore be willing to give a large silver donation to the church. | makes it even worse is the fact. that motion picture distributors are encouraging this by renting their product to non-theatricals. Pictures are often rented to such centers for less than half of what they cost the the-. This is only serving to. bite the hand that feeds the producers. atre owner. and distributors. It is helping to put out of business theatre owners who alone make it possible for producers and distributors to remain in business. It is time that they realized how they are jeopardizing their own interests as well as imperiling the theatre owners, for just as long as the people of this town in California, or in any other community, can see drama feature motion pictures in their church or school on Sunday and the distributors furnish them with such pictures, it will be very difficult for the theatre owner to arouse public opinion suffhciently to help him secure the Sunday opening and operation of his theatre, and just so long will these institutions continue to try and enforce the S i closing law. ee eee Page Niné SUNDAY OPENING. SUCCES: in amending the blue Jaws, J of the 17th century still on our’ statute books and the liberation of Sunday observance, have heen due entirely to the leadership of the theatre owner. Whenever this question of Sunday opening has been .left to a local referendum the standing of the. local theatre owners and the intelli-' gent and conservative conducting of their btsiness have been our biggest and most successful weapons. There’ could be no finer tribute to the character and ability of the theatre owner in the smaller commiunities, than the frequent decisions at the polls in favor, of motion’ picture entertainment .on) Sunday. Here they have demonstra-: ted their capacity for leadership be-: yond all doubt. The theatre owner in fighting for a liberal Sunday have enjoyed very little if any aid from the other branches of the industry with but few exceptions. In many cases, : assistance. was declined on the ground that Sunday opening was merely the theatre owner’s'’ problem. If the theatre owners retaliated in the same narrow fashion, they might decline to con-, sider Censorship as their problem and refer it for solution to other branches, of the Industry. , MAKING THE GOOD FIGHT. °: S good Americans and as the men: ‘in closest contact with the public, theatre owners have ever presented. a solid front against the evils of Cen sorship. They will know that censor-: ship would eventually make the screen” little better than a square blank space. They realize that censorship would not only deprive the theatre owner of “his place in the Sun,” but would: ~ : shut out the entire industry. CenThis is an unfair situation and what © sorship is a problem which concerns the theatre. owner no less than the producer, for it destroys the livelihood of both by taking every entertainment value out of the picture. However, there is but one’ real and’ lasting form of censorship—that is’ the unappointed and unsalarted censorship of. public opinion. No evil; thing can survive the frown of outraged decent human nature and that: frown would be immediately forthcoming for any theatre owner who. would persist in showing improper. (in any sense of the word) pictures. This results in a failure to win the support of the better elements in a: community. The active group, which is usually recognized as hostile to the, interests of the theatre, is generally “long” on criticism and exceedingly:. “short” on constructive suggestion. : It is a short-sighted tendency of some. theatre owners to treat these people’ either, with disdain’ or. indifference. Properly handled these same people’ may be used by the theatre owner to his own advantage. (To be continued.)