Canadian Moving Picture Digest (Feb 21, 1948)

pm ep epee nati February 21st, 1948 CANADIAN MOVING PICTURE DIGEST Page 3 RAY PRESENTS Q* Saturday, February 14th, S. Morgan-Powell presented in the Montreal Daily Star, an editorial, “Requisites For Establishment Of A Native Industry Simple’. Mr. Morgan-Powell commented on a monthly letter sent out by the Royal Bank of Canada, which deals with movies in education and industry, and which contains, “a great deal of interesting material and general information”’. In our Ray Presents column this week we will deal with a point of view, as stressed in the Morgan-Powell editorial, and in the Royal Bank of Canada’s letter. Can features be made in Canada? Yes. While the answer is in the affirmative, I do not believe that we, in Canada, can now make pictures of the same quality as those which are made in Hollywood, those which are made in England, those which are made in Russia, in France or in Italy. At one time, I would have said, of the same quality as those which are made in Hollywood. We have always associated the production of motion pictures with climate, but with the Talking Picture, and Sound Studio, climate has been crossed off, as the first necessity of picture production. Anyone, who has lived in England, knows that the climate of this foggy, rainy country 1s not ideal for picture-production. Nevertheless, England has made some outstanding motion pictures and her producers have said: “Let it rain’. Wonderful pictures have been made in Russia, in France, where the climate is better, and in Italy, where the climate is still better. What is most necessary for picture-production 1S, primarily, finance, next adequate studio facilities, technicians, story material, direction and stars, following which adequate advertising material, distribution machinery, all designed for world markets are needed. Without world markets, all the other necessities are of no value, for Canada cannot give any picture-investment sufficient returns from the Domestic Market, to make the financial investment anything, but red figures. A MOVIE patron may be stimulated into visiting a local theatre, to see a Canadian-made motion picture, and should the picture reveal quality, should it prove com~ parable to the usual screen fare, the Canadian-made motion picture will be profitable in the theatres in the Dominion, but, irrespective of such possible large returns, the producer will not get into the real money-class, unless he can, at least, sell the United States market. Irrespective of a neighborly feeling, the U.S. distributor will not buy nor distribute a Canadian-made movie, which is in the classification of a B or C Hollywood motion picture, for in the latter class, the U.S. has hundreds of its own pictures to sell. The Film Imports into the United States which U.S. exhibitors play, among which are pictures made in England, in France, or in Italy, in Russia, or from any other country, have only proved box office, when they had something as good as Hollywood’s best, something different, something better. : I AM of the opinion, that our studios in Canada, turn out quality Commercial Films, Documentaries, and that the National Film Board has made some outstanding Short Subjects, possessing a quality deserving of World Markets. I have seen a number of pictures, features produced in Canada, going back to the Shipman production days, and the best of all of these has been two recent productions, made in Quebec, “La Forteresse” and “Whispering City”, the latter, the English version of “La Forteresse”’, which Fagle-Lion is distributing. These productions show the way for better Canadian-made features, since they prove that good features can be made in Canada, providing, as I previously mentioned, we have the finance and facilities for their production. Finance alone is not sufficient, for I well remember the half-of-a-million dollars which went into one Canadian-made picture, and which was such a “stinker” that even in Canada, it did not play more than a few theatres, three at the most. I agree with Morgan-Powell, when he states, that we do not require training-schools and experimental centres as the essentials toward experimentation in this field. What we require are the facilities for production, experienced people in this field, and finance to see the picture through, from the script to the screen. With all the experience which France and Italy have in motion picture production, both these countries have been handicapped recently by a lack of adequate finance and studio facilities, even raw stock and the technical accessories so vital to the making of a quality production are lacking, The best picture in the world, reproduced on poor raw stock, which results in a poor quality negative, with poor prints as a result, will decrease the earning ability and life of such a production. Perfect mechanical facilities and technical experts are as much value in picture production, as marquee names. Good pictures can be produced anywhere in the world providing the facilities, the finance is available, for with this vital beginning, expert technicians and stars can be imported for a picture or for a few pictures. FE is more difficult for Canada to produce quality feature pictures, that is a number of them, since Canada is not yet geared for such production, and the other countries mentioned, have studios, expert technicians, producers, writers and stars living in their respective countries, but if we in Canada become sufficiently interested, and are willing to finance Canadian-made motion pictures, if we can provide an income for expert technicians and stars within our own country, we will retain those which we have, those who are Canadians and we will attract others from other countries, the latter who will come to Canada, just as our Canadians go to other countries, where their abilities, (technical, artistic, histronic) are used. The Little Theatre groups, the Symphony Orchestras, the Opera Guild groups have shown Canada, that we are not only rich in natural resources, for industrial purposes, for the manufacture of products for export, but we are rich in creative and artistic talents, and, incidentally, the quality of talent which will even attract those who place the dollar as a measuring standard of value, only. We want no “turkey shows’, nor “get-richquick Wallingfords”, in Canada, to exploit Canadians on the idea of motion picture production. We have had plenty of such exploiters in the past, and these have been responsible, mainly, for our backwardness in coming forward. They have left a bad taste in the mouths of financiers, and those who had hopes of developing a Canadian Film Industry. Nor do we require flagwavers to spur us on. What we do require is a (Continued on Page 6)