Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 15, 1942)

Page scan 0004 from Canadian Film Weekly

Record Details:

Title:
Canadian Film Weekly
Date:
Apr 15, 1942
Volume:
Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 15, 1942)
Leaf #:
0004
Language:
English
Subjects:
Motion Pictures, Film Industry Trade Magazine",Canad
Collection:
Global Cinema, Canada, and Hollywood Studio System
Format:
periodicals
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library, Canadian Picture Pioneers, Paul Moore and Jessica Whitehead
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:

Canadian Film Weekly

  • Editor: Hye Bossin (1942-64)
  • Renamed Canadian Film & TV Bi-Weekly (1965-69, editor: Stan Helleur)
  • Renamed Candian Film Weekly(1970, editor: Ed Hocura)

Canadian Film Weekly (1942-70) was edited by Hye Bossin and published by Film Publications of Canada, Ltd., wholly owned by leading exhibitor, Nat Taylor. In the late 1930s, Taylor was head of the Independent Theatre Association and his Toronto-based chain, Twinex-Century (Twentieth Century), was the largest independent circuit in the country. In 1941, however, he negotiated for chain affiliation with upstart Canadian Odeon before leveraging a better deal and greater booking control with nationally-dominant Famous Players Canada, Ltd. No longer independent, he took ownership of the Independent Theatre Association’s semi-monthly magazine, The Canadian Motion Picture Exhibitor (1940-41), installed Hye Bossin as editor, and laid plans to relaunch in January 1942 under a new name, Canadian Film Weekly. This enduring key publication was no longer solely focused on independent exhibitors but instead covered the entire industry on a national scale–exhibition, distribution and production–with some attention given to studio news from New York and Hollywood.

Bossin was a vibrant writer with a canny way with words, admired in the industry in the United States as well as Canada. He was one of a large family who lived above their father’s secondhand shop in the Jewish “ward” downtown in Toronto. His older brother was a bookie with ties to the underground; his younger brother was a famous journalist, protégé of Walter Winchell, and Hollywood screenwriter. In contrast, Hye spent nearly two decades learning the publishing trade in a printers’ shop before trying a stint as a Hollywood publicist, then writing a column for the Toronto Star Weekly before taking Taylor’s offer to edit the Film Weekly. Bossin was central to the creation of the Canadian Film Archive, the Canadian Film Awards, and he wrote some of the first histories of early cinema in Canada, published in the first volumes of the annual Canadian Film Weekly Year Book (1951-70).

In 1957, the Film Weekly had incorporated the rival Canadian Moving Picture Digest (1917-57), and began dating its start to that paper’s earlier start as the Canadian Universal Bulletin (1915-18). Subsequent variants of the Canadian Film Weekly and its yearbooks always claimed their roots all the way back to 1915 and the origins of the film industry trade press in Canada. After Bossin died in 1964, the Weekly’s new editor, Stan Helleur, renamed the magazine Canadian Film & TV Bi-Weekly, scaling back the pace of publishing but adding a purview for television and broadcasting. The annual was renamed similarly, its subtitle amended to “Year Book of the Canadian Entertainment Industry.” An attempted renewal to weekly format in 1970, edited by Ed Hocura, was short-lived and Nat Taylor decided instead to relaunch under an entirely new title, Canadian Film Digest (1971-77) and Canadian Film Digest Yearbook (1971-86).

– Paul Moore, March 2024

Further Reading

  • Bossin, Hye. “Canada and the Film: The Story of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry.” In Canadian Film Weekly Year Book of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry, 21-41. Toronto: Film Publications of Canada, 1951.
  • Moore, Paul. “Chronicling a National History: Hye Bossin’s Canadian Film Weekly and Year Book.” In Eric Hoyt and Kelley Conway, eds., Global Movie Magazines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2024.

Date Added:
August 08, 2024
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.

—ilms for April 15th, 1942 Technicolor is Big Stuff Now Loss of foreign markets may \ve caused some Hollywood stu Ss to retrench and cut producfon. schedules, but there’s one phase of the industry that’s booming at a rate 16 times that of a decade ago. It’s Technicolor. Twenty feature-length Technicolor pictures were produced in 1941, according to a report of Dr. Herbert T. Kalmus, president of ‘Technicolor, Inc. Bookings for the first half of 1942 are maintaining the same high rate. Positive print footage in 1941 was 97,014,757, compared with 80,632,168 in 1940 and contrasted with 5,526,128 feet in 1932. “Besides these pictures for entertainment,’ Dr. Kilmus said, “Technicolor has been active in the photography and printing of pictures for the Government used in connection with defense and the training of personnel. “Technicolor has been called upon by the Government to make prints for a number of pictures for use in its activities concerning education and public relations. ‘Any Bonds Today’ and ‘The New Spirit’ are illustrations of such the Treasury Departlent.” ' About the middle of 1940 Technicolor made a reduction of one cent a foot on positive prints shipped from the Hollywood plant for theatrical distribution. Despite increased taxes and labor wage rates, the company increased its net profit and paid dividends of $1 a share in 1941 compared with 75 cents in 1939. Eight for Paramount April Schedule Paramount has eight pictures ready for ‘cameras this month. New starters are: ‘Wake Island,” John Farrow directing Brian Donlevy and Robert Preston; “Triumph Over Pain,’ Joel McCrea and Betty Field megged by Preston Sturges; “Happy Go Lucky,” Technicolor musical in which Curtis Bernhardt directs Mary Martin, Dick Powell and Rudy Vallee; “I Married a Witch,’ Fredric March and Veronica Lake directed by Rene Clair; ‘‘No Time for Love,” Mitchell Leisen megging Claud ‘ Colbert and Fred MacMurZ yr; “Silver Queen,” with George rent, Priscilla Lane and Bruce 'Cabot under Lloyd Bacon’s direction; “Lady Bodyguard,” in which William Clemens megs Eddie Albert, and ‘‘Wrecking Crew,” Frank McDonald directing Chester Morris, Richard Arlen and Jean Parker. ——————— — ss Fy CHICAGO SUN (Sereen critic Wolfe Kaufman writes about “The Mission of the Movies During the War’’) I have seen so many horrible, sly, stupid anu annuyling cue duarni€ MuvieS wnicn allegeuly had ule Valude Lilac 2 ain Leswiviy auwoyed Witn tnem. ‘I’ney ao not heip wie War efrort, and they do noc neip tne propaganda need. it 1s my consiaereud opinion that they atuct all around. Bue ittarfY yedtS ile WwOrlu ue dca py sdaw Ousivsetu £40 AW Piclauia VA weevalunmaraec vs YUICNIC pallusco, wualciuaces 1ueitiuch 4b “WS.” aaucy Gic iusuyY waitapuyY Induce, wupyily puc lyupeules, Witsluur etaso, wiliavul Osipgauadury anu WitilYue Mleril, 2L IS pericecuy Lrue lilac euicoe = picrures lus vuc tu we Yuile ellertauung will’ OWN Price level. 16 18 Tuscher true Ulae uiese ims nave served, in tne past, to wntroduce new taient. puc tney are still, the great majority or tnem, simply time nillers. vecasluuany aL Canadian FILM WEEKLY / Fade i Se S22 be eat t TORONTO DAILY STAR (A letter in Jack Karr’s “MovieGo-Round”) “T have something I have to get off my chest,” beefs M.P., Brooke Ave. “I go to theatres and see pictures that are not so very good and still they get praised and talked about and play for weeks while some that are very good are hardly talked about at all. This is especially so of ‘The Great Waltz’ which, in my opinion, is one of the best. I have seen it, believe it or not, 60 times . and still expect to see it! It got very little praise ...and was billed at Loew’s for only one week with another picture which was not good... . Since then it played at the Strand nine times, Oriole five times, and all smaller theatres over four times. Most people I have talked to have seen it quite a few times. . . . This picture was release in October, 1938, and is still in demand. Parts are taken out, but it still plays.” ——'| YALE LITERARY MAGAZINE ‘ne horrible situation of doubleDius wnicn grew up around tne (Sinclair Lewis in “A Double eountry 1n spite of everything that | Life for Writers’) anyone cCoulu Say, Made 1t mandatory 10 Manufacture these cneap 1ittie Niims, to a great extent. The ctneatres needed product, a great deal ot product. And these pictures took up time on the screen. In this ‘connection, there is an interesting tangent. Some newspapers make a practice of not reviewing these secondary, or “program” pictures. [ have been told py some exhibitors that there is no need of reviewing them, or assaying them critically. Which is opvious nonsense, it seems to me. The movie critic is a public servant. His job is to tell his readers what they are likely to see on the screen and whether or not they are likely to enjoy it, and to what extent. So long as people are asked to buy tickets sight unseen, in order to look at movies—just that long are they entitled to a critical and expert pre-judgment. Well, to get back to the main thesis, the average program picture is a formula affair. Boy meets girl, etcetera, is the formula for big or small pictures, to a great extent. But the independent or program picture is usually even more rigidly a matter of a couple of guys named Joe and a gal named Jane. Now, I don’t object to this type of tripe, especially. I can’t see any reason for it, but it does not especially rile me. Not until these pulp punchinellos get a cause. Or ? I suspect that in the future a writer will be able to make a respectable living only by toiling for the radio or Hollywood, and while there may arise geniuses who will be able to create enduring beauty and strength in those media, yet from what I know of those nimble arts, it is about as probable as to suppose that bran will presently become a tastier dish than grouse. a phoney excuse for their ridiculous melodramatics. I am thinking of one picture which I saw about six weeks ago and the name of which (being fortunate) I have forgotten. It dealt with a guy who was driving a truck on the Burma Road for the money it meant, and a gal who got between him and another guy. And then they all teamed up when they found out what all the shootin’ was for, and joined hands to lick the nasty Japs by an easy huff and puff. That picture infuriated me. It is allegedly propaganda, but it is actually nothing of the sort. Looking at it you are likely to say “Hooray for China,” true enough. You are likely to hiss at the Japs, sure. But you are likely, also, to think that we will win this war in no time at all, by the simple process of sending over a few truck Page 5 Hollywood Not Playing at War Hollywood is not resting on its cinematic oars, content to serve only as a stimulator in America’s all-out effort to win the war. The cinema city has emptied itself of some of its own top man power —a host of some 1,500 who have answer the call to arms. With approximately that number having gone over the hill, as far as movies are concerned, it is estimated that five per cent of the total number of screen workers are now sweating and bleeding for their country. This compares favorably with the percentage taken from other industries, and women are included in the count. Not all of these who have answered the call to arms are ‘just soldiers.” Many have rated commissions in the military and naval forces. And they come from all branches of the industry, and from every company, including Hal Roach, Monogram, Edward Small, Republic, Walt Disney, Leon Schlesinger, Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros., 20th Cen tury-Fox, Columbia, Samuel Goldwyn, David O. Selznick, Alexander Korda and RKO-Radio. The list includes actors, writers, directors, assistant directors, cameramen, producers, executives and others. Locations include the California State Guard, both reserves, both air forces, the Marine Corps and some of the Canadian and foreign national services, plus various United States Government offices engaged in war endeavor. Among actors are Lts. James Stewart, Robert Montgomery, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Richard Barthelmess, Gene Raymond and Ronald Reagan; Ensigns Wayne Morris and Tony Martin, Lt. Commander Wallace Berry, Corp. Tockil Coogen and Pvt. Jeffrey Lynn, Burgess Meredith and Jeff York. The star list contains some 15 names. Directors number Carson Kanin, Maj. Frank Capra, Lts. John Farrow and Leslie Fenton, Comdr. John Ford, Lt. Thornton Freeland, Lt. Leigh Jason, Maj. Paul Sloane and Maj. (retired) W. S. Van Dyke, making a total of nine “name” directors. Among assistants are Lt. William Helpern, Lt. Henry W. Silk Jr., Lt. Frederick Spencer and Capt. Paul R. Wing. From the writing field came Lt. Sy Bartlett, Col. Harold Buckly, Capt. Richard Carroll, Capt. Harrion Jacobs, Capt. Robert Rigby, Lt. Comdr. Frank Wead and Lt. drivers and a couple of pretty; Col. Tristram Tupper. The writers girls to teach them the rules. contributed some 27, all told.