Canadian Film Weekly (Feb 2, 1944)

Vol. 9, No. & Feb. 2, 1944 HYE BOSSIN, Managing Editor Address all communications—The Managing Editor, Canadian Film Weekly, 25 Dundas Square, Toronto, Canada. Published by Film Publications of Canada, Ltd., 25 Dundas Square, Toronto, Ont. Canada, Phone ADelaide 4317. Price 5 cents each or $2.00 per year. Entered as Second Class Matter Printed by Eveready Printers Limited, 78 Wellington Street West, Toronto, Ontario ‘Movies for Children’ It is always a pleasure to have someone speak up for us, since so many have little to say about motion pictures until they see something that rubs them the wrong way. These critics always manage to capture press space for their pet peeves. The Peterborough, Ontario, Examiner had something to say about the opinions of the local Home and School Club, which concerned itself with the effect of movies on children. Exhibitors would do well to call the attention of editors in their towns to the editorial, called “Movies for Children,” which follows: We see that the local Home and School Council intends to write to the Provincial Treasurer, suggesting that a woman be included on the Board of Motion Picture Censorship for this ! Province; the Council may spare itself the trouble, for Maud 4 Canning has done good work on the Board, assisting the Chairman, O. J. Silverthorne, for some years. The Counclil’s object, as we understand the matter, is to urge that films unsultable for showing to children be barred from exhibition in Ontario. > nt + We do not believe that any such proposal would be seriously considered by the Board of Censors. The moving pictures are patronized by people of all ages, and it is impossible to restrict what they-see to children’s fare; to do so would be as silly as to decree that restaurants should serve no food which was not digestible by children. It is expected that parents will keep their children from eating foods which are unsuitable for them; similarly it may be expected that parents will keep their children away from movies which may have a bad effect on them. It must be understood that the proprietors of movie houses are not running day-nurseries, to which children may be sent whenever they are in the way at home. They are running places of public entertainment, and the adult public may fittingly ask to see films which would be unsuitable for exhibition to children. ~ = a The child whose film fare is supervised is not likely to come to any harm from seeing a weekly movie; on the contrary, the stimulation of his imagination will probably be good for him. Experiments in making films primarily for children have not been unqualified in their success. “Snow White” contained a Witch who was too horrible for the smaller and more impressionable children; “Lassie Come Home” excites such sympathy for the dog who plays the chief part that children are reduced to tears; the films made for children are usually more disturbing than those prepared for general release. Our own opinion is that children like slapstick comedies best of all, then thrillers, and then sentimental films; sex dramas come low on the list of preferences for the plain reason that children scarcely comprehend what they are about. . o fe We must not lose sight of the fact that the movies are a form of art, and are indeed the only form in which drama reaches millions of people on this continent. To attempt to limit drama to subjects suitable for consideration by children Is sheer nonsense. Great drama and great literature are rarely suited to the needs of the very young; they are produced by adults for the entertainment of adults and children must wait until they are grown up to appreciate them. We cannot impose infantilism on the whole Province by limiting the movies to the needs of children. y % * Associations of parents are often excellent things, but they have a bad habit of wanting other people to do work which properly belongs to parents themselves. If parents want to protect their children from unsuitable movies let them keep their children at home, and supervise their movie fare carefully. They must not try to bully the censors into doing their job for them, and they must not try to dictate the movie fare which shall be offered to the majority of movie-goers, who are adults and must be treated as adults. Canadian FILM WEEKLY Indies to Ottawa. On Prices, Etc. (Continued from Page 1) charge of R. G. McMullen, has had little effect on the business conduct of the distributors. McMullen, on loan from E. P. Taylor Enterprises to the Special Services Administration, returned to his own concern several weeks ago and now acts in an advisory capacity only. Gather From Many Points Representatives from provincial branches of the National Council will be present at the meeting to present their brief before leading figures of the government and the WPTB administration. The names of those reported as slated to discuss the claims of the Independents gives the gathering seeming significance at this time, it being unlikely that these officials would take time off from their duties to weigh trivial matters. According to good sources Donald Gordon, top man of the WPTB, will preside. Others who are expected to be present are M. W. McCutcheon, administrator of services, under whom McMullen served; the Hon. J. L. Ilsley, finance minister; and a representative of the Prime Minister. National Council representatives will be headed by President Archie J. Mason. P. W. Mahon will come from Saskatchewan; H. G. Stevenson from Alberta, H. Shulman from Manitoba, Malcolm E. Walker from the Maritimes, R. McTavish from British Columbia, C. O. Auclair from Quebec, and Henry Falk and Ben Freedman from Ontario. Organized After WPTB The National Council of Independents came into being after the organization of the Independent Theatres Owners Association of Ontario, which grew out of the conviction of those responsible for it that the Indies had no adequate voice in advising the WPTB of industry problems. A National Advisory Council made up of representatives of every section of the industry was formed but, lacking in authority, met irregularly and seems to have lapsed into inactivity. Protests of the Indies won few if any concessions, though they stirred troubled waters. In 1942 a 32-page booklet was issued by them bearing the signature of Barnett Laxer, since out of the picture, which charged that the WPTB regulations had no restrictive effect on the distributors. The charge was also made that the circuits worked with the distributors in a way detrimental to the business welfare of the Indies and these claims were aired in the House of Commons by a member from _ British Columbia, February 2. 1944 Await More Info In Royalties Case (Continued from Page 1) right to collect annually two cents per seat from theatres with 1600 seats or more and one cent per seat from those under that capacity. APRS’s repertoire was formerly part of that supervised in the Dominion by the Canadian Performing Right Society. Major opposition was provided by the Canadian Performing Right Society, which insists that the APRS repertoire amounts to & small fraction of one per cent of copyright music, although the applicants maintain that it is closer to four per cent. The point Will be settled before a fee is approved. Others represented were the Musical Protective Society of Canada, with which theatres are affiliated, Canadian Association of Broadcasters and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Object to Total Increase The Musical Protective Society, represented by Norman Robertson, K.C., has no objection to the new organization sharing the present fee but is opposed to a Separate or additional levy. If was pointed out that the present fees of the Canadian society, which i§ exclusive in the field, were based on its position as the only such agency. Users of copyright music in the Dominion are convinced that the Canadian Performing Right Society intends to ask for higher fees in the future, claiming that they should be the same as in the United States. American fees are 20 cents per seat per year in all theatres with 1600 seats or more and 15 cents per seat per year for all houses with from 800 to 1599 seats. All theatres seating 800 or less are required to pay five cents per seat. Canadian fees are 15 cents per seat per year over 1600 and 12 cents from §01 to 1599. . To Oppose Rate Boost Those opposed to raising of Canadian fees point out that Canadian fees are higher than they should be in proportion to those of the United States. The average American spends almost $10 per year on movies and the average Canadian almost four dollars—less than half. Based on proportionate annual earnings the Canadian fees, it is felt, are too high rather than too low. It is also claimed that the annual total amassed by the Canadian Performing Right Society has increased by more than $10,000 in the last year. There are almost 100,000 more movie seats now than there were two years ago and many theatres which were open but a few days each week are now on a full schedule, m. . 2