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.
Page 2 al, . Vol. 10, No. 1% April -25, 1945 /
ean Lgzekln, HYE BOSSIN, Managing Ednor
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, Ontario, 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.
Leave Parents Slone :
The argument about the effect of movies on juveniles is so old that it gives one an out-of-date feeling. It is almost as though one were listening to an argument as to whether the automobile is here to stay. The motion picture has made tremendous advances in everything from moral conceptions to technical methods since the store show days but opposition to it remains where it was two generations ago. It is far out of proportion to the situation.
An interesting survey, not yet made public, reveals that the relationship between the motion picture and juvenile delinquency cannot be determined without three years of applied study. The authority for this statement is head of the Psychology department in a leading Canadian university. The influence of movies on juvenile behaviour is not nearly so apparent as those who ask restrictions claim it is.
It is amazing that so little judgment is used in building arguments on so controversial a subject. Perhaps those who busy themselves with endeavors to “clean up” the movies or keep them away from children in their “impure” state haven't much to occupy them and regard the motion picture industry as a playground for their opinions.
There are probably few things in the world which fit everyone at the same time and to alter a thing to fit one person will ruin it for countless others. There are intelligent people who recognize that and know that the best thing is to shop for what fits you—or have someone responsible do your shopping for you.
What happened in the Manitoba legislature recently is of special interest. The bill to extend provincial authority to municipalities which would empower them to ban children under 15 from movies at all times did not pass. It was met with intelligent opposition in the house and in the press.
In an editorial called “Leave Parents Alone” the Winnipeg Free Press had this to say:
Mr. Paul Bardal waxed poetic in the Legislature in his defence of the indefensible bill he introduced into that body: a bill designed for the restriction of a parent’s right to choose a child’s entertainment. He seemed to think the Free Press should have silently allowed his attack upon the liberty of parents to proceed. It is therefore a matter of high pleasure to note that sundry members of the Legislature disagreed with the Winnipeg member.
It may be true that certain movies create, in Mr. Bardal’s words, “‘a false sense of values,” but may we suggest, without offence, that many other human institutions do the same thing, and that it is at least theoretically possible hat Mr. Bardal’s speeches may do so too. Mr. Bardal may be right about the movies. But his solution is worse. What Mr. Bardal says in effect is this: I believe that parents are unfit to judge as to the movies their children attend. We must therefore remove this right of judgment from their incompetent hands, and hand it over to somebody else. He does not, however, specify who should get it. It is to be left to the municipalities.
We believe, being simple, old-fashioned souls, that parenthood is, by and large, a fine and highly competent institution and that those who practice it should assume its responsibilities. These should not be handed over to community busybodies all of whom modestly believe that they are designated by an allwise Providence to run everybody else’s business. Mr. Banchynsky, on this point, was sound as a bell.
Pressure on censors from self-authorized organizations is great these days and the time is approaching when provincial cabinet ministers should learn to understand the
Canadian FILM WEEKLY
Trade On Toes For 8th Loan
(Continued from Page 1) gen, Dick Powell,. Claude Rains, George Murphy and Claire Trevor.
Showmen across the Dominion have joined enthusiastically in planning individual campaigns for the Eighth Victory Loan and quite a number have once more become chairmen or members of local and district public relations committees.
The dropping of the Scrapbook Contest, a feature of the last few Loans, means that the contribution of each showman to the success of the campaign is up to his individual conscience.
The structure of the Canadian Motion Picture War Services Committee remains the same with one exception — Howard Boothe had succeeded Dave Griesdorf as chairman in British Columbia.
Provincial chairmen should be contacted for information and help. They are:
Alberta—K. M. Leach, Strand,
Calgary. British Columbia — Howard Boothe, Odeon Theatres Ltd.,
Vancouver.
Manitoba — James Stevenson, Western Theatres Ltd., Winnipeg.
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island—Reg March, 20th Century-Fox, 12 Hazen Ave., St. John.
Saskatchewan —W. Winterton, Capitol, Saskatoon; F. Willis, Capitol, Regina.
Nova Scotia—R. S. Roddick, Capitol, Halifax.
Ontario — N. A. Taylor, 20th Century Theatres Ltd., 21 Dundas Square, Toronto; Herb Allen, Theatre Holding Corp., 21 Dundas Square, Toronto.
Quebec—Eugene Beaulac, Que
‘ bec Allied Theatrical Industries,
323 University Tower, Montreal.
The provincial’ chairmen are members of the Motion Picture Section of the National War Finance Committee.
April 25, 1945
Manitoba Juve Ban Not Passed
(Continued from Page 1)
for Winnipeg, who argued that “many movies create a false sense of values and a false sense of what life is itself,’ the bill was tabled after sundry members opposed it as interfering with parental rights.
The Winnipeg Free Press offered editorial opposition to the measure, the latest in a series of similar moves to provide a blanket restriction on juvenile moviegoing and limit parental judgment.
In opposing the bill John Lawrie, another Coalition member, read a letter from his minister, also the secretary of a cooperative theatre. According to the writer, who represented the rural viewpoint, many parents who brought their children into town with them on the week-end would be prevented from enjoying their only entertainment during the week.
It was the opinion of N. V. Bachynsky, member from Fisher, that such legislation was an attempt to usurp a field where parental control should be the rule. He argued that many parents who could not afford a maid or a sitter for their families would be denied their weekly
‘amusement if it passed.
L. St. George Stubbs, noted political figure, was against it because municipalities already had certain powers to control movies and Berry Richards, Independent from the Pas, expressed the fear that municipalities might be deluded into thinking that by imposing this legislation they will have dealt effectively with juvenile delinquency.
Bardal, speaking for the bill, said that the regulatory power held by Winnipeg should be extended to the entire province. He claimed backing by a long list of women’s organizations, service clubs and schools.
earn ee Se eee
nature and difficulties of censorship. Outside pleas for representation by non-movie bodies should be ignored and the judgment of the censor, the only qualified person, should be appreciated. He no more requires the help of the wouldbe movie policemen than the minister needs the help of persons with no knowledge of his own sphere.
_ The IODE recently sent out a bulletin to its provincial film convenors suggesting that “If we expect and demand
certain types of pictures,
we shall get them.”
This is all
very well for the IODE but are they so sure that the “certain
types” preferred by them meet the tastes of others? We do not refer to British pictures, of course.
Perhaps it is better to see such activity take the form of
a bill in provincial legislatures so that the elected represent
atives of public opinion, as in Manitoba, can offer a decision. It might help relieve pressure on the poor censors.