Canadian Film Weekly (Aug 29, 1945)

Page 4 Hays Office Will Limit Crime Pix (Continued from Page 1) duction Code Administration director, asserting, ‘It is our considered opinion that such a story (of the gangster type) definitely could not be approved by us.” The “Dillinger” film, with its highly colored exploitation and success at the boxoffice, was particularly bothersome to the Hays office, which received adverse reports from ParentTeacher and civic groups, women’s clubs and censor boards throughout the country. The Hays office stressed that there has been no change in the Production Code and no new policy setup, although, to quote Breen’s letter, “. . . we are advised that the board of directors of our association in New York is considering at this time the banning of any further gangster stories.” The letter continues, ‘We, of course, have no information as to this latter point at this time. But it is something your company should have in mind before embarking on a story of this sort.” The Production Code~can be changed only by the MPPDA board of directors. This is virtually never done, because the code is so basic. However, taking cognizance of the situation, the code administrators have made it a point to caution “very strongly” all studios considering making such pictures. The success of the MonogramKing Brothers “Dillinger,” a comaratively cheap picture to make, has led several other indies to submit similar themes for Hays office approval. ENTERTARONG 4 BUILDS GOCO Wht SD CREATES NEW PATRONAGE ny | Here Is What | Fote-Nite Does! | Rio, Sudbury started July ' 17th —triple average busi| ness. Radar, Deseronto | started August 14th — | triple average business. | | Stanley, Stouffville started | August 15th —triple average business. What more proof do you | need that Foto-Nite is a | great Box Office attraction? ' nearest Branch Office for further | } Write, wire or phone today to our | details regarding Foto-Nite. | i Canadian FILM WEEKLY Ask Restrictions On 35 Mm. Intinerants (Continued from Page 1) hall and their success was regarded by the rest of the industry and by the provinces as a threat to safety. The industry also considered that they were hindering growth in the number of permanent situations, always subject to Provincial inspection according to theatre standards of safety. Some provinces passed a law requiring all places of exhibition to have a projection machine on the premises at all times and the hibition, there have been many demands that they operate in places in which aisles and exits are good enough to serve in case of panic. The distributors feel that they would rather see present-day itinerant exhibition confined to the 16 mm. section, rather than have two kinds of exhibition in the field of standard-sized film. Among the factors which led to restrictions in 1935 by the distributors were bicycling of films 35 MM. ITINERANT OPERATION YEAR LICENSES DAYS 1943 11 1,562 1942 12 1,444 1941 11 1,650 1940 9 769 1939 11 1,044 1938 11 — ADMISSIONS RECEIPTS 230,676 $78,153 205,360 55,050 97,035 27,114 69,878 18,567 96,931 26,782 91,804 28,754 In 1936 and 1937 the government report luniped all 16 mm. and 35 mm. Itinerants together. In 1936 44 Itinerants grossed $132,800 for 502,653 admissions and in 1937 39 grossed $78,300 for 408,813 admissions. It is interesting that five more operators in 1936 than in the year following made a difference of $54,500. In 1937 there were 88 more theatres than in 1936 and business was up by about $3,000. distributors restricted generally the sale of product to those who, under compulsion or no, observed the ruling. The move showed remarkable results and changed the definition of the itinerant to something between the house-to-house camera hauler and the regular theatre. Being forced:to locate a machine permanently, the itinerant invested some money in giving the hall the character of a theatre and greater safety became a fact. When the itinerant was through in a one-night stand, he removed the soundhead and took it to the next. Because of the restriction and the new interpretation, 1936 saw 200 permanent theatres added to the Canadian total. Itinerant 35 mm. operation, under the old definition, took a sharp drop and it was not long before 16 mm. exhibitors, using non-inflammable film, came into the picture. These have also increased greatly since then, a number operating circuits. Since they have become a factor in ex (unauthorized exhibition), which were returned late and in poor condition .from bad handling. Since many places were not fitted for exhibition, it was feared that fire or accident would lead to adverse legislation. No objections have been registered froma standpoint of competition with regular theatres. W. P. Covert, IATSE organizer in Canada, stated that he disapproved of present itinerant exhibition as being in the hands of unregulated and unqualified projectionists. Such projectionists in Ontario must have the same qualifications as those working in theatres, according to O. J. Silverthorne, chairman of the Theatre Inspection Branch of the Ontario government. Portable 35 mm. equipment cannot be used without a special permit and two operators must be present. It is demanded that a third act as a watchman during the performance in some cases and local fire officials are notified of the performance. Fire Breaks Out at Russell, Glace Bay Fire broke out recently at the Russell Theatre, Glace Bay, N.5., 15 minutes before the afternoon program was scheduled to start. The Russell is a 900-seat theatre owned by Mrs. M. Nolan and leased to Weiner & Green for independent operation. Redbook’'s August Pic-of-the-Month Redbook Magazine has chosen 20th Century-Fox’s “And Then There Were None,” as the. picture-of-the-month for August. Barry Fitzgerald and Walter Huston head the cast and the picture was produced and directed by Rene Clair. August 29, 1945 Help Denazify Germans Here (Continued from Page 1) and Colonel Pender, director of Psychological Warfare, for detailed information but drew a general reply from the former and none at all from the latter. Queries were by mail. What purpose there is in secrecy is hard to fathom, unless those in charge of the program prefer to avoid a possible controversy over methods and results. In the USA it was recently announced by the War Department that the army is carrying on a reorientation program among Nazi prisoners through the use of newspapers, books,, pamphlets and lectures, as well as films, ail for the purpose of counteracting Nazi doctrines. It is likely that the movies being shown to prisoners in Canada is part of a similar overall program of reorientation. Nazi atrocity films were among those recently shown to more than 8,000 prisoners at Lethbridge, Alberta, and it has been reported that after seeing them the general feeling among the captives was that the pictures were false propaganda. Some of them insisted that no German would commit such atrocities and others maintained that the scenes were taken in Russian concentra© tion camps. The present American film program for war captives was started in September, 1944, and one of the first efforts was an attempt to break down racial prejudices with the showing of such pictures as “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet” and “The Life of Emil Zola.” Many anti-Japanese films have been shown to German prisoners in the USA with stress on pictures showing American units in action in the Pacific. Included in the anti-Jap category the PW’'s have seen “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo,” ‘The Purple Heart,” “Gung Ho” and “Objective Burma.” Prisoner of war movie programs in the USA, using 16 mm. films, include one feature, a newsreel and a documentary or industry short. An admission price of 15 cents is paid by the captives for each program they attend and major distributors re ceive 33 1/3 percent of the boxoffice gross. All of the major film companies with the exception of Warners allow the War Department to Select any of their pictures for the prisoner of war program. Warners has its own committee to pass on army requests and turn down those which it believes to be pure entertainment,