Canadian Film Weekly (Dec 26, 1945)

Page 16 Future of the Canadian FILM WEEKLY December 26, 1945 NATIONAL FILM BOARD ITH the departure of WV 2 Grierson from the National Film Board, which he organized in 1939 and guided until his resignation became effective on October 31st, that organization is once again drawing the attention of legislators and the press. Grierson, who is setting up International Film Associates, an organization with headquarters in Ottawa, Washington, London and Prague, was henored for his work at the first meeting of the Board’s governing committee presided over by its new chairman, the Hon. Brooke Claxton, K.C., Minister of National Health and Welfare. The meeting adopted the following resolutions: “That the National Film Board place on record its appreciation of the outstanding--services rendered to Canada and to the Board by Mr. John Grierson who has recently resigned as Government Film Commissioner. Owing to his successful efforts Canadian films have become more widely known and appreciated and have been an important factor in mak SORRELL The Manager and Staff of Imperial Bank of Canada, Dundas and Victoria Sts. Branch, Toronto, extend to all their friends the Season's Greetings and best wishes for the coming year REGU RR RRREERERRRRKIG IEG OE EES ENE EE EN OE UE OE GU OE tt EEE EE tS IRE ERE SADADADIDUDADADUD DYDD DID BAAD AA EA Aa Ua ae Ue EN ee ARABUMMMAMMAAMNARAAMAM, Government Movie Agency Faces a Number of Problems and Some New Horizons ing our country better known to our own people and throughout the world.” No successor to Grierson has been named. Ross McLean, deputy national film commissioner, has assumed Grierson’s responsibilities temporarily. While the activities of the Board did not meet with definite opposition from members of the House of Commons, legislators with every party affiliation have shown marked curiosity about its work, policies and financing during each wartime session. Criticism was answered satisfactorily and even those who found fault with one phase or another of NFB activities agreed that it was performing valuable service. In the minds of many the Board was a wartime organization and the presence of peace has led to _interest in its future on the part of legislators, the press and the motion picture industry. It is the contention of many exhibitors that the National Film Board’s 35 mm. theatrical shorts, the Canada Carries On and World in Action series, do not sell tickets but they have been given an outstanding amount of playing time as a matter of patriotic urgency. Yet the World in Action ‘series, distributed throughout the world by United Artists, received as much playing time in the United States as others of the same type. It has become evident that the work of the Board will continue on the same scale, with an emphasis on peacetime topics. Its first two such subjects, ‘Music in the Wind” and “Toronto Symphony,” have attracted many telephone enquiries from patrons, according to theatre managers. 4p press of Canada, with few dissenters, has devoted reams of editorial praise to tht NFB’s theatrical and _ nontheatrical films during the war. Recently the Financial Post grudgingly admitted that “we suspect that a good case can be made for continuing the work of the National Film Board in some form” in an article headed “National Film Board Needs Curb.” The editorial echoed past criticism of policies and expenditures while admitting that ‘“During war years the National Film Board has undoubtedly done some useful work in public information; in the mobilizing of public opinion in support of national goals.” “But Mr. Claxton and Parliament should take a very close look at this operation,” the editorial states. “The Canadian taxpayer can very properly ask for a detailed answer as to what he is getting for the $3 millions of NFB film turnover disclosed by Government accounts in 1943-44. (Accounts for 1944-45 are expected to show a much higher figure.) He can properly have an interest in the work of the NFB’s 785 employees. The government motion picture bureau in 1939 employed 40. “The Canadian taxpayer will also be interested in finding out more about the elaborate wanderings back and forth across Canada and to the far ends of the earth of National Film Board producers, pictures takers, sound crews, camera assistants, producers’ assistants and assistant assistants. “True, picturemaking involves much travel, much equipment and considerable personnel. But the Canadian taxpayer can properly wonder if our Government has underwritten picturemaking on the grand-scale Hollywood manner. “It is undoubtedly very pleasant for a coterie of young Canadians with interests in the glamorous field of the motion picture to have this publicly financed playground in which to exercise their talents, real and supposed. Undoubtedly some Film Board graduates will find broader scope in Hollywood.” Asking for a “frank dissection of the National Film Board as it is today,” the Financial Post wants to “see the National Film Board cost picture put up against the cost picture of some commercial film producing outfit. The film industry is certainly not without some costing techniques that would give us Canadians some idea whether we are getting a fair money’s worth.” It opposes erecting the proposed studios at Hull until this and the NFB’s future course of action is explained. f Wzse recent report of the Hon. J. L. Isley, finance minister, gave the National Film Board’s 1945-46 allocation as $1,853,340, an increased amount over the previous fiscal year. The value of the Board’s work reaches a much greater sum, since films made for various government departments are included in their allocations. : Inability to sum up the Board’s financing led the Hon. W.E. Rowe to suggest during the early 1944 session of the House that moneys involved in services to government branches be turned into a consolidated revenue fund. “‘No doubt the money has been spent,’’ he said, “but we sit here and struggle by the hour to find out how it is spent.” He pointed out that the general estimates dealt only with 25 salaried people, which were passed, but that the NFB was actually paying 375. He added that he was not making any charge in connection with the spending of the money but that a clearer picture should be offered. The Hon. L. R. LaF leche, then chairman of the Board and Minister of National. War Services, answered that a combined budget would not be good accounting practise and that the present method had been in general governmental use for years. In July, 1948, a request of KE. G. Hansell for information as to the amount of money the NFB got in rentals from theatres up to May 31, 1943, was denied. Mr. La Fleche explained that the NFB “is in some respects in competition with commercial companies” and that it was in the national interest that it had full right to make as good a bargain as it could. The information if made public would place the Board at a disadvantage. Gordon Graydon said that “in the public interest” was being stretched too far. In May, 1944, during the de bate in which the Hon. E. W. Rowe criticized NFB accounting methods, it was revealed that NFB rentals for the previous year had been $123,000. Rentals during the last fiscal year amounted to $100,000. It is estimated that the NFB has produced over 3,000 theatrical and non-theatrical films for distribution in Canada and abroad since its inception. It maintains three distribution divisions—Canada, United States and World sections—and a rural and trade union circuit in Canada. The 1944 audience of NFB non-theatricals is stated as 6,400,000. (GOVERNMENT departments are being pruned from a standpoint of manpower just now. Reduction in personnel, it is said, may reach 20 per cent and the NFB will likely be affected also. National Film Board production costs, according to the output and extent of distribution, are not exorbitant when com(Continued on Page 22) €