Canadian Film Weekly (Dec 25, 1946)

December 25, 1946 the Customs’ Department, as is done in Australia. Hollywood studios subscribe to the Production Code, a powerful weapon held over producers’ heads, since the active campaigr of the Legion of Decency, Federal Council of Churches and Jewish synagogues, proved it meant business. When Joseph Breen, Hollywood representative of the Motion Picture Association of America, finally “okays” a movie script for production, it is obvious that anything objectionable in the original stage play, novel or screen story has been eliminated. Broadly speaking, the most important part of Canadian censors’ work is to determine certain matters of public or national policy; in many instances it is wise to restrict or’ delay the showing of certain films in Can ‘ada for political reasons. Heretofore in Quebec, some decisions have been absolutely incomprehensible; a case in point is that of the banning of the splendid picture, “The Life of Emile Zola’’; on the surface, this appears incredible, stupid, and without any excuse. On the other hand, if one searches for a reason in the fact that Zola was acknowledged to be an arch enemy of the Catholic Church of his day, and ascribes that as the main reason for Quebec’s ban, it is hard to reconcile this fact with the rating given the same picture by the New York Legion of Decency which includes ‘‘Zola’” in the best fifteen pictures of 1937. It was during a controversy about another similar picture that I discovered a strange undercurrent of thought in Quebec. “Voltaire’ was under a censorship ban at the moment, and the board was adamant. A newspaper friend of mine there explained that the cause for it was even deeper than religion; he said, “You probably do not realize that many French-Canadians believe that the rise and influence of Voltaire in France had many repercussions in French policy toward her colony in the New World. We associate many of the disturbing influences of Voltaire with the loss of French Canada.” So much for a national and deep-seated feeling that possibly few outside the province can either understand or appreciate. It is sometimes astounding to see how much can still be trimmed from a motion picture, that leaves Hollywood with a clean bill of health, even in provinces with more liberal reputations than Quebec. In England, the leading producers virtually live up to the ‘American producers’ code, but they have not subscribed one hundred per cent. They should, however, because this is the only way British pictures will ever satisfy the requirements of CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY One Censorship Board (Continued from Page 14) worldwide distribution. In the past, British pictures have needed more drastic censorship than those emanating from Hollywood. fe return to the subject of na tional censorship, the question is up to the public. It is taken for granted that Provincial boards are maintained because they are guaranteed by a broad interpretation of the British North America Act governing the regulation of property and civil rights. Actually movies were unheard of in 1867, as were also rapid transit which now unites the west coast to the AtJantic by a short twenty-four hour or less trip in luxurious airplanes, and telephones which allow one to call Vancouver from Halifax in less time often than it takes to say Jack Robinson! But the provinceswere only too ready to appropriate to themselves the privilege of movie censorship and the right has never been seriously challenged. Several people conversant with social service and motion picture problems were asked as to their opinion of a possible and practicable federal censorship. <Ac YEE VEER EE EE EEE EEE HEEL, Mayor Archie Mason SPRINGHILL. NS Best Wishes to Canada’s Independent Exhibitors AND THE TRADE IN GENERAL Cee eee eee Ne EMULE HEE ERENCE LEER EEE NIE RE UR EEE HELE REE ELE LE LEE HEL” RAMMAMMRAARARAAARMAAMMRBA MM IMAM MAMMA MIM MM Ma Ma Dot we ry wi NAARAAARA MARMARA cording to most of them the main difficulty seems to be in the vast size of Canada, the widely varying races, religions and viewpoints of people in central, eastern and western Canada. The Quebec problem is always one of the great stumbling-blocks to a main censoring body. Frankly, I believe a sound, vigorous campaign and the careful selection of a highly responsible personnel for such a board would solve the problem. Development of a _ national consciousness is one of Canada’s greatest problems; each province has its own ideals of life, commerce, art, literature, social and intellectual phases; it is difficult to get Canadians. to think “nationally,” and parochialism is a besetting sin. Australia is suffering from this same problem in regard to movie censorship, but the government is trying to jump the hurdle and instead of five or six boards of censors, Australia will probably have only one federal board. There, each state or province, like Canada, has widely divergent standards of public morals, public policy and opinions of art w% SIEPE RE IE ENE EEE EEE EE EEE ERIE GREETINGS From ARTKINO. PICTURES (CANADA) LTD. DISTRIBUTORS OF FILMS FROM EUROPE MERE MEME UE NE MEISE NEE LENE NE DEE MEME ENE VE UE UE URE UE EYE UE UE HE UE LEE ELE VEE HERE LE HR LE LEK Di Di Di DvD DD D1 DDT Di Di Di Di DL DDD iii Di Di Di Di Di Di DIDI DMM MAAR NI BURWI Ma A ARARRARARAARARRARRARARMD 41¥ Page 29 and literature; suddenly the Australian public saw the situation as ridiculous and the national government had no difficulty in persuading the various provinces to entertain giving up their “rights” in favour of national censorship. What is against public morals and policy in one part of Australia, is likewise against public morals and policy in every other part. Why cannot this be so in Canada? If and when the subject of federal censorship is put before the Canadian public as a reform about to be accomplished at an early date, it will, perhaps, meet with a storm of protest and disapproval from some quarters. It required strong measures and a vivid personality to put Confederation through; speaking in the House of Commons on the National Compact in 1865, Sir John A. MacDonald said, ‘Lack of a national policy is making us provincial minded—in the proposed constitution, all members of government are to be dealt with by the General Legislature, while the local legislatures will deal with matters of local interest which do not affect the country as a whole.” Be DOHERTY, the young Canadian playwright whose outstanding Broadway success was “Father Malachy’s Miracle,” discussed censorship in regard to the theatre rather than as applied to the cinema, when he said, “I admit the necessity of some sort of general guidance for the huge public attending movies especially since so many children are allowed indiscriminately to choose their amusement, but police regulation of stage plays, I naturally resent — in so far as I often question the judgment of policemen in such matters.” Rev. C. E. Silcox, Secretary of the Social Service Council of Canada (Federated Protestant Churches), said, “The subject is important; granted we have to have censorship, the matter should be handled direct from Ottawa; it is primarily a matter for the customs authorities since nearly all our motion pictures are imported; anything objectionable could be dealt with summarily, as books, magazines and questionable literature are now.” “Provided the legality of such a board were established,” said Dr. E. A. Hardy, past president of the Teachers’ Association of Canada, a past president of the Canadian Authors’ Association, and now a member of the Board of Education of Toronto, “Federal censorship would be highly desirable, but hardly practicable, unless the personnel were to consist of men and women of