Canadian Film Weekly (Jun 2, 1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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 8 Canadian. FILM WEEKLY June 2, 1948 USA Gov't Report On Our Industry essential part of our theatre industry, “It is acknowledged, however, that Canada may possibly feel forced to withhold temporarily all or part of the monies payable to companies in the United States for the use of their films.” Since the report was issued Ottawa entered into the Canadian Co-operative Plan with the Motion Picture Association of America. The plan is designed to encourage location shooting in Canada by American producers and stimulate tourist trade by increasing Canadian content on USA screens. Canadian producers, who had hoped that the freezing of remittances to the USA would lead to a boost for Canadian production, were disSatisfied with the plan as a means of helping our dollar problem. This and other aspects of the report will interest Canadians and it is here reprinted in part: Trade Restrictions Canadian film distributors and exhibitors feel that there is extremely little likelihood that Canada will copy Great Britain by imposing high taxes on United States films, or that Canada will greatly increase customs duties on United States films to help the Canadian (and perhaps British) foreign-exchange positions. They consider that United States films are an _ essential Canadian import (and part of Canadian life) the curtailment of which would result in dislocation and widespread dissatisfaction because British and other producers could not meet the demand, either in quality or in quantity. It is acknowledged, however, that Canada may possibly feel forced to withhold temPorarily all or a part of the monies payable to companies in the United States for the use of their films. At the present time permission is granted by the Foreign Exchange Control Board for the payment in U.S. dollars of current income of all kinds (profits, fees, dividends, royalties, rents, interest, etc.) accruing in Canada to nonresidents. Such income is eligible for conversion from Canadian dollars into United States funds at the official rate ($1 Canadian for $1 United States) plus a service charge of one-half of 1 per cent on the selling rate only. The permission granted by the Board can be withdrawn at the Board’s discretion if the Canadian foreign exchange position should warrant. United States motion pictures enter and are distributed freely (Continued from Page 1) throughout Canada without quo ta, import permit, or exhibition restrictions. The only require * ments are the payment of import duties or taxes. Under recent trade agreement’ concessions, United States and British positive motion-picture films are subject to the same import duties. The duty on 35 mm. cinematographic positive films is 1% cents per foot. However, British negative motion-picture films rereceive preferential treatment. For 35 mm. celluloid (pyroxylin plastic) negatives, the import duty is 10 percent ad valorem for United States films and at the present time 10 percent less 50 percent for British films; for 35 mm. cellulose acetate negatives, the import duty is 25 percent ad valorem for United States films while British films, at the present time, are admitted free. There is a national sales tax of 8 percent in each case. There is no legislation’ which requires that only Canadian citizens be employed in certain Positions in the motion-picture industry. The employment of personnel is subject to certain standards (wages, hours, etc.) fixed by national and provincial labor codes. These requirements are by no means onerous; they call for wage scales pronouncedly lower than in the United States, 2-weeks’ annual vacation with pay, etc. Group insurance and other benefit systems are usually optional, but are generally provided by the employers. Labor relations are stable and satisfactory. Censorship The power of censorship is held by each of the nine provincial governments. Censorship has not been criticizably strict in recent years. The Quebec and Ontario boards controlled, respectively, by exceeedingly conservative Roman Catholic clergy and a bluelaw regime, have not been the object of many complaints from distributors or exhibitors. Rarely are more than 10 films rejected in a year, The usual cause of objection or cutting of films is that they contain salacious, highly immoral, or sacrilegious passages. The actual portrayal of a divorce is taboo in the Province of Quebec; in the same province many rather risque pictures are passed, perhaps because children under 16 are barred from all movies. In Ontario films are passed for exhibition to adults only or for showing to both adults and children. The audience reaction to United States films in Canada is very much the same as it is in the United States. The charge for censorship in the Province of Quebec is $6 per 1,000 feet and $3 per additional fraction of 300 feet or less and for “trailers.” Distribution Although the country is officially bilingual, the showing of French-language films is generally confined to the Province of Quebec and adjacent areas. French-speaking audiences do not seem to care whether films are made in French or are dubbed in that language. Their principal criterion is the quality of the film, and they are less interested in whether it is made in France, Canada, the United States or elsewhere. However, the audiences are accustomed to the American way of life and are not likely to prefer European to United States pictures. Dubbing is not required by law to be done in Canada; facilities for doing it there are at present but little used. Subtitles are practically anachronous now; their increased use would be unpopular, particularly as most urban French-speaking audiences would consider their use as a reflection on their command of English. The people in French Canada are so largely bilingual that distributors of United States films have not found it necessary or appropriate to promote the exhibition of French dubbings. The natural preference of the FrenchCanadian to hear a film in French is offset by the pronounced interest of audiences (with the possible exception of some members of the older generation) in Hollywood film stars. There is a tendency to try to divert the French-speaking element away from French dubbings and thus also away from films produced in France. However, France-Film is known to operate on a system of contracts whereby exhibitors are bound not to show any but that company’s productions, Al- though it is disappointing to distributors of United States pictures to have a number of allFrench theatres completely tied up by France-Film, they recognize that they individually could not supply an adequate number of French-language productions. As for theatres in which an occasional French-language picture might be shown, the distributors have an ample supply of English-language pictures available. which they prefer to have exhibited. The large United States distributors maintain exchanges in the following cities for servicing the territories shown: Vancouver (British Columbia); Calgary (Alberta); Winnipeg (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Port Arthur, Fort William, and Kenora); Toronto (Ontario); Montreal (Province of Quebec); and St. John, New Brunswick (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland). There are 26 exchange companies with 91 distributing offices. Negatives are imported and about 12 prints are made for distribution. More than half of this work is done in Montreal, with most of the rest being carried out at Toronto (Film Laboratories of Canada). Positives are sometimes imported; a movement of color positives from England has now started because of favorable prices. United States productions enjoy.an overwhelming popularity, with British films the only competitors except for French-language films. All other films probably amount to less than 1 Percent of the total shown. Canadian production is minutely small. Copyright Relations Canada is a participant in the International Copyright Agreements and there are no instances of piracy or other infringements. Production Production facilities in Canada are only barely adequate for making feature pictures. However, there are 10 studios and 3 stages and 2 more under construction. Very few features have been made, but six are reported to be scheduled for production. The National Film Board of Canada, Ottawa, turns out at least 12 English and 12 French shorts a year. Some of these, such as the “Canada Carries On” series, are extremely good. Commercial producers do a few shorts —_including some for the National Film Board—from time to time. The National Film Board is a Canadian Government body, established by the National Film Act of May 2, 1939, to advise on government film activities, to coordinate national and departmental film programs, to direct the distribution of government films in Canada and abroad, and to coordinate and develop information services to supplement this distribution. The commercial companies are fairly adequately financed by private Canadian capital. Approximately $1,500,000 was spent on features (Continued on Next Page)