Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 4, 1956)

Vol. 21, No, 14 April 4, 1956 HYE BOSSIN, Editor Assistant Editor Ben Halter Office Manager = Esther Silver CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Canada Authorized as Second Class Mail, Post Office Department, Ottawa Published by Film Publications of Canada, Limited 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ontario, Canada — Phone WAInut 4-3707 Price $3.00 per year. 20% PRESS TAX (Continued from Page 1) —Boxoffice. It is estimated that the tax will cost Reader’s Digest $500,000 and Time about $250,000. Other magazines to which the tax applies are Better Living, Family Circle, Everywoman’s, Parents’ Magazine, Woman’s Day, The Canadian Office, Canadian Farm Chemicals and Cleaning and Laundry World. It is not known whether the tax will help bring about a more successful operation for Canadian magazines struggling against the flooding of their market and the gathering of their potential revenue, However, they are grateful that the government recognized their difficulties. In introducing the 20 per cent tax Finance Minister Walter Harris said: “A number of Canadian magazines have been abandoned and others have had to reduce the number of issues per year. Magazines from abroad have meanwhile extended their activities to such an extent that the long-run continuation of Canadian magazines appears to be in jeopardy.” Agreeing that such a tax could not be justified “in connection with any ordinary line of business and commerce, Harris went on to say that “The publication and circulation of magazines by Canadians, for Canadians, telling about Canadians and what they are doing and what they have to sell, seems to us a basic and essential thread in the fabric of our national life.”’ What is the situation in the Canadian film trade? Speaking only of Canadian Film Weekly, it is one which almost every kind of plea has failed to improve in years — the same years in which rising costs have been very hard on small businesses. For instance, in 1955 this paper, one of two in the Canadian motion picture theatre industry, earried a total of 216 pages of film advertising, while just one USA weekly, Motion Picture Herald, carried 776! And there are quite a few other weeklies and dailies in the USA. The USA advertising rates are proportionately higher, of course. The Canadian trade press, unlike the USA one, showed little in sor, Raymond W. McDonald, didn’t agree but said it merited discussion. C. S. Chaplin, president of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, wasn’t very frank with his opinion, saying that the CMPDA “would look with interest on such a plan.” However, he personally favored a single board for the West. ©. C. Williams’ Position The matter of a reduction in the eight boards now operating in Canada came up again recently in the Saskatchewan legislature, when the Honorable C. C. Williams, Minister of Labor, whose portfolio includes the censorship board headed by the Reverend D. J. Vaughan, said there were too many. The report of Williams’ speech in the Regina Leader-Post indicates that he was quite unflattering to the film companies: “Some people seem to be of the opinion that censorship is not only unnecessary but undesirable, and that ‘anything’ (regardless of content) should be allowed,” Williams said. “Some motion pictures use the filthiest of words and expressions which have nothing to do with the theme or story — but it appears to be considered ultrasmart to put them in dialogue. “Censors who cut or reject these pictures are immediately subject to strong protests from the film owners, who then use every means at their command to have the decisions reversed, and with some success.” The usual procedure, he added, was to apply for a board of appeal, which often passed such pictures with a few cuts. If, however, the board also rejected the film, every effort was made CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY Why Not Qne Board? (Continued from Page 1) to have it again reviewed as a reconstructed picture, ‘which merely means that the more objectionable parts have been taken out.” “Provincial censors,” Williams remarked, “are played off against each other by representatives of these film companies, who lament the amount of money they will lose, and that censors of other provinces have passed the same picture, or most of the states have passed it, and so on.” Sees Quebec as Doubtful He said that it was doubtful whether Quebec would enter his plan for two censor boards for Canada. Quebec laws were “quite strict.” In Quebec, he said, children under 16 were not allowed in picture shows at all, following a fire 35 or 40 years ago in which 127 children died, and banned pictures containing references to divorce, The other provinces, however, might set up two boards, one in the east and one in the west. The provincial government would lose some revenue, and the film companies would object about having to transport their films greater distances for review, but that would not be too serious. He understood his counterpart in Manitoba had similar views. The above ends the Regina paper’s report. Williams has a special interest in film censorship. He was the only provincial cabinet minister to attend the annual meeting in Toronto several years ago of the Provincial Censors of Motion Pictures. The organization, which is headed by P. J. A. Fleming, the Alberta censor, seems dormant. It hasn’t met in several years. "RAINTREE' MGM'S FIRST IN 65 MM. First fim in MGM’s newly-developed 65 mm. process will be its $5,000,000 production of Raintree County, which went before the cameras April 2 with Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor and Eva Marie Saint heading the all-star cast. The picture was selected because its estimated three-hour running time will include much location and interior shooting and thus afford an opportunity to utilize the new process under all conditions. Cameras used are conventional but modified to take the 65 mm, negative and is said to be adaptable to any shape and size of screen from the 3 to 1 ratio to standard size. Panavision, Inc. developed the lenses, which it is claimed embody an entirely new optical principle and give a greatly improved image unequalled for clarity and lack of distortion. crease in business during the years when USA _ publications reflected the greatly increased prosperity of the industry. The USA film trade papers all circulate in Canada, some widely, carrying ads~-on_ the same pictures a Canadian trade paper hopes to advertise. Not all pictures shown in Canada are advertised on this side of the border, This paper would feel happier if the USA companies would see fit to transfer more of their Canadian ad income from USA publications to Canadian ones. With rising costs and without rising income it is inevitable that, as Harris observed, the number of issues per year has to be curtailed, meaning a return to publication every second week, April 4, 1956 Our Business MA, a WwHat is the right advertising and promotion budget for a motion picture or for a week’s attractions? At which point do we achieve the highest maximum potential return and where do we encounter the law of diminishing returns? Under present day circumstances, is our business as a whole spending a : “sufficient percentage of its intake to sell what it has to offer to the public? Are we competing strongly enough with other mediums which also seek to use up the public’s leisure time. and spare money? These questions are extremely pertinent to our business. Correct answers are extremely hard to come by. The advertising experts have in some cases been able to reduce advertising campaigns to some sort of scientific formula, but there is always a nebulous factor involved. Large merchandising companies embark on campaigns to sell their products with long-range policies in mind and are sometimes prepared to lose money for a while before they reap the reward of their expenditures and efforts. In our business we cannot be so readily sanguine about such gambles because pre-determined estimates of grosses are oftimes difficult. We know from experience that when we exceed a certain percentage of our gross and lack sensational results, a loss must accrue, Furthermore, unlike other commodities our stock-intrade disappears every day or every week. Thereafter we must embark on the selling of other merchandise. This creates many problems, none necessarily insurmountable. We are presently faced with generally declining attendances. This automatically means that the average theatre has available more empty seats. If such seats are filled there is no extra cost for rent, help or overhead. It would appear, therefore, that there is more scope for profit if some of these seats can be filled. In recent years film terms have been higher for first-run theatres. In some cases advertising allowances are made to such theatres and this is helpful, but where such allowances are not made the scale of percentage may stop some theatres from going “all-out” because of an imagined limitation of potential profit. Our problem is to reconcile these facts. We must have a new ap(Continued on Next Page)