Canadian Film Weekly (Feb 13, 1970)

February 13, 1970 CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY Page 3 ITS MY BAG By Ed Hocura When the austere Wall Street Journal devotes two full columns on a profile of a well-known movie critic, it stands to reason they felt it would make for good reading. Up to a point, what the story had to say about Judith Crist revealed what makes this particular movie critic so renowned, but it belabors the feeling that what she writes can affect the box office potential of certain movies. As someone who toiled for many years as a movie critic for a major newspaper, it has long been my contention that exhibitors and distributors get unnecessarily upset over adverse criticism. What they fail to realize, and I firmly believe this, is that most people make up their own minds what films they are going to see. “Of all the critics,” the story in the Wall Street Journal reports, “Mrs. Crist has perhaps the most power to ruin an actor or a movie.” The paper bases this statement on the fact that Judith Crist has the biggest audience of any movie critic in the country, since she writes for TV Guide, New York magazine and appears regularly on the Today television show. Her reading and viewing audience is estimated at nearly 25 million people every week. Since this represents a larger percentage of people than the entire population of Canada, let us look at some of the movie critics in Canada whose writings don’t reach as many people as Judith Crist. But while these critics don’t have as many readers, on a per capita basis their percentage of readers is as great, if not greater, as Mrs. Crist whose audience is less than one-tenth of the population of the U.S. Which makes me wonder why U.S. exhibitors and theatre owners worry so much about a movie critic who isn’t read or seen by 90 percent of their total audience potential? Every major Canadian newspaper likes to feel that it reaches the highest percentage of households in their particular area. Which means that Frank Daly, Martin Malina, Martin Knelman, Clyde Gilmour, Dorothy Mikos, Stewart Brown, Frank Morriss and Les Wedman command strong readership in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Vancouver. It stands to reason that it wouldn’t be too often that all these critics would be unanimous in panning and praising the same films. So if Martin Knelman panned the same picture in Toronto that Frank Morriss praised in Winnipeg, and the picture was a success in Toronto and a flop in Winnipeg, what would be the reaction from the exhibitor? That Knelman was a poor critic, or that Morriss was a poor judger of . films? And since seven Canadian movie critics would not be expected to agree or disagree with Judith Crist at all times, who is to say which critic could be blamed or credited with the success or failure of a particular film? “Because of her television exposure and because she comes on so strong, she can affect the popularity of a film more than most critics, “an executive for a chain of theatres is quoted in the Wall Street Journal story on Judith Crist. Which leads me to believe that movie critics for Boston newspapers would be more than a little slighted when they read the story. But I would only believe that Judith Crist had this magic power if the Boston theatre chain executive produced box office receipts that showed the influence her reviews had on the films he booked. Which would also be my belief if someone in Toronto pointed to a review in an Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver newspaper as “killing my film” if it so happens that another critic in the same city gave his film a good review. The fact remains that exhibitors and distributors will have to learn to live with good and bad reviews. That the paying public is the final judge of a film’s success or failure is something far more important to consider than what a movie critic writes. And you only have to check over all the reviews most films receive to come up with a mixed bag of good and bad comments. Which leaves most moviegoers to make up their own minds. And this something a dozen Judith Crists could never change. The story on Judith Crist in Wall Street Journal is something she will treasure for years. But she alone knows, as do other movie critics with grandeurs of power, that she is more often wrong than right in thinking that what she wrote affected the box office fate of a movie she panned. And it was only a few days ago when I was laid up at home with back trouble that I read some of my old reviews in the Hamilton Spectator. After a few hours of painful reminiscing, I came to realize that what I had written had been only my own personal opinion. But for some stupid reason I really believed that I had the power to make or break a movie. How wrong I was. LETTER TO THE EDITOR: This publication received a letter, _ which was addressed to “all interested in developing the Canadian film industry and the crafts related to film production in particular.” Due to space limitations, we have taken it upon ourselves to edit the original copy, and hopefully, the original point of view will remain intact. “The Canadian Customs Act allows industries such as farming, oil and mining to import equipment not manufactured in Canada, duty free. The same customs act allows only ‘professional motion picture producers’ to import film equipment duty free — this classification is limited only to those who actually expose film . . . only a cinematographer may qualify. But, the tariff item itself states that the equipment is for ‘. . . use in the production of motion pictures by professional producers having studios in Canada, equipped for motion picture production.’ This does not state that one must actually expose film in shooting motion by means of a motion picture camera in a studio, yet this is the primary requirements for qualification of approval. “Our craft, of film editing, takes the raw product of the cinematographer and produces a motion picture from it. We work with professional equipment which is mostly manufactured outside of Canada.” The customs department will not give its approval for duty free import because we do not expose film under the present tariff item — but, the present tariff item does not state that exposing film is required. “The government of Canada has established the Canadian Film Development Corporation with ten million dollars to spend in developing the Canadian film industry. The Canadian customs department has limited the only classification for importing film equipment to those who actually expose film in a studio, thus hampering the Canadian film industry. “The director of tariffs, J. Loomer, is the man to be contacted to have the present legislation changed so that we . . . have the right to import equipment duty free. Contact him today; contact your member of parliament. “Together we can have this problem corrected .. . want a Canadian film industry.” This letter was received from Gerald K. Wilson (C.F.E.), Able Editing & Service Ltd., 10103-106 Street, Edmonton 14, Alberta. that is if we HAPPY MOMENT FOR THEATRE CONFECTIONS — J. J. Fitzgibbons, Jr., president of Theatre Confections Ltd., was on hand for the recent ‘popcorn ribbon’ official opening of his company’s new branch office and warehouse facilities in Calgary. Shown above, left to right, are: Miss T.C.L., Mr. Fitzgibbons, Fred Purich, president, Richfield Developers; Murray T. Sherriff, T.C.L. division manager, and one of the hostesses on hand to greet the more than 200 guests who attended the opening despite temperatures of 30 below zero.