Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 10, 1970)

Page scan 0002 from Canadian Film Weekly

Record Details:

Title:
Canadian Film Weekly
Date:
Apr 10, 1970
Volume:
Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 10, 1970)
Leaf #:
0002
Language:
English
Collection:
Hollywood Studio System, Global Cinema, and Canada
Format:
periodicals
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library, Canadian Media Magazines Project, Paul Moore and Jessica Whitehead
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:

Canadian Film Weekly

  • Editor: Hye Bossin (1942-64)
  • Renamed Canadian Film & TV Bi-Weekly (1965-69, editor: Stan Helleur)
  • Renamed Candian Film Weekly(1970, editor: Ed Hocura)

Canadian Film Weekly (1942-70) was edited by Hye Bossin and published by Film Publications of Canada, Ltd., wholly owned by leading exhibitor, Nat Taylor. In the late 1930s, Taylor was head of the Independent Theatre Association and his Toronto-based chain, Twinex-Century (Twentieth Century), was the largest independent circuit in the country. In 1941, however, he negotiated for chain affiliation with upstart Canadian Odeon before leveraging a better deal and greater booking control with nationally-dominant Famous Players Canada, Ltd. No longer independent, he took ownership of the Independent Theatre Association’s semi-monthly magazine, The Canadian Motion Picture Exhibitor (1940-41), installed Hye Bossin as editor, and laid plans to relaunch in January 1942 under a new name, Canadian Film Weekly. This enduring key publication was no longer solely focused on independent exhibitors but instead covered the entire industry on a national scale–exhibition, distribution and production–with some attention given to studio news from New York and Hollywood.

Bossin was a vibrant writer with a canny way with words, admired in the industry in the United States as well as Canada. He was one of a large family who lived above their father’s secondhand shop in the Jewish “ward” downtown in Toronto. His older brother was a bookie with ties to the underground; his younger brother was a famous journalist, protégé of Walter Winchell, and Hollywood screenwriter. In contrast, Hye spent nearly two decades learning the publishing trade in a printers’ shop before trying a stint as a Hollywood publicist, then writing a column for the Toronto Star Weekly before taking Taylor’s offer to edit the Film Weekly. Bossin was central to the creation of the Canadian Film Archive, the Canadian Film Awards, and he wrote some of the first histories of early cinema in Canada, published in the first volumes of the annual Canadian Film Weekly Year Book (1951-70).

In 1957, the Film Weekly had incorporated the rival Canadian Moving Picture Digest (1917-57), and began dating its start to that paper’s earlier start as the Canadian Universal Bulletin (1915-18). Subsequent variants of the Canadian Film Weekly and its yearbooks always claimed their roots all the way back to 1915 and the origins of the film industry trade press in Canada. After Bossin died in 1964, the Weekly’s new editor, Stan Helleur, renamed the magazine Canadian Film & TV Bi-Weekly, scaling back the pace of publishing but adding a purview for television and broadcasting. The annual was renamed similarly, its subtitle amended to “Year Book of the Canadian Entertainment Industry.” An attempted renewal to weekly format in 1970, edited by Ed Hocura, was short-lived and Nat Taylor decided instead to relaunch under an entirely new title, Canadian Film Digest (1971-77) and Canadian Film Digest Yearbook (1971-86).

– Paul Moore, March 2024

Further Reading

  • Bossin, Hye. “Canada and the Film: The Story of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry.” In Canadian Film Weekly Year Book of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry, 21-41. Toronto: Film Publications of Canada, 1951.
  • Moore, Paul. “Chronicling a National History: Hye Bossin’s Canadian Film Weekly and Year Book.” In Eric Hoyt and Kelley Conway, eds., Global Movie Magazines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2024.

Date Added:
April 11, 2024
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.

“April 10, 1970 CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY ae ee ie Oe Page 3 MY BAG By Ed Hocura {Ts ob So much has been written about the Academy Award winners, I feel it’s only fair to write something about the losers. And with exhibitors faced with the problem of playing those films that lost out in winning major awards, it stands to reason they might feel that boxoffice results will dip slightly. But why should they feel this way? Just because _ They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? and Anne Of The Thousand Days entered the Academy Awards race with nine and ten nominations, respectively, and only won one each is no reflection on these exceptional films. Both showed great boxoffice strength prior to the Academy Awards, so there’s no reason to suppose that just because they lost they don’t have wide audience appeal the week after. No one will deny that Midnight Cowboy, True Grit and The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie stand to benefit at the boxoffice from copping the major awards. But it seems a shame to think that these films would not attract those exhibitors who would pass them up if they had lost because they were not interested in “my kind of films.” Perhaps what Hello, Dolly and Goodbye, Mr. Chips really needed to attract the support they truly deserve was to win the best picture and actor awards. All I can say about these outstanding entertainment packages is that I was happy to pay to see both of them, and I’d gladly pay to see them again. My wife and two daughters feel the same way. Needless to say, they were disappointed that two of their favorite films of the year lost out to others. We can look back to other years and remember what winning Academy Awards did for Lillies Of The Field, In The Heat Of The Night and Charly, and wonder what lies ahead for Midnight Cowboy, True Grit and The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie? The first two did exceptionally well during their major first-run engagements; the latter only moderately well. It remains to be seen if Maggie Smith’s surprise upset will pay off for 20th Century-Fox. From this corner it would appear to be a minor miracle. As it would have been for Paramount if Liza Minelli had won for The Sterile Cuckoo, as well as for United Artists if Jean Simmons had won for The Happy Ending. Certainly any exhibitor would rather gamble on an Oscar winner than he would on a loser, which makes it doubly harder for distributors to book the latter. But since most of the nominated films and stars deserved to be winners, why not leave it up to the public for boxoffice support for the losers? After all, they flocked to see Airport and The Adventurers, and it’s highly unlikely that these two moneymakers will be nominated as best picture of the year when Academy Award time roils around next April. NAMES THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT: Hamilton theatre managers may not be aware of it, but they have a terrific booster for movies in Lee Dunbar. It was Dunbar’s morning show that CHML used to promote an Academy Awards contest (suggested by the Motion Picture Institute) and the affable companion to thousands of listeners produced an exceptional response. I don’t know if too many people in the movie industry would be impressed by just under 3,000 letters to a mail-in contest, but I’m sure an advertising agency would impress one of its clients if their promotion idea produced the same results. Once every two weeks, Dunbar devotes one of his 242 hour shows to movies. And not because he has to find something to talk about, but because he enjoys talking to his listeners about movies . . . I’m afraid I have to share Clyde Gilmour’s feelings in regards to the talk around Hollywood that Goldie Hawn will star in remakes of old Judy Holliday films. Please, Columbia, say it isn’t so . . . The news that Kirk Douglas and Johnny Cash will co-star in a western to be financed by a tribe of American Indians is startling to say the least. Is one of the stipulations in the production deal that the Indians wiil triumph over the white man? ... That was a smart move by Famous Players president George Destounis to follow the Academy Awards presentation on CBC-TV with a 60-second plug for his company. With the film industry content to let other people sponsor the highest-rated television show of the year, Destounis wrapped it all up very nicely with a plug for his theatres. Now that’s what I call promotion money well spent . . . Everybody laughed when Steve Weston made up his mind to be a professional actor. But today this talented Hamiltonian is laughing because he will soon begin filming a daily television series based on the old Easy Aces radio series. I got to know Weston back in the days when he appeared in semi-professional productions presented by the Players’ Guild and Hamilton Theatre Inc. His big television break didn’t come easy when you consider how long he waited for the opportunity to come along .. . As a rule, I look forward to meeting a film maker before I see his commercial venture. But after talking to Gil Taylor, and then seeing Flick It!, I’m at a loss to write anything about him or his film. So Ill think about both for a few days and try again next week . . . Bill Madden, MGM general sales manager, is coming to Toronto on Friday, April 17, to conduct a seminar on his company’s forthcoming summer releases. He’s bringing with him a product reel to show exhibitors, and I’m looking forward to hearing what he has to say about his company’s future plans. new ideas and methods. The small Our Business (Continued from Page 1) business and make a profit they town exhibitor must be helped — and saved, if possible — but it must start by his learning to help himself. should seriously consider the use of automated 16mm. Some may even have auditoria which lend themselves to dividing into two — thus giving the exhibitor the advantage of the dual mini. Distribution has finally awakened the necessity of change — drastic change. There is a great urge to make effective savings. The use of smaller prints is one of the ways. Firstly, however, both exhibitor and distributor must develop greater respect for the smaller size of film. Vol. 35, No. 13 April 10, 1970 Editor: ED HOCURA CANADIAN FILM WEEKLY 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ont. Published by Motion Picture Institute of Canada, 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ontario Canada °* Phone 924-1757 Price $7.50 per year STA EST RL I I EI I OLE IEE DED IIT, Our business must survive and will, with a healthy injection of why 90% of the theatres today install GENERAL SOUND TRANSISTORIZED SOUND EQUIPMENT. Come to think of it — when you count the finest quality — maintained by regular check-ups and instant day or night emergency service... it's a sound idea. Canada’s Theatre Supply House General Sound AND THEATRE EQUIPMENT LIMITED Branches across Canada