Newsletter Winter 1980

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Mrs. Anger:

I read with interest David Fox’s letter in the Fall Newsletter.  It seems to me that most people buy their refreshments well before the first movie starts and are finished by the time the opening credits roll.  I scarcely notice any sounds of eating during the films, but the talking drives me wild.  The fact that the credits and opening scene of a movie may have music but no dialogue does not give people license to continue their pre-movie conversations in a loud voice.  Even the music under the opening credits helps to establish a mood which is simply destroyed by gabbing.  And it would be nice if people who have to explain the plot to their companions during the movie kept their commentary to a minimal whisper.

As for more pleasant things–the TFS always manages to find interesting movies, whether well-known or rare.  But one category I would really enjoy seeing is (are?) the swashbucklers.  These costume movies and their adventure-movie kin really lose on the small screen.  I speak as one of the unfortunates who have only seen Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power on TV.

A very interesting Newsletter–hoping for many more.

Natalia Mayer

************************************

Dear Sir:

In response to your suggestion for letters of comment regarding the one written by David Fox who strongly objected to eating and drinking during film performances at the TFS series, I should like to present my opinions:

What concerned me principally was the immature and irresponsible way in which the board responded to Mr. Fox’s criticism.  To personally attack the writer does not resolve the situation in any way.  The editor suggests that the starting time of 7:30 is “ridiculously early.”  I don’t think it is early in view of the long performances which usually end after 11 o’clock in the evening.  Most people are home from work by five and surely two and a half hours is long enough to have a light supper and get to the theatre on time.  It would seem that the editor is condoning the eating of popcorn as a substitute for the evening meal.

You further commented that Mr. Fox is “anxious to run other peoples’ lives for them.”  He is merely offering his criticisms about conduct in the theatre.  Would you want patrons to have complete freedom?  Let them smoke, or drink, or dance in the aisles?  There must be rules for proper behaviour in any place of entertainment.  I personally believe the deportment of the TFS members is very mature and respectable in most instances, but you can’t censure the writer for his opinions.

The final comment by the editor in paraphrasing Preston Sturges that “music appreciation is best done with a mug of beer in one hand and a woman in the other” is rather ludicrous.  Have you ever been to an opera?  I feel very disturbed about these facetious comments in response to an earnest request for people to just be quiet and watch the film as Mr. Fox implies.  I would be rather reluctant to pass any further criticisms to the board about the films lest they personally attack me!

In closing I can only state, in the light of the board’s demeanour regarding letters from their members, that they show a little prudence and restraint and understanding as to each patron’s convictions.  We can at least comply with Mr. Fox’s request to the extent that we should try to drink and eat discreetly–if we must eat and drink at all.  I am thankful that there is no smoking during the show.  I would like to see the intermissions shortened somewhat so that we don’t tire before the second feature is finished.

Yours sincerely,
Roy L. Cornwell

Mr. Fox freely criticised his fellow TFS members; we freely criticised Mr. Fox; Mr. Cornwell freely criticises us.  Fine!  Remember freedom?  It was the social philosophy we used to believe in.  Now it seems to be an epithet for some.  At the risk of shocking Mr. Cornwell still further, smoking and drinking are permitted at TFS exhibition meetings except where prohibited by the owners of the theatres we rent and if TFS ever showed anything joyous enough to make the members dance in the aisles, we, for one, would be delighted.  “Most people are home from work by five…”  Wow!  We would really like to have Mr. Cornwell’s job!  We have never been to an opera, but the symphony conductor in Unfaithfully Yours was not talking about opera, but about music appreciation societies, hence the paraphrase to our film appreciation society

Editor

************************************

Dear Sir:

Just wanted to write and tell you I enjoyed your Fall 1979 Newsletter.  Also enjoyed some of the controversy.

One of my favorite marquee pairings was at the Fox Theatre on Queen St. E. in the spring of 1971.  It read Romeo and Juliet and The Italian Job.

Enjoyed the quiz.  However, two quibbles.  Question2.–Both Satan Met a Lady and The Maltese Falcon were remakes of Dangerous Female (1931) with Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels.  Question 16.–The obvious intention was for us to pick one of the answers.  Not quite fair that there are two answers.

Re: David Fox`s letter, I agree with the President`s comment that these films were meant to be seen with popcorn in hand.  I have no difficulty with people eating and enjoying themselves.  What bothers me is people who insist on taking though the films.  This happened to us at the recent showing of The Searchers and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I`m also wondering about the lack of any Canadian content in any of the series.  I don`t want to make an issue of it but, for example, the Summer Series, “School Daze” would have been a perfect setting for David Sector’s Winter Kept Us Warm.  I haven’t seen it in 14 years so I can’t comment on its quality, but, then again, it couldn’t be any worse than some of the films we saw (e.g. A Separate Peace.)

Again, thanks for an enjoyable Newsletter.

Yours,
Timm G. Zemanek

With regard to the Quiz answer and The Maltese Falcon, Mr. Zemanek deserves full marks for remembering the 1931 version of this classic private eye novel.  However, the 1931 movie version was called–surprise!–The Maltese Falcon.  When the studio decided to release this version to television they decided, no doubt because of the pervasive fame of the 1941 version, to re-title their new prints as Dangerous Female in order to avoid confusion.  So far as we know, the title Dangerous Female was never used for theatrical release.  We think the Quiz answer was correct because the 1941 The Maltese Falcon was a re-make of Satan Met a Lady, notwithstanding that the latter was, in turn, a re-make of the 1931 The Maltese Falcon.

The subject of talking during the movies, mentioned in this letter, in the preceding letter by Natalia Mayer and in many “graffiti” turned in by other TFS members, has assumed serious proportions this season.  The Board has tried to put a stop to it without noticeable success.  We can only suggest a loud and unrefined SHADDUP whenever anyone near yous tarts to talk.

************************************

Dear Sirs:

I enjoyed the movie quiz, “Twenty Questions”, in the fall issue of the TFS Newsletter; but I must take exception to Question #6:

Q:  Who played Sidney Carton in the original and in the remake of a Tale of Two Cities?
A:  Ronald Colman, Dirk Bogarde

First of all, may I submit that the “original” A Tale of Two Cities was not a film at all but a novel by Charles Dickens, first published in 1859.  If the Quizmaster means the first film version of the novel–and obviously he does–he should so specify.  But the first film version of A Tale of Two Cities was not the one made in 1935 with Ronald Colman, but the one made in 1911 by Vitagraph with Maurice Costello as Carton, a performance which British reviewers compared favorably with that of Sir John Martin Harvey, who was famous for that role in the stage version, The Only Way.  And the second film version (the “remake”, if you like) was made in 1917 and starred William Farnum.  The 1935 version is therefore not the first but the third film version of A Tale of Two Cities (unless some sleuth comes up with another earlier version which I have overlooked).  If the Quizmaster means the first screen version since the movies learned to talk–and obviously he does–he should so specify.

Yours respectfully,
Fraser Macdonald

************************************

Dear Sir:

The controversial issue of the film censorship has been in the press lately and I should like to speak out–though whether or not for the silent majority, I am not sure!–unequivocally for retaining the film censor in Ontario.

I appreciate Theatres Branch Ontario informing me that a film contains offensive scenes or language and I make a point of avoiding it.  I realise that my opponents are already getting hot under the collar since, it seems, I am in favour of preventing others from viewing the films they want to see.  But the point is that some of us wish to know ahead of time if a film contains offensive material.  For instance, I did not see 1900 because of a scene in which Donald Sutherland brutally kills a child (to my knowledge, this scene was not cut in Ontario).  Even quite good films like Murder By Decree and Time After Time were spoiled for me by too much blood and gore, which added nothing to the entertainment value.

Early  this season From Here to Eternity was revived.  Sinatra is led into the guardhouse and a shot of Borgnine’s hand reaching for a billy club is shown.  I am not aware if the censor cut a subsequent scene, for that close-up of Borgnine’s hand was quite sufficient.  Can you  imagine that film being made today?  Suppose the censor ordered a cut before release: that is why we need a censor.

There have been complaints that some “important” films have been banned in Ontario.  I venture to state that those films are less “important” than you think.  I don’t know how many recent movies have been banned, but two mentioned for sure are Pretty Baby and Luna.  Well, Pretty Baby did not have a long run in New York; it has vanished and no one is requesting its re-release.  Luna was described in the New Yorker as ludicrous codswallop, which, to judge from the plot outline, just about sums it up.  I find it hilarious that a group, to thumb the nose at the censor chartered a bus to Montreal just to see it.  Big deal: I trust they found their journey really necessary.

The dilemma over something called The Primal Fear has now been resolved and will be shown in Ontario.  I am sure the liberals and other masochists are smacking their lips as they stand in line.

I respect the serious films buff’s ability to distinguish between art and trash.  But the makers of The Devils, The Exorcist, and Taxi Driver consider their work “art” (none of it banned in Ontario).  Frankly, I prefer Leon Errol.  So I ask: What is it you liberals out there want?  How about a nice double bill of Snuff with Salo, two uniquely repellent movies, showing at every mall across Canada, impressionable youngsters admitted of course, since they too will demand their “rights.”  Is that what you really want?  Haven’t filmgoers been punished enough?

Some years ago the British film censor, also under attack, gave a public showing of all the bits snipped out by his scissors, to show filmgoers what they were missing.  I believe you had to bring your own vomit bag.  If the truth were known, the one person in Ontario who wants most of all to terminate the censor’s job is the censor himself.  If you had to sit through some of the muck he has to for a living, you still wouldn’t believe it.  No, I think we’ll keep the censor for a while longer.  After all, you can always go to Montreal to catch that “important” film.

Yours faithfully,
David B. Frost

Mr. Frost’s letter may well provoke even more reaction from the members than the popcorn controversy!  If you agree or disagree, please write to the Editor.

It is somewhat ironic that this letter should have been received just at the time when it appears that The Ontario Censor Board may be putting an end to TFS’s operations.  After 32 years of not doing so, the present Censor now apparently is insisting that every film screened by TFS must be first submitted to the Board for approval and censoring.  As a purely volunteer organization, we simply do not have either the manpower or the time to comply with such a ruling if it is insisted upon.  We are at present bemusedly wondering what we have done to cause the relationship of mutual trust and cooperation between the Society and the Censor, built up over 32 years of responsible operation of a true film society, to be so completely swept aside as if it had never existed and without explanation.

When TFS gets a print from outside Ontario, there have been many, many times when the Directors have “sweated out” a crisis as to whether the print will arrive in time for the screening, often having to spend time from their regular jobs making long-distance telephone calls, checking way-bill numbers, even searching through mountains of packages at train o post depots.  Since the Censor Board requires one week at least to screen a film, it is obvious that what is already a serious problem will become simply an impossibility.  While we can request the distributor to send the print an extra week early, there is no commercially-sensible reason why such a request should be honoured.  Why should a distributor lose an extra week’s rental of his print in exchange for the modest rental we can pay for our one-occasion screening?