Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Government bureaucracy in action : a history of cinema in Canada 1896-1941 Pollard, Juliet Thelma 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 P64-1.pdf [ 12.33MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094856.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094856-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094856-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094856-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094856-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094856-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094856-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094856-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094856.ris

Full Text

GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY IN ACTION: A HISTORY OF CINEMA IN CANADA 1896-1941 by JULIET THELMA POLLARD B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of H i s t o r y We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1979 ( " c V u l i e t Thelma P o l l a r d , 1979 MASTER OF ARTS In In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date &Sc&n)&MJ /d. J?79 ABSTRACT I f f i l m i s seen as a p o w e r f u l c u l t u r a l agent which has t r a n s f o r m e d s o c i e t y from t h e o u t s i d e , i t would be a m i s t a k e t o u n d e r p l a y the c o u n t e r -v a l e n t i n f l u e n c e s i n which s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and c u l t u r a l c o n c e r n s , the v e r y f a b r i c o f human r e a l i t y , have shaped t h e h i s t o r y o f f i l m . "Govern-ment B u r e a u c r a c y i n A c t i o n : A H i s t o r y o f Cinema i n Canada," examines t h o s e f o r c e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h a t o f government, which shaped t h e f i l m i n d u s t r y from i t s i n i t i a t i o n i n Canada t o t h e c r e a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board. L i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n has been g i v e n t o t h e a e s t h e t i c q u a l -i t i e s of Canadian f i l m s i n c e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y few f i l m s have ever been shot f o r a r t i s t i c purposes and t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n the Canadian c o n t e x t . W h i l e t h e h i s t o r y o f f i l m i n Canada i s a unique r e c o r d o f government involvement i n what has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been r e g a r d e d as. f r e e e n t e r p r i s e i n o t h e r d e m o c r a t i c n a t i o n s , from t h e o u t s e t f i l m was an i n t e r n a t i o n a l communications media and as such, Canadian f i l m d e v e l o p -ment was shaped not o n l y by i n t e r n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , but a l s o by the e x t e r n a l f o r c e s o f t h e world-wide f i l m i n d u s t r y . S i n c e v e r y l i t t l e has been w r i t t e n about f i l m i n Canada, a heavy r e l i a n c e has been p l a c e d upon s t u d y i n g the e v o l u t i o n o f cinema o u t s i d e the n a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n B r i t a i n and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , the two coun-t r i e s which e x e r c i s e d t h e g r e a t e s t degree of i n f l u e n c e over the d e v e l o p -ment of Canadian f i l m , and examining through p r i m a r y Canadian s o u r c e s whether or not t h e p a t t e r n s o f c i n e m a t i c growth e s t a b l i s h e d elsewhere i i h e l d t r u e i n t h e Canadian s e t t i n g . The f i n d i n g s which a r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n f i v e e s s a y s , each of which e x p l o r e s one a s p e c t of cinema i n Canada, i n d i c a t e t h a t w h i l e Canadian a t t i t u d e s and c o n c e r n s about the f i l m media m i r r o r e d those of o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , such s e n t i m e n t s were modi-f i e d by o t h e r u n i q u e l y Canadian c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The most p r e s s i n g of t h e s e f a c t o r s , t h a t of s a f e g u a r d i n g the Canadian i d e n t i t y from the bom-bardment of American c u l t u r a l v a l u e s permeating the c o u n t r y v i a t h e Hollywood movie, c o u p l e d w i t h o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a l l o w e d the n a t i o n ' s governments to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f i l m development i n the c o u n t r y . T h i s a l l i a n c e of p o l i t i c s and a r t was from the o u t s e t f r a u g h t w i t h p r o b -lems, not the l e a s t of which was the i n c o m p a t a b i l i t y of the s h o r t term r e s u l t s d e s i r e d by p o l i t i c i a n s and the l o n g term p r o c e s s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e development of a v i a b l e motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y . Under the c i r c u m -s t a n c e s , the b u r e a u c r a t s w i t h cameras who worked w i t h i n the p o o r l y con-c e i v e d , p i e c e m e a l , government f i l m o p e r a t i o n s , c o u l d n e i t h e r e n r i c h the f a b r i c o f Canadian c u l t u r e nor stem the t i d e of American e n t e r t a i n m e n t movies which f l o o d e d the s c r e e n s a c r o s s the c o u n t r y . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE v Chapter I FROM PICTURES TO MOVING PICTURES: THE GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED 1 I I TWO IMAGES OF CANADA 30 I I I GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY IN ACTION: THE PROVINCIAL FILM BUREAUS 64 IV BUREAUCRATS WITH CAMERAS: THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MOTION PICTURE BUREAU 1916-1941 86 V SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC 137 VI CONCLUSION 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 i v PREFACE T h i s study began w i t h a q u e s t i o n , i s t h e r e a h i s t o r y of f i l m i n Canada? P r e l i m i n a r y r e s e a r c h d i s c o v e r e d t h a t i n d e e d t h e r e was a h i s t o r y but i t was one which had v e r y l i t t l e w r i t t e n about i t and almost no t r e a t -ment from the academic community. F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t s i n c e t h e i n a u g u r a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board i n 1939, the f o c u s of the f i l m w r i t e r s has been on t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n . The h i s t o r y o f t h e NFB has been r e c o r d e d i n two u n p u b l i s h e d works and i n many a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by board employees and o t h e r s connected w i t h the f i l m i n d u s t r y . By c o n t r a s t , the e a r l y h i s t o r y of f i l m i n Canada has r e c e i v e d l i t t l e a t t e n -t i o n . I t i s i n t h i s u n e x p l o r e d a r e a t h a t t h i s study i s d i r e c t e d . B e f o r e h i s t o r y can be i n t e r p r e t e d i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e c o r d i t — i n t h i s t h e s i s a l i t t l e of b o t h has been undertaken. D u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s o f r e s e a r c h i n g , one f a c t o r emerged as the key component t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e n a t u r e and c o u r s e o f f i l m i n Canada. That agent was t h e degree to which governments i n Canada have been i n v o l v e d w i t h the f i l m media. From the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the s i l e n t p h o t o p l a y , a l l l e v e l s o f government have been a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n f i l m p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , and c e n s o r s h i p l e g i s l a t i o n ; i n s h o r t , they have dominated t h e f i l m i n d u s t r y i n Canada. At f i r s t t h i s may appear as a s u p e r f i c i a l p o i n t but i t i s of c r u c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e when i t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t f i l m i s the domain of the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n a l l o t h e r d e m o c r a t i c n a t i o n s . I t i s government's involvement i n f i l m which makes v cinema h i s t o r y i n Canada unique. While t h i s study d e a l s w i t h e a r l y Canadian f i l m h i s t o r y i n g e n e r a l , i t s p r i m a r y c o n c e r n i s w i t h the c o n t r o l o f government over t h e i n d u s t r y and w i t h the e f f e c t s o f such dominance on the development of c u l t u r e and a r t i n Canadian s o c i e t y . I t i s commonly h e l d by those who have w r i t t e n on the s u b j e c t , t h a t the government's l i a i s o n w i t h t h e f i l m b u s i n e s s has been a p o s i t i v e g o o d — t h a t i t has f u r t h e r e d Canadian c u l t u r e b o t h a t home and abroad and t h a t government f i l m bureaus have t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t thwarted American f i l m d o m i n a t i o n i n Canada by o f f e r i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e . The c r e a t i o n o f t h e NFB, from t h e o l d e r Canadian M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau, i s h e r a l d e d as a g r e a t Canadian accomplishment because the NFB has a c h i e v e d w o r l d r e c o g -n i t i o n i n t h e f i e l d of f i l m d o c u m e n t a r i e s . The p r e s e n t s t u d y t a k e s e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s e t r a d i t i o n a l views by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t government involvement has been too l i m i t e d i n scope and too p i e c e m e a l i n i t s o p e r a t i o n s t o make any s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o Canadian c u l t u r e . I t s r e c o r d i s f r a u g h t w i t h b u r e a u c r a t i c b u n g l i n g and p o l i t i c a l s c a n d a l s which r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether* or not government has any l e g i t i m a t e b u s i n e s s i n t h e e s s e n t i a l l y c r e a t i v e a r t o f f i l m making. P o l i t i c i a n s g e n e r a l l y have had a poor u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p o t e n t i a l of t h e media and t h e i r f i v e y e a r terms i n o f f i c e have been d e t r i m e n t a l t o the development o f f i l m i n s t i t u t i o n s . F a r from t h w a r t i n g American f i l m d o m i n a t i o n i n Canada, t h e government has been the c h i e f i n s t r u m e n t i n a l l o w i n g g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r c o n t r o l o f t h e i n d u s t r y t o f a l l i n t o American hands. When i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t l e s s t h a n 5% o f movies seen by Canadians have any Canadian c o n t e n t , the o r i g i n s , development, and mandate of t h e N a t i o n a l F i l m Board must a l s o be q u e s t i o n e d . The Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y d i d not de v e l o p isolated:from*the!.:. v i mainstream of f i l m e v o l u t i o n i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . To a r r i v e a t a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of what o c c u r r e d h e r e , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o examine the development of motion p i c t u r e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and B r i t a i n , the two c o u n t r i e s which e x e r c i s e d the g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e on Canadian a t t i t u d e s towards f i l m and on f i l m development. In b o t h t h e s e c o u n t r i e s , the advent of movies a t the b e g i n n i n g of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y posed a c h a l l e n g e t o e x i s t i n g c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . U n l i k e o t h e r a r t forms, movies found t h e i r f i r s t a c c e p t a n c e among the working and immigrant c l a s s e s and i n a v e r y r e a l sense the e a r l y h i s t o r y of movies i n t h o s e c o u n t r i e s i n v o l v e d c l a s s c o n f l i c t s . S u r p r i s i n g l y , few p a r a l l e l s t o e i t h e r t h e B r i t i s h or American e x p e r i e n c e w i t h f i l m c o u l d be found i n Canada. From the o u t s e t i t appears Canadians r e g a r d e d and pursued c i n e m a t i c a c t i v i t i e s i n a d i f f e r e n t way than o t h e r n a t i o n s . Long b e f o r e the i n v e n t i o n of c e l l u l o i d , Canadian s o c i e t y p o s s e s s e d c e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l b i a s e s which p r e d e t e r m i n e d i n p a r t t h e n a t u r e of th e f i l m i n d u s t r y i n t h i s c o u n t r y . L a t e r , the r a p i d growth of p o p u l a t i o n , f r o n t i e r c o n d i -t i o n s , s p a r s e s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s , c o u p l e d w i t h r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s h e l d a p o w e r f u l sway over the development of f i l m as a component of c u l t u r a l communications. The l a c k of e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l i n t e r e s t i n the i n d u s t r y r e t a r d e d t h e growth of the commercial s e c t o r . The way Canadians r e g a r d e d themselves and t h e i r n a t i o n were a l s o f a c t o r s which determined the shape of the f i l m i n d u s t r y i n the Dominion. T h i s s t u d y i s d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e e s s a y s , each of which examines one a s p e c t of f i l m i n Canada and the government's i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h i t . L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d to the a e s t h e t i c m e r i t s of the f i l m s themselves; r a t h e r the e v o l u t i o n o f f i l m making has been r e g a r d e d i n v i i terms of the s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , and p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s which shaped i t . Many of the t o p i c s touched upon c o u l d j u s t i f i a b l y r e c e i v e more a m b i t i o u s t r e a t m e n t . The l a c k of f i l m s t u d i e s i n Canada, however, was a p e r s u a s -i v e f o r c e i n s e e i n g t h e v a l u e of a s i n g l e study which would c o v e r the Canadian motion p i c t u r e scene from t h e 1890's t o t h e World War I I e r a . By p r o v i d i n g a broad framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a f i l m ' s s i g n i f i c a n c e , o r l a c k o f i t , i n t h e Canadian c o n t e x t , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a r r i v e a t some u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the uniqueness of t h e Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y i n w o r l d cinema, i t s p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r the documentary, i t s p a s s i o n f o r propaganda, and i t s enormous commercial f a i l u r e s . v i i i C H A P T E R I FROM PICTURES TO MOVING PICTURES: THE GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED I t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d by f i l m w r i t e r s that the cinema has n e i t h e r h i s t o r y nor t r a d i t i o n , that the roots of the f i l m are wholly i n t w e n t i -eth century c i v i l i z a t i o n . " ' " The use of the words animated, motion, and moving p i c t u r e s , however, a l l suggest that the advent of f i l m was per-ceived as an extension of other forms of v i s u a l a r t . Indeed, si n c e the dawn of time when crudely carved i l l u s t r a t i o n s of animal hunts appeared on cave w a l l s , man has been using p i c t u r e s to communicate, e n t e r t a i n , i n s t r u c t and i n d o c t r i n a t e h i s f e l l o w man. The i c o n o c l a s t i c s t r u g g l e s of the 8th and 9th c e n t u r i e s and the reformation of the 13th and 14th c e n t u r i e s both i n v o l v e d controversy over what k i n d of a r t would be allowed i n the Church. I t was feared that c e r t a i n types of p i c t o r i a l images might i n themselves come to be w o r s h i p p e d — t h a t the t r u e meaning of C h r i s t i a n i t y would be l o s t . Nevertheless, at a time when l i t e r a c y was r e s t r i c t e d to few, the h i e r -archy of the Church recognized, as the movie makers and p o l i t i c i a n s of t h i s century do, the p o t e n t i a l power of v i s u a l images f o r i n d o c t r i n a -t i o n and conversion. The Church r e a d i l y acknowledged that r e l i g i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were able to communicate the C h r i s t i a n message where language and c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s presented a b a r r i e r . L i k e f i l m , p i c t u r e s were viewed d i r e c t l y by the s p e c t a t o r . They reached the 1 2 i l l i t e r a t e and the s c h o l a r , the mental d e f e c t i v e and the i n t e l l i g e n t man, the c h i l d and the a d u l t . With the establishment of New France, the a r t i s t i c t r a d i t i o n s of the Church i n France were f i r m l y planted i n Quebec as part of an e f f o r t to e s t a b l i s h and maintain the Church's p o s i t i o n i n the new s o c i e t y . Soon a f t e r h i s appointment to New France i n 1667, Bishop L a v a l estab-l i s h e d an a r t - c r a f t school where n a t i v e sons could be t r a i n e d to i n s u r e that the Church's use of a r t as a v i s u a l form of communications would 2 not be l o s t i n the new world. R e l i g i o u s p a i n t i n g s were regarded w i t h much reverence by the s e t t l e r s who b e l i e v e d them to be holy and to have the power to work m i r a c l e s . Perhaps the f i r s t example of a r t i n Canada being used f o r an e x t r a - a r t i s t i c purpose occurred when Bishop L a v a l invoked d i v i n e p r o t e c -t i o n f o r Quebec-by.ordering-that,, a canvas of the Holy Family be mounted on the Church tower f o r a l l to see during Admiral Phips' 1690 siege of the town. Although much of Quebec was r i d d l e d by cannon f i r e , the 3 p a i n t i n g m i r a c u l o u s l y remained unharmed during the unsuccessful a t t a c k . P i c t u r e s played an important r o l e i n combating the language bar-r i e r s between Amerindians and Europeans i n Canada. The m i l i t a n t J e s u i t s countered the 'supernatural' a r t of the n a t i v e s w i t h t h e i r own m a g i c — p i c t u r e s which i l l u s t r a t e d C a t h o l i c b e l i e f s . By 1700, an ' a r t i s t - p r i e s t c l e r g y ' which "preached to the in d i a n s by day and painted 4 by n i g h t , " was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n New France. These min i a t u r e works g r a p h i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e d to the Indians v i r t u e s and v i c e s , heaven and h e l l , urging them to convert f o r the sake of t h e i r immortal s o u l s . ^ Nearly one-hundred and f i f t y years l a t e r i n western Canada, Father Blanchet designed 'the C a t h o l i c Ladder' as an a i d i n the conversion of 3 n a t i v e peoples i n New Caledonia and Columbia. The ladder, a p i c t o r i a l time l i n e of C a t h o l i c b e l i e f from Adam and Eve to the mission i n Columbia was an i n s t a n t success w i t h the n a t i v e s . 7 For the next h a l f century, ladders p r i n t e d on l i n e n were part of Roman C a t h o l i c missionary equipment. During the 1860's gold rush i n B.C., Methodists and Pr e s b y t e r i a n s bor-rowed Blanchet's i n v e n t i o n and made Pro t e s t a n t ladders i n attempts to 8 p r o s e l y t i z e the Indians w i t h t h e i r brand of C h r i s t i a n i t y . By t h i s time, however, the magic l a n t e r n o f f e r e d even greater rewards i n missionary p u r s u i t s . The c i r c u i t t r a v e l l i n g A n g l i c a n and Methodist preachers i n B.C. i l l u s t r a t e d t h e i r camp-fire sermons w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e of p i c t u r e s 9 of the 'holy lands' i n l a n t e r n s l i d e s . L i k e motion p i c t u r e s , magic l a n t e r n s were the province of the inven-t o r , not the a r t i s t . During the 19th century, s c i e n t i f i c i n v e n t i o n s l i k e the s t i l l camera were combined w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s and improvements to such devices such as o p t i c a l toys to produce moving p i c t u r e s . North Ameri-c cans' demands f o r more and b e t t e r l i k e n e s s e s of themselves saw s i l h o u e t t e s and m i n i a t u r e p o r t r a i t s , the mass media commodity of the l a t e 1820's and 1830's, replaced i n the 1840's by the daguerreotypists and p o r t r a i t takers."'""'" In V i c t o r i a n Canada, the magic l a n t e r n , ancestor of today's s l i d e p r o j e c t o r was an extremely popular machine among the middle c l a s s f o r amusement, i n s t r u c t i o n and propaganda. Toward the 1890's, i t became common p r a c t i c e f o r the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments, as w e l l as p r i v a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n companies, to use s l i d e s to l u r e s e t t l e r s to Canada. In 1892, Thomas Greenway, then M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e and Immigration f o r Manitoba, wrote of having "prepared an extensive c o l l e c t i o n of s l i d e s which would give a good „12 idea to f o r e i g n e r s of Manitoba l i f e both i n the town and country. 4 In h i s ca p a c i t y as High Commissioner f o r Canada i n London, S i r Charles Tupper reported i n 1896 t h a t : "Canada a t t r a c t e d a good deal of a t t e n -t i o n during the year, as the consequence of the hundreds of l e c t u r e s that were d e l i v e r e d on Canada i n d i f f e r e n t p a r ts of the country, i l l u s -13 t r a t e d by the l a n t e r n s l i d e s which we loan f o r that purpose." The most favorable aspects of B r i t i s h Columbia and Ontario were a l s o conveyed v i a the s l i d e s shown by p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s i n order to a t t r a c t an i n f l u x of newcomers. I t was g e n e r a l l y agreed by immigration promoters that " l e c t u r e s i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h l i m e - l i g h t views" were one of the most persuasive means of b r i n g i n g Canada before the n o t i c e of the European, American and A u s t r a l i a n p u b l i c s . ^ Moreover, s i n c e the va r i o u s p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l immigration agencies operated on a l i m i t e d budget, the use of s l i d e s was considered as an economical way of securing a t t e n t i o n . S l i d e s f e a t u r i n g the Canadian landscape were c o n s t a n t l y on loan to clergymen, teachers and student p a r t i e s who wished to d e l i v e r a t a l k on 16 the Dominion. "Thus a great deal of p u b l i c i t y i s secured at a m i n i -mum of c o s t , " wrote one agent, " f o r the only concession made to these l e c t u r e s was the use of the s l i d e s . " ^ 7 Much of the immigration propaganda was aimed at school c h i l d r e n . A v a r i e t y of techniques were employed to ensure that students r e c e i v e d the ' c o r r e c t ' impression of Canada. P u p i l s were a l s o used as an i n d i r e c t way of g e t t i n g the a t t e n t i o n of t h e i r parents. Books and a t l a s e s on Canada were d i s t r i b u t e d i n the hopes that students would read them and encourage t h e i r parents to immigrate, or at the l e a s t , 18 take them home f o r t h e i r parents to read. P u p i l s were asked to b r i n g t h e i r parents, when a Canadian s l i d e show was being held i n the 5 s c h o o l . 19 I n G r e a t B r i t a i n , a bronze medal was g i v e n each y e a r t o the st u d e n t w i t h t h e most p r o f i c i e n t knowledge of Canada. 20 In Belgium, c o u r s e s and l e c t u r e s on Canadian geography were g i v e n . 21 Undoubtedly, scenes from a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y were an i n t e r e s t i n g d i v e r s i o n from t h e r o u t i n e of t h e c l a s s r o o m . Encouraged by l e t t e r s from e n t h u s i a s t i c y o u n g s t e r s , one i m m i g r a t i o n agent devoted h i s time t o d e l i v e r i n g l e c t u r e -s l i d e shows i n t h e b e s t p u b l i c s c h o o l s o f the B r i t i s h I s l e s . He b e l i e v e d t h a t i n t h i s way t h e we a l t h y c l a s s e s o f t h e c o u n t r y c o u l d be r e a c h e d . I f the a f f l u e n t p a r e n t s ever d e c i d e d t o e m i g r a t e , i t was n o t e d t h a t 22 " c o n s i d e r a b l e c a p i t a l " would f o l l o w . The s u c c e s s o f t h e s l i d e shows i n promoting i m m i g r a t i o n made t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o 'animated p i c t u r e s ' as e a r l y f i l m s were c a l l e d , a r e l a t i v e l y easy one. Immigration o f f i c i a l s r e a d i l y grasped t h a t the new media c o u l d be used i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o s l i d e s and might perhaps r e a p even g r e a t e r b e n e f i t s . A l t h o u g h they d i d not i m m e d i a t e l y make f i l m s on t h e i r own, t h e government was q u i c k t o use p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s movies made by p r i v a t e Canadian f i r m s . Canadians were not i n t h e f o r e f r o n t as i n v e n t o r s of motion p i c t u r e machines o r as ci n e m a t o g r a p h e r s , but t h e i r e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l a b i l i t i e s h e l p e d t o p l a c e them i n the f o r e f r o n t of m a r k e t i n g t h e new media i n N o r t h America. Most n o t a b l e were George and Andrew H o l l a n d o f Ottawa who were i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f i r s t motion p i c t u r e 'peep' show on t h e con-t i n e n t . B e s i d e s b e i n g p a r t owners of the Ottawa D a i l y C i t i z e n , t h e f i r s t r e p o r t e r s f o r the Canadian Senate, and t h e d e v e l o p e r s of a steam-s h i p l i n e from Vancouver t o Sidney, the H o l l a n d b r o t h e r s were agents f o r 23 E d i s o n ' s p r o d u c t s i n Ottawa. The H o l l a n d s persuaded Thomas E d i s o n t h a t the K i n e t o s c o p e , r e c e n t l y d e v e l o p e d by W. K. L. D i c k s o n i n Edison's New Jersey l a b o r a t o r i e s had more p o s s i b i l i t i e s than the 'toy' 24 he b e l i e v e d i t to be. On A p r i l 14, 1894, the Holland brothers premiered the new s c i e n t i f i c i n v e n t i o n to New Yorkers who i n d i v i d u a l l y 25 watched moving p i c t u r e s through the s m a l l peep holes i n each machine. Flushed w i t h success at t h i s endeavour, the Hollands bought the f i r s t 26 -ten machines Edison made. Two years l a t e r when the Vitascope, which p r o j e c t e d animated p i c t u r e s on a screen was marketed, they obtained an 27 e x c l u s i v e Canadian d e a l e r s h i p from Edison. U l t i m a t e l y , the Holland brothers were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b r i n g i n g motion p i c t u r e s to Ontario. On a warm J u l y n i g h t i n 1896, a month a f t e r L a u r i e r and the L i b e r a l s had been v i c t o r i o u s at the p o l l s , hundreds of Ottawans took the excursion to the e a s t e r l y terminus of the E l e c t r i c Railway, where f o r 10 cents they were t r e a t e d to music from the Governor General's Foot Guard Band, a magic act performed by John C. Green ( a l i a s 'Belsaz') and t h e ' - f i r s t motion p i c t u r e s known to have been shown i n Canada. A f t e r a quick change from h i s Belsaz costume, showman Green pro j e c t e d new magic—animated p i c t u r e s i n c l u d i n g the 'scandalous' May Irwin-John C. Rice f i l m , The K i s s , on Edison's Vitascope which had been brought to Ottawa by the Holland 28 br o t h e r s . By September, the Vitascope and a r i v a l p r o j e c t i o n machine, the Lumieres Cinematographe from France were i n t r o d u c i n g Toronto to f i l m . C a p i t a l i z i n g on i t s s u c c e s s f u l i n i t i a t i o n i n the c i t y , H. J . H i l l , manager of Toronto's I n d u s t r i a l E x h i b i t i o n and owner of the Cinemato-graphe toured Ontario b r i n g i n g the 'new s c i e n t i f i c wonder' to o u t l y i n g 29 regions of the province. September a l s o brought the p i c t u r e s to Montreal on an Animatographe, the E n g l i s h equivalent of Edison's V i t a -scope, as w e l l as f i l m s d i s p l a y e d by a Cinematographe operated by Auguste 30 Guay and Andre Vermette. In the same year i n Nova S c o t i a , a Vitascope gave Maritime audiences t h e i r f i r s t moving p i c t u r e show at the Academy of 31 Music i n H a l i f a x . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , movies p r o j e c t e d on an Anet Magniscope made t h e i r debut on the P a c i f i c coast at a band concert of the 32 5th Regiment i n V i c t o r i a . Subsequently, J . Mahrer, manager of the Nanaimo Opera House, bought the new device and took i t on a tour of the 33 mining camps i n the Kootenays during the summer of 1897. By the t u r n of the century, the ' c r e a t i v e machines' and t h e i r moving p i c t u r e s had been d i s p l a y e d to audiences throughout Canada. American, B r i t i s h and Canadian photographers turned i n t h e i r Kodaks f o r motion p i c t u r e cameras. Most of the f i l m s Canadians saw were f o r e i g n productions, but a few had Canadian themes or content. Such h i s t o r i c events as Jimmy Hardy c r o s s i n g Niagara F a l l s on a t i g h t r o p e (1896), the Royal Engineers e r e c t i n g a monument to Wolfe i n Quebec (1897), the Fraser Canyon viewed from the C.P.R. (1899), a hockey game i n Montreal (1900), the Duke and Duchess of York v i s i t i n g Niagara F a l l s (1900), and the Toronto F i r e (1904) were among the subjects shot by these e a r l y camer-34 men. Dramatic two r e e l e r s w i t h Canadian themes, Acadian Elopement and Crossing the Border (the f i r s t Mountie f i l m ) made t h e i r appearance i n 35 1904. Fo l l o w i n g i n the wake of American f i l m s w i t h p o l i t i c a l m o t i f s such as The Monroe Doctrine and Cuba L i b r a (1896), the Canadian P a t r i o t i c Fund used to advantage f i l m coverage of the Canadian contingent l e a v i n g 36 f o r the Boer War as a means of r a i s i n g revenues f o r the troops. P r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e too, became in v o l v e d w i t h t h i s new device w i t h the e a r l y e f f o r t s of Massey H a r r i s Company and the Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l -way. From h i s teenage years, Walter Massey had been keenly i n t e r e s t e d i n photography and w i t h the i n v e n t i o n of motion p i c t u r e s he became one of the f i r s t owners of a movie camera and h i s company became a leader i n 37 promotional i n d u s t r i a l f i l m s . Made by the Edison Company, Massey H a r r i s ' s f i r s t movie of t h e i r new binder equipment at work on an Ontario farm was a popular d i s p l a y at the Canadian N a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n of 1898 i n Toronto and other summer f a i r s i n Ottawa and Montreal. The movie was l a t e r shown i n B r i t a i n where i t was hoped new orders f o r Massey H a r r i s equipment would f o l l o w each v i e w i n g . ^ While the Edison Company was f i l m i n g f o r Massey H a r r i s , the C.P.R. had James Free r , a B r i t i s h immigrant who had tem p o r a r i l y given up h i s farm i n Brandon f o r f r e e l a n c e cinematography, making p u b l i c i t y movies f o r them. Although made f o r the C.P.R., Ten Years i n Manitoba which Freer presented throughout the B r i t i s h I s l e s , q u i c k l y caught the a t t e n -39 t i o n of the Canadian Government. In 1899, Lord Strathcona, High Commissioner f o r Canada i n London, reported to C l i f f o r d S i f t o n , M i n i s t e r of the I n t e r i o r : "The Canadian P a c i f i c Railway has i n i t i a t e d a s e r i e s of animated photographs of Canada, i t s scenery and i t s i n d u s t r i e s , which i s much i n demand. N a t u r a l l y , my department co-operates i n any e f f o r t that 40 have f o r t h e i r object the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of knowledge about Canada." S i f t o n , who was s u i t a b l y impressed w i t h p u b l i c i t y gained by the 'ha l f m i l e of f i l m ' , responded by sending Freer on a second tour of B r i t a i n i n 41 1902 at the expense of the Canadian government. The success of t h e i r f i r s t cinematic venture l e d the C.P.R. to commission Charles Urban, an American who was an innovator and s u c c e s s f u l entrepreneur i n B r i t i s h f i l m s , to produce a second and more extensive s e r i e s of movies. Working w i t h Guy Bradford and C l i f f o r d Denham of B r i t i s h Mutoscope and Biography Company, a branch of an American company, and Joe Rosenthal, one of the foremost cameramen of the e r a , they produced 42 L i v i n g Canada i n 1903. L i k e the f i r s t s e r i e s , L i v i n g Canada was aimed a t e n t i c i n g e m i g r a t i o n and promoting t o u r i s m . We mapped out a program of what we thought would s t i m u l a t e emigra-t i o n from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s to Canada [ r e c a l l e d Denham]. These i n c l u d e d many s c e n i c shots of the c o u n t r y which the r a i l w a y p a s s e d t h r o u g h . The p r i n c i p a l ones b e i n g a t r i p t hrough the Rocky Moun-t a i n s , and scenes around B a n f f , a t r i p t hrough the K i c k i n g Horse Canyon and o t h e r s too numerous to mention. In a d d i t i o n to t h e s e s u b j e c t s we photographed H a r v e s t i n g a 160 A c r e F i e l d , Lumber and M i l l i n g Logs, Salmon I n d u s t r y , C a t t l e I n d u s t r y and M a n u f a c t u r i n g P l a n t s i n a l l c i t i e s from c o a s t t o c o a s t . 4 - * The C.P.R.'s f i l m s enjoyed c o n s i d e r a b l e a c c l a i m . In Canada they t o u r e d the c o u n t r y f o u r t i m e s , p l a y i n g such l o c a t i o n s as the Windsor 44 H o t e l i n M o n t r e a l and Massey H a l l i n T o r o n t o . In G r e a t B r i t a i n , the f i f t y - f i v e 'good l i f e ' i n Canada f i l m s made t h e i r debut a t th e P a l a c e T h e a t r e i n London b e f o r e they went on t o e x t e n s i v e showings i n c o r n 45 exchanges, town h a l l s , and t h e a t r e s . C.P.R. o f f i c i a l s c a l c u l a t e d t h a t such p r o m o t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n s would e n t i c e more B r i t i s h i m m i g r a t i o n , u l t i m a t e l y r e i n f o r c i n g t h e B r i t i s h h e r i t a g e i n Canada and o f f s e t t i n g American v a l u e s b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the Dominion by thousands of 46 American s e t t l e r s who were p u s h i n g northward i n s e a r c h of cheap l a n d . At l e a s t one a s p e c t of t h e i r p l o y was s u c c e s s f u l . " R e s u l t s from the e m i g r a t i o n s t a n d p o i n t , " r e p o r t e d one o b s e r v e r , "were more than s u c c e s s -f u l . " 4 7 While no p o l i t i c i a n c o u l d f a i l t o observe t h a t f i l m was p o p u l a r w i t h the masses, motion p i c t u r e s f a i l e d t o a t t r a c t a f o l l o w i n g among the m i d d l e c l a s s and the e l i t e . T h e i r s k e p t i c i s m and contempt f o r t h i s ' v u l g a r showground a t t r a c t i o n ' had to be l e s s e n e d b e f o r e the government 48 c o u l d e n t e r the i n f a n t i n d u s t r y . In 1896, f i l m was an engaging n o v e l t y , i t h e a d l i n e d v a u d e v i l l e t h e a t r e s and was the a t t r a c t i o n a t 49 s p e c i a l showings i n the s a l o n s of the w e a l t h y . Accompanied by the Empire T h e a t r e O r c h e s t r a , Queen V i c t o r i a was i n t r o d u c e d t o the f i l m s o f 10 the Lumiere Brothers i n 1897 at a p r i v a t e g a t h e r i n g . S u c h showings i n i t i a l l y gave acceptance to the new media, but s i n c e the a r t i s t i c l e v e l of the l i t t l e 50 foot f i l m s was low, t h i s was soon l o s t and movies became b o r i n g l y repetitious."'"'" Although s t i l l f i n d i n g an audience among the working c l a s s , f i l m ' s i n i t i a l p o p u l a r i t y w i t h the middle and upper c l a s s e s soon faded. While s t i l l an a t t r a c t i o n at Hanlan's P o i n t i n Toronto and on other fairgrounds i n Canada, by 1900 the movies had become the 'chaser' on v a u d e v i l l e programs designed to c l e a r out or 'chase' out 52 audiences before the next show. At the same time, those who saw a new business venture i n cinema h a s t i l y constructed s p e c i a l places to show movies, or as was more o f t e n the case, converted stores to that purpose by added new f r o n t s , a white canvas to throw the p i c t u r e and such t i t l e s as 'Dreamland,' 'S t a r l a n d , ' 53 and 'The People's Theatre.' In these d i r t y , a i r l e s s t h e a t r e s , movie patrons viewed the grainy f i l m s w h i l e standing or s i t t i n g on hard wooden c h a i r s or benches. The motion p i c t u r e ' r e e l s would g r i n d continuously from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. repeating t h e i r show every 15 to 30 54 minutes. Such 'grind' houses, fairgrounds and penny g a f f s , w h i l e cheap amusement f o r the workers i n i n d u s t r y , were not frequented by the upper c l a s s e s . In the United States and B r i t a i n the phenomenal e v o l u t i o n of motion p i c t u r e s from entertainment of the 'lowest and most i n v i s i b l e c l a s s e s ' i n s o c i e t y to acceptance and r e c o g n i t i o n by the middle and upper c l a s s e s has been reasonably w e l l documented. Class d i s t i n c t i o n s among movie patrons s i m i l a r to those found i n Great B r i t a i n and the United States a l s o e x i s t e d i n Canada. The shoddy s t o r e - f r o n t theatres were sometimes f l y - b y - n i g h t operations undertaken by 11 people of unknown or questionable r e p u t a t i o n and were thus s u s p i c i o u s l y regarded by the establishment. "A stranger v i s i t e d V i c t o r i a and i n s t a l l e d a machine," r e c a l l e d a pioneer theatre manager of the f i r s t 56 'store show' i n that c i t y . In My Neighbour (1911), reformer J . S. Woodsworth regarded the new form of amusement as a p o s s i b l e t h r e a t to s o c i e t y . L i k e other middle c l a s s Canadians at the time, he c a l l e d f o r s t r i c t censorship to curb the new e v i l . " * 7 D e s c r i b i n g the evening of a Winnipeg working c l a s s g i r l , Woodsworth i m p l i e d that the movies were undermining f a m i l y l i f e , "Mary, who works i n a laundry, hasn't to go back tonight to work, and so has arranged to go w i t h some f r i e n d s to 58 the ten-cent t h e a t r e ; don't be too hard on her." Nevertheless, ' n i c k e l madness', a term used to describe the r a p i d growth and p o p u l a r i t y of the f i v e - c e n t s t o r e - f r o n t theatres i n the United States between 1905 and 1910, appears to have been l e s s 'mad' i n 59 Canada. Although Canadian c i t i e s experienced r a p i d growth between 1900 and 1910, some doubling t h e i r populations during t h i s p e r i o d , the c i t i e s of Canada were s m a l l when compared w i t h those of B r i t a i n and America and could not or were not w i l l i n g to support s t o r e - f r o n t theatres on every corner i n working c l a s s areas as was the case i n some U.S. and B r i t i s h c i t i e s . Canadians were more w i l l i n g to have the movies as 'chasers' i n t h e i r v a u d e v i l l e theatres r a t h e r than construct hundreds of s t o r e - f r o n t s . In the f i r s t ten years a f t e r the b i r t h of the movies, the i t i n e r a n t showmen, l i k e John C. Green, who hauled 14 trunks of movie r e e l s along w i t h song sheets and magical entertainments, or F r e d e r i c k Edmonds, who t r a v e r s e d the border b r i n g i n g movies t o Ontario, New England 60 and the Maritimes served the needs of most Canadian movie patrons. The music h a l l c i r c u i t s and v a u d e v i l l e chains a l s o added f i l m s to t h e i r 12 r e p e r t o i r e s and brought movies to Canadians i n the same way they brought 61 other entertainment. The opening of s t o r e - f r o n t theatres i n the United S t a t e s , however, d i d have i t s modest counterpart i n Canada. While the wandering p r o j e c -t i o n i s t s continued to operate i n the r u r a l areas, some showmen and others saw there was j u s t as much p r o f i t to be made by s e t t l i n g down i n one l o c a l e 62 and opening a movie theatre as there was i n t r a v e l l i n g Canada's byways. One of the most s u c c e s s f u l showmen to make the t r a n s i t i o n from r o v i n g p r o j e c t i o n i s t to theatre manager was John Schuberg, known i n th e a t r e 63 c i r c l e s as Johnny Nash. Beginning i n 1902 w i t h the establishment of the E l e c t r i c Theatre i n Vancouver, he was able to boast by 1910 that h i s Nash chain of eigh t theatres s t r e t c h i n g across the p r a i r i e s was the l a r g -64 est i n western Canada. More common i n the Canadian s e t t i n g , however, were the s t o r e - f r o n t theatres which closed w i t h i n a few months of t h e i r opening. In V i c t o r i a , f o r example, three s t o r e shows were opened i n 1897, but a l l three were soon superceded by v a u d e v i l l e theatres which 65 used moving p i c t u r e s as part of t h e i r b i l l of entertainment. Although there i s no way of a s c e r t a i n i n g e x a c t l y how many shop theatres e x i s t e d i n Canada, there i s l i t t l e doubt that those that l a s t e d were few i n number. A newspaper survey of theatre advertisements i n Canada's major c i t i e s i n 1905 f a i l e d to f i n d a s i n g l e mention of a thea t r e devoted to motion p i c -t u r e s . While some of the smaller c i t i e s appeared to have had no theatres showing motion p i c t u r e s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , most of the l a r g e r centers had one or two of t h e i r v a u d e v i l l e theatres using p i c t u r e s to 66 round up t h e i r programs. Even i n Montreal, Canada's l a r g e s t c i t y at the time, there were only eight motion p i c t u r e houses i n 1906, as com-6 7 pared w i t h P i t t s b u r g h , a c i t y of comparable s i z e , which had 20 i n 1907. 13 R e g i o n a l i s m a l s o p l a y e d a p a r t i n t h e growth o f motion p i c t u r e houses and the p o p u l a r i t y o f f i l m i n Canada. In t h e newly s e t t l e d communities of we s t e r n Canada, f r o n t i e r c o n d i t i o n s , such as the l a c k of o t h e r e n t e r t a i n m e n t f a c i l i t i e s and the s c a n t p o p u l a t i o n i n many are a s c o n s p i r e d t o n e u t r a l i z e c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s among movie goers and a l l o w e d movies t o be a c c e p t e d sooner on the P r a i r i e s and i n B r i t i s h Columbia than elsewhere i n Canada. Moreover, the s i l e n t p i c t u r e s which c o u l d be eas-i l y u n d e r s t o o d by a l l v i e w e r s r e g a r d l e s s o f n a t i v e language were s u i t e d t o the needs o f the p r e d o m i n a t e l y immigrant p o p u l a t i o n which made up t h e west a t t h i s time. The f r o n t i e r n a t u r e of the community was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e s t o r e - f r o n t and i t s a u d i e n c e . The f i r s t movie house i n P r i n c e Rupert, f o r example, was opened i n 1904 b e f o r e the timber on the town s i t e was f u l l y c l e a r e d . Because t h e r e was no e l e c t r i c i t y , "a man r e a d out s u b t i t l e s w h i l e t u r n i n g t h e machine by hand" i n a b a r n c o v e r e d w i t h 68 t a r paper which s e r v e d as t h e movie house. D e s p i t e such h a n d i c a p s , t h e t h e a t r e e n j o y e d a booming b u s i n e s s among t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n workers 69 many of whom were r e c e n t immigrants. By 1910, movie t h e a t r e s were permanently e s t a b l i s h e d i n we s t e r n Canadian c i t i e s and motion p i c t u r e r e views commonly found i n the newspapers a t t e s t e d t o w e s t e r n e r s ' a c c e p -t a n c e of the new m e d i a . ^ C l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s among movie p a t r o n s were s h a r p e s t i n O n t a r i o and p o s s i b l y Quebec. Here, i n t h e o l d e r e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t e r s , t h e a t r e , o p e r a , and c o n c e r t remained the e n t e r t a i n m e n t of the upper and m i d d l e c l a s s , w h i l e the 10c movie was m a i n l y p a t r o n i z e d by the working c l a s s and r e c e i v e d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n the p r e s s . ^ N e v e r t h e l e s s , even i n Tor o n t o and M o n t r e a l , c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s were l e s s n o t i c e a b l e than i n the working c l a s s d i s t r i c t s o f Manchester, which b o a s t e d one hundred and e l e v e n s t o r e -14 f r o n t s by 1913, or i n New York which had some s i x hundred nickelodeons by 72 1908. In c e n t r a l Canada, as i n western Canada there were s t o r e - f r o n t s , but most movies were shown i n v a u d e v i l l e theatres which were already f r e -73 quented by at l e a s t a p o r t i o n of the middle c l a s s . In the Maritimes l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the new media developed u n t i l a f t e r the movies had acquired a c e r t a i n degree of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y . Some nine years a f t e r shop theatres f i r s t appeared i n the P a c i f i c province, 'The York' and 'The Unique' opened i n St. John.^ 4 One year l a t e r i n 1907, the f i n e s t of the A t l a n t i c s t o r e - f r o n t s 'The N i c k e l ' began operat-in g i n H a l i f a x . 7 " ' On P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , there were " r e g u l a r screen-ings of f i l m s i n Charlottetown" a f t e r 1905, but apparently no s t o r e -7 6 f r o n t s were b u i l t . By 1910, however, few Canadians i n any region doubted that movies were here to stay. A j o u r n a l i s t w i t h the Calgary D a i l y Herald summed up the mood of the times: Everyone knows the moving p i c t u r e theatre i s usurping i n the popular t a s t e the vogue of the melodrama, the dime novel and the cheap music h a l l . The " h o i p o l o i " , the upper middle c l a s s e s , and even some of "our very best people" are being a t t r a c t e d more and more to the p i c t u r e h a l l . ? ? The p o p u l a r i t y of motion p i c t u r e s was seen i n the conversion of v a u d e v i l l e theatres to movie houses. "The c o n s t a n t l y i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n -dance at the L y r i c , " wrote a Vancouver reviewer, "gives ample proof of the growing p o p u l a r i t y of the venture made by manager Smith i n p u t t i n g moving p i c t u r e s i n t o a house which has so long been the home of spoken 78 drama." O v e r a l l , however, the growth of movie houses i n Canada was much slower and l e s s dynamic than i n the United States where there were 10,000 nickelodeons by 1910 w i t h an estimated audience of four m i l l i o n 79 people d a i l y . Even when the d i f f e r e n c e i n s i z e of the populations i n 15 each country i s accounted f o r , i t appears that every motion p i c t u r e t h e a t r e i n Canada i n 1910 served at l e a s t twice the number of patrons as d i d those 80 i n the United States. The b a t t l e f o r acceptance of motion p i c t u r e s by a l l c l a s s e s of people was fought and won i n the United States and Europe, not i n Canada. Outbursts against the "penny c l a p t r a p " common i n the United States i n the f i r s t decade of t h i s century, were seldom heard north of the border where P r o v i n c i a l Censorship L e g i s l a t i o n enacted between 1909 and 1913 q u i c k l y 81 stemmed any a g i t a t i o n that might have developed against motion p i c t u r e s . S t o r e - f r o n t theatres developed so suddenly and i n such p r o f u s i o n i n the United States and B r i t a i n that they were s u s p i c i o u s l y regarded as a thre a t to the s o c i a l order by the establishment who feared the p o s s i b l e outcome of the new media on the working c l a s s w i t h whom f i l m was so popu-l a r . In Canada, by c o n t r a s t , the few s t o r e - f r o n t s which e x i s t e d were q u i c k l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the Canadian landscape. Here, s t o r e - f r o n t s were l e s s o b t r u s i v e and th e r e f o r e l e s s o f f e n s i v e . The slower and more gradual process of developing motion p i c t u r e s theatres i n Canada allowed f o r a greater c l i m a t e of acceptance of f i l m by the Canadian p u b l i c — u l t i m a t e l y a l l o w i n g f o r d i r e c t government involvement i n the f i l m i n d u s t r y where t h i s was not p o s s i b l e i n e i t h e r the United States or Great B r i t a i n . Despite the r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s which have been noted, other uniquely Canadian f a c t o r s tended to le s s e n c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s among movie patrons i n the n a t i o n as a whole. Canadians d i s t i n g u i s h e d between d i f -f e r e n t types of movies. Because the overwhelming m a j o r i t y of movies shown i n Canada were f o r e i g n made and had no Canadian content, Canadian-made movies and movies about Canada received s p e c i a l promotion and were always accepted by the nation's middle and upper c l a s s e s . Movies which featured the Royal Family, events of i n t e r n a t i o n a l importance or s c i e n -16 t i f i c advancement a l s o c u t c l a s s b a r r i e r s i n t h e v i e w i n g a u d i e n c e s . From 1898 onward, Massey H a l l i n T o r o n t o promoted t h e s e t y p e s o f movies and 82 found an au d i e n c e among u p s t a n d i n g T o r o n t o n i a n s . S i m i l a r l y , when the C.P.R. !s L i v i n g Canada s e r i e s p l a y e d a c r o s s the Dominion i t was shown i n opera houses and o t h e r e s t a b l i s h m e n t s of the e l i t e and b i l l e d as a s p e c i a l 83 'Canadian Event' i n t h e p l a c e s i t t o u r e d . P r i c e s t o o , c o n s p i r e d t o keep t h e p o o r e s t o f the i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s 84 away from the movie t h e a t r e s . U n l i k e the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h e r e were few n i c k e l o d e o n s i n Canada, most s t o r e - f r o n t s and v a u d e v i l l e t h e a t r e s which 85 showed movies charged a dime o r f i f t e e n c e n t s . T i c k e t s f o r the C.P.R.'s L i v i n g Canada were 35£ and a 1902 e x h i b i t i o n o f ' c o l o u r e d ' f i l m s a t Massey 86 H a l l c o s t 50c f o r r e s e r v e s e a t s . T h e a t r e owners attempted t o a t t r a c t as wide an au d i e n c e as p o s s i b l e w i t h a d v e r t i s e m e n t s such as " f e a t u r e f i l m s f o r t h e " c u l t u r e d c l a s s " and t h e a t r e names l i k e 'The E l i t e ' and 'The Maple L e a f d e s i g n e d t o a p p e a l t o the growing m i d d l e c l a s s i n Canada w i t h i t s 87 i n c r e a s i n g amount of l e i s u r e time and to i t s n a t i o n a l i s t i c s e n t i m e n t s . I n d i v i d u a l e f f o r t s a l s o h e l p e d b r i n g r e s p e c t a b i l i t y t o t h e movies. The most o u t s t a n d i n g p e r s o n a l i t y i n t h e Canadian motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y of t h i s e r a was E r n e s t Ouimet who a c h i e v e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a c c l a i m when he d e p a r t e d from t h e ' s t o r e - f r o n t ' t h e a t r e concept and b u i l t the f i r s t p i c -88 t u r e p a l a c e i n N o r t h America. I t i s not known whether the i d e a of a movie house b u i l t l i k e a t h e a t r e w i t h u p h o l s t e r e d s e a t s and a b i l l of two shows a day o r i g i n a t e d w i t h Ouimet. He may have met C h a r l e s Urban when he was f i l m i n g f o r t h e C.P.R. i n Canada i n 1903 and c o p i e d Urban's London movie t h e a t r e format. "Urban s e t out t o prove t h a t t h e movies were f i t t i n g e n t e r t a i n m e n t f o r the more r e f i n e d and g e n t e e l p u b l i c as they 89 were f o r the l e s s p a r t i c u l a r 'masses'." I n 1902, he b u i l t one of the 17 f i r s t movie houses i n London, fashioned a f t e r a comfortable t h e a t r e and o f f e r e d h i s patrons a b i l l of s c i e n t i f i c , geographical and e d u c a t i o n a l f i l m s complete w i t h what would become an E n g l i s h t r a d i t i o n — t e a and b i s -. . 90 c u i t s at i n t e r m i s s i o n . In 1906, Ouimet converted the La S a l l e P o r i e r Music H a l l on Ste. Catherine S t r e e t i n Montreal where he had been showing f i l m s between 91 boxing matches and cock f i g h t s i n t o an e x c l u s i v e movie house. The 1Ouimetoscope' as i t was c a l l e d , o f f e r e d s p e c i a l r a t e s f o r students and f r e e entry to teachers and s i n c e the l a t t e r came almost e x c l u s i v e l y from 92 v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s orders an a i r of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y was added. The success of the Ouimetoscope, provided the i n c e n t i v e f o r Ouimet to design a motion p i c t u r e palace, a t h e a t r e e s p e c i a l l y constructed f o r movies and one on a l a r g e r and more elaborate s c a l e than any i n England 93 or i n North America. The new Ouimetoscope which opened i n August 1907, had an unprecedented s e a t i n g c a p a c i t y of over 1,200 and cost over 94 $100,000.00 when completed. There were no columns to obscure the view, the b u i l d i n g was f i r e p r o o f , the screen permitted an e s p e c i a l l y sharp image and the house l i g h t s could be slowly dimmed.. When the r e e l s were being changed a singe r and a seven piece o r c h e s t r a provided musical s e l e c -95 t i o n s . An added a t t r a c t i o n i n Ouimet's theatre which appealed to h i s Mon-t r e a l audiences was the i n c l u s i o n of Canadian news and s h o r t s . In a d d i t i o n to being a f i l m e x h i b i t o r and d i s t r i b u t o r , Ouimet was a l s o a f i l m maker who attempted through h i s own and others' e f f o r t s to put Canadian news such as the L a u r i e r e l e c t i o n campaign of 1911 on the 96 screen. Candies and chocolates, a l a d i e s ' powder room and a foyer e l a b o r a t e l y decorated w i t h " t i f f a n y - e s q u e murals r e p r e s e n t i n g the performing a r t s " a t t r a c t e d a new c l a s s of patrons to the movies 18 97 Ouimet's Ouimetoscope became the prototype f o r motion p i c t u r e t heatres 98 i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . By 1916, books l i k e Arthur Meloy's Theatres and P i c t u r e Houses were i n s t r u c t i n g a r c h i t e c t s i n important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n b u i l d i n g p i c t u r e palaces and the new home of motion p i c t u r e s were i n e v i -99 dence i n every major c i t y i n Canada. Improved cameras, p r o j e c t o r s , and new c r e a t i v e f i l m i n g techniques which moved the f i l m c l o s e r to a u n i v e r s a l l y accepted a r t form f u r t h e r aided the process of b r i n g i n g r e s p e c t a b i l i t y to the movies. Yet only a few v i s i o n a r i e s outside the borders of Canada saw that f i l m was destined to become the predominant a r t form of the 20th century. For most Canadians the advent of f i l m was perceived as a new form of popular entertainment, an extension of magic l a n t e r n s l i d e s — a means of r e g i s t e r -i n g the appearance and movement of the r e a l and imaginary world. To the nation's p o l i t i c i a n s , the idea that f i l m might have more than entertainment value appeared e a r l y . During the infancy of cinema, Canada was a g g r e s s i v e l y t r y i n g to l u r e business and immigrants to the Dominion. Canadian p o l i t i c i a n s i n t u i t i v e l y recognized that f i l m could be used i n the same way as other p i c t o r i a l m a t e r i a l s f o r propagandizing the advan-tages of the n a t i o n . Here was another way of communicating, i n s t r u c t i n g , i n d o c t r i n a t i n g , and p r o j e c t i n g an image of Canada to the world. The suc-cess of the C.P.R.'s promotional movies which were followed by s i m i l a r adventures i n f i l m by the C.N.R. and Grand Trunk r a i l w a y s i n 1909, showed the p o t e n t i a l of the new media i n such endeavors."*"^ U n l i k e the United States and B r i t a i n where the independent produc-t i o n of motion p i c t u r e s was f l o u r i s h i n g and where the c i t i z e n r y were embroiled i n heated debate over the value of the new media, the e a r l y 19 acceptance of movies and the l a c k of a cohesive motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y i n Canada which might have opposed government i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e i r t r a d e , made i t easy f o r the governments to become d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n 102 movie making. Where the United States and B r i t a i n pursued a hands-o f f p o l i c y i n what they regarded as e s s e n t i a l l y ' f r e e e n t e r p r i s e , ' the Canadian government b o l d l y forged ahead i n cinematic p u r s u i t s and d i d not question the l e g i t i m a c y of such a c t i v i t i e s . As e a r l y as 1906 the c i t y c o u n c i l of Winnipeg was using f i l m to 103 d i s p e l the no t i o n that the c i t y had an a r c t i c c l i m a t e . By 1907, the p r o v i n c i a l government of B r i t i s h Columbia had f l i r t e d w i t h the new media 104 by having i t s s c e n i c charms recorded on f i l m . The f e d e r a l government, which began e x p l o r i n g cinematic p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n 1915, could boast by 1916 the f i r s t n a t i o n a l f i l m bureau i n the world."*"^ S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , the v a r i o u s government bureaucracies of the n a t i o n engaged i n f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s began to overshadow the small p r i v a t e f i l m making s e c t o r and ev e n t u a l l y came to dominate the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y i n Canada. I n d i v i d u a l f i l m makers, and p o t e n t i a l Canadian f i l m moguls, were absorbed or destroyed i n t h i s process and what i s now regarded as a t r a d i t i o n a l l i a i s o n between government and f i l m makers was established."*"^ I t i s the government's involvement w i t h cinema that makes the h i s t o r y of f i l m i n Canada unique among a l l the western powers. Footnotes "''Richard R a n d a l l , Censorship of the Movies, Milwaukee, U n i v e r s i t y of Milwaukee Press, 1968, p. 8. 2 J . R u s s e l l Harper, P a i n t i n g i n Canada: A H i s t o r y , Toronto, U n i -v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1966, p. 7. The a r t and c r a f t school was l o c a t e d at Saint-Joachim as a country branch of the Quebec seminary. The youths were taught cabinet making, s c u l p t u r e , p a i n t i n g , g i l d i n g f o r church d e c o r a t i o n , masonry and carpentry. 3 I b i d . 4 5 Harper, P a i n t i n g i n Canada, p. 7. I b i d . G. P. V. Akrigg and Helen B. A k r i g g , B r i t i s h Columbia C h r o n i c l e  1778-1846, Vancouver, Discovery Press, 1975, pp. 307-318. There i s a l s o evidence of p i c t u r e s being used i n a p o l i t i c a l way to communicate w i t h n a t i v e peoples. In t r y i n g to communicate w i t h the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland, Governor Holloway had p i c t u r e s painted showing Indians and Europeans p e a c e f u l l y t r a d i n g f u r s f o r blankets and hatchets. The p a i n t i n g s and a supply of goods and t r i n k e t s were l e f t where the Indians would f i n d them i n the hope that t r u s t would conquer years of m i s t r e a t -ment. Charles A. White, "The only good Indian . . .", Canada and the  World, September, 1975, pp. 14-15. 7 8 A r i g g , B r i t i s h Columbia C h r o n i c l e , p. 318. I b i d . 9 Bishop George H i l l s , J o u r n a l 1862, Vancouver, Anglican Church A r c h i v e s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Nov. 24, 1862, n.p. " ^ D e t a i l e d explanations of the s c i e n t i f i c i n v e n t i o n s which l e d to motion p i c t u r e s are contained i n : Gerald Mast, " B i r t h , " A Short H i s t o r y  of the Movies, New York, Bobbs M e r r i l l Co., Inc., 1971, pp. 18-38; and Kenneth MacGowan, Behind the Screen, New York, D e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1965, pp. 25-53. " ^ J . R u s s e l l Harper, "Daguerrotypists and P o r t r a i t Takers i n Saint John," Dalhousie Review, V o l . 35, 1955-1956, p. 258. See a l s o : J . R u s s e l l Harper, " P o r t r a i t s f o r the Masses," P a i n t i n g i n Canada, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1966, pp. 117-119. 12 Manitoba, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of A g r i c u l -ture and Immigration," Winnipeg, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1892, p. 55. 13 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1896, No. 13, p. 9. 14 "Moving P i c t u r e s of B r i t i s h Columbia," The Province, Vancouver, March 12, 1908. 15 B r i t i s h Columbia, S e s s i o n a l Papers, " F i r s t Annual Report: Bureau of P r o v i n c i a l Information and Immigration," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1902, p. 519. R. E. G o s n e l l , author of the report wrote: "For 21 some time . . . the Department was engaged i n preparing m a t e r i a l and s u p p l i e s f o r the o f f i c e of the Agent-General . . . among other t h i n g s , a very l a r g e and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c o l l e c t i o n of photographs, numbering 800, besides s e v e r a l hundred l a n t e r n s l i d e s f o r l e c t u r e s were forwarded." Lantern s l i d e s were a l s o used e x t e n s i v e l y i n B.C. by the Farmers' I n s t i t u t e . See B r i t i s h Columbia, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Farmers' I n s t i t u t e Report," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1908, p. N5. " S l i d e s are being c o n s t a n t l y added to the magic l a n t e r n . . . s l i d e s i l l u s t r a t i n g bee-keeping and p o u l t r y are amongst the l a t e s t . " Ontario, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , " Toronto, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1894, No. 15, p. 19. • •^Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1909, p. 73. " ^ B r i t i s h Columbia, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Bureau of P r o v i n c i a l Information," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1911, p. M34. 18 Manitoba, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of A g r i -c u l t u r e and Immigration," Winnipeg, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1894, p. 285. See a l s o : Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1896, p. 60., and Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1909, p. 76. 19 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1896, pp. 31-32. 20 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1901, p. 8. 21 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1909, pp. 84-85. In 1905, twenty-two B e l g i a n schools were g i v i n g lessons on Canada. By 1908, the number of schools i n Belgium teaching Canadian geography was 2380. 22 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1896, p. 32. 23 Peter M o r r i s , "The F i r s t Films i n Canada: The True Story," Cinema Canada, #29, June-July 1976, p. 11. 24 I b i d . At f i r s t , Edison seems to have regarded the Kinetoscope as a toy, but a f t e r i t s i n i t i a l success he viewed i t as a source of revenue and became r e l u c t a n t to b u i l d a machine which would p r o j e c t on a screen des p i t e the demands f o r such a machine by s e v e r a l of h i s cohorts. "No," r e p l i e d the Wizard, " i f we make t h i s screen machine . . . i t w i l l s p o i l everything. We are making these peep show machines and s e l l i n g them at a good p r o f i t . I f we put out a screen machine, there w i l l be use for. maybe about ten of them i n the whole United Sta t e s . . . . Let's not k i l l the goose that l a y s the golden egg." Terry Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One N i g h t s , New York, Simon and Schuster, 1964 (copyright 1926), p. 119. See a l s o : Ronald W. C l a r k , Edison: The Man Who Made  the Future, New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1977, pp. 176-177. 22 25 A dispute has a r i s e n over the f i r s t showing of the Kinetoscope. In l a t e r years and w h i l e i n the midst of a patent war, Edison wrote that the K i n e t oscope which he had patented i n the United States i n 1891, " a t t r a c t e d q u i t e a l o t of a t t e n t i o n at the World's F a i r i n Chicago i n 1893." Dagobert D. Runes, ed. The Diary and Sundry Observations of  Thomas A l v a Edison, New York, P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y , 1948, p. 77. Since no record of a Kinetoscope showing at the World F a i r had been found, others .credit the Holland Brothers of Canada w i t h the f i r s t showing i n New York. Among these are: Dennis Sharp, The P i c t u r e Palace, London, Hugh Evelyn L t d . , 1969, p. 23; Joseph North, The E a r l y Development of  the Motion P i c t u r e (1887-1909), New York, Arnos Press, 1973, p. 17; M o r r i s , "The F i r s t F i l m i n Canada," p. 11. 2 6 M • 11 M o r r i s , p. 11. 27 I b i d . See a l s o : Charles F. Backhouse, Canadian Government  Motion P i c t u r e Bureau 1917-1941, Ottawa, Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , 1974, p. 3. 28 M o r r i s , "The F i r s t F i l m i n Canada," p. 10; Peter M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows: A H i s t o r y of Canadian Cinema 1895-1939, Montreal, McGill-Queen's U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1978, pp. 1-3. The s t o r y of the f i r s t f i l m i n Canada i s a l s o recounted i n Dreamland, NFB Production, 1974. For a d i s c u s s i o n on The K i s s see: Arthur Knight, The L i v e l i e s t A r t , New York, New American L i b r a r y , p. 22. May I r w i n , the female s t a r of t h i s movie was a Canadian by b i r t h and was much heralded f o r her stage performances i n the United States by the Canadian press. See: "May I r w i n — P e e r e s s of Stage Widows," MacLean's Magazine, J u l y 1914, pp. 30, 97. 29 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 7-9. 30 C. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada: I t s Task of Com-munication," Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , unpublished Ph.D. T h e s i s , 1968, p. 8; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 9-11. 31 L e t t e r from B. C. Cuthbertson, P u b l i c Records A r c h i v i s t , P u b l i c Archives of Nova S c o t i a , H a l i f a x , November 23, 1978. 32 "Loca l Music H a l l s Showed F i r s t Movies," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Tuesday, March 25, 1930, p. 10. See a l s o : " F i r s t Movie Shown 1897," V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, V i c t o r i a , Monday, March 24, 1930, p. 15. 33 " F i r s t Movies Shown," p. 15. 34 The l i s t of e a r l y movies made i n Canada was compiled from the f o l l o w i n g sources: James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 9; K e i t h Buttrum, Carry on Canadian F i l m , Montreal, M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , (copyright pending), p. 16; James Lysyshyn, A B r i e f H i s t o r y : The  N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada, NFB Pamphlet, 1967, p. 1., Dreamland, NFB, 1974. James, p. 9. 23 36 E a r l y American movies w i t h p o l i t i c a l themes are discussed i n D. J . Wenden, The B i r t h of the Movies, London, MacDonald and Co., 1974, p. 126. Boer War Films were a d v e r t i s e d i n The Globe, Toronto, Saturday, May 19, 1900, p. 7. 37 The Masseys: Chronicles of a Canadian Family, CBC T e l e v i s i o n , Oct. 22 and 23, 1978. 38 James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 10; Backhouse, Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, p. 3; M o r r i s , Embattled  Shadows, p. 32. 39 Backhouse, p. 3. 40 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers,"Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1899, No. 13, p. 114. Lord Strathcona, formerly Donald Smith, Pre s i d e n t of the C.P.R., took a keen i n t e r e s t i n the company's promotional schemes to encourage immigration to Canada. In h i s c a p a c i t y as High Commissioner i n London he was c o n t i n u -a l l y f u r t h e r i n g t h i s cause. See: "Immigration to Canada," The Times, London, Jan. 28, 1898. 41 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 31-32. 42 Rachael Low, and Roger Manvell, The H i s t o r y of the B r i t i s h F i l m  1896-1906, London, George A l l e n & Unwin L t d . , 1973 (copyright 1948), pp. 16-17. In 1903, Urban formed the Urban Trading Company. Joe Rosenthal, the outstanding cameraman of the p e r i o d , worked f o r Urban. Denham and Bradford appear to have worked f o r B r i t i s h Bioscope Company and teamed up w i t h Urban f o r the C.P.R. p r o j e c t . See a l s o : James, p. 10; Backhouse, pp. 3-4. 43 44 James, p. 10. I b i d . , p. 11. 45 I b i d . , M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 35. 46 While S i f t o n was M i n i s t e r of the I n t e r i o r , American immigration to Canada exceeded B r i t i s h immigration. Although i t was g e n e r a l l y recognized that B r i t a i n could not supply the r e q u i r e d number of farmers needed to f i l l the west, the f l o o d of (Americans e n t e r i n g Canada was viewed w i t h alarm by many who sought to p r o t e c t the B r i t i s h connection. See: John Dafoe, C l i f f o r d S i f t o n i n R e l a t i o n to h i s Times, Toronto, MacMillan Company, 1931, pp. 317, 322. "Immigration of Americans," The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, May 23, 1902; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 33. 4 7James, p. 11. 48 Most t e x t s on e a r l y f i l m h i s t o r y make some reference to the unpop-u l a r i t y of f i l m w i t h the middle c l a s s and e l i t e . See: Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, New York, B a l l a n t i n e Books, 1969, pp. 2-3; and Robert S k l a r , Movie-Made America: A S o c i a l H i s t o r y of American Movies, New York, Random House, 1975, pp. 3-48. 24 49 D i s c u s s i o n on how the f i r s t f i l m s were recei v e d are contained i n : Liam O'Leary, The S i l e n t Cinema, London, Studio V i s t a L t d . , 1965, p. 15; Low and M anvell, The H i s t o r y of the B r i t i s h F i l m , p. 36; D. John Turner, "Ernest Ouimet, E x h i b i t o r , " Cinema Canada, #22, Oct. 1975, p. 15. 5°Sharp, The P i c t u r e Palace', p. 28. ~* ^"MacGowan, Behind the Screen, p. 123. 52 The movies as 'chasers' i s discussed i n MacGowan, p. 123; Low and Manvell, p. 36. An advertisement f o r movies at Hanlan's Po i n t i s found i n The Globe, Toronto, J u l y 7, 1901. 53 For a d i s c u s s i o n on 'store f r o n t ' theatres see: MacGowan, pp. 124-218. Dreamland was the name of a s t o r e - f r o n t i n Winnipeg b u i l t by John Schuberg i n 1903. See: Manitoba Free P r e s s , Winnipeg, Oct. 28, 1910; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 19; S t a r l a n d was the name of a s t o r e - f r o n t i n Calgary. The Calgary D a i l y Herald, Calgary, Sept. 14, 1910, p. 5. The People's Theatre i n Vancouver which opened i n 1904 was both a v a u d e v i l l e and movie house. The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, Feb. 4, 1905, p. 2. 54 MacGowan, pp. 124-218. Dreamland, NFB, 1974. "^Most h i s t o r i e s of the movies have m a t e r i a l on the i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a r i t y of motion p i c t u r e s between 1905 and 1915 w i t h a l l c l a s s e s of people. The most d e f i n i t i v e work on the subject i s Robert S k l a r , Movie- Made America: A S o c i a l H i s t o r y of American Movies, New York, Random House, 1975. 56 " L o c a l Music H a l l s Showed F i r s t Movies," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Tuesday, March 25, 1930, p. 10. 57 J . S. Woodsworth, My Neighbor, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1972, p. 92. 58 I b i d . , p. 81. 59 The term ' n i c k e l madness' f i r s t appeared i n Barton W. C u r r i e , "The N i c k e l Madness," Harper's Weekly, V o l . 51, 1907, p. 1246. The term i s a l s o used as a chapter heading i n S k l a r ' s Movie-Made America, pp. 18-33. 60 M o r r i s documents the l i v e s of some of the more prominent t r a v e l -l i n g p r o j e c t i o n i s t s i n Canada. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 11-18. A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the r o v i n g p r o j e c t i o n i s t s i s given i n a l e t t e r from B. C. Cuthbertson, P u b l i c Records A r c h i v i s t , P u b l i c Archives of Nova S c o t i a , H a l i f a x , November 23, 1978. Cuthbertson w r i t e s : "The Academy was o f t e n used f o r the showing of moving p i c t u r e s by t r a v e l l i n g shows a f t e r 1896." See a l s o : " F i r s t Movie Shown 1897," V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, V i c t o r i a , Monday, March 24, 1930, p. 15; " L o c a l Music H a l l Shows F i r s t Movie," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Tuesday, March 25, 1930, p. 10; " A u t h o r i t i e s Barred Moving P i c t u r e s , " The  Province, Vancouver, Feb. 1, 1908, p. 1. 25 Theatre advertisements over a p e r i o d of weeks i n d i c a t e that movies were part of the v a u d e v i l l e c i r c u i t . For example, see: The Edmonton  J o u r n a l , Edmonton, Jan. 4, 1910, p. 5. Two advertisements f o r the Empire Theatre i l l u s t r a t e the booking of motion p i c t u r e s i n t o that v a u d e v i l l e t h e a t r e . From Jan. 3-6, a v a u d e v i l l e show which i n c l u d e d "Empirescope— l a t e s t and best i n animated photography" was booked, w h i l e from Jan. 6-9, the San F r a n c i s c o Opera Company was scheduled to perform. See a l s o : " L o c a l Music H a l l Showed F i r s t Movies," p. 10. 62 The f i r s t p r o j e c t i o n i s t s were c o n s t a n t l y on the move because they u s u a l l y only had one set of f i l m s and audiences i n any one l o c a t i o n soon t i r e d of them. Movies had to be bought o u t r i g h t and t h i s was an expensive p r o p o s i t i o n . The idea of r e n t i n g f i l m s (the f i l m exchange) developed around 1902 and was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the c r e a t i o n of movie houses. The showmen could now change f i l m s i n s t e a d of l o c a t i o n . M o r r i s , Embattled  Shadows, pp. 15, 18-19. 6 3 John Schuberg began h i s career as a magician. In 1898 he switched to movies and began t o u r i n g the four western provinces. In Winnipeg he fashioned a b l a c k topped tent which was dubbed 'Edison's E l e c t r i c Theatre.' With t h i s tent theatre he continued h i s t o u r i n g shows u n t i l 1902 when he b u i l t the E l e c t r i c Theatre i n Vancouver. M o r r i s , Embattled  Shadows, pp. 14-17. 64 Although Schuberg b u i l t the f i r s t t h e a t r e i n Vancouver, he q u i c k l y s o l d i t and began b u i l d i n g theatres i n Manitoba and c e n t r a l United Sta t e s . These theatres were known as the Nash chain. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 19-20. ^ " L o c a l Music H a l l Showed F i r s t Movies," p. 10. ^Newspapers which c a r r i e d advertisements f o r movies as chasers on v a u d e v i l l e programs between 1904 and 1906 were: The Pr o v i n c e , Vancouver, Feb. 4-Mar. 27, 1905; The Columbian, New Westminster, Dec. 17, 1904-Jan. 6, 1905; The D a i l y Herald, C a l g a r y , Jan. 1906; The Manitoba Free  Press, Winnipeg, A p r i l 1905; The Globe and M a i l , T o r o n t o , J u l y 1-Sept. 30, 1905. Information on theatres i n Quebec showing motion p i c t u r e s was g a i n e d i n James, p. 13. A l l other major Canadian c i t i e s had no adver-tisements f o r motion p i c t u r e s i n the time p e r i o d surveyed. 67 The po p u l a t i o n of Montreal i n 1911 was 490,504. Cook and Brown, Canada 1896-1921, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1973, p. 167. The number of movie theatres i n Montreal i s given i n James, p. 13. The population of P i t t s b u r g h i n 1910 was 533,905. The Encyclopedia Ameri- cana, V o l . XXII, 1958, p. 132. The number of theatres i n P i t t s b u r g h i n 1907 i s given i n T. W. Bohn, R. L. Stromgren, L i g h t s and Shadows: A  H i s t o r y of Motion P i c t u r e s , New York, A l f r e d P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975, p. 24. 68„T 1945. ' E a r l y Movies Not So S i l e n t , " The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, Aug. 11, 69 T, ., I b i d . 26 Mention of movies p l a y i n g i n Winnipeg occurred i n the press as e a r l y as 1905. See: Manitoba Free Press, Winnipeg, Sat. A p r i l 29, 1905, p. 8. No movie reviews could be found i n eastern papers before 1912. By c o n t r a s t , the f o l l o w i n g western papers c a r r i e d movie reviews as a con-sta n t f e a t u r e : "At the Theatre," The Province, Vancouver, June 4, 1910, p. 10; The Edmonton J o u r n a l , Edmonton, A p r i l 7, 1910, p. 7; The Calgary  D a i l y Herald, Calgary, Wed. Sept. 14, 1910, p. 5. ^ A survey of The Toronto D a i l y Star f o r the year 1911, f o r example, f a i l e d to f i n d any mention of motion p i c t u r e s i n the c i t y other than i n the advertisements f o r them. Reviews of theatres d e a l t only w i t h l i v e performances. See a l s o : M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 9. 72 Figures f o r the number of movie theatres i n England' are given i n the Kine Year Book,. 1913, r e p r i n t e d i n Sharp, The P i c t u r e Palace, p. 52. The number of nickelodeons i n New York i s discussed i n S k l a r , Movie-Made  America, p. 16. 73 One of the f i r s t theatres devoted e n t i r e l y to p i c t u r e s was John G r i f f i n ' s Theatorium i n Toronto which opened i n 1906. I t was the f i r s t of 11 theatres G r i f f i n was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n Ontario. Andre Paquet, How to Make or not to make a Canadian F i l m , Montreal, La Cinematheque Canadienne, 1967, p. 4; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 11, 21. Much more common, however, were v a u d e v i l l e theatres which a l s o showed motion p i c t u r e s . The Shea's Theatre, a v a u d e v i l l e house i n Toronto, showed motion p i c t u r e s r e g u l a r l y from 1900 to 1911. See: The Globe, Toronto, A p r i l 16-19, 1900; The Globe and M a i l , Toronto, Aug. 17, 1905, p. 3, and Jan. 3, Feb. 12, 1910; Toronto D a i l y S t a r , Toronto, June 1, 1911, p. 17. Advertisements f o r the Shea's Theatre w i t h v a u d e v i l l e and motion p i c t u r e s are s i m i l a r to those found elsewhere i n Ontario. For example, see: C o l b a l t D a i l y Nugget, C o l b a l t , Jan. 25, 1909, p. 2. 74 The f i r s t known s t o r e - f r o n t theatres i n B.C. were opened i n 1897. See: " L o c a l Music H a l l s Showed F i r s t Movies," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c -t o r i a , Tuesday, March 25, 1930, p. 10. The York and the Unique began operating i n 1906. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 21, 23. 7~*Letter from B. C. Cuthbertson, P u b l i c Records A r c h i v i s t , P u b l i c Archives of Nova S c o t i a , November 23, 1978. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 36. The N i c k e l was owned and operated by Guy Bradford, an E n g l i s h f i l m maker in s t r u m e n t a l i n producing the C.P.R.'s " L i v i n g Canada" s e r i e s i n 1903. L a t e r , he owned s e v e r a l other theatres i n the Maritimes r e g i o n . 76 L e t t e r from H . T. Holman, P u b l i c A r c h i v e s , Charlottetown, P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , November 24, 1978; l e t t e r from Dale R. Cogswell, A r c h i v -i s t , P r o v i n c i a l , A r c h i v e s , F r e d e r i c t o n , New Brunswick, December 21, 1978. Advertisements f o r movie theatres i n Newfoundland appear around 1915. See: The Evening Telegram, St. John's, May 3, 1915, p. 6. ^"Moving P i c t u r e s and the Northwest Mounted P o l i c e , " Calgary D a i l y  Herald, Tues. Aug. 30, 1910, p. 9. 78 "The Stage," Vancouver P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, June 21, 1910, p. 12. 79 Bohn, Stromgren, L i g h t s and Shadows, p. 24. 27 80 Using the a v a i l a b l e data on motion p i c t u r e theatres i n Canada i t appears that there were probably not more than 300 theatres devoted to movies i n 1910. Canada's p o p u l a t i o n i n 1910 was 6,988,000 or 23,333 people per t h e a t r e . The United S t a t e s , by c o n t r a s t , had a p o p u l a t i o n of 92,000,000 i n 1910 and there were 10,000 nickelodeons showing p i c t u r e s as w e l l as other theatres which showed movies on a v a u d e v i l l e b i l l . Roughly estimated, there were 9,200 people per theatre i n the United States or 2.5 more motion p i c -t u r e theatres per p o p u l a t i o n than i n Canada. P o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s are taken from: M. C. Urquhart, ed., H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of Canada, Toronto, MacMillan Co., 1965, p. 14, and H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of United S t a t e s : C o l o n i a l Times to 1957, Washington, Bureau of the Census, 1961, p. 7. The number of theatres i n the United States i n 1910 i s given i n L i g h t s and  Shadows, p. 24. Further evidence that there were few theatres i n Canada i s given i n a 1923 a r t i c l e which s t a t e s there were only 900 motion p i c t u r e theatres i n Canada at that time. See: " F i f t e e n Years of Progress i n Motion P i c t u r e Industry," V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 14, 1921, p. 12. In 1930 there were 5 theatres i n P.E.I., 56 i n N.S., 39 i n N.B., 146 i n P.Q., 323 i n Ont., 73 i n Man., 108 i n Sask., 85 i n A l t a . , and 76 i n B.C., making a t o t a l of only 907 theatres i n a l l of Canada. See: Anthony Dawson, "Motion P i c t u r e Production i n Canada," Hollywood Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 5, 1950-1951, p. 89. The Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the. Motion P i c t u r e Industry i n Canada 1931 reported that there were 1,108 theatres i n Canada. See: Canada, I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o an A l l e g e d Combine i n the Motion P i c t u r e i n Canada, Department of Labour, Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1931, p. 13. 81 "Penny c l a p t r a p " was a term commonly used by the middle c l a s s to show t h e i r d i s d a i n f o r the nickelodeons. Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's  Gone By, p. 9. A concise chapter on the development of f i l m censorship i n Canada i s given i n : N e v i l l March Hummings, F i l m Censors and the Law, London, George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , 1967, pp. 248-281. 82 See advertisements f o r Massey H a l l i n : The Toronto World, Jan. 14, 1902; The Globe, Toronto, May 2, 1900, Dec. 28, 1911. 83 The Columbian, New Westminster, Jan. 6, 1905, p. 5; James, p. 11. 84 Considering that the average member of the working c l a s s i n Montreal i n 1897 "could not support h i s f a m i l y on the b a s i s of h i s own earnings" and that c o n d i t i o n s worsened f o r t h i s group of people u n t i l the 1920's, even the IOC show may have been considered a luxury. J . T. Copp, "The C o n d i t i o n of the Working Class i n Montreal, 1897-1920," Studies i n Canadian S o c i a l  H i s t o r y , e d i t e d by M. Horn and R. Sabourin, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1974, pp. 192-197. 85 The standard p r i c e of admission to movies i n B.C., c e n t r a l Canada and the A t l a n t i c r e gion between 1910 and 1915 was ten cents. Admissions to movie theatres on the P r a i r i e s appears to have been s l i g h t l y h i g h e r — f r o m 15 to 50 cents f o r evening showings. See: The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, June 21, 1910, p. 12; Regina Morning Leader, Regina, Jan. 21, 1910; Calgary  D a i l y Herald, Calgary, Aug. 30, 1910; Manitoba Free P r e s s , Winnipeg, Oct. 3, 1910, p. 9; The Toronto' D a i l y S t a r , Toronto, June 27, 1911, p. 5; C o l b a l t D a i l y Nugget, Jan. 25, 1909, p. 2; The Evening Telegram, St. John's, May 3, 1915, p. 6. The Columbian, New Westminster, Jan. 6, 1905, p. 5; The Toronto  World, Jan. 14, 1902. 28 87 The E l i t e which a d v e r t i s e d "Featured Films . . . " was a motion p i c t u r e house i n Regina. Regina Morning Leader, Regina, F r i d a y , Jan. 21, 1910. The Maple Leaf was the name of a motion p i c t u r e theatre i n Van-couver which s p e c i a l i z e d i n movies w i t h Canadian i n t e r e s t . The Pr o v i n c e , Vancouver, June 21, 1910, p. 12. 88 89 p. 31. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 13. Maurice Speed, Movie Cavalcade, London, Raven Books L t d . , 1944, 90 I b i d . 91 " F i f t e e n years of progress i n Motion P i c t u r e Industry: L. E. Ouimet, owner of the f i r s t movie t h e a t r e , h i s i n t e r e s t i n g career," V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 14, 1921, p. 12; James, p. 13. 92 James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 13. 93 I b i d . . See a l s o : D. John Turner, "Ernest Ouimet: E x h i b i t o r , " Cinema Canada, #22, Oct. 1975, p. 15. 94 James, p. 12; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 24. 95 For a d i s c u s s i o n on the features of the second Ouimetoscope see: James, pp. 13-15; Turner, p. 15; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 24-25. 96 D. John Turner, "Ernest Ouimet: Filmmaker and D i s t r i b u t o r , " Cinema Canada, #24, Dec.-Jan. 1976, p. 20. See a l s o : James, p. 15; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 38. 97 James, p. 13. 98 Mor r i s suggests that the Ouimetoscope was ahead of i t s time i n Canada and subsequently Ouimet was forced to compromise h i s standards i n order to compete w i t h the s t o r e - f r o n t s i n the area. U l t i m a t e l y , Ouimet rented h i s theatre out i n 1915 and i n 1926 i t ceased operations. While the cheaper admission p r i c e s i n the s t o r e - f r o n t s may have i n i t i a l l y drawn away business from the lower c l a s s e s , i t seems u n l i k e l y that t h i s f a c t o r l e d to the r e n t i n g of the theatre i n 1915 s i n c e by that date p i c -ture palaces were becoming common i n North America, a t t r a c t i n g an ever greater number of the middle c l a s s . Quite p o s s i b l y Ouimet's i l l n e s s , which forced him to give up many of h i s f i l m a c t i v i t i e s from 1912 to 1915, was as r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the run-down c o n d i t i o n of the Ouimetoscope by 1915, as was competition from other t h e a t r e s . See: " F i f t e e n Years of Progress i n Motion P i c t u r e Industry: L. E. Ouimet," V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 14, 1921, p. 12; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 25, 38. 99 Arthur S. Meloy, Theatres and P i c t u r e Houses, New York, A r c h i -t e c t ' s Supply and P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1916. 29 For a d i s c u s s i o n on the few v i s i o n a r i e s who recognized f i l m as an a r t form see: Ralph Stephenson, J . R. Debrix, The Cinema as A r t , Middlesex, Penguin Books L t d . , 1971, pp. 30-34. 101 Morris,• Embattled Shadows, pp. 36-37. 102 By 1911, a number of motion p i c t u r e production companies were operating i n Canada. These companies were s m a l l and operated indepen-dently of one another. No Hollywood of the North developed which might have formed a nucleus f o r a strong i n d u s t r y . M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 46, 54. 103 I b i d . , p. 129. "^4"Many C i t i z e n s w i l l f i g u r e on Screen," The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , May 9, 1907, p. 19; "Views of V i c t o r i a i n R e a l i s t i c Form," V i c t o r i a  C o l o n i s t , May 5, 1907, p. 3. "''^Canada, Parliament. S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , V o l . 4, 1917, p. x v i i i . The Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and the Canadian G e o l o g i c a l Survey had both made use of f i l m by 1915. Films were a l s o made f o r the government i n support of the war e f f o r t p r i o r to the formation of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 59, 129. ^^The term ' f i l m mogul' was coined to describe the business tycoons of the American f i l m i n d u s t r y . In the e a r l y phase of f i l m i n Canada the Holland b r o t h e r s , Ouimet, G r i f f i n , Schuberg, and others showed some p o t e n t i a l i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , but i t was never r e a l i z e d . A f t e r 1916, most Canadians w i t h ambitions i n t h i s area went to the United States or B r i t a i n . See: P h i l i p French, The Movie Moguls, Middlesex, Penguin Books L t d . , 1971. CHAPTER I I TWO IMAGES OF CANADA I n h i s a r t i c l e , "The T r u e N o r t h S t r o n g and F r e e , " C a r l B e r g e r o u t -l i n e s one image of C a n a d a — t h e v i s i o n of Canada's unique c h a r a c t e r as d e r i v e d from "her n o r t h e r n l o c a t i o n , her s e v e r e w i n t e r s and h e r h e r i t a g e of n o r t h e r n races.""'' Supported by a bevy of prominent and not so prominent Canadian w r i t e r s , s c i e n t i s t s , h i s t o r i a n s and a r t i s t s , t h e 'myth of the N o r t h , ' as i t has come to be c a l l e d , r e c e i v e d i t s s t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t i n Canada d u r i n g t h e h a l f c e n t u r y a f t e r C o n f e d e r a t i o n i n the p r o m o t i o n o f Canadian n a t i o n a l i s m . B e g i n n i n g w i t h the n o t i o n t h a t t h e Canadian c l i m a t e c r e a t e d h a r d i e r p e o p l e because of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o endure and t h r i v e i n t h e h a r s h Canadian environment, the i d e a soon expanded to the language of p o p u l a r i z e d s o c i a l Darwinism. Darwinism gave s c i e n t i f i c c r e d i b i l i t y t o the r a c i s t p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , C a n a d i a n s a s descendents of n o r t h e r n Europeans, the s t o u t Norman F r e n c h and t h e f e a r -l e s s B r i t a i n s , were s u p e r i o r t o i n h a b i t a n t s from s o u t h e r n n a t i o n s where t h e c l i m a t e , i t was b e l i e v e d , had a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on t h e p e o p l e . "The r e s u l t of l i f e i n n o r t h e r n c l i m a t e l a t i t u d e s was the c r e a t i o n and s u s t e n a n c e of s e l f - r e l i a n c e , s t r e n g t h , h a r d n e s s — i n s h o r t a l l t h e 2 a t t r i b u t e s o f a dominant r a c e . " In t h e Canadian c o n t e x t , Emerson's statement, "Wherever snow f a l l s , t h e r e i s u s u a l l y c i v i l freedom," became not o n l y an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of l i b e r t y w i t h ' n o r t h e r n n e s s , ' . b u t B r i t i s h - C a n a d i a n l i b e r t y as a s u p e r i o r t o t h e ' u p r o a r i o u s ' democracy of 30 31 3 the more so u t h e r l y United States. I t a l s o l e n t credence to i m p e r i a l -i s t dreams that freedom and a su p e r i o r way of l i f e f o l l o wed whenever 4 B r i t a i n u n f u r l e d her f l a g i n the t r o p i c s or southern hemisphere. L e f t w i t h i n the nation's boundaries, the myth of the north might have died q u i e t l y f o r i t was f a r too l i m i t i n g i n scope to accommodate or be accepted by the thousands of immigrants pouring i n t o Canada from eastern and southern Europe at the time. But, the concepts enshrined i n the northern myth were never s o l e l y the property of t h e i r Canadian proponents. Since the days of New France when Louis XIV described h i s colony as "a few thousand hectares of i c e , " Canada has been regarded as a s p a r s e l y populated land of c o l d and snowy weather by the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community.^ Once accepted by the world, the northern view of Canada has been p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s i s t a n t to change. A r t i s t s l i k e the Group of Seven and h i s t o r i a n s l i k e W. L. Morton have continued to keep aspects of the myth a l i v e w i t h i n Canada. While outside the country the Hollywood 'cinemoppets' e x p l o i t e d the northern v i s i o n to world audiences i n 575 motion p i c t u r e s they made about Canada between 1907 and 1960.^ P i e r r e Berton's Hollywood's Canada d e t a i l s the many i n j u s t i c e s done to Canada because of the Hollywood f i l m s . In these movies Canada was portrayed as a northern w i l d e r n e s s , a land covered w i t h i c e , snow and f o r e s t . I t was always the woods and never the p l a i n s that formed the s e t t i n g . . . . The woods were w i l d ; the p l a i n s had been tamed by the plough. The p l a i n s were American; i t was the woods and f o r e s t which r e l a t e d to Canada.8 9 Canada was viewed as a r u r a l country without c i t i e s . The nation's sparse p o p u l a t i o n was emphasized and themes of i s o l a t i o n were common i n these movies."*"^ The people that i n h a b i t e d the 'north' were 32 E n g l i s h , S c o t t i s h , I r i s h , or the more e x o t i c , toque wearing, c l a y - p i p e smoking, "untamed c h i l d r e n of the w i l d e r n e s s " — t h e French Canadians. Hollywood's Canadians shared the same noble t r a i t s given to them decades e a r l i e r by the o r i g i n a t o r s of the northern t h e s i s . They were h a r d i e r and more s e l f - r e l i a n t than t h e i r American counterparts. Canada was a man's country. "There was no room f o r weaklings In the great n o r t h -12 west." The northern cl i m a t e a l s o insured that Canadians were at l e a s t as v i r t u o u s , i f not more so, than t h e i r southern neighbours. A f a v o r i t e theme of the Hollywood producer was the American c r i m i n a l who 13 escapes across the border to experience a moral r e - b i r t h . By the 14 1920's, Hollywood was r e f e r r i n g to Canada as "God's Country." To Canadian proponents of the northern t h e s i s , there was no sug-g e s t i o n that Canadians were l e s s c i v i l i z e d than Americans, i n f a c t , the reverse was i m p l i e d . In the Hollywood formula, however, l i f e i n Canada was more p r i m i t i v e and l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d than i n the United Sta t e s . Canadians were u s u a l l y dressed i n out of date fashions and t h e i r manners and h a b i t s were sombre and quaint."^ This was r e f l e c t e d i n the s t y l e 16 of movie Hollywood made about Canada. They were n e a r l y always dramas. In the 52 years that Hollywood c a p i t a l i z e d on the northern theme, only s i x comedies were made."^ The American f i l m s made l i t t l e d i s t i n c t i o n between the p o l i t i c a l systems i n the two c o u n t r i e s . The assumption was made that both 18 nations shared the b l e s s i n g s of republicanism. I t was als o assumed that both c o u n t r i e s shared a common h i s t o r y . Films w i t h Canadian h i s t o r i c a l themes were re-enactments of the American h i s t o r i c a l e x p e r i -ence shot i n a northern l o c a t i o n . Charles J e f f r e y ' s comments i n reviewing Northwest R e b e l l i o n , a movie about the R i e l u p r i s i n g s , could 33 a p t l y apply to many of the movies Hollywood made about Canada. "Only a genius could have evolved from h i s t o r i c a l f a c t such a masterpiece of • • c • ..19 misinformation. C r e a t i v e l i c e n c e , showmanship and keen e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l i n s t i n c t s were the trademark of the movie moguls who c o n t r o l l e d Hollywood i n i t s 20 formative years. While the image of Canada f o s t e r e d by these tycoons was a t e r r i b l e d i s t o r t i o n of r e a l i t y , so too was t h e i r adoption of the 'Garden of Eden' p o r t r a y a l of t h e i r own country and a l l the other s t e r e o -typed n a t i o n a l i s t i c myths they made use of on the screen. The 'happy go lucky' French Canadian f u r t r a d e r might be compared to the American Black's depiction:, as a simple, subservient and s m i l i n g 'step 'n f e t c h i t ' . The Metis were type cast, i n much the same r o l e as Mexican Americans i n 21 these movies. Both were seen as ha l f - b r e e d savages. Contemporary f i l m h i s t o r i a n s l i k e P h i l i p French have pointed out that such images were o f t e n the c r e a t i o n of "immigrants or the sons of immigrants who a r r i v e d i n America from c e n t r a l and eastern Europe during the mass immigration of the l a t e nineteenth century," d e p i c t i n g what they thought America was 22 l i k e and what they f e l t the viewing audiences wanted to see. As the cinematic mecca of the world, Hollywood had the money to a t t r a c t the best names i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l f i l m i n d u s t r y . Thousands of other people, f u l l of hopes of stardom, made t h e i r way to the glamour and e x o t i c i s m they b e l i e v e d e x i s t e d i n Hollywood. A s i z a b l e number of 23 E n g l i s h , A u s t r a l i a n s and Canadians were drawn to t h i s f i l m o a s i s . Some of them made Hollywood movies about Canada. In a very r e a l sense, Hollywood's image of Canada was not j u s t an American v i s i o n , i t was a p r o j e c t i o n of how the world saw America's northern neighbour. 34 P i e r r e Berton suggests that Hollywood's v i s i o n of Canada was accepted because Canadians had a l i m i t e d knowledge of t h e i r country's 24 h i s t o r y and no c l e a r concept of a Canadian i d e n t i t y . I t might f u r t h e r be suggested that to many E n g l i s h speaking Canadians, the image of French Canadians and Metis seen i n t h e i r l o c a l movie theatres was b e l i e v a b l e because i t was simply a more b l a t a n t v e r s i o n of the s t e r e o t y p i n g created by the academic community and served up to generations of young 25 Canadians i n h i s t o r y t e x t s across the n a t i o n . To Canadians huddled along the 49th p a r a l l e l , movies about the great northwest were not about 26 them, they were about northern Canada. Moreover, the c r i t e r i o n by which the average movie goer judges a f i l m i s entertainment, not l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Because they were, only p a r t i a l d i s t o r t i o n s , H o l l y -wood's view of Canada had s t a y i n g power. Sandwiched between the l a y e r s of misinformation were grains of t r u t h s — l i k e the conservative nature of the people, the rugged outdoors, and themes of i s o l a t i o n . Objections to American movies i n Canada were seldom d i r e c t e d 27 against the movies made about Canada using the myth of the north. Yet, even at the t u r n of the century when the northern image was being expounded i n popular l i t e r a t u r e and by current l e c t u r e r s of the day, there were trad e , t o u r i s t and immigration o f f i c i a l s who were engaged i n t r y i n g to r e p l a c e such a n o t i o n w i t h a d i f f e r e n t image of the Dominion. I f the p o l i t i c i a n s s e c r e t l y agreed that the Canadian was a s u p e r i o r being because of h i s northern h e r i t a g e , he was f a r too p r a c t i c a l to encourage such a p r o j e c t i o n o u tside of Canada. The i n v i g o r a t i n g c l i m a t e which kept men healthy and hardy had no appeal to pros p e c t i v e immigrants, not even those of northern Europe. 35 In v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s which I have v i s i t e d both i n England and on the continent [wrote an immigration i n v e s t i g a t o r to C l i f f o r d Sifton- i n 1902], I found the same o l d cry of c o l d c l i m a t e s t i l l being r a i s e d and i t seems to be the bugbear w i t h many people who would otherwise move to Canada. To give you an idea of the p o s i t i o n , a paper . . . had a long account, w i t h i l l u s t r a t i o n s , of a winter tournament, showing an i c e palace as a most prominent f i g u r e . Although the i c e palace had been constructed some f i f t e e n or twenty years p r e v i o u s l y i t was s t i l l doing s e r v i c e to the i n j u r y of Canada.^8 Removing the impressions held by p r o s p e c t i v e immigrants about the c o l d c l i m a t e i n Canada was a d i f f i c u l t o b s t a c l e to overcome, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e only a few short years l a t e r Hollywood gave t h i s self-same w i n t r y image to a world audience on a massive s c a l e . Combating the r a c i a l and n a t i o n a l i s t i c p r e j u d i c e s inherent i n the 'myth of the north' was another onerous task because i t was e l u s i v e , and one o f t e n shared by the immi-g r a t i o n o f f i c i a l s themselves. The sentiments expressed i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Canadianizing the Newcomer," which appeared i n the Canadian  Courier i n 1914, r e f l e c t e d the b e l i e f s held by many B r i t i s h Canadians who were not uniformly d e l i g h t e d by the way i n which Canada was being popu-l a t e d : So long as B r i t o n s and northwestern Europeans c o n s t i t u t e the vast m a j o r i t y there i s not so much danger of l o s i n g our n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r . To healthy B r i t o n s of good behaviour our welcome i s e v e r l a s t i n g ; but to make t h i s country a dumping grounds f o r the scum and dregs of the o l d world means t r a n s -p l a n t i n g the e v i l s and v i c e s that they may f l o u r i s h i n a new s o i l . 2 9 While a l l agreed that immigrants from the United Kingdom, followed by those of northwestern Europe were the most d e s i r a b l e , i t was recog-n i z e d by the 1890's that Great B r i t a i n and other northern c o u n t r i e s could no longer supply the number of a g r i c u l t u r a l workers needed to f i l l the vast p l a i n s of Canada. A d e c i s i o n had to be made and the f i r s t p r i o r i t y became the settlement of the west w i t h farmers. E t h n i c 36 and n a t i o n a l backgrounds, w h i l e s t i l l i m p o r t a n t , became secondary t o o c c u p a t i o n . "The peasants a r e the men t h a t a r e wanted here . . . ," r e f l e c t e d S h i f t o n a f t e r h i s s t i n t as Immigration M i n i s t e r , " i t m a t t e r s 30 not what h i s n a t i o n a l i t y i s . . . ." D e s p i t e p r o t e s t s by Canadians a g a i n s t the way i n which the c o u n t r y was b e i n g s e t t l e d and t h e f e a r s o f l o s i n g t h e i r ' n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y , ' t h e t i d e of n o n - n o r t h e r n p e o p l e s e m i g r a t i n g t o Canada c o n t i n u e d . The 'myth of the n o r t h ' was f a r too l i m i t e d i n scope t o accommodate t h e s e new-comers. The i n h e r e n t r a c i s t o v e r t o n e s d i s c o u r a g e d many n o n - n o r t h e r n Europeans from moving t o a c o u n t r y which, a c c o r d i n g t o the terms o f the myth, e x a l t e d t h o s e o f r u s t i c A r y a n and Anglo-Saxon s t o c k . There was l i t e r a l l y c o l d comfort i n the myth f o r t h e I t a l i a n o r Greek-peoples who were r e g a r d e d as l a z y and o v e r l y fond of b a s k i n g i n the M e d i t e r r a n e a n s u n l i g h t , a c c o r d i n g t o another v e r s i o n - of the myth. To a s s a i l the b e l i e f s about the i n h e r e n t v i r t u e s of Canada's n o r t h e r n c l i m a t e b l i t h e l y put f o r w a r d by one group o f n a t i o n a l i s t s , a n o t h e r group o f p a t r i o t s saw a v e h i c l e t o d i s c r e d i t t h i s ' d i s t o r t e d ' v i s i o n of the n a t i o n i n t h e new media of f i l m . I t was q u i c k l y r e c o g n i z e d by govern-ment o f f i c i a l s and o t h e r s t h a t f i l m c o u l d be m a n i p u l a t e d i n such a way as t o p r o j e c t a ' r e a l i s t i c , ' y e t ce n s o r e d v i s i o n of Canada which c o u l d promote t r a d e , encourage i m m i g r a t i o n and f o s t e r t o u r i s m . I t was t o t h i s end t h a t the f i r s t government movies f o c u s e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n . The image chosen by government f i l m a g e n c i e s was not Canada as the Dominion of t h e N o r t h , but Canada as a young, b u r g e o n i n g g i a n t , endowed w i t h a l l the v a s t n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , energy, and p o t e n t i a l t o a s s u r e her a d e s t i n y o f g r e a t n e s s . To encourage t h e i m m i g r a t i o n o f P o l e s , Hungarians and o t h e r n o n - n o r t h e r n p e o p l e s , Canada was p o r t r a y e d as a n a t i o n of h a r d -37 working people, f u l l of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e n t e r p r i s i n g i n d i v i d u a l s — o r , as i t would l a t e r be d e f i n e d , a "mosaic" of people of d i f f e r e n t back-grounds working together to b u i l d a great n a t i o n . As e a r l y as 1899, the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway was c o n t r a c t i n g 31 f i l m s to p r o j e c t t h i s 'new v i s i o n ' of Canada. In 1903, the B r i t i s h Bioscope Company produced " L i v i n g Canada" a s e r i e s of f i l m s whose major o b j e c t i v e was to show Canada as a land of scenic beauty, developing i n d u s t r y , and favorable c l i m a t e . Films made included a t r i p through the Rocky Mountains, Banff and K i c k i n g Horse Canyon, h a r v e s t i n g a 160 acre f i e l d , lumbering and m i l l i n g l o g s , the salmon and c a t t l e i n d u s t r i e s 32 and manufacturing p l a n t s from coast to coast. One of the cameramen on the s e r i e s s t a t e d : "We had d e f i n i t e i n s t r u c t i o n from the C.P.R. not to take any winter scenes under any c o n d i t i o n s , as they wanted to d i s p e l 33 from the Englishman's mind that Canada was a land of i c e and snow." Although the t h r u s t of t h e i r p u b l i c i t y f i l m s remained b a s i c a l l y unchanged, the success of the company's e a r l y experiments w i t h f i l m l e d them to f u r t h e r adventures w i t h the new media. In 1918, Robert Stead, C.P.R. p u b l i c i t y agent f o r C o l o n i z a t i o n and Development, discussed the types of f i l m s and the image they were t r y i n g to give the world. The impression that western Canada i s a land of snow and i c e d i e s hard i n some quarters and we have found that the motion p i c t u r e i s one of the most e f f e c t i v e means of c o r r e c t i n g i t . Two years ago we produced a two r e e l f i l m showing the process of i r r i g a t i o n farming as p r a c t i s e d on the p r a i r i e s of A l b e r t a . So i n t e r e s t i n g di d t h i s f i l m prove to be that ten sets were kept c o n s t a n t l y run-ning i n the United S t a t e s , appearing i n the l e a d i n g houses from coast to coast, and a l s o appearing as e d u c a t i o n a l features i n connection w i t h l e a d i n g u n i v e r s i t i e s . Since then, we have pro-duced another f i l m showing the development of the d a i r y i n d u s t r y i n A l b e r t a , and are j u s t now completing one d e p i c t i n g the l i g h t e r s i d e of farm l i f e , w i t h a glimpse of the summer f a i r s , p i c n i c s and h o l i d a y resorts.34 The C.P.R.'s a f f e c t i o n f o r f i l m was not only confined to documentary-s t y l e d movies which showed the prosp e c t i v e t o u r i s t s or immigrants f a v o r -able aspects of a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n s i n Canada. As e a r l y as 1907, they grasped that f i c t i o n a l entertainment f i l m s , the most popular type w i t h the general p u b l i c , could a l s o be used as a means to t h i s end. Through t h e i r s u b s i d i a r y , the Canadian P a c i f i c C o l o n i z a t i o n Company, they com-missioned Biograph, a company owned by the American f i l m i nventor Edison, to make 13 one-reel s t o r y movies about Canada "using l o c a t i o n s that ran the gamut from the open p r a i r i e to a C.P.R. P r i n c e s s boat i n 35 the Gulf of Georgia." The f i r s t of these o n e - r e e l e r s , An U n s e l f i s h Love, i l l u s t r a t e d one aspect of the new image of Canada that the C.P.R. and government f i l m bureaus would l a t e r work to achieve. Making use of the Pro t e s t a n t work e t h i c which had s u c c e s s f u l l y l u r e d immigrants to the United S t a t e s , these f i l m s showed how hard work could a l s o y i e l d f i n a n c i a l rewards i n the young, progressive Dominion of Canada. In the 1907 f i l m , John the hero cannot marry Mabel, the g i r l he lo v e s , because her f a t h e r objects to John's poverty. He takes the C.P.R. to Strathmore, where a f t e r much hard farm labour he becomes i n c r e d i b l y r i c h and b u i l d s himself a p r a i r i e mansion complete w i t h l i b r a r y and marble bust of Beethoven. A s p i n s t e r f a l l s i n love w i t h him, but she soon r e a l i z e s that he i s i n love w i t h Mabel. U n s e l f i s h l y , she boards a speedy C.P.R. coach f o r Toronto, where she convinces Mabel to escape from her fa t h e r and marry John. The two women, take the C.P.R. back to Strathmore. Mabel and the now wealthy John are 3 6 re u n i t e d to the rapture and j o y of the o l d maid. A l l t h i r t e e n p i c t u r e s Edison's company made f o r the C.P.R. were h a i l e d as e x t r a o r d i n a r y productions by i n t e r n a t i o n a l viewing audiences. Not only d i d the movie patrons love these p i c t u r e s , but reviewers noted 39 the e d u c a t i o n a l value of the f i l m s which revealed "the manner of l i v i n g 37 and marvelous a g r i c u l t u r a l development" i n Canada. The f i l m s made a genuine attempt to destroy the myths he l d by many people about Canada. The s e t t i n g s of the f i l m s i n both r u r a l and urban centers d i s c r e d i t e d the n o t i o n that Canada was a land of i c e and snow. Through t h e i r dram-a t i z a t i o n of characters t a k i n g the C.P.R. from one place to another, they d i s c l o s e d that Canada was made up of d i f f e r e n t geographical regions and favorable climates l i n k e d by the superb C.P.R. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. Canadians were seen as hard working people, but not c u l t u r a l l y deprived. (As witnessed by the su b t l e i n c l u s i o n of a bust of Beethoven i n John's 38 l i b r a r y seen i n An U n s e l f i s h Love. ) C o l l e c t i v e l y , the f i l m s s t r e s s e d Canada as a land of opportunity. Although the C.P.R. continued to p u b l i c i z e Canada's greatness w i t h other promotional f i l m s , around 1913 they a l s o became i n v o l v e d w i t h com-m e r c i a l motion p i c t u r e s . These longer f i l m s d i d not d i r e c t l y promote the C.P.R., but they d i d f u r t h e r Canadian n a t i o n a l i s m i n the sense that 39 they brought Canadian themes to the screen. Evangeline, the f i r s t of s e v e r a l features to be p a r t i a l l y financed by the C.P.R. was the major achievement of the s h o r t - l i v e d , H a l i f a x based, Bioscope Company. Although Bioscope folded s h o r t l y a f t e r Evangeline was r e l e a s e d , the c o l o r - t i n t e d movie proved to be a great a r t i s t i c and f i n a n c i a l success w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l audiences who never seemed to t i r e of Longfellow's 40 romantic t a l e of the gruesome Acadian e x p u l s i o n . In t o t a l , the Americans made four Evangeline movies between 1908 and 1929, but only the C.P.R.-Bioscope f i l m was h a i l e d as a 'true' Canadian production because, as one reviewer noted, i t p a i d " s t r i c t adherence to h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l . " 4 1 40 The Great Shadow, l a r g e l y funded by the C.P.R. w i t h monies s e c r e t l y given to George Brownridge, President of Adanac F i l m Company of Trenton, 42 was a f e a t u r e l e n g t h movie of a d i f f e r e n t s o r t . Frightened by labour unrest and the ideology of the Bolshevik Revolution prevalent i n the l a t t e r phases of World War I , movie producers i n the United States and B r i t a i n were urged by t h e i r governments to produce s t o r i e s which empha-43 s i z e d the democratic way of l i f e and denounced the e v i l s of communism. The Great Shadow was Canada's c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s e f f o r t . The idea of a Canadian anti-communist movie appears to have o r i g i n a t e d w i t h John Gibbon, P u b l i c i t y D i r e c t o r of the C.P.R., but soon afterward C.P.R. Pr e s i d e n t , Edward Beatty, became i n v o l v e d and e n l i s t e d the support of the Canadian Reconstruction A s s o c i a t i o n which included some of the l a r g -44 est employers of labour i n the country. The A s s o c i a t i o n , which had probably kept a w a t c h f u l eye on the Vancouver general s t r i k e of 1918 and the formation of the M a r x i s t One Big Union i n 1919, threw t h e i r 45 support behind the f i l m and gave a d d i t i o n a l funding. In the a f t e r -math of the v i o l e n t and b i t t e r Winnipeg general s t r i k e of 1919, The 46 Great Shadow began production. Although the f i l m d e a l t w i t h the i n f i l t r a t i o n of a 'good' non-s t r i k i n g Canadian union by Russian Bolsheviks and was e s s e n t i a l l y propaganda against i n d u s t r i a l unrest, the image of Canada revealed i n the saga was of the nation's growing f r i e n d s h i p w i t h the United States. The movie suggested that i n the face of the communism t h r e a t , the two democracies must continue to work together as they had done during the 47 war. A f t e r p r i v a t e screenings i n Ottawa and Montreal, The Great Shadow, s t a r r i n g Tyrone Power, Senior, had i t s premiere f o r the general 48 p u b l i c at the Grand Opera House i n Toronto i n 1920. I t then went on 41 to d i s t r i b u t i o n throughout the United States w i t h S e l n i z e F i l m s , but not before workers i n the Toronto area had been given f r e e movie t i c k e t s by t h e i r employers and C.P.R. employees had been marched o f f i n t h e i r lunch 49 hours to view the f i l m . Despite some l a t e r nervousness about t h e i r involvement w i t h The  Great Shadow, the C.P.R. d i d not slow down i t s movie a c t i v i t i e s . " ^ In 1920, they financed Tracy Mathewson's and Charles Urban's d e t a i l e d record of the P r i n c e of Wales' v i s i t to Canada which proved to be h i g h l y suc-c e s s f u l i n B r i t i s h Empire theatres and drew a t t e n t i o n to the Canadian s e t t i n g of the P r i n c e ' s v i s i t . " ^ This production l e d them to found t h e i r own f i l m company and was i n keeping w i t h a growing movement among b i g business at the time to promote t h e i r p u b l i c images and reap p r o f i t s by f i n a n c i a l ventures i n the r a p i d l y expanding motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y . The Hudson's Bay Company, f o r example, made "a l a r g e investment i n Educational Films Corporation i n New York" and " i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway invested a quarter of a m i l l i o n i n a 52 concern known as Associated Screen News." This American conglomerate of newsreel f i l m companies folded s h o r t l y a f t e r the C.P.R.'s investment i n i t , but Associated Screen News of Canada, a r e l a t e d e n t e r p r i s e which was 50% owned by the C.P.R., grew i n t o one of the most v i a b l e f i l m com-53 panies i n Canada. S t a r t i n g i n 1921 w i t h two men and a movie camera, "the f i r s t and s o l e i d e a " of ASN "was to produce motion p i c t u r e f i l m s 54 f o r Canadian i n d u s t r y . " By 1929, however, ASN employed over 100 people and the idea of purely i n d u s t r i a l f i l m s had been extended to s c e n i c , t r a v e l , adventure, and other f i l m subjects."'"' A l l f i l m s made by ASN combated Hollywood's view of Canada by p o r t r a y i n g the n a t i o n i n 56 a r e a l i s t i c manner. ASN's greatest c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f u r t h e r i n g 42 of Canadian c u l t u r e was i n adding Canadian content to the American news-r e e l s which were shown i n Canadian theatres from coast to c o a s t . ^ In an attempt to supplant the ' i c e and snow' image of Canada w i t h a u t h e n t i c p r o v i n c i a l scenes, B r i t i s h Columbia was among the f i r s t govern-ments i n Canada to brave p o s s i b l e p u b l i c outbursts against the expense and n e c e s s i t y of government f i l m s . In 1907, W. H. Harbeck of P o r t l a n d , Washington made a s e r i e s of one-reel f i l m s about the Fraser V a l l e y , Van-58 couver, and V i c t o r i a f o r the T o u r i s t A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia. These f i l m s which proved popular w i t h both home and f o r e i g n audiences, created a f a v o r a b l e c l i m a t e f o r the government to enter the motion p i c -ture i n d u s t r y . S h o r t l y a f t e r the Harbeck f i l m s had been r e l e a s e d , the government announced i t had commissioned James Ferrens, a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of "one of the b i g cinematographic companies of London to make f i l m s of 59 the more fa v o r a b l e aspects of the province." B.C. government f i l m s were soon being used to advantage by p r o v i n c i a l immigration o f f i c i a l s overseas. In 1909, the Agent General of B r i t i s h Columbia wrote: "The animated p i c t u r e s are proving to be most v a l u a b l e . . . they so p e r f e c t l y show the l i v e s and work of our p r o v i n c e , and no doubt, they have been one of the causes f o r the increased correspondence and number of c a l l e r s at 60 the o f f i c e . " Federal government o f f i c i a l s a l s o made use of the B.C. government f i l m s . The Federal Agent f o r South Wales s t a t e d i n h i s 1909 r e p o r t : "The l i m e l i g h t and cinematograph p i c t u r e s shown of Canadian l i f e and work ( l e n t by Mr. Brown of B r i t i s h Columbia) were much appreciated and created great interest."^"'" Increased immigration a t t r i b u t e d to these f i l m s gave the necessary j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the B.C. government to expand i t s f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s . In 1913, they engaged the Kineto Company of B r i t a i n to make a comprehensive 43 s e r i e s of f i l m s about "the magnificent scenery of B r i t i s h Columbia, i t s i n d u s t r i e s , i t s towns, and i t s s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s ; i n n a t u r a l c o l o u r s , as 6 2 w e l l as i n bl a c k and white." Emphasis was on the "wonderful n a t u r a l 63 resources and business a c t i v i t i e s " i n the P a c i f i c province. When completed, the Kineto f i l m s of B.C. were pronounced by experts to be 64 "some of the best p i c t u r e s that had yet been seen." Undoubtedly, these f i l m s helped to d i s p e l some of the preconceived notions about B.C. hel d by pr o s p e c t i v e immigrants who saw them i n Great B r i t a i n and I r e l a n d . ^ The continued success of t h e i r f i l m a c t i v i t i e s which extended throughout the war years, l e d to d i r e c t government f i l m production w i t h the c r e a t i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia P a t r i o t i c and Educational Motion 66 P i c t u r e Bureau i n 1920. The bureau was d i r e c t e d from V i c t o r i a by Richard Baker w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e of May Watkis who ran the Vancouver o f f i c e and operated as an adjunct to the Game Conservation Board of which Baker was c h a i r m a n . ^ La t e r the bureau was t r a n s f e r r e d to the P r o v i n -68 c i a l Censor's Department. The f i l m maker f o r the bureau was a Van-c o u v e r i t e , Arthur Kean, who had p r e v i o u s l y f i l m e d f o r the C.P.R. and the B.C. government and among other endeavors, had produced a complete f i l m record of every B.C. b a t t a l i o n l e a v i n g f o r the war, known as B.C. f o r the 69 Empire (1916). Kean, who c a l l e d himself. the "cowboy photographer of B r i t i s h Columbia," had spent some time i n Hollywood and was s t r o n g l y opposed to the image of Canada the cinema c a p i t a l portrayed on the screen and the monopoly American movies h e l d i n Vancouver t h e a t r e s . ^ S p i r i t -u a l l y , he was dedicated to p o r t r a y i n g B r i t i s h Columbia r e a l i s t i c a l l y . F i n a n c i a l l y , i t was advantageous f o r him to produce as many B.C. movies as p o s s i b l e s i n c e he was paid a s a l a r y of $100 a month, plus 40c a foot f o r the f i l m s he produced.^ 1 A l l manner of a c t i v i t i e s i n the province 44 became subjects f o r h i s camera. The S e a l i n g F l e e t , Catching, Curing and Packaging S a l t H e r r i n g f o r the O r i e n t , and Wild Geese of B r i t i s h Columbia 72 were but three of the many f i l m s Kean produced f o r the bureau. Audi-ences were able to view the B.C. p i c t u r e s along w i t h the f o r e i g n features shown i n t h e i r l o c a l movie houses a f t e r the B.C. Motion P i c t u r e Act of 1920 made i t mandatory f o r commercial theatres to show bureau f i l m s f o r n c • u . 7 3 15 minutes each evenxng. While B.C. was c o n t r a c t i n g p u b l i c i t y f i l m s , the Federal government became in v o l v e d i n propaganda f i l m making. Where peacetime had made the government r e l u c t a n t to spend the money necessary f o r movie production, the urgent need f o r p a t r i o t i c messages gave f i l m making value i n the eyes of the p o l i t i c i a n s . In the f i r s t few months of the war, h a s t i l y created Canadian f i l m production companies, l i k e the A l l Red Feature Company of Windsor, the Conness T i l l F i l m Company of Toronto, the Canadian Animated Weekly of Montreal and the Dominion General F i l m Company of L o n g u e i l , which announced i t was "prepared to f o l l o w the troops," hoped to s e i z e the new marketing o p p o r t u n i t i e s created by Canadian d e s i r e s to see t h e i r • » « 74 n a t i o n s war e f f o r t s . But Canada needed r e c r u i t s , and to get r e c r u i t s the government could not a f f o r d to have i t s e f f o r t s hampered by f i l m companies which might show scenes of the wounded, the k i l l i n g , or the dead. In November 1914, the Department of M i l i t i a and-National Defence, headed by the incomparable Sam Hughes, i n s t r u c t e d p r o v i n c i a l censor boards to review most c a r e f u l l y a l l war f i l m s before r e l e a s e . Although Canadians continued to watch 'cen-sored' war movies throughout the c o n f l i c t , the government moved s w i f t l y to assure the ' c o r r e c t ' impression of the war was given to i t s c i t i z e n s by producing f i l m s of i t s own.^ The commercial newsreel companies thus thwarted by government r e g u l a t i o n s and by t h e i r l a c k of experience i n the f i l m business, f o l d e d , w h i l e government f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s made r a p i d 76 s t r i d e s . In 1915, Canada's F i g h t i n g Forces made by the o f f i c i a l government photographer, D. S. Dwyer of V i c t o r i a , premiered at Massey H a l l i n Toronto and then toured the country drawing e n t h u s i a s t i c crowds wherever i t played w i t h press advertisements l i k e t h i s one: OFFICIAL CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FILMS Canada's F i g h t i n g F o r c e s — W e ' l l Never Let the Old F l a g F a l l E x c i t i n g and S o u l - S t i r r i n g Record of Our Brave Canadian Boys i n Khaki Overseas . . . SERGT. FRED "DOG" WELLS Who l o s t an arm i n the B a t t l e of Ypres, was taken p r i s o n e r , wounded, spent f o u r months as p r i s o n e r of war i n Germany, won exchange by f e i g n i n g i n s a n i t y WILL LECTURE . . . EACH PERFORMANCE77 With the establishment of the War O f f i c e Cinematographic Committee under Lord Beaverbrook i n 1916, Canada j o i n e d w i t h other members of the 78 Empire i n c e n t r a l i z i n g a l l i e d war f i l m production. Under committee auspices such pro-war f i l m s as Canada at Mons, Canadian O f f i c e r s i n the Making, and Famous Canadian Regiments i n France were produced and 79 recei v e d wide d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the nation's t h e a t r e s . At the same time, the government contracted w i t h p r i v a t e f i l m companies f o r movies which would e n l i g h t e n c i v i l i a n s on methods of a i d i n g the war cause on the home f r o n t — o n e s which encouraged growing backyard gardens, p r a c t i c -i n g t h r i f t , and buying war bonds. In 1918, they made Canada's Work f o r Wounded S o l d i e r s , a movie which brought home the r e a l i t y of d e a l i n g w i t h 80 the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of a generation of wounded young Canadians. Besides the war f i l m s , the peacetime a p p l i c a t i o n of f i l m was d i s -cussed i n government chambers i n Ottawa. Throughout 1914 and 1915, S i r George F o s t e r , M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce and Dr. Roette, M i n i s t e r of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , met to consider using f i l m as a means 46 81 of p u b l i c i z i n g Canada's n a t u r a l resources and t o u r i s t p o s s i b i l i t i e s . They t e s t e d t h e i r idea by h i r i n g the Essanay Company of Chicago and H o l l y -wood to make a s e r i e s of f i l m s showing Canada's g r a i n and water-power 82 i n d u s t r i e s . The f i l m s were w e l l r e c e i v e d , but a f t e r experimenting w i t h such expensive contracted f i l m work, i t was g e n e r a l l y agreed that i t would be much cheaper and more e f f i c i e n t f o r the government to have 83 i t s own f i l m production u n i t . In due course, the E x h i b i t i o n and P u b l i c -i t y Bureau began production i n 1916 under the Department of Trade and 84 Commerce. With i t s c r e a t i o n , Canada became the f i r s t n a t i o n i n the world to have a f e d e r a l government f i l m agency. O r i g i n a l l y , the bureau was e s t a b l i s h e d to v i s u a l i z e "Canada's vast n a t u r a l resources, her great primary productive occupations, and her 85 developing l i n e s of secondary and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . " But by 1923, when the bureau was renamed the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, the goals and a s p i r a t i o n s of the bureau had expanded to meet the r a p i d 86 growth i n f i l m production. Deputy M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce O'Hara s t a t e d : Another purpose of the establishment of the Bureau i s the d i s -t r i b u t i o n of Canadian p i c t u r e s i n Canada, as they a f f o r d a va l u a b l e e d u c a t i o n a l medium by which one part of Canada i s enabled to know the other.87 The production of popular f i l m s designed to s t i m u l a t e Canada's f o u r t h l a r g e s t i n d u s t r y , tourism, became the bureau's mainstay. These r a t h e r s t a t i c , but w e l l photographed f i l m s were i n i t i a l l y popular both at 88 home and abroad. The 'Where S e r i e s ' which i n c l u d e d such f e t c h i n g t i t l e s as Where I t ' s Always Vacation Time, Where the Moose Run Loose, and Where Nature Smiles, pioneered the t o u r i s t f i l m i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y and were q u i c k l y followed by a s e r i e s e n t i t l e d 'Seeing Canada' which according to 47 The Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Digest of February 13, 1919, were b r i n g i n g to the people of Great B r i t a i n , the United S t a t e s , New Zealand, and A u s t r a l i a : Canada as she a c t u a l l y i s — C a n a d a , a n a t i o n of wonderful indus-t r i a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a wonderland that w i l l a t t r a c t m i l l i o n s of t o u r i s t s when her beauties and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s p o r t , s i g h t -seeing, and r e c r e a t i o n become known. This i s the purpose of the development of these f i l m s - ^ t o enable the people of the world to know the Canada which they have heard so much about i n the l a s t four years of the war; to a t t r a c t to Canada, as a r e s u l t of showing a new and f e r t i l e f i e l d f o r i n d u s t r i a l development, thousands of bona-fide businessmen and m i l l i o n s of f o r e i g n c a p i t a l . 8 9 To o f f s e t production c o s t s , the bureau a l s o made movies f o r other 90 government departments. In 1913, the government had contracted f o r f i l m coverage of Wilhjalmur Stefansson's A r c t i c e x p e d i t i o n , but w i t h the establishment of the bureau the government undertook such f i l m i n g on i t s own, producing a complete f i l m record of the 1926 A r c t i c e x p e d i t i o n f o r the Department of the I n t e r i o r and In the Shadow of the Pol e , a f e a t u r e 91 length documentary about the Canadian A r c t i c e x p e d i t i o n of 1928. Promotional f i l m s f o r the C.P.R. and shorts about wilderness p r e s e r v a t i o n f o r the Department of Mines and Forests were among other of the bureau's 92 undertakings. Another f i l m agency at work d i s p e l l i n g 'myths' about Canada and r e p l a c i n g them w i t h f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the screen was the Canadian 93 N a t i o n a l P i c t o r i a l founded i n 1919 by Pathescope Company of Toronto. I t f o l l owed i n the wake of the rather unsuccessful newsreel a c t i v i t y which had taken place during the war years, but d i f f e r e d from other newsreel companies i n that i t rec e i v e d funding from the Canadian govern-ment a f t e r charging that the newly created Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau was robbing the p r i v a t e f i l m companies of t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d . When the Department of P u b l i c Information, under whose wing the P i c t o r i a l had o r i g i n a l l y been placed, f o l d e d , the agency became an adjunct of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau which invested $30,000 95 a year i n i t s productions. The P i c t o r i a l combated 'de-Canadianizing' i n f l u e n c e s i n the news by g i v i n g viewers a chance to see how other Can-adians l i v e d and worked. I t a l s o o f f e r e d c i t i z e n s i n the United King-dom, where i t s news shorts were a l s o shown, a glimpse of the maturing 96 Canadian colony. The P i c t o r i a l had cameramen s t a t i o n e d from coast to coast to f i l m weekly news happenings. A t y p i c a l week's f i l m i n g might i n c l u d e s t o r i e s about the capture of an opium r i n g i n Vancouver's China-town, the development of h y d r o - e l e c t r i c power i n the Nipigon R i v e r , the Farmerettes, the n e x t - o f - k i n of f a l l e n s o l d i e r s , r e c e i v i n g farming i n s t r u c t i o n under the S o l d i e r s Settlement Board at Point Grey, B r i t i s h Columbia, Nova Scot i a n fishermen h a r v e s t i n g t h e i r w i nter crop at Canso, 97 and the taming of w i l d horses at Strathmore, A l b e r t a . With the Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau w e l l under way, p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n motion p i c t u r e production increased. In 1923, government f i l m making got underway i n Ontario when the p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureau e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1917, went from contracted f i l m s to motion p i c t u r e 98 production on i t s own. One year l a t e r , Regina F i l m s , the motion p i c -ture branch of the Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Saskatchewan began f i l m p roduction a f t e r having had moving p i c t u r e s made f o r government depart-99 ments p r i o r to 1924. Both of these p r o v i n c i a l agencies e s t a b l i s h e d scheduled production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r f i l m s . Regina Films produced a v i s u a l record of the r u r a l - a g r i c u l t u r a l nature of Saskatchewan at the time. Films such as The Grading of Farm  C a t t l e and Tree P l a n t i n g and Growing were e d u c a t i o n a l — d e s i g n e d to make the farmers of the province more productive and i n s t r u c t them i n the l a t e s t farming techniques.^® Other f i l m s d e a l t w i t h s o c i a l i s s u e s of the day such as hot lunch plans f o r r u r a l school c h i l d r e n and farm boys c a m p s . R e g i n a Films a l s o dismissed the melting-pot t h e s i s which suggested that a l l newcomers to Canada should be A n g l i c i z e d , when i t made a s e r i e s of f i l m s i n s t r u c t i n g non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants "to seek out communities of h i s own people and thus avoid the l o n e l i n e s s and f r u s t r a -102 t i o n of c u l t u r a l shock." In movies such as Nation B u i l d i n g i n Sas-katchewan: The Ukrainians they showed the many p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s that people formerly l a b e l l e d i n a derogatory way as 'Galcians' had made 103 to the province. Beginning w i t h s c e n i c f i l m s made to l u r e t o u r i s t s to the p r o v i n c e , the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau expanded so r a p i d l y that at times i t was s a i d to r i v a l the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau i n output and d i s -t r i b u t i o n of f i l m s . B e s i d e s f i l m s f o r f o r e i g n viewing, the bureau placed strong emphasis on i n s t r u c t i o n a l f i l m s — m o v i e s which would educate the "farmers, school c h i l d r e n , f a c t o r y workers and other c l a s s e s . In 1918, the Canadian Weekly reported: "Ontario now leads the world i n 10 6 v i s u a l education work." Many of the f i l m s were designed f o r consump-t i o n i n the r u r a l areas: By purchasing p r o j e c t i o n machines o u t r i g h t and s e l l i n g them on long term loans to s o c i e t i e s and clubs i n the o u t l y i n g d i s t r i c t s , communities which would otherwise have l i t t l e or no entertainment are r e g u l a r l y provided w i t h wholesome p i c t u r e s [ s t a t e d George E. Patton, D i r e c t o r of the Bureau]. Thus a nucleus of s o c i a l gath-e r i n g s — v e r y necessary i n the development of the o u t l y i n g a g r i c u l -t u r a l d i s t r i c t s i s f o s t e r e d and encouraged.107 Movies were made on a wide v a r i e t y of subjects and i n a number of cinematic s t y l e s considered experimental at the time. C i n d e r e l l a of the Farms (1930) used 60 minutes of dramatic f i c t i o n to s p i n a romantic t a l e 50 aimed at e n t i c i n g immigration from B r i t a i n and showing good Ontario farm-108 i n g p r a c t i c e s . Spare Time, Someone at Home, and M a i l i n g Trouble attempted to combine documentary w i t h s c r i p t e d drama to add entertainment v a l u e ; w h i l e the 1919 f i l m i n g of the n a t i v e s on Bear I s l a n d i n northern 109 Ontario recorded a way of l i f e that was f a s t disappearing. One of the major subjects f o r bureau f i l m s were those which d e a l t w i t h v a r i o u s aspects of s o c i a l w e l f a r e i n Ontario. During the 1920's a new group of p r o f e s s i o n a l s who were concerned w i t h a l l aspects of h e a l t h and s o c i a l w e l f a r e replaced the vo l u n t a r y benevolent s o c i e t i e s and reformers of the pre-World War I era. To these s o c i a l workers, educators, and h e a l t h personnel, progress meant a new Canadian s o c i a l o r d e r — t h e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the nation's s o c i e t y by i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g the insane, deaf and dumb, and retarded; by c a t e g o r i z i n g c h i l d r e n w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , i n s t r u c t -i n g parents on the ' c o r r e c t ' care of t h e i r c h i l d r e n and the lengthening of schoolin g to i n c l u d e high school which l e d to the extension of childhood through the teen years.^® The Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau promoted the work being done by the va r i o u s s o c i a l and edu c a t i o n a l agencies i n the province. A s e r i e s of f i l m s f o r parents of r u r a l school c h i l d r e n was produced which showed among other t h i n g s , the c o r r e c t method of dr e s s i n g c h i l d r e n who must walk to school i n the winter."'""'""'" Other i n s t r u c t i o n a l f i l m s i n cluded one about the deaf i n s t i t u t e at B r o c k v i l l e and another 112 d e a l t w i t h the treatment and care of the insane. The 'new s o c i a l gospel' of the twenties was brought to Ontario c i t i z e n s v i a the f i l m s of the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. By the 1930's, the independent f i l m makers of Canada could roughly be d i v i d e d i n t o two camps—those who attempted to produce s e l l a b l e com-m e r c i a l movies by making f i l m s that r e i n f o r c e d the Hollywood image of 51 Canada and those whose primary goal was the establishment of a unique Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y . The l a t t e r group of f i l m makers complemented the v a r i o u s government f i l m agencies by attempting to re p l a c e the 'myth of the north' w i t h an image of Canada more i n keeping w i t h the 20th century. For some i n t h i s camp, making f i l m s was a c a l c u l a t e d attempt to thwart the s a t u r a t i o n of Canadian theatres w i t h American productions. Such was the case of the Amateur Cinema Society of Thunder Bay who s t a t e d i n 1927 that t h e i r aim was: "the f i l m production of Canadian s t o r i e s from 113 Canadian themes, w i t h purely Canadian atmosphere and background." Others, l i k e Ernest Shipman of Ottawa, the most p r o l i f i c and suc-c e s s f u l commercial d i r e c t o r of the 1920's proved that the adaptation of Canadian novels to the screen could be as s e l l a b l e as s t o r i e s from south of the border. Shipman, who looked l i k e MacKenzie King and was a pers-114 onal f r i e n d of the Prime M i n i s t e r , thought b i g . His f i l m operations were s i m i l a r to the grand s t y l e of the Americans and q u i t e u n l i k e those of h i s more conservative f e l l o w Canadian f i l m makers, except f o r the f a c t t h a t , l i k e them, h i s movies made use of the n a t u r a l landscape, r a t h e r than staged sets t y p i c a l l y used i n Hollywood productions. 1"'"^ He was aggressive, a b i t of a rogue, an opportunist whose methods of f i n a n c -i n g h i s p i c t u r e s by " e x t r a c t i n g money from naive i n v e s t o r s i n c i t i e s 116 across Canada" have been questioned by some. Yet he was able to assess the mood of the country c o r r e c t l y . His timing was r i g h t . He saw c l e a r l y that a f e a t u r e f i l m i n d u s t r y i n Canada was p o s s i b l e i n the atmosphere of heightened Canadian n a t i o n a l i s m which marked the 1920's. In three years he financed and produced seven Canadian fea t u r e f i l m s — a n achievement as yet unsurpassed by any other Canadian f i l m maker. Although he adapted a v a r i e t y of Canadian novels to screen pro d u c t i o n , 52 he c a p i t a l i z e d on the p o p u l a r i t y of Ralph Connor's works. Cameron of the Royal Mounted (1921) taken from Connor's Corporal Cameron, God's C r u c i b l e (1921) based on Connor's The Foreigner , The C r i t i c a l Age (1923) adapted from Connor's Glengarry School Days and Connor's The Man from 118 Glengarry made i n 1923 a l l enjoyed considerable box o f f i c e success. In general, however, Canadian f i l m makers shied away from the f i c -t i o n a l s t o r y and the fea t u r e length f i l m . Canadian attempts at adopting the Hollywood model,with the exception of Shipman's f i l m s , had proven d i s a s t r o u s . Between 1914 and 1922, some 36 f i l m companies had been e s t a b l i s h e d and w h i l e l e s s than h a l f of these a c t u a l l y produced f i l m s , many of those that d i d had t r i e d to 'go Hollywood' only to be unsuccess-119 f u l and have t h e i r companies end i n bankruptcy. Even planned f e a -tures w i t h the most Canadian of themes l i k e "Louis R i e l " and "The L i t t l e 120 Canuck" were aborted i n the production stage. Other completed f e a -tures such as Arthur Kean's P o l i c i n g the P l a i n s (1927), a h i s t o r y of the N.W.M.P. based on R. G. MacBeth's book of the same name, drew disap-p o i n t i n g l y s mall audiences and brought but scant returns to t h e i r i n v e s -121 t o r s . In a n t i t h e s i s to the Hollywood formula, Canadians developed t h e i r own, modest f i l m genre. For the most part Canadian movies were short and f i l m e d i n the l e s s expensive documentary-style. Hollywood's Canada was a figment of imagination; Canadian f i l m producers attempted to por-t r a y Canada r e a l i s t i c a l l y . Canadian newsreel companies had attempted t h i s during the war, and i n the twenties B l a i n e I r i s h ' s well-made shorts on Canadian s u b j e c t s under the t i t l e s of Nature C l a s s i c s and Camera 122 C l a s s i c s r e i n f o r c e d the trend. While Hollywood showed Canada as a r u r a l , s p a r s e l y s e t t l e d l a n d , Jean A r s i n ' s f i l m of the Winnipeg general 53 s t r i k e revealed that labour unrest was as much a part of the post-war 123 scene i n Canada as i t was i n the United States. Gordon S p a r l i n g ' s Rhapsody i n Two Languages (1934), showed Montreal as a b u s t l i n g b i l i n g u a l c i t y , w h i l e L e s l i e Thatcher's and Fred Crawley's Another Day (1934), was 124 an i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c look at Toronto. In Canadian f i l m s , r u r a l Canada was seen i n terms of the r e a l problems faced by such communities i n the na t i o n . New Horizons and By Their Own Strength by Evelyn Spice and Lawrence Cherry, b u i l t a case against f i n a n c i a l i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the wheat farming economy of Saskatchewan, thereby p l a y i n g a part i n the 125 establishment of a cooperative marketing system on the p r a i r i e s . In Quebec, Les Abbes Maurice Proulx and A l b e r t T e s s i e r recorded the c l e a r i n g of the f o r e s t s and the st r u g g l e s of the Quebecois pioneers i n the A b i t i b i 126 region i n f i l m s l i k e Defrichement, Brulages Des Aba t i s and Motenise. In the 1920's, w h i l e Canada was being portrayed as a land abundant i n w i l d l i f e by Hollywood producers, W i l l i a m O l i v e of Calgary made many s e n s i t i v e f i l m s about the d e p l e t i o n of the beaver and other w i l d animals, 127 which pointed out the need f o r conservation i n Canada. Before the advent of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board i n 1939, Canadian f i l m s made by government agencies and independent f i l m makers had dented the bases of the o l d 'northern' myths about Canada. But there was l i t t l e communication between the various f i l m makers of the n a t i o n . There was no u n i f i c a t i o n of ideas or o b j e c t i v e s about what they were doing. C o l -l e c t i v e l y , however, they were attempting to change the image of Canada and r e p l a c i n g i t w i t h a new one. Their travelogues revealed that Canada was not only a land of i c e and snow. With t h e i r f i l m s about the c i t i e s , they had shown that not a l l Canadians l i v e d i n i s o l a t e d r u r a l areas. In movies about eastern European immigrants, they d i s p e l l e d the idea that 54 Canada was o n l y home t o the B r i t i s h and t h e F r e n c h . Over a l l t h e s e f i l m s emphasized t h a t Canada was a l a n d of g r e a t p o t e n t i a l f o r a l l a s p e c t s o f human endeavor. The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board c r e a t e d i n 1939 took t h e s e f r a g -mented images of Canada produced by the p i o n e e r Canadian movie makers, and expanded upon them to d e v e l o p i t s own unique image of Canada. 55" Footnotes ''"Carl Berger, "The True North Strong and Free," N a t i o n a l i s m i n Canada, e d i t e d by Peter R u s s e l l , Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson L t d . , 1966, p. 4. 2 3 4 I b i d . , p. 5. I b i d . , p. 15. I b i d . , p. 17. ^Norman R e i l l y Raine, "Figures and P i c t u r e s , " MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 1, 1927, p. 65. Berger, "The True North Strong and Free," pp. 21-23. In opposi-t i o n to the 'European s t y l e d ' romantic Canadian a r t of e a r l i e r decades which depicted the r o l l i n g countryside along the 49th p a r a l l e l , the Group of Seven sought to present the ' r e a l ' Canada by p a i n t i n g the unique rugged northland of the country. In t h e i r manifesto of May 1920, the Group declared t h e i r n a t i o n a l i s t i c viewpoint i n terms of p a i n t i n g Canada. See: W i l l i a m Colgate, Canadian A r t , Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1967, (copyright 1943), pp. 82-83. ^ P i e r r e Berton, Hollywood's Canada: The A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n of our  N a t i o n a l Image, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart L i m i t e d , 1975, p. 16. The term 'cinemoppet' was coined by Time magazine and used to d e s c r i b e the tycoons who ran e a r l y Hollywood. See: P h i l i p French, The Movie  Moguls: An Informal H i s t o r y of the Hollywood Tycoons, Middlesex, Penguin Books, 1971, (copyright 1969), pp. 14-15. g Berton, Hollywood's Canada, p. 25. 9 I b i d . , p. 44. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 53. 1 :4bid., pp. 79-80, 82-83. " ^ I b i d . , p. 46. ^ ^ I b i d . , p. 54. 1 4 I b i d . , p. 26. "'"-'ibid., p. 75. " ^ I b i d . , p. 17. " ^ I b i d . , p. 47. 1 Q I b i d . , pp. 205, 215. 19 Charles J e f f e r y , " H i s t o r y i n Motion P i c t u r e s , " Canadian  H i s t o r i c a l Review, V o l . x x i i , No. 4, Dec. 1941, p. 363. 20 French, The Movie Moguls, pp. 36-39. 21 Berton, Hollywood's Canada, pp. 83-86. 22 French, p. 36. 23 A sense of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community which made up Hollywood i n the e a r l y days i s gained by reading through the places of b i r t h and dates of a r r i v a l i n Hollywood of the c e l e b r i t i e s . Canada had more than i t s share of famous Hollywood s t a r s . See: George Sadoul, D i c t i o n a r y  of F i l m Makers, Berkeley, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e ss, 1972. See a l s o : Valance P a t r i a r c h e , "The Cinema of Today," Dalhousie Review, V o l . 7, A p r i l 1927-Jan. 1938, p. 429. 56 24 Berton, pp. 234-235. 25 For examples of s t e r e o t y p i n g of Canadians s i m i l a r to the type found i n Hollywood movies about Canada see: George Brown's B u i l d i n g the  Canadian Nation, Toronto, J . M. Dent & Sons L t d . , 1947, pp. 64, 89-90, 95. 26 Many Canadians probably s t i l l hold an image of northern Canada that i s not u n l i k e the v e r s i o n painted by Hollywood i n e a r l i e r decades. T o u r i s t bureaus s t i l l make use of the image. For example, see: Chetwynd, B r i t i s h Columbia: Where the Great North Country Begins, Chetwynd, PRB News, T o u r i s t Pamphlet, 1978. 27 Berton, pp. 231-233. 28 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1903, No. 10, p. x i v i . 29 J . M. B l i s s , ed., Canadian H i s t o r y i n Documents: 1763-1966, Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1966, p. 205. 30 C l i f f o r d S i f t o n , "The Immigrants Canada Wants," MacLean's  Magazine, A p r i l 1, 1922, p. 16. 31 Charles F. Backhouse, Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau 1917-1941, Ottawa, Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , 1974, p. 3. 32 C l i f f o r d R. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada: I t s Task of Communication," Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s , 1968, p. 10. 33 I b i d . , p. 11. 34 "Use Motion P i c t u r e s to Educate P u b l i c : To I l l u s t r a t e Advantages of Western Canada, says R. J . C. Stead," V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, V i c t o r i a , Aug. 20, 1918, p. 12. 35 Berton, p. 21. 1974. 36 I b i d . Scenes from An U n s e l f i s h Love are shown i n Dreamland, NFB, 37 Berton, p. 22. See a l s o : Peter M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, Montreal, McGill-Queen's U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1978, pp. 42-43. 38 Berton, p. 21. 39 In 1913, the C.P.R. contracted w i t h the Essanay F i l m Company of Chicago f o r another s e r i e s of promotional f i l m s . See: M o r r i s , Embattled  Shadows, p. 130. Reasons f o r C.P.R. f i n a n c i n g of feature movies which di d not d i r e c t l y promote the C.P.R.'s r a i l w a y network are unclear. In 1913, i t was estimated that the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y was the f i f t h l a r g e s t i n the United States and i t i s p o s s i b l e the C.P.R. may have hoped to enter t h i s l u c r a t i v e market by founding a s i m i l a r i n d u s t r y i n Canada. See: "A Booming Industry," The Outlook, J u l y 21, 1915, p. 645. 57 40 The Canadian Bioscope Company was founded i n 1912 and l a s t e d u n t i l 1914. During t h e i r two years of operations they made seven f e a t u r e f i l m s i n c l u d i n g Evangeline and three short one-reel comedies. Peter M o r r i s , ed., Canadian Feature F i l m s : 1913-1969: Part I : 1913-1940, Ottawa, Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , 1972, p. 1; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 49-50. 41 Although the C.P.R.'s Evangeline was regarded as ' t r u l y ' Canad-i a n , Americans were employed i n s t a r r i n g r o l e s i n the f i l m . M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 49-50. For in f o r m a t i o n on the American screen v e r s i o n s of Evangeline see: Berton, pp. 247-248, 254, 262. See a l s o : Dreamland, NFB, 1974. 42 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 67-71. 43 D. J . Wenden,"Movies and P o l i t i c s , " The B i r t h of the Movies, London, MacDonald and Co., 1975, p. 163. 44 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 67-71. 45 In a d d i t i o n to the f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n made by the Canadian Reconstruction A s s o c i a t i o n , other employers were urged to subscribe to the movie by c o n t r i b u t i n g to a fund held by P r i c e Waterhouse. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 67. For an i n t e r e s t i n g a r t i c l e on the government's a t t i t u d e towards Bolsheviks a f t e r the Russian R e v o l u t i o n see: W i l l i a m Rodney, "Russian R e v o l u t i o n a r i e s i n the Port of Vancouver, 1917," B.C. Studies, No. 16, Winter 1972-1973, pp. 25-31. Documents r e l a t e d to the Vancouver general s t r i k e are given i n : Ronald Liversedge, R e c o l l e c t i o n s of the On-to-Ottawa Trek, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1973. 46 The Winnipeg general s t r i k e l a s t e d from May 15, 1919 to June 23, 1919. See: Richard P. Bowles, James L. Hanley, Bruce W. Hodgins, George A. Rawlyk, P r o t e s t , V i o l e n c e and S o c i a l Change, Scarborough, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1972, pp. 160-173. The Great Shadow began production i n mid-July 1919. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 68. 68. 47 M o r r i s , Canadian Feature F i l m s , p. 1; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, Ibxd. 49 I b i d . Some f i l m footage of C.P.R. workers viewing The Great  Shadow i n t h e i r lunch hour i s shown i n Dreamland, NFB, 1974. A f t e r The Great Shadow was r e l e a s e d , the C.P.R. had Adanac F i l m Company deny C.P.R. f i n a n c i a l involvement w i t h the p i c t u r e . M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 68-69. "'"'"Terry Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One Nigh t s : A H i s t o r y of Motion  P i c t u r e , New York, Simon and Schuster, 1974 (copyright 1926), pp. 812-813. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 137. 58 52 Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One N i g h t s , p. 813. 53 I b i d . , p. 812. See a l s o : James, pp. 19-20. 54 E. L. Chicanot, "Behind the S i l v e r Screen," MacLean's Magazine, May 15, 1929, p. 15. 55 56 I b i d . James, pp. 19-21. ~ ^ I b i d . , p. 21. ASN was s o l d i n 1955 to a company which ceased f i l m production. In 1957 i t was s o l d again " t h i s time to American i n t e r -ests [Duart Labs] who renamed i t Associated Screen I n d u s t r i e s " and began f i l m production once again. 58 "Many C i t i z e n s W i l l Figure on Screen," The D a i l y P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, May 8, 1907, p. 19. See a l s o : "Views of V i c t o r i a i n R e a l i s -t i c Form," V i c t o r i a D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , May 5, 1907, p. 3. 59 "Moving P i c t u r e s of B r i t i s h Columbia," The D a i l y P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, March 12, 1908. See a l s o : " W i l l A d v e r t i s e w i t h P i c t u r e : Representative of E n g l i s h Moving P i c t u r e Makers Here to F u l f i l Contract made w i t h B.C. Government," The D a i l y P r o v i n c e , August 14, 1908, p. 1. The " b i g E n g l i s h cinematographic company" which c a r r i e d out the contract was the Charles Urban Trading Company which had e a r l i e r f i l m e d f o r the C.P.R. i n 1903 and would l a t e r f i l m f o r the C.N.R. i n 1909. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 36. 60 B r i t i s h Columbia, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Agent-General," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1909, p. G43. ^Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of the I n t e r i o r , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1909, No. 25, p. 81. 62 B r i t i s h Columbia, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Agent-General," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1914, pp. Q44-Q45. 6 3 I b i d . , p. Q45. 6 4 I b i d . , p. Q44. 6 5 I b i d . , pp. Q44-Q45. 6 6 B r i t i s h Columbia, S t a t u t e s , "An Act to Amend the Moving P i c t u r e Act," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1920, pp. 577-579. B.C. government f i l m s contracted during the war years i n c l u d e d B.C. troops l e a v i n g f o r the war and f i l m s on B.C. i n d u s t r i e s which were presented at the Pan P a c i f i c E x p o s i t i o n i n San Francisco i n 1915. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 150. 6 7 M o r r i s w r i t e s that May Watkis was the d i r e c t r e s s of the B.C. P a t r i o t i c and E d u c a t i o n a l F i l m Bureau and that she was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r producing a s e r i e s e n t i t l e d " P a c i f i c Coast Scenics." This i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n c o n t r a s t to government records and a l l other i n f o r m a t i o n obtainable on the bureau. A 1921 MacLean's a r t i c l e makes c l e a r that Watkis was the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t r e s s working from the Vancouver o f f i c e i n the court house. See: "She wasn't a 'Type' so she became a D i r e c t r e s s , " MacLean'.s  Magazine, May 1, 1921, p. 64; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 149-150, 256. 59 68 The Vancouver o f f i c e of the f i l m bureau which May Watkis headed was close d l a t e i n 1921 and a l l f i l m bureau a c t i v i t i e s were brought under the P r o v i n c i a l Censor's Department i n V i c t o r i a . See: "Cut Down F i l m S e r v i c e , " V i c t o r i a Times, V i c t o r i a , Dec. 19, 1921, p. 13. 69 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 90-91, 248, 254, 261. ^ L e t t e r to Mr. Gordon, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Censor, Vancouver, B.C., from Arthur Kean, Cowboy Photographer of B.C., Nov. 19, 1914, B.C. Attorney General's Department Correspondence Inward, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. In t h i s l e t t e r Kean complained that Vancouver theatres would not take h i s movies except on exchange and the exchanges were a l l American. S i x years l a t e r , according to Walter Hep-burn, the P r o v i n c i a l Censor, Kean was s t i l l complaining "tha t f i l m ex-changes and theatre owners made i t almost impossible f o r him to get h i s f i l m s i n . " L e t t e r to Hon. J . W. de B. F e r r i s , Attorney General of B r i t i s h Columbia from Walter Hepburn, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Censor, March 24, 1920, Attorney General's Department Correspondence Inward, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 7 1 " F i l m Studio No Pla c e f o r B.C. O f f i c i a l s / ' V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, Nov. 26, 1921, p. 15. See a l s o : " W i l l Baker Resign? Members Ask: Want Movies Abolished," V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, V i c t o r i a , Nov. 29, 1921, p. 7. 72 The subject matter of bureau f i l m s i s given i n the many l e t t e r s of thanks f o r f i l m showing sent to Dr. R. A. Baker. See: B.C. Attorney General's Department, Correspondence Inward, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. See a l s o : M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 151. 73 For i n f o r m a t i o n on how the B.C. Motion P i c t u r e Act of 1920 was implemented see: " L i b e r a l Propaganda," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 1; and " L i b e r a l Moving P i c t u r e s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 4. 74 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 58. ^ ^ I b i d . , C o l onel Sam Hughes was M i n i s t e r of M i l i t i a and N a t i o n a l Defence i n the Borden government from October 1911 to November 11, 1916, when he was forced to r e s i g n over the Ross r i f l e scandal. See: Ralph A l l e n , Ordeal by F i r e : Canada 1910-1945, Toronto, Doubleday Canada L i m i t e d , 1961, pp. 35, 110. 76 Although new newsreel f i l m companies were e s t a b l i s h e d during the war to rep l a c e those that f o l d e d , none su r v i v e d the four years of the c o n f l i c t . Canadians wanted Canadian news i n t h e i r t h e a t r e s , but they a l s o wanted i n t e r n a t i o n a l news and the newsreel companies d i d not venture beyond the Canadian borders f o r t h e i r f i l m footage. More i m p o r t a n t l y , the newsreel companies were poorly organized and had l i t t l e experience i n the cinema business. In a d d i t i o n to the newsreel companies there were a l s o independent f i l m makers, l i k e James of Toronto and Maurice Tanguy of Quebec, who turned out f i l m s on r e c r u i t i n g p r a c t i c e s and other aspects of the war on the home f r o n t . See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 61; James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 16. 60 " O f f i c i a l Canadian Government F i l m s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r -i a , A p r i l 23, 1916. S i m i l a r movies complete w i t h l e c t u r e s from B r i t i s h m i l i t a r y personnel, were shown i n England. See: F r e d e r i c k A. T a l b o t , "The New Era of Cinematography," The World's Work, A p r i l 1917, p. 486; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 58. 7 8 Wenden, The B i r t h of the Movies, p. 135; Backhouse, Canadian  Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, pp. 4-5. See a l s o : Canada, Parliament, Debates of the Senate, " N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , March 29, 1939, p. 97. During the debate, Senator McRae of Vancouver, s t a t e d that he was the D i r e c t o r of Organization f o r the Canadian war f i l m s . "Our war f i l m s were not very s u c c e s s f u l and they c e r t a i n l y i n v o l v e d us i n a world of t r o u b l e . We d i d not know very much about the f i l m b u s i -ness ." 79 80 M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 60. I b i d . 81 Backhouse, p. 4. 82 I b i d . , p. 5. See a l s o : Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1919, p. 22. The report shows payment to Essany F i l m Co. of $18,049.95. 83 Backhouse, p. 5. 84 Most p u b l i c a t i o n s which deal w i t h the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau give 1914 as the date the bureau began. This appears to be a mis-take. The f i r s t n o t i c e of bureau a c t i v i t i e s i s given i n the 1917 Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce and seems to make c l e a r the bureau d i d not begin operations u n t i l 1916. "During the year a new f e a -ture has been added to the work of the department i n the u t i l i z a t i o n of the moving p i c t u r e . " See: Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1917, p. x v i i i . ^ I b i d . ^Backhouse, p. 10. ^ ^ I b i d . 88 The i n i t i a l p o p u l a r i t y of s e r i e s l i k e "Seeing Canada" had faded by the l a t e 1920's as other c o u n t r i e s began producing s i m i l a r types of f i l m s . C r i t i c s of the bureau's work commented that the image of Canada being presented to the world was one of a giant playground f o r t o u r i s t s . I t appeared through these p i c t u r e s that Canada was a country w i t h no i n d u s t r i e s , few people, and l i t t l e work. In the main such commentary seems to have stemmed from the f a c t that i t was the t o u r i s t f i l m s which rece i v e d commercial d i s t r i b u t i o n , w h i l e other bureau f i l m s were not seen as much. Even w i t h i n the t o u r i s t c o l l e c t i o n of f i l m s there were excep-t i o n s such as Ottawa: Edinburgh of the North, V i c t o r i a : C i t y of Sun- shine, and Canada's Queen C i t y , a f i l m made about Toronto. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 162, 173. 89 James, pp. 30-33; The Motion P i c t u r e Digest quotation i s taken from M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 134-135. ^^James, p. 29. 61 91 I b i d . , p. 33; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 173. S i r George H. W i l k i n s , b e t t e r known f o r h i s l a t e r A r c t i c and A n t a r c t i c e x p l o r a t i o n s was employed by Gaumont F i l m Company of B r i t a i n (who held the contract w i t h the Canadian government) as a motion p i c t u r e cameraman on the Wilhjalmur Stefansson e x p e d i t i o n of the A r c t i c i n 1913. Several movies were made from t h i s f i l m footage. Some s t i l l shots s u r v i v e i n the Photo-graphic D i v i s i o n of the N a t i o n a l Museum of Man. See: "1913-1916: George H. W i l k i n s and the Canadian A r c t i c E x p e d i t i o n , " N a t i o n a l Museum of Man Pamphlet, Ottawa, n.d. 92 James, p. 33. For an a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n on the types of f i l m s made by the bureau see: Norman R e i l l y Raine, "Figures and P i c t u r e s , " MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 1, 1927, pp. 20, 62, 65. 93 Harold B. Crow, "The P i c t o r i a l that Died," MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 15, 1921, pp. 16, 17, 40, 41. See a l s o : Backhouse, Canadian  Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, p. 10; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 137. 94 The P i c t o r i a l was not the only Canadian newsreel agency created i n the aftermath of World War I . In 1919, the same year the P i c t o r i a l was s t a r t e d , Ernest Ouimet founded B r i t i s h Canadian Pathe News. I t d i f f e r e d from the P i c t o r i a l i n that i t r e c e i v e d no government funding and through a c o n t r a c t w i t h B r i t i s h Pathe i t s coverage i n c l u d e d f o r e i g n as w e l l as domestic news s t o r i e s . M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 61. 95 Crow, "The P i c t o r i a l that Died," p. 16. I b i d . , p. 40. I b i d . , p. 17. 98 In 1923, the Ontario government purchased the Adanac f i l m s t u dios i n Trenton. This purchase allowed the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau to go i n t o f i l m production on i t s own. See: James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 26; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 151. 99 Regina Films was headed by Harry S a v i l l e , an a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t . See: James p. 25; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 151. 1 0 0 T „ James, p. 25. 101 102 I b i d . ; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 151. James, p. 25. 103 Nation B u i l d i n g i n Saskatchewan was made i n 1920 by Pathescope Company of Toronto f o r the Saskatchewan government. I t s d i r e c t o r , Dick B i r d , was one of the best f i l m makers i n Canada at the time. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 151. 1 0 4 T James, p. 26. ^^The quotation i s taken from a statement made by S. C. Johnson, the f i r s t d i r e c t o r of the Ontario Bureau and r e p r i n t e d i n M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 138. 106 I b i d . , p. 141. The statement i s taken from Canadian Weekly, May 14, 1918, p. 13. "'"^James, p. 27. ^ ^ M o r r l s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 80-81. 109 I b i d . , pp. 156, 142. I t i s somewhat i r o n i c that w h i l e f i l m i n g the s u r v i v i n g way of l i f e among the n a t i v e s on Bear I s l a n d , the f i l m crew introduced the Indians to motion p i c t u r e s i n c l u d i n g those of C h a r l i e Chaplin. ^®For a d i s c u s s i o n on the types of reform movements which l e d to the new p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n the 1920's see: N e i l Sutherland, C h i l d r e n i n  English-Canadian So c i e t y : Framing the Twentieth-Century Consensus, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1976. James, p. lb. I b i d . 113 M o r r i s , Canadian Feature F i l m s , p. 4. 114 A r c h i e P. McKishnie, "Shooting 'The Man from Glengarry'," MacLean's Magazine, J u l y 1, 1922, p.42. "'"'^Morris, Embattled Shadows, p. 97. Shipman was fond of saying h i s movies were " r e a l i s m w i t h nature backgrounds." 116 I b i d . , pp. 117, 120; Peter M o r r i s , "Ernest Shipman and 'Back to God's country'," Canadian F i l m Reader, e d i t e d by Seth Feldman and Joyce Nelson, Toronto, Peter M a r t i n A s s o c i a t e s L i m i t e d , 1977, p. 14. Among the "naive i n v e s t o r s " were some w e l l known Canadians such as Robert Stead, Duncan Campbell S c o t t , the Lieutenant Governor and Premier of New Brunswick. 1 1 7 M o r r i s , "Ernest Shipman and 'Back to God's Country'," p. 14. 118 M o r r i s , Canadian Feature F i l m s , pp. 2-3. See a l s o : Peter Cowie, ed., A Concise H i s t o r y of Cinema, New York, A. S. Barnes and Company, 1971, V o l . 1, p. 167; and Dreamland, NFB, 1974. 119 Of the 36 f i l m companies e s t a b l i s h e d before 1922, e i g h t spec-i f i c a l l y set out to e s t a b l i s h a feature f i l m i n d u s t r y . With the excep-t i o n of Shipman's company, none produced more than one movie. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 63, 82. 120 T, 7 Q I b i d . , p. 79. 121 I b i d . , p. 91. Not only was Kean's f e a t u r e a dismal box o f f i c e f a i l u r e , but i n order to have i t shown, Kean had to pay f o r i t s premiere at the Royal Alexandra i n Toronto. Hugh Kemp wrote, i t "made so l i t t l e money that not even the t h e a t r e ushers could be p a i d . " See: Hugh Kemp, "Hollywood, Quebec," MacLean's Magazine, May 15, 1947, p. 28. 122 James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 22; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 87. 63 123 I b i d . , p. 219. 19/ 1 9 S Dreamland, NFB, 1974; James, pp. 23-24. I b i d . , p. 24. 126 I b i d . p. 23; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 221. 127 I b i d . , p. 172; James, p. 23. CHAPTER I I I GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY IN ACTION: THE PROVINCIAL FILM BUREAUS From the day of the f i r s t n i c k e l o d e o n s , the Canadian governments have been a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the c r e a t i o n o f f i l m b o a r d s , c e n s o r s h i p l e g i s l a t i o n and f i n a n c i a l programs f o r f i l m makers. T h i s t r a d i t i o n a l l i a i s o n o f government and f i l m makers has had b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s . W h ile a s t r o n g case can be made t o suggest t h a t t h e r e would not be much of a Canadian f i l m h i s t o r y w i t h o u t government s u p p o r t , the r e c o r d of government i n the e s s e n t i a l l y c r e a t i v e endeavor of f i l m making i s one of e r r o r s , mismanagement and l a c k of d i r e c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f the b u r e a u c r a t s . U n t i l r e c e n t l y , Canada was the o n l y w e s t e r n n a t i o n which had never produced a f i l m c l a s s i c . P a r t of the problem of government i n f i l m stems from Canada's c o n s t i t u t i o n , the B r i t i s h N o r t h America A c t — a document which i s s i l e n t on the q u e s t i o n o f c u l t u r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . W h i l e the BNA A c t ' s vagueness has had such advantages as a l l o w i n g f i l m makers a c c e s s t o f u n d i n g from a l l t h r e e l e v e l s o f government, t h e r e s u l t i s t h a t no one government has been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the development and d i r e c t i o n o f Canadian f i l m . When the movies were i n t h e i r i n f a n c y , a l l l e v e l s o f government engaged i n f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s a p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t any thought t o a p p o r t i o n i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . P r e c e d e n t s were e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e the n a t u r e o f f i l m was u n d e r s t o o d . Government sponsored f i l m 64 65 operations e x i s t e d w i t h i n a p e c u l i a r c o l l a g e of unrelated f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l departments. In B.C., f o r example, the f i l m bureau operated under the Game Conservation Board, a branch of the Attorney General's Department, w h i l e i n Ontario an independent department was created under the auspices of the P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer. The h i s t o r y of f i l m i n Canada i n t h i s r e s p e c t , stands c l e a r l y apart from that of radio:; Developed some two decades a f t e r the movies, r a d i o was immediately viewed as a form of communications which had to be brought under f e d e r a l c o n t r o l . For va r i o u s reasons, motion p i c t u r e s have been denied s i m i l a r o f f i c i a l recog-n i t i o n by the f e d e r a l government. 1 E a r l y adventures by the governments i n f i l m were supported by the growing awareness that f i l m was a s c i e n t i f i c i n v e n t i o n which could be used to 'educate' the p u b l i c , not j u s t e n t e r t a i n them. Despite academic works l i k e Harvard Professor Hugo Munsterberg's The Photoplay: A Psycho- l o g i c a l Study (1916) which s e r i o u s l y discussed the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and aes-t h e t i c aspects of f i l m and i n d i c a t e d "to the i n t e l l i g e n t s i a that the lowly motion p i c t u r e was worthy of a t t e n t i o n , " i n North America the a r t i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s of f i l m tended to be shunned and most proponents of f i l m j u s t i f i e d i t s e x i s t e n c e to the p u b l i c as a handmaiden of s c i e n t i f i c pro-gress. Here was an i n v e n t i o n which could r e v o l u t i o n i z e a l l aspects of education and u p l i f t mankind. Even those who saw a l i n k between a r t and cinema tended to regard i t as a means of educating the masses i n the f i n e a r t s by b r i n g i n g stage productions to them v i a the screen, r a t h e r than seeing cinema as a new a r t form i n i t s e l f . To these w r i t e r s , cinema was a p o s i t i v e f o r c e i n b r i n g i n g about a more j u s t and equal s o c i e t y s i n c e 3 drama would no longer be the p r i v i l e g e of the few. Popular magazines, w h i l e l o a t h to discuss movies at the nickelodeons, were r e c e p t i v e to p u b l i s h i n g a r t i c l e s which d e a l t w i t h 4 s c i e n t i f i c and edu c a t i o n a l advances of the media. In 1912, Lucien B u l l , a French s c i e n t i s t , w a s reported to be using moving p i c t u r e s "to a s c e r t a i n the p e c u l i a r movements of the wings of i n s e c t s during f l i g h t , " and Dr. Cranz of the B e r l i n M i l i t a r y Academy was studying the f l i g h t of p r o j e c t i l e s , the operation of automatic f i r e arms and v e l o c i t y of m i s s i l e s i n f l i g h t using the same means. By 1913, Isaac Marcosson, a c o n t r i b u t o r to Munsey's Magazine, f e l t comfortable i n s t a t i n g that "the ordinary motion p i c t u r e has become w e l l nigh i n d i s p e n s a b l e i n education and s c i e n c e ; i n pr e s e r v i n g the march of h i s t o r i c and s i g n i f i c a n t events and i n advancing the whole s o c i a l u p l i f t . " The e d u c a t i o n a l approach to f i l m gave a u t i l i t a r i a n purpose and a r e s p e c t a b i l i t y to cinema which i t had lacked e a r l i e r . The mechanical wizard of f i l m , Edison, s t r o n g l y supported 'the v i s u a l method of g e t t i n g wisdom.' "Some day our school c h i l d r e n , " Edison s t a t e d i n a 1914 i n t e r v i e w , " w i l l be g e t t i n g f a r more knowledge from moving p i c t u r e s than from books or l e c t u r e s . " 7 Other w e l l known persons l i k e Dr. A l e x i s C a r r e l of the R o c k e f e l l e r I n s t i t u t i o n who was reported to be showing f i l m s to nurses and i n t e r n s on c u r i n g disease and s u r g i c a l operations a l s o l e n t c r e d i b i l i t y to cinema. The P u b l i c Health Service of the United States boasted of a f i l m "a mi l e long, which d r i v e s home . . . 9 the n e c e s s i t y of p u b l i c hygiene by c i t i z e n s . 1 At Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , f i l m was used to t e s t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of young men as chauffeurs. The would-be chauffeur was seated i n an automobile w h i l e a p i c t u r e of a c h i l d was f l a s h e d on the screen. The a p p l i c a n t ' s r e a c t i o n was noted by the i n s t r u c t o r , and i f the candidate f l i n c h e d , he was dismissed."^ In 1914, p r i s o n reformers were showing f i l m s l i k e 67 Les Miserables to "strengthen and redeem the weak and wicked" i n the s t a t e reformatory f o r women i n New Y o r k . 1 1 By 1916, the Toledo Museum of A r t was c a r r y i n g out a f u l l program of ' c r a f t ' f i l m s f o r i t s p a t r o n s . 1 In B r i t i s h Columbia, 160 * teachers gathered i n V i c t o r i a to l e a r n the l a t e s t methods of teaching by motion p i c t u r e s from "experts from 13 Toronto." While the p o l i t i c i a n s i n t u i t i v e l y seemed to recognize f i l m ' s p o t e n t i a l f o r a r r e s t i n g the a t t e n t i o n of the masses and f o r c r e a t i n g p u b l i c o p i n i o n , the expense of government f i l m making had to be j u s t i -f i e d to an e l e c t o r a t e which s u s p i c i o u s l y regarded the new media as a passing fancy, amusement or l u x u r y . L i k e the e a r l y proponents of f i l m , Canadian government f i l m s were a l s o j u s t i f i e d as being ' e d u c a t i o n a l ' — made p r i m a r i l y to promote tourism, immigration, trade and commerce. Before 1915, such f i l m s were u s u a l l y contracted to B r i t i s h , French or American f i l m companies, w h i l e a f t e r 1915 government f i l m s tended to be made by Canadian f i l m makers. Most of the provinces appear to have engaged i n f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s at one time or another, but t h e i r operations were piecemeal. In A l b e r t a , f o r example, s e v e r a l commercial f i l m makers, as w e l l as the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , produced movies f o r the p r o v i n c i a l government during the 1920's and 1930's, but no f i l m 14 bureau was e s t a b l i s h e d . Quebec, Nova S c o t i a and Manitoba apparently a l s o had f i l m operations under government auspices f o r a short p e r i o d of time. 1'' Three pr o v i n c e s , however, B r i t i s h Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, e s t a b l i s h e d c e n t r a l i z e d f i l m agencies, as d i d the f e d e r a l government, but each of these was doomed to f a i l u r e through b u r e a u c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making. I t i s probably not c o i n c i d e n t a l that i n the 'era of P r o s p e r i t y , ' 68 t h e 'have' p r o v i n c e s o f Canada s h o u l d d e c i d e t o have more and saw a v e h i c l e t o a d v e r t i s e t h e i r a t t r a c t i o n s i n the medium o f f i l m . The hey-day o f t h e p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus c o i n c i d e d w i t h Canadian d e s i r e s to d i s p l a y t h e i r new s t a t u s i n the w o r l d and t h e i r a m b i t i o n s t o de v e l o p t h e i r i d e n t i t y a t home. While each p r o v i n c i a l f i l m agency appears t o have o r i g i n a t e d and develop e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y , the type o f f i l m s made and the work each d i d was q u i t e s i m i l a r — s o m e t i m e s so s i m i l a r t h a t i t l e d to p e t t y r i v a l r i e s and d u p l i c a t i o n of s e r v i c e s between the bureaus and 16 the F e d e r a l Canadian M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau. T h e i r j o b was c h i e f l y to c r e a t e 'propaganda' or ' p u b l i c i t y , ' two terms used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y a t t h e time, f o r the p r o v i n c e by p r o d u c i n g f i l m s which would promote i m m i g r a t i o n , t o u r i s m , t r a d e and commerce. Se c o n d l y , and t h i s was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f the work done by the O n t a r i o M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau, they had an e d u c a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n — t o e x p l a i n the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f i n d u s t r y and government t o the po p u l a c e of the p r o v i n c e v i a the v e h i c l e of cinema. I n d i r e c t l y , t h e p r o v i n c i a l cameramen a l s o assumed a r o l e as p i c t o r i a l r e c o r d e r s of major ev e n t s and happenings i n t h e i r p r o v i n -c i a l h i s t o r y . The f i l m s they made were s h o r t , and f o r the most p a r t t e c h n i c a l l y sound."'"7 The t r a v e l o g u e s and e d u c a t i o n a l type o f f i l m s they produced were f o r e r u n n e r s of the documentary s t y l e which i s t h e h a l l m a r k of Can-18 a d i a n movies today. But the p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus were n e v e r g i v e n the f a c i l i t i e s or f i n a n c i n g t o compete w i t h t h e ' g l o s s y ' American f e a t u r e f i l m s . By t h e time the p r o v i n c i a l bureaus were e s t a b l i s h e d i n Canada, the American f i l m p r o d u c t i o n companies a l r e a d y had p o w e r f u l l o b b i e s i n the n a t i o n t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e i r c o n t r o l over which movies 19 would be p l a y e d i n Canadian t h e a t r e s would not be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h . 69. C o l l e c t i v e l y , the p r o v i n c i a l bureaus took a back seat to the American commercial movie i n t e r e s t s . While the Canadian p u b l i c f l o c k e d to see Mary P i c k f o r d , Douglas Fairbanks and Rudolph V a l e n t i n o i n t h e i r l o c a l movie houses, the p r o v i n c i a l movies had to make do w i t h whomever they could a t t r a c t through n o n - t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n church basements, 20 school auditoriums and club h a l l s . One province that attempted l e g i s l a t i o n to i n s u r e i t s bureau p i c t u r e s would be seen i n the commer-c i a l movie theatres was B r i t i s h Columbia. Under the Motion P i c t u r e Act of 1920, theatre managers were r e q u i r e d to show government f i l m s f o r 21 f i f t e e n minutes each evening. This seemingly simple requirement, however, caused a great d e a l of d i f f i c u l t y as p r o t e s t i n g theatre managers supported by government o p p o s i t i o n members charged that they were being 22 forced to show government propaganda. O c c a s i o n a l l y , the v a r i o u s bureaus were able to o b t a i n c o n t r a c t s w i t h f o r e i g n d i s t r i b u t i o n com-panies and some p r o v i n c i a l f i l m s were shown commercially i n Canada and 23 abroad, but they were the exceptions r a t h e r than the r u l e . Although the bureaus were never an a l t e r n a t i v e to American movies i n Canada, they d i d provide a r e a l p u b l i c s e r v i c e . Bureau f i l m s recorded p r o v i n c i a l h i s t o r y , o f f e r e d e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s and i n f o r m a t i o n on a wide range of s u b j e c t s , promoted tourism and trade f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e provinces, and provided entertainment i n o u t l y i n g areas 24 not s e r v i c e d by commercial movie t h e a t r e s . Moreover, the Canadians of the twenties who saw the bureau f i l m s were r e c e p t i v e to t h e i r screen 25 image as sturdy and hard working northern peoples. U n l i k e the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board, which employed B r i t i s h f i l m makers i n i t s formative years, the p r o v i n c i a l bureaus were s o l e l y Canadian employing n a t i v e f i l m 26 makers and personnel. As such they were i n an optimum p o s i t i o n to l a y a foundation upon which a Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y might have been b u i l t . The p o t e n t i a l of the bureaus, however, was never developed. They ceased production without reaching maturity and i n the process a decade of Canadian f i l m making was l o s t . L i k e a l l government agencies, the p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus were subject to f i n a n c i a l cutbacks, party p o l i t i c s and the whims of i n d i v i d -u a l p o l i t i c i a n s who knew l i t t l e or nothing about the nature of the media. The p o l i t i c i a n s understood that f i l m could be used as a t o o l f o r govern-ment propaganda, but they f a i l e d to perceive the s u b t l e aspects of f i l m as a means of promoting Canadian c u l t u r e and a r t . This tunnel v i s i o n was a l l the more n o t i c e a b l e by the 1920's when e d i t o r i a l s and a r t i c l e s began appearing i n newspapers and magazines lamenting the country's 27 slow progress i n developing a motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y . The f i l m i n d u s t r y was seen only i n terms of short-range goals that c o i n c i d e d , perhaps, w i t h the p o l i t i c i a n ' s f i v e year term of o f f i c e . P o l i t i c i a n s were unable to formulate the long term o b j e c t i v e s necessary to b r i n g f o r t h a strong Canadian i d e n t i t y on the screen, p r i n c i p a l l y because they could not escape the n o t i o n that f i l m was a l u x u r y — a n a f f o r d a b l e s o r t of propaganda during wartime and periods of economic p r o s p e r i t y but, expendable i n periods of r e c e s s i o n and depression. I t was t h i s s h o r t -sightedness, t h i s i n a b i l i t y to a r t i c u l a t e sound f i l m p o l i c y that c r i p p l e d the p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus and c a l l e d i n t o question the whole idea of whether f i l m making was r e a l l y the business of p r o v i n c i a l governments. A f t e r a scandal i n 1920, the demise of the B.C. P a t r i o t i c and Edu-c a t i o n a l Motion P i c t u r e Bureau was r a p i d . Throughout the 1920 p r o v i n -c i a l e l e c t i o n campaign, the bureau was accused of showing propaganda 28 f i l m s f o r the L i b e r a l P a r ty. On the i n s t r u c t i o n s of Richard Baker, 71-Chairman of the Game Conservation Board and D i r e c t o r of the F i l m Bureau, every th e a t r e i n the lower mainland of B.C. and i n V i c t o r i a ran a t r a i l e r on e l e c t i o n eve showing the operations of a Crescent Beach oyster company which employed ' a l i e n s , ' O r i e n t a l s and Hindus, to the e x c l u s i o n of white workers. The f i l m revealed that W i l l i a m Bowser, former Premier of the Province and leader of the o p p o s i t i o n Conservative Party was one of the 29 owners of the company. A f t e r h i s defeat at the p o l l s , Bowser charged that the f i l m had cost him the e l e c t i o n . He accused Baker of misusing p u b l i c funds and the resources of the P i c t u r e Bureau to f u r t h e r the L i b e r a l cause. He stat e d i n the house that he d i d not l i k e to be seen 30 "mixing himself up w i t h a bunch of Hindus." The press made good copy from the q u a r r e l . The common sentiment over the a f f a i r was st a t e d by The D a i l y C o l o n i s t : P o l i t i c a l a d v e r t i s i n g paid f o r by the L i b e r a l party i s l e g i t i m a t e : paid f o r by the p u b l i c i t i s i n d e f e n s i b l e . There can be no o b j e c t i o n to the F a r r i s i s t s : e x p l o r i n g the garbage cans of t h e i r opponents f o r evidence that w i l l get them vo t e s , but l e t them do i t i n t h e i r own time and at t h e i r own expense.31 The use of f i l m f o r propaganda purposes was not new. Movies l i k e The Home L i f e of the J o l l y Jap (1904) which po p u l a r i z e d B r i t a i n ' s new A s i a t i c a l l y of the times, r e f l e c t e d the p a t r i o t i c sentiments of the producers and t h e i r assessment of p u b l i c t a s t e , but they were not c a l -32 culated e f f o r t by p o l i t i c a l leaders to s e l l p o l i c y . During World War I , however, governments on both sides of the c o n f l i c t became in v o l v e d w i t h using the media. The war experience convinced the p o l i t i c a n s that movies were most e f f e c t i v e i n g e t t i n g t h e i r message to the p u b l i c because 33 they were harder to d i s r e g a r d . In the United S t a t e s , the Republican party could not forget that C i v i l i z a t i o n (1916), an anti-war p i c t u r e , 34 was a t t r i b u t e d to Woodrow Wilson's second v i c t o r y at the p o l l s . In 72 due course, the Republicans staked a c l a i m i n the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y 35 by i n v e s t i n g i n S e l z n i c k News. As the 1920 P r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n drew c l o s e r , "the a i r was f u l l of newsreels and the newsreels were f u l l of 36 Warren G. Harding." In the B.C. P r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n of the same year, government made movies, i n c l u d i n g the 'Oyster Bed' movie, were l e g i s l a t e d 37 to be shown i n a l l t h eatres i n the province. Whether the 'oyster bed' f i l m a c t u a l l y damaged Bowser's chances at the p o l l s i s questionable. Yet i n post-war B r i t i s h Columbia where unemployment was high and anti-non-white sentiments st r o n g , the idea of a l a r g e company employing only coloured ' a l i e n s ' was anathema w i t h the 38 e l e c t o r a t e . O f f i c i a l l y , Canada might have been moving towards the modern self-image as a mosaic of va r i o u s n a t i o n a l i t i e s , but i t was a mosaic which d i d not in c l u d e the Chinese, Japanese or Sikhs. In f a c t , the ' O r i e n t a l s , ' a term used at the time to i n c l u d e people from I n d i a , had no place i n the f u t u r e of B.C. as envisioned by many of i t s inhab-i t a n t s who wholeheartedly supported the r e s t r i c t i v e immigration p o l i c y 39 of Canada i n the 1920's. Conservative attacks on Baker increased and broadened i n scope to inc l u d e charges against h i s use of p u b l i c funds as Chairman of the 40 Conservation Board. Attorney General F a r r i s , Richard Baker's boss, a l s o came i n f o r h i s share of abuse when he was accused of accepting 41 'beaver s k i n s ' f o r h i s w i f e from Baker. Although a Royal Commission i n t o the a c t i v i t i e s of Richard Baker i n 1922 f a i l e d to s u b s t a n t i a t e any of the charges l a i d against him i n connection w i t h the Game Conservation Board, Baker r e t i r e d from a c t i v e work w i t h the Game Board and F a r r i s J r 42 resigned from the government. In a l l the charges and counter-charges which followed the e l e c t i o n , the 'Oyster Bed' movie was soon f o r g o t t e n , but the power of f i l m as propaganda was not. L i k e most people i n North America, B.C.'ers b e l i e v e d that propaganda d i s g u i s e d as edu c a t i o n a l entertainment was 43 n e i t h e r honest salesmanship nor honest showmanship. The Conservatives. making the most of the p o l i t i c a l uproar, took the p o s i t i o n that a f i l m s t udio was no place f o r government o f f i c i a l s . Tory spokesman Robert Pooley denounced the f i l m bureau and st a t e d that i t was "a f r i l l that should be e l i m i n a t e d . " 4 4 The bureau remained a c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e between the Conservatives and L i b e r a l s throughout the 1920's. The bureau was r e t a i n e d , but i t s production was severely c u r t a i l e d . Under the guise of c u t t i n g down government expenses, the L i b e r a l s closed down the Vancouver o f f i c e of the f i l m s e r v i c e . The work of the bureau was t r a n s f e r r e d to the P r o v i n c i a l Censor's O f f i c e . " I t i s understood," reported the V i c t o r i a Times of December 19th, 1921, "that the change i s to be permanent and 45 r e a l l y means the passing of the Government f i l m s e r v i c e . " In 1923, the e d u c a t i o n a l f i l m s of the bureau were withdrawn from c i r c u l a t i o n . The D a i l y C o l o n i s t lamented t h e i r absence n o t i n g that w h i l e B.C. was r e c e i v i n g l i t t l e a d v e r t i s i n g , the other provinces of the Dominion were 46 having f i l m s made to show t h e i r provinces to "best advantage." Even the s m a l l sum of $2,367 the bureau r e c e i v e d i n 1924-25 to r e v i s e some of i t s f i l m s was c r i t i c i z e d by the Conservatives as "a pure p o l i t i c a l hand-out" and Richard Baker, who once again ch a i r e d the bureau, was l a b e l l e d 47 as u n f i t because he was a d e n t i s t and not a f i l m maker. Funding f o r the bureau was f u r t h e r reduced i n 1925 to $1500 but even t h i s amount of 4 8 money was not passed without considerable debate i n the l e g i s l a t u r e . The l a s t major production undertaken by the bureau i n the twenties had 74 the consent of both p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . I t was a s e r i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l travelogues showing the newly completed Cariboo and P a c i f i c highways and 49 the operations of the smelter i n T r a i l . The reason put forward f o r the c l o s u r e of the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau and Regina Films was to cut expenditures because of the costs i n -volved i n converting to sound f i l m s . The box o f f i c e success of the f i r s t two f e a t u r e length t a l k i n g p i c t u r e s , Don Juan (1926) w i t h John Barrymore, and The Jazz Singer (1927) w i t h A l J o l s o n sounded the death k n e l l f o r s i l e n t p i c t u r e s . O n l y c e r t a i n f i l m gauges could be converted to a sound t r a c k . The Regina and Ontario f i l m s t u d i o s r e l e a s e d t h e i r non-t h e a t r i c a l f i l m on 28 m i l l i m e t e r f i l m stock, a product designed to be s a f e r i n showing educational movies than the h i g h l y inflammable 35 m i l l i -meter n i t r a t e stock used i n commercial f i l m making. The 28 m i l l i m e t e r stock, however, could not be converted to sound and was soon phased out by the development of 16 m i l l i m e t e r f i l m , a s a f e r product adaptable to a sound f i l m t r a c k . ""^  Rather than convert to sound, the Saskatchewan Gov-52 ernment decided to c l o s e Regina Films i n 1929. 53 The Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau survived u n t i l 1934. U n t i l that year, the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau was the most ambitious, expensive and p r o l i f i c of a l l the p r o v i n c i a l bureaus. From i t s i n i t i a t i o n i n 54 1917, the Ontario Bureau had cost w e l l over $100,000 a year to operate. I t s s t udios were, i n the words of Gordon S p a r l i n g , " w e l l equipped w i t h modern machinery and able to handle a l l branches of the a r t from slow motion p i c t u r e s to animated cartoons."^^ I t s d i r e c t o r , George Pat t o n , was an Ontario A r t College graduate and the producer of "Sod-Buster" which had s u c c e s s f u l l y toured the province a f t e r World War 1 . ^ The aim of the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau was to."teach through the eye" by making "wholesome i n s p i r i n g movies.""' 7 When the Honourable W i l l i a m H. P r i c e , the P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer, o f f i c i a l l y opened the Trenton s t u d i o s i n 1924 to a crowd of more than 6,000, i t was b e l i e v e d that the day might not be f a r o f f when Canada would "become a great motion p i c -t u r e producing country," yet when i t came time to reduce government spending during the depression the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau headed the l i s t . The bureau's existence had not been without p o l i t i c a l s t r i f e . During the f i r s t s i x years when bureau f i l m s were commissioned, a b i t t e r f i g h t f o r f i l m c o n t r a c t s developed between Pathescope, who had received the m a j o r i t y of c o n t r a c t s under the Conservative a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and F i l m c r a f t I n d u s t r i e s , who got the l i o n ' s share of the work a f t e r the 59 United Farmers were v i c t o r i o u s at the p o l l s i n 1919. In t h i s s t r u g g l e f o r domination of p r o v i n c i a l movie making, each company b i d low and charged a d d i t i o n a l costs f o r e x t r a s . Both companies then accused the other of over-charging the government f o r the e x t r a s . ^ F i l m c r a f t , which supposedly rec e i v e d f i n a n c i a l backing from C l i f f o r d S i f t o n and drew support from the Toronto D a i l y S t a r , Star Weekly, and the Winnipeg 61 Free Press, was dubbed 'Film G r a f t ' by Pathescope. In t u r n , Pathe-scope, who had begun i n 1914 by making propaganda war f i l m s , was a l l e g e d to have o f f e r e d f r e e copies of Ontario bureau f i l m s to any 62 province that signed a contract w i t h them. Although such disputes l e d to s e v e r a l a r b i t r a t i o n cases, as w e l l as being brought before the P u b l i c Accounts Committee i n the House, the f e r v o r d i d not stop I r w i n P r o c t o r and B l a i n e I r i s h of F i l m c r a f t from expressing t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to make 's u b t l e ' propaganda f i l m s which would f u r t h e r the cause of the 63 United Farmers i n Ontario and the N a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s i v e P a r t y i n Canada. In the shadow of the B.C. government f i l m scandal, the Drury government 64 q u i t e w i s e l y never took up the F i l m c r a f t o f f e r . With the r e t u r n of the Conservatives to power i n 1923, the f i e r c e competition between the f i l m companies was brought to an end by the government's purchase of the Adanac studios i n T r e n t o n . B y making t h e i r own f i l m s , they b e l i e v e d fewer problems would occur than under the p r e v i o u s l y contracted system, but producing t h e i r own f i l m s was not without i t s own unique c o n f l i c t s . The commercial f i l m companies f e l t threatened by t h i s new government f i l m u n i t and l o b b i e d e f f e c t i v e l y f o r t h e i r cause. The bureau responded by adopting a p o l i c y of no competi-t i o n w i t h e x i s t i n g f i r m s , which i n essence meant they had l i t t l e room 66 f o r maneuverability e i t h e r i n f i l m subject or f i l m s t y l e . Always mindful of p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t s i n t h i s area, good ideas f o r improvements 6 7 i n the bureau were thwarted by those i n p o s i t i o n s to b r i n g about change. 68 S a l a r i e s paid bureau employees were kept n o t o r i o u s l y low. Under such circumstances, the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau became a k i n d of nur-sery f o r f i l m makers who moved on to b e t t e r paying and more c r e a t i v e 69 endeavors when the opportunity arose. The bureau a l s o s u f f e r e d from an i n a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h d i s t r i b u -t i o n c o n t r a c t s f o r i t s f i l m s i n the United S t a t e s . 7 ^ In 1924, George Brownridge, the former owner of Adanac, promoted a scheme whereby the bureau would sponsor 'Roxy and His Gang' on a r a d i o and f i l m tour of Ontario. These w e l l known American r a d i o p e r s o n a l i t i e s would adver-t i s e Ontario through r a d i o broadcasts from Toronto and appearances i n bureau f i l m s which would then r e c e i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the U.S. market. The p l a n , which was f o s t e r e d i n New York, cost Ontario taxpayers some $23,000 and was terminated before S. L. R o t h a f e l and h i s group ever set foot i n the province, but not before Brownridge had been paid handsomely 72 f o r h i s s e r v i c e s i n the aborted a f f a i r . The 'Roxy A f f a i r ' as i t came to be c a l l e d by the press, became the source of considerable d i s c o n c e r t -73 ment f o r the Conservatives i n the l e g i s l a t u r e . The L i b e r a l s swept i n t o power i n 1934 on a promise to reduce government spending and i n short order the bureau was closed. O f f i c i a l l y , Premier Hepburn announced 74 the bureau was being closed f o r "economic reasons." U n o f f i c i a l l y , the Premier's new L i b e r a l government s e i z e d the opportunity to r i d themselves of a branch of government spawned and nurtured by the former Conservative a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . When i t was pointed out to Hepburn that the bureau com-peted w i t h the commercial f i l m s e c t o r , that p r i v a t e firms could make the f i l m s cheaper, and that conversion to sound was expensive, the d e c i s i o n to c l o s e the bureau was promptly enacted by o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l on October 26, 1934. 7 ^ Duncan M a r s h a l l , P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e , r e c a l l e d : I t gave me considerable s a t i s f a c t i o n when we wiped out the Govern-ment f i l m business a l t o g e t h e r i n the province of Ontario. We had a l i t t l e Hollywood i n Trenton, but we s o l d Hollywood and closed the business up and I t h i n k the f i l m s are deposited i n a room some-where. The general o p i n i o n was that i f any f i l m s went out from Canada they should be n a t i o n a l f i l m s and that Ontario should go out of the f i l m business. I t d i d so, and I don't t h i n k anybody missed i t . 7 6 Such b u r e a u c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s meant the l o s s of years of development i n Canadian f i l m . Ontario and Saskatchewan f i l m makers j o i n e d the s w e l l i n g number of unemployed i n Canada at the time. The f i l m s and p r i n t s made by the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau were not "deposited i n a room somewhere," they were s o l d to the C.P.R.'s Associated Screen News, where they were e i t h e r cut f o r stock shorts or destroyed to r e g a i n the s i l v e r f o r the e m u l s i o n . 7 7 78 While Hepburn's d e c i s i o n to c l o s e the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau might have been sound p o l i t i c s , (a proof of the government's s i n -cere d e s i r e to cut spending during the depression), i n F a s c i s t I t a l y and N a z i Germany f i l m crews were r e a d i l y spending the p u b l i c purse churning out endless r e e l s of f i l m s f o r "the education of the German and I t a l i a n 78 people." The c l o s u r e of the Ontario Bureau f o r f i n a n c i a l reasons was unnecessary. Sound f i l m production was c o s t l y , but i t was s c a r c e l y urgent to switch to ' t a l k i e s ' s i n c e the format of many of the s i l e n t f i l m s made by the bureau were designed to form the nucleus at s o c i a l 79 gatherings i n the r u r a l areas. Before the bureau c l o s e d , some sound equipment had been purchased and s e v e r a l sound productions had been under-80 taken. The bureau might have gone on s e r v i n g Ontario communities during the depression w i t h the more than 2,000 f i l m s i t had i n i t s V 81 l i b r a r y . The bureau was a b o l i s h e d , but the Ontario Board of Movie Censors continued. The s a l a r i e s of the censors at times exceeded those of the f i l m makers, yet t h e i r job was d u p l i c a t e d i n every province i n 82 Canada save P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d . Moreover, every American f i l m e n t e r i n g Ontario had already been censored t w i c e , — f i r s t by the censors of the American Motion P i c t u r e Producers and D i s t r i b u t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n , and secondly by t h e i r Canadian agents whose job i t was to remove any 83 m a t e r i a l that might offend the Canadian p u b l i c . 79 Footnotes •''For a d i s c u s s i o n on the government's piecemeal approach to the a r t s i n Canada see: Peter Hay, " C u l t u r a l P o l i t i c s , " Canadian Theatre  Review, Spring 1974, pp. 7-15. 2 Terry Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One Night s, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1964, (copyright 1926), p. 634. For examples of e a r l y a r t i c l e s which p r e d i c t e d that f i l m would become a new a r t form see: "Frozen Movies," Independent Magazine, March 4, 1914, V o l . 77, p. 311; "The Moving P i c t u r e s of Tomorrow," The Outlook, June 27, 1914, pp. 444-445; and Harold Stearns, "Art i n Moving P i c t u r e s , " The New Republic, Sept. 25, 1915, V o l . XV, No. 47, pp. 207-208. Hugo Munsterberg was the most eminent academic i n North America to become in v o l v e d w i t h motion p i c t u r e s at t h i s time. He was the chairman of the Philosophy Department at Harvard and i s the acknowledged 'father of a p p l i e d psychology'. He was a f r i e n d and counselor of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Carnegie and was a p r o l i f i c w r i t e r of s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y of America, and of h i s n a t i v e Germany. Munsterberg r a t i o n a l i z e d h i s stay i n the U.S. on the common premise that the f u t u r e of c i v i l i z a t i o n l a y i n an i n c r e a s i n g rapport between Germany and the 'Anglo-Saxons' and saw himself as a missionary i n cementing the bonds between the U.S., Germany and B r i t a i n . U nfortunately when war broke out, Munsterberg was t r e a t e d l i k e an enemy a l i e n i n the U.S. even though the country hadn't declared war at the time. He died i n 1916, w h i l e g i v i n g a l e c t u r e , at the age of f i f t y - t h r e e . Despite i t s keen i n s i g h t i n t o f i l m as a r t , h i s book The  Photoplay, published i n the same year as h i s death, was ignored u n t i l r e c e n t l y . In 1970, i t was r e p r i n t e d under a new t i t l e The F i l m w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n by Richard G r i f f i t h . See: Hugo Munsterberg, The F i l m : A  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Study, New York, Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc., 1970. Although of a s l i g h t l y l a t e r p e r i o d , a second author who saw f i l m as an a r t form was A l i e Faure. In 1920, he made s i g n i f i c a n t comments on the a e s t h e t i c s of f i l m i n a s e r i e s of a r t i c l e s i n The Freeman. Subsequently, they were r e p r i n t e d and published under the t i t l e The A r t of C i n e p l a s t i c s , i n 1923. One s e l e c t i o n from Faure's book i s r e p r i n t e d i n D a n i e l T a l b o t , ed. F i l m : An Anthology, Los Angeles, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1966, pp. 3-14. 3 T y p i c a l of the a r t i c l e s which equated i n c r e a s i n g democracy w i t h the education of the p u b l i c i n the f i n e a r t s v i a the screen are: George E t h e l b e r t Walsh, "Moving P i c t u r e Drama f o r the M u l t i t u d e , " Independent  Magazine, Feb. 6, 1908, V o l . LXIV, pp. 306-310; and "The Drama of the People," Independent Magazine, Sept. 29, 1910, V o l . 69, pp. 713-715. 4 For e a r l y a r t i c l e s which deal w i t h the s c i e n t i f i c advances and the a p p l i c a t i o n of cinema to science see: J . M i l l e r B a r r , "Animated P i c t u r e s , " Popular Science Monthly, Dec. 1897, V o l . 52, pp. 177-188; "Edison's Invention of the Kineto-Phonograph," The Century Magazine, June 1894, V o l . X L V I I I , No. 2, pp. 206-214; F r e d e r i c k A. T a l b o t , "Cinematography on Glass P l a t e s , " The World's Work, May 1912, V o l . XIX, No. 114, pp. 663-664; F r e d e r i c k A. Talbot, "Wonders of the Cinematograph," Feb. 1912, V o l . XIX, No. I l l , pp. 326-328; Isaac F. Marcosson, "The Coming of the T a l k i n g P i c t u r e , " Murisey's Magazine, March 1913, V o l . X I V I I I , No. VI, 80 pp. 956-960; F r e d e r i c k A. Talbot, "The New Era of the Cinematograph," The World's Work, A p r i l 1917, pp. 477-487; F r e d e r i c k A. Talbot, " S t e r o -scope Moving P i c t u r e s i n N a t u r a l C o l o r , " The World's Work, March 1909, pp. 436-441. ^ F r e d e r i c k A. Talbo t , "Wonders of the Cinematograph," The World's  Work, Feb. 1912, V o l . XIX, No. I l l , p. 326. Isaac F. Marcosson, "The Coming of the T a l k i n g P i c t u r e , " Munsey's  Magazine, March 1913, V o l . X I V I I I , No. VI, p.. 959. 7Gregory Mason, "Teaching by the Movies," The Outlook, Dec. 1914, p. 968. 8 I b i d . , p. 964. 9 I b i d . 1 0 I b i d . The p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g was c a r r i e d out by Hugo Munster-berg. Ibxd. 12 "Motion P i c t u r e s and Museums," The Outlook, Oct. 25, 1916, pp. 407-408. 13 "Teachers to Learn Teaching by Movies," V i c t o r i a D a i l y Times, V i c t o r i a , J u l y 9, 1920, p. 8. 14 D i s c u s s i o n w i t h a r c h i v i s t s , A l b e r t a P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , Edmonton, Aug. 15, 1978. A f i l m l i b r a r y was e s t a b l i s h e d at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a i n 1917. Peter M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, Montreal, M c G i l l -Queen's U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978, p. 151. ^ A n d r e Paquet, How to Make or Not to Make a Canadian F i l m , Montreal, La Cinematheque, 1967, p. 4. Paquet s t a t e s that i n 1920 Quebec became the f i r s t province i n Canada to use f i l m f o r education. This statement i s obviously i n c o r r e c t , s i n c e B.C. was using f i l m f o r ed u c a t i o n a l purposes as e a r l y as 1907 (see Ch. 2, footnote no. 58). However, Paquet's statement does i n d i c a t e that the Quebec Government may have been sponsoring or pro-ducing f i l m at that time. A second reference to a Quebec P i c t u r e Bureau i s found i n the House of Commons debates on the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board Act. On March 7th, Mr. Lawson s t a t e d : "Every province has what i s known as a motion p i c t u r e bureau. There i s one i n Ontario and another i n Quebec. I am not so sure about New Brunswick, but there i s one i n Nova S c o t i a and one i n B r i t i s h Columbia." On March 9th, however, Lawson declared he had been i n e r r o r and that a l l of the p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus were now d i s -banded. See: Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, O f f i c i a l Report of  Debates, " N a t i o n a l F i l m Board," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , March 7, March 9, 1939, pp. 1666, 1737. No other reference to a Quebec f i l m bureau could be found. Records of the existence of f i l m bureaus i n Nova S c o t i a and New Brunswick are a l s o unclear. L e t t e r from B. C. Cuthbertson, P u b l i c Records A r c h i v i s t , P u b l i c Archives of Nova S c o t i a , H a l i f a x , Nov. 23, 1978. Cuthbertson w r i t e s : "We have no informat i o n on the p r o v i n c i a l motion p i c t u r e bureau." L e t t e r from Dale R. Cogswell, A r c h i v i s t , P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , F r e d e r i c t o n , New Brunswick, Dec. 21, 1978. Cogswell wrote that 81 he could f i n d no record of expenditures f o r p r o v i n c i a l government f i l m production. Reference to contracted government promotional f i l m s i n Manitoba i s given i n : " A d v e r t i s i n g B.C." The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , J u l y 18, 1923, p. 4. Dick B i r d of Pathescope Company of Toronto i s known to have f i l m e d f o r the Saskatchewan and Nova S c o t i a governments. M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 149. 16 C l i f f o r d Rodney James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada: I t s Task of Communication," Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s , 1968, p. 26. James deals w i t h the r i v a l r y which e x i s t e d between the Ontario P i c t u r e Bureau and the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. See a l s o : " A d v e r t i s i n g i n B.C.," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , J u l y 18, 1923, p. 4. Here the author laments that B.C. does not seem to be keeping up w i t h Manitoba and Ontario i n p i c t u r e production, "There i s a l a c k of d i r e c t i o n somewhere, and i t i s a d e f i c i e n c y that should be made good." A s i m i l a r note of dismay at B.C.'s l a c k of competition i n t h i s area i s given i n a l e t t e r from the p r o v i n c i a l censor. See: L e t t e r to W. J . Smith and L. A. Menendez, from W. Hepburn, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Censor, Feb. 29, 1924, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a . 1 7 A d v e r t i s i n g i n B.C.", p. 4. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 25. 18 I b i d . Some i n d i c a t i o n that the B.C. Bureau al s o used a documen-t a r y - l i k e s t y l e of f i l m making i s given i n a comment about Arthur Kean's (the f i l m maker) l a t e r f i l m s . See: Peter M o r r i s , Canadian Feature F i l m s : 1913-1969: Part I 1913-1940, Ottawa, Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , 1970, p. 4. 19 As e a r l y as 1914 Vancouver theatres appear to have been c o n t r o l l e d by American f i l m exchanges. See: L e t t e r to Mr. Gordon, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Censor, Vancouver, from Arthur Kean, Cowboy Photographer of B.C., Nov. 19, 1914. The charge that American exchanges c o n t r o l l e d a l l the major theatres i n Canada by 1929 was borne out i n the Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o Motion P i c t u r e s i n 1931. See: Canada, Parliament, Department of Labour, Inves- t i g a t i o n i n t o an A l l e g e d Combine i n the Motion P i c t u r e Industry i n Canada, Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , A p r i l 30, 1931. In order to thwart growing demands f o r censorship l e g i s l a t i o n i n the U.S., the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y formed the Motion P i c t u r e Producers and D i s t r i b u t o r s of America i n 1921 as a s e l f - c e n s o r i n g body of the i n d u s t r y and h i r e d W i l l Hays, then Postmaster-General of the U.S., to be p r e s i d e n t . They a l s o h i r e d agents to p r o t e c t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . In Canada, C o l . John Cooper was t h e i r spokesman. Cooper soon made h i s p o s i t i o n f e l t across the country. For a short p e r i o d of time i n 1940, he was both President of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e D i s t r i b u t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n and A c t i n g Commissioner of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board. See M a r j o r i e McKay, " H i s t o r y of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," NFB Document, Aug. 5, 1964, p. 21. See a l s o : Mona Coxwell, "Safeguarding the Movies," S o c i a l Welfare, June 1925, V o l . V I I , No. 9, pp. 169-170; and P i e r r e Berton, Hollywood's Canada, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1975, p. 137. For a d i s c u s s i o n on W i l l Hays and h i s work see: Ernest W. M a n d e v i l l e , "When Cash Talks V i r t u e , " The  Outlook, Dec. 10, 1924, V o l . 138, pp. 594-597; and "The Movies," The  Outlook, Feb. 14, 1923, V o l . 133, pp. 296-296. For an i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s -s i o n on how Mr. Hays came to be President of the Motion P i c t u r e Producers and D i s t r i b u t o r s see: Terry Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One N i g h t s , pp. 810-821. 82 20 James, pp. 26-28. The v a r i o u s l e t t e r s of thanks from or g a n i z a -t i o n s , c l u b s , and i n d i v i d u a l s i n B.C. a t t e s t to the n o n - t h e a t r i c a l type of showing of the B.C. Bureau. See: Attorney-General's Correspondence Inward, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a . 21 " L i b e r a l Propaganda," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , No. 24, 1920, p. 1; " L i b e r a l Moving P i c t u r e s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 4. See a l s o : Canada, Parliament, Debates of the Senate, " N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , March 22, 1939, p. 111. In the debate on the NFB Act, Mr. F a r r i s , former Attorney-General of B.C. s t a t e d : "We d i d one b r i g h t t h i n g , we passed an Act compelling every the a t r e i n the province to run our p i c t u r e s . . . . " 22 "Movie Propaganda Proves Boomerang," "The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Dec. 1, 1920, p. 16; "Movie Propaganda Proves a Boomerang," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 26, 1920, p. 5; " P u b l i c Funds used i n L i b e r a l Propaganda," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 4; " L i b e r a l Moving P i c t u r e s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 4. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n 1932, when the Conservatives were i n power i n the province they amended the Motion P i c t u r e Act to ensure that a p r o p o r t i o n of f i l m s shown i n motion p i c t u r e theatres were of B r i t i s h manufacture and o r i g i n . See: B r i t i s h Columbia, S t a t u t e s , "An Act to Amend the Moving P i c t u r e Act," V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1932, p. 173. 23 James, pp. 27-28. 24 : For the types of f i l m s made by the B.C. Bureau and where they were shown see: B.C. Attorney-General's Correspondence Inward, R o l l 138, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a ; and "House votes $8,500,000. . . ." V i c t o r i a Times, V i c t o r i a , March 30, 1921, pp. 3, 11. For types of f i l m s and d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Saskatchewan and Ontario see: James, pp. 25-27. 25 T... Ibxd. MacCann, Richard D., The People's F i l m s : A P o l i t i c a l H i s t o r y of  U.S. Government Motion P i c t u r e s , New York, Hastings House, 1973, p. 33; Jack E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," Canadian F i l m Reader, Toronto, Peter M a r t i n A s s o c i a t e s L t d . , 1977, pp. 41-42; McKay, " H i s t o r y of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," pp. 26-27. 27 For examples of a r t i c l e s which supported the idea of a Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y f o r c u l t u r a l reasons see: "Canadian F i l m s , " The D a i l y  C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Feb. 11, 1922, p. 4; "Urges Canadians to S t a r t Producing Own F i l m s , " The Pr o v i n c e , Vancouver, J u l y 3, 1927, p. 9; "Canadian Motion P i c t u r e , " Gazette, Montreal, Sept. 11, 1930, p. 4; Gordon S p a r l i n g , "Speaking of Movies," T r i n i t y U n i v e r s i t y Review, V o l . 37, No. 1, Oct. 1924, r e p r i n t e d i n Canadian F i l m Reader, pp. 1-2; James A. Cowan, " I s There a Chance f o r Empire F i l m s ? " MacLean's Magazine, Oct. 15, 1930, p. 10. 28 " P u b l i c Funds Used i n L i b e r a l Propaganda," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Nov. 24,.1920, p. 1; " L i b e r a l Moving P i c t u r e s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 24, 1920, p. 4; " F i l m Propaganda," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 25, 1920, p. 4; "Movie Propaganda Proves a Boomerang," The D a i l y  C o l o n i s t , Nov. 26, 1920, p. 5; "Movie Propaganda Proves Boomerang," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Dec. 1, 1920, p. 16. 29 "Dr Baker Attacked by Opposition Leader f o r Motion P i c t u r e I n c i d e n t , " V i c t o r i a Times, March 17, 1921, p. 14; "Mr. Bowser P r o t e s t s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , March 19, 1921, p. 5; "House Votes $8,500,000; Members Argue over Fat i n Skimmed M i l k , " V i c t o r i a Times, March 30, 1921, P- 3. 30 "Mr. Bowser P r o t e s t s , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , March 19, 1921, p. 5. 31 "Movie Propaganda Proves a Boomerang, ' The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Dec. 1, 1920, p. 16. 32 D. J . Wenden, The B i r t h of the Movies, London, MacDonald and Company, 1975, p. 129. 33 I b i d . , pp. 131-135. B.C. p o l i t i c a n s were a l s o aware of American war propaganda f i l m s made during World War I . See: "Too Many American P i c t u r e s on Screen," V i c t o r i a Times, March 24, 1919, p. 13. The use of f i l m propaganda was a l s o r a i s e d by Canadians at the T a r i f f Commission of 1921. Colonel Ernest J . Chambers explained "that German propaganda had been c a r r i e d on e x t e n s i v e l y i n the United States through the moving p i c t u r e f i l m s " during the war. See: "Want B r i t i s h Movie Films on Free L i s t , " V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 4, 1921, p. 1. 34 Ramsaye, A M i l l i o n and One Nights , pp. 656, 728. 3 5 I b i d . , pp. 811-812. 3 6 I b i d . , p. 813. 37 "Movie Propaganda Proves Boomerang," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Dec. 1, 1920, p. 16. 38 In the newspaper coverage about the f i l m , the terms, O r i e n t a l s , Hindus and a l i e n s were a l l used to de s c r i b e the people who worked f o r the oyster company. Boswer claimed the white workers were a l s o employed i n the op e r a t i o n , but the f i l m only showed non-whites. See: "Dr. Baker Attacked. . . . " V i c t o r i a Times, March 17, 1921, p. 14. 39 Some i n d i c a t i o n that employing O r i e n t a l s was not popular i n B.C. at the time of the f i l m i s given i n : "House Votes $8,500,000. . . " V i c t o r i a Times, March 30, 1921, p. 11. For a general account on the treatment of Japanese, Chinese and Indian peoples l i v i n g i n B.C. at the time, see: John N o r r i s , Strangers E n t e r t a i n e d , Vancouver, Evergreen Press, 1971, pp. 209-236. 40 "Dr. Baker Takes Witness Stand," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Dec. 1, 1921, p. 3. 4 1 I b i d . " F a r r i s Honored i n Vancouver," V i c t o r i a Times, Dec. 6, 1922, p. 1. 84 42 B r i t i s h Columbia, Sessional:Papers, Royal Commission re A l b e r t Richard Baker, Chairman of Game Conservation Board, V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1922, pp. V17-V21. See a l s o : "No Evidence about Moving P i c -t u r e s , " V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 6, 1922, p. 5.; "Game Board Problem," The  D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , No. 24, 1921, p. 13; " W i l l Baker Resign?" V i c t o r i a Times, Nov. 29, 1921, p. 7; " F a r r i s Honored i n Vancouver," V i c t o r i a Times, Dec. 6, 1922, p. 1; "Nothing L i k e i t , Says Premier," V i c t o r i a Times, Jan. 6, 1922, p. 5. 43 Some a t t i t u d e s towards f i l m propaganda are given i n : Margaret Thorp, America at the Movies, New York, Arnos Press, 1970, pp. 273-275. 44 " W i l l Baker Resign?" V i c t o r i a Times, Nov. 29, 1921, p. 7. 45 "Cut Down F i l m S e r v i c e , " V i c t o r i a Times, Dec. 19, 1921, p. 13. 46 " A d v e r t i s i n g B.C.," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , J u l y 18, 1923, p. 4. 47 " C e n t r a l Censorship i s Recommended," The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , V i c t o r i a , Dec. 11, 1925, p. 9. 4 8 I b i d . 49 "Mason to Put B.C.'s A t t r a c t i o n s on Movie Screens," V i c t o r i a  Times, June 23, 1926, p. 9; "Government w i l l make Movie F i l m s , " The D a i l y  C o l o n i s t , June 24, 1926, p. 13; "Scenic Films to Boost B.C." The  Province, Vancouver, June 24, 1926. The bureau remained i n the Statutes as l a t e as 1936. See: B r i t i s h Columbia, Revised S t a t u t e s , V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1936, V o l . I I , pp. 2850-2852. "^Kenneth MacGowan, Behind the Screen, New York, D e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1965, pp. 284-286. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 28. 52 53 54 I b i d . , p. 26. I b i d . , p. 28. I b i d . , p. 26. S p a r l i n g , "Speaking of Movies," p. 2. 56 57 I b i d . , p. 1. I b i d . , p. 2. 58 I b i d . , p. 1; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 149. " ^ M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 146. ^ I b i d . 6 1 I b i d . , pp. 144-145, 148. 6 2 I b i d . , p. 143. 6 3 I b i d . , p. 147. 64 I b i d . The B.C. scandal over the 'Oyster Bed' movie took place i n 1920. The F i l m c r a f t o f f e r to P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer, Peter Smith, took place i n 1921. 6 5 I b i d . , p. 148. 6 6 I b i d . , p. 153. 6 7 I b i d . 85 68 I b i d . , pp. 156-157. S a l a r i e s paid to Ontario Motion P i c t u r e employees were so low that i n 1929 the Union of Cinematographers and Photographers made a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to the Ontario government on t h e i r b e h a l f . 6 9 I b i d . , p. 157. 7 0 I b i d . , p..155. 7 1 I b i d , , pp. 153-154. 72 I b i d . , p. 154. Brownridge rec e i v e d $1,231 as a commission f o r h i s part i n the 'Roxy' d e a l . This amount was j u s t about the same as Patton r e c e i v e d as d i r e c t o r of the bureau f o r a year's work. 7 3 I b i d . 7 4James, p. 28. 7 ^ M o r r i s , p. 158. 76 Canada, Parliament, Debates of the Senate, " N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l , " Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1939, p. 100. Duncan M a r s h a l l was appointed to the Senate i n 1938, a f t e r a lengthy p o l i t i c a l career i n A l b e r t a and l a t e r Ontario. 7 7James, p. 28. 78 Mary Lowrey Ross, " M u s s o l i n i and the Movies," Saturday Night , Oct. 22, 1938, p. 22; F. H. D. P i e k e r s g i l l , "The A r t of Propaganda i n N a z i Germany," Saturday Night, Oct. 29, 1938, p. 2. See a l s o : H. S. Angas, "The Democratic Way," Echoes, Autumn 1939, p. 27; Erwin L e i s e r , N a z i Cinema, New York, MacMillan P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1974. 7 9James, p. 27. ^ I b i d . , p. 28. ^ I b i d . , p. 27. 82 In 1921, s a l a r i e s f o r the Board of Censors was $21,475.00, w h i l e s a l a r i e s f o r the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau were $5,675.00. In 1924, s a l a r -i e s f o r the Board of Censors was $19,324.00, w h i l e s a l a r i e s f o r the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau were $8,819.23. In 1933, the Bureau's l a s t year of oper-a t i o n , wages were $462.60 and s a l a r i e s f o r censors were $4,231.25. See: O n t a r i o , S e s s i o n a l Papers, " P u b l i c Accounts," Toronto, King's P r i n t e r , 1921-1922, pp. K10-K11, 1924, pp. K11-K12. Ontario, J o u r n a l of  the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Toronto, King's P r i n t e r , 1933, p. 153. See a l s o : Laura E l s t o n , " I s Federal Censorship of Motion P i c t u r e s a Prac-t i c a l P o s s i b i l i t y ? " S o c i a l Welfare, V o l . X V I I I , No. 1, Sept. 1938, pp. 8-11. 8 3 I b i d . , D. N. N o r r i s , " B e t t e r F i l m s , " S o c i a l Welfare, V o l . V I I , No. 9, June 1925, pp. 172-173. CHAPTER IV BUREAUCRATS WITH CAMERAS:. THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MOTION PICTURE BUREAU 1916-1941 Although Canada was the f i r s t n a t i o n i n the world to set up a fe d -e r a l f i l m agency, the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau f a i r e d no .better than i t s p r o v i n c i a l counterparts. By World War I , no major power was o b l i v i o u s to the persuasive p o s s i b i l i t i e s of f i l m . A l l had indulged i n f i l m making, but these were piecemeal operations. There were no s t a t e d i r e c t e d f i l m agencies. Since 1908, the Federal Department of A g r i -c u l t u r e i n the United States had been unsurpassed i n the q u a n t i t y of f i l m i t produced, des p i t e the o p p o s i t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Secretary James Wilson who b e l i e v e d f i l m s were "the work of the devil.""'" A version to f i l m by American o f f i c i a l s i n high p o s i t i o n s was one reason that the United States F i l m Agency was not founded u n t i l 1938 during the Roose-2 v e l t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . England was one of the most advanced c o u n t r i e s i n the development of cinema, but the United Kingdom d i d not have a n a t i o n a l f i l m bureau u n t i l 1926 when the Empire Marketing Board began producing 3 f i l m s as an adjunct to the Post O f f i c e . Besides Canada, the USSR was the only country to create a n a t i o n a l f i l m agency during the World War I era. The state-operated Soviet cinema, now regarded as one of the most v i t a l and s i g n i f i c a n t forces of twentieth century f i l m , was created on November 9th, 1917, two days a f t e r the Bolsheviks assumed power. "Of 4 a l l the a r t s , " declared Lenin, "cinema i s the most important." 86* 87 The Bolsheviks set out to b r i n g about "the ^ p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n of the screen" and i n the process they created and developed new forms of s o c i a l r e a l i s m using f i l m . - ' Their i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y acclaimed movies stunned the west w i t h t h e i r emotional appeal and educated the world to new c r e a t i v e techniques and p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n the use of f i l m . ^ In Canada, no such cinematic awakenings occurred w i t h the c r e a t i o n of the E x h i b i t i o n and P u b l i c i t y Bureau (Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau) under the Department of Trade and Commerce i n 1916. 7 Soviet o f f i c i a l s had a broader and more s o p h i s t i c a t e d concept of f i l m than the Canadian bureaucrats. The Soviets saw f i l m as a means of b i n d i n g Russia together by developing myths about the Russian i d e n t i t y — m y t h s that would support t h e i r communist ideology. The Canadian Government by c o n t r a s t , primar-i l y thought of f i l m i n a m a t e r i a l i s t i c and pragmatic way—as p u b l i c i t y f o r Canada which would f o s t e r immigration, tourism, trade and commerce i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . Although not t o t a l l y a l i e n to government p o l i c y , the i d e a that movies might be used to encourage Canadian c u l t u r e and g n a t i o n a l i s m was never developed. The o b j e c t i v e s of the bureau were c l e a r l y expressed i n an a r t i c l e which appeared i n MacLean's Magazine  i n 1?27. -The p i c t u r e must r e t u r n to Canada something d e f i n i t e i n the way of a c t u a l business, increased t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r our boats and r a i l s e r v i c e , or the awakening of i n t e r e s t i n her i n d u s t r i e s and n a t i o n a l resources, or spread abroad the gospel of Canadian a t t r a c t i v e n e s s both to t o u r i s t s and to those seeking a l a r g e and remunerative investment f i e l d . 9 The philosophy of the bureau was simple and f r a n k — " t r a d e f o l l o w s f i l m s . The Canadian E x h i b i t i o n and P u b l i c i t y Bureau, received o f f i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n by Order i n C o u n c i l PC 3207 on September 19th 1918, some two years a f t e r i t f i r s t began producing f i l m s f o r the Department of 11 Trade and Commerce. While i n England i n 1914, S i r George F o s t e r , M i n i s t e r of the Department, made i n q u i r i e s i n t o the p o s s i b i l i t y of using f i l m to a d v e r t i s e Canada abroad. The Cartoon F i l m Company of London 12 o f f e r e d to provide the s e r v i c e f o r a fee of $50,000 a year. In l i e u of what appeared at the time an exhorbitant cost f o r contracted f i l m s , Foster and h i s Deputy M i n i s t e r , O'Hara decided i t would probably be cheaper and more e f f i c i e n t to form t h e i r own f i l m u n i t w i t h i n the department. O'Hara became the prime i n s t i g a t o r and c h i e f a r c h i t e c t of the cinema venture. He r a t i o n a l i z e d that i f the Department of Trade and Commerce were to set up such a f i l m bureau, other departments would wish to use t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s and consi d e r a b l e revenue could be gained from r e n t a l s and work done f o r other departments. He a l s o b e l i e v e d that a f i l m bureau would serve the needs of the country i n general. I t i s considered that the net r e s u l t of t h i s propaganda [he wrote] w i l l be not only the harnessing of general p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s to our vast n a t u r a l resources, but a l s o the a t t r a c t i o n of c a p i t a l to the development of new water-powers and the l o c a t i o n of new i n d u s t r i e s . ± 4 The man who d i r e c t e d the bureau from 1916 to 1920 was B. E. Nor r i s h , a graduate i n science from Queen's University.''"^ Although h i s experience w i t h cinema was l i m i t e d (he had worked w i t h Essanay F i l m Company on a production about water power i n Canada), he had the wisdom and f o r e s i g h t to h i r e an American cameraman, who was reported to be one 16 of the f i n e s t i n North America. With the q u a l i t y of t h e i r i n d u s t r i a l p i c t u r e s and travelogues thus assured, the Trade and Commerce Department h e l d a s p e c i a l cinema viewing i n May of 1918 to show the f i l m s made during 1916-17 to a l l members of parliament. "The i n a u g u r a t i o n of a Motion P i c t u r e bureau i s , " s t a t e d the o f f i c i a l press r e l e a s e , "the beginning of a p u b l i c i t y campaign to make Canada known, as she r e a l l y i s , at home and abroad.""'"7 The showing, they might have added, was a l s o designed to h a l t other departments from i n i t i a t i n g t h e i r own f i l m bureaus by c r e a t i n g the impression that the Department of Trade and Commerce was capable of 18 handling a l l government f i l m needs through i t s new bureau. The bureau expanded r a p i d l y . In a d d i t i o n to movie pro d u c t i o n , bureau employees a l s o made and d i s t r i b u t e d s t i l l photographs and s l i d e s 19 to magazines and agencies which requested them. While i t l a s t e d , the weekly Canadian newsreel agency, Canadian N a t i o n a l P i c t o r i a l , was 20 a l s o under bureau j u r i s d i c t i o n . In 1919, the bureau moved i n t o a 21 new f i l m s t u d i o b u i l t f o r i t on We l l i n g t o n S t r e e t i n Ottawa. One year l a t e r , N o r r i s h l e f t the c i v i l s e r v i c e to become general manager of 22 the C.P.R.'s Ass o c i a t e d Screen News. Raymond Peck, a f i l m e d i t o r w i t h the bureauj'became the new d i r e c t o r . Under h i s l e a d e r s h i p , f i l m p roduction and i n t e r n a t i o n a l markets f o r the Canadian movies g r e a t l y 23 expanded. In 1923, the M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce, the Honorable J . A. Robb, took i t upon hims e l f to change the bureau's name to the 24 Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau (MPB). More and more the bureau began assuming the power O'Hara had envisioned f o r i t , namely the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i l m s and s t i l l s f o r a l l departments. Extension of the f i l m s e r v i c e r e s u l t e d i n so much a d d i t i o n a l work that c i r c u l a t i o n soon outgrew l a b o r a t o r y f a c i l i t i e s . "New f i l m s were 2 6 released at the r a t e of one every other week." By 1929, the bureau had outgrown i t s 1919 s t u d i o and i t s opera-t i o n s were t r a n s f e r r e d to modern quarters i n a b u i l d i n g owned by the 90 N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l where among other t h i n g s , animated drawings 27 could be done. Here the work of the bureau was c a r r i e d on by Captain 28 Frank Badgely who had assumed the d i r e c t o r s h i p when Peck died i n 1927. During the war, Badgely had acted as l i a i s o n o f f i c e r i n the exchange of 29 war propaganda f i l m s between Canada and the United States. In the post-war p e r i o d , he was employed by Metro P i c t u r e s i n New York and a f t e r a s t i n t i n Hollywood both i n an a c t i n g and t e c h n i c a l c a p a c i t y , he returned to Canada i n 1921 to work under Peck as a f i l m e d i t o r w i t h the bureau. Having the w e l l q u a l i f i e d Badgely as the d i r e c t o r pleased O'Hara and the other members of the Trade and Commerce Department who 30 envisioned a b r i g h t f u t u r e f o r the bureau. Unforeseen to a l l of them at the time, Badgely would be the l a s t d i r e c t o r of the bureau and the one who would move the bureau i n t o i t s l a s t s t u d i o , a former sawmill on 31 St. John Street i n Ottawa—the f i r s t home of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board. In i t s hey-day during the 1920's the bureau concentrated on one-r e e l travelogues and i n d u s t r i a l shorts and was the acknowledged world 32 leader i n the use of f i l m f o r p u b l i c purposes. By 1920, i t had already made i t s mark i n the United States. In that year, Secretary of Commerce, R e d f i e l d "quoted the Canadian example when demanding a 33 l a r g e r a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r American government f i l m s productions." The q u a l i t y of bureau f i l m s was good. "Canada must be a wonderful country," wrote S. J . Stodel of the A f r i c a n F i l m Trust i n Capetown, "the q u a l i t y of the f i l m s i s q u i t e on a par w i t h those we r e c e i v e from 34 the U.S.A. . . . " Henry McRae, d i r e c t o r of U n i v e r s a l Films i n Hollywood thought that the bureau's Niagara-the-Glorious was "the best 35 and most a r t i s t i c f i l m on the s u b j e c t . " Even John G r i e r s o n , who founded the N a t i o n a l F i l m Bureau and was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n causing the bureau's demise was to s t a t e : The Canadian Government has an i n t e r e s t i n g record i n f i l m propaganda. I t began i t s f i l m work years before the B r i t i s h and other Dominion Governments. I t s f i l m s were the mainstay of the Empire Marketing Board when, i n 1931, i t set out to create a demand f o r f i l m s i n schools and community centres. In f a c t , Canadian f i l m s enjoyed a p r a c t i c a l monopoly i n t h i s f i e l d . . Although the bureau achieved l i t t l e i n terms of a r t i s t i c cinematic development, the Department of Trade and Commerce could boast that d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y the work of the bureau was i n f l u e n c i n g other 37 co u n t r i e s to e s t a b l i s h s i m i l a r government f i l m agencies. When a f i l m was considered u s e f u l i n the explanation of a depart-ment's work, a movie was produced f o r i t . In the l a t e 1920's, the MPB engaged i n s e v e r a l j o i n t ventures w i t h Associated Screen News to cover such events as Canada's Diamond J u b i l e e and the v i s i t of the P r i n c e of 38 Wales. Sometimes the bureau ventured f a r t h e r a f i e l d , as i t d i d when i t made a s e r i e s of t r a v e l shorts f o r the Jamaican government which 39 were shown f o r two years at the Wembley E x h i b i t i o n i n England. Before the MPB was a b o l i s h e d , i t made three sound features of h i s t o r i c and c u l t u r a l value to Canada. Lest We Forget (1935) and Salute to Valour (1936) were p i c t o r i a l n a r r a t i v e s of Canada's c o n t r i b u t i o n s to World War I. The p i c t u r e s made use of a c t u a l f i l m footage donated by the Department of Defense which had been i n v o l v e d i n making propaganda movies during the war, and borrowed war footage from, among other 40 p l a c e s , MGM i n Hollywood. Lest We Forget was the bureau's f i r s t sound p i c t u r e and something of a major event i n Canadian cinema. When the p i c t u r e was released S i r George P e r l e y , Speaker of the House, adjourned the se s s i o n e a r l y so that a l l members might be present at 41 the opening of the f i l m . The bureau's l a s t f e a t u r e , Royal V i s i t 92 ( 1 9 3 9 ) which was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e r o y a l c o u p l e , r e c e i v e d mixed r e v i e w s — some c r i t i c s f e l t i t was the b e s t movie ever produced by the MPB, w h i l e o t h e r s were of the o p i n i o n t h a t the "theme of the f i l m soon became a d r e a r y r e p e t i t i o n of c h e e r i n g crowds and r e g a l address as the R o y a l 4 2 c o u p l e s l o w l y moved by t r a i n a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y . " A l l t h r e e p i c t u r e s , however, were a c l e a r d e p a r t u r e from the t r a v e l o g u e s commonly made by the bureau and an i n d i c a t i o n of t h e type of work the bureau might have produced i f g i v e n f a v o r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . U n l i k e t h e p r o v i n c i a l f i l m bureaus which r e l i e d p r i m a r i l y on non-t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , the MPB was a b l e t o have t h e i r f i l m s shown on b o t h commercial and n o n - t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n systems. A c o n t r a c t s i g n e d i n 1 9 1 9 w i t h Canadian U n i v e r s a l F i l m Company, "one of Canada's most important commercial motion p i c t u r e c o n c e r n s , " a s s u r e d the bureau's 4 3 f i l m s some r e g u l a r t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Canada. A second c o n t r a c t w i t h Famous P l a y e r s C o r p o r a t i o n i n 1 9 2 7 - 2 8 , t o r u n a s e r i e s o f Canadian f i l m s throughout t h e i r c o a s t - t o - c o a s t t h e a t r e c i r c u i t gave 4 4 f u r t h e r t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n t o t h e Canadian c i n e m a t i c e f f o r t s . N o n - t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n c l u d e d o f f i c i a l l e c t u r e r s o f the bureau e x h i b i t i n g f i l m s a t f a i r s a c r o s s Canada t o e s t i m a t e d a u d i e n c e s of more than 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , as w e l l as h o l d i n g showings i n Canadian c l u b s , and 4 5 Boards of Trade a c r o s s t h e n a t i o n . In 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 , MPB movies were made a v a i l a b l e i n t h e r u r a l a r e a s of Canada by means of a 'cinema-coach' 4 6 o p e r a t e d by the C.N.R. A l l n o n - t h e a t r i c a l showings were f r e e and on the f i n a l frame of a l l p i c t u r e s appeared the MPB motto: "Canada w e l -comes the t o u r i s t as t h e n a t i o n ' s guest t o a l a n d where ev e r y season 47 p r e s e n t s i t s own a l l u r i n g charm." The g r e a t e s t e f f o r t s o f the Canadian M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau were 93 d i r e c t e d south of the border where i t was b e l i e v e d t o u r i s t d o l l a r s were to be found i n abundance. Besides n o n - t h e a t r i c a l showings i n the States at u n i v e r s i t i e s and t o u r i s t agencies, i n 1922 the MPB secured a 48 commercial d i s t r i b u t i o n c o n t r a c t w i t h Bray Productions of New York. During the twenties, Canadian movies were being shown to an estimated 3 m i l l i o n people i n some 6000 American P i c t u r e Palaces as the short 49 before the f e a t u r e f i l m . Two MPB movies, Unblazed T r a i l s and Nipigon T r a i l s were given f i r s t runs on Broadway i n New York."^ By 1927, the bureau had more f i l m s i n the United States than anywhere e l s e i n the world. Showings i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s were arranged by the Canadian Trade Commissioners i n each n a t i o n and by c o n t r a c t s w i t h d i s t r i b u t i o n com-panies. Canadian Motion P i c t u r e s played at one time or another i n 52 almost every European n a t i o n . In the l a t e 20's quota l e g i s l a t i o n passed i n France and Switzerland f o r b i d d i n g the im p o r t a t i o n of f o r e i g n movies c u r t a i l e d Canadian cinema a c t i v i t i e s i n those c o u n t r i e s , but t h i s setback was compensated f o r when B r i t i s h quota laws passed i n 1928 53 e s t a b l i s h e d a preference f o r empire-made f i l m s . In 1928 the d i s t r i -b u t i o n of Canadian f i l m s i n B r i t a i n was reorganized and c e n t r a l i z e d at the Empire Marketing Board i n London. The r e s u l t s of t h i s revamping, were according to A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce, Major 54 J . G. Parmelee, "a 200% improvement i n n o n - t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . " In the same year, "Seeing Canada," the bureau's bread and b u t t e r s e r i e s , was p l a y i n g i n some 400 B r i t i s h movie houses, as w e l l as i n other empire c o u n t r i e s . ~ ^ In a d d i t i o n , Canadian movies were shown i n China, Japan, Penang, Malacca, Cuba, Hawaii, and through a c o n t r a c t w i t h Max Glucksman Company, Canadian f i l m s were shown i n A r g e n t i n a , C h i l e , 94 56 Paraguay and Uruguay. Canadian f i l m s were a t t r a c t i v e to d i s t r i b u t o r s because MPB f i l m s could be rented or negatives bought at a margin over cost and at a cheaper r a t e than commercial f i l m s . ^ Despite what s u p e r f i c i a l l y appeared to be a f l o u r i s h i n g government movie i n d u s t r y i n Canada, the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau struggled f o r i t s existence i n a web of p o l i t i c a l anomalies. While there was l i t t l e q uestion that the government enjoyed the b e n e f i t s of having i t s own f i l m agency producing propaganda f i l m s designed to generate revenue and pub-l i c i t y f o r Canada, they were h e s i t a n t to spend the necessary funds needed to maintain such an operation. On the one hand the MPB was being asked to be as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t as p o s s i b l e , w h i l e on the other hand they were encouraged to co-operate w i t h a l l government departments i n p r o v i d i n g a f r e e f i l m s e r v i c e . While the output i n f i l m grew each year, the s t a f f remained s m a l l . In 1932, when Badgely was requested to make f u r t h e r economies he responded by c u r t l y p o i n t i n g out that the s t a f f was "b a r e l y s u f f i c i e n t to c a r r y out the work of the Bureau e f f i c i e n t l y . " "In f a c t , " he s t a t e d , "due to cuts i n our establishment made at the beginning of t h i s f i s c a l year i t has been necessary to double up the 58 d u t i e s of p r a c t i c a l l y every employee on our s t a f f . " While revenues from s a l e s and r e n t a l s of f i l m s increased w i t h the volume of production, the bureau's annual a p p r o p r i a t i o n d i d not keep pace w i t h i t s expansion. Funds from r e n t a l s and s a l e s went i n t o 59 Canadian government c o f f e r s and not to the bureau. In 1929-30, the MPB received an a p p r o p r i a t i o n of $75,000 up $25,000 from the previous year, but the t o t a l expenditures of the bureau f o r the same year amounted to $74,128.60—"of t h i s amount f u l l y 30% was expended f o r the purchase and i n s t a l l a t i o n of new equipment to meet the requirements of 9,5 60 increased volume of production." During the depression, the MPB was l i t e r a l l y 'starved' by the government. The i n a b i l i t y to o b t a i n complete c o n t r o l over a l l government f i l m p roduction had a c r i p p l i n g e f f e c t on the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. The wording of P.C. 2307, which gave the bureau, a u t h o r i t y to produce a l l government f i l m s was v a g u e . ^ In March 1919, the Department of A g r i -c u l t u r e obtained permission through another Order i n C o u n c i l to produce i t s own f i l m s by c l a i m i n g that i t needed non-flammable f i l m s which the 6 2 bureau d i d not produce at the time. Although the Department of Trade and Commerce ' h o t l y ' contested the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n 63 to s t a r t i t s own f i l m u n i t , i n the end A g r i c u l t u r e was to have i t s way. The N a t i o n a l Parks Board, the Grain Board, the N a t i o n a l Museum and the 64 Royal Canadian A i r Force a l s o produced motion p i c t u r e s of t h e i r own. Other departments used the s e r v i c e s of the MPB f o r some work and con-t r a c t e d the r e s t to independent f i r m s . D u p l i c a t i o n of s e r v i c e s and equipment not only r e s u l t e d i n l a c k of e f f i c i e n c y and unwarranted expen-d i t u r e s , but on more than one occasion the MPB and other f i l m crews 65 confronted each other f i l m i n g the same sub j e c t . In a d d i t i o n , the p r o v i n c i a l bureaus w h i l e they e x i s t e d , o f t e n worked w i t h the same genre as the MPB. Rather than co-operation, r i v a l r i e s tended to develop between the va r i o u s bureaucrats w i t h cameras. During the 1920's acute competition e x i s t e d between the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau i n Trenton 66 and the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau i n Ottawa. The f a c t that Ontario's bureau tended to be b e t t e r known i n Canada f o r i t s f i l m s was 67 a sore point w i t h the f e d e r a l filmmakers. The d i s t r i b u t i o n system of the MPB was never as ' s u c c e s s f u l ' as i t appeared i n the annual r e p o r t s . Despite the l a r g e number of people 96 reported to have seen the f i l m s , few Canadians were aware of the bureau's exi s t e n c e save that once i n a great w h i l e t h e i r f a v o r i t e movie palace t r e a t e d them "to a short f i l m d e a l i n g w i t h some branch of Canadian 68 l i f e . " A f t e r more than 10 years of operations, t h i s ' l u s t y i n f a n t ' of the Canadian government was described by MacLean's Magazine as "a 69 l i t t l e known branch of government." Users of government f i l m s were not t r e a t e d e q u a l l y . C e r t a i n Canadian companies l i k e the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., which already had t h e i r own f i l m u n i t s , were allowed to buy s e r i e s l i k e "Seeing Canada" on a lab cost b a s i s o n l y . 7 ^ This exposed the Canadian f i l m s to a l a r g e r audience, but of the 3,495 p r i n t s i n c i r c u l a t i o n i n 1930, only 639 brought i n r e v e n u e . 7 1 Moreover, si n c e the bureau o f t e n s u p p l i e d d u p l i c a t e negatives to t h e a t r i c a l agents from which they made t h e i r own p r i n t s , ' p i r a t i n g ' of p r i n t s was p o s s i b l e and 72 occurred-4on s e v e r a l occasions. Overseas, many of the Canadian f i l m s 73 being shown were " p h y s i c a l l y worn out." In some cases, t i t l e s had 74 not been t r a n s l a t e d c o r r e c t l y i n t o other languages. The p o p u l a r i t y of sound f i l m s c u r t a i l e d the a c t i v i t i e s o f i t h e bureau f i l m makers who were p a i n f u l l y aware that sound movies were the r e a l i t y of the f u t u r e . The annual report f o r 1929-1930 made repeated mention of how the advent of sound was undermining v a r i o u s aspects of work at the bureau. The report s t a t e d : Due to the r a p i d and widespread development of the sound f i l m to such an extent that t h i s type almost completely d i s p l a c e d the s i l e n t f i l m i n so f a r as the t h e a t r i c a l f i e l d was concerned, and the f a c t that the Bureau lacked the means to produce sound f i l m s , there was a decided decrease both i n the number of t h e a t r i c a l bookings and the revenue derived therefrom during the f i s c a l year under review. Since the revenue derived from t h e a t r i c a l book-ings i s probably our l a r g e s t i n d i v i d u a l source of income, there was, as a consequence, a s l i g h t decrease i n the t o t a l revenue of the Bureau as compared w i t h that of the previous f i s c a l year.75 97 In 1929, however, the bureau f u l l y expected that the government would purchase the necessary equipment f o r sound f i l m production. The Ottawa C i t i z e n p r e d i c t e d that the bureau would soon be " t e l l i n g the 76 world about Canadian l i f e and Canadian i n d u s t r y . " The 1929 report concluded on an o p t i m i s t i c note: I t i s expected i n the near f u t u r e to a c t i v e l y enter the production of sound f i l m s f o r t h e a t r i c a l use. Already some p r e l i m i n a r y work i n t h i s connection has been done, using the f a c i l i t i e s of commer-c i a l s t u d i o s , and the r e s u l t s have not only proven s a t i s f a c t o r y but the r e a c t i o n to the f i l m s themselves has i n d i c a t e d that there would be a l a r g e and p r o f i t a b l e f i e l d f o r them.?? The depression diminished the bureau's dreams of e n t e r i n g commer-c i a l sound f i l m production. The MPB c a r r i e d on by i n c r e a s i n g c i r c u l a -t i o n of i t s s i l e n t movies i n the n o n - t h e a t r i c a l and n o n - p r o f i t a b l e 7 8 market. The s t i l l s d i v i s i o n which continued to expand at a s a t i s f a c -79 t o r y r a t e , supported the f a i l i n g bureau. By 1932, the s t a f f was dejected. On a personal l e v e l , they p r a c t i s e d s mall economies l i k e c o l l e c t i n g p e t t y cash and saving i t i n a s p e c i a l fund f o r sound equip-80 ment—even though sound equipment was beyond the scope of pet t y cash. In 1934, a f t e r the success of a few sound p i c t u r e the bureau had pro-cessed elsewhere and the constant requests from Badgely f o r more funds, 81 the government grudgingly allowed the purchase of some sound equipment. But i t was a case of too l i t t l e , too l a t e — t h e bureau had waited s i x years s i n c e the i n t r o d u c t i o n of sound and i t s commercial markets during 82 that time had been l o s t . The sound f i l m s they d i d make were a l l i n E n g l i s h . French Canadians had to wait u n t i l 1939, when two of the MPB's b e t t e r f i l m s Royal V i s i t and Heritage were released i n Quebec w i t h 83 French soundtracks. Despite the l i m i t a t i o n s on i t s operations the bureau remained i n t a c t throughout the depression and might have continued to the present, m save that burgeoning Canadian n a t i o n a l i s m i n the form of anti-Americanism sped up the bureau's demise. The r e a l i z a t i o n that the United States produced and c o n t r o l l e d 90-95% of a l l movies shown i n the world, had s y s t e m a t i c a l l y devised ways of undercutting l o c a l markets and developed huge i n t e r n a t i o n a l f i l m monopolies, made U.S. f i l m s a c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e 84 throughout the western world i n the 1920's. There was no longer any question that movies were here to stay and i t was becoming evident even to the average moviegoer that f i l m was a media which could shape c u l t u r e . The f e a r of American c u l t u r a l domination resounded i n a wave of opposi-85 t i o n to Hollywood movies i n a l l the western n a t i o n s . Throughout the 1920's and 30's an i n c r e a s i n g number of Canadian w r i t e r s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s were c r i t i c a l of American movies i n Canada. In general i t was held that the Americans produced v u l g a r i z e d screen productions, which g e n e r a l l y exalted a l l things American and b e l i t t l e d a l l things B r i t i s h . 8 ^ Organizations l i k e the Toronto based 'Committee f o r B e t t e r F i l m s , ' a group operating under the S o c i a l Service C o u n c i l of Ontario, the Women's I n s t i t u t e and the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire 87 wanted more edu c a t i o n a l f i l m s to o f f s e t the f i c t i t i o u s U.S. p i c t u r e s . The Committee f o r B e t t e r Films lamented that of the ed u c a t i o n a l f i l m s a v a i l a b l e most were American and that few movies, i f any, d e a l t w i t h 88 Canada. The I m p e r i a l Order of the Daughters of the Empire waged a strong campaign to have American f i l m s r e s t r i c t e d and replaced w i t h 89 "decent B r i t i s h f i l m s . " In t h e i r o f f i c i a l organ, Echoes, the daughters were t o l d which f i l m s were B r i t i s h and which were "pure H o l l y -wood thus not worth going t o . There was general agreement among Canadians that the production of 99 Canadian f i l m s by no means s a t i s f i e d the popular demand. The c a l l f o r more B r i t i s h f i l m s i n Canada was o f t e n accompanied by the w i s t f u l thought that Canada should develop her own i n d u s t r y — a n idea that gained wide support during the 1930's. Two events begun outside of Canada made the time seem r i g h t f o r the c r e a t i o n of a Canadian i n d u s t r y . The passing of quota l e g i s l a t i o n i n B r i t a i n which r e s t r i c t e d American f i l m s , but encouraged Empire-made movies opened the market door f o r Canadian f i l m s . In J u l y 1927, The Province reported: The only way Canada can a l t e r the s i t u a t i o n i s to s t a r t producing her own f i l m s — g o o d , v i r i l e , c l e a n Canadian p i c t u r e s . . . . Now that B r i t a i n has passed a s p e c i a l f i l m b i l l , c a l l i n g f o r a d e f i n i t e quota of B r i t i s h f i l m s i n B r i t i s h t h e a t r e s , Canada's opportunity i s golden to s t a r t f o r h e r s e l f i n a guaranteed market.91 Secondly, i n the l a t e 1920's the power of the American f i l m i n d u s t r y was challenged i n the courtrooms of European c o u n t r i e s and i n the United States and i t appeared to Canadian observers that i f the American f i l m monopoly could be broken room would be made f o r Canadian 92 f i l m s i n many theatres i n Canada and elsewhere. In 1928, the U.S. Department of J u s t i c e sued ten motion p i c t u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n companies 93 under the Sherman A n t i - T r u s t Laws. Canada followed s u i t . In 1930, Mr. Peter White headed a Royal Commission which looked i n t o the Motion P i c t u r e Industry i n Canada. Although the "findings of the commission confirmed that Famous Play e r s e x e r c i s e d a mon o p o l i s t i c s t r a n g l e h o l d over a l l major Canadian t h e a t r e s , the Canadian government took no a c t i o n against the company. Throughout the 1920's and 30's, the Canadian government simul t a n -eously condemned and courted the American f i l m i n d u s t r y , and u n f o r t u n a t e l y i t s f i l m bureau mirrored t h i s i n d e c i s i v e n e s s i n i t s f i l m p o l i c y . At the time of the bureau's o r i g i n s , the government had i n i t s employment an $60 American w r i t e r , John O l i v e r Curwood whose job was to encourage immigra-95 t i o n to Canada through h i s works. While the MPB was f i l m i n g the ' r e a l ' 96 Canada, Curwood was advancing the 'myth of the north' i n h i s 26 novels. Some 122 Hollywood f i l m s were based on Curwood's w r i t i n g s and i n the eyes of some c r i t i c s , h i s image of Canada as an e x o t i c , unspoiled w i l d e r -97 ness probably r e p e l l e d as many prosp e c t i v e immigrants as i t a t t r a c t e d . I n i t i a l l y , the MPB rec e i v e d the n a t i o n a l i s t s ' support because i t portrayed Canada r e a l i s t i c a l l y on the screen. "One of the best jobs the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau has done," s t a t e d a 1927 a r t i c l e on the bureau, " i s that of t a k i n g the s t i n g out of Louis XIV's d e s c r i p t i o n of Canada as 'a few thousand hectares of i c e ' and Rudyard K i p l i n g ' s g e l i d 98 t i t l i n g of her as 'Our Lady of Snow'." By the mid-1930's, however, the MPB was regarded as l i t t l e more "than a t o o l f o r government p u b l i c -99 i t y , " by people seeking to create a Canadian c u l t u r e v i a the cinema. The MPB made every e f f o r t to have Hollywood shoot on l o c a t i o n i n Canada, despi t e the f a c t that such p i c t u r e s seldom portrayed the country or i t s people i n a r e a l i s t i c manner. I t was b e l i e v e d by the MPB that co-operation w i t h the Americans would u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n Hollywood making "a c e r t a i n quota of t h e i r p i c t u r e s r e p r e s e n t i n g Canadian h i s t o r y and modern l i f e . " 1 ^ But i n r e a l i t y , the bureau was w i l l i n g to s e l l h i s t o r -i c a l accuracy f o r the sake of a ' f a s t buck' l e f t behind by the Hollywood companies when i n Canada. Indeed, s i n c e the b a s i c m o t i v a t i o n of the bureau was to b r i n g f i n a n c i a l gain to Canada, f l i r t a t i o n w i t h the Americans was an ever-present phenomenon i n the bureau. In attempting to coerce the r e l u c t a n t R.C.M.P. to a i d an American f i l m company on l o c a t i o n i n Canada during the 1920's, Peck s t a t e d : Aside from the propaganda value of the p i c t u r e i f i t i s done on a massive s c a l e and produced c o r r e c t l y , i s the f a c t that a l a r g e sum of money w i l l be l e f t i n Canada by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Company wh i l e the p i c t u r e i s being produced.101 Un f o r t u n a t e l y , American movies made i n Canada were r a r e l y 'produced c o r r e c t l y ' and they seldom l e f t much money behind. The MPB's views on Hollywood productions i n Canada were shared by a number of p o l i t i c i a n s who a l s o went out of t h e i r way to al l o w 'Hollywood' the use of government reserve lands f o r " s e t t i n g and back-102 ground" f o r t h e i r movies. A strong f o r c e f o r the American viewpoint i n Canada was Colonel John A. Cooper, Pre s i d e n t of the Motion P i c t u r e E x h i b i t o r s and D i s t r i b u t o r s i n Canada, a branch of the American organ-i z a t i o n of the same name. Cooper kept tabs on a l l movie a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada and acted as a troubleshooter whenever the l e a s t r i p p l e of a g i t a -103 t i o n over American movies i n Canada occurred. With the complete support and f i n a n c i a l backing of the powerful American o r g a n i z a t i o n he was abl e , among other t h i n g s , to lobby e f f e c t i v e l y f o r American p i c t u r e s to be made i n Canada. Through Cooper's e f f o r t s and the d i r e c t i n t e r -v e n t i o n of MGM's Louis B. Mayer, Prime M i n i s t e r R. B. Bennett consented to have Nelson Eddy s i n g i n g at the head of a r e a l troop of Mounties, w h i l e at the same time the R.C.M.P. were forbidden from appearing i n 104 Canadian made movies. During the 1930's, the Canadian Government had allowed Hollywood f i l m companies to e s t a b l i s h p l a n t s i n Canada (the l a r g e s t being i n V i c t o r i a , B.C.) i n order to produce what became known as 'quota-quickies.'"'"^ These were cheaply made grade B movies produced to circumvent B r i t i s h quota l e g i s l a t i o n which placed i m p o r t a t i o n r e s t r i c -t i o n s on f o r e i g n f i l m s . Empire-made f i l m s , by c o n t r a s t , were exempt from the r e g u l a t i o n s and recei v e d equal s t a t u s w i t h B r i t i s h f i l m s i n the a t r e s . By proving the movies were made i n Canada, the Americans were able to secure both t h e i r f i r s t c l a s s A movies and t h e i r Canadian 106 B m o v i e s ' d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Great B r i t a i n . The 'quota-quickies' were so bad that many B r i t i s h theatres ran them i n the morning f o r the char-women, w h i l e they played the money making American features i n the 107 evening. This p r a c t i c e f o s t e r e d by the Canadian government and supported by the MPB created a great deal of resentment i n England, where i t was f e l t that 'quota-quickies' had caused the f a i l u r e of t h e i r 1928 quota l e g i s l a t i o n . The d e s i r e f o r genuine Canadian p i c t u r e s , such as those of the MPB which had formerly played i n B r i t i s h theatres cooled 108 c o n s i d e r a b l y . In r e t a l i a t i o n , the B r i t i s h Cinematograph F i l m B i l l of 1938 was l e s s favorable to Canada. A new clause was added which s t i p u l a t e d that a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of labour costs had to be paid to B r i t i s h or Commonwealth subjects on a l l movies made i n Commonwealth cou n t r i e s by f o r e i g n n a t i o n s . The bureau's ambivalent f i l m p o l i c y which encouraged American f i l m companies working i n Canada, w h i l e r e j e c t i n g the Hollywood formula i n i t s own attempts to f i l m Canada r e a l i s t i c a l l y , l e d i n par t to the cre a -t i o n of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board—an o r g a n i z a t i o n dedicated to i n t e r p r e t -i n g Canada to Canadians v i a the screen. Discouraged and discontented by the general s t a t e of movies i n Canada and the government's f a i l u r e to f o l l o w up on the White Report, n a t i o n a l i s t i c a l l y minded i n d i v i d u a l s l e d by Donald Buchanan and Sydney Smith, then Pre s i d e n t of the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, founded the N a t i o n a l F i l m Society (Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e ) i n 1935 to f u r t h e r the 1<03 cause of b e t t e r f i l m s i n Canada.''""'"^  Beginning w i t h branches i n Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver, the N a t i o n a l F i l m Society g r a d u a l l y expanded to i n c l u d e other f i l m groups which had developed i n the n a t i o n during the twenties and thirties."'""'"''" The purpose of the s o c i e t y , which i r o n i c a l l y was to be funded through i t s formative years by the R o c k e f e l l e r Foundation, was to promote the "study, a p p r e c i a t i o n 112 and use of f i l m as a c u l t u r a l f a c t o r i n the Dominion of Canada." Weaned on the new s o c i a l r e a l i s t f i l m s of France, R u s s i a , Germany, and the documentaries of B r i t a i n , the e l i t e f i l m b u f f s of the N a t i o n a l 113 F i l m Society wanted the same k i n d of i n t e r p r e t i v e f i l m s made i n Canada. C o l l e c t i v e l y , s o c i e t y members were the f i r s t group i n Canada to compre-hend how powerful a c u l t u r a l developing f o r c e cinema could be and by contrast they saw the e f f o r t s of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau as a pale r e f l e c t i o n of t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s . Seemingly o b l i v i o u s to the d i r e f i n a n c i a l s t r a i t s of the MPB at the time, the N a t i o n a l F i l m S o c i e t y i n d i r e c t l y lashed out against the bureau f o r i t s sober, f a c t u a l , r e p o r t -o r i a l type of f i l m s . In .1936, the s o c i e t y was able to secure a grant from the Carnegie I n s t i t u t e to study e d u c a t i o n a l and c u l t u r a l f i l m s i n 114 Canada. This study, known as the "Report on the Status of Motion P i c t u r e s i n Canada," urged the government to take f i l m s e r i o u s l y and to improve the use of f i l m i n Canadian society.''""'""' Although l i t t l e n o t i c e was taken of the report at the time, i f marked the beginning of the end f o r the MPB w i t h i t s outdated m a t e r i a l i s t i c f i l m philosophy and i t s o l d fashioned travelogue f i l m s which r a r e l y examined the p e r s p e c t i v e s behind what was being photographed. Although there were a number of a c t o r s i n the drama which was about to take p l a c e , one man, Ross McLean, would have a somewhat l a r g e r 104 part i n the demise of the MPB than many others. A Rhodes sc h o l a r . and Ottawa p u b l i s h e r , McLean was a l s o one of the authors of the N a t i o n a l 116 F i l m Society's report on motion p i c t u r e s i n Canada. S h o r t l y a f t e r the r e p o r t was r e l e a s e d , he became p r i v a t e s e c r e t a r y to Vincent Massey when Massey was High Commissioner i n London. While i n England, McLean was converted to John Grierson's concept of f i l m . 1 1 7 G r i e r s o n , founder of the E n g l i s h documentary movement, f i r m l y b e l i e v e d that motion p i c t u r e s had the a b i l i t y to dramatize the commonplace and that f i l m had a 118 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the p u b l i c . When McLean a r r i v e d , Grierson,who had headed the Empire Marketing Board f i l m u n i t u n t i l i t f o l d e d i n 1933, was 119 developing a f i l m u n i t at the General Post O f f i c e . From here, G r i e r s o n and h i s crew t r i e d "to b r i n g the Empire a l i v e through the 120 f i l m medium" by using the inexpensive documentary format. " I look 121 upon cinema as a p u l p i t , " s t a t e d G r i e r s o n , "and use i t as a propagandist." I n s p i r e d by what he saw and g a i n i n g Massey's approval, McLean wrote a report on f i l m development i n B r i t a i n and Canada which urged d r a s t i c changes i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the Canadian. Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. McLean was h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of the Canadian f i l m s i n c i r c u l a t i o n i n B r i t a i n and commented, " c i r c u l a t i o n of an i n d i f f e r e n t f i l m i s the worst 122 k i n d of p u b l i c i t y . " He recommended that the bureau be given a wider f u n c t i o n , that the q u a l i t y of f i l m s be improved and that the q u a n t i t y be enlarged. He f e l t that Canadian f i l m s should be more c o n s c i o u s l y adapted to the B r i t i s h market. McLean a l s o urged that G r i e r s o n be 123 i n v i t e d to Canada to survey the Canadian f i l m system. In 1937, Vincent Massey sent McLean's report i n the form of a lengthy memo to 124 Secretary of State f o r E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s i n Ottawa. At the same time McLean was preparing h i s r e p o r t , Parmelee, who .had 105 become Deputy M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce when O'Hara d i e d , was a l s o w r i t i n g a report c a l l i n g f o r changes to be made i n the bureau. Both reports agreed that there was a great d e a l of chaos and i n e f f i c i e n c y i n 125 the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Canadian f i l m s i n B r i t a i n . Parmelee saw the s o l u t i o n to the problems i n the c r e a t i o n of a High Commissioner's f i l m committee which would i n c l u d e an a d v e r t i s i n g d i r e c t o r to co-ordinate f i l m 126 d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Great B r i t a i n . Where Parmelee's report wanted a few changes, McLean's report c a l l e d f o r complete reform. When the government d i d not respond to McLean's r e p o r t , Massey and Lester Pearson, who had j o i n e d Massey i n London at the time, pressed the 127 government to take a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n . They were supported i n t h e i r 128 demands by the N a t i o n a l F i l m S o c i e t y . Badgely,who had long recog-niz e d the handicapped p o s i t i o n of h i s f i l m bureau, j o i n e d the lobby. As he phrased i t , the bureau rec e i v e d "only enough money to pay s a l a r i e s , but 129 not enough to make good p i c t u r e s . " Parmelee, who was engaged i n the formation of h i s High Commission Committee, a l s o supported the idea of an independent i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Both he and Badgely b e l i e v e d that a man of Grierson's c a l i b r e would l o c a t e the same problems they were aware o f , but were unable to do anything about. Grierson's report,they f e l t , 130 would b r i n g the necessary weight to bear f o r a c t i o n to be taken. A f t e r some persuasion, W. E. E u l e r , M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce, came to b e l i e v e that the McLean report should be implemented by the govern-131 ment. Apparently on.his own i n i t i a t i v e and without the p r i o r knowledge of other members of parliament (save the Prime M i n i s t e r , MacKenzie K i n g ) , Euler authorized Massey i n London to i n v i t e G r i e r s o n to come to Canada and i n v e s t i g a t e the Canadian government f i l m i n d u s t r y w i t h an eye to making d e t a i l e d and d e f i n i t e recommendations f o r Canadian f i l m s i n the United Kingdom. 10'6 132 In May of 1938, G r i e r s o n a r r i v e d " l i k e a thunderbolt" and by June 133 23rd h i s s i x t y page report was complete. Grierson's report pointed out three major weaknesses he f e l t were i n the e x i s t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n — the absence of a propaganda p o l i c y f o r Canada; the l a c k of a c r e a t i v e 134 f i l m u n i t ; and the d u p l i c a t i o n of f i l m s e r v i c e s w i t h i n the government. In November, a f t e r more urging f o r a c t i o n from the N a t i o n a l F i l m S o c i e t y , Euler chaired a meeting of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from a l l departments who used f i l m s . While somewhat l o a t h to do so, they r e l u c t a n t l y agreed 135 that Grierson's report should be implemented. For the sum of $2,250 Gri e r s o n agreed to "develop a plan f o r the c o o r d i n a t i o n of the f i l m production and d i s t r i b u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s of departments of the Dominion Government i n accordance w i t h the proposals set out i n [ h i s ] re p o r t on 135 t h i s s u b j e c t . " A l l departments that used f i l m were requested to submit memos of t h e i r f i l m problems to G r i e r s o n to help him i n preparing the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board Act. When they f a i l e d to r e p l y as promptly as 136 he wished, Griers o n d r a f t e d the b i l l h i m s e l f . To Parmelee he wrote, " I had p e r f o r c e and to save time to go ahead w i t h the d r a f t i n g of the b i l l . " 1 3 7 The debate i n the House of Commons and the Senate that ensued over the NFB Act revealed q u i t e c l e a r l y that many of the members of these governing bodies had no knowledge of Griers o n or h i s r e p o r t . Grierson's name was never mentioned. During the second reading i n the House, James E a r l Lawson, former cabinet m i n i s t e r i n Bennett's governments, asked "Why someone from England was s e l e c t e d , r a t h e r than some Canadian to make a report on us," but that was as f a r as the p o s s i b l e i s s u e went i n the House. The p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Grierson's v i s i t to Canada 107 were n o t f o l l o w e d up by the o p p o s i t i o n . Indeed, few of t h e MP's or S e n a t o r s appeared t o have any knowledge of the M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau o r government involvement i n f i l m a t a l l . Those who d i d tended to p r a i s e 139 Badgely and the MPB f o r i t s ' s p l e n d i d ' work. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , those Members of P a r l i a m e n t and S e n a t o r s most i n f o r m e d about cinema were s t r o n g e s t i n t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o the B i l l . T h e i r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h f i l m made them q u e s t i o n the r i g h t of the government 140 to be i n the f i l m b u s i n e s s a t a l l . They c o u l d not see why t e n d e r s s h o u l d n ' t be c a l l e d f o r government f i l m propaganda i n the same way they 141 were c a l l e d f o r o t h e r government work. Former Prime M i n s t e r and one time i n v e s t o r i n t h e i l l - f a t e d T r e n t o n S t u d i o i n O n t a r i o , A r t h u r Meighen was the most a r t i c u l a t e spokesman f o r t h i s view. The Government seems to be of o p i n i o n t h a t j u s t as soon as they a r e a b l e t o show t h a t something i s worth p r o d u c i n g , then i t i s the b u s i n e s s of the Government to produce i t . How does i t f o l l o w ? I f i t i s the b u s i n e s s of Government to go i n t o f i l m p r o d u c t i o n , why not go i n t o a u t o m o b i l e p r o d u c t i o n ? A u t o m o b i l e s a r e worth p r o d u c i n g t o o . ± 4 2 In the main, however, the o p p o s i t i o n ' s o b j e c t i o n s t o the B i l l were l e s s p h i l o s o p h i c and more p r a g m a t i c . They were concerned w i t h the c o s t o f t h e proposed board and were unable to see the n e c e s s i t y of i t s i n c e E u l e r c o n t i n u a l l y a s s u r e d them t h a t th e M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau's s t u d i o s were w e l l equipped and t h a t d i s t r i b u t i o n of bureau f i l m s extended to many 143 c o u n t r i e s i n the w o r l d . Mr. Manion suggested t h a t i f d u p l i c a t i o n of f i l m s e r v i c e s was the problem then an i n t e r - d e p a r t m e n t a l committee of t h o s e departments u s i n g f i l m c o u l d p e r f o r m the same f u n c t i o n as the 144 proposed board a t no a d d i t i o n c o s t t o t h e government. The wording of the NFB A c t was vague (perhaps p u r p o s e l y so as to a l l o w g r e a t e r freedom of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a f t e r i t was passed) and a g r e a t 10,8 d e a l ofiwrangling over semantics took p l a c e . Some senators claimed they couldn't understand i t at a l l . I have not the s l i g h t e s t idea what some parts of t h i s B i l l mean, [sta t e d Meighen] and I do not t h i n k any other member of t h i s honorable House has. . . . The honorable senator from S a l t c o a t s has advised me to-day that he cannot understand the B i l l , although he spent on i t , I t h i n k , a good part of l a s t n i g h t . In the House, the term ' n a t i o n a l f i l m ' created something of a stumbling block. Despite repeated attempts and perhaps some coaching from G r i e r s o n , Euler was unable to f u l l y s a t i s f y what t h i s meant. Vancouver Conserva-t i v e member Howard Green's amendment to c l a r i f y t h i s term was duly accepted and i n s e c t i o n 9 the phrase which G r i e r s o n i n l a t e r years l i k e d to banter about when he spoke of the work of the NFB was added^-"film designed to help Canadians i n a l l parts, of Canada to understand the way 146 of l i v i n g and the problems of Canadians i n other p a r t s . " When the amended Act reached the Senate, some concern was expressed over how r e a l i s t i c an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n should be given to Green's s t a t e -ment. Mr. F a r r i s of B.C. st a t e d that he would not want p i c t u r e s of the 147 Saskatchewan drought shown i n f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . "We should s o f t -pedal the handicaps," added Mr. MacArthur from P.E.I., "and s t r e s s the ,,148 a t t r a c t x o n s . Grierson's concept of f i l m was beyond the p o l i t i c i a n s ' w i l d e s t imagination. They regarded the new board as a ki n d of " a n c i l l a r y to the 149 t o u r i s t bureau." There was no d i s c u s s i o n on f i l m s t y l e or the development of a r t . The term documentary was not used and most members d i d not t h i n k they were c r e a t i n g an agency which would go beyond showing Canada's scenery i n travelogues and making e d u c a t i o n a l f i l m s f o r the c h i l d r e n of the n a t i o n . Despite the f a c t that H i t l e r had already taken A u s t r i a and the whole of Czechoslovakia, and war seemed a d i s t i n c t 109 p o s s i b i l i t y , there was no d i s c u s s i o n about f i l m s f o r propaganda i f war should come. The o p p o s i t i o n , however, d i d not have to understand very much about f i l m i n order to see c l e a r l y that a new bureaucracy was being created and one which u l t i m a t e l y would be borne by the Canadian taxpayers. With uncanny i n s i g h t , the o p p o s i t i o n arguments against the Act f o r e -shadowed what would happen i n the years f o l l o w i n g the b i l l ' s passage. H'. H. Stevens, former M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce and the man respon-s i b l e f o r i n i t i a t i n g the combine's i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y i n 1931, warned: "This i s simply the commencement of a l a r g e ..150 new o r g a n i z a t i o n . Worst of a l l , [ predicted Meighen] you w i l l have l a i d the founda-t i o n f o r a sup e r s t r u c t u r e which w i l l r i s e j u s t as s u r e l y as the sun w i l l r i s e tomorrow morning, and by the r i s i n g of such super-s t r u c t u r e s as t h i s . . . you add to the great mountain of taxation.151 In answer to questions r a i s e d i n the House, Euler repeatedly s t r e s s e d that the purpose of the board was to b r i n g about e f f i c i e n c y and economies between the departments engaged i n f i l m making a c t i v i t i e s . Such a board, he s t a t e d , would oversee the preparations of f i l m s i n the ' n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t , ' w h i l e the a c t u a l work would be c a r r i e d out by the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. I should l i k e again to reassure [Euler s a i d ] . . . some honourable members who seem to fear that we are going to set up a c o s t l y o r g a n i z a t i o n to run i n t o hundreds of thousands of d o l l a r s of expenditure and create another bureaucracy, I regard that as imaginary.153 Euler vehemently denied that there had been any d i s c u s s i o n s concerning who the f i l m commissioner might be but, when Badgely was suggested f o r the post, E u l e r equivocated and suggested that Badgely had enough work 154 as d i r e c t o r . Stevens saw c l e a r l y what Badgely and the MPB f a i l e d 152 110 to grasp when they l e n t t h e i r support to Grierson's r e p o r t and to the NFB Act. I warn the government and I warn the committee that i f we go ahead w i t h t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , we are simply going to superimpose on an e x i s t i n g e x c e l l e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n another one which w i l l u l t i m a t e l y become very costly.155 J u s t four months before Canada's entry i n t o World War I I , the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board was created as a new government agency. Under the Act, the board comprised of eight members ( f i v e from government and three from the p u b l i c sector) plus a f i l m commissioner were to e s t a b l i s h f i l m p o l i c y , w h i l e the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau under Badgely was 156 to c a r r y out production. I t appeared that at long l a s t the MPB would have complete c o n t r o l over government f i l m making, wider scope f o r i t s f i l m i n g a c t i v i t i e s , a b e t t e r f i n a n c i a l arrangement and a philosophy which taken i n i t s broadest sense, recognized f i l m as a f o r c e f o r c u l t u r a l development, not j u s t a means of r a i s i n g revenue f o r the country. The MPB was freed from i t s r o l e as f i l m maker f o r the Department of Trade and Commerce and was to act as a c e n t r a l f i l m agency f o r a l l government departments. "^ 7 D u p l i c a t i o n of f i l m s e r v i c e s i n the country were brought under c e n t r a l c o n t r o l . The new f i l m board was to be "the eyes 158 of Canada." " I t w i l l , " s t a t e d G r i e r s o n , "through a n a t i o n a l use of cinema see Canada and see i t w h o l e — i t s people and i t s purpose." The f u t u r e of the MPB might have been as b r i g h t as o u t l i n e d i n the NFB Act, save that World War I I i n t e r r u p t e d the normal development i t might have experienced by p u t t i n g tremendous demands on the bureau to produce propaganda f i l m s f o r the a l l i e d cause, and Gr i e r s o n was tempor-a r i l y appointed f i l m commissioner f o r a p e r i o d of s i x months u n t i l a Canadian commissioner could be found. G r i e r s o n was not only e n t h u s i a s t i c about h i s new p o s i t i o n , but he pursued h i s v i s i o n w i t h the I l l 160 z e a l of a missionary and he expected those around him to do the same. Although he could be extremely generous to those who worked hard and showed some c r e a t i v e promise, h i s single-mindedness made him d i c t a t o r i a l 161 and i n s i s t e n t that a l l things be done h i s way. G r i e r s o n r i g i d l y adhered to the q u a s i - s o c i a l i s t dogma he preached, a n d , s u r p r i s i n g l y , r e c e i v e d the complete support of MacKenzie King and the continued admir-a t i o n of Ross McLean who was "extremely knowledgeable and w e l l connected 16 2 i n the L i b e r a l p a r t y . " G r i e r s o n claimed that the NFB and h i s appoint-ment had come about because King was impressed by him and h i s d e d i c a t i o n 163 to p u b l i c s e r v i c e . "The Prime M i n i s t e r , " G r i e r s o n s a i d , gave him 164 " h i s personal backing and almost a blank cheque i n support." As an o l d man G r i e r s o n r e c a l l e d King's generosity. The point was during the war I was set t h i s task, l a r g e l y under the umbrella and b l e s s i n g of the great W i l l i a m Lyon MacKenzie King, who had an odd b e l i e f i n what I was t a l k i n g about, and f o r which I w i l l be e t e r n a l l y grateful.165 W i t h i n a year, the Canadian f i l m makers employed by the MPB were sharing t h e i r s t u d i o w i t h Englishmen, veterans of the B r i t i s h documentary and former employees of Grie r s o n i n the GPO f i l m u n i t i n B r i t a i n . They were j o i n e d by a l a r g e number of Canadian women, who i n v o l v e d themselves i n a l l aspects of f i l m production and by other f i l m makers from around 166 the world, whom Grierson r e c r u i t e d . In a d d i t i o n , some f i l m makers were h i r e d on a contract b a s i s because G r i e r s o n b e l i e v e d that c i v i l servants "weakened the v i t a l i t y and paralyzed the i n i t i a t i v e which are necessary to A 1 " 1 6 7 good work. The o l d time Canadian f i l m makers were rel e g a t e d to secondary p o s i -t i o n s i n the great f l u r r y of day and n i g h t cinematic a c t i v i t y that was t a k i n g p l a c e . They were being t o l d what to do and how to do i t and q u i t e n a t u r a l l y they resented i t . " * " ^ 8 Guy Glover, who had j u s t j o i n e d the board at t h i s time, conceded "that he found the E n g l i s h i n t o l e r a b l e at times and that he fought w i t h G r i e r s o n to give the Canadians more 169 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " The newcomers who shared Grierson's views were annoyed by the u n w i l l i n g n e s s of Badgely's men to change t h e i r ways. F r i c t i o n developed between c i v i l servants and c o n t r a c t f i l m makers; between o l d MPB f i l m makers and new Canadian apprentices and t h e i r E n g l i s h masters. ^ "7^ The r e l a t i o n s h i p between G r i e r s o n and Badgely was anything but amiable. Badgely r e g r e t t e d that he had promoted Grierson's coming to Canada and complained that G r i e r s o n had exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y i n a number of areas. He was disappointed that he had not been named f i l m commissioner and he d i d not share a l l of Grierson's ideas on the development of f i l m i n Canada.^7"'" To G r i e r s o n , Badgely was a "mule 172 and a nuisance." To Parmelee f e l l the unpleasant task of mediating between the two of them. While there i s l i t t l e doubt that Grierson's 'master plan' f o r cinema i n Canada and h i s a l l out e f f o r t s f o r World War I I movie produc-t i o n had m e r i t s , i t put an unwarranted s t r a i n on Badgely and the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. Although there was an increase i n s t a f f , the amount of equipment and space remained the same. Even w i t h day and night s h i f t s i n s t i t u t e d i n order to meet the number of f i l m s r e q u i r e d , demand 174 always exceeded the f i l m supply. Tensions were f u r t h e r heightened when a few months a f t e r i t s crea-t i o n , the NFB became i n v o l v e d i n the f i g h t between Ontario's Premier Hepburn and Prime M i n i s t e r MacKenzie King over the country's war e f f o r t . A f t e r the Ontario l e g i s l a t u r e passed t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n condemning King's p r o s e c u t i o n of the war as i n e f f e c t u a l , King pressured the NFB to r e l e a s e 113 one of i t s new propaganda f i l m s , Canada at War, which contained an i n t e r -view w i t h him, i n an attempt to v i n d i c a t e h i m s e l f . 1 7 " ' Hepburn responded by having the movie banned i n Ontario u n t i l a f t e r the general e l e c t i o n on March 26, 1940, on the grounds that i t was "pure p o l i t i c a l propaganda f o r 176 the MacKenzie King government." In announcing the ban on the NFB movie Hepburn s t a t e d : I f they want to show the extent of Canada's war e f f o r t , l e t them show the hundreds of thousands of unemployed who are walking the s t r e e t s l o o k i n g f o r a chance to e n l i s t or f i n d work i n i n d u s t r y at a time when the very s e c u r i t y of the country i s at stake. I would not a l l o w a p i c t u r e l i k e t h i s to be shown whether i t was a N a t i o n a l , a Conservative or a L i b e r a l government i n power. l 77 The storm broke w h i l e G r i e r s o n was studying the f i l m s i t u a t i o n i n A u s t r a l i a . C o l . Cooper, Pres i d e n t of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e D i s -t r i b u t o r s had been appointed A c t i n g Commissioner i n Grierson's absence, but the person i n charge of the s t u d i o was Ross McLean who was now 178 Grierson's a s s i s t a n t . McLean, who G r i e r s o n once ca t e g o r i z e d as "a s c r i b b l e r , a c l e r k but without much imagination," bore the brunt of the 179 c r i t i c i s m aimed at the board. Cooper suspended him f o r r e l e a s i n g 180 the f i l m , but a f t e r h i s v i c t o r y at the p o l l s King had him r e i n s t a t e d . At the end of h i s term-in December1 of, 1940.,_ Grierso n resigned, i n . • what can be regarded as a dramatic play f o r power. Grierson's months at the board revealed what he considered an impediment ( i n h i s own design) to the board's development—"the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e anomaly by which 181 the Board set p o l i c y but d i d not i t s e l f produce i t . " He s t a t e d that he was r e s i g n i n g so that he could speak f r e e l y on t h i s i s s u e , as w e l l as, the need f o r more money and f l e x i b i l i t y i n h i r i n g n o n - c i v i l servant f i l m 182 makers. He a l s o suggested that the commissioner's job be handed over 183 to "more n a t i v e hands" as i t was o r i g i n a l l y intended. The i n i t i a l response to Grierson's r e s i g n a t i o n was not to h i s l i k i n g . E u l e r , who was Chairman of the F i l m Board, d i d not accept h i s r e s i g n a t i o n . He suggested that G r i e r s o n was t r y i n g to get out from under r e g u l a r c o n t r o l by the Treasury, "contrary to the e s t a b l i s h e d 184 p r i n c i p l e s of democratic government." Grierson's response was to 185 take h i s case to those higher up i n the government. Three months l a t e r h i s r e s i g n a t i o n s t i l l had not been accepted. The board was d i v i d e d on the matter. Government members were i n favor of accepting i. 186 i t , but those from the p r i v a t e s e c t o r were not. During t h i s time, the press mounted a campaign urging that G r i e r -187 son be r e t a i n e d . G r i e r s o n was no stranger to the p r i n t media and i n t h i s i n stance the press supported i t s own. G r i e r s o n had only made 18 8 one f i l m i n h i s l i f e , but h i s w r i t t e n works were voluminous. He began h i s w r i t i n g career w i t h the New York Sun i n 1924, w h i l e studying the e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s mass c u l t u r a l media upon p u b l i c o p i n i o n on a R o c k e f e l l e r Research Fellowship and once converted to the idea of docu-mentary f i l m s as an e d u c a t i o n a l t o o l f o r the b e n e f i t of the masses, he became " t i r e l e s s i n spreading the word 'documentary' through the p u b l i c 189 p r i n t . " " I t was p e r s i s t e n t p u b l i c i t y . . . that won a t t e n t i o n f o r 190 documentary as a movement . . . " Although h i s stay i n Canada to t h i s time had been b r i e f , he had busied himself t r a v e l l i n g the l a n d , doing some radi o shows and w r i t i n g v a r i o u s a r t i c l e s d i s c u s s i n g the work 191 of the NFB and the philosophy of s o c i a l r e a l i s m i n cinema. A d d i t i o n a l support f o r G r i e r s o n came from Quebec, where Un du XXII-ieme, the French counterpart of L e t t e r s from Camp Borden and the f i r s t 192 French movie produced by the NFB, had j u s t been r e l e a s e d . I t was known i n French Canada that G r i e r s o n supported the idea of more French 11.51 language f i l m s and had i n s t r u c t e d Badgely that a l l board f i l m s were to be 193 i n both French and E n g l i s h . F i n a l l y , and most important, G r i e r s o n had the a s s i s t a n c e of the Prime M i n i s t e r who l e t i t be known that he 194 f e l t Canada needed G r i e r s o n f o r the f u r t h e r development of the NFB. The f i n a l outcome was the demise of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. On June 11, 1941, by Order i n C o u n c i l P.C. 3549, the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board absorbed the Bureau and by a second Order i n C o u n c i l , P.C. 4215 on the same day, the NFB along w i t h CBC and the T r a v e l Bureau were 195 brought under the c o n t r o l of the Department of N a t i o n a l War S e r v i c e s . Stevens'is p r e d i c t i o n of two years e a r l i e r i n the debate on the NFB Act had come to pass. Indeed i t was the "commencement of a l a r g e , new ,,196 o r g a n i z a t i o n . G r i e r s o n , who had been pursuaded to stay f o r another s i x month term, e s t a b l i s h e d himself i n the o f f i c e s of the defunct Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. Badgely was o f f e r e d the demoted p o s i t i o n as head of the s t i l l photography d i v i s i o n ; m o r t i f i e d he d e c l i n e d and t r a n s f e r r e d to another 197 branch of government. Government tokenism came i n the form of a pay cheque which was mailed to Badgely's home f o r a year a f t e r the 198 bureau was terminated. The pioneer Canadian f i l m makers incensed by the haughty treatment Badgely rece i v e d e i t h e r r e t i r e d , q u i t , or t r a n s -199 f e r r e d to other departments. Two months l a t e r , on August 8th, the s t i l l s d i v i s i o n of the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau was given to the NFB by another order i n c o u n c i l . T h e N a t i o n a l F i l m Board w i t h G r i e r s o n at 201 the helm now c o n t r o l l e d a l l aspects of government f i l m i n Canada. * * * * * To a l a r g e extent, the d e c i s i o n s made i n 1939 and 1941 have governed the development of f i l m i n Canada ever s i n c e . At that j u n c t u r e the 116 government committed i t s e l f to government f i l m s , and to a c e r t a i n extent i t d i d so at the expense of the commercial s e c t o r . Suppose, f o r example, the government i n 1939 had decided to get out of the f i l m business and c a l l tenders i n s t e a d . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t Canadian f i l m companies such as Associated Screen News and others would have r e c e i v e d 202 the huge war c o n t r a c t s that went to the NFB. Competition f o r govern-ment f i l m c o n t r a c t s by the commercial groups would have ensured the q u a l i t y of f i l m . With t h i s boost to Canadian commercial f i l m during the war, enough impetus might have seen the c r e a t i o n of a fea t u r e f i l m i n d u s t r y i n the post-war p e r i o d . As i t was, however, the few commercial co n t r a c t s given by the NFB during the war, ceased a f t e r the a r m i s t i c e . In 1949, the NFB came under a t t a c k from the commercial f i l m makers i n the country who f e l t they were being robbed of t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d by the 203 government board. The independent f i l m companies had a p o i n t ; the government had expanded i t s f i l m board a hundredfold s i n c e i t s concep-t i o n . In October 1941, the board had 55 employees, by December 1942 204 there were 293 and by October 1945 there were some 787 s t a f f members. As p r e d i c t e d , the small board which was o r i g i n a l l y designed to oversee the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau had grown i n t o a huge bureaucracy. Almost without exception, those who have w r i t t e n about the NFB have done so by p r a i s i n g the remarkable achievements of Canada i n b u i l d -i n g a f i l m i n s t i t u t e which has developed i n the f i e l d of documentary 205 "from p u p i l to world teacher." G r i e r s o n i n s i s t e d that a l l the young men about him be as a r t i c u l a t e as he was, and even t a k i n g i n t o account that these men were the authors of most of the e a r l y a r t i c l e s on the board, there i s l i t t l e question that today the NFB produces e x c e l l e n t 206 documentaries which have been acclaimed i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . 117 . The s u c c e s s o f t h e f i l m b o a r d , however, cannot be measured s i m p l y i n terms o f the q u a l i t y documentaries i t has made, but r a t h e r whether o r not i t has a c h i e v e d i t s m a n d a t e — t o h e l p u n i f y the n a t i o n by. showing Canada to Canadians i n a more s u c c e s s f u l way than t h e MPB might have done. In o t h e r words, d i d t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e NFB j u s t i f y the o u s t i n g of Canad-i a n f i l m makers or t h e c l o s u r e o f one of Canada's i n s t i t u t i o n s ? I t seems c e r t a i n t h a t n a t i v e f i l m p r o d u c t i o n would have e s c a l a t e d even i f G r i e r s o n had not appeared on the scene. The need f o r propaganda f i l m s d u r i n g World War I I would have o f n e c e s s i t y meant the r e v i t a l i z a t i o n and i n c r e a s e d f i n a n c i n g f o r the M o t i o n P i c t u r e Bureau. Badgely and o t h e r s a t the MPB were f u l l y aware of t h e shor t c o m i n g s o f the bureau and undoubtedly would have produced b e t t e r p i c t u r e s i f the f u n d i n g were a v a i l -a b l e . T h e i r l a s t t h r e e f i l m s , L e s t We F o r g e t , S a l u t e t o V a l o u r , and R o y a l V i s i t , showed they were c a p a b l e o f more than t r a v e l o g u e s . Moreover a number of independent f i l m makers i n Canada were coming on s t r o n g i n the t h i r t i e s — t h e y might have been p r e s s e d i n t o s e r v i c e f o r the war c a u s e . ^ 7 A s u c c e s s f u l Canadian government f i l m i n d u s t r y might have devel o p e d w i t h o u t G r i e r s o n and h i s f i l m p h i l o s o p h y . S t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n from the NFB r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e t h a t l a r g e numbers of p e o p l e see t h e i r f i l m s , y e t v a r i o u s p o l l s t a ken over the y e a r s 2 0 8 suggest t h a t few Canadians a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h the f i l m s o f the NFB. I r o n i c a l l y , t h e documentary f i l m s G r i e r s o n b e l i e v e d would become the prime e d u c a t i o n a l t o o l i n Canada, (almost r e p l a c i n g b o o k s ) , have r a r e l y 2 0 9 been seen by the masses. Less than f i v e p e r c e n t o f commercial movies 2 1 0 shown i n Canada have any Canadian c o n t e n t . Today, many NFB movies seem to be made f o r a s e l e c t f e w — t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and a r t i s t i c a l l y aware e l i t e , r a t h e r than the many. "By 118 1970, there were features coming o f f the r e e l s at the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board which were destined to puzzle many taxpayers who had read i n the N a t i o n a l 211 F i l m Act that the board i s to produce f i l m s " i n the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . " When Grierson v i s i t e d NFB s t u d i o s i n Montreal f o r the 25th anniver-sary of the board, he d i d not look w i t h favor on t h i s aspect of h i s 'war baby.' I t has come to my a t t e n t i o n r e c e n t l y that the F i l m Board more and more i s becoming i n f i l t r a t e d w i t h ' a r t y - t a r y ' types who inten d to use the f a c i l i t i e s which i t o f f e r s f o r t h e i r own p r i v a t e purposes. There w i l l come a time, and mark my words, i t w i l l come; when the l i m i t of p u b l i c t o l e r a n c e w i l l be transgressed and the a c t i v i t i e s of the Board w i l l be s e v e r e l y c u r t a i l e d . 2 1 2 Rather than NFB f i l m s f o s t e r i n g u n i f i c a t i o n i n the country as intended, i n t e r p r e t i n g 'Canada to Canadians' has tended to be d e v i s i v e ; promoting r e g i o n a l i s m , and m i r r o r i n g e t h n i c , s o c i a l and economic d i f f e r -213 ences between Canadians. To t h i s extent then, i t can be argued that the NFB has not achieved i t s mandate. S u p e r f i c i a l l y , Grierson's f i l m ideology sounded l i k e a noble endeavor f o r any n a t i o n a l f i l m agency to undertake. But i n r e a l i t y , the d i d a c t i c t h e o r i e s f a i l e d to take i n t o account that documentary f i l m has never been a popular f i l m form w i t h the p u b l i c . In 1940, former B.B.C. e d i t o r , R. S. Lambert commented i n Food f o r Thought: The motion p i c t u r e theatre i s ' . . . the r e s o r t of hundreds of thousands seeking cheap and temporary r e l i e f from the complex-i t i e s and monotony of l i f e , companionship and escape to the land of dreams.214 I f Lambert was c o r r e c t , and one suspects he was, then i t i s l i t t l e wonder that NFB documentaries have never achieved p o p u l a r i t y w i t h Canadians. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , they seldom a s p i r e d to e n t e r t a i n and were n e a r l y always designed to serve some extra-cinematic f u n c t i o n — p u b l i c i t y , p u b l i c r e l a -215 t i o n s or education. Although G r i e r s o n argued that documentaries 119 were f i l m s w i t h a purpose, as one c r i t i c s n i d e l y remarked, the purpose 216 o f t e n seemed to be to bore everyone. NFB f l i c k s presented "a p a r t i a l or 'safe' view" of c o n t r o v e r s i a l m a t e r i a l and according to 217 Gerald P r a t l e y were not as adventurous as the F i l m Act would allow. The e a r l y NFB movies were d u l l and slow moving and had a d i s t i n c t i v e l y 218 E n g l i s h viewpoint r a t h e r than a Canadian one. In a r t i s t i c terms, the documentary may be "the c r e a t i v e treatment of a c t u a l i t y , " but i n the post-war era ' a c t u a l i t y ' was not w e l l researched and many of the f i l m s 219 appeared s u p e r f i c i a l . The e t e r n a l , earnest, plodding v o i c e of the n a r r a t o r ; [writes Guy Glover] the over-indulgence i n music-backgrounds; camera-work which, i n a studi e d e f f o r t to be s e l f - e f f a c i n g , achieved only monotony; the f l a c c i d c u t t i n g devoid of rhythmic order; the pervasive tone of s o c i o l o g i c a l v i r t u e and do-goodery—these became c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of 'the documentary' manners and manner-isms . 220 In simplest terms, the documentary i s a propaganda f i l m , and r e c o g n i z i n g t h i s , Canadians have g e n e r a l l y r e j e c t e d any attempt to t h r u s t i n s t r u c t i o n upon them through a medium which they consider to be entertainment. I t was known at the time G r i e r s o n was i n v i t e d to Canada that docu-mentary f i l m s were unpopular w i t h the p u b l i c , that t h e i r c i r c u l a t i o n i n p u b l i c cinemas was extremely small s c a l e , sporadic and u n p r o f i t a b l e . Indeed, i f McLean had bothered to check he would have found that the documentaries made by Grierson's EMB and GPO f i l m u n i t s , the 'poverty row' of f i l m production i n B r i t a i n , were r a r e l y seen by the B r i t i s h p u b l i c . The r o l e documentaries took i n those days i n the cinema, [ s a i d Richard Cawston, one of B r i t a i n ' s foremost documentary producers] was a very minor r o l e i n r e l a t i o n to feat u r e f i l m s . The docu-mentary only had to be loud enough to hide the noise of the i c e cream papers and the hats and coats being s t u f f e d under the seats. 120 In 1933, Grierson's Empire Marketing Board f i l m u n i t was d i s s o l v e d by an economic campaign and i n 1934, the General Post O f f i c e f i l m u n i t which replaced i t was t o l d to confine i t s e l f "to s t r a i g h t a d v e r t i s i n g and 222 i n t e r o f f i c e i n s t r u c t i o n s , " by the Federation of B r i t i s h I n d u s t r i e s . The B r i t i s h f i l m i n d u s t r y was v i r t u a l l y i n the same p o s i t i o n as the Canadian one during the 1920's and 1930's, w i t h 95% of the movies shown 223 i n the country coming from the United States. B r i t i s h s t u d i o s remained devoid of e i t h e r i n s p i r a t i o n or v i t a l i t y and q u i t e obviously were not the place to seek a i d i n s e t t i n g up a v i a b l e f i l m i n d u s t r y . Yet few people i n Canada seemed to have questioned Grierson's coming, h i s r e p o r t , the NFB Act , or the s u i t a b i l i t y of the documentary format he proposed to use. L i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the Canadian f i l m makers who were ousted w i t h the c l o s u r e of the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. 224 Indeed, MacKenzie King was reported to have s a i d , "to h e l l w i t h them." A l l t h i s seems to i n d i c a t e that a c o l o n i a l m e n t a l i t y and a c u l t u r a l backwardness were present i n Canada at the time. The b e l i e f that B r i t i s h cinema was b e t t e r — e v e n when a l l evidence pointed to the co n t r a r y , made Grierson's i n v i t a t i o n and subsequent events seem p l a u s i b l e . Emerging from c o l o n i a l s t a t u s l e g a l l y , Canadians s t i l l turned to B r i t a i n f o r c u l -t u r a l i n s p i r a t i o n and accepted, without question, the mother country's o f f e r i n g s . I f Gr i e r s o n made the NFB as i t i s commonly h e l d , then i t can al s o be argued that the NFB made Griers o n . C e r t a i n l y , no other country and no other Prime M i n i s t e r would have given G r i e r s o n the f r e e r e i n s he 225 r e c e i v e d i n Canada to pioneer and experiment w i t h h i s cinema ideology. I t i s hard to imagine, f o r example, such l i b e r t i e s being extended to any number of Canadian e x p a t r i o t s s u c c e s s f u l i n American cinema i f they had come home to set up an i n d u s t r y . G r i e r s o n , i n contrast to the s u c c e s s f u l l ' 2 i 'Hollywood Canadians,' who were b e l i e v e d to have been t a i n t e d by crass American v a l u e s , had the req u i r e d e l i t i s t appeal which Canadians a s p i r i n g to be great, l i k e to i d e n t i f y w i t h . The s m a l l , quick, acid-tongued.Scot was not only r e s p e c t a b l e , but he was a f i l m 'expert' and something of a s c h o l a r . The s t o r y of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau r e a f f i r m s many t r a i t s which are p e c u l i a r l y Canadian. In the United States every attempt to set up a f e d e r a l government f i l m agency was met w i t h p r o t e s t , w h i l e i n Canada the p o l i t i c i a n s b l i t h e l y set up the Motion P i c t u r e Bureau and receiv e d no o p p o s i t i o n ffbm the g e n e r a l - p u b l i c . C a n a d i a n s - w e r e riot!'only w i l l i n g to accept more government c o n t r o l than Americans, but they were instrume n t a l i n asking the government to produce Canadian f i l m s as a kind of counter-force to the bombardment of American movies being show i n the country. In l i e u of being given any r e a l funding to e s t a b l i s h a fe a t u r e 226 f i l m i n d u s t r y , they s e t t l e d f o r a piecemeal government f i l m o p e r ation. The Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau might have played an important r o l e i n the development of cinema a r t and Canadian c u l t u r e , however, i t d i d n e i t h e r . The government lacked the imagination to see the inherent p o s s i b i l i t y of cinema i n those areas and seemed devoid of the r e q u i r e d i n t e r e s t to c o r r e c t t h e i r a p p a l l i n g ignorance on the sub j e c t . They d i d not understand that " c u l t u r e i s a process of growth and cannot be estab-l i s h e d w i t h i n s t a n t or short-term r e s u l t s that p o l i t i c i a n s g e n e r a l l y ,,227 requxre. The government was pragmatic i n i t s approach to the MPB. The bureau e x i s t e d reasonably w e l l during the economic heyday of the 1920's, but i t s work became l e s s important to the p o l i t i c i a n s during the depres-s i o n . The bureau was permitted to make s h o r t , inexpensive f i l m s — t h e 122 type which i n no way appeared to threaten or compete w i t h Hollywood f i l m productions. The MPB hadn't the necessary scope, f i n a n c i n g or o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e to make good Canadian f i l m production a r e a l i t y . No r e a l pressure was exerted to f o r c e Canadian theatres to show Canadian f i l m s and so bureau's f i l m s were r a r e l y seen by the Canadian p u b l i c . The cost of the bureau was borne by the taxpayers and a f t e r more than 25 years there was l i t t l e to show f o r t h e i r money. While t h i s might cause c i t i z e n s of other c o u n t r i e s to be perturbed, Canadian c i t i -zens remained s t a l w a r t o p t i m i s t s i n t h e i r b e l i e f that a Canadian f i l m i n d u s t r y was j u s t around the corner, and that the MPB was one of the for c e s that would b r i n g i t about. Stephen Leacock J r . was one of many w r i t e r s who looked to the f u t u r e of Canadian cinema w i t h enthusiasm. In Canada we have the nucleus of what could be b u i l t up i n t o an important f i l m i n d u s t r y that would m i r r o r the Canadian scene not only f o r us but f o r other lands as w e l l . We could, i n s h o r t , do a number of great t h i n g s — i f we would only do them.228 While the MPB's cameras churned out inexpensive r e e l s of "Seeing Canada," t a l e n t e d Canadians who wanted a chance i n the movie business f l o c k e d to 229 Hollywood. The development of a v i a b l e motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y had not occurred w i t h the c r e a t i o n of the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau. 123 Footnotes ^Richard MacCann, The People's F i l m s , New York, Hastings House, 1973, pp. 22-23. 2 Robert Snyder, Pare Lorentz and the Documentary F i l m , Norman, Uni-v e r s i t y of Oklahoma Press, 1979, pp. 206-216. In 1936, some 20 d i f f e r e n t U.S. f e d e r a l agencies had been or were engaging i n producing f i l m s f o r p u b l i c i t y , but there was no c e n t r a l c o n t r o l l i n g agency. The United States F i l m Service created as a part of the 'New Deal' ran i n t o much p o l i t i c a l o p p o s i t i o n and was short l i v e d . For a contemporary view of U.S. government f i l m s i n the 1930's see: Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, America i n Midpassage, Toronto, MacMillan Co. of Canada, 1939, pp. 595-625. 3 Andrew Buchanan, The A r t of F i l m Production, London, S i r Isaac Pitman and Sons L t d . , 1936, pp. 14-18. 4 Peter Cowie, ed., A Concise H i s t o r y of Cinema, New York, A. S. Barnes Co., V o l . 1, 1971, p. 137. Two days a f t e r the establishment of Soviet power the f i r s t Soviet f i l m o r g a n i z a t i o n was founded as a u n i t under the M i n i s t e r of Education, the playwright Lunacharsky. Late i n 1917, the f i l m u n i t opened a f i l m t r a i n i n g school i n Leningrad and i n 1918-1919, a second school i n Moscow. On Aug. 27, 1919, the motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y was n a t i o n a l i z e d . See: "Cinema," T h i r t y Years of the  Soviet State 1917-1947, Moscow, Foreign Language P u b l i s h i n g , 1947, p. 1; Jay Leyda, Kino: A H i s t o r y of Russian and Soviet F i l m , London, George A l l a n and Unwin L t d . , 1960, p. 124. "'"The P r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n of the Screen" was the motto of the Sovkino T r u s t , a Soviet f i l m agency created i n 1925. See: Dwight MacDonald, Dwight MacDonald on Movies, New Jersey, P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1969. For Canadian coverage about Soviet f i l m s , see: Robert Donald, " B o l s h i e F i l m Moves Germans," MacLean's Magazine, Oct. 1, 1926; Valance P a t r i a r c h e , "The Cinema of Today," Dalhousie Review, V o l . 17, A p r i l 1927-Jan. 1928, pp. 425, 427-428; "Review of Reviews," MacLean's Magazine, March 15, 1931, p. 24; Alexander Werth, " P o l i t i c a l Films F i r s t i n Russia," Saturday Night, Oct. 5, 1946, p. 17. 7The f i r s t mention of the Canadian E x h i b i t i o n and P u b l i c i t y Bureau i s found i n the Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce f o r 1917. See: Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , V o l . 4, 1917, p. x v i i i . g In 1924, the bureau s t a t e d that another goal i t had was the d i s -t r i b u t i o n of Canadian p i c t u r e s i n Canada. This aspect of the bureau work, however, was never seen as a way of f o s t e r i n g Canadian c u l t u r e . The goal lacked d i r e c t i o n and o b j e c t i v e s . See: Charles Backhouse, Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, Ottawa, Canadian F i l m I n s t i -t u t e , 1974, p. 10. 124 Norman R e i l l y Raine, "Figures and P i c t u r e s , " MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 1, 1927, p. 62. " ^ I b i d . "Trade f o l l o w s F i l m " was not only a f a v o r i t e dictum of the Canadian f i l m makers, i t was a l s o h e l d by U.S. economic ex p a n s i o n i s t s i n the 1920's. See: Robert S k l a r , Movie Made America, New York, Random House, 1975, pp. 216-217. ^Backhouse, Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau, p. 7. 12 13 I b i d . , p. 4. I b i d . , p. 5. 14 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1919, p. 17. "^Backhouse, p. 5. See a l s o : "Moving P i c t u r e s are Used f o r P u b l i c i t y , " V i c t o r i a Times, V i c t o r i a , J u l y 24, 1919, p. 7. "^Backhouse, p. 7. "^Tbid. . " ^ I b i d . , pp. 6-7. 19 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1920, p. 27. 20 The Canadian N a t i o n a l P i c t o r i a l o r i g i n a l l y r e c e i v e d funding because i t s parent company, Pathescope, complained that the government's f i l m operations were destroy i n g f i l m making i n the commercial s e c t o r . In 1921, when the government funding ceased, the P i c t o r i a l died. At the same time, Canadians only other newsreel f i l m i n g agency, Ouimet's B r i t i s h -Canadian Pathe News, fo l d e d . From 1922 on, Canadians watched American newsreel w i t h some Canadian content added by the American companies. See: Harold B. Crow, "The P i c t o r i a l that Died," MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 15, 1921, pp. 16-17, 40-41; Backhouse, p. 10; Peter M o r r i s , Embattled  Shadows, Montreal, McGill-Queen's U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1978, pp. 135, 160. 21 "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1919, p. 17. 22 Backhouse, pp. 8-9. For a d i s c u s s i o n on N o r r i s h ' s l a t e r a c t i v i t -i e s i n the Canadian Motion P i c t u r e i n d u s t r y see: E. L. Chicanot, "Behind the S i l v e r Screen," MacLean's Magazine, May 15, 1929, pp. 15, 37. 23 Backhouse, p. 9; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 159. Before j o i n i n g the bureau, Raymond Peck had been a j o u r n a l i s t w i t h s e v e r a l Can-adian and American newspapers and he was the e d i t o r of Motion P i c t u r e  B u l l e t i n , ( l a t e r c a l l e d Canadian Moving P i c t u r e D i g e s t ) , the f i r s t Can-adian f i l m trade p u b l i c a t i o n owned by the American company U n i v e r s a l P i c -t u r e s . 24 I b i d . , p. 10. 2 5 I b i d . , p. 11. James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s , 1968, pp. 31-33. ^ I b i d . , p. 31. 125 27 Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1929-1930, p. 42. 28 29 Backhouse, pp. 14-15. I b i d . 30 "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1929-1930, p. 42. 31 Guy Glover, " F i l m , " The A r t s i n Canada, Toronto, MacMillan Co. L t d . , 1958, p. 104. 32 M a r j o r i e McKay, " H i s t o r y of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," NFB Document, Aug. 5, 1964, pp. 6-7. 33 Backhouse, p. 8. 34 35 Raine, "Figures and P i c t u r e s , " p. 62. I b i d . 3 6 McKay, " H i s t o r y of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," pp. 6-7". 37 James, "The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," pp. 35-36. 38 I b i d . , p. 34. Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1927-1928, p. 33. 39 Raine, p. 65. 40 For inform a t i o n of Canada's involvement i n World War I propaganda movies see: Backhouse, pp. 4-5; and D. J . Wenden, The B i r t h of the Mov- i e s , London, MacDonald and Co., 1974, p. 135. For in f o r m a t i o n on the making of Lest We Forget and Salute to Valour see: Backhouse, pp. 22-24; P i e r r e Berton, Hollywood's Canada, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart L t d . , 1975, p. 138; and James, pp. 43-45. 41 Backhouse, p. 23. Lest We Forget was played i n major theatres i n Canada under the auspices of the Canadian Legion. At l e a s t one reviewer f e l t t h a t , " i t should be the duty of every adult i n Canada to see i t at l e a s t once." Promotion f o r the f i l m i n the advertisement s e c t i o n s of newspapers was very s l i c k and very American l o o k i n g . See: The D a i l y  P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, A p r i l 3, 1935, p. 5; and A p r i l 4, 1935, p. 4. 42 I b i d . , p. 32; James, pp. 46-47. 43 James, p. 31; "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Com-merce," 1927-1928, p. 30. 44 45 46 47 I b i d . I b i d . Backhouse, p. 11. Raine, p. 62. 48 Backhouse, p. 12. See a l s o : "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1927-1928, p. 29; and Raine, p. 26. 49 50 51 James, pp. 31, 37. Backhouse, p. 12. I b i d . , p. 13. 126 52 Countries where Canadian Motion P i c t u r e Bureau f i l m s were shown are l i s t e d i n the re p o r t s of the bureau. See: Canada, Parliament, S e s s i o n a l Papers, "Report of the Deputy M i n s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1917-1939. 53 "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1929-1930, pp. 38-40; Backhouse, pp. 13-14. For the American response to quota l e g i s l a t i o n against t h e i r movies see: "American Motion P i c t u r e s are so popular i n France" The Outlook, March 14, 1928, p. 412; M. W. Davis, "Window on the World," The Outlook, May 16, 1928, pp. 99-100. 54 55 Backhouse, p. 17. James, p. 37. "^James, p. 36; "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Com-merce," 1917-1939. 57 58 James, p. 57. Backhouse, p. 21. 59 Backhouse, p. 21. Another problem which plagued the bureau was the constant grumbling from the p r i v a t e f i l m s e c t o r which argued the bureau deprived i t of p o t e n t i a l government f i l m c o n t r a c t s . See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 135, 160. 60 "Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Department of Trade and Commerce," 1929-1930, p. 36; James, p. 39. ^ I b i d . , pp. 31-32. ^ I b i d . , p. 32. ^Backhouse, pp. 7, 9, 11. 64 I b i d . , pp. 16-17; James, p. 32. A d i s c u s s i o n on the va r i o u s government agencies us i n g f i l m was brought up during the Debate on the N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l . See: Canada, Parliament, Debates of the Senate, " N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l , " March 22, 1939, p. 109. The N a t i o n a l Parks Board was a p a r t i c u l a r problem to the Canadian Government Motion P i c t u r e Bureau because they acquired the s e r v i c e s of B i l l O l i v e r of Calgary, one of the best f i l m makers of the era. His Home of the B u f f a l o , made i n 1930 was to win an award at the West German F i l m F e s t i v a l of 1955. See: M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, pp. 169-170. 65 James, p. 47; McKay, p. 4; Backhouse, pp. 16-17, 23. ^James, p. 26. ^ 7 I b i d . 68 Raine, p. 19. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that during the Senate debates on the NFB Ac t , Senator Haig, a former operator of a "second c l a s s t h e a t r e " s t a t e d that w h i l e h i s theatre would sometimes take bureau f i l m s , "the f i r s t c l a s s p i c t u r e theatres i n Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and other l a r g e c i t i e s " would not take them. See Canada, Parliament, Debates of the Senate, " N a t i o n a l F i l m B i l l , " March 21, 1939, p. 101. 69 Raine, p. 19. 7^James, pp. 35, 38. Associated Screen News was the f i l m u n i t of the C.P.R. For more i n f o r m a t i o n on i t s operations see: E. L. Chicanot, "Behind the S i l v e r Screen," MacLean's Magazine, May 15, 1929, pp. 15, 127 37. The C.N.R.'s f i l m u n i t came under t h e i r photographic department. For a r t i c l e s about i t s operations see: Alan N. L o n g s t a f f , "Pioneering f o r the Movies," Canadian N a t i o n a l Railway Magazine, Jan. 1931, pp. 14-15, 34; Alan N. Lo n g s t a f f , " B i g Game Hunting w i t h R i f l e and Camera," Canadian  N a t i o n a l Railway Magazine, March 1930, p. 11; and Alan N. L o n g s t a f f , "Power," Canadian N a t i o n a l Railway Magazine, Feb. 1930, pp. 7-8. 71 72 73 James, p. 39. Backhouse, pp. 11-12, 25. I b i d . , p. 16. 7 4 J a e k E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," Canadian F i l m  Reader, Toronto, Peter M a r t i n Associates L t d . , 1977, p. 46. 7 5 " R e p o r t of the Deputy M i n s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1929-1930, p. 36. The f i r s t Canadian theatres to i n s t a l l sound equipment were the Palace Theatre i n Montreal (Sept. 1, 1928), followed by the T i v o l i and Uptown Theatres i n Toronto (No. 3, 1928). See: Walter J . Cross, "Twentieth Anniversary of Sound F i l m Celebrated t h i s Month," Saturday  Night, Aug. 24, 1946, p. 21. 7^Backhouse, p. 18. 7 7 ,'Report of the Deputy M i n i s t e r , Trade and Commerce," 1929-1930, p. 42. 7 8James, pp. 39-40. 7 ^ I b i d . ; Backhouse, p. 23. 8 ^ I b i d . , p. 21. 8"*Tbid. , p. 22; James, p. 41. 8^Backhouse, p. 22. 8^James, p. 48. 8 4"U.S. Movies are Nine-Tenth of a l l , " The D a i l y C o l o n i s t , Nov. 20, 1926, p. 1; "Urge Canadians to S t a r t Producing Own F i l m s , " P r o v i n c e , Van-couver, J u l y 3, 1927, p. 9; Valance P a t r i a r c h e , "The Cinema of To-day," p. 419. 85 I b i d . , "New Empire P l a n f o r F i l m s Urged," V i c t o r i a Times, Nov. 26, 1926, p. 7; "Germany Puts Ban on U.S. F i l m s , " MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 1, 1926; "American Motion P i c t u r e s are so Popular i n France," p. 412; Davis, "Window on the World," pp. 99-100; S k l a r , Movie-Made America, pp. 217-225; George A. Drew, "Have B r i t i s h Films a Chance?" MacLean's Mag- az i n e , Oct. 15, 1931, pp. 12-13, 60-61; G. Malcolm Thomson, "Motion P i c t u r e s Menace B r i t a i n , " MacLean's Magazine, March 15, 1931, p. 24. 86 H. F. Angus, ed., Canada and Her Great Neighbour, Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1938, pp. 128-135. 8 7 I b i d . , pp. 127-131. go D. N. N o r r i s , " B e t t e r F i l m s , " S o c i a l Welfare, June 1925, V o l . V I I , No. 9, June 1925, pp. 172-173. See a l s o : "For B e t t e r F i l m s , " Echoes, Dec. 1936, p. 33. 89 Garth Jowett, "American Domination of the Motion P i c t u r e Industry: Canada as a Test Case," Canadian F i l m Reader, pp. 11-12; Joan L. A r n o l d i , 128 " B r i t i s h Films are P r o g r e s s i n g , " Echoes, March 1932, p. 8. A r n o l d i w r i t e s "Daughters of the Empire are urged to p a t r o n i z e the B r i t i s h f i l m s shown i n t h e i r l o c a l i t i e s , and to do everything p o s s i b l e to encourage others t o do the same." 90 Joan A r n o l d i , " F i l m Notes," Echoes, Dec. 1933. 91 "Urges Canadians to S t a r t Producing Own F i l m s , ' p . 9. 92 Backhouse, pp. 13-14. See a l s o : "Empire Made F i l m s , " The D a i l y  C o l o n i s t , No. 11, 1926, p. 15. 93 "The Movies and the Sherman Law," The Outlook, May 9, 1928, p. 56; S k l a r , pp. 167-168. 94 Canada, Parliament, Department of Labour, An A l l e g e d Combine i n  the Motion P i c t u r e Industry i n Canada, A p r i l 30, 1931. For a d i s c u s s i o n on the White Report see: Angus, Canada and Her Great Neighbour, pp. 135-138; Drew, "Have B r i t i s h Films a Chance," pp. 12-13, 60. 95 96 Berton, Hollywood's Canada, pp. 26-27. I b i d . 97 98 I b i d . , pp. 27, 29. Raine, "Figures and P i c t u r e s , " p. 65. 99 100 James, p. 49. Berton, p. 126; Raine, p. 65. "^"'"Berton, p. 126. 102 James A. Cowan, " I s There a Chance f o r Empire F i l m ? " MacLean's  Magazine, Oct: 15, 1930, p. 82.. 103 For an understanding of Cooper's involvement w i t h the motion p i c -ture i n d u s t r y i n Canada see: McKay, " H i s t o r y of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada," p. 21; Mona Coxwell, "Safeguarding the Movies," S o c i a l Wel- f a r e , June 1925, V o l . V I I , No. 9, pp. 169-170; and Berton, p. 137. Graham Mclnnes, "Canada C a r r i e d On," MacLean's Magazine, March 15, 1941, p. 27. Ibxd. ^"^^Peter Cowie, ed. , A Concise H i s t o r y of the Cinema, New York, A. S. Barnes & Co., 1971, V o l . 1, p. 167; M o r r i s , Embattled Shadows, p. 165. 106 H. S. Angas, " F i l m Notes and Reviews," Echoes, Dec. 1937, p. 21. Another American method of g e t t i n g around B r i t i s h quote r e g u l a t i o n s was to open up branch p l a n t s i n England. See: John R. Woolfenden, "Hollywood goes B r i t i s h , " MacLean's Magazine, Aug. 1, 1939, p. 12. "^^Dreamland, NFB Production, 1974. "'"^Backhouse, p. 24. 109 I b i d . , p. 26. See a l s o : "The Poor F l i c k e r s , " Saturday Night, June 21, 1939. 129 "'""^Dorothy Macpherson, B e a t r i c e T r a i n o r , "The Canadian F i l m I n s t i -t u t e , " Fc^d_^or_TJica^ghr, No. 6, March 1959, p. 251; Dorothy B u r r i t t , "The Other Cinema," Food f o r Thought1, No. 6, March 1959, p. 262; Howe Martyn, "Motion P i c t u r e A r t , " The Canadian Forum, March 1937, p. 12; Howe Martyn, "The P i c t u r e s , " Dalhbusie Review, V o l . 16, 1936-1937, pp. 290-298. I l l I b i d . , p. 290. 112 Charles Topshee, "The Canadians F i l m I n s t i t u t e , " Food f o r  Thought, No. 4, Jan. 1956, p. 166. See a l s o : R. S. Lambert, "How Canada i s Promoting C u l t u r a l F i l m s , " Food f o r Thought, No. 1, Jan. 1940, p. 15; "N a t i o n a l F i l m S o c i e t y , " Food f o r Thought, No. 16, June 1941, p. 23. I t was not u n t i l the 1950's that the Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e began r e c e i v -i n g funding from Canadian sources. See: Macpherson, T r a i n o r , "The Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , " p. 251. 113 Martyn, "Motion P i c t u r e A r t , p. 12; McKay, p. 2. 114 Topshee, "The Canadian F i l m I n s t i t u t e , " p. 166; R. S. Lambert, " F i l m and Radio," Food f o r Thought, June 1940, No. 6, p. 19. James, p. 49. 116 McKay, p. 2. Further i n f o r m a t i o n about McLean's background i s given i n Dreamland, NFB, 1974. 117 I b i d . ; James, pp. 49-50. 118 James, p. 50. For a short summary of Grierson's work and p h i l -osophy of f i l m see: Arthur Knight, The L i v e l i e s t A r t , Toronto, Macmillan Co., 1957, pp. 210-217. 119 120 McKay, pp. 2-3. Knight, The L i v e l i e s t A r t , p. 210. 121 122 123 McKay, p. 3. Backhouse, p. 25. I b i d . ; James, p. 50. 124 I b i d . , McKay, p. 3. Both James and McKay give 1936 as the date of McLean's r e p o r t . I t appears however, that McLean wrote and submitted h i s report to Massey i n 1936, but Massey d i d not forward i t u n t i l Nov-ember of 1937. See: Backhouse, p. 25. ^Backhouse, pp. 24-25. "'"^^Ibid. "^^McKay, p. 3. James, pp. 50-51. 129 Gordon S p a r l i n g , "Conversations," Canadian F i l m Reader, p. 22. 130 Backhouse, pp. 25-26. 1 3 1 T Kl James, p. 51. 130 132 McKay, p. 3. The debate over the N a t i o n a l F i l m Act i n the House of Commons makes c l e a r that both government and o p p o s i t i o n members had no knowledge of how Gr i e r s o n had come to make h i s report on government f i l m a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada. In response to o p p o s i t i o n questioning about why an 'Englishman' had been i n v i t e d to conduct a survey i n Canada, Eu l e r r e p l i e d that he had i n v i t e d him. See: Canada, Parliament, Report of Debates, House of Commons, " N a t i o n a l F i l m Board," March 9, 1939, p. 1737. I t i s l i k e l y that E u l e r ' s i n v i t a t i o n to Gr i e r s o n came w i t h the approval of MacKenzie King. See: Jack E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," Canadian F i l m Reader, p. 38. 133 Backhouse, p. 26. 134 Grierson's report i s r e p r i n t e d i n McKay's h i s t o r y of the NFB. See: McKay, pp. 5-15. 134 McKay, p. 15; Backhouse, p. 28. 1 3 5 I b i d . 1 3 6 I b i d . 1 3 7 I b i d . , pp. 28-29. 138 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 9, 1939, p. 1737/ 139 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 7, 1939, p. 1669; Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, pp. 1842-1849. 140 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 7, 1939, p. 1668; Debates of the Senate, March 22, 1939, p. 111. 141 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 7, 1939, pp. 1666, 1668; Debates of the Senate, March 21, 1939, pp. 97, 100. 142 I b i d . , p. 95. 143 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 7, 1939, p. 1662. 144 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, p. 1846. 145 Debates of the Senate., A p r i l 21, 1939, p. 205. 146 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, p. 1854. 147 Debates of the Senate, March 22, 1939, p. 113. 148 Debates of the Senate, March 21, 1939, p. 100. 149 I b i d . ^""^Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, p. 1843. 1 5 1 D e b a t e s of the Senate, March 21, 1939, p. 97. 152 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 7, 1939, p. 1662. 131 153 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, p. 1851. 1 5 4 I b i d . , pp. 1849-1850. 1 5 5 I b i d . , p. 1852. 156 James, pp. 66, 496; Backhouse, p. 30. The f i r s t board was made up of Walter Murray, former president of the U n i v e r s i t y of Saskat-chewan; Charles Cowan, v i c e president of the N a t i o n a l F i l m S o c i e t y ; and Edward T u r c o t t , former e d i t o r of Le Canada. The f i v e members from government were Parmelee, Deputy M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce; E u l e r , M i n i s t e r of Trade and Commerce; Cre r a r , M i n i s t e r of Mines and Resources; C o l . Smart, Deputy M i n i s t e r of Transport; and Hamer, from the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . 7 I b i d . , p. 29. 158 James Lysyshyn, A B r i e f H i s t o r y : The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of  Canada, NFB P u b l i c a t i o n , May 1970, p. 3. 159 T. ., I b i d . 160 Grierson's tendency to preach probably stemmed from the f a c t that he had st u d i e d f o r the m i n i s t r y e a r l y i n h i s youth i n Scotland. G r i e r s o n , NFB, 1974. 161, ., I b i d . 162 Jack E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," Canadian F i l m  Reader, p. 44. Although G r i e r s o n never belonged to a p o l i t i c a l party there i s l i t t l e doubt that he was a s o c i a l i s t . M. J . C o l d w e l l , CCF leader once asked G r i e r s o n , "Just how l e f t are you?" G r i e r s o n r e p l i e d , " I am an i n c h to the l e f t of any party i n power." Then Co l d w e l l s a i d , "And when the s o c i a l i s t s are i n power?" G r i e r s o n r e p l i e d , " I would then be one inch to the l e f t of you." See: "The Gri e r s o n Years," Pot Pou P o u r r i : N a t i o n a l F i l m Board Newsletter, Summer 1975, p. 16. -i r o E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," pp. 39-40. 1 6 4 I b i d . , p. 38. 1 6 5 " T h e G r i e r s o n Years," p. 2. 166 Paul Rotha, Documentary F i l m Since 1939, London, Faber and Faber, 1963, p. 331; E l l i s , pp. 41-44; James, pp. 67-68. 7James, p. 70. "'"^McKay, pp. 22-23. E l l i s , p. 44. 1 7 ^ F o r a d i s c u s s i o n on the f r i c t i o n s which developed between o l d and new f i l m makers see: E l l i s , pp. 44-45; Backhouse, pp. 32-33, 35; James, pp. 70-71; McKay, p. 22. 132 E l l i s , p. 45. I b i d . 173 Backhouse, p. 32. "^^James, p. 69. "'"^"'ibid., p. 68; McKay, p. 21. 17 6 John E. Harley, World Wide Influences of the Cinema, Los Angeles, U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a P r ess, 1942, p. 12. ^ ~ 7 7 I b i d . , p. 13. Here Harley i s quoting from Hepburn's statement which appeared i n the New York Times on March 5, 1940. 1 7 8 M V 91 McKay, p. 21. 179 E l l i s , pp. 43-44. 180 McKay, p. 21; James, p. 68. 181 E l l i s , p. 45. See a l s o : Backhouse, p. 33; James, p. 70; McKay, pp. 23-25. 182 E l l i s , p. 45. "'"^McKay, p. 23. 1 8 4 E l l i s , p. 46. 1 8 5 I b i d . 186 In the end, Euler voted w i t h the p r i v a t e members and G r i e r s o n was r e t a i n e d . See: Backhouse, p, 33; James, p. 71. 1 8 7 E l l i s , p. 46. 188 D r i f t e r s (1928) was the only f i l m which G r i e r s o n d i r e c t e d . By the time G r i e r s o n a r r i v e d i n Canada, however, he had w r i t t e n countless a r t i c l e s and given hundreds of l e c t u r e s . See: Richard MacCann, The  People's F i l m s , New York, Hastings House, 1973, pp. 22-23. 189 Arthur Knight, "Films w i t h a S o c i a l Purpose," Hollywood  Qu a r t e r l y , 1947-1948, p. 202. For concise summaries of Grierson's career before coming to Canada see: MacCann, The People's Film, pp. 17-23; John G r i e r s o n , NFB, 1974; Ernest B e t t s , The F i l m Business, London, George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , 1973, pp. 173-182; Jack C. E l l i s , "The Young G r i e r s o n i n America, 1924-1927," Cinema J o u r n a l , V o l . V I I I , No. 1, F a l l 1968, pp. 12-21; E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," pp. 38-47. E l l i s ' s two a r t i c l e s are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s i n c e he attempts to draw some p a r a l l e l s between MacKenzie King and G r i e r s o n and t h e i r R o c k e f e l l e r Foundation connections. 190 Knight, "Films w i t h a s o c i a l purpose," p. 202. 191 Two examples of p u b l i c i t y G r i e r s o n created f o r the NFB j u s t a f t e r i t s c r e a t i o n are: John G r i e r s o n , "Canada i s People," Saturday  Night, Oct. 22, 1938; and John G r i e r s o n , "The Eye of Canada," CBC broadcast, Jan. 21, 1940. 1 3 3 192 For a d i s c u s s i o n on Canadian f i l m s i n French made at t h i s time, see: R. S. Lambert, "Where are you Going t o , My P r e t t y F i l m " Food f o r  Thought, No. 10, Dec. 1940, p. 9. For a d i s c u s s i o n on French Canadian support f o r Griers o n at t h i s time, see: E l l i s , "Grierson's F i r s t Years at the NFB," p. 46. 193 James, p. 69. 194 E l l i s , p. 46. 195 Canada, Parliament, Journals of the House of Commons, Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , No. 7, 1940-June 21, 1942, p. 483. 196 Report of Debates, House of Commons, March 13, 1939, p. 1843. 197 Backhouse s t a t e s that Badgely t r a n s f e r r e d to the Department of Veteran's A f f a i r s , w h i l e McKay s t a t e s that he went to the Department of N a t i o n a l Revenue. See Backhouse, p. 33; McKay, p. 25. 198,...' ., E l l i s , p. 46. 199 James, p. 71; Backhouse, p. 35. 200 The s t i l l s d i v i s i o n of the MPB was t r a n s f e r r e d to the NFB by Order i n C o u n c i l P.C. 6047. See: Canada, Parliament, Journals of the  House of Commons, Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , No. 7, 1940-Jan. 21, 1942, p. 548. 201 In January of 1943, G r i e r s o n was appointed general manager of the Wartime Information Board. "He held both that p o s i t i o n and the F i l m Commissioner's job u n t i l the end of the War." See: James, p. 72. 202 The NFB d i d give some co n t r a c t s to independent Canadian f i l m companies during the war. These were Associated Screen News, Vancouver Motion P i c t u r e s , and Crawley Films . See: James, p. 68. 203 In 1949, McLean who had become F i l m Commissioner when G r i e r s o n l e f t i n 1945, t r i e d to expand the NFB and make i t more independent along the l i n e s of CBC. The board was blocked i n t h i s move by the commercial producers as w e l l as other government departments who claimed that the board was "using i t s monopoly p o s i t i o n to s l a n t labour movies i n favor of Communist dominated unions." The press reported that the RCMP were i n v e s t i g a t i n g a l l NFB personnel. The board, however, weathered the storm. McLean was replaced by Arthur I r w i n , former e d i t o r of MacLean's Magazine. The Massey Report of 1951, recommended that the NFB give more co n t r a c t s to independent Canadian f i l m makers and companies. See MacCann, The  People's F i l m s , pp. 34-35. For a d e t a i l e d account of attempts to get r i d of the board and the 'red scare' which developed see: McKay, pp. 66-136. See a l s o : "The NFB Red Scare," Weekend Magazine, September 23, 1978, pp. 17-21. 204 E l l i s , pp. 4-41; McKay, p. 2. 134 205 This statement from Rene C l a i r , one of the world's greatest f i l m makers,was one of the best compliments the board has ever r e c e i v e d . See: " E d i t o r i a l , " Cinema Canada, No. 15, Aug.-Sept. 1974, p. 5; McKay, p. 1. D i s c u s s i n g wartime documentaries, Manny Farber, one of America's l e a d i n g c r i t i c s , f e l t that next to the Russians, the NFB propaganda f i l m s were the b e s t , and c e r t a i n l y b e t t e r than the American wartime product. See: Manny Farber, "Wartime Documentaries," New Republic, Feb. 15, 1943, p. 211. 206 Rotha, Documentary F i l m Since 1939, p. 331. See a l s o : Arthur Knight, "G r i e r s o n on Documentary: Book Review," Hollywood Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 3, 1947-1948, p. 202. 207 Two independent f i l m makers who achieved acc l a i m outside of Canada i n the t h i r t i e s were L e s l i e Thatcher of Toronto and F. R. Crawley of Ottawa. Thatcher's Another Day (1934) won s e v e r a l awards i n the U.S., and F. R. Crawley's L ' I s l e d'Orleans (1938) won the Grand P r i z e i n New York i n 1939. See: James, pp. 23-24. In a d d i t i o n , A s sociated Screen News had been making the "Canadian Cameo S e r i e s " s i n c e 1931. These were " l i t t l e gems carved i n high r e l i e f " that played i n commercial theatres i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . For more inf o r m a t i o n on the Cameo s e r i e s see: Gordon S p a r l i n g , "The Short Way to Canadian Entertainment," How to Make or Not  to Make a Canadian F i l m , Montreal, La Cinematheque Canadienne, 1967; and Gordon S p a r l i n g , "Conversations," Canadian F i l m Reader, pp. 22-28. 208 The number of f i l m showings has always been the NFB s main arguments i n favor of i t s existence. Not only are i t s annual r e p o r t s f u l l of such s t a t i s t i c s , but a l s o many a r t i c l e s have used the number of show-ings to convince readers that the board was doing a good j o b . For an example of t h i s k i n d of j o u r n a l i s m see: "Films P o r t r a y Canadian L i f e and Production i n S i x t y Countries," Foreign Trade, V o l . IV, J u l y 17, 1948, pp. 106-108. See a l s o : N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada Annual Reports. In c o n t r a s t to the vast numbers of people reported to be attending NFB f i l m showings, surveys conducted from time to time make c l e a r that l e s s than 5% of Canadians ever see Canadian movies. See: "The Weekend P o l l : The Cinema," Weekend Magazine, Aug. 19, 1978, p. 3. 209 John G r i e r s o n , " S e a r c h l i g h t on Democracy," Food f o r Thought, V o l . IV, No. 7, A p r i l 1944, p. 6. 210 "An Interview w i t h P i e r r e Juneau," Canada A.M., CTV, Thursday, March 22, 1973. See a l s o : "The Weekend P o l l : The Cinema," p. 3. 211 MacCann, p. 41. 212 Ronald Blumer, "There's More to the F i l m Board than Meets the Eye!" Cinema Canada, No. 15, Aug.-Sept., 1974, p. 17. 213 Thelma McCormack, "Writers and the Mass Media," Canada: A  S o c i o l o g i c a l P r o f i l e , Toronto, Copp C l a r k , 1968, p. 450. McCormack w r i t e s : " G r i e r s o n promoted Canadian r e g i o n a l i s m and w h i l e i n t e l l e c t u a l s a s c r i b e d to i t , t h e i r a r t i s t i c temperament and education were too cos-mopolitan f o r i t s r e s t r i c t i o n s . " 135 214 Lambert, "Where are you going t o , my P r e t t y F i l m ? " p. 3. 2 1 5 Glover, " F i l m , " p. 106. Knight, "Grierson on Documentary: Book Review," p. 202. 217 Glover, p. 105. The safe view of things was p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n the l a t e 1940's and 1950's when some members of the NFB were under s u r v e i l l a n c e by the RCMP. See: "The NFB Red Scare," pp. 17-21. ^^^Rotha, p. 332. 219 Knight, The L i v e l i e s t A r t , p. 211; Glover, pp. 104-105. 220 I b i d . , p. 108. 221 R. G. L e v i n , Documentary E x p l o r a t i o n : 15 Interviews w i t h F i l m  Makers, New York, Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1971, pp. 78-79. 222 MacCann, pp. 23-26. 223 I b i d . , p. 30. See a l s o : Thomas Guback, The I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m  Industry, Bloomington, Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969, p. 8. 224 This statement a t t r i b u t e d to King i s made i n Dreamland, NFB, 1974. 225 The major accomplishment i n Grierson's l i f e and the reason he i s rated so h i g h l y i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l cinema t e x t s i s h i s founding of the NFB and the work that was done at the board during the war. Without t h i s accomplishment i t i s u n l i k e l y he would have r e c e i v e d so much i n t e r n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n . His f i r s t government f i l m u n i t , EMP, died i n 1933 and h i s second f i l m u n i t , GPO, had i t s a c t i v i t i e s so sharply c u r t a i l e d that G r i e r s o n q u i t i n 1937. When Gri e r s o n l e f t the NFB i n 1945, he attempted to set up a f i l m company i n New York but i t f a i l e d and h i s work permit was l i f t e d . A f t e r a s t i n t w i t h UNESCO which a l s o didn't work out, he returned to England where he found himself unemployed. In the l a t t e r p art of h i s l i f e , he hosted a T.V. show i n Scotland c a l l e d "This Wonderful World" which d e a l t w i t h the a r t of cinema. A short but d e t a i l e d account of Grierson's l i f e i s contained i n MacCann, pp. 23-31. See a l s o : Ernest B e t t s , The F i l m Business, pp. 173-182; and G r i e r s o n , NFB, 1973. ^ ^ I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that when d i s c u s s i o n s on n a t i o n a l r a d i o were under way, J . S. Woodsworth s t a t e d that he would ra t h e r t r u s t the Canadian government to handle r a d i o than have American companies buying out small Canadian broadcasting s t a t i o n s . In some ways Canadian a t t i t u d e s to cinema were not d i s s i m i l a r — C a n a d i a n s would ra t h e r have Canadian government p i c t u r e s than a t o t a l bombardment of American f i l m s . See: Frank Peers, "The N a t i o n a l Dilemma i n Canadian Broadcasting," N a t i o n a l i s m  i n Canada, Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson L t d . , p. 252. 2 2 7 \ ' -Peter Hay, " C u l t u r a l P o l i t i c s , Canadian Theatre Review, Spring 1974. p. 8. 136 Stephen Leacock, J r . , "The F i l m i n Canada Now a Nucleus: I t Could be a Great N a t i o n a l A r t , " Saturday Night, A p r i l 22, 1944. 229 By the 1930's Canadians working i n Hollywood had become so common that a r t i c l e s began appearing which proclaimed them as 'Canada's own.' See: F r e d e r i c Beck, "Canadians i n Hollywood," MacLean's Magazine, June 15, 1931, pp. 18-19, 48; Angus McStay, " S i s t e r Knows Best," MacLean's  Magazine, Nov. 1, 1937, pp. 10, 53; John R. Woolfenden, " T y p i c a l Americans," MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 15, 1938, pp. 19, 39-40; Angus McStay, "Four Smart G i r l s , " MacLean's Magazine, Sept. 1, 1937, pp. 12, 39; Katherine A l b e r t , "Norma Shearer," MacLean's Magazine, Aug. 1, 1933, p. 16. CHAPTER V SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC Of a l l the t o p i c s r e l a t e d to cinema none has rece i v e d more a t t e n t i o n than safeguarding the p u b l i c from the ' e v i l s ' r e a l or imaginary i n motion p i c t u r e s . In the Canadian context, where a commercial f i l m i n d u s t r y f a i l e d to develop and Canadian movie entertainment c o n s i s t e d of f o r e i g n imports, an added i n c e n t i v e to curb v i s u a l messages emanating from the screen was provided by the need to i n s u r e c u l t u r a l i n t e g r i t y . Between 1896 and 1941, three d i s t i n c t i v e areas of concern were expressed and each of these i n due course r e s u l t e d i n government l e g i s l a t i o n . The paramount concern i n the e a r l y years of . f i l m was the p h y s i c a l s a f e t y of patrons i n the movie houses. This concern e v e n t u a l l y l e d to s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g codes f o r theatres and the l i c e n c i n g and t e s t i n g of motion p i c t u r e p r o j e c t i o n i s t s . A more p e r s i s t e n t and enduring theme was the p o l i c i n g of p u b l i c moral-i t y , e s p e c i a l l y that of c h i l d r e n . U l t i m a t e l y , the showing of ' o f f e n s i v e ' movies was h a l t e d and r e g u l a t i o n s regarding c h i l d r e n and the cinema were introduced through censorship l e g i s l a t i o n and the c r e a t i o n of p r o v i n c i a l censor boards. As the cinema became more e s t a b l i s h e d a t h i r d concern emerged—protect-i n g the Canadian i d e n t i t y from the bombardment of American f i l m s being shown.in Canada. While such n a t i o n a l i s t i c sentiments mirrored s i m i l a r European concerns at the time, Canada d i d not f o l l o w the European examples 137 138 by passing quota l e g i s l a t i o n f o r b i d d i n g or reducing the number of American f i l m s that could enter the n a t i o n . Instead, the Dominion chose to coun-t e r the threat by c r e a t i n g the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board "to i n t e r p r e t Canada to Canadians" and the r e s t of the world and to make f i l m s " i n the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . For the f i r s t ten years or so a f t e r the b i r t h of the movies i n 1896, t r a v e l l i n g p r o j e c t i o n i s t s , and, on a more permanent b a s i s , theatres con-ve r t e d from e x i s t i n g s t o r e s , served Canadians' cinema needs. "On a screen of canvas s t r e t c h e d on a frame and kalsomined i n f l a t white," r e c a l l e d a patron of the 1905 st o r e f r o n t theatre i n Pincher Creek, A l b e r t a , were shown two r e e l e r s , sometimes w i t h a s i n g song or a v a u d e v i l l e act between 2 r e e l s . A l l p r o j e c t o r s were s t i l l worked by hand and i n order to get one audience out and the next audience i n , the f i l m s were of t e n rushed through at a fearsome p a c e — t u r n i n g everything i n t o a s h r i e k i n g f a r c e . Breaks i n the f i l m were frequent, r e p a i r s badly done, and scratches constant. "The town swains would take t h e i r g i r l s and a box of candy to see the plays and of t e n i t was d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h between r u s t l i n g of the wind around 3 Uncle Tom's Cabin and r u s t l i n g of the paper around chocolate t i d b i t s . " While a good time was to be had at the movies, f i l m s shown i n store s and other places not designed f o r them presented a.source of p o t e n t i a l danger. There were no laws p r o t e c t i n g h e a l t h or s a f e t y i n the movie houses and the b u i l d i n g codes of the day had no p r o v i s i o n s f o r motion p i c t u r e t h e a t r e s . The grubby l i t t l e shop theatres were poo r l y 4 v e n t i l a t e d , i l l l i t , and on occasion dangerously overcrowded. The c e l l u l o i d f i l m stock used i n e a r l y f i l m s was h i g h l y inflammable and the ether-oxygen l i g h t s sometimes used when e l e c t r i c i t y wasn't a v a i l a b l e made f i r e s common occurrences.^ Just two years a f t e r the advent of f i l m the 'Charity Bazaar F i l m F i r e ' i n P a r i s gave e a r l y warning of the d i s a s t e r which could happen i f movie houses were not brought under c o n t r o l by s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n s . "In a matter of seconds the whole place was a r o a r i n g i n f e r n o from which escape was almost i m p o s s i b l e . " ^ Of the 180 people k i l l e d i n the f i r e , more than 100 were French n o b i l i t y who had gathered together to watch the premier f i l m s made about r o y a l f a m i l i e s i n Europe. 7 Attempts to r e g u l a t e places where motion p i c t u r e s were shown began around 1908 i n Canada and were a t t r i b u t a b l e to the i n c r e a s i n g acceptance of f i l m among the middle c l a s s and crusading reform movements f o r b e t t e r h e a l t h and s a f e t y standards t a k i n g place i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . In Great B r i t a i n , the Cinematography Act of 1909 put s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n s i n movie g houses under c e n t r a l government c o n t r o l . In the United States a some-what d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n occurred w i t h some s t a t e s passing l e g i s l a t i o n and others p u t t i n g the matter i n the hands of f a c t o r y commissioners, 9 c h i e f s of p o l i c e , or other e x i s t i n g agencies. The American l e g i s l a -t i o n , where i t d i d e x i s t , tended to be copied from European models and v a r i e d a good deal between s t a t e s and c i t i e s . 1 ^ In New York, f o r example, a l l theatres w i t h a s e a t i n g c a p a c i t y of over 100 had to be f i r e p r o o f , w h i l e i n S e a t t l e f i r e p r o o f b u i l d i n g s were only r e q u i r e d i f the s e a t i n g c a p a c i t y exceeded 7 5 0 . 1 1 The f i r s t r e g u l a t i o n s governing motion p i c t u r e houses in"Canada 12 were i n i t i a t e d by l o c a l o f f i c i a l s . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r and d e s p i t e geographical and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n , the provinces adopted very 13 s i m i l a r laws regarding s a f e t y aspects of motion p i c t u r e t h e a t r e s . Between 1909 and 1916, a l l the p r o v i n c e s , save P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , 140 made use of Sectio n 92 of the BNA Act which gave them a u t h o r i t y to l i c e n c e 14 i n order to r a i s e revenue to pass such r e g u l a t i o n s . A l b e r t a was the only province to give some measure of c o n t r o l f o r l i c e n c i n g , r e g u l a t i n g , and c o n t r o l l i n g f i l m e x h i b i t i o n s to l o c a l c o u n c i l s under a 1914 amend-ment to the Town Act. As the p i c t u r e palaces g r a d u a l l y supplanted the s t o r e f r o n t t h e a t r e s , concerns such as " i l l v e n t i l a t i o n " i n theatres r a i s e d by B.C. teachers and Maritime censors as l a t e as 1919 became l e s s and l e s s frequent."*"^ Under the new leg i s l a t i o n . m a n y of the p r a c t i c e s common i n the e a r l y days of movies i n Canada were forbidden. For example, smoking and d r i n k i n g were banned."*"7 F i r e p r o o f p r o j e c t i o n i s t s booths, f i r e escapes and proper 18 e x i t s became mandatory. The lowly paid p r o j e c t i o n i s t was now re q u i r e d to be eighteen years of age, pass a t e s t and pay a l i c e n c e fee before he 19 could work i n a the a t r e . By the 1920's p r o j e c t i o n i s t s were d i v i d e d i n t o v a r i o u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and were re q u i r e d to know e l e c t r i c a l 20 mechanics, o p t i c a l s , and s a f e t y p e r t a i n i n g to t h e i r v o c a t i o n . To ca r r y out the new l e g i s l a t i o n a mini-bureaucracy of b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s , boards of examiners, and l i c e n c i n g agents came i n t o being. Through examination fee s , tax on f i l m exchanges, and the l i c e n c i n g of motion p i c t u r e s , making movie theatres p h y s i c a l l y safe became a new 21 source of revenue f o r p r o v i n c i a l c o f f e r s . Entertainment tax i n t r o -duced as a part of the war e f f o r t i n Manitoba i n 1916 included motion 22 p i c t u r e theatres and added to t h i s new w i n d f a l l i n that province. The choice of m i n i s t e r to oversee the l e g i s l a t i o n , " u s u a l l y the tr e a s u r e r of the province, . . ." w r i t e s Hennings i n F i l m Censors and the Law, "emphasizes the s t r o n g l y f i s c a l character of t h i s form of 23 c o n t r o l i n Canada." •141 By 1927 the i d e a t h a t t h e a t r e s were u n s a f e was pa s s e , y e t on Janu-a r y 10th o f t h a t y e a r the worst cinema f i r e i n Canadian h i s t o r y o c c u r r e d i n M o n t r e a l . When the f i r e broke out i n i t s f i r e p r o o f p r o j e c t i o n booth, the L a u r i e r P a l a c e Cinematograph T h e a t r e , a c o n v e r t e d s t o r e f r o n t w i t h no s i d e e x i t , , was packed w i t h c h i l d r e n drawn t o t h e Sunday a f t e r n o o n matinee 24 which f e a t u r e d Mary P i c k f o r d i n Sparrows. Seventy-seven c h i l d r e n between the ages of f i v e and f o u r t e e n y e a r s of age d i e d and many o t h e r s 25 were h o s p i t a l i z e d . As the c h i l d r e n s t r u g g l e d t o escape by t h e two narrow s t a i r c a s e s l e a d i n g to the e x i t s , an e x p l o s i v e f o r c e s h a t t e r e d the 26 windows, the c h i l d r e n p a n i c k e d , and many were trampled t o de a t h . The Times o f London c a l l o u s l y noted i n i t s r e p o r t t o E n g l i s h r e a d e r s : "Two or t h r e e boys c r u s h e d and mangled were a b l e t o g i v e t h e i r names b e f o r e 27 they d i e d . " A l t h o u g h the f i r e r e c e i v e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n and the s u b j e c t o f s a f e t y i n t h e a t r e s ensued, the main f o c u s o f d i s c u s s i o n s 28 a f t e r t h e t r a g e d y c e n t e r e d on unaccompanied c h i l d r e n i n movie houses. In the end, the f i r e was r e g a r d e d as a f r e a k a c c i d e n t and no l e g i s l a t i o n 29 o u t s i d e o f Quebec appears t o have r e s u l t e d from i t . Coming j u s t as t h e a t r e s c o n v e r t e d t o sound,, the f i r e marked the end of the s i l e n t f i l m e r a and the s t o r e f r o n t t h e a t r e i n Canada. C o i n c i d i n g w i t h the c o n c e r n f o r p h y s i c a l w e l l b e i n g i n movie houses was the growing d e s i r e f o r moral s a f e g u a r d s a g a i n s t the v i s u a l v i l l a i n . The e f f e c t of motion p i c t u r e s on p u b l i c m o r a l i t y became a t o p i c o f he a t e d r h e t o r i c throughout N o r t h America. The 'modern g i n n , ' as one w r i t e r d e s c r i b e d them, were b e l i e v e d t o be c o n t r i b u t i n g t o , i f not c a u s i n g , many 30 s o c i a l i l l s and upheavals of the day. From t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n , movies took new l i b e r t i e s a t ev e r y t u r n , e x p o s i n g v i e w e r s t o the l a t e s t f a s h i o n s , f a d s , and t a s t e s . Whether such exposure has ever d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y 142 i n f l u e n c e d p u b l i c m o r a l i t y i s s t i l l a t o p i c of debate, however, to the establishment, movies were seen as undermining the moral f i b r e of the 31 n a t i o n s . The e a r l i e s t w r i t e r s to deal w i t h the p o r t r a y a l of v i c e i n the movies d i d so based on t h e i r personal opinions and without evidence to support t h e i r statements. This k i n d of c r i t i c i s m a r r i v e d e a r l y , remained p e r s i s -t e n t , and was common on both sides of the border. Among the f i r s t to take up t h i s theme was the Chicago Tribune which i n 1907 began a campaign against the nickelodeons. In the words of the Tribune the movies were "without a redeeming fe a t u r e to warrant t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . Their i n f l u e n c e 32 i s wholly v i c i o u s . . . they are h o p e l e s s l y bad." S i m i l a r sentiments 33 soon began appearing i n the Canadian press. In 1911, J . S. Woodsworth, who represented the most advanced credo of l i b e r a l i s m i n the country at the time, s t a t e d that some movies were "abominably v i l e and f o s t e r crime 34 and immorality of a l l k i n d s . " In 1915, Judge McKenna of the United States Supreme Court made p u b l i c and o f f i c i a l i n law that movies were 35 "capable of e v i l . " Rev. W i l l i a m Sheafe Chase of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reform Bureau a d d e d . c e l l u l o i d to h i s crusade against opium, a l c o h o l , and sex, and i n the 1920's he campaigned to "rescue motion p i c t u r e s from the 36 hands of the D e v i l . " The term 'immoral' was s t i l l being a p p l i e d to the movies as World War I I approached when the C a t h o l i c Women's League and other i n d i v i d u a l s and groups used the term i n the survey on motion 37 p i c t u r e s conducted f o r Canada and Her Great Neighbour (1938). Those who saw the movies as 'immoral' supported t h e i r viewpoints w i t h a bevy of d i v e r s i f i e d arguments. The e l i t i s t s took the p o s i t i o n that movies were immoral because they were h i s t o r i c a l l y i n a c c u r a t e , 38 degraded i n t e l l i g e n c e and "threatened good morals and good t a s t e . " 143 While the r u i n a t i o n of the saloon business a t t r i b u t e d to the p o p u l a r i t y of the movies was seen as a redeeming fea t u r e of the new media, the d e c l i n e i n the number of people borrowing l i b r a r y books and attending stage productions a l s o a t t r i b u t e d to motion p i c t u r e s was viewed as 39 undermining the e t h i c s of s o c i e t y . Another argument put forward was that movies degraded the standard of reverence f o r women by showing them i n scenes of love making. "The love making i s . . . not a c t u a l l y indecent,, but i t i s g r o s s l y vulgar and no boy can look at these p i c t u r e s 40 without t h i n k i n g more cheaply of women." Fear of l o s i n g Anglo-Saxon c u l t u r e , which would become the mainstay i n Canadian d i s c u s s i o n on Amer-i c a n f i l m s , was a l s o heard south of the border i n r a c i s t s l u r s against the immigrant movie makers. In "'Movie' Manners and Morals," an Outlook a r t i c l e of 1916, the author lamented that "a very l a r g e number—perhaps the m a j o r i t y of men i n the moving-picture b u s i n e s s — a r e not born to our language and that E n g l i s h was being corrupted by a 'strange l i n g u a ' on the f i l m t i t l e s . " Worse, "the v e r s i o n of l i f e presented to him i n the ma j o r i t y of moving p i c t u r e s i s f a l s e i n f a c t , s i c k l y i n sentiment, and 41 u t t e r l y f o r e i g n to the Anglo-Saxon i d e a l s of our Nation." Man's s c i e n t i f i c c u r i o s i t y , which produced the movies, was g e t t i n g him i n 42 t r o u b l e again, s t a t e d another c r i t i c of cinema. "The m a j o r i t y are 43 simply cheap, and vu l g a r or s i l l y , " noted Woodsworth. I t was f i l m s ' e f f e c t on c h i l d r e n , however, which generated the greatest amount of d i s c u s s i o n . Robert Sk l a r w r i t e s , Since the enemies of movies could deal only i n d i r e c t l y or c o v e r t l y w i t h the is s u e of c l a s s c o n f l i c t they made t h e i r case on the grounds of p r o t e c t i n g the young. In the f i r s t three decades of the twen-t i e t h century the movies were what "permissiveness" became to a l a t e r g e n e r a t i o n — t h e prime cause and explanation f o r the p e r e n n i a l a d u l t complaint that c h i l d r e n were not behaving the way they s h o u l d . 4 4 14-4. Yet d i s c u s s i o n s of the e f f e c t of cinema on c h i l d r e n even though c o n f i n e d to the m i d d l e c l a s s , was undertaken b o t h by those who saw p o s i t i v e good 45 i n motion p i c t u r e s and those who wanted movies outlawed c o m p l e t e l y . In a l a r g e r c o n t e x t , t h e c o n c e r n over the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of movies on i m p r e s s i o n a b l e y o u t h r e f l e c t e d the changing a t t i t u d e towards c h i l d r e n 46 which dawned as the new c e n t u r y approached. As the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s of i n c r e a s e d u r b a n i z a t i o n and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n began to be f e l t i n N o r t h America, a h e i g h t e n e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y saw "a g e n e r a t i o n of r e f o r m -47 e r s l a b o u r i n g t o t r a n s f o r m i n f a n c y and c h i l d c a r e i n t h e i r s o c i e t y . " I t was commonly h e l d t h a t c h i l d r e n were m o r a l l y f r a g i l e , t h a t they had no 48 c r i t i c a l f a c i l i t i e s and were e a s i l y l e d i n t o t e m p t a t i o n . From the r e f o r m e r ' s p o i n t o f view, poor, immigrant, and d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d r e n had more p i t f a l l s t o overcome than 'normal Canadian' c h i l d r e n and r e q u i r e d 49 s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i f they were to become u s e f u l c i t i z e n s . As p a r t o f the c r u s ade to improve the p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s took on new importance. I f c h i l d r e n were p r o p e r l y r e a r e d i n a good environment a b e t t e r s o c i e t y was a s s u r e d , or so i t was b e l i e v e d . " ^ To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s g o a l , c h i l d r e n ' s l i v e s had t o be r i g i d l y r e g u -l a t e d and f r e e from exposure to the s o r d i d s i d e of l i f e . At a time when a dime n o v e l was thought t o have been a major f a c t o r i n t h e murder of a T o r o n t o businessman by h i s t h i r t e e n y e a r o l d son, i t i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s -i n g t h a t the e x t r e m e l y p o p u l a r cinema w i t h i t s i n c a l c u l a b l e power of p e r -s u a s i o n became the t a r g e t f o r new r e f o r m endeavors."'"'" A l t h o u g h no one knew a n y t h i n g about the a c t u a l impact of movies on c h i l d r e n , t h o s e con-cerned about t h a t impact c o u l d w i t h o u t h e s i t a t i o n produce a l a r g e number of d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o f p i c t u r e s on c h i l d r e n b o t h p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y . O v e r r i d i n g s p e c i f i c s was t h e assumption t h a t movies c o r r u p t e d 145 52 the morals of c h i l d r e n and could i n c i t e them to crime. In 1907, a judge i n Chicago wrote to the newspapers of that c i t y that "these theatres cause, i n d i r e c t l y or d i r e c t l y , more j u v e n i l e crime coming i n t o 53 my court than a l l other cases combined." Movies, i t was b e l i e v e d , 54 gave the "young mind an angle upon l i f e h o p e l e s s l y d i s t o r t e d . " One anonymous author argued that f i l m s i n f l u e n c e d the c h i l d ' s sense of humour because they laughed "immoderately at automobiles going over p r e c i p i c e s and other death-breeding d i s a s t e r s as i f they were the height 55 of humor." The dangers f i l m h e l d i n s t o r e f o r the c h i l d of ' a l i e n parents' were sometimes regarded as worse than those i t represented f o r the 'American' c h i l d since the movies didn't r e f l e c t the proper Anglo-56 • Saxon values or the true American way of l i f e . "American c h i l d r e n are i n the process of v u l g a r i z a t i o n " s t a t e d another opinionated essay-i s t . ^ 7 The p i c t u r e s " f a m i l i a r i z e c h i l d r e n w i t h scenes of c r u e l t y " and 58 love making. Rumours of m o l e s t a t i o n of c h i l d r e n and p i c k p o c k e t i n g i n 59 the d a r k l y l i t t heatres p e r s i s t e d . Motion p i c t u r e s encouraged p a s s i v i t y i n c h i l d r e n r a t h e r than mental a c t i v i t y , according to B.C. t e a c h e r s . ^ They were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r producing "undue excitement" i n y o u t h . ^ 111 h e a l t h would r e s u l t from s i t t i n g i n the poorly v e n t i l a t e d t h e a t r e s . Late night shows were accused of s t e a l i n g c h i l d r e n ' s much 62 needed r e s t . A Chicago p h y s i c i a n a t t r i b u t e d St. V i t u s dance, an increase i n the use of eye g l a s s e s , and mental l a z i n e s s i n c h i l d r e n to the motion p i c t u r e s . "Prolonged attendance at movies over a p e r i o d of years," st a t e d Dr. Fred Zapffe, "would turn neuroses i n t o organic d i s -63 turbances and then you could not do anything f o r them." "Our c h i l -dren," s a i d another alarmed guardian of the young, "are r a p i d l y becom-i,64 i n g what they see i n the movies. 146 C r i t i c i s m of the i m m o r a l i t i e s ' o f the movies was not confined to the drawing rooms and p r i n t e d pages of the n a t i o n s — i t was r e a d i l y witnessed i n a c t i o n s of p r o t e s t against the new media. Only a few months a f t e r Edison introduced h i s peep show machine to the people of New York, D o l o r i t a i n the Passion Dance (1897) created a p u b l i c outcry 65 i n the c i t y . A few months l a t e r a movie which depicted a b r i d e ' s wedding night preparations was closed by a court i n New York because i t 66 was, i n the words of the judge, "an outrage upon p u b l i c decency." In 1907, Delaware a u t h o r i t i e s t r i e d to curb the growth of s t o r e f r o n t s by imposing heavy l i c e n c i n g fees upon them, w h i l e the c i t y of Chicago i n i t i a t e d the e a r l i e s t censorship l e g i s l a t i o n on the continent i n the 6 7 same year. North of the border, Vancouver was probably one of the f i r s t c i t i e s i n Canada to ban the showing of a p i c t u r e . On February 1, 1908, the Province reported that c i t y c o u n c i l had forbidden an e x h i b i t i o n 68 of the Thaw-White Tragedy. The murder of Stanford White on the roof of Madison Square Gardens i n 1906 by Harry Thaw, a P i t t s b u r g h s o c i o l o g -i s t who pleaded innocent by reason of i n s a n i t y , had been one of the most 69 p u b l i c i z e d scandals of the day. The Great Thaw T r i a l , a movie which depicted Thaw's wedding night s t a r r i n g h i s w i f e i n a re-enactment of her r o l e , a drugging scene, and the abrupt demise of White on the r o o f t o p , was q u i c k l y made and put i n t o c i r c u l a t i o n . 7 * ^ When i t was learned that t h i s movie had been seen by hundreds of c h i l d r e n i n New York, the Children's Society of that c i t y declared war on the penny arcades and nickelodeons. 7''" On December 24th, 1908, the Mayor of New York, i n a s u r p r i s e a t t a c k , revoked the l i c e n s e s of a l l f i v e cent motion p i c t u r e theatres i n h i s c i t y because, according to the w i r e s e r v i c e which s i e z e d n72 on the s t o r y , they were "unclean and immoral places of amusement." In 147 Vancouver, the c i t y had i n i t i a l l y given permission to a ' c l e r i c a l ' l o o k i n g promoter to show the Thaw-White f i l m i n the c i t y h a l l auditorium. But when the c i t y f a t h e r s learned the subject matter of the movie they q u i c k l y c a n c e l l e d the permit des p i t e the f a c t that " s e v e r a l hundred persons gathered i n expectation of the performance." "Hereafter," s t a t e d the P r o v i n c e , "a f u l l l i s t of questions to ask of a p p l i c a n t s f o r the use of 73 the h a l l f o r moving p i c t u r e e x h i b i t i o n s " w i l l be compiled. By 1910, i t was g e n e r a l l y recognized that the way to curb the excesses shown i n f i l m was through censorship. How t h i s could best be accomplished, however, was another matter. Outside of Canada, censor-ship advocates had to contend w i t h the f i l m i n d u s t r y and censorship, when a r r i v e d a t , tended to be a compromise of the two opposing views. In the United States, l i t t l e consensus of o p i n i o n could be reached, save that the People's I n s t i t u t e organized the N a t i o n a l Censorship Board i n 1909 as a 74 v o l u n t a r y r e g u l a t o r y f o r c e between the producers and the p u b l i c . In B r i t a i n , the Cinematograph Act (1909) which gave the f i l m trade the r i g h t to appoint the members of the N a t i o n a l Censorship Board was open to a v a r i e t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . O r i g i n a l l y h a i l e d as 'the Showman's Charter' because i t would make the i n d u s t r y r e s p e c t a b l e , the act was soon regarded w i t h h o s t i l i t y by the f i l m i n d u s t r y as l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s assumed i t gave them the power to e x e r c i s e t h e i r own d i s c r e t i o n over cinema programs. 7"' Although Canadian o f f i c i a l s were probably aware of the move towards censorship elsewhere, i t was not u n t i l a f t e r the J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t f i l m created a f e r v o r i n the country that censorship l e g i s l a t i o n became a r e a l i t y . The manly a r t of boxing had always been popular i n Canada and f i g h t p i c t u r e s could demand a much higher p r i c e at the box o f f i c e than other 148 7 6 cinema f a r e . The Corbitt-Fitzsimmons f i g h t , the J e f f r i e s - S h a r k e y f i g h t , the Johnson-Burns and Johnson-Ketch f i g h t s had a l l been shown i n Canada without any p r o t e s t against them. 7 7 Indeed, the J e f f r i e s - S h a r k e y f i g h t of 1899 had been h a i l e d by the press as a masterpiece of the cinema because i t was 5,575 feet long, one of the longest f i l m s made to that point i n time, yet when the same Mr. J e f f r i e s fought Johnson i n 1910, a few months a f t e r the Nelson-Wolgast f i g h t had been shown without a mur-mur, the nation's reform groups, both c l e r i c and l a y , banded together to 78 suppress i t s showing. Several i s s u e s seem to have been i n v o l v e d i n t h i s outburst. By 1910, the movies were no longer the s o l e province of the i n v i s i b l e c l a s s e s i n s o c i e t y . A new f o l l o w i n g among the middle c l a s s e s i n c l u d i n g reformers came at a p r i c e — t h e u p l i f t i n g of the moral character-of the lowly movie. As the date f o r the J u l y 4th f i g h t i n Reno approached, the boxing match recei v e d a great deal of advance pub-l i c i t y . B i l l e d as "the contest of the century," even f i l m s of the boxers i n t r a i n i n g f o r i t were shown at movie houses as s p e c i a l perform-79 ances. There was no p r o t e s t against these e a r l i e r f i l m s , but when Johnson was declared the winner i n the a c t u a l contest the nation's reformers launched a movement to have the movie suppressed. The i s s u e was r a c i a l . White supremacy had been i n s u l t e d — J e f f r i e s was white, Johnson was b l a c k , and Johnson had won the Independence Day f i g h t i n 1. ^ J 80 the 15th round. In the United S t a t e s , f e a r s of race r i o t s followed Johnson's v i c -81 t o r y . A rumour was c i r c u l a t e d that Johnson had been shot a f t e r the 82 f i g h t . One f i g h t e n t husiast was reported to have l o s t $35,000 on 83 J e f f r i e s , a considerable sum of money at the time. The f i g h t f i l m was banned i n c i t i e s l i k e Washington and Baltimore, both of which had l a r g e 1-4-9 84 b l a c k populations. As a d i r e c t consequence of the uproar caused by the f i g h t f i l m , the f e d e r a l government i n the U.S. passed a law prohib-i t i n g the i m p o r t a t i o n and i n t e r s t a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of p r i z e f i g h t 85 f i l m s — a r e g u l a t i o n which was s t r i c t l y enforced u n t i l the 1930's. In Canada the p o s s i b i l i t y of a race r i o t i n a country almost devoid of a b l a c k p o p u l a t i o n appeared s i l l y , yet . f 'there was strong f e e l i n g rooted the b e l i e f that Anglo-Saxon s u p e r i o r i t y had been defeated and that 86 ' c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y ' was threatened. Ontario responded q u i c k l y and barred the f i l m i n the province "on the ground that p r i z e f i g h t i n g i s no longer to be recognized as a l e g i t i m a t e and manly s p o r t , but r a t h e r a 87 p r o s t i t u t i o n of sport f o r s t r i c t l y commercial ends." "The p i c t o r i a l s t o r y of the conquest of 'the white man's hope'," reported the C o l o n i s t on the Ontario ban, " i s a l s o g e n e r a l l y looked upon as a s p e c t a c l e not 88 conducive to any d e s i r a b l e end i n the general scheme of c i v i l i z a t i o n . " In Saskatchewan, a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t but e q u a l l y s u c c e s s f u l t a c t i c was used. Here S. D. Chown, General Secretary of the Department of Temper-ance and Moral Reform, and others, urged the premier to prevent the showing of a l l f i g h t f i l m s i n order to keep the J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n p i c t u r e out. "They are u n i v e r s a l l y recognized to be very demoralizing to the people," 89 s t a t e d Chown, " p a r t i c u l a r l y the young." On J u l y 12, 1910, a l l f i g h t f i l m s i n c l u d i n g the J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t p i c t u r e were banned i n Sas-katchewan. In B r i t i s h Columbia a s i m i l a r campaign against the f i g h t f i l m was mounted. Rev. Dr. J . G. Shearer, Superintendent of the Dominion Lord's Day A l l i a n c e and Secretary of the S o c i a l and Moral Reform League and "others i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the moral reform movement i n Canada" sent t e l e -grams to Premier McBride's o f f i c e urging B.C. to f o l l o w Ontario's example 150 91 and ban the f i l m . W i t h i n the province, V i c t o r i a ' s Mayor Morley h a s t i l y i n s t r u c t e d the c i t y ' s s o l i c i t o r to prepare an amendment to the P u b l i c Morals by-law i n an attempt to p r o h i b i t the movie a f t e r " s e v e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made to the mayor from v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s and reform o r g a n i z a t i o n s " i n c l u d i n g the Women's C h r i s t i a n Temperance Union and the 92 Society of Fri e n d s . In New Westminster, Robert Lennie, Secretary of the Board of School Trustees requested c i t y c o u n c i l " i n the i n t e r e s t of scho l a r s under t h e i r care" to take necessary steps to prevent the 93 J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t p i c t u r e . The B a p t i s t s who were h o l d i n g a con-v e n t i o n i n the province at the time j o i n e d the lobby urging both the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments to f o r b i d the entry of the f i l m at the customs because "of the demoralizing i n f l u e n c e of such e x h i b i t i o n s upon the community as w e l l as being provocative of p o s s i b l e r a c i a l 94 t r o u b l e . " A f t e r Dr. Spencer, Superintendent of the B a p t i s t L o c a l Option League recei v e d s e v e r a l angry l e t t e r s t e l l i n g the B a p t i s t s to "mind t h e i r own business" w i t h regard to the f i g h t f i l m , they became q u i t e m i l i t a n t and threatened p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n i f the movie was not banned. "We have enough votes i n our church," declared Spencer, "to put any man i n parliament or i n any mayor's c h a i r whom we wish i f we ,.95 u n i t e . " Despite such l o b b i e s , the p r o t e s t o r s were not t o t a l l y s u c c e s s f u l i n having the J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t f i l m suppressed i n B.C. The newly w r i t t e n by-law to ban the f i l m i n V i c t o r i a went down to defeat by a vote 96 of 7 to 4 at the c o u n c i l meeting held to dis c u s s i t . I t was noted by those who opposed the amendment that V i c t o r i a already had too many by-laws and that the m u n i c i p a l i t y didn't have the power to pass such a by-97 law. While the p r o v i n c i a l government a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e i r l e g a l 98 recourse i n the matter, they d i d not ban the f i l m . In New Westminster, however, a by-law which empowered the p o l i c e to prevent the showing of 99 the f i g h t was passed unanimously. Although the f i g h t f i l m was only p a r t i a l l y banned i n the province, the i s s u e of l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over censorship had been r a i s e d and i n v e s t i g a t e d . Elsewhere i n the country some c i t i e s showed the p i c t u r e s , but i n many areas young people were excluded. F o l l o w i n g i n the wake of the p r o t e s t s against the J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t f i l m , Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba passed censorship l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 ^ * 1 The other provinces q u i c k l y followed s u i t . By 1916 a l l the provinces had demonstrated t h e i r common b e l i e f that curbing the i m m o r a l i t i e s i n 102 „ , , , , . . , . motion p i c t u r e s was a n e c e s s i t y . Such l e g i s l a t i o n was e i t h e r twinned or followed s h o r t l y a f t e r the s a f e t y and l i c e n s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f o r theatres had been passed, but u n l i k e l i c e n s i n g which was c l e a r l y a p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t under Section 92 of the BNA Act, censorship had no . -, 103 . , . , antecedent i n law. The r i g h t of the provinces to pass censorship l e g i s l a t i o n was not challenged at the time, nor has t h i s assumed power 104 ever been f u l l y t e s t e d i n the co u r t s . U n l i k e the United States where the p o s s i b l e l o s s of c i v i l l i b e r t i e s was a major ob s t a c l e to government censorship l e g i s l a t i o n , i n Canada there seemed to be general acceptance of f i l m censorship as a p o s i t i v e good—the question of c i t i z e n r i g h t s was never r a i s e d . 1 ^ ~ ' Canadians w i l l i n g l y entrusted government o f f i c i a l s w i t h the power to determine what was immoral or "contrary to the Canadian way of l i f e . " I t was assumed that a sense of f a i r p l a y on the part of the censors would s u f f i c e . With minor v a r i a t i o n s the concepts o u t l i n e d i n Ontario's Theatre and Cinematograph Act set the bases f o r the l e g i s l a t i o n i n the other 152 provinces except P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d whose movies were censored by New Brunswick, and Quebec which chose a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t route i n s e t t i n g f o r t h i t s new c o n t r o l s . I n g e n e r a l , the Lieutenant-Governor of each province was given the power to make r e g u l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to the., e x h i b i t i o n f i l m s . W i t h i n t h i s framework each province provided f o r e i t h e r a board of censors ( u s u a l l y a three person team) or a s i n g l e censor as i n 108 the case of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan. The censors,who needed no s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r the job,were appointed, not e l e c t e d to power. Often they received t h e i r p o s i t i o n as a p o l i t i c a l handout 109 f o r party f a i t h f u l n e s s . Once appointed, the censors were given the a u t h o r i t y to permit or p r o h i b i t f i l m s h o w i n g s — i n essence to determine what thousands of people i n the province would see. By 1930, a l l the provinces had adopted some form of appeal procedure, but New Brunswick was the only one to allow appeals to be made to the c o u r t . E a c h province a l s o r e q u i r e d a censor's stamp or s e a l of approval on a l l f i l m s before they could be shown i n the province. Quebec's An Act Respecting E x h i b i t i o n s of Moving P i c t u r e s (1911) was d i f f e r e n t from those i n the E n g l i s h speaking provinces i n that i t was o r i g i n a l l y an a d d i t i o n to a r t i c l e 2939 of the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of 1887 which provided that " a l l p u b l i c e x h i b i t i o n s of monsters, i d i o t s and other imbeciles or deformed persons tending to endanger p u b l i c s a f e t y or moral-112 i t y may be p r o h i b i t e d by l o c a l c o u n c i l s i n the province." The new a d d i t i o n s simply s t a t e d that a l l unaccompanied c h i l d r e n under 15 were forbidden entry to motion p i c t u r e t h e a t r e s . L a t e r the same year, 17 more a r t i c l e s were added to t h i s act i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n s f o r a Board of Censors. While only Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and B r i t i s h Columbia of the 153 provinces, set out s p e c i f i c l i s t s of guiding c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i r censors to f o l l o w i n l e g i s l a t i o n , what was cut or banned i n each province was q u i t e s i m i l a r . E s s e n t i a l l y , censors cut scenes or banned f i l m s of an immoral or obscene nature, rep r e s e n t a t i o n s of crime or b r u t a l i t y , and suggestions of lewdness or indecency. Scenes which o f f e r e d e v i l sug-gestions to the minds of c h i l d r e n , those which h i n t e d at m a r i t a l i n f i d e l -i t y , or those which i n t h e i r judgement might be considered i n j u r i o u s to 114 the p u b l i c w e l f a r e of the country were a l s o barred or d e l e t e d . Although amendments were passed and the acts were r e - c a s t on s e v e r a l occasions before 1941, the b a s i c i n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e of p r o v i n c i a l censorship l e g i s l a t i o n remained the same. The l e g i s l a t i o n brought a r e s p i t e i n the crusade to end ' i m m o r a l i t i e s ' i n the movies. In the new atmosphere of t r a n q u i l i t y , Canadians expressed l i t t l e d e s i r e to f i n d evidence to support the assumptions on which t h e i r censorship l e g i s l a t i o n was based. Moreover there was no need to continue the quest i n Canada sin c e s t u d i e s conducted i n the United States and B r i t a i n at t h i s time produced ample evidence that Canadian censorship was j u s t i f i e d . In those c o u n t r i e s , s o c i a l science p r a c t i t i o n e r s who were no l e s s biased i n t h e i r opinions about the movies than the pre-World War I reformers sought s c i e n t i f i c proof that movies had a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on the p u b l i c . In England, the C o u n c i l of P u b l i c Morals sponsored the f i r s t major i n q u i r y i n t o the e f f e c t s of motion p i c t u r e s on the p u b l i c i n that country. The commissioners,who s t a t e d , "We have set ourselves to under-mine the e v i l , to get at the deeper causes i n c h a r a c t e r , low i d e a l s , ignorance and f a l s e prudery" i n motion p i c t u r e s , commenced t h e i r i n v e s t i -gations on J u l y 9th, 1917 and s i x months l a t e r , a f t e r an i n t e n s i v e survey., The Cinema: I t s Present P o s i t i o n and Future P o s s i b i l i t i e s was r e l e a s e d . 1 1 154 Although the In q u i r y claimed to be a s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n the e v i -dence was s t r o n g l y l i n k e d to e a r l i e r l i t e r a r y o p i n i o n r a t h e r than s c i e n -116 t i f i c data. The commissioners 1 .conclusions, which would have d e l i g h t e d the most zealous Canadian reformer, d i d not mention the c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s i n the study. They s t a t e d : . . . the l u r e of the p i c t u r e i s u n i v e r s a l . . . . In the course of our i n q u i r y we have been much impressed by the evidence brought before us that moving p i c t u r e s are having a profound i n f l u e n c e upon the mental and moral outlook of m i l l i o n s of our young people . . . an i n f l u e n c e the more s u b t l e i n that i t i s subconsciously e x e r c i s e d . . . and we leave our labour w i t h the deep c o n v i c t i o n that no s o c i a l problem of the day demands more earnest a t t e n t i o n . The cinema under wise guidance may be made a powerful i n f l u e n c e f o r good; i f neglected, i f i t s abuse i s unchecked, i t s p o t e n t i a l i t i e s f o r e v i l are manifold. 1-'- 7 The most ambitious of the post-World War I s t u d i e s i n the United States began i n 1928 under the auspices of W i l l i a m H. Short, D i r e c t o r of the N a t i o n a l Committee f o r the Study of S o c i a l Values i n Motion P i c t u r e s 118 (Motion P i c t u r e Research Council) w i t h f i n a n c i n g from the Payne Fund. Although c l a i m i n g the s t u d i e s on motion p i c t u r e s and youths were to be i m p a r t i a l , the nineteen u n i v e r s i t y p s y c h o l o g i s t s , s o c i o l o g i s t s , and edu c a t i o n a l researchers who conducted the twelve d i f f e r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 119 could not escape the committee's pro-censorship b i a s . Despite l a b o r a t o r y and systematic t e s t i n g methods used to f i n d " a u t h o r i t a t i v e and impersonal data which would make p o s s i b l e a more complete e v a l u a t i o n of motion p i c t u r e s and t h e i r s o c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s , " they f a i l e d to f i n d the 120 absolute proof t h e i r sponsors sought. As i n the e a r l i e r B r i t i s h 121 study t h e i r f i n d i n g s were c o n t r a d i c t o r y and f a r from c o n c l u s i v e . In some cases the researchers had t r o u b l e c o n t a i n i n g - t h e i r enthusiasm f o r the p o s i t i v e gains that could be found i n viewing movies ra t h e r than 122 d i s c u s s i n g the negative e f f e c t s of cinema as i t was i m p l i e d they do. Regardless of f i n d i n g s , the e d i t o r ' s c o n c l u s i o n was the same i n a l l eleven 153 of the published s t u d i e s . The content of current p i c t u r e s i s not good. There i s too much sex and crime and love f o r a balanced d i e t f o r c h i l d r e n . These i m p a r t i a l s t u d i e s r e v e a l much more harm then help. . . . The simple o b l i g a t i o n r e s t s upon those producers who love c h i l d r e n to f i n d a way of making the motion p i c t u r e a b e a u t i f u l , f a s c i n -a t i n g , and k i n d l y servant of childhood.123 In Canada, the only s o c i a l study of cinema appeared as one chapter i n Canada and Her Great Neighbour: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Survey of Opinions and A t t i t u d e s i n Canada Concerning the United States (1938). This survey, as the t i t l e i m p l i e s , only sought Canadian opinions about American movies i n Canada and d i d not confront the l a r g e r i s s u e of the a c t u a l e f f e c t s of such movies on the Canadian i d e n t i t y . While Canadian s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s were l e s s concerned w i t h conducting s t u d i e s on f i l m than American or B r i t i s h p r a c t i t i o n e r s , they d i d become i n v o l v e d i n a number of movements heightened by t h e i r counterparts' research. The prime i n c e n t i v e of the American i n v e s t i g a t i o n s was to d i s c o v e r i n d i s p u t a b l e evidence that motion p i c t u r e s had an i n j u r i o u s e f f e c t on the p u b l i c . I t was commonly b e l i e v e d that such proof would u n i f y the c i v i c minded fo r c e s 124 i n the country and produce a massive lobby f o r censorship l e g i s l a t i o n . Although they were unsuccessful i n t h e i r endeavors, between 1923 and 1940 some 83 b i l l s r e j e c t e d by s t a t e and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t u r e s t e s t i f i e d 125 to the s t r e n g t h of the movement. The United States' campaign f o r c e n t r a l censorship l e g i s l a t i o n s t r a d d l e d the border and added momentum to the northern movement which was spearheaded i n Canada by the S o c i a l S e rvice C o u n c i l . Under Dr. J . G. Shearer, General Secretary of the S o c i a l S ervice C o u n c i l of Canada, and h i s successor, Rev. C. E. S i l c o x , the c o u n c i l presented a persuasive case f o r the establishment of a Federal Censorship 126 Board. Shearer, who had launched the crusade i n 1910 to have the 1 5 6 J e f f r i e s - J o h n s o n f i g h t f i l m uniformly banned across Canada, no doubt saw the wisdom i n f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n a f t e r the l i m i t e d success of h i s e a r l y 127 e f f o r t s . The North American trend towards c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n a l l s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s a f t e r World War I was another f a c t o r which may have promoted the S o c i a l S ervice Council's c o n f i d e n t i a l memorandum of 1920 12 8 urging a f e d e r a l board of censors be e s t a b l i s h e d . Undaunted by the l a c k of response to t h i s memorandum, Shearer r e s t a t e d the c o u n c i l ' s case 129 at the Toronto meeting of Canadian censors i n 1922. Although t h e i r arguments f a i l e d to b r i n g the d e s i r e d response, the c o u n c i l ' s lobby f o r f e d e r a l censorship continued throughout the 1920's and the Depression. They argued that the cost of eight censors was " e i g h t times more than 130 necessary." England and A u s t r a l i a , they pointed out, managed w i t h 131 only one censor's board. Censorship, they maintained, was e s s e n t i a l l y a matter of c r i m i n a l law and since n e a r l y a l l f i l m s shown i n Canada were imported and entered the n a t i o n v i a Ontario, censorship could best be c o n t r o l l e d by the Department of I n t e r n a l Revenue through i t s customs 132 d i v i s i o n i n the same way that books and magazines were handled. Rather than p r o v i n c i a l i s o l a t i o n i s m they suggested that n a t i o n a l u n i t y would be 133 served by having only one board. " I t i s an 'urgent' n a t i o n a l respon-s i b i l i t y , " s t a t e d W. M. B e l l s m i t h i n an a r t i c l e i n S o c i a l Welfare, "to keep movies c l e a n from the v i r u s that produces crime as i t i s to keep 134 water pure from the germ that i n f e c t s w i t h t y p h o i d . " Although f e d e r a l censorship l e g i s l a t i o n never m a t e r i a l i z e d , i t d i d lea d to d i s c u s s i o n s and proposals f o r a western censorship board between B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan, and Manitoba during the World War I era. In 1914, the A l b e r t a censor had proposed that censorship be 135 handled f e d e r a l l y . While t h i s idea was f l a t l y r e j e c t e d , a second 157 proposal f o r a western censorship board was taken up by the four prov-inces i n v o l v e d , but the only agreement that could be reached was that the c i t y of Winnipeg, which handled censorship f o r Manitoba, and Sas-136 katchewan should t r y j o i n t censorship. This l i a i s o n ended i n 1917 j u s t two years a f t e r i t had begun when Manitoba e s t a b l i s h e d a system of s p e c i a l c a t e g o r i e s f o r f i l m s and Saskatchewan d i d not introduce s i m i l a r 137 l e g i s l a t i o n . During the 1920's, the idea of f e d e r a l or western censorship re c e i v e d renewed support from B r i t i s h Columbia, but as i n the f i r s t i nstance the four provinces could not a r r i v e at a s a t i s f a c t o r y 138 censorship venture. In 1932, an amendment to the Saskatchewan Theatre and Cinematograph Act provided f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of a j o i n t 139 board of censors, but such a board was not created. Attempts to e s t a b l i s h a common standard of censorship c r i t e r i a f o r the country a l s o f a i l e d . At the f i r s t n a t i o n a l censor's meeting h e l d i n Calgary i n 140 1919 only the censors from the western provinces attended. A second conference i n Toronto i n 1922 found the censors unable to reach a con-, . . 141 sensus of op i n i o n . Opposition to f e d e r a l censorship was rooted i n the b e l i e f that each province of Canada had d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s . I t was widely held that even i f E n g l i s h speaking Canada were to agree to such a plan there could be no 142 common cause w i t h Quebec. S o p h i s t i c a t e d movies, some argued, might be f i n e f o r i n h a b i t a n t s i n the urban centers i n Canada, but they would not be 143 accepted by the p l a i n f o l k i n the r u r a l areas. At l e a s t one censor argued that the business of censoring movies created much needed employ-144 ment i n the provinces. Most im p o r t a n t l y , p r o v i n c i a l revenue might be l o s t to the f e d e r a l government i f such a scheme were undertaken. The 145 censor's fees f o r viewing f i l m s would be l o s t . Since the American f i l m i n d u s t r y a l s o expressed t h e i r d e s i r e f o r Canada to switch from p r o v i n c i a l to c e n t r a l censorship because i t would reduce t h e i r costs and make t h e i r Canadian market e a s i e r to handle, the proposal f o r f e d e r a l censorship was seen by some as an American idea and t h e r e f o r e not worthy . 1 4 6 of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As movies became i n c r e a s i n g l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d i t appeared that there were c e r t a i n f i l m s not i n j u r i o u s to a d u l t morals, but which were deemed u n f i t f o r c h i l d r e n . Viewers complained that sometimes the censors went too f a r and made i t d i f f i c u l t "to keep t r a c k of the s t o r y " because there 147 were so many snips and c l i p s f o r the b e n e f i t of c h i l d r e n . Those who sought the p r o t e c t i o n of youth complained: There i s nothing to guide parents or guardians i n the choice of f i l m entertainment f o r young people, and i n l a r g e numbers of f i l m houses i n Canada there are sex plays and crime plays being shown— plays of the most adult themes and i d e a s — w i t h signs outside 'Children 10 c e n t s ' — o r p o s s i b l y i t i s f i f t e e n cents, but i t i s a lower p r i c e than that o f f e r e d grown persons, and i t i s a d i r e c t encouragement f o r the patronage of j u v e n i l e s . . . . One may doubt i f we ever before t o l e r a t e d such ad u l t amusement f o r the c h i l d r e n of C anada. i 4 8 Valance P a t r i a r c h e , a c o n t r i b u t o r to Dalhousie Review,and a Maritime censor,argued that the present censorship brought "about a s i t u a t i o n 149 absurd and unjust to a l l ages." S o l u t i o n s to the problem were seen i n s p e c i a l l y censored f i l m s f o r c h i l d r e n as advocated by the Payne Fund and other s t u d i e s and i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n l i s t s which would d e s c r i b e the subject matter and the s u i t a b i l i t y of f i l m s f o r c h i l d r e n i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n to those published by the N a t i o n a l Review Board and other pro-censorship o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the United States. The 'Saturday Morning Movie Movement' as i t was c a l l e d , was launched i n Canada i n 1922 when the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Women organized a Saturday j u v e n i l e f i l m program at some Toronto theatres."'""'"'" Three 159 years a f t e r t h i s i n i t i a l u nsuccessful experiment, members of Toronto's Home and School A s s o c i a t i o n made another attempt along s i m i l a r l i n e s to 152 have s p e c i a l movie showings f o r c h i l d r e n . They were hopeful that a r e g u l a r system could be worked out "whereby these c h i l d r e n ' s h i g h - c l a s s entertainment" would be a v a i l a b l e f o r use i n any c i t y where there was a 153 demand f o r them. Although the movement f o r c h i l d r e n ' s cinema had been given token support from the American f i l m i n d u s t r y through i t s Canadian r e p r e s e n t a t i v e Colonel John Cooper, the i n d u s t r y d i d l i t t l e to f u r t h e r the cause and the idea of s p e c i a l movie, shows f o r c h i l d r e n was 154 plagued w i t h d i f f i c u l t i e s . C hildren's movie shows were considered u n p r o f i t a b l e and few t h e a t r e managers were w i l l i n g to put on such a program unless i t gave them a f a i r r e t u r n on t h e i r investment. Although the movement was s t r o n g l y sup-ported by s o c i a l reform o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the United S t a t e s , B r i t a i n , and Canada, there appeared to be a l a c k of i n t e r e s t and co-operation on the part of the p u b l i c . T h e major stumbling b l o c k , however, was the l a c k of f i l m s made f o r young people. The c h i l d r e n ' s f i l m programs, lamented Nicholas North, who sat through a number of them i n order to w r i t e an a r t i c l e on the subject f o r MacLean's Magazine, were wretched, c o n s i s t i n g mostly of cheap melodramas and awful s e r i a l s which were i n f l i c t e d on the "impressionable l i t t l e f o l k — t h e f u t u r e c i t i z e n s of Canada. ""^ 7 Most supporters of the movement favored e d u c a t i o n a l movies f o r young people, but i n the Canadian context t h i s too o f t e n meant American e d u c a t i o n a l f i l m s were used. The Wonders of A l a s k a , R a i l r o a d Ties from Uncle Sam's  For e s t , and How Wheat i s Harvested i n C a l i f o r n i a were considered h i g h l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the c h i l d r e n of the dominion, yet Canadian government f i l m s which would have provided the n a t i o n a l i s t i c f l a v o r the movement 160 wanted had l i t t l e d i s t r i b u t i o n access to the American owned theatres i n 158 Canada. Since the q u a l i t y movies envisioned by supporters of c h i l -dren's cinema could not be had, the I.O.D.E. began p u b l i s h i n g l i s t s of f i l m s i n t h e i r magazines which they considered s u i t a b l e f o r c h i l d r e n 159 and f a m i l y . I t was not u n t i l 1943 when Children's Movie Clubs, the c r e a t i o n of Arthur Rank i n England, began i n the Odeon c i r c u i t across the n a t i o n that movie entertainment of the type d e s i r e d by the movement , • • „ J 160 made i t s appearance i n Canada. In the Canadian s e t t i n g , the lobby f o r f e d e r a l censorship and the crusade f o r movies f o r c h i l d r e n were o f t e n i n t e r l a c e d w i t h the world wide movement f o r 'better f i l m s ' . I n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , a growing number of i n d i v i d u a l s who were no l e s s c i v i c minded than the pro-censorship groups argued that cinema was a f o r c e f o r p o s i t i v e good, that the days of u n i v e r s a l c u l t u r e were at hand, and,that cinema'was one of.the f o r c e s which 161 could b r i n g about world peace. -Although the d e s i r e f o r b e t t e r f i l m s had been heard almost s i n c e the beginning, of f i l m , i t wasn't u n t i l the 1920's when i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s l i k e the American based Saniga Cinema ( F i l m L i g h t Crusade) purposely set out to b r i n g t h i s about. Their r a t h e r grandiose scheme was to spread through cinema "the l i g h t of love and t o l e r a n c e and knowledge to f i g h t famine of body and s o u l , : l i g h t , ,,163 162 r a c i a l and c l a s s hatred everywhere." They s t a t e d , "This l i g h t shedding machine w i l l shine f o r t h the message of the~'new age The best known i n d i v i d u a l to champion t h i s point of view was New York lawyer W i l l i a m Marston Seabury. In h i s The P u b l i c and the Motion  P i c t u r e (1926) he presented a s o c i a l i s t phlosophy which c a l l e d f o r con-gress to d e c l a r e movies a p u b l i c u t i l i t y the same as gas, water and 164 e l e c t r i c i t y . Motion p i c t u r e s , he argued, should " a r t i c u l a t e f r i e n d l y 161 165 r e l a t i o n s w i t h the people of other n a t i o n s . " The f i l m i n d u s t r y , according to Seabury, should be r e s t r u c t u r e d , so that every f i l m would conform to a n . i n t e r n a t i o n a l standard of e t h i c s . In doing t h i s , i t would r e c e i v e a kind of passport which would be honoured i n every 166 country. The medium would be allowed to r e a l i z e i t s l a t e n t poten-t i a l when "commercial e x p l o i t a t i o n was e n d e d . S e a b u r y ' s views r e f l e c t e d h i s d e d i c a t i o n to the Leauge of Nations which advocated world 168 peace through f i l m . Through i t s E d u c a t i o n a l Cinematographic I n s t i -t u t e i n Rome, which a l s o produced f i l m s , the League handled the i n t e r -n a t i o n a l exchange of p i c t u r e s and held cinema conferences w i t h member nations as p a r t of i t s p o l i c y to ' i n t e r n a t i o n a l i z e ' cinema i n hopes of c r e a t i n g a b e t t e r c l i m a t e of understanding and t o l e r a n c e among the people r .. , . 169 of the world. The American motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y l o s t l i t t l e time i n adapting some of Seabury's and the League's arguments to i t s own ends. In 1922 the trade imposed s e l f - c e n s o r s h i p and appointed W i l l Hays as P r e s i d e n t of the Motion P i c t u r e Producers and D i s t r i b u t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n which was to oversee the r e s t r a i n t s . 1 7 ^ Hays met the demands f o r q u a l i t y f i l m s by e s t a b l i s h i n g the 'Better F i l m ' p o l i c y ; — e s s e n t i a l l y a supply and demand argument to act as a p r e v e n t a t i v e measure against government censorship i n the United States. The supply of poor f i l m s would end, Hays pointed out, i f the p u b l i c only patronized the b e t t e r f i l m s . In t u r n , b e t t e r f i l m s would be produced i n greater q u a n t i t i e s i f there was a demand f o r them. "The t i c k e t buyer holds the key to the s i t u a t i o n , " he s t a t e d . 1 7 1 To t h i s end movie patrons were urged to v o i c e t h e i r opinions on p i c t u r e s w i t h t h e i r l o c a l t h e a t r e managers and various American a s s o c i a t i o n s were given the r i g h t to preview new f i l m r e l e a s e s and pass on recommendations 162? 172 to t h e i r members of worthy ones. Films which would de p i c t "the l i f e , h i s t o r y and customs of each of the d i f f e r e n t nations of the world so that g r a d u a l l y they w i l l be brought i n t o c l o s e contact w i t h each other," which Hollywood a l s o promised as part of i t s 'Better F i l m ' d e a l , never m a t e r i a l i z e d . The American motion p i c t u r e i n d u s t r y ' s b e t t e r f i l m p o l i c y found a r e c e p t i v e c l i m a t e i n Canada. In 1925, C o l o n i a l John Cooper, the a r t i c u -l a t e j o u r n a l i s t and spokesman f o r the Hays o r g a n i z a t i o n i n Canada, summed up the movement i n t h i s way: The s o c i a l reformers of Canada have come to the conclusions that the proper t h i n g to do i s to encourage good movies and condemn bad ones. In t h i s a t t i t u d e the motion p i c t u r e people concur and are prepared to co-operate. Our A s s o c i a t i o n d e s i r e s to con-s u l t w i t h everybody i n Canada i n t e r e s t e d i n r a i s i n g the standard of p u b l i c entertainment. We do not b e l i e v e i n p o l i t i c a l censor boards, but we accept them u n t i l such time as the people demand censorship of a d i f f e r e n t type. No a r t can f l o u r i s h unless there i s f r e e c r i t i c i s m and f r e e development.I 7 4 Cooper's i n f l u e n c e was seen i n the establishment of the Committee f o r Better F i l m s , an agency of the S o c i a l Service C o u n c i l of Canada, and i n a column e n t i t l e d " B e t t e r F i l m s " which began appearing i n Echoes, the I.O.D.E.'s o f f i c i a l organ. D. N. N o r r i s , the Chairman of the Commit-tee f o r B e t t e r F i l m s , had been a t t r a c t e d by the League's lobby and the stu d i e s on the e f f e c t s of motion p i c t u r e s on the p u b l i c as w e l l as by Cooper's arguments. He wrote: . . . the motion p i c t u r e i s what we make of i t . I t has u n l i m i t e d p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r good or e v i l . I t t h e r e f o r e behooves a l l those good c i t i z e n s who are i n t e r e s t e d i n s o c i a l w e l f a r e to do t h e i r utmost to make the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r good the greatest that can be secured, to o b l i t e r a t e the e v i l s that are e x i s t e n t and f i n a l l y to see that new tendencies which are not f o r good are kept from creep-i n g i n . . . . There are a great many e x c e l l e n t moving p i c t u r e s that are not only e n t e r t a i n i n g and even i n s t r u c t i o n a l but that are great teachers of m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n . These should be p r a i s e d and recommended and encouraged.17° 163 In the Canadian environment, however, the b e t t e r f i l m movement had s e v e r a l t w i s t s not envisioned by i t s American c r e a t o r s . Rather than being used to h a l t the demand f o r government censorship, i n Canada the argument f o r b e t t e r f i l m s o f t e n d i d s e r v i c e as part of the case f o r b r i n g i n g censorship under f e d e r a l c o n t r o l . W h i l e the American i n d u s t r y b e l i e v e d i t s p o l -i c y would r e s u l t i n increased production of 'better' Hollywood f i l m s , i n Canada b e t t e r f i l m s came to mean more B r i t i s h movies and an end to ' f o r -178 eign j i n g o i s m ' and American f i l m domination i n the n a t i o n . Attempts to safeguard Canadians from the perceived t h r e a t of Ameri-can c u l t u r a l domination p e n e t r a t i n g Canada v i a the screen began i n earnest i n the 1920's when Hollywood d i r e c t e d i t s a t t e n t i o n more than ever 179 before to middle c l a s s audiences. While European f i l m companies attempted to r e - e s t a b l i s h themselves a f t e r the c r i p p l i n g e f f e c t s of World War I on t h e i r i n d u s t r i e s , Hollywood producers, unscathed by the war, 180 s e i z e d the l i o n ' s share of the world movie market. During the 1920's the v i r t u a l monopoly they operated became a t o p i c of i n t e r n a t i o n a l con-181 cern. The values and i n s t i t u t i o n s shown i n Hollywood f i l m s of t h i s era were considered an a f f r o n t to r e s p e c t a b i l i t y i n the c o u n t r i e s where 182 they were shown. C r i t i c s of American cinema were concerned that Hollywood p i c t u r e s were "made by i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h l i t t l e c u l t u r e and l o t s of money" and that they posed a threat to n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s every-183 where. The f i r s t strong wave of p r o t e s t against American f i l m s i n Canada erupted when Hollywood's war movies made.their debut i n the Dominion. These movies, which suggested that the Americans had l i c k e d the Huns s i n g l e handedly, and which a r r i v e d i n Canada when the country was s t i l l mourning i t s f a l l e n men and t r y i n g to r e t u r n to normalcy, caused tempers i&4-184 to f l a r e . "Some f i l m references to the war would seem to i n d i c a t e that the unpleasantness began i n 1917," the Canadian press noted 185 s o u r l y . "Our c h i l d r e n , " began a l e t t e r to the e d i t o r , "are l e a r n i n g 186 the h i s t o r y of the Great War through American l e n s e s . " Such outbursts were q u i c k l y h a l t e d , though not f o r g o t t e n , when p r o v i n c i a l , censors decided to cut the triumphs of American war v i c t o r i e s from such movies. Besides censorship, i t was widely held that Canada's s o l u t i o n to the American f i l m presence could be thwarted i f only more B r i t i s h f i l m s could be shown i n the n a t i o n . At the T a r i f f Commission of 1921, Colonel A. A. McGee, representing the Anglo-Canadian P i c t u r e Plays L i m i t e d , presented a b r i e f c a l l i n g f o r B r i t i s h f i l m s to be put on a f r e e l i s t i n order to com-187 pete more e f f e c t i v e l y against the Hollywood productions i n Canada. He was supported i n h i s b i d by Lady Pope who appeared on behalf of the I.O.D.E. Lady Pope expressed her f e a r s that the e f f e c t of l a r g e numbers of United States f i l m s c o n s t a n t l y e x h i b i t e d i n Canadian theatres was n e u t r a l i z i n g her o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s e f f o r t s to "Canadianize the f o r e i g n e l e -ments i n the Dominion." The f o r e i g n e r s were becoming more f a m i l i a r 188 "with 'Old G l o r y ' , " she s t a t e d , "than w i t h the 'Union Jack'." Despite the formation of a B r i t i s h N a t i o n a l F i l m League i n 1921 to promote B r i t i s h f e a t u r e s , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a B r i t i s h F i l m Week, and a strong lobby f o r more B r i t i s h f i l m s at the I m p e r i a l Educational Confer-ence i n 1923, the percentage of British-made f i l m s shown i n England f e l l 189 from 25% i n 1914 to 2% i n 1925. As the twenties wore on and the American f i l m presence increased r a t h e r than diminished i n both Canada and the United Kingdom, high hopes were he l d that the I m p e r i a l Conference i n 1926 would f i n d a way to block the Hollywood movies. The Times of London mounted a campaign and enthusiasm developed i n A u s t r a l i a , New 165. Zealand, and Canada over a memorandum submitted by the B r i t i s h Empire F i l m I n s t i t u t e c a l l i n g f o r the c r e a t i o n of an empire f i l m i n d u s t r y which 190 would be high i n standards and "wholly B r i t i s h i n ch a r a c t e r . " "The i n s i d i o u s and demoralizing i n f l u e n c e s of f o r e i g n f i l m s i n the B r i t i s h dominion" would be ended, s t a t e d the I n s t i t u t e , and the "great t r a d i t i o n s of the B r i t i s h Empire would be r e i n s t a t e d i n the eyes of f i l m s p e ctators 191 throughout the world" i f such an i n d u s t r y were created. In order to make empire f i l m s a r e a l i t y the i n s t i t u t e c a l l e d f o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e by the members and a s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of censorship r e g u l a t i o n s through-192 out the empire. In V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, where many c i t i z e n s b e l i e v e d such a f i l m i n d u s t r y might be l o c a t e d , people were urged to 193 w r i t e the Prime M i n i s t e r and express t h e i r support f o r the i d e a . The Federation of B r i t i s h I n d u s t r i e s , who a l s o had a hearing at the conference, l e n t i t s support to the idea when i t advocated a quota law whereby each 194 t h e a t r e would have to show a c e r t a i n percentage of empire made f i l m s . Despite the strong l o b b i e s , the Im p e r i a l Conference f a i l e d to take any stand w i t h regard to safeguarding the empire from American f i l m s . O f f i c i a l l y , i t was s t a t e d that the views of the va r i o u s c o u n t r i e s were so c o n f l i c t i n g and t h e i r f i l m needs so divergent that no agreement on 195 the matter could be reached. U n o f f i c i a l l y , f i l m had only been given 196 perfunctory n o t i c e at the conference. Prime M i n i s t e r MacKenzie King s t a t e d that w h i l e nobody underestimated the, seriousness of the s i t u a t i o n he saw no reason to assume that the present inadequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of B r i t i s h and dominion f i l m s would prove permanent. "In h i s o p i n i o n , " reported the C o l o n i s t , "the i n i t i a l advantage of the United States w i l l . , . ..197 les s e n w i t h time. The nation's d e s i r e f o r more B r i t i s h f i l m s as a defense against 166 - ~i Hollywood's cinematic f a r e climaxed i n the e a r l y years of the depression. Canadians' a b i d i n g f a i t h i n the mother country to s o l v e t h e i r f i l m dilemma had been crushed too many times. In 1927, when England passed quota l e g i s l a t i o n s t i p u l a t i n g that an i n c r e a s i n g percentage of a l l f i l m s shown i n the country had to be empire made, the country's pulse had quickened i n a n t i c i p a t i o n that some of the f i l m production might be c a r r i e d on i n 198 the Dominion. When i t was announced i n the same year that works from B r i t i s h authors l i k e K i p l i n g , Doyle, and Galsworthy were to be used i n the newly created B r i t i s h I n t e r n a t i o n a l P i c t u r e s L i m i t e d , Canadians expected that these q u a l i t y productions would soon be p l a y i n g i n t h e i r 199 l o c a l t h e a t r e s . Most Canadians, however, never saw the few p i c t u r e s t h i s company made sin c e they were blocked from f i r s t c l a s s t h e a t r e d i s -t r i b u t i o n i n Canada by the Famous Pl a y e r s T r u s t . M o r e o v e r , the B r i t i s h quota l e g i s l a t i o n proved to be a dismal f a i l u r e . The supply of 201 -B r i t i s h f i l m s was too small even to meet t h e i r own quota r e g u l a t i o n s . Canadians were forced to accept the idea that England was not going to solve the problem of American movies i n Canada. Although B r i t i s h f i l m c r i t i c s had no qualms about c l a s s i f y i n g E n g l i s h f i l m producers as "untutored, i l l - b r e d persons of i n f e r i o r m e n t a l i t y , " 202 the c o l o n i a l Canadians were r e l u c t a n t to share t h i s view. Some people l i k e the f i l m convener of the I.O.D.E. p r e f e r r e d to b e l i e v e that "the general p u b l i c i s so accustomed to the many mentally and m o r a l l y i n f e r i o r productions turned out by Hollywood that i t w i l l take time to make them appreciate the l e s s s e n s a t i o n a l , but c e r t a i n l y more i n t e l l i g e n t 203 e f f o r t s by B r i t i s h producers." Slowly, however, the establishment began to acknowledge that Hollywood p i c t u r e s were su p e r i o r i n most respects to B r i t i s h movies. In the survey done f o r Canada and Her Great 167> Neighbour, Canadians s t a t e d that they f e l t more f a m i l i a r w i t h the American 204 s e t t i n g , v o i c e s , and humor than they d i d w i t h B r i t i s h f i l m s . The p r o v i n c i a l censors revealed that f a r more B r i t i s h f i l m s were banned or 205 e d i t e d i n Canada than those produced i n the United States. Theatre managers s t a t e d that the p u b l i c had too o f t e n been disappointed w i t h B r i t i s h f i l m s and they could not f i l l t h e i r theatres when they were i r , "c „207 206 shown. Canadians, sta t e d one the a t r e manager, "don't want to l i n e up at the box o f f i c e as a s e r v i c e to t h e i r country. 1 Canadian acceptance of American movies i n Canada followed i n the wake of the White Report of 1931 which i n v e s t i g a t e d American f i l m domin-a t i o n i n Canada. As the American i n d u s t r y expanded i t s cinema monopoly i n Canada throughout the 1920's they were aided and abetted by Cooper's o r g a n i z a t i o n which worked d i l i g e n t l y to ensure there would be no disputes 208 between Americans and Canadians i n v o l v i n g the i n d u s t r y . Ever s i n c e the Hudson's Bay Company had s u c c e s s f u l l y sued Famous Pl a y e r s i n 1921 f o r misrepresenting Bay tr a d e r s i n a movie, the United S t a t e s ' i n d u s t r y 209 had cut f i l m footage which might have been o f f e n s i v e to Canada viewers. As a sop to Canada's B r i t i s h h e r i t a g e and the demand f o r B r i t i s h f i l m s i n Canada, some E n g l i s h p i c t u r e s were shown i n Famous Pl a y e r s theatres i n 210 the l a t e 1920's. In 1928, Canadians were allowed to purchase common stocks formerly h e l d by Americans i n the Famous Pl a y e r s Company and v o t i n g f o r a p e r i o d of ten years was put i n the hands of three t r u s t e e s , 211 two of whom were to be Canadian. Despite such tokenism, the American i n d u s t r y could not hide the mounting evidence that Canadian owned theatres were being forced out of business and that B r i t i s h and Canadian movies, when they were made, were denied f i r s t run engagements by the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The Royal Commission's i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e f t no doubt that an American 212 combine had dominated the Canadian market s i n c e 1926. The evidence made c l e a r that Famous Play e r s had forced independent Canadian theatres out of business, that i t had attempted to i n t e r f e r e w i t h p r o v i n c i a l censors' d e c i s i o n s and on one occasion i t had s u c c e s s f u l l y invested $5000 i n a lobby 213 to block proposed quota l e g i s l a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Theatres belonging to the combine, the commission found, rec e i v e d l i b e r a l a d v e r t i s e -ment of t h e i r f i l m s , whereas the few B r i t i s h f i l m s which had come to Canada had been d e l i b e r a t e l y d i s c r e d i t e d through unfavorable press comments and by 214 e x h i b i t i n g them i n un s u i t a b l e t h e a t r e s . Peter White, who headed the commission, noted that the v o t i n g t r u s t , heralded i n 1928 as a measure of Canadian c o n t r o l of the Famous Pl a y e r s Canadian Corporation, was i n f a c t designed to "pro t e c t Mr. Zukor and h i s company i n respect to a f r a n c h i s e which gave Famous Pl a y e r s an opt i o n i n the Canadian market on a l l p i c t u r e s 215 produced by the United States Company." Despite the r e v e l a t i o n s i n the White Report, the government took no a c t i o n against Famous P l a y e r s . A f t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g that u n f a i r market c o n d i t i o n s d i d e x i s t , the i s s u e before the commissioner, and l a t e r the c o u r t s , 261 was whether these conditions-were d e t r i m e n t a l 'to^the-'public. The combine argued that they created employment i n the dominion, that the p u b l i c r e c e i v e d good entertainment at a moderate p r i c e , and that many 217 Hollywood s t a r s were Canadian. They might f u r t h e r have pointed out that there was no strong o p p o s i t i o n among Canadian theatre goers to t h e i r operations i n the nat i o n — C a n a d i a n s continued to p a t r o n i z e Famous Pl a y e r s theatres i n ever i n c r e a s i n g numbers. Although some recommendations on how to curb the combine were made, none were acted upon i n a f o r c e f u l way. Those most knowledgeable•about f i l m i n Canada tended to support the Famous P l a y e r s ' argument. George Drew, l a t e r to be Premier of Ontario and N a t i o n a l Leader of the Conserv-a t i v e P a r t y , summarized the s i t u a t i o n by s t a t i n g that the problem could not be solved by " f l a g waving j i n g o i s m " and he r a i s e d the o l d idea of a 218 B r i t i s h Empire F i l m Board as a combatant f o r c e against the combine. James Cowan o u t l i n e d the weaknesses of a proposed quota system which would l i m i t the number of American f i l m s i n Canada, i n a two-part a r t i c l e i n MacLean's Magazine. Cowan argued that a quota would not work because there was no other supply of f i l m s a v a i l a b l e to Canadian theatres except 219 the American ones. The B r i t i s h d i d not supply enough to meet t h e i r own quota and the idea that Canadian f i l m s might be used was "part of a 220 d i z z y dream" si n c e there was no Canadian i n d u s t r y to speak of. Cowan suggested that the Ontario Motion P i c t u r e Bureau and the Canadian Govern-ment Motion P i c t u r e Bureau enter i n t o a n a t i o n a l newsreel business where-by Canadian news and shorts could be shown on each f i l m program. This s o r t of approach, he concluded, would give some Canadian content to the a t r e 221 f a r e and would r e q u i r e no l e g i s l a t i v e machinery. Howe Martyn, w r i t i n g i n Dalhousie Review, took the p o s i t i o n that a t t a c k i n g the combines was i l l o g i c a l i n l i g h t of mass production. He argued: Mass production of P i c t u r e s , keeping f u l l y occupied the very expensive equipment needed, can be c a r r i e d on without great l o s s e s only i f there i s a guaranteed o u t l e t f o r a l l the P i c t u r e s produced. The advance bookings made by the chains and a s s o c i a t i o n of d i s t r i -butors provide t h i s o u t l e t . Furthermore, d i s t r i b u t i o n i t s e l f would be very expensive, and so d i s o r d e r l y as to cause i n t e r r u p t i o n s of s e r v i c e , without a system of group and advance bookings. The econ-omies of the present system are obvious and necessary.222 As Canadians moved towards new st a t u s as an independent n a t i o n , an i n c r e a s i n g number of Canadian n a t i o n a l i s t s saw that the s o l u t i o n to American f i l m , domination l a y without t h e i r own boundaries. Two p r o v i n c e s , Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia, passed quota l e g i s l a t i o n to in s u r e that at 170 l e a s t a p o r t i o n of newsreels shown i n t h e i r provinces would have some 223 B r i t i s h or Canadian content. More than ever before d i s c u s s i o n s were focused on b u i l d i n g a Canadian f i l m industry,:.-rather than importing B r i t i s h f i l m s . The founding of the Canadian F i l m Society i n 1935, which soon had branches from coast to coast, was one m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the new 224 outlook. The c r e a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada i n 1938, l a r g e l y the r e s u l t of the F i l m Society's e f f o r t s and MacKenzie King's handiwork, can be considered a u n i q u e , i f somewhat c u r i o u s , L i b e r a l s o l u -t i o n to the p e r p l e x i n g problem of perceived c u l t u r a l domination from the 225 United States' f i l m i n d u s t r y . Although the NFB was i n s t r u c t e d not to attempt competition w i t h the U.S. f i l m i n d u s t r y , i t was hoped that such an agency would o f f s e t i n some way the constant d i e t of American c i n e -. £ 226 matic f a r e . In the eyes of the world, Canadian censorship r e f l e c t e d a country basking i n benevolent democracy. By i n t e r n a t i o n a l standards censorship i n Canada was unpardonably l a x . In 1938, the Motion P i c t u r e D i v i s i o n of the United States Department of Commerce commented: Censorship i n Canada i s not s t r i c t i n the f u l l sense of that word, and i n recent years has become more l i b e r a l . For example, i n 1929 there were 210 r e j e c t i o n s . In the past s i x years the per-centage of Ontario r e j e c t i o n s has d e c l i n e d from 1.6 percent of the t o t a l submission to 0.16 percent. P o i n t s of o b j e c t i o n n a t u r a l l y vary among the s e v e r a l censor boards, but the m a j o r i t y of complaints can be traced to moral and p o l i t i c a l reasons or a combination of the two. . . . I n t e r n a t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s and censorship w i t h i n the United States f i l m i n d u s t r y i s unquestionably a f a c t o r i n the recent trend of reduced cuts and r e j e c t i o n s by the Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s . ^ P r o v i n c i a l censorship seemed to s a t i s f y Canadian needs. Occasion-a l l y , there was an outburst against t h i s p i c t u r e or that one, but the p r o v i n c i a l censors by t h e i r own admission were seldom bombarded w i t h 228 complaints. Much of what was banned or a l t e r e d on moral grounds before 1940 such as A l b e r t a ' s e l i m i n a t i n g views of f a l l i n g horses, or Ontario changing the name of a f i l m from The Passionate C h r i s t i a n to A World of Passion, or c u t t i n g a few k i s s e s from Gone w i t h the Wind i n Quebec, seems of l i t t l e consequence or even s i l l y by contemporary 229 standards. Canadians, however, were denied the r i g h t to see f i l m s 230 which d e a l t w i t h homosexuality, b i r t h , or p r o s t i t u t i o n . A l l l y n c h -i n g scenes were forbidden i n Canada and p i c t u r e s which d e a l t w i t h 231 gangsters and s i x gun j u s t i c e were met by the censor's s c i s s o r s . Quebec's censorship, which was the s t r i c t e s t i n Canada, was l i n k e d to the p r o t e c t i o n of the French Canadian i d e n t i t y as determined by the Roman C a t h o l i c church which had a great deal of input on the censor 232 board i n the province. The L i f e of Emile Z o l a , considered one of the best p i c t u r e s of 1937 by the New York Legion of Decency, was banned 233 i n Quebec because Zola had been an enemy of the church i n h i s day. Love, Honour and Behave, was barred because of a d i v o r c e scene i n the 234 movie. V o l t a i r e was not seen i n the province because h i s name was 235 as s o c i a t e d w i t h the l o s s of French Canada. The banning of D e v i l ' s I s l a n d a l s o d i s p l a y e d the s e n s i t i v i t y which surrounded a l l t hings French i n the province of Quebec. The only reason given f o r i t s p r o h i b i t i o n was that the s t o r y centered around the French penal colony i n Guiana. The most s i n i s t e r s i d e to Canadian censorship was that movies shown i n Canada always r e f l e c t e d the status q u o — t h e unwritten r u l e f o r a l l Canadian censors was to d e l e t e anything that would give offense to a 237 reasonable number of people. Anything which h i n t e d at s o c i a l change i n f i l m s was cut. P i c t u r e s which showed unfavorable c o n d i t i o n s i n c o u r t , v i o l e n c e i n a s t r i k e scene, v e r b a l i n s e r t i o n s of propaganda, 17-2' u n f a i r treatment of war v e t e r a n s , d i s t u r b i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n p r i s o n l i f e , v iews of Mexicans b a y o n e t t i n g d e f e n d e r s of the Alamo, a p r i s o n e r s t r i k i n g a guard, and even views r e f e r r i n g t o L i n d b e r g h ' s S p i r i t o f S t . L o u i s were 2 38 removed by the g u a r d i a n s of Canadian m o r a l i t y . As the g r e a t d e p r e s s i o n c o n t i n u e d , so too d i d the t r e n d towards c e n s o r s h i p f o r so c a l l e d "propaganda c o n t r a r y t o the d e m o c r a t i c o u t l o o k 239 of t h e Canadian p e o p l e . " The e s t a b l i s h m e n t ' s f e a r s t h a t communist and s o c i a l i s t i d e a s would make a d d i t i o n a l i n r o a d s among the thousands of unemployed Canadians as y e t unswayed by argument to the l e f t , were r e f l e c t e d i n the c u t s made by the p r o v i n c i a l c e n s o r s . " B r o a d l y speak-i n g , " s t a t e d E l s t o n , " t h e most i m p o r t a n t p a r t of a Canadian c e n s o r ' s work i s t o determine c e r t a i n m a t t e r s of p u b l i c or n a t i o n a l p o l i c y ; i n many i n s t a n c e s i t i s wise to r e s t r i c t or d e l a y the showing of c e r t a i n f i l m s 240 i n Canada f o r p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s . " Movies l i k e Grapes of Wrath, which d e p i c t e d movements o f the unemployed, and Of Mice and Men which d e a l t w i t h the m e n t a l l y d e f i c i e n t , kept the c e n s o r s busy s e e i n g t h a t t h e con-241 t e n t o f f i l m s d i d not undermine " d e m o c r a t i c b e l i e f s . " " I t i s e s s e n -t i a l t o e x e r c i s e g r e a t c a r e i n r e l e a s i n g such f i l m s , " s a i d one c e n s o r , "as c h a r a c t e r s i n them may be i d e n t i f i e d as p u b l i c personages, and t h e s u b j e c t may be d e a l t w i t h i n such a way as to arouse a u d i e n c e sympathies 242 w i t h some f a c t i o n . " A l l the 'isms' of Europe, the I.O.D.E. c a u t i o n e d 2^-3 i t s members, have become major problems f o r the c e n s o r s . "Your Board w i l l i n s i s t , " s t a t e d t h e O n t a r i o c e n s o r , " t h a t f i l m s of t h i s c h a r a c t e r be i n l i n e w i t h thought i n t h i s p r o v i n c e and i n k e e p i n g w i t h ,,244 t h e p o l i c i e s e x p r e s s e d by your government. Newsreels, t h e most l i k e l y v e h i c l e s of propaganda, were s u b j e c t t o t h e maximum s c r u t i n y by t h e c e n s o r s . In O n t a r i o , p i c t u r e s of r i o t s and 173 245 s t r i k e s were cut out of a l l newsreels. In other provinces these 246 subjects were always " c a r e f u l l y t r e a t e d . " In 1938, Quebec went so f a r as to ban a l l scenes of the U.S.S.R. c e l e b r a t i n g the r e t u r n of a 247 l o s t A r c t i c s c i e n t i s t . A f u l l year before war was d e c l a r e d , Can-adians were not allowed to see newsreel s t o r i e s on the t o t a l i t a r i a n aggressions of H i t l e r , M u s s o l i n i , and Franco, nor were they permitted to 248 view American news covering the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. John Harley, who was f i n i s h i n g h i s study on i n t e r n a t i o n a l movie censorship at the time, wrote: A study of the Canadian censorship record i n d i c a t e s a c l o s e watch on scenes of m i l i t a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e . For example, the banning of f i l m s showing the German conquest of Poland i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The banning of newsreels c a r r y i n g p i c t u r e s and short speeches of w e l l known f i g u r e s i n the United States l i k e Senator Nye and former Governor A l f r e d E. Smith i s noteworthy and e s p e c i a l l y so, s i n c e some of the statements censored r e f e r r e d to the d e s i r a b i l i t y of having the United States remain n e u t r a l i n the European c o n f l i c t . 2 4 9 The worst f e a r s of c r i t i c s of censorship manifested themselves i n Canada during the 1930's. The d i s c u s s i o n of f i l m censorship which took place i n the United States and' which had l e f t a legacy of profound con-cern about i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a democratic s o c i e t y had no counterpart i n the Canadian academic community. The f o l l o w i n g excerpt taken from The Outlook i s t y p i c a l of the k i n d of d i s c u s s i o n entered i n t o south of the border as e a r l y as 1914, but u n f o r t u n a t e l y overlooked i n Canada at the time censorship l e g i s l a t i o n was introduced. Censorship i s a question which r i s e s i n volume when f i l m s which portra y sex questions, the white s l a v e t r a f f i c , or the s o c i a l e v i l s make t h e i r appearance. I t w i l l be r a i s e d again when the movies begin to p o r t r a y labour s t r u g g l e s , c o n d i t i o n s i n mine and f a c t o r y ; when i t becomes the d a i l y press of i n d u s t r i a l groups or c l a s s e s , of S o c i a l i s m , syndicatism and r a d i c a l o p i n i o n . S h a l l p i c t u r e s which honestly and w i t h reasonable accuracy p o r t r a y any or a l l of these questions be suppressed because they d e a l w i t h unconventional or forbidden t o p i c s ; because they tend to e x c i t e c l a s s f e e l i n g s or as i t i s a l l e g e d , tend to b r i n g d i s c r e d i t upon the agencies of government? And, i f not suppressed, to wh