Canadian Film Digest (Nov 1971)

UR BUSINESS WATaylor Should Canada have a feature film quota? Such a move has been advocated, frequently, by various individuals and groups, in recent years. The Current spurt in feature production has increased the demand. It is high time that the merits and drawbacks of such suggestion should be discussed in a sensible and dispassionate manner. The case for a Canadian feature quota is based on the theory that if every theatre has to run a percentage of Canadian films, more distributors would be forced to distribute them and all theatres would have to play them. This, it is claimed, would be a logical extension of the CRTC. The concomitant, of course, is that this would lead to greater employment in the area of film-making and some people would benefit accordingly. Therefore, it would appear to become principally a “make work” project. We know of no other arguments to further the case. Feature films for exhibition in motion picture theatres for an admission price, do not fall into the same category as documentary or entertainment films or shows for TV. In the case of TV, the public airwaves are being used for transmission and, presumably, for profit if broadcast by private enterprise. There is good reason for quota in TV because it is not only an entertainment but an information medium and it is extremely important that Canadian talent has a ‘’showcase”’. A great many writers, actors, producers and skilled workers have been living comfortably or marginally, for years from the annual expenditures made by the CBC in production. Notwithstanding, there has been continuing complaint that not enough is being produced in Canada, It is important to note that production of Canadian shows does not necessarily guarantee creation of Canadian audiences. A A FEATURE FILM QUOTA FOR CANADA This system of quota for TV does not fit feature films. Under the most favourable circumstances, Canada cannot represent more than 10% of the potential of a feature film. We have seen examples where films produced, in French, in Quebec, have recouped all their negative costs and have even made profits. This does not necessarily apply to films made in the English language. In this area we must assume that the production of feature films becomes primarily an export product. Therefore, if one hundred per cent potential booking was realized on any Canadian feature and on the assumption that it did very good business at the box-office, one could still not anticipate recoupment of negative costs. It does not make much sense to sponsor the production of Canadian films simply to lose money in Canada. Quota films have always notoriously been made ‘for cheap”. In the old days, before TV, it was possible in a country like England, to recoup costs and make a modest profit out of such films. This no longer is the case and the potential there is considerably higher there than that in Canada. Some years ago, while acting as a member of a panel in a seminar on Canadian film production, one aspiring young producer put the following question: “Are you in favour of a quota for Canadian feature films?’ To which we replied, “The answer is a big yes, provided, at the same time, the government will legislate that people will have to go and see them.” And that is really the core of the whole matter. The quota system existed in England for many years before the advent of TV and even in those days it was difficult to get people to pay to see films which they would rather avoid. It is questionable whether, even in dictatorship countries, people can be forced to look at movies they do not want to see. It must follow, therefore, that legislating theatres to play movies no one wants to see is, after all, not the answer, A continuing and viable motion picture feature production industry cannot be based on quota and will create more evils than it will do good. In point of fact, there is only one way in which an industry can be established and that is with the right aid from the government. Because of our constitution and our relatively small population, it is evident that we cannot emulate the type of aid which has been established in many foreign countries. Another way must be found and it must be practical so that any government in power will not be subject to censure or criticism. The Canadian content quota is no guarantee of Canadian viewership. Those set owners, who have available to them, American television by the twirl of a dial, may very well switch if Canadian content or entertainment does not prove interesting. It has frequently been stated, quite glibly, by those who have an axe to grind, that distribution of films in Canada is controlled by foreign interests. This is only a half truth. There area number of good and responsible Canadian-film distributors. They are constantly on the watch for any films which are “‘bookable’’. The statement has also been made that the principal circuits are foreign controlled and, therefore, not desirous of helping Canadian feature production. This also is a half truth. Both distributors and exhibitors must operate on prudent commercial lines or go out of business. Therefore, to distribute or attempt to exhibit films which will not sell tickets must be economic suicide. In point of fact, neither distributor or exhibitor cares at all where a film is produced. The criterion must always be quality and attractiveness for the public. The suggestion has also been advanced that the government set up a circuit of small-seating, low overhead cinemas to exhibit features of “limited commercial potential’. Anyone with even a partial knowledge of theatre operation must know that this is a snare and a delusion. The cost and losses would soon prove to be a quagmire of financial loss for the government. We have always been in favour of a greater motion picture feature film industry for Canada. This must be built on a solid foundation, rather than one of sand. There is a way for the government to do this, if it has a mind to, without the expenditure of any further funds. The advantages and benefits would be manifold. Certainly, the answer does not lie in quota.