Canadian Film Digest (Jan 1973)

Page 4 THECANADI The Canadian Film Digest is published monthly by Film Publications of Canada Ltd. Editorial, Advertising, and Production offices are located at 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ontario. Subscriptions: $7.50 per year (including the yearbook) or 35c per individual copy. Individual copies of the yearbook are available for $5.00 per copy from the above address. Second Class Mail. Registration Number 2587. Postage paid in Oshawa. JANUARY 1973 DOLLARS AND SENSE What’s Ahead For Production in’73 DIGEST The Canadian Film Digest. Serving the Canadian Film Industry since 1915. Encompassing the Canadian Moving Picture Digest, founded in 1915, and the Canadian Film Weekly, founded in 1941. Publisher: Garth Drabinsky Editor: Stephen Chesley Advertising Sales Director: Barry Silver EDITORIAL: Xmas Release Patterns A traditional part of the Christmas season is the performance of Handel’s Messiah, with its oft-repeated Hallelujah chorus. It has become an annual part of the festivities, this emotional, lofty song, and it can usually be heard loudest in various film company offices throughout the land. Exhibitors and distributors, though actively involved in show biz, are not given to extremes of demonstration. But after the shopping and low grosses, after Santa has come and gone, in fact on Christmas Day itself — what better time to receive gifts? — the fans line up around the block. Everyone seems to be ecstatic: people love most of the movies, newspapers make huge amounts from ads for Holiday Entertainment, and box offices are crammed with money. But for some reason there are always a few movies that gross nothing. Of course they are quickly withdrawn and shelved, and various stand-bys are put in to try and raise some life at the ticket window. Other films become huge successes with line-ups constantly flowing out of sight. The people involved in the latter are happy with everything, whether distributor, exhibitor, or producer. And so they should be, simply because things are going well. It is the unhappy ones — those involved in the losers — that should receive more attention. For in the business today, where a film is almost always feast or famine, no film can simply be shelved. Too many dollars and hours have been invested, and after all of that time and effort, it is foolish to waste any potential. It is almost a truism that the marketing of a film is essential to its success. The energy expended on ad campaigns and promotion is considered to be of the utmost importance. Yet after a film is released it is forgotten, and relegated to the Television sales package. Why? In Toronto last mionth at least twenty-five new movies were released. Some, like The Poseidon Adventure, are blockbusters. Some, like Travels with my Aunt, are successful. ~ Some, like The King of Marvin Gardens, are wasted. This pattern is not new. Last year Paul Newman’s Sometimes a Great Notion was opened at Christmas. It did very little business during most of January, but picked up slowly and had strength by the end of the month. This pattern was understandable; with the huge number of releases and everyone rushing to see the biggest ones, like Straw Dogs, who has time right away to see the others? The point is not artistic quality, but simple precedence. Granted, neither Marvin Gardens or Notion were great movies nor would they ever be Straw Dogs type grossers. But there was an audience for Notion, as indicated by its Western grosses, where it opened earlier, and its later grosses in Toronto. As everyone cries for more product, perhaps one answer is to give what you have a better chance. That means releasing or changing theatres. Then we might see more winners than losers. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR About Promotion for Canadian Films To the Editor: I have read with a great deal of interest and concern the article by Shirley Morris in the December issue of the Canadian Film Digest referring to the Town Hall Panel discussion on Canadian film. As one who has been involved in motion picture distribution for some twenty-six years, in both Canada and the United States, I feel I must comment on this article. If Iam reading this piece correctly, a Sandra Gathercole has made the statement to the effect that no Canadian film has the promotion of a U.S. film. ; If this is in fact Sandra Gathercole’s charge, I can only state that Sandra Gathercole simply does not know what she is talking about and should obtain actual facts and figures before making such frivolous and erroneous statements. Possibly I am particularly sensitive about this matter as my company has been involved with the distribution of a number of Canadianmade pictures during recent years. To graphically illustrate what I mean, I will refer to one recent Canadian release THE CROWD INSIDE. I will use for comparison three important American releases. As you know, pictures are usually launched in Canada in Toronto and/or Montreal. Following is a chart showing the total cost of pre-opening and opening campaigns in both these cities: MONTREAL TORONTO THE WAR BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN — Jack Lemmon and Barbara Harris $1,196.62 $3,404.34 PRIME CUT — Lee Marvin and Gene Hackman 1,886.67 2,298.81 POCKET MONEY — Paul Newman and Lee Marvin 1,233.00 2,499.25 THE CROWD INSIDE — Genevieve Deloir and Larry Perkins 4,177.37 3,066.13 You will note that I have used for comparison extremely prestigious American releases with “big star’’ value. I might comment further that with the release of THE CROWD INSIDE in both Toronto and Montreal, the ProducerDirector, and a number of the stars co-operated fully and worked very hard on personal interviews — radio, television, newspaper, etc., and although much of this cost of travel, etc. by these people was borne by this company, it does not show in the figures above. Whereas all of us here in Canada in the motion picture industry are extremely hopeful that the production of feature motion pictures in Canada will continue and flourish in both number and quality, this very worthy cause can only be properly served by responsible people, responsible acts and responsible statements. Self-serving irresponsibility and/or gross distortion of fact is not the answer. Thank you, kind regards. Yours very truly, M.M. STEVENSON Readers’ comments are always invited, provided they are concise and to the point. Send yours to: Letters to the Editor, Canadian Film Digest, 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto 5, Ontario. The Canadian motion picture production industry breaks down into several distinct categories. When looking ahead to 1973, it is necessary to define these categories, for prospects are obviously greater in some than in others. Broadly speaking, the categories are: (1) Sponsored or _ Industrial Films, (2) Television Commercials, (3) Educational and documentary Films, (4) Laboratories, Sound Recording Studios, etc., (5) Television Programs, (6) Feature Films. The Sponsored Film has not enjoyed any dynamic changes, up or down, for some years, There is no evidence that this will change, as the competition for the corporate sales dollar remains high within the corporations themselves, and many subsidiary companies in Canada take advantage of the sales, training, and information programs produced by the parent company elsewhere, However, perhaps the conventional 16 mm color film of 18 minutes or so in length will gradually give way to new production methods, notably the much improved super 8 mm, and the various new cassette formats in the electronic field. Companies like IBM, Ford, and other large manufacturing and sales oriented concerns are spending large sums to communicate to their own people, to dealers, and finally, to their customers across the country. Presumably, Canadian based production companies will be changing to meet these new demands. While there is a continuing study by Federal Government Departments and the CRTC to monitor the number of Canadian produced TV commercials against those imported from parent companies elsewhere, there is still no evidence that.changes are forthcoming in the immediate future to encourage more production domestically. It is important to note that, second only to the CBC, this area of production continues to supply the most dollars into the system twelve months of the year; talent, music, laboratories, man hours, equipment, etc. A further stimulus in this area would be justified by past performance alone. While it is probably not fair to compare the situation which exists in Australia, it is nevertheless worth noting that down under, no television commercial can be telecast if it is not made in Australia. At the present time, while there exists in Canada a quota requirement for Canadian produced television programs, nobody has yet been able to come up with the mechanics to enable a similar statute to apply for TV advertising. Obviously, Canadian television advertisers who have access to their parent company’s advertising in the United States, are quite happy-with the status quo. Other advertisers, with no parent to give them handouts, are paying a higher price to produce their commercials in Canada. The broadcaster, meanwhile, maintains a low profile, for more rules mean more paperwork, actors yell for more work, etc. etc. It is a sad note that in Canada almost nothing ‘Canadian’ happens without Government legislation. 3 Except for a couple of independent companies, the area of educational and documentary film production rests largely with Governments, NFB, and ETV provincially. Apart from an alleged loosening of the stranglehold over Federal Government Departments by NFB, and a continuing struggle to cause more ETV work to be done by independent producers, there is little change in store over the next twelve months. . ‘There have been numerous studies, briefs, and other forms of paper war to attempt to define the rightful place of Government agencies or crown corporations in the area of film production. Federally, the National Film Board runs parallel to certain private industry endeavours, and provincially, ETV in Ontario is criticized for not contracting out more of its production. Can it be done cheaper on the outside, and how do you prove it? Provided the existing laboratory and sound recording services confine themselves to updating equipment and upgrading the quality of personnel, and not becoming equipment happy as in the 60s, there should be sufficient volume to go around. The CRTC music policy for radio has obviously benefited recording studios, musicians, etc. and upgraded the standards of engineers, with no audible loss in the quality of radio, or evident loss in the quality of broadcast stocks. There’s probably a lesson here, but it is a complicated one, when applying the lesson to television, or cinema. One reason why the Canadian content for music was filled without too much heartache lies in the kind of music which is being recorded. The CRTC policy of 30 per cent Canadian is broad enough to allow the major recording companies to record some of their top stars in Canada, whether they be Canadian or not. This The Canadian Film Digest is not intended as a criticism, because such current pop stars as Anne Murray, Gordon Lightfoot, Bruce Cockburn, Guess Who, et al are doing very well in world markets as well. Pop music appears to be an international phenomenon, which enjoys a standard length, a standard recording process, and international distribution outlet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, called radio. TV has, by contrast, different standards, both technical and idiomatic, combined with excessively high cost and limited distribution. We have yet to prove our international competence in either TV or theatrical film. Television Programs or Series have never been a mainstay of domestic production, and I suspect this is one of the main reasons for our lack of maturity in entertainment production of any kind. If it is true that television replaced the B Movie, and, in Hollywood and London, this idea would appear to have merit, then Canada has surely failed to follow. Maybe it’s because we never had a B Movie industry to replace! Even sadder, we never had an A Movie industry either. Without a strong television entertainment production industry, we do not have an industry at all! In Hollywood, London, Rome, or Paris, for each writer writing a movie script, probably 20 are writing for television twelve months a year. If there was ever a reason for Government support it must surely be directed to supporting increased production for television. There is some evidence that this opinion is shared by others, including the CRTC, and 1973 could well see a shift in emphasis from an almost total concentration on hardware and ownership problems, to a series of enlightened new policies to stimulate the production of programs, commonly referred to as ‘software’. It has become quite obvious that a 60 per cent Canadian content quota just will not do the job the CRTC had in mind. The economics of Canadian broadcasting cannot support quality programming to compete with that of the U.S., and in lesser amounts, the U.K. Therefore, to ‘fill the content required, low cost, low quality programs result, benefiting very few. The real benefits of such a policy, evident in the U.K., fall to acting and writing talent, producers, editors, and the creative forces as a whole. The CRTC must therefore decide to uphold the 60 per cent quota and make funds available to qualified producers to do quality programs, or reduce the quota by at least half. The CBC, because of its public supported system, will obviously not anticipate any reduction, and will probably meet the challenge better in the future than it has in the recent past. It would also be a logical move for the Canadian Film Development Corporation and the CRTC to co-ordinate a policy of financial assistance to the private industry. Undoubtedly, the glamor field is the feature film. However, despite the brave posturing of those who have ventured into this area (and are still alive to talk about it!) we are obviously still doing a lot of things wrong. All one can do is ask a lot of random questions, the answers to which may or may not be evident. Does the lack of an active 12 month television production industry (i.e. the B Movie) make the jump from zero market to world market an impossible dream? — Is it possible that we try too hard to make our films ‘international’ on a ‘domestic’ budget? Why do the best grosses seem to result from identifiably Canadian subjects?(i.e.Goin’ Down the Road, Wedding in White, Face-Off, Mon _Oncle Antoine, etc.) Do we in English Canada envy our French Canadian film producer because he produces for his own people and does well, and we don’t know who to produce for, and.do badly? We know it takes little talent or experience to waste money, but is it possible to make low budget (i.e. $250,000. -) movies with Canadians as the prime audience, and just be ourselves for awhile? Should the CFDC slow down for a year or two, and encourage writers by some new and innovative formula to produce good writing, the foundation of any good film? There are a million questions and a million answers. The secret is to match them up, which we have not done successfully to date. It is reasonable to expect a bit of a slowdown in 1973 as the CFDC, together with battle-scarred producers, review the gains and the losses over three years of active and enthusiastic film making. This is the easiest time to be discouraged, especially after we watch Warner Bros., Columbia, Twentieth etc. slip in and out of town after spending a million or so, and then watch their box-office successes a year later, as we struggle to regain prints and advertising costs. Hopefully, there will be a better day! John Ross is President of Robert Lawrence Productions.