Canadian Film Digest (Jun 1973)

Paged ~THECAMANT Arr ouces 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 Second Class mail. Registration Number 2587. Postage paid in Oshawa. Editorial, Advertising, and Production offices are located at 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto M4W 1C8. Phone: (416)924-3701 June 1973 The Canadian Film Digest is published on the 5th of the month from October to June inclusive. A July-August Summer issue is published during the third week of July. The Canadian Film Digest Yearbook is published the first Tuesday in September. _Subscriptions: $7.50 per year (including the Yearbook) or 35c per individual copy and 35.00 per individual Yearbook. Additional copies of each issue and of the Yearbook are available from our offices. Editorial Censorship is now abhorrent No matter how enlightened a philosophy may be, the only thing that matters is legislation. This fact was proven only too concretely this week in Manitoba, with the Last Tango seizure. And coincidentally we have the Ontario censorship annual report to digest this month too. How fortunate to have these glimpses of censorship in action! It is certainly reassuring to know that all of these people are overseeing our moral health so diligently. It is too bad that none of them has any ability to do so, nor does any one of them have any right to do so. They should all be drawing unemployment benefits immediately. Censorship supposes to protect those’ who may be led down the garden path because it is the nature of man to succumb to his basest temptations. These temptations are sex, physical violence and foul language. If there is too much of these around, society will decay and our civilization will collapse. So goes the argument. It’s total crap. If our society is free (even allowing for some obvious limitations imposed by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule) and if we assume that man in the 20th century is educated and intelligent, then censorship should not be necessary. Any one would be able to decide for himself whether a book, movie, or painting is to his taste; no one would have to decide for him that he cannot even have the opportunity to make the choice. He has the ability and the mental capacity to decide for himself and he is able to accept the responsibility of making the choice. But our laws and our watchdogs assume exactly the opposite about the citizens of our country. Not only is prior judgment used, but recourse is possible to imprison after the prior judgment. In other words, someone decides what you will be able to see, and even if they approve in whole or part, someone else can come along and still prevent you from having the opportunity to see it. Manitoba is supposed to be more enlightened ‘than Ontario. Last Fall they abolished censorship and turned to classification. But in each drovince a group decides, and in each province, 2ven after the group decides, an action by the dolice is possible. Both ‘“‘groups’’ are supdosedly representative of the population. Even i priest who studied film is available in Vianitoba. But in truth none of these people, boards or ‘olice, can accurately judge what is aceptable. They don’t represent everyone, just ne ones that each speaks for, i.e. himself. A erson having the label ‘teacher’ cannot speak or all teachers, nor can a bus driver speak for ull bus drivers. You may even find a perverted dus driver, or a homosexual bus driver, or, God orbid, a bus driver who likes Clint Eastwood westerns. Where does the bus driver on the oard derive his ability to speak for all people. de can’t. Each of us, as an individual, must lecide. But according to ideas about censorship, we 2an't decide, Because we do not have the ability to make the decision. Someone has to make it for us because we can’t be trusted. We are all animals and basically weak and we will yield to the slightest temptation. Therefore, they assume, we must be prevented from having the opportunity to make the choice. Our representative, much more pure than we, will do it for us. Society and virtue will be saved. Of course they don’t explain it that way. They. wouldn’t admit the basis of thinking about censorship; they’re cowards (which is probably why Silverthorn of Ontario has never submitted to an open public question period. He can’t defend his position.). So they say they are protecting children from exposure and preventing unscrupulous producers from luring audiences to their downfall. That’s crap too. All censorship today does is perpetuate obsolete thinking and keep handy a scapegoat to receive the blame for all of society’s ills, from wars to taxes. Never mind that the legal beagles in Manitoba did not even charge Tango until almost a week after they announced prosecution. Never mind that any seizure of a work of art directly contravenes the basis of our legal code (the movie is taken out of cir ‘culation until it is proven not obscene; in other words it’s guilty until proven innocent). The fact is that someone somewhere has such incredible power that he can literally change your thought. Unless he is resisted. It’s time to stop all this nonsense. The only thing to do is abolish censorship completely, and thus end one of the most antihuman, anti-society practices that exist today. On Leverage To the Editor: The announcement regarding the end of ‘leverage’ comes as no surprise. Neither is it a surprise that no decision as to what will replace it is forthcoming. As is the government way, everything and everyone is left in limbo. Pressure must be exerted to force a decision. At this writing only one or two features are planned for this year. Last year a bumper crop emerged. Granted that many producers who made pictures last year are now just developing properties, there still should be something more than we are going to get. The business will fade away unless that happens. The whole industry, not just a few producers, should band together. And the NFB should join them. The government will look very silly at Letters to the Editor Canada and Lessons Dollars and Sense A Guest Commentary The Canadian Film Digest Cannes: ’ By GARTH DRABINSKY Cannes Film Festival is fifteen theatres screening films from 8:45 a.m. to midnight for two weeks. It is journalists and professionals clamouring each day for tickets to attend the evening’s Feature Film at the Palais. It is a picturesque city breathing film at every corner along the Croissette. But, most of all Cannes represents the greatest annual pooling of international film distributors, producers, buyers, sellers, exhibitors, movie stars, critics, and film makers in the world. It is not just a festival where films are judged critically, but it is also a market place where films are continually judged for their commercial value. Therefore, when an Ad Hoc Committee set up by private industry and government representatives had to determine the best approach for Canada to promote its films, it was decided that Cannes was the place to be. To further the Committee’s objective and firmly establish Canada’s presence at the festival over $90,000 was spent by the Canadian Government. However, there was a significant difference in the approach adopted this year. We were no longer at Cannes to promote the fact that there is a feature film industry in Canada. We were at Cannes to promote the sale of Canadian films. Moreover, we sent twenty-two films, not considered self-indulgent endeavours but viable films that could stand up commercially and capture a share of the international market place. The theory and approach seemed sound: but the critical response by the press was not resounding and sales results will no doubt be less than significant. In retrospect, what are the lessons of Cannes that should determine our approach in future years? First, it seems evident that we should not have taken such an abundance of product to Cannes. Instead a representation of ten films which possess the greatest market potential should have been presented and promoted in a much stronger fashion with more elaborate advertising campaigns. Secondly, the Canadian producers must now realize exactly what international film competition entails. The unfounded idealism that ‘my film will be the one to crack American and European distribution’? diminishes rapidly when that film is only one of four hundred being offered to buyers of other countries who have no particular affection for the film simply because it is Canadian. : Of equal importance is that the majority of films in Cannes this year, as in past years, consisted of the skin flick, horror, and Mafia genre. The Canadian films are not of that ilk and as a result most buyers do not know how to handle our product which display some creative qualities: but have little of the exploitation possibilities of a “Girls Are For Loving” or a ‘‘Barcelona Kill’”’. In the foreign market our films are non-descript. Finally, it must be obvious by now, that having independent producers scurrying around to make deals is an inefficient expenditure of effort, time, and money. A portion of the $90,000 allocated for Cannes should be spent on hiring a representative — an individual well versed in international sales who not only knows the international buyers at Cannes, but also has a feel for terms and prices which can be-earned. Clearly, the government officials cannot provide this type of service. Cannes next year when a theatre will be rented to show two or three movies. Yours Truly, H. Bracken Montreal To the Editor: Why don’t the people in this industry stop crying? The whole situation with leverage annoys me to no end, These crybaby producers offeaturesexpect the government to hand them a profit ona silver platter. Maybe they want the government to make the pictures too so they don’t have to do any work. If there is to be a feature film industry in this country, it will have to be self-sufficient with no extra breaks. Otherwise it’s not worth it. American movies are better anyway. So why use my tax money to make Canadian stuff that is inferior? Besides, I don’t hear anyone from Presenting and publicizing Canadian films is important, but if distribution deals with other countries do not come to fruition, the exercise has little value. ‘ But there are other fundamental problems inherent in our industry that become clear from discussions between members of the Canadian contingency, and after an intensive screening of our films. Canada is blessed with directors who have technical talent but who are vain and megalomaniacal. They are more concerned about the aesthetic values of films than believing in their writers and spending their efforts developing our actors and actresses. We do not have actor/ directors. We have writers but not enough of them, who are too desirous of writing original screenplays instead of reverting to the abundance of good Canadian novels for adaptation. We have producers who are more concerned about the balancing of figures and financial statements, than packaging the correct mix of directors, technicians and actors. The producer has become a location manager to facilitate the financing of the venture and arguing with the CFDC, not the catalytic factor in a production and the key individual upon whom the industry must depend for guidance and leadership. Of course it was only four short years ago that we left the confines of a total state operation. But, the fact remains we need entrepreneurial producers who understand the film market, who can feel its pulse, and structure the deals accordingly while at the same time appreciating the talent mix required for a successful production. What is more unfortunate is the wall that exists between the English and French Canadian film industries. In this regard, French Canada is at a distinct advantage. Quebecois are sympathetic to a French Canadian production in which they can see their culture and social institutions depicted. Contrast this with English Canadian productions which do not have the ingredients to stimulate the Toronto movie-goer to chose a Wedding In White over an American production. But the problem becomes more acute when: one hears of the lack of dialogue between directors and actors of English and French Canada, which in essence demonstrates a totalunawareness of the philosophy and creative forces within the other’s industry. The solution seems to lie in a co-production effort between the English and French which would blend not only artistic talent, but financial resources. This could result in a meaningful experience and a partial cessation of the two entities pursuing their production goals in different directions. The Pyx, produced by Maxine Samuels, and the upcoming film Child Under A Leaf produced by Mutual Films and Potterton Productions, are two efforts which have attempted to bridge this gap. Next year we will again be at Cannes. However, with the current worries over tax concessions, a recession in the industry is becoming more apparent. We are at a crucial period in our development, and maybe now is the time to evaluate our past performance and consider alternate approaches if we are truly to be part of the major leagues in the competitive film world. 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. the AMPPLC crying. It’s only the big shots who aren’t satisfied. Yours Truly, E. Minton Montreal Thank You To the Editor: Thank you for your tribute to the AMPPLC. As a follower of the film scene in Canada for some ‘thirty years by now, I have often wondered why they have not received the credit they deserve. They have supplied a backbone for the workers in the industry and the expression of the Canadian identity. I’m glad to see someone cares. Yours Truly, P.A. Pickering London LL YA ATRAWR A AS AA