Canadian Film Digest (Oct 1973)

. Page Six October 1973 Editorial It’s time to revamp the Canadian Film Awards Last weekend’s Canadian Film Awards embarrassment shows one thing: it is time to take concrete measures to set the awards up’ properly, with the goals of including as many people as possible and doing as much good as possible. Now is the time to start. Only five years ago we Saw a rejuvenated Film Awards begin on a small scale in Toronto. Last year, at Ontario Place, the festivities had evolved to the point where the French Canadian segment of the industry was participating, there were enough good films in the feature category to.make the events attract public notice, and a consciousness of Canadian nationalism, ability and individuality had gained enough strength to make the Awards . meaningful. Certain procedures had been set up for awarding Etrogs: the jury~ system, preselection, screenings for the public (which t..e jury attended) and the designation of the various categories. We seemed to be on our way, especially when the large contingent from Quebec took an active part, a long-sought goal which made the event more national than it had ever been. What went wrong? It wasn’t the move to Montreal; such a plan was most welcome, after having Toronto as the site for so long. Altering the pre-selection and judging certainly couldn’t have been enough to generate the French directors’ dissent and the Award committee’s cancellation. No, there was something else, and itstems directly from the nationalism question. We were emulating the Americans too much without developing our own unique form. While expressing the goal of creating a showcase for Canadian film, what really happened was ‘that we became carried away with the ‘Best’ designation. The award to Wedding in White for best picture and La Vrai Nature de Bernadette for everything else is a symbol of the inequities and inadequacies of the present system. Just as Slipstream winning best picture and Kamouraska receiving a special award for allround excellence; all-round excellence means best — or does it? No, it doesn’t. And that’s precisely the point. Gille Carle, Claude Jutra, David Acomba, Peter Pearson, and the rest of them are not in competition with each other, so why impose a competition on them? In fact, no picture can be the best anyway, any more than the Academy Award determines the Best Picture. Parts of pictures are good; the same aspects of different pictures are good. So why award Genevieve Bujold Best Actress when other performances were just as competent? Canada also has a definite film tradition of excellence and pioneering, in the short subject and the documentary, Much more recognition should be granted to these efforts than is now evident. The first step must be to hold the awards, on a pre-determined basis, alternately in Toronto and Montreal — not Ottawa as an easy out; Queen Victoria tried that, and look what happened. The riéxt step is to insure the possibility of multiple award winners — not separate Special awards, but as many Etrogs in each category as are merited. We are honoring achievement here, and bringing to the attention of the theatre-going public, we hope, the fact that were are Many good Canadian film efforts, not just one in each category. This way marketing exploitation can still be as effective, anda truer picture of Canadian film success will result. There should be more categories in the feature levels, to insure entries of many different kinds of films. The jury should consist of a majority of Canadians, for we have the best idea of what our film culture is. All entries should be subtitled in the other language. It is not enough to subtitle French features; English features should be subtitled in French. The greatest possible effort must be made to promote the films around the country after they have received media exposure on the night of the ceremonies. Special screenings such as the one planned for Toronto should be held everywhere. The Secretary of.State’s office should co-ordinate this program, and spend money to promote it; they could obtain the funds from money spent on sending Canadian films to foreign festivals. The public here should know about them first. A threatened boycott should not prevent the awards from being given out — notice that the French directors didn’t say they wouldn’t come, they only said they wouldn’t go up on stage to accept their awards. The ceremonies must go on, or else the whole industry looks foolish. Granting the extenuating circumstances of an election in Quebec this year, there was no reason for such quick capitulation, perhaps. But that is beside the point — let us take 1973 and learn from it. Letters to the Editor About the ‘quota’ arrangement To the Editor: Regarding the agreement involving a setting up of voluntary quotes: Who does anybody. think they’re kidding? This is no ‘quota’ agreement but a method whereby the exhibitors and distributors have an easy out and can give some lame excuse for not really pushing a Canadian film. If Toronto and other big cities are to be the yardstick of success to determine whether the picture plays in a smaller centre, then the whole point is missed. A quota, agreement means more than giving a film a chance to be seen outside the major centres (a chance that any American movie has now anyway). A ‘quota agreement must insure that every Canadian film is properly prmoted and does play in every centre. Only if the films made here become known can we expect people to patronize them. American movies are patronized because people know what to expect. Canadians don’t really know what Canadian movies are. Furthermore, the present quota agreement is too short-termed. It takes a long time to educate people about films that are different, but eventually they will go to see them. So let’s give our own movies a real chance. It’s a chance the American movies have had all along. Yours truly, F, Chanofsky Toronto To the Editor: The quota agreement set up this summer leaves much to be desired, it’s true, but at least it’s a beginning. We need a beginning. What strikes me as unusual is the idea that just showing a film for two weeks, and spending a little time and effort on advertising its existence (not to mention’ money) will somehow obscure the fact that such incredible neglect by the foreign-owned companies has existed in the past. While Famous Players has invested money in Canadian productions, Odeon has done nothing. Some American distributors have made some effort, but then we have Warner Bros. and A Fan’s Notes. So where will this quota agreement lead us? Off on a tangent, I.suspect, or into oblivion. It offers an easy out for distributors, exhibitors, and the government, and conveniently blunts the real issues we should be discussing, such as foreign use of money from our entertainment industry. Yours truly J. Bowering Peterborough 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. Dollars and Sense A Guest Commentary The Canadian Film Digest A reply to the censorship editorial Charles Biesick is a member of the Manitoba Film Classification Board. The following is a letter to the editor on the subject of censorship and the censorship editorial in the Digest. Mr. Biesick’s letter is reproduced word for word, without any changes at all. His accusation that the Digest alters articles or writers’ opinions in any way is false, but since censorship is the topic, let us hear from him. Your recent editorial on the question of film censorship was so intemperate, vituperative and insulting it hardly warrants serious consideration. It is your privilege to question the competence of those of us serving on the various film classification boards. But when you say none of us has the right to do the job we are doing you are merely revealing your ignorance of some very obvious facts. The people serving on these boards are not there because of their own whims: they are appointed by governments, be they Liberal, Conservative or NDP governments. Their powers are defined ~in acts passed by the provincial legislatures. All members. of the legislatures are elected by the people. These boards exist, and will continue to exist, as long as a majority of people want some degree of supervision being maintained over the kind of films being shown in public theatres. Editors have censorship powers. They supervise what goes into their publications and have the right to reject material they don’t consider suitable for publication. Directors or selection committees of public art galleries determine what pictures are to be hung in our public galleries. Not every picture or drawing is considered worthy of this honor. Why then do you consider it so outrageous to have a degree of supervision being-maintained over the kind of motion pictures being shown in our public theatres? In your editorial you rave about small groups of government-appointees telling people what films they can see instead of letting people decide for themselves. You know, of course, that this is arrant nonsense. The 20 million Canadians cannot decide for themselves what films to see: they can only see the films being produced and exhibited — and this is being decided by the people in the film industry. Obviously you resent even the very minimal influence exerted in this matter by public boards. Why your fulminations against censorship in an era where it hardly exists? Nude copulation scenes are regular features in hundreds of movies. Every aspect of sexuality has been presented with utmost explicitness. Every form of sex deviation has been thoroughly exploited in the movies. Rape, incest, sodomy and every form of sex perversion and every form of human depravity can be seen in the movies. The lives of punks, pimps, prostitutes, gangsters, murderers and criminals of every sort are most frequently depicted on the silver screen. Violence, killing and blood and gore for evermore are standard features. Dope pushers are ably assisted in their nefarious work by the many scenes of pot-smoking and dope-taking shown in the movies. Profanity and the foulest kind of dialogue the film makers are capable of inventing comes through loud and clear in stereophonic sound in every movies house. So what is being censored? The facts contained in the annual report of the Ontario Film Classification Board, which you published, are substantially the same as those of other provinces. Considering the many atrocious films being produced the fact that Ontario rejected only 11 out of 711 films during the course of the year indicates that the Ontario Board, as well as those of other provinces, have been exceedingly liberal and permissive in the exercise of their duties — too permissive in the opinions of many. The results of a public opinion poll published last year in a widely ‘circulated week-end magazine indicated a majority of Canadians wanted stricter censorship of films. But you show your contempt for the opinions of others in every paragraph of your editorial. Many people believe the prevailing permissiveness has resulted in the production of a large number of films that will have a detrimental effect. on society. You say such views are ‘“‘total crap’’. Most parents believe at least the children and under-aged youngsters should be protected from the baneful influence of bad movies. You arrogantly dispose of such opinions by saying ‘‘that’s crap too’’. Having seemingly a limited vocabulary you hope to win all your arguments with your one favorite fourletter word: ‘‘crap’’. Our Manitoba Board does not have censorship powers. But we do use our influence with the film exhibitors, and have been successful to some degree, in keeping some of the worst of the porno ‘‘crap” from being shown. You are enraged that even an infinitesimal portion of the many exacrable films being produced are weeded out by governmentappointed boards. In San Francisco the District Attorney took action against a film which showed a woman having sexual intercourse with a dog. In other parts similar action has been taken against “Deep Throat”. — You are highly incensed that an attorneygeneral here and there on the continent takes action against a film deemed in contravention of the obscenity laws. You apparently believe movie makers should be treated as a special privileged group in our society — above the law, free of all restraints and answerable to no one. The people on film classification boards may make wrong decisions. Their decisions are subject to review and change if challenged by film distributors. Attorneys general may err in their judgments in seizing a film; but the final decision in all such cases rests with courts of law. There are no ogres here weilding singlehandely the “‘incredible power’’ you rave about in your editorial. It probably never occurred to you that some of us are on film classification boards because of our interest in films and that we are concerned about the future of this entertainment field. Despite your editorial you must surely know that never before have film makers been so completely free to pursue their own ideas as in the past six years. It is equally obvious that many of them have abused their freedom by producing a lot of film garbage which by turns has outraged, disgusted, sickened and bored a lot of movie audiences; as a result of which most movie houses face the largest number of empty seats since the dawn of film-making. This is something editors of film magazines ought to be.concerned about instead of concocting insulting editorials about the people on film classification boards. In your editorial you refer to people on these boards as “‘cowards” who are afraid to face their critics. I’m not impressed with the courage of a fellow calling me that while cowering behind a typewriter. Any dumb, snotnosed kid can peck out the word ‘coward’ on a typewriter. From an editor of a journal purporting to be the leading film publication in Canada we have aright to expect the discussion to be on a somewhat higher plane. For your information members of our Board have never missed a single opportunity to face “our critics. The Chairman of our Board has faced our critics at meetings of the Film Distributors Association in Toronto. He has addressed meetings of the Film Exhibitors Association. He has appeared on TV and faced the critics on open line radio shows. He and other members of our Board have attended seminars and participated in panel discussions on film censorship. We have faced audiences in high schools and at universities and wherever we've been invited. As an agency of the government our office is open to the public five days a week. We have readily granted interviews to anyone and any group wishing to voice a complaint. No letter of criticism or request for information addressed to our office “has remained unanswered. Right now I’m wasting my time while on vacation replying to your editorial, which hardly deserved a reply in view of your insults. Will you please tell us what more we must do to convince you that we are not afraid to face ourecritics and justify our position and our actions? I was hardly aware that outstanding courage was a requirement for this job; but Idon’ttake kindly to being called a coward. Unless arrogance and boorishness are your chief attributes the people on film classification boards have a right to expect an apology from you.