Canadian Film Digest (Nov 1973)

Paget’ The Canadian Film Digest Editorial Canadian television and Canadian film — It’s only the last few years that have seen any real discussion about a feature film industry in ‘Canada. Up to then only a few features were made, mostly by the National Film Board. Then the Quebec scene caught fire, and now, it seems, the English filmmakers are getting off the ground. There are reasons for this late start, not all of them coming under the heading ‘economic and international markets’. It’s mostly because until recently our national consciousness was not at a point where we needed the art of film. The arts reflect and explain our society. Until recently the. Americans and British could perform. these functions for us, so we thought, because we were just like them. But we weren’t like them. We should do the self-examination, not hire it out. And now we are. Of course, the NFB and sponsored short film gave us invaluable insight into ourselves before any one talked ‘features’, but their audience wasn’t large enough. They didn’t get the distribution that a feature does. And there was also the television screen. That meant the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC in many ways provided an alternative to the feature, because original ‘drama on television supplied the feature-length fiction format a country requires. And the CBC showed NFB and sponsored shorts, increasing their potential audiences. Now we have a shaky, but obviously there, feature industry. And where is the CBC? No where to be seen. The Canadian Television Network (CTV) has never concerned itself with feature films stamped ‘Canadian.’ But in spite of their obvious international quest, CTV has provided work for Canadians in their international deals. Not enough for sure: the results have only a surface resemblance to Canada, and tell us nothing about our lives. The point is, however, that CTV’s efforts have been increasing rapidly in recent years. CFTO studios in Toronto are always busy, and so actors and craftsmen have bread to eat. All of this has been happening while CBC drama has been declining, affording actors and craftsmen less work. Now along comes Global Television, the new network. Every show they plan is intended Letters to the Editor blatantly for international sale. Most grab a gimmick and sell themselves on it. It’s all for financial breath. But Global has taken a giant step in the Canadian film world. They will present thirtysix Canadian features in prime time, one per week, when they go on the air. This collection will include French efforts; they will be dubbed, which will probably hurt them greatly, and who knows what the censors’ scissors will do to any feature broadcast, but nevertheless in one fell swoop Global has done more for the feature film in Canada than any other public or private broadcaster. ; Not only that kind of financial aid is being supplied by Global’s purchase, but the network also has taken an active financial stake in the recent Minotaur Films effort, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. Where, oh where, is the CBC? The CBC was set up to examine, reveal and show us ourselves. The most effective method for doing this is through drama. All across the country Canadian plays are being performed.. Canadian music and Canadian art is being promoted. But it takes a fledgling, financially gambling private enterprise to make a concrete effort to support the Canadian film industry. Of course the CBC and Quadrant Films will co-produce a feature. The CBC contribution will be made by the News and Public Affairs Department!-Where is the drama division? A group of prominent media people was formed recently in Toronto for the express purpose of questioning the performance of the CBC. The Corporation’s network license renewal comes up in the spring, and this group claims, rightly, that the CBC has become less active in recognising and supporting all artistic efforts, including film. Now is a time of profound national awakening on a large scale. The artists have always had it, from even the earliest days. The people have had it too, but they are only now beginning to articulate it. It is no longer enough to say that we have the talent and ability; their strength is evident everywhere we look. It’s time to look at them on the CBC. 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. About our Yearbook To the Editor: Just a short note to compliment the Digest staff for the fine job in turning out the latest Yearbook. It’s tops as usual and a great source of information needed in the course of a year. David Rothstein President Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada Winnipeg The Recent Film Awards To the Editor: Once again Canadians have proven themselves to be the great befuddlers. Instead of acting decisively and facing up to a minor irritation with calm and strength, they let a small group of unhappy French directors destroy The Canadian Film Awards. Why? I’m beginning to believe there is no answer. Every time the French itch, the English scratch them. It’s getting silly. If the Awards committee would have said okay, boycott or refuse prizes or whatever, then this whole business would have been nothing more than a minor blemish on the activities. Instead, everything was compounded. Too many craftsmen were affected unjustly and unfairly and rudely by the French directors. The craftsmen deserved their awards and should have received them in the atmosphere and prominence they deserved. This country is weak-kneed. A. Backstrom Vancouver. To the Editor: Congratulations on your coverage of the Canadian Film Awards mess. It was direct and thorough. It helped me to understand the viewpoint of the French directors, even though I don’t agree with their methods. Whether or not Canada is more than one entity, does not seem to be the crucial point the French directors made. Rather, their insistence that the Awards were becoming too much like the Academy Awards is what is truly important. The Academy Awards are a farce. Everybody in the industry knows that. The public knows it. So why invite that kind of cynicism to envelop our film efforts? We can let the public know in an honest fashion that meritis being recognised. We don’t have to single out one effort as the ‘best’ because none is the ‘best’. Recognition is extended, not some prize that can degenerate all too easily. A system should be set up to reward competence and imagination by as many as possible. That is what the film awards need to make them worthy of respect. R. Ellison Montreal, | To the Editor: The recent Canadian Film Awards debacle was tragic in the extreme. Not for the French Sell, sell, sell By CHALMERS ADAMS An apocalyptic anecdote told of the approach taken by the head of a major American distribution company to the production of profitable motion pictures has in it a valuable’ lesson for Canadian film producers. When asked how he judged the cost of making a film, he replied: ‘‘If I think it will take $3,000,000.00 to make the public interested, I give the producer $1,000,000.00 and plan to spend $2,000,000.00 on selling what he delivers.” Ergo, selling is everything. . Let us, for a moment, forget weak scripts, bad weather, and the agonies of financing production, the usual laments of the Canadian producer, and turn the spotlight on what happens to the finished film. Increasingly this finished film will fetch praise. It will be wellreceived in Canada and world-wide by whatever critics and audiences can be coaxed to see it. Most often, though, it will be unable to compete with more lavishly presented films for the attention of a wider public. One set of reasons has to do with some elements of the film itself, no matter how apparently commercial the subject matter or how meritorious the treatment of it. Another set has to do with the way it is sold. The audience is interested in STARS! We must create them. They may be performers, directors or even producers. We must develop here the equivalent of Dustin Hoffman, Glenda Jackson, Francois Truffaut and Carlo Ponti. Let’s make Chuck Shamata, Carol Laure, Don Shebib and John Bassett familiar names in Canada. If feature film, television and live stage would forget their precious differences for a while, we could capture a larger audience for each. Rather than heave a sigh of relief that a long awaited project has gotten off the ground, let’s lavish attention on the star attraction of the works and give him a sense of importance. Producers, spend 10 per cent of your budget on promotion during production. Make the public anxious to see the finished work. Send out press releases, photographs, buy a journalist a drink, write in the sky, paint the pavement. Fire your director, rehire him the next day, and let everyone know about it. But, don’t cloak the thing in mystery, because in Canada, mystery equals anonymity. When the film is ready for the public, what -must happen to change the record? A Canadian distributor competes against powerful U:S.based rivals in the face of overwhelming odds. Producer, take your hat reverently from your head in his presence, then sell it and give him the money to market your film. He must make the public want your film, for the theatre owner can rely on many other distributors for much more product with which to attract audiences. Unlike his heavy-weight competitors, the Canadian distributor hasn’t the resources for a nation-wide campaign and, given the regional nature of his market, he probably shouldn’t take this approach to selling. However, he can drive effectively at each of the five regions, one at a time. On a province by province basis, he needs two things: access to theatres and access to the media. : Absent immense financial resources for promotion, the access to theatres guaranteed by a voluminous stream of product from abroad must be counter-balanced by-an effective guarantee of exhibition for the indigenous film. Therefore, let each theatre owner be required to exhibit Canadian films, from whatever source, for 10 per cent of the year’s playing time, with two weeks at the choice of a Canadian distributor. The QUOTA might result in the production of third-rate films, but that alone would likely be a help: the exhibitors would probably choose quite carefully the person on whose skills their attempt to fill the quota would depend, and, in any event, the general proliferation of feature film-making would tend to raise the standard of production. More importantly, the quota would Dollars and Sense A Guest Commentary _ Novémbeér 1973” that celluloid at least expose the public to the film. In all likelihood, the better films would get a great deal of this newly available playing time; even if they weren’t available and only poorer product could be gotten by. the exhibitor, the © theatre owner would be inclined to risk some advertising money on those films rather than run an empty theatre. Access to the media presents yet another set of problems. Even where commercials compatible with a television or radio station’s programming are offered, it may be difficult to buy the time for airplay. Distributors must, but very often can’t with Canadian films, plan the release of a film months ahead to ensure this advertising space. Most of the time those handling foreign product can be sure of the date of a film’s release and prepare accordingly or, in some cases, with a large flow of product, reserve time in general and then use it for a specific film. The disadvantage is shared by the manufacturers and distributors of other Canadian products. Perhaps what is needed is the guarantee of selected commercial playing times when sufficient notice is given, say one month, by the distributors of Canadian-made products. At this point, in Ontario at least, the distributor may be obliged to go to the more expensive American media to announce the release of his film in Canada. A slight amplification of Canadian content regulation by the Canadian Radio Television Commission could correct this anomalous situation. Given that even a mediocre film can be financially successful with a high-powered release campaign and assuming that most Canadian films are up to even this low standard of artistic achievement, the fundamental problem remains: the amount of money available for the promotion of a film. Canadian distributors are seldom financed well enough to risk any large amount of cash on the release of a picture, and can rarely help finance production. To the extent their product is foreign-produced they reap the benefit of highly-developed skills applied to continentwide release campaigns. What they need is money to launch Canadian films locally. One way to get it would be to channel a part of box office receipts from all films, on a province by province basis, back to the distributor. Take 1 per cent of box office receipts and apply it pro rata to the Canadian films a distributor proposes to release, on the basis of the audited production cost of the film, for example, and there. would be, nation-wide, in excess of $1,000,000.00 to promote any one year’s releases. Each province would have to agree to embrace another province’s films with such a program, but if all subscribed, each film made in Canada could be given an effective release campaign in at least one major centre in every province. A significant ancillary benefit for the producer would be that the financiers would have an assurance that the product whose manufacture they supported was certain to have a considerably reduced disadvantage in the marketplace. There is much evidence to support the contention which is the major premise of the proposals put before you; that is, Canadian films are as appealing as most made anywhere in the world. The other premise is that we must interest, or at least know how to interest, the most accessible audience, the Canadian audience, if we are to launch an assault on world markets. So, let’s develop and protect the natural resource which the talent here represents. A star system will engage the public’s interest, the quota will guarantee that public an opportunity to see its favourites, regulated access to the media will ensure that the public gets the good word, and placing a part of box-office revenues in the hands of distributors will help the message ring through loud and clear. ~ Chalmers Adams is a Canadian feature producer. His last effort was Between Friends, and he is currently planning a new project with director Don Shebib. directors who threatened the proceedings successfully; they obtained their true goals. But for the Canadian public, the events were incredible, to say the least. Here is the most avant’ garde, progressive sector of the economy, the film business, and in spite of its precarious existence, it lacks the spunk to fight a battle. So instead of putting a strong face forward, a courageous face, a timid, disjointed, and soft frame is exposed. The public looks on and is not incredulous, They knew something like this could happen. Canadians can’t even give themselves awards; no wonder they make movies that are mediocre. Such is the conclusion. Everyone knows the industry is at a crisis point. The government equivocates about the tax situation, every one bites his lip about the success of the current Canadian surge of box office entries. And here we have an opportunity to show a strong inudstry reward expression of its own self-confidence, And we flub it. We better do better next time, or it may be our last. R. Weatherseed Edmonton, Alberta