Canadian Film Digest (Mar 1974)

—_ Page fourteen Chalmers Adams The Canadian Film Digest Toronto short nominated for Oscar Dollars and Sense Concluded ceived film, will both be possible. These — deserve comment. One is trade credit and two considerations together represent the central imperative of the motion picture business; the supplying of the theatrical and television users. With this view to the user, the thrust must be toward complete development of a variegated programme of films to be produced. Without doubt there are several Canadian producers who can meet what might be called the reliable source test. They deliver what they propose to make, on time and on budget. Like other manufacturers their well-executed first efforts, often at the price of personal loss and always with great enthusiasm, will justify the confidence of those who finance expansion of businesses. Lending inStitutions, venture capital groups, and, most important, major distributors, understand the importance of this kind of early growth. They can be expected to be more receptive than they might have been before. The producer and the backers The producer must think practically, of these potential backers. In addition, of course, there are those investors who are excited more by the idea than the financial outlook. Call them the patrons. And there are corporate backers whose interest will be in the good will that may attach to supporting a worthwhile, if less commercial film. Thus prestige, a sense of pride, amd public relations can be powerful motive forces. . There are also those who, as manufacturers in the leisure and en tertainment field, and even the consumer needs field, will find in a motion picture the opportunity to diversify their product line. Yet another group is constituted by those who seek principally, in Canada or from abroad, the suitable tax advantages of film investment, some believing there are tax savings to be had from film shelters and others who find that their investment at > risk is reduced by special tax concessions. Obviously each type of backer, no matter if his motive be idealistic or for the purposes of saving taxes, will be happy to see his project make money. Any single financing scheme may involve partners with widely divergent motives and the project can be made to accommodate most of them. Still, the independent producer, whose personal financial future and whom the development of new projects depends on, is interested in the profits of a film, can never lose sight of the need to recover, at least the cost of his production. Ultimately his most powerful backers will be those with a profit motive. More sources Over and above the investment sources enumerated there are two others that the other is deferment of personal fees. Trade credit involves special, often piously hopeful, deals with suppliers, for future payment. Because the film industry involves a lengthy process of preparation before exploitation, such agreements tend generally to drive up costs for the supplier’s services and equipment, inasmuch as he incurs interest charges on money which gives cash flow to his own operation while he awaits payment. Prompt payment for services would tend to generate economies in the film industry, thus lowering the cost of production. The same general criticism can be made of the idea of deferments where personal fees are concerned. Fees are not really that high — sometimes they are not nearly commensurate with the work:done, so why not settle for a proper reward for talent, and compensate for the fact that this is not the rich American environment by agreeing on a piece of the action alone, rather than inflating the apparent cost of the film with deferments? When it is recognized that both trade credit and deferment do nothing more than provide investors with the mere illusion of earnestness of the project’s value, perhaps all involved will be more hardheaded in their approach to the business of making films. Mix of backers is necessary As regards any scheme to finance production a healthy mix of backers is a consumation devoutly to be wished. Without legislative safeguards on its investment, government participation alone amounts to whistling up the wind. The user of the film will regard it as a give-away program towards which he has little financial responsibility. However, government can help greatly by offering its money on more favourable terms, insuring a higher potential reward for private backers. A venture capital group can take a keen long range interest in an area with interesting growth potential and get its feet wet for a relatively modest financial contribution. The lending institutions can ° provide a battery of services to the small company while helping it create the kind of credit relationships that will be necessary for broadening or diversifying the company’s film making activity. Then, too, a distributor can acquire product at less than it cost in that bygone era when he underwrote production entirely, and thereby free money to furnishsupport to subsequent projects from his producer-supplier rather than ask the producer to wait on the slow flow of cash from the distributor. Even the exhibitor can benefit from participating in film finance, for he will be able to have his counsel heard on the subject of the best ingredients for commercial purposes and on the subject of their proper exploitation. First of two parts NEED TO FIND AN EMPLOYEE? SELL A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT? Use Classified Ads - Every month ‘More Feature Next Month: in the Digest on the Situation ! Life Times Nine, a short made in Toronto by nine youngsters under the supervision of Insight Production, has been nominated for an Academy Award for best short subject, live action category. And all nine children will attend the awards in Hollywood to see if they win. Now Insight heads Pen Densham and John Watson feel their chances are good (Balloting is done only by those who attend the screenings, not by the whole academy), and their two competitors and Life Times Nine are the only remaining films out of a field of seventy. But the idea seemed absolutely remote when they entered it. Of course when they began making it, no one had any idea the effect that the film would have: Special Jury Award at the Nyon International Film Festival, a Silver Hugo at the Chicago International Film Festival, countless CBC showings, first run~ screenings at Toronto’s Cinemalumiere and Cinecity theatres, great sales, and now the award nomination. The project began when Densham and Watson, both filmmakers who had worked in Canada, the U.S. and Britain, approached two free schools to promote the idea. Nine youngsters participated, the youngest eleven and the oldest fifteen, and professional cameramen and technicians gave their time and energy for free. Made on a $5,000 budget, partially ‘financed the Ontario Arts Council, each youngster set out to make a one minute commercial for life. The idea was to apply selling techniques to life itself. As time went on and scripts took shape, the guides found they had something special in the works. x Response at first was nil. Then it came flooding in, and now the Academy Award nomination. One youngster came up with a commercial for tanks selling the glories of war. Another features a man jumping out of a peanut with a voice over saying, ‘‘Don’t be a nut. Jump out of your shell.” Another-is an animated cartoon called The Chess Game. One young man took his cameraman toa park and filmed old people. One shows a dialogue between two ghosts who argue whether they should return to life. In March 1974 Pen Densham of Insight Productions, whose film Life Times Nine has been nominated for an Academy Award. another, adults cavort in a mud puddle. And more. Of course this film is not the first time Insight Productions has received kudos. Their short Sunburst has played to enthusiastic first run crowds. Thoroughbred won Best Film at the 1973 Black Fly Film Festival in Sudbury. White Days-Red Nights won best Industrial and Promotional Film at the Canadian Film Editors’ Guild Awards. Streetworker won Best Edited Film at the Yorkton Film Festival and Best Actuality script at the recent Canadian Film Awards. And now, with the assistance of the Secretary of State, the entire group is off to Hollywood. The film was entered only five minutes before the entry deadline, but it was in, and now it’s a finalist. Competition is an American entry and a British entry. Canada has one only three Awards in this category: Neighbors by Norman McLaren and Churchill’s Island both from the NFB, and Ontario by Chris Chapman. Winnipeg Concluded — The Future of the Industry The Panel: Denys Arcand, Don Shebib, Peter Pearson, Chalmers Adams, Len Klady, Tom Shandell, Kirwin Cox. Throughout the conference, plans were being made by some participants to present a set of ideas in the form of a manifesto. This panel provided the opportunity to present the paper as a summary of the symposium’s thoughts. Many signed it, but not all. The discussion period was very much concerned with its semantics and areas of reference, but some good points did emerge. Jack Gray emphasized that the reality of the Canadian cinema is there; no one has to create it. Kirwin Cox mentioned that when you mate culture and business you get a bastard child. So as many alternatives as possible are necessary. Tom Shandell urged the thrust to be provincial, not federal. He added that an east west division exists, and everyone should look west. Don Shebib gave the most graphic personal history of frustrations. Having worked on four scripts for no money, and none may ever be made, Shebib says he’s fed up. He’s paid his dues; he’s worked for pay for only seventeen of the last sixty months. From now on, he refuses to do a script unless it’s polished; instead he’ll ‘make short films that he’s committed to. Asked how he copes, Denys Arcand said, “Making films takes all my energy. I can’t solve all the problems. Since I want to make films, I’m like a fish in a pond. Some crumbs are dropped and I go up and get them. Some are dropped elsewhere and I move there and get them. And so on. I manage to make my films: that way.” . “Denys,” said Don Shebib, “‘watch out for the worm with the hook.’’ The Winnipeg Manifesto. We the undersigned filmmakers and filmworkers wish to voice our belief that the present system of film _production-distributién-exhibition works to the extreme disadvantage of the Canadian filmmaker and film audience. We wish to state unequivocally that film is an expression and affirmation of the cultural reality of this country first, and a business second. We believe the present crisis in the feature film industry presents us with an extraordinary opportunity. The half-hearted measures taken to date have failed. It is now clear that slavishly following foreign examples does not work. We need public alternatives at every level in the film industry. We must create our own system to allow filmmakers the option of working in the creative milieu of their choice. We insist that the various governments of Canada implement the necessary policies to provide an alternative and a complement to the ‘private production capacity in the Canadian feature film industry by providing a public mechanism and the resources to fully finance Canadian features. Therefore, we call on the federal government in cooperation with the provincial governments: 1) To create a public production capacity that will allow full financing of Canadian feature films. 2) To create a public distribution organization with broad responsibilities for promotion and dissemination of Canadian films here and abroad. 3) To create a quota for Canadian films in theatres across the country. = The following people at the conference signed the manifesto: Tom Shandell, Milad Bessada, Martin Defalco, Peter Morris, Jack Darcus, Colin Low, Len Klady, David Acomba, Don Shebib, Peter Pearson, Sandra Gathercole, Les Wedman, Kirwin Cox, Jack Grey, Jean-Pierre Tadros, Frank Vitale, Denys Arcand, John Wright, Agi Ibranyi-Kiss. ‘The Screenings All of the screenings were well attended, even the midnight showings. Held in a large room holding five hundred, the filmmakers present held talk sessions after the showing of ~ their films. Of all the movies screened, the most vociferously received was David Acomba’s Slipstream. The fans went wild. Least attendance was registered at La Mort d’un Bucheron, but Arcand’s Rejeanne Padovani provoked a very positive response. Of those showing good attendance, the least liked, and at the same time the. most talked about, was A Quiet Day in Belfast. And the gratifying part of the screenings was the favourable response to the CFDC low budget efforts: Wolf Pen Principle, The Visitor and Montreal Main.