Canadian Film Digest (May 1974)

Page 6 The Canadian Film Digest Canadian Film Awards: A modest proposal It may seem strange, what with buds blooming and fresh smells in the air, to be writing about an event six months off, but I don’t think so. Now is the time that organizing the Canadian Film Awards moves into gear, and so thinking about the Awards must be done now. At this writing (May 2nd) it seems that the Awards won’t be held at all. Preliminary efforts at formulating some sort of structure for the event are making little headway. At the same time it seems that the French-English dispute is becoming less potentially volatile. What to do, then? I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do have some suggestions to throw into the ring. First, it is time to grow up with regard to the prizes. Citing outstanding achievements in various categories is proper, and accolades are deserving for those who earn them. It is also obvious that Canadian filmmaking needs a little glamour and that acknowledging outstanding work helps at the box office. But unless all types of films and filmmakers can find a niche in the recognition categories, the whole exercise is futile. Describing a picture as ‘Best’ is out of place; achievements within a film, individual achievements can be recognized. No one picture can be termed ‘Best’ because defining any film in such a way is bound to be inaccurate; dissension is bound to result. I’m not against disagreement; lively discussion helps and provokes interest. But last year’s shouting over Slipstream was silly; the judges were citing the film for the chances it took and what it tried to do, while onlookers were arguing over whether it had failed to achieve its objectives, and thereby lose any claim to the ‘Best’ title. Let’s decide what we’re looking for, and then recognize it. Once we have rid ourselves of the silly competitions, let’s revamp the ‘Awards’ connotations. Instead of competing, the week should be a festival of Canadian Film and related areas. Public screenings are essential, of course. The next question is what to screen. All kinds of film should be included in the week: dramatic, sponsored, experimental, short or long, apolitical or revolutionary. We are celebrating what Canadian filmmakers are doing, not establishing rigid categories that showcases only some of these filmmakers. Screenings can be simultaneous if the number of films submitted is vast. But there is more to the Festival than screenings. Poster competitions for feature advertising or festival publicity should be held. The various unions, guilds and associations should be encouraged to hold annual conventions during the Festival week on the premises. This gathering of all those involved in filmmaking could lead to discussion and interaction between groups that now meet only over bargaining tables, or never at all. A symposium on various aspects of the industry could be held. With representatives from every facet of filmmaking, common goals could be established and at least dialogue could take place. It’s a long, narrow country and this kind of get-together is essential for com munication. Workshops in equipment and techniques could also be scheduled. Of course the effort would have to be bilingual. For one thing, unless it is, no financial aid from the Secretary of State will be forthcoming. Such aid is essential, it’s true, but it should be re-allocated. Use the money to facilitate attendance, not only by films but by filmmakers. Abolish entry fees, establish travel grants based on distances travelled, and subsidize or alter a final dinner so that everyone, not-just the well-heeled, can attend. Open the week and the opportunities for involvement. Publicity is essential, not only before the Festival but afterwards too. Television exposure of citations and excerpts from the films is important, but more important is the followup. A national tour of the films, sponsored by the various touring offices of the government, should follow immediately the actual festival week. Rent a regular theatre for a night, if necessary, and provide free attendance. With all the publicity and free tickets, the showing may do more good than any quota system to tell the smaller centres in the country about what Canadian film is. The next problem is twofold: When and Where? October has advantages: people are finished shooting summer projects, the weather is still good, Stratford and Filmexpo are not in competition, and the theatrical attendance is reasonably high in general. April is out because of Academy Award competition; pre-Christmas is not good because no one goes to the movies then; summer everyone is working on films; late spring sees projects getting under way. The solution seems to be to stay with October. Maybe it should be earlier, because with the late September theatrical openings locking up theatres for weeks, it’s almost impossible to get a theatrical booking for a Festival ‘Hit’ in enough time to take advantage of the built-up awareness of the film on the part of the public. Then, of course, you have conflicts with Stratford Festival, which is held in early to middle September. More discussion between these groups is needed. Where to hold the festival week? Perhaps alternating between Toronto and Montreal is possible, but I don’t think it’s preferable. A more neutral territory is better. And, taking a cue from Queen Victoria, let me suggest Ottawa. It has the facilities, the cinemas, the accessibility, and, most of all, The National Arts Centre. An ideal location for citationgiving, exhibits, and certainly appropriate for a national event, showcasing all cultures. Let me emphasize again that these suggestions are not final answers. But I think a general consensus would determine that the various segments of the filmaking population want some sort of gathering, and I think they deserve the opportunity for public recognition as well as by their peers. As long as we place these objectives in positions of primary. importance, and relegate bilingual differences and Hollywood-copying to positions outside the discussions, we’ll have an important goal that can be reached: developing Canadian filmmaking. Duddy, Cannes and the farce of it all Only a short comment on the Duddy KravitzCannes situation is necessary. The whole performance, on the part of the Cannes officials and the Canadians, is shameful. How can Cannes Festival officials choose our entry in their competition? Films may be ‘invited’ to Critics’ Week or Directors’ Fortnight; that is reasonable. But a ‘competition’ where entries are chosen by the ruling officials? It doesn’t make sense. » How can the Canadian committee stand by and be dictated to in such a presumptuous fashion? After much searching and effort, their work is placed in a position of total irrelevance and waste. Why did they bother in the first place? They could have called the Cannes people over and said ‘‘Choose, fellows.” The fact that Duddy will not be going to Cannes at all is another sad reminder of Canadian timidity. Not on the producers’ part; they are to be commended for removing themselves from the farce. But on the Canadian committee’s part, for bowing to silly and embarrassing pressure. Cannes, after all, is just a marketplace. Use it for such a purpose, but don’t shroud the effort in a cloak of inferiority. | Keir Dullea Next Month: Richard Dreyfuss Sydney Newman exhibitors. Any view of the development of the Canadian feature film industry would be incomplete without a survey of the cornerstone of development, the creative package. And bearing the weight of that cornerstone is the screenplay. Ways to develop There are several possible ways to develop a feature film project. The producer may begin with an original idea of his own or one given him by another person, then proceed to engage a writer, or possibly both a writer and director in collaboration, to prepare a screenplay. Most frequently in Canada we have witnessed another pattern: the writer presents his original work to a director who in turn enlists the assistance of a producer to organize the financing and production of the film. A third route involves the producer’s acquiring film rights in a published book, perhaps a novel or short fictional work. Yet another lies in the adaptation of a work performed in another medium, such as the stage or occasionally television. Current respectively, Larry Dane’s “Only God Knows’’, David Perlmutter’s ‘‘Sunday In The Country’’, Martin Ransohoff's film of James Houston’s novel “‘White Dawn’’, and Pierre Lamy’s adaptation of Michel Tremblay’s stage play ‘‘Les BellesSoeurs’”’ into the film “Il Etait Une Fois Dans L’Est’’. Happily two other paths are being trod of late. Original scripts are finding their way Dollars and Sense A Guest Commentary Financing Features: By G. CHALMERS ADAMS The second of two parts The Property In the first part of his examination of the problems in financing films, which appeared in the last issue of the Digest, G. Chalmers Adams centred on the problem of where the actual dollars can be found. He reviewed the various types of backers, and pointed out that a mix of types is best. Also discussed was the producer’s relationship with the backers. He concluded by outlining the benefits in investing for distributors and This concluding segment of his discussion is concerned with the beginning point of the feature film: the property and the screenplay. examples of these four methods are, ~ Chalmers Adams is a feature film producer. His first effort was Don Shebib’s Between Friends, and he is currently developing other projects. He is a founder of the Canadian Association of Motion Picture Producers. Letters to the Editor April-May 1974 directly to producers and groups are working co-operatively in such excellent experiments as the one which led to Frank Vitale’s “Montreal Main’’ None of these techniques has any virtue in comparison with the others. However, a noticeable trend towards increased collaboration at the creative centre, that is, among the producers, writers and directors, is most welcome. The reason to applaud this trend is, very simply, that an early division of responsibility on a film project will increase the chances that practical and business judgment will be introduced before excessive zeal wastes the efforts of writers and directors on projects doomed to commercial failure. Talent is expensive Now the talent responsible for developing a feature film project is expensive. Development is a full time activity of a very specialized nature which will probably engage the energy of at least two people for a period from several months to a year or more in length. Yet, relative to the actual cost of production, the price is not great, say $40,000.00 as compared to a total production cost of several hundred thousand dollars. However, it is vitally important that this money be spent. The investor is buying time in order that exclusive and thoroughgoing attention be paid by the principal creators to their idea. Without this undivided attention to the project the Concluded on page 20 Aboui Duddy and Cannes To the Editor: Reading in the daily press about the various conflagrations surrounding the rejection of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz by Cannes officials, one begins to wonder who’s in charge here. . If the Canadian committee for choosing our official entry is actually doing anything, why has Cannes been able to subvert all their ef forts? Not having seen either Duddy or the film chosen, I can’t decide on their relative merits. But that’s beside the point. The main question to be considered is whether Canadian participation is justified in light of Bessy’s highhanded attitude. I say we should pull out. Maurice Lefeb LeDain Ottawa About TV feature sales To the Editor: The TV networks have finally jumped into the feature-showing game, with a huge effort on the part of the CBC and support from the others. But just look at how much they are paying for the films! Peanuts — or should I say popcorn. Here we have mature works of art, equal to anything the Americans or British can produce, and we’re paying tenth-rate prices for them. Furthermore, with the price tages reportedly put on these features, what happens . to the argument that TV can act as a support for financial return on investment in features? If the product is worth the price, and this product is, then pay the price and don’t try to get off easy by declaring philanthropic intentions of supporting the industry. J. Sparr : Toronto To the Editor: Pardon me if I seem to be somewhat overwrought, but I find it to be very curious that after paying hardly any attention to Canadian Features almost as a matter of policy, all three TV networks are now planning showings over the next time period. CTV plans thirteen or so, Global has started its thirty or so, and the mighty CBC jumps in there with six. It all fits into the Canadian master plan: neglect the home-grown, then saturate the country with recognition. The Group of Seven were bought on a small scale, then lionised. Now the filmmakers are receiving the same treatment. F. Whitelaw Winnipeg — Concluded on page 20 _ Readers’ comments are always invited, provided they are precise and to the point. Send your ideas on any subject to: Letters to the Editor, The Canadian Film Digest, 175 Bloor St. East, Toronto M4W 1C8. We'll print the best.