Cinema Canada (Feb-Mar 1974)

Council of Canadian Film Makers October, 1973 Motion pictures are an important element in our cultural life. They should serve a national purpose and reinforce our Canadian identity. Secretary of State Judy LaMarsh announcing the establishment of The Canadian Film Development Corporation, 1966 The Council of Canadian Film Makers was formed in the Spring of 1973 in response to a variety of needs; the concern of many film makers for some rationalization of the situation among the technical unions, the desire of many English film makers — actors, writers, directors, technicians, for a credible group that could speak in their name, the obvious necessity of building up the film industry in Canada so that more and better feature films will be made here in the future. To date many of the major unions, including ACTRA, the Directors Guild, NABET, IATSE, the Canadian Society of Cinematographers, the Canadian Film Editors Guild, certain active groups of film makers such as the Toronto Film Makers Co-op, and almost three hundred individual film makers of every kind have joined the CCFM. We have created the Council because we believe that Canada needs and will benefit from a lively Canadian film industry whose primary objective is the production of Canadian films, in the fullest meaning of that phrase. We will elaborate on what we mean by a ‘Canadian’ film in a moment. One important point that we wish to make is our conviction that we will not see a feature film industry mature in Canada unless and until we stop tinkering with it. The making and showing of films is a complex business, and it is essential that we attack the problem as a whole, and not by nagging away at an element here and a detail there. To that end, we discuss below the four major areas of our concern, scripts, production, distribution, and promotion. We are concerned here with the Canadian film, and to make clear what we are talking about, we mean a film that is written, produced, directed, acted, made by, and majority owned by Canadians. We do not suggest (and indeed, we reject) the suggestion that the subject matter must be ‘Canadian’ which is, in our opinion, a self-defeating limitation. Lest purists feel that the above definition is too rigid, we hasten to add that we believe that a degree of flexibility will always be required in applying such a definition. One way to provide this flexibility is to do what a group of film makers meeting at the Canadian Conference of the Arts did, work out a precise definition with that flexibility built in. We endorse this particular definition, and would be prepared to work with it. It is as follows: A film will be considered Canadian if: 1) the artistic and financial control remains in Canadian hands 2) there is a minimum 51 per cent financing from Canadian sources 3) the production company and production unions are Canadian 4) all processing and post production work is done in Canada 5) all technicians and assistants are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants of at least one year 6) within the film’s production, using the point system below, nonCanadian or non-landed immigrant participation does not exceed 6 points: Director 7 points Scriptwriter 7 points Producer 7 points Director of Photography 4 points Art Director 4 points Editor 4 points 48 Cinema Canada Policy Statement on Feature Films Acting leads Acting supports Specialized technicians 3 points each 2 points each 2 points each The whole question of the Canadian film industry has been extensively researched and endlessly debated, but so far as we are concerned there are five essential propositions. For convenience, and to indicate that they are matters that have in essence been resolved at the federal level, we take a statement of four of these propositions from a speech made by Gerard Pelletier, then Secretary of State, on July 4, 1972, and of the fifth from a statement by Hugh Faulkner, the present Secretary of State, on January 27, 1973. 1) “The federal government ... has commitments in the area of film activities which we would be wrong to neglect or restrict.” M. Pelletier cited government involvement in the establishment of the CFDC, and through film activities of the Canada Council and the Public Archives, as evidence of such commitments. 2) “Films are especially effective tools.” Their social usefulness has long been recognized. 3) Canada must control, in the cultural field, those ‘instruments whose influence on the thinking and culture of Canadians defies calculation.” The government had moved, for example, through the CRTC, to regain control of broadcasting and cable television. Film is another essential instrument. “...We must be able to ensure that Canadians may not only express themselves in films but may also expect their films to be given their rightful place in their own country. As things now stand, it does not appear that foreign interests can be counted on to achieve this dual objective.” 4) The film industry is economically important. “It would be unthinkable for the government to refuse its assistance to the development of this industry, both for those already in it and for those yet to come.” 5) “Our priority is to support what is essentially indigenous.” Since we agree with these points so elegantly made in the last year or so by two Secretaries of State, we do not intend to argue here the case for the Canadian film, and particularly for the Canadian feature film. That case has been made. This statement puts forth specific practical proposals to make a Canadian feature film industry a reality. Scripts “Eighty percent of a picture is writing”, Billy Wilder once noted, “the other twenty percent is the execution, such as having the camera on the right spot and being able to afford to have good actors in all parts.” A primary problem in the feature film industry in Canada to date has been the lack of well-written scripts. Since we cannot hope to make films that are better than the scripts from which they are shot, this situation must be corrected. A subsidiary problem is the difficulty many producers have in securing the film rights to Canadian properties as options and the costs of purchasing rights steadily increase, partly because of increasing American interest in-these materials. It is generally agreed that the script problem is a crucial priority and must be solved. The manner in which it is tackled will be important. We propose the establishment of a script agency (or Corporation or office or whatever). We suggest that better practical results will be achieved if from the start we recognize that we need two agencies for the development of scripts, one in French, and one in English. We are dealing here with a practical problem and not one involving national