Cinema Canada (Aug-Sep 1974)

Production within the Board as well as that of the leading figures of Québec’ private film industry. Even though that storm has died down (a more recent example of official shelving is Rapport de Force, a Société Nouvelle project on, of all things, unions in Québec) and things are temporarily calm again, many stories leak out of closed meetings where the Francophone dilemma is: “If I give my report in French, everybody else but Sydney will understand, if in English, I'll have compromised my principles.” Interestingly enough, this very same problem (corporate bi-lingualism) is explored at length in one of the episodes of the Corporation series. On this topic, Newman defends himself by saying that the Board is seriously attempting to be internally bi-lingual, all his department heads speak both French and English, and that “the only real culprit in this whole matter is myself”. As the reporter approaches the interview, an urgent call is being placed to Michael Spencer of the CFDC, for which he is asked to leave the Commissioner’s office. Suspicions at least supported that there are less than a dozen powerful men in this country who are constantly communicating and deciding how things should be run with Canada’s filmmaking activities. Michael Spencer and George Destounis have cocktails in Cannes and a voluntary quota is born, Sydney Newman and John Hirsh attend a long policy meeting and some delineation is arrived at between the two government agencies (CBC/NFB) that are exhibiting new signs of vigour where this country’s major filmmaking is concerned. As an ex officio member of the Secretary of State’s advisory committee on film policy matters, he is certainly very influential in helping to formulate our future, although he’d never admit it. He claims that he’s no closer to the seats of power than you or I, but this journalist finds that very hard to believe. He claims that he’s out for the Film Board and nothing but the Film Board and doesn’t really think that this country ever had a feature industry. It was just a gleam in the eyes of some ‘naive innocents’ who haven’t yet woken up to the facts of a cold, cruel, capitalist system. These and many other candid observations were made after the recording was over, so Newman declined to be quoted on any of it. Between the two of us and a twice-filled glass of Vodka and orange juice from his private bar, the cathartic moment came when he sank back into his chair to respond in the affirmative to my question, “Should independent feature filmmakers not wishing to entertain a career at either the CBC of the Board shoot themselves in the head for lack of opportunities to produce films?” A heavy “‘yes!” — from a man who should know. And if he’s as ignorant of what’s to come as we are, God help us all. Yet, I actually liked the guy — he’s a hard person not to like. Certainly a controversial figure in Canada’s film landscape, the extent to which he dominates or influences that scene is open to question. But even his detractors have to admit he is an energetic man characterised by great bursts of contagious enthusiasm mixed with long stretches of unassuming friendliness and candor. He boasts of his recent good relations with the press. (They used to call him the “primitive colonial” in England at the start of his BBC career; these same writers later sang his praises.) Yet, the NFB union’s tabloid — Corridor — gives another viewpoint. Its 1973 calendar had the ever-present NFB logo with a circular drawing in the middle. The portrait depicted a famous namesake, Alfred E. of Mad—magazine fame, but wait a minute — where did he get grey sideburns and a cigar? Sydney in disguise? The following is an interview with Government Film Commissioner, Sydney Newman —— Two years ago, during the Gilles Groulx affair, you made several public statements to the press coast to coast. Many of them contained the philosophy that if ‘“‘we rock the boat too much, Parliament will not look kindly upon it. Why endanger 85 per cent of my filmmakers who are not, for the sake of the 15 per cent who are highly politicized.”’ Do you still hold that view? Absolutely. I don’t know about the exact figures, I think I said 95 per cent, but the main point is that the Film Board represents a kind of mosaic of the widest shade of political views in Canada. Some of our films have touched upon socialism as a viable and natural progression of our present Canadian system. I personally think that it is absolutely permissible and proper for the Film Board to make some films related to a socialist theory, at least in proportion to the parliamentary representation. I think that our films — in one or two cases — have been allowed to be as radical as the filmmakers on my staff wanted them to be. But they have to 44 Cinema Canada stop short of a certain permissible limit, which is commensurate with what Parliament intended when they allowed the Film Board to be created. When you and André Lamy took over the leadership of the Board four years ago you initiated changes within both French and English Production (the turnover of heads of departments before Mr. Leduc and Mr. Verrall took over, was extensive) and your methods have caused some of your critics to refer to you as powerful, brash, autocratic, ruthless. ... Well, that’s nonsense. It may not be nonsense in that I am a person of strong language and strong views which I express with some vigor and definiteness, but I don’t think there is a single member of my staff who was ever dominated by me, who has not talked back to me and with whom I have not traded blows. Intellectually, not physically. And I have had marvellous rows and I defy any member of the staff to call me a bully or an ‘autocratic person.’ I have instincts which make me able to come forward with a precise view, but I also challenge anybody to prove that my mind cannot be changed. And my mind is changed in the daily pariah thrust, in the daily interrelations between me and my staff or group elements of our staff like our unions. I change my mind only after persuasion and argument, and if I’ve won my respect from the staff, it’s because I’ve been absolutely consistent. I’ve got a precise point of view. I’ve grown up in this whole metier, I know film, I know television. I’ve got a showbiz flair. If people want to shoot me down, and they have, I react graciously, with no rancor, no anger. What is your precise point of view vis a vis the Film Board’s role in the Canadian film community? I think our role is to stay ahead and be the carrot that leads all on to bigger and better things. I think the country needs a Film Board for technical standards, for innovation work, for our concern for the totality of film in Canada. I think the country needs us for the kind of people we produce, whether it’s a Claude Jutra, whether it’s a Quinn in Toronto, who’s got that beautiful lab, our job is to keep producing these marvellous people. We don’t want them to leave the Film Board but they automatically will, and we accept this fact. We believe that this country needs a Film Board to invent a Challenge for Change. It was also the Film Board who invented cinéma verité, it wasn’t the French who did that. We need a place to develop standards for new stocks by Kodak. We need a place that can represent the conscience of the people of Canada, without reference to the profit motive. That’s not to deny the profit motive, but we need somebody to be independent of the profit motive. We’re the ones who made 16mm film into a professional medium! In the forties 16mm was an amateur thing. It’s our technical work with it and the fact that beautiful filmmakers worked in 16mm that made that gauge legitimate. And who the hell developed half-inch magnetic tape animation? It’s the Film Board! Thanks to our pioneering work, now everybody can do half-inch video animation. It’s the kind of thing that has enriched the whole film experience of Canada. Personally, what is your proudest achievement in the past four years that you’ve been Film Commissioner? Nothing you can put your finger on, really. I just think the Film Board is a healthier place than it was four years ago. I’m terribly proud that the film Mon Oncle Antoine was regarded as one of the great hallmarks of Canadian features, and I’m proud that it was made and finished while I was here. I’m terribly pleased that Cry of the Wild is a great box-office and popular success. I guess I’ve given the Film Board a little bigger emphasis on the marketability aspects of filmmaking. I’ve emphasized audiences to make filmmakers a little more oriented towards people’s needs. Not as customers paying money, you understand, that’s not our primary concern. But that films be valuable to people and what we hope and guess what people