Cinema Canada (Aug-Sep 1974)

really want: to nurture themselves as being better and coping with life and its travails. My relations with Ottawa I think are fairly good. You must remember, when I became Film Commissioner, the Film Board was not in entirely high esteem, it was at a low ebb in terms of public acceptance. I think that’s quite radically changed. I think I’ve awakened the CBC and made possible the introduction on the national networks of a lot more Film Board work than it had seen before. It’s helped filmmakers, their prestige and their sense of pride. But all these things really are interim, they’re only one third toward a long term progression. As Film Commissioner you sit on the Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State, as well as on the CBC and CFDC Boards of Directors. Being thus part of an inner circle that makes policy, would you care to give us an insight into what goes on at these meetings? This ad hoc Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State sat for 15 or so meetings and it was such a polyglot group that it was very hard to arrive at any sort of consensus. The distributors were talking about more distribution, the production people were talking about more production, and the government agencies — we were concerned with our own particular role. All in all it adds up to a lot of very stimulating talk and we enjoyed each other’s company and I don’t know that any consensus arose in any clear cut way about any particular issue. The big obsession of everybody on the Committee was obviously distribution. One thing that came out of these meetings was the offer by the commercial cinema chains to give major exposure in three key cities to all Canadian feature films to test them out for possible national distribution. I think that was a direct result of that Advisory Committee, and it was very positive. Of course a lot of people think it was only scratching the surface. The slump in the present feature film production in the rivate sector is a very acute situation. There’s an uproar in of filmmakers, the CCFM. .. You make the word ‘“‘slump”’ Jerusalem five years ago.... sound as Well, there was a big production bog And how did the boom come abe money came from people who didn’ pictures were good or bad. Yes, the t2 that this so-called slump now has n Jerusalem of three or four years a farce situation ying underscores the s film developments, distributor d Spencer for exhibited in audience and In terms of Canada’s national priorities vis a vis this country’s feature production, what major developments do you see in the next five years? You'll see no difference in the Film Board. We don’t intend to make more than two or three features a year. We haven’t got the money for it. Our priorities are absolutely elsewhere. We’re more interested in education, documentary and information films. Features are simply something that certain members of our creative staff can aspire to and we’ve got to give them the opportunity or we'd lose a lot of our good people. That’s our main interest. We recognize that there are certain aspects of Canadian life that could perhaps be better expressed or emotionally gotten across in fictional form than in documentary. About the Canadian film industry in toto, unless they can develop new markets via television, I believe that they’re going to work uphill all the time, vis 4 vis the commercial movie houses, who are stuck into a pattern of exhibition and distribution that is seventy, eighty years old. And it’s very hard for the commercial exhibitor to cater to minority audiences on a mass enough scale to pay for the whole distribution of those films. Cinema exhibition is no longer the mass medium it used to be prior to television. Unless the film industry can organize itself financially and viably on the basis of more selected, smaller audiences, filmmakers will have to come around to the realization that they’re going to have to find their audiences through another method. That means a film might make money, but it’s going to take five years to make money, rather than one year. Consequently, television is a much readier source for the fictional creations of drama directors who choose the feature film as their form of expression. In the film on Grierson, he scathingly denounces television at one point as a negative force in society which only pacifies and never rouses, it lulls you to sleep rather than spurring ideas and qeTION. =. atever Grierson said is right. And certainly the generality of sion is that it is a bloody wasteland. And it is an object of ort and ease, a titty for the babies to suck at. It makes tl up and forget about life and its rigours. Incidentally, seful quality; when you’ve had a hell of a day, it’s not ave your fifty minutes or your hour of escape. at quotation of Grierson isn’t necessarily all that thought about television. I spent seventeen years in 7 twelve of which were in England at the BBC, and I television is a tremendous power for exhibition of people. It’s what you do with it, what e-air! I have seen television which is reated magnificent television. Stuff that outh, no sir! I’ve been accused in the nS” of being ‘‘a great purveyor of dirt, gis why they said that? 8, it. was not the titty in the ve as is sick m in traditional . Cinema Canada 45