Cinema Canada (Aug-Sep 1974)

that we’re going to split the production money one third for French ($4 million per annum) and two-thirds for English ($8 million per annum) production, based on the population of Canada. We know how to spread the money between production, distribution and technical operations. We would like all sections to progress at the same rhythm, according to their need. We could focus one year, for example, more on certain aspects of distribution, but this always rotates. There is a delegation of authority at a division chief level, that is quite autonomous. Tony and David and other people in Distribution would be told: “Okay, you got $5 million, tell me more.” The way they’re going to manage their branch and they come up with a set of priorities. We say: “Okay, we accept this, we refuse that, because we don’t agree with you on those specifics, etc.” Is the Board interested in making money with features? “No!” responded Lamy vehemently. “I don’t think that the Film Board is interested in making money. But the minute that you decide to make a feature film, you have to consider box office. That’s just a fact of life. I’m not sure we would be more successful if we decided to rent the theatres ourselves and show the films for free. What we try to do is to launch feature films through the box office because that’s the way that Canadians react to such forms of expression. Of course, there’s always the question, should we produce feature films at all? But we cut back pretty quickly on the box office and we make sure we have copies in 16mm to go on television as fast as possible, before the project or the film become obsolete. This is not done by the private sector. We do that systematically: that after a year or the minute we feel the box office does not operate enough, we cut the contract and move to a parallel network of distribution, be it television or an independent feature distributor, to get access to people with other skills of distribution very quickly. Novek: “The important thing for the Film Board is exposure in distribution, to reach the people, not to make money. Of course we want to earn revenue so that we can reinvest it.” Let’s say one of your features is a run-away success, a real blockbuster. Cry of the Wild is heading in that direction. How will this affect your very systematic policy of allocating monies, having to revert monies you can’t spend back to Treasury, etc.? It won’t change the policy. The policy is to produce maybe two feature films in French and two or three in English if money is available. I think it’s proper for the NFB with a permanent staff to develop that kind of activity. First, for the filmmaker. Why? Because the filmmaker who decides to work here on a permanent basis should not be denied this form of expression. This is staff-wise: morale. Second, I think that feature film is more than only a form of expression: it’s a medium by itself. There are people for whom television is just a piece of crap. You find them at the Outremont, they would never go to the Loew’s, for example, to see a big, flat, American feature film, either. If you want to have access to a very specific group of people, the fifteen to twenty five year-olds, to say things that are important — Canadian content — feature films have proven to be one of the best forms of expression. I would like an Easy Rider or a Joe to be produced by the National Film Board. I feel honestly that Easy Rider, or Joe, or Serpico could change a society. They were reflections of American society and created an impact which I don’t think that a book, television, or a big, expensive feature film could have done. If you could control properly the ingredients of a feature film, you could do many things in society, provided you succeed. Mon Oncle Antoine changed drastically the Quebec production of films. Before then we had a type of skin-flic operation — Denis Héroux. Then we demonstrated that with a film Like Mon Oncle Antoine box-office could work! As good as Deux Femmes En Or, and I’m afraid I was the producer of Deux Femmes En Or.” As long as you’re putting the Film Board in the context of Québec society, I would like to ask a question relating to that: how does the political future of Québec determine the Board being in Montreal? If our role is to interpret Canada to Canadians, of course in some of our films it will show what’s going on in Québec. For example, Action/Reaction by Robin Spry, based on the October events. The stock shot was done by three crews, two from the French section, one from the English. This is a reflection on Québec, and I think it is a part of our role. To be more specific, in the French production,” said Lamy slowing down, “‘it’s a matter of concern for me to make sure that the filmmakers will not go too far or will not try to be partisan or party line or make films that could easily be interpreted as a propaganda tool for a party or for things which are very well linked in the public mind to a party. That’s my concern, dealing with some of the films produced by French Production. As for the rest of what’s going on in Québec, I don’t think anybody will stop that. It would be going against the role of the Film Board if it wouldn’t show up in some of our films. You touched on the question of censorship. Two years ago there was a big flare-up with the Gilles Groulx affair. Is that still a great concern? Of course, but I don’t call it censorship. Never. I think that it is part of my responsibility and Sydney’s responsibility to manage such a problem. Gilles Groulx’ concern was a film with a title, for us it was to manage a situation. Yves Leduc was there to manage the thing, Gilles Groulx didn’t want to be managed. Or didn’t accept the guide lines prepared by Yves Leduc to finish the film. It was a matter of budget and it was a matter of content. There was a more recent film with similar content, both being about union unrest in Québec. I think it was a film called Syndicat, produced by Société Nouvelle? Rapport de Force was the title of a project that I refused to accept. First, I didn’t feel it was clearly the responsibility of Société Nouvelle to produce such a film. Secondly, the film was too ephemeral as a content, because it was linked pretty much to two important strikes in Québec. And I didn’t refuse the film, I refused the script. Then asked, in collaboration with the Société Nouvelle committee, to prepare a better script, to prepare a sort of guideline, but the filmmaker decided to drop the project. So the project has been dropped? By the filmmaker! Because he didn’t want to accept my guidelines and he didn’t want to come back with another film, on the same subject. I would agree with Challenge for Change/Société Nouvelle that there is a film to be done about union activity in Québec. Wasn’t there supposed to be an episode of the Adieu Alouette series that was supposed to deal with that problem, as well? Yes, oh, this one. ... It was a very bad film, very dull, and I didn’t have any problems cancelling it. I think the filmmaker was pretty happy to get rid of it. It was just a bad film. Do you expect any more projects like this to pop up during the next few years, or have things calmed down somewhat? Well, because I’m not a ruthless man, there is a better understanding of my responsibility, the responsibility of the Director of French Production, Yves Leduc and that of the programming committee, than previouslye Cinema Canada 51