Cinema Canada (Oct-Nov 1974)

JM: Did you always plan to do a pilot? DE: No. At first there was no talk of a pilot. The emphasis was placed on script development. It was at this point that Len Peterson became involved not only as a contributing writer but as a script consultant. There were two other writers from the Toronto area, and the rest, including myself, were from the West. We delivered, on schedule, what was asked of us — ten draft scripts and three outlines — to make up a series of thirteen one hour dramas. Then we waited for some kind of decision. It was the kind of waiting that we’d become accustomed to, but it was still agonizing. The answer, when it came finally, was, they wanted a pilot. We were told to deliver a two hour script — which we did. Then a one hour. The production of the pilot then went through a series of on-again, off-again decisions. By this time, it became very important to the Vancouver region that this production should go ahead, if only for morale. Finally, with a reduced budget and a script that seemed to me a long way from the original idea, we went into production. Len and I were cutting characters from the pilot script to make it fit the budget. JM: What was going on in Toronto to cause these on-again, off-again decisions? DE: Well, during the course of The Overlanders saga, the CBC went through three heads of Drama: Fletcher Markle, then Thom Benson as acting head and finally John Hirsch. Each had different ideas as to what the CBC should be, so consequently we were getting different directions. When the pilot went on the air, it got excellent press reaction, telephone reaction — audience evaluation showed it had huge viewership and appreciation index. As far as television audiences go, it was a success. But apparently not in the eyes of the CBC decision-makers, because we’re not doing the series. I think it showed all the potential energy to make a good series. It showed us where the strengths were, and where the weaknesses were — but isn’t that what a pilot is for? JM: Is there still a possibility that the Overlanders will continue? DE: I don’t know. That’s up to John Hirsch. I’ve learned not to hold my breath and stop living until something happens. If it does go, it will be a pleasant surprise. There is a possiblity of one part becoming a theatrical feature. There’s high interest from two sources — one Canadian and American money, the other strictly American. As far as the CBC goes, I really don’t know. What usually happens to political footballs? JM: Did it leave you feeling very bitter? DE: TV Guide quoted me as saying that I felt bitter. They asked me: “I suppose you feel bitter?”. And I answered, “‘I guess I should feel bitter, but I don’t.” They left off the “but I don’t”. No. I don’t feel bitter. In a way I feel like The Overlanders. Trying to get the production going was, in many ways, like an inhospitable journey — our gold at the end of the trip would be doing the series. And like the Overlanders, there was no gold at the end of the trail, but at least I learned one hell of a lot. A lot about writing, about films and about the politics of film and the CBC. When you’re in a region, you get used to off again, on again. One moment you’re swimming in production the next moment there’s a drought. What I really felt and still feel, is the disappointment of this region. It was a real downer for everyone. JM: Should the CBC get into making features? DE: Why not? I think the CBC should be as variable as possible. They haven’t because features cost too much. There is also a way of thinking that goes like this: a feature film is a FILM, and it belongs in the theatre whereas television programs belong on the television screen, and they come in neat little packages of half an hour, one hour or ninety minutes, each with so many commercials scattered throughout the body of the program. And yet, it’s features, full length movies that are getting the largest audience. Viewing habits are such that people would rather sit down and watch a two-hour drama for the evening than a whole bunch of half-hours. It’s too much hassle to remember what time it starts and plan your evening around it. JM: But doesn’t the CBC use the half hour to train writers and directors? DE: Yes, but to my way of thinking that’s a good and a bad thing. Good because it at least offers opportunity, but bad because it trains the writer or director only in the half hour form, or the short story. To do a film longer than half an hour requires re-training — like a novelist attempting his first full scale novel. I have a friend who makes superb one-minute commercials but his mind boggles at the thought of having to create something outside of 60 seconds. He conceptualizes ideas in very fast action images and to slow them down and increase the content is outside of his realm. So it is possible to have someone very good at the half hour drama, while others would show their best skills at either hour, ninety or two hour dramas. JM: I have always felt that the reason we don’t have a booming film industry is that we don’t have the writers. DE: Well, there aren’t enough writers who are trained or even have the chance to train themselves or gain the experience for writing for film. There are, I think, some excellent signs among the young writers that show potential as screenplay writers but when they confront the executives in TV or film they also confront the problem of the ability of the executive to read a real film script. I find decision makers are looking for a theatre piece, with the same script structure as a stage play. And that won’t make a film. It’s an error to equate film with theatre — that you can take a playwright and get a good screenplay from him. Film is not an extension of the play. If you take someone who is thoroughly steeped in theatre and ask him to write a screenplay you usually end up with theatre structure and in film that means a succession of talking heads and little, if any, cinematic narrative. I am oversimplifying all of this but I think you understand what I am saying. In television, where the use of the medium can be so varied, there is a place for ‘theatre’ — where the camera is merely recording a good drama and extending the stage into the living room. It’s rather like a sports or public affairs actuality — the television system is merely a transmitting device. It’s not being used creatively. JM: You once told me there were no good directors under 40. DE: I don’t know of any consistently good film makers who are under forty. There are exceptions, yes, and flukes. The odd film maker will produce a spectacular film, and he may even repeat his success one more time but he rarely repeats for a third time because he hasn’t got either the life background or the skills necessary to keep on making good films. Each film presents its own problems and it takes a lot of film to give a director a background in problem-solving and to get a chance to learn his skills. Enough years to put him over forty. Cinema Canada 33