Cinema Canada (Mar-Apr 1975)

Women and Film. The panel: NFB filmmakers Kathleen Shannon and Susan Gibbard, filmmakers Marie Waisberg, Nancy Edell, Joyce Wieland, actress Susan Petrie, journalist Agi Ibranyi-Kiss. Basically the discussion was not very illuminating to anyone aware of the vast problems for women filmmakers today, from being treated as dilletantes to typecasting, and few in the audience — made up mostly of students this time — were not already converts to the cause. But a selection of films was shown, and the quality and diversity of them spoke eloquently about all the nascent talent going to waste because of lack of opportunity, and that fact was more important than the discussion, which lumbered along because, as Ibranyi-Kiss put it, they were brought together on the stage only because of sex, Federal Responsibility. The Panel: Secretary of State Media Officer Desmond Loftus, exhibitor George Destounis, producer Budge Crawley, producer Harold Greenberg, Archives Head Sam Kula, activist and director Peter Pearson. This panel was hopefully an education, not for the audience, who knew what was going to be said, but for Loftus, who arrived as possibly the least prepared member of officialdom anyone has ever seen. He lectured the panel and audience, viewing them as both ignorant of film history in Canada and as children, and he once again demonstrated that the Secretary of State’s department seems to actively avoid coming to grips with forming a film policy. His job, he said, was to determine what has been done and what needs to be done, and as he has been in the position for only three months, he has a lot to find out, so here we go again. The panel was harsh on him, both conservative and radical elements. Greenberg stated bluntly that the Department had lied repeatedly to the film community, and offered the suggestion that if a policy had been formed three years ago when active lobbying began, we might have a stronger industry now; Pearson outlined the continual frustration in dealing with the Department since Faulkner’s appointment. Loftus hadn’t done his homework: Michael Spencer’s report on quotas was obviously not in his material, although he could have read it in the kit provided at the conference. Perhaps he did. Emphasizing that handouts and being treated as cripples was not anyone’s desire, but rather evolving into a solid industry contributing to the economy and culture of the country, both Greenberg and Pearson agreed upon a 8 Cinema Canada basic premise. Another important aspect of the panel was the presence of George Destounis. Recently he has begun taking part in such gatherings, and that’s good. he’s articulate, doesn’t mince words, and should have the opportunity to answer his critics. Again, a bright note was the emphasis that Famous Players has contributed to Canadian production, while Odeon has not. Destounis’ own leadership in Famous involvement was noted, and he himself tried to set Loftus straight on several matters. But overall the panel was simply just another parade of government ineptitude and lack of interest. Indentity and Creativity. The Panel: Filmmaker and critic Robert Fothergill, filmmaker Michael Snow, media creator Byron Black, filmmaker Michel Brault. Described as the nonpolitical panel, it actually was, until the discussion was severed by a political announcement. Some points were made, however, about Canadians as audiences, and what our films reveal about ourselves. Both Snow and Brault explained their viewpoints as filmmakers, and Bryon Black offered a brief resume of Vancouver filmmaking and how the struggle affects the films made. But most of the discussion centred on Fothergill’s thesis that filmmaking is composed of working out the filmmakers’ identity, working out his identification i.e. his relationship to the world around him, working out the destiny of those in the film, and audience reaction. English Canadian films are mostly about private destinies not working out well, says Fothergill, and unless our filmmakers can add a wider social context, our culture will not be defined and will die. French Canadian filmmakers have solved this problem, he said. Low Budget Features. The panel: Producer Werner Aellen, directors Patrick Loubert and Allan Eastman, Producer John Hunter, distributor Linda Beath. The emphasis in this discussion was the dead-end the low budget program seems to lead to. There isn’t enough money to hire marketable stars, or blow up to 35mm, or spend on promotion; most directors haven’t worked after making one. Instead, says Aellen, the same money should be put into TV efforts, thereby allowing the director his need to learn and experiment, produce diverse films, allow a more ready market, and even see the CFDC occupy a position as a bank, rather than exercising such control over scripts and post-production. Loubert offered the idea of a film school as a better training ground. The current activity at the CBC Drama department in training programs was also mentioned. The films: Best received among the nine features shown were Crawley’s Janis, which ended the Symposium with a roar as hundreds were turned away, Michel Brault’s Les Ordres (which received a long standing ovation) and the André Brassard-Michel Tremblay effort Il Etait Une Fois Dans L’est. Brault said that the audience, due partly to the excellent subtitles by Marcia Couélle, responded better than most in Québec. Also shown were The Farm Show, Sally Fieldgood and Company by Boon Collins, Patrick Loubert’s 125 Rooms of Comfort, Robin Spry’s Action, Paul Lynch’s The Hard Part Begins, and Jean-Pierre Lefebvre’s Les Derniéres Fiangailles. As a summary of the attitude prevailing among most, if not all the elements of the industry in attendance, a telegram was sent to Prime Minister Trudeau urging a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the state of the industry. No reply was in evidence at our press time. Included in the survival kit given to those attending Canadian Film Symposium III was this fascinating letter. (Even more interesting when one considers who it was written 10S It seems this letter was not supposed to be part of the package, but so few people noticed it, no-one worried too much. We thought we would spread the joy a little by reprinting it in entirety: Re: Quotas for Canadian Films in Canadian Motion Picture Theatres Note: (This memorandum is concerned with the problem of distribution and exhibition of English-language films in Canada. The Quebec French-language film industry found its audience from the start and although no figures exist, it is probable that the distribution of Canadian and Quebec produced films would exceed 20 per cent of available screen time in the province. A number of Quebec movies have been successful and the Quebec film industry has managed to achieve adequate distribution for its films. Furthermore, the Province of Quebec is expected to pass a law in the spring regulating its cinema industry and giving the province the necessary powers to expand the distribution of Quebec films presumably by means of quotas.) The Cabinet memorandum which approved the establishment of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in 1966 recognized that the distribution of Canadian films in Canadian theatres might prove to be a problem because the means of distribution and exhibition were largely controlled from outside the country. However, the idea of seriously tackling this aspect of the film industry before proving our capacity of making good quality feature films did not make any sense to the inter-departmental