Cinema Canada (Mar-Apr 1975)

REVERB Dear Agi, Although I thank you heartily for introducing me to Cinema Canada readers in Issue No. 17, your statement that I was sent to you by Jim Beveridge and Jay Leyda is untrue. I am proud to have my name associated with those of Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Leyda, however I am certain that they would be surprised and somewhat embarrassed to read that they “sent” Laurinda anywhere! While at York University, I separated my life as a freelance writer from my life as a student (as much as possible) and, asa result, I took it entirely upon myself to come to you in the fall of 1972 in answer to a request (in Issue No. 4) for contributors. None of my York professors, including Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Leyda, knew of this until I told them of my first assignment sometime later. The error disturbed me primarily because frequently I have been approached by students who have asked how I managed to get work as a writer/editor for Cinema Canada. They have appeared somewhat awestruck by the possibility of working for such a widely-distributed and respected publication, and seemed to feel such a position as mine was entirely beyond their reach. My reply has always been simple and immediate: I approached Cinema Canada with an offer of assistance and it was accepted; and I have stressed, and continue to stress, the importance of self-initiative and self-motivation — what you can do if you just go out and try, instead of worrying about possible consequences and underestimating possibilities. For this reason, I found it quite upsetting that an incorrect statement, however brief and well-intended, concerning my artival at Cinema Canada should imply inadvertently that it is not what you know, what you do or the quality of your work as an individual that counts as much as who you know. I don’t care what people know or think concerning my _ beginnings at Cinema Canada, but I most certainly do care that a small error in fact can, in its own little way, encourage an existing self-indulgent and self-defeating tendency in at least some students and young professionals to feel unjustifiably inadequate and impotent in the face of what they almost enjoy considering as a “system” rigged against them; a system open only to those who have “pull” with someone on the inside. Thank you. I have enjoyed my association with Cinema Canada for the past two years and I look forward to our continued association as you enter your fourth year of publication (in March, 1975, I believe). Besh wishes always, Laurinda M. Hartt. 68 Cinema Canada Dear Ibranyi-Kiss, You asked if I would write an article on the Astral lunch and I agreed. I was about to type it for you this morning when I received the latest issue of Cinema Canada | read your opening comments about ‘watching films from Québec and Canada’ and having two theatres to show “‘Canadian films in one and Québécois in the other.” You may be anxious to bring about the separation of Canada, but I happen to believe in Canada as one country. I am sorry, but I do not intend to write for a magazine which espouses this misconception. Yours sincerely, Gerald Pratley Dear Sirs, It was with considerable disappointment that we read the review by Rick Hancox of our film Québec 5299 in the Dec./Jan. 1975 issue of your magazine. This was not so much because what was said was unfavorable, but because he considered a single smart-alecky phrase adequate criticism of our efforts. You will note that we use the word “our” — this film, as clearly stated in the credits, was a joint effort of Paul Lapointe and Daniel Louis — or did Mr. Hancox’ viewing get as far as the opening credit? We interpret the expression “filmic acid-trip” as suggesting that our film is gimmicky and superficial. Nothing could be farther from our intention. We intended this work as a sincere exposition of an area to which we have deep ties and we hoped to transmit our emotional involvement and our outlook to the viewer. We ourselves thought that this film was such a straightforward statement that we entered it in the “documentary” category — the decision to call it “experimental” was made by the festival authorities. We do not dispute anyone’s right to dislike the film. However, it was chosen as being worth a prize by the jury and we ourselves spent considerable time and effort on it. Surely, simple courtesy would require a somewhat longer explanation of why the reviewer disagreed with the jury than a curt dismissal; and it might even have been a nice gesture for a person of superior wisdom and experience, to point out to a couple of students where they had gone wrong. Sincerely, Paul Lapointe Daniel Louis cinema Canada Advertisers Index No.18 Alan Gordon Enterprises ...... 49 Alex Boia sk ie ee ae 45 All Canadian Answering Serge Pes. SP oe Rees 64 Apnea ks pe 65 Bellevue Parse oa Se eS SZ Brain Electric 2= 5... SS 67 Canadian Super 8 Centre ...... 19 Canadian Motion Picture Equipment Rentals ac, 55.2. 65 Characters Talent Agency ..... 65 W.GrseN-L0sa, Grates. poe 35,54 BIC ee oe: en eee 65 Cine Books... its SSeS eke ST CIDCNSIDS . 3.5. eae eet 69,57 Film Optitalss iS 24S secede 44 INSUIVESOOR! SS SS Re 64 Kingsway Film Equipment ..... 29 Fe a as eo, Scenic eee 2 eee cr en eee te ere 3 Mackenzie Equipment ....... 54 Mako srnis: >.) = Pessoa 64 Mitak Film Services. 2-3 4.55 54 MirtOpnoniees 3.5 35S es TZ Niecke-Entemiises.... >. = 23 44 P.S. Production Services Ltd. ... 23 Quebec baGs:. . “se... wee ee a7 OoiiiPuim-Cabs .. “ooSe.. 71 RE) Academy: ~ 0 > Sees 64 fave Tae: oS eos ee 17 Unique Ideas i = She ESS a3 VAN Sy IMG oy eo See wee 70 PeCOUE WIC ys os wees see 64 MOEK MUMIVEISIEY 5. ag ee Sas 64