Cinema Canada (Feb 1976)

REVERB To Widen Perspectives I have read so many things in your review and others regarding this years’ Canadian Student Film Festival that it seemed my duty to write in an attempt to clarify my position and the position of the Conservatoire d’art Cinématographique as organizers of this annual event. Many people speak through my voice and it is through their urging that this missive has been written. 1) The primary purpose of the festival is to discover and encourage our young film-makers. This does not only mean patting them on the head for a good try but also goading them into giving the very best of which they are unquestionably capable. I’ know that gradually, slowly, we can build that amorphous ingredient “quality” into Canadian cinema. 2) It is simply not true that our festival aims at the “commercial” style in films. On the contrary, the pre-selection committee was decidedly opposed to the notion of commercial cinema as a yardstick of craft and for that reason chose a number of films purely for their innovative and strictly non-commercial approaches. The film ‘“‘Aura-Gone” is an example where we saw through the fixed camera eye people coming and going from a city hospital — not exactly a slick Hollywood extravaganza but a starkly realistic portrait. 3) Our relations with Famous Players are quite simple and _ straightforward. Famous Players do _ not intervene with our regulations, the spirit of the Festival or in the nominating of the jury. They do, however, ‘help us through their cinema chain to publicize student films. When the winners are declared, they are the ones who present these winning entries to the public in major cities on a “free” basis to give needed exposure to student films. They also donate prize money. The money, it should be noted, is given directly to the winners by Famous Players, not via the Festival nor the C.A.C. Students are always free to refuse or accept the gift. There is absolutely no coercion involved. 4) Once the jury has been nominated, the C.A.C. has no control over its 4/ cinema canada decisions. Seven people, seven experts, with seven different and respected cinematographic backgrounds, should be able to ascertain the worth of any given film. It is indeed unfortunate that some disappointed film-makers complain, after the fact, that they oppose the composition of the jury. Granted, the decisions made regarding this years’ jury, as with any other, may be questioned but if we are intellectually honest we must take into account that the jury is announced by June, at the latest. Contestations should be made prior to the festival. 5) Last year two winners of the Canadian Student Film Festival represented this country at the Cannes Film Festival. I think that of the 115 films who applied to the last festival almost 50 were accepted as entrants. That is, almost every second was accepted — a good standard. Furthermore, if we, as film-makers, do decide to enter a competition which by definition will be judged by others we must, by default, accept the critical appraisal of our work, regardless of how we may personnally feel about its merit. We must adopt the wide view and try to see the criticism as it may postively affect our future work. For seven years, we have made a tremendous effort to create a “National Institution” and it is up to the serious students of cinema to make every effort that the festival, acting on their behalf, be improved from year to year rather than stagnate at last years’ peak. We can build something worthwhile through competition but we must go beyond our personal perceptions and feelings. That is the creative basis of cinema — the widening of perspectives and the introduction of new ways of seeing the world. Serge Losique, Director, Conservatoire d’ Art Cinématographique Of Dirt and Donuts I take exception to the inaccurate reporting on the condition of the N.F.B. Toronto Theatre as appeared in Rough Cut by Robert Rouveroy C.S.C. (Cinema Canada no. 23).. The theatre is not as he describes it — it’s worse. He must have been here on a good day. Lorne Mitchell, Regional Ass’t Manager National Film Board P.S. Thanks for finding my donut. Rouveroy Fan Club Dear Mr. Rouveroy, By way of a brief introduction, I am an expatriate Canadian working here in Tokyo as a producer/director/ cameraman, etc., and I am a member of CSC so naturally I read Cinema Canada. This letter is just further support for your articles and exposés. Your writing captures the ‘feeling’ of a cameraman, and you bring to light new equipment from time to time. This I appreciate. However, I would like to know more about the ‘41b. Nakamichi cassette recorder’. I made inquiries about it from the company here and they know nothing about such a machine. I know that you were making the point about new equipment making everybody lazy with regard to recording methods, and I agree with you completely. But you did speak quite positively about the Nakamichi machine. If it’s just a rumour of further developments maybe it is something I can follow up in Tokyo later on. Well, this is not a letter of complaint. I sincerely appreciate and enjoy your articles. Keep up the good work. Christopher Fryman Erratum The Ryerson film Bleeker Street mentioned as “by Ross Redfern” on p. 37, issue no. 23 should have read instead: “by Emil Kolompar, Rich Ashley, John Marshall and Ross Redfern’.