Cinema Canada (Feb 1976)

FILM REVIEWS resembled those of the youths in masterpieces like the Garden of the Finzi Continis. But Perron laughs at his own talent as if he didn’t dare admit to it. With remarkable presence, for example, André Meélancon (Taureau) comes back as the army recruiter. The actor builds up a terrifying “bully” image, with strong undercurrents of a young man trying to do his duty. But Perron has him telling his superior in Quebec that he will play things “straight”. Surely that expression reached French Canadian army lieutenants a bit after 1942! And it’s this sort of constant neglect, not making the technical effort needed to carry the emotional story, which is obvious in dialogue, camera direction and editing. It deserves severe criticism. But who can pin down Clément Perron? It may be said that he is not a director, that he is simply too sentimental or that he and Claude Jutra are in dire need of getting together again. But it may be easier for Perron to do a contemporary film, because although his passions belong to yesterday, his anger belongs to today. Somewhere within him, with all these hits and misses, there’s the capacity to create a jewel. Carmel Dumas Robert Ryan's Wings in the Wilderness d. Robert Ryan, se. Martin Lager, ph. Robert Ryan and Dan Gibson, sd. Dan Gibson, ed. Lori Labatt, m. Ron Harrison, 1.p. Dan Gibson and his nature family, p. Ralph C. Ellis, p.e. Keg Productions (Tor) 1974, Colour, running time: 95 minutes, dist. Wildlife Film Distributors Ltd. I tried. I really tried. I was getting restless watching the new Canadian wildlife film, Wings in the Wilderness. I said to myself, think like a ten year old. It didn’t work. I told myself, this is a Canadian movie. It didn’t work. In the final analysis, the movie is tiresome when it’s cute and tiresome when it’s not. Lorne Greene narrates this tale of Dan Gibson, a nature-loving photographer. The film follows Gibson as he rediscovers a family of geese, eggs 46 / cinema canada Dan Gibson with his friend in Wings in th Wilderness just hatching. Two of the goslings, just born, are accidentally separated from their parents. They begin to follow Gibson. Goslings, being of sound mind and high intelligence, adopt the first larger moving object they see. The process is called imprinting and these two imprint on Gibson. They follow him and adopt him. The relationship of man to goose grows into true parenthood, but not without the usual tribulations of growing up. The geese pass from cute childhood to careless adolescence to flighty maturity. The culmination of the relationship, the high point, as it were, is Gibson coaxing the geese to fly. They follow his voice via airborne transmitter into the skies, united. I don’t want to leave the impression that there is no drama to all this — threats abound in the form of wolves, poachers, waterfalls -— all treacherous. But we are not to be denied our happy ending. What’s good about the picture? Well, some of it is nicely photographed, and the sound effects deserve the etrog they won. But in the end pretty pictures and sound are nothing more than pretty pictures and sound. Conceptually it’s very difficult to make 90 minutes of goose work. A goose is a goose. All it’s got going for it is its grace in flight. That’s good for about 60 seconds. We have had films about lions, bears, wolves, even ants. The subjects have commanded a certain respect, sometimes fear. Most importantly they have made good film framework. The goose is just not a complex or fascinating candidate for filming. On to the story. As_ presented, Wings in the Wilderness reeks of artificiality. There is a lot of topical talk of communing with nature, but the film never goes after the genuine feeling. We are told of impending danger by friendly Lorne Greene and then watch it fizzle on the screen. I guess what I’m trying to tell you is that the script stinks. As to the acting, Dan Gibson is no Olivier. The film makes a good case for banning amateur actors from the screen, Louis Malle notwithstanding. I would recommend Wings in the Wilderness for children, young children, of relatives you don’t like. Ken Dancyger Deke Miles The Melting Pot d. Deke Miles, se. Deke Miles from an original story by Romeo Jacobucci, ph. George Mather, ed. Miles and Jacobucci and Gretchen Gebhardt, sd. Michael Perrotta, l.p. Peter Jacob, Richard Fullerton, Camilo “Butch” Jularbal, Max Scheindel, Kimberly Smith, Gillis Paquin, Catherine Harris, Joe Bahr, Erne Hartman, exec. p. Romeo Jacobucci, p. Deke Miles, p.c. Joe’s & Company Ltd., 1975, 35mm colour. Manitoba has no real history as a film location. Manitoba stories like Rachel, Rachel have been effortlessly transposed to the States, or, in the few instances where the locales have been essential, Hollywood back lots have done the trick. Granted a few productions have used actual Manitoba locations, but never has a totally indigenous production been shot here in 35mm and colour. That is until The Melting Pot, a low-budget, nonCFDC, totally locally financed film reared its ugly head late in November. The story revolves around two American draft-dodgers just passing through town, a few days before the Winnipeg Flood of 1950. They see a multiethnic town suddenly become a combined consciousness to divert the serious damage of the raging waters. But before the heart-tugging ending they meet some swell guys and gals, learn the meaning of friendship and harmony, hear a handful of songs and decide to do the right thing — help the people and turn themselves in. The production