Cinema Canada (Feb 1977)

One major source of frustration for the non-theatrical film producer is the remoteness of the groups who put up the money for production and those who handle distribution. From the lack of communication between initial capital and film income stems much of the general disunity in this sector of the industry. It is argued that domestic consumption is insufficient to support serious non-theatrical production in Canada. Hence, the tendency of the free-lance filmmaker to fall upon government-supported institutions, ranging from arts councils, ministries of education, health and welfare, etc., to the CBC. This means that they are producing films for people whose criteria for investment are other than commercial criteria. That this is good, bad, necessary or not is another matter — the point is that this is the context in which non-theatrical films are made. The result being that the filmmaker often doesn’t care about commercial eventualities as long as he or she gets production money. Production contract liens on distribution However, should you find yourself making film(s) for such an institution, you should carefully consider what bearing the production contract will have on your freedom to distribute the finished film. For instance, many new independents get their first break when one or another department in the CBC puts up money for a short film, possibly as a special subject, or a filler film. Some departments will hand you a standard contract that is solely concerned with Canadian television rights, leaving you international non-theatrical rights. Others will hand you a contract that is so cluttered with stipulations about distribution rights that it effectively blocks any possibility of substantial distribution beyond its intended use at the CBC, the result being that neither party will see further income from a potentially commercial film. In the latter case, when one or a few short films are the subject of such a contract, it is likely that CBC never had any serious intention of distributing these films. It is also likely that the rights they are blocking will in no manner compete with their own employment of these materials. Generally most distribution clauses will not be protecting any of the producer’s (CBC’s) interests. They'll be there, rather, because the contract you signed for financing the production of a short film is the same contract that would be given the producer of a major half-hour series. Many of the clauses therein are redundant for you and the CBC in your production context. There are two things to realize. First, just because you are handed a contract form doesn’t mean you must sign “‘as is’ or go back to driving a cab. With a bit of patience and a couple of extra visits with the contractors (the CBC), you will find that they are generally quite prepared to write up a contract that will accommodate the reality of your particular situation. But it’s up to you to make that move. The second point is that when you produce a film for the CBC or any of the other institutions mentioned earlier and are in a position to keep certain distribution rights, consider how to keep your film attractive to the outside markets while making it within the context of your contractor’s particular needs. It may sound like obvious advice yet it is true that, when money is put up front for production, many independents are incapable of seeing past the face of that first money, and thereby lose potential income, exposure and financial credibility in non-theatrical distribution. The Ideal Film A number of months ago, a magazine compiled the results of a readers’ survey, the object being to determine the Ca 28 / Cinema Canada nadian vision of the ideal man and woman. The results turned out to be moderately functional Ken and Barbie dolls. The article dominated coffee break and bus stop debates for weeks, with the apparent consensus being that nobody was particularly fond of Ken or Barbie, although they probably correctly reflected an average of preferences. By the same token, an attempt to assimilate data on the ideal commiercial non-theatrical film will probably accurately reflect the average, giving you a moderately commercial film that no one in particular will be tremendously fond of. Try asking 10 distributors what the ideal commercial film is; you will walk away being sure of very much less than when you started. Nonetheless, I have tried to compile such a model film. Between the information given at the New York seminar and our own company’s survey of American and Canadian nontheatrical distributors, here is the theoretical prototype for the ideally commercial educational film. Content: The majority of distributors have recently been tending towards curriculum-oriented material, where the subject matter and film purpose are clearly defined and understood. The 3 Rs syndrome has hit educational film buyers badly. As one major distributor wrote me: ‘‘Purchasers of A.V. materials have grown conservative these past few years, and any film of doubtful curriculum use is not likely to be used by them.” This was a common sentiment among distributors contacted. The first need is for a clearly defined subject matter and purpose, a film either documentary or instructional that is oriented towards the curricula that are common to the largest number of educational situations. For maximum usage, the film would probably be aimed at an upper high school-early university level. An educational buyer will generally give first priority to a film with crosscurricular possibilities. For instance, a film intended as a historical study of a city or region may be structured so as to include or greclude its possible use as an item on urban geography. It is simply a question of the buyers getting maximum mileage out of their dollar. There’s always some unfilled demand; seek it out. There’s no use doing what’s already been covered by every other independent. “If I get handed one more film showing an artist at work, [ll kill someone!”’ shouted one educational buyer for a brief but refreshing break in an otherwise monotonous lecture on an educator’s needs. Form: The average class period dictates the length of the viable film. The teacher or professor will require time to speak on the subject as well as to figure out how to run the projector. Distributors were fairly consistent regarding the duration of a class-oriented film. Preferably no shorter than ten minutes and not in excess of 25 minutes. (One distributor really had it figured out: ‘‘The film, ideally, would be between 11 and 14 minutes long.’’) A film of longer duration is clumsy for the user; a film of shorter duration is not only clumsy (a four-minute film will take as long to set up and rewind as it will to show), but its dollar return to the distributor is low as it costs him or her almost as much to promote and sell a four-minute film as it will to sell a 15minute film. Price, unfortunately, is often calculated on a ‘“‘per minute” basis. Therefore the profit motive to the distributor is low, and you start with two handicaps. A distributor will generally give prominent treatment to a film series as there is a considerable economy of scale in selling a film package. If the component parts of the series have a multi-curricular application, you’re rolling. The educational buyer has come to expect craftsmanship; the film should be “clean” (uncluttered). Despite the conservative tendencies in film content, its form should be ex