Cinema Canada (Mar 1977)

REVERB Malpractice Leads to Ripofis Please let me commend and congratulate you on your valiant efforts in producing Cinema Canada. I know you have an extremely difficult time. Courage and all good wishes. You have willingly opened up the pages of our magazine to voices from all quarters of the film industry. One responsibility of the editor in printing letters is to know that the writers are bona fide and the letter is signed properly by the author. I question the authenticity of one if not two contributors to your February issue. The identity of Slipshaw Farrenhold is so lightly camouflaged; the glib comments cannot conceal the likelihood he is fronting for a particular lobby (and it’s not ours). Let all your readers know that the CCFM has been effective to the point that the distributors and their minions are resorting to many diverse tactics to demean our cause. Randolph Cheveldave expresses his annoyance at “the whining and self-pitying attitude” of Cinema Canada writers. As a worker in film and as a member of the CCFM, let me say that just because here in Canada we are finally insisting on fair treatment doesn’t mean we are after special favors. Our aim is to correct the malpractices of the past. The reason we’ve been subject to ripoffs over the years is because we weren’t politically minded; we weren’t organized and we didn’t have a consensus. There is no question that we have to devote our energies to the positive side of filmmaking; in Canada and in film you have to do that to survive, let alone succeed. Kenneth Post, CSC In Defense of a National Resource Ron Blumer raises some _ interesting points in his critique of the NFB’s distribution practices. What I don’t understand, however, is why he limits his complaints to the NFB. As someone who books anywhere from three to 10 16mm rental prints per week, I would, in fact, rate the NFB fairly high on its distribution network. They have, by and large, supplied prints in reasonably good condition, often in less than the official notice time. They do inspect their prints. You can usually find someone in the office who has seen the film and who can, in a pinch, arrange replacements. Prescreenings are possible with little or no hassle. And, considering the number of films in it, the catalogue is, compared to commercial ' 4/Cinema Canada catalogues, more than reasonably informative about individual titles. On the other hand, the majority of those “highly motivated” commercial operations have regularly stuck this exhibitor with last-minute cancellations, unprojectable, unviewable prints, misleading information, and, worst of all, a continuously shrinking list of classics. This is not to say that the NFB’s distribution system cannot be improved or that the EFLA-style evaluations Ron calls for are not a good idea. In the latter case, however, I don’t think it is the NFB’s responsibility to provide ‘objective’ reviews of its films (they do, by the way, provide reviews of sorts in Potpourri, their free magazine). Being an atheist, I would be reluctant to believe in any government agency’s self-evaluations. I would rather see regular reviews of NFB and other non-narrative films in the journals serving the constituencies at which the films are aimed. Using Ron’s example, it would be far more useful for history teachers to write about history films in an established history teacher’s journal than it would be to introduce yet another compendium of reviews that may or may not be relevant. Perhaps it should be up to those of us in cinema criticism to suggest formats for film reviews in these professional journals. In the long run, however, the people who will end up using these films are the best source of criticism. We should, of course, continue writing on and looking at those non-narrative works from the NFB and its commercial counterparts. They are not only, as Ron points out, a national resource, but are also essential in any formulation of a definition of Canada’s unique con tribution to the medium. S.R. Feldman Assistant Professor Department of English University of Western Ontario Britain Disturbs The following letter was addressed, belatedly, to John Hofsess in response to his article in issue no. 31. Sir, I agree with your assessment of conditions that have prevented your achieving success in your field in Canada: Canadians are enormously puritan and hypocritical almost beyond belief. However, being a Canadian citizen for some 33 years who came here from England, I doubt that Mr. Hofsess will enjoy life in Britain. Because while the permissive and sophisticated environment, encourag ing to the development of one’s artistic endeavours, is immense in its fertility, stimulation and recognition in Britain, the individual liberty and commercial environment, as allowed by the state, is quite disturbing. The presence of a snobbish class distinction capped by a holdover from medieval times, a monarchy, together with complete and absolute apartheid of, and non-communication between, labor and management, make an atmosphere in which I could not enjoy life, and I imagine that Mr. Hofsess, being a writer and not a piece of flotsam, could not either. (Nero eee The British school system, like that of BC, seems to have failed to impart ands understanding to its young, in that the only © truly admirable, literate and educated inhabitants of London seem to be the Negro immigrants from Africa and other parts of | the Empire. May I suggest that Mr. Hofsess retain his Canadianism but develop his art where he can and ‘nibble’ a change within Canada rather than employ shock tactics. We all have to be realists eventually. 4 D.O. Cox P.S: Why is it that in general only the NFB documentaries, together with those features that have a special appeal, excel? How many efforts can we recall that were either burdened with parochialism or stickygoo motherhood or just plain ‘message’? For international consumption, an understanding of international mores, even an appreciation, must prevail. A depiction of the history of Canada, east and west, need not be as educational and historical as has sometimes been recorded. Postal Woes We have phoned the Post Office regularly, in efforts to get better mail service. Many subscribers complain about the time it takes to receive Cinema Canada. Finally, in desperation, we wrote last November, and received the following response. Ed. This refers to your letter of November 8, 1976, addressed to: Mr. Rolf Bischoff Marketing Manager concerning the late delivery of the October issue of your magazine, to your subscribers. Despite all possible enquiries, it has not been possible to determine the exact reason for such a delay. Therefore, much of the difficulty we are having in providing prompt