Cinema Canada (Jun-Jul 1977)

The Heat’s On In The CAMPPfire It began as a small brouhaha over what turned out to be a misquote in a foreign trade paper. It ended with the Canadian Motion Picture Producers unequivocally endorsing the present co-production philosophy, despite vocal opposition from a few of its members. That philosophy — take the money and run — is coming under increasing fire from both the government and the industry at large. During that hectic and rainy Cannes gathering in May, CAMMP President David Perlmutter gave an interview in Screen International in which he was quoted as saying that for Canadian films the CFDC is thinking of insisting on either the writer or director being Canadian regardless of points. And that the same criteria would apply to co-productions too. Since Perlmutter (along with Paul Siren of ACTRA) is an advisor to the CFDC about co-productions, there was great consternation at his implication that co-productions might have to use Canadian talent. The response in Canada was swift. A meeting was called to chastise, if not depose Perlmutter. He was in London, after Cannes, and was not present at the meeting. It did turn out, however, that he was misquoted on the co-production statement, so his image was untainted. He retains his positions at CAMPP and as CFDC advisor, and says only, “I think some people became overly upset at situations. It has been straightened out.”’ The producers knew all was safe with co-productions _because Joe Beaubien of the CFDC was there to tell them so. And the Perlmutter episode was really only a small part of the discussion, and came at the end. The central area of concern was trying to define, virtually as policy, what the producers wanted from co-productions. The answer: money. Of course it’s not that simple. Says one participant who opposes such ‘a mercenary attitude, “I don’t really blame them, in a way. If, after all these lean years, some guy pays them $25,000 to visit an office a few times and push some paper around, they take it. These guys, if Hollywood called, would go running.” 10 / Cinema Canada But some producers, though not many, want more than a paper depository in the north. Few were at the meeting. Beaubien spoke about co-productions and then asked for discussion; it was also evident that most of the producers were not fully aware of the details of the trea Chalmers Adams wanting to help ty, so the meeting was described as an educational process. The problems of delays in .approvals and and wide discretion in administration were promised rectification. A committee of five members of CAMPP Perlmutter, Victor Solnicki, Julian Melzack, Denis Héroux, and Chalmers Adams as chairman — was formed to advise and assist local and foreign producers who are interested in making deals. ‘“‘We are seeking to help people,” says Adams. It was the discussion about the current state and future of co-productions that was hot and heavy. One producer’ even charged it was a packed meeting: only paid-up members could attend, and ten new ones were signed up on the spot. And Julian Melzack of Classic Film Industries, possibly having the biggest stake in current co-productions, supplied the edibles. The proceedings were described as not ‘parliamentary’ by one who attended. The essence of the debate was whether co-productions are leading to a healthy industry or not. Most felt that they are an opportunity for production and we should keep them as they are. But a small group said they reduce the chance of Canadian input on any level: there’s no theme input through the writer or creative input, through the director, and producers are just nothing.’ A suggestion that Canadian creative or theme input alternate with foreign was rejected; heightening Canadian ideas was soundly rejected. The most unlikely producers were forced into almost nationalist positions. One who agreed to discuss the co-production situation in general is Harry Gulkin. ‘I’m the surprised one to sound so nationalistic. I brought in a foreign director and I believe we need international pictures and I want co-productions too. But we can’t be making pictures for the British and French and Yanks. We’ll just disappear in the long run. Co-productions are moving to the exclusion of Canadian participation and Canadian production.” “The commercial is_necessary, but that’s all co-productions are now, and that’s not enough. You need a commitment to the industry and the country. But you can’t tell investors what to invest in and they like being around the Carlo Ponti’s.”’ “What happens with co-productions depends on the CFDC and the Secretary of State. If it’s left to the CAMPP it’ll be the same as it is now. We’ve kissed American asses and look what we've got. Now we are going through the British, Italians and French. Now it’s just a gallery of asses to kiss.” Why not fight, I asked another producer. “Because”, he said, “most of CAMPP can’t deny reality; they’ve sold out already.” Al Waxman is in a unique position right now. He’s been a producer and director of domestic and foreign properties. As Kensington’s king he’s recognised everywhere and has real pressure to represent a show that is aimed at domestic audiences but seeks foreign sales. I called him to ask his views, and he added some pertinent comments to the debate. “JT don’t know why, when we have access to funding and talent, both precious to have available, and we are therefore in such a fortuitous situation, we don’t exploit others instead of serving ourselves up for exploitation. I’m not one of your nationalists who goes around waving flags all over, but we need a sense of balance: showbusiness and entertainment, yes, but also a sense of country.” ‘‘We are in a position to make others dance to our tune. We can use our money when we want to, not just through foreign sanction. Certain formulas have to be met, it’s true, but we can do it on our terms. It needs confidence and belief — but not blind belief — in what we're doing. You can be a good entrepreneur and help the community. And everyone’s looking for money and we've got it. Why run across the ocean?” “You can’t lay down, spread your legs and yell rape. I can't criticize those who take American money but there’s more to it than that. We have to compete in the world, and to do so we need confidence in our own talent. The more confidence in our talent we have, the less fear we'll have of importing foreign talent.” “I’m trying to be a star to start a trend. I want to produce and direct, and I’d like to be able to go to a bank and say I’ve this Canadian star or that, now finance me because the people out there want to see them. And I don’t deny reality; on a $3 million dollar picture it may be difficult to package most Canadian directors. But if you can’t sell Canadians for a picture that costs $800,000 to a_ million, you’re no good as a producer, and you don’t believe in the pro perty.” axman doesn’t yell rape “You can’t deny where you came from, it’ll show up in your work. If I’m not Canadian, I'll just be wishy washy in the world.” Ultimately, however, co-productions will be revised, in some way. “And it’s a good thing, too’, says one producer at the meeting, ‘‘that such policy comes from the secretary of State, who represents a larger constituency than just CAMPP.” The whole industry is affected. Nor do producers function as the protectors of investors’ dollars; that’s done by Acts of Parliament, not CAMPP. And that’s in whose laps the whole co-production situation now sits. Stephen Chesley