Cinema Canada (Nov 1977)

REVERB Behind the Camera II Surprised was I, reading your last issue, to discover that I had become an author. For this I thank you. The article fairly reflects the content of the telephone interview from which it was extracted. It also, I fear, does violence to the Queen’s English bordering on assault and battery. Had I written the article, I would hope to have expressed myself more articulately. Moreover, I would have been inclined to further develop the ideas in the last section, this in an attempt to generate from the specifics of Outrageous principles of a more all-encompassing nature. For example, legendary are the cameramen who are unhappy about the appearance of their work in the final release prints. Must cameramen, as many do, relinquish all rights to the control of the quality of the final release prints? Have they no grounds upon which to object should the quality be inferior? I would have argued that there are at least three possibilities, depending upon the position of the cameraman. If the cameraman enters a strictly employer/employee relationship in which he is reasonably compensated for his efforts in shooting the film, and no agreement was made concerning the supervision of the timing of the release prints or blowup, then his rights, if any, are minimal and the producer can feel justified in taking unilateral action. But what if the cameraman enters into a film knowing that he will receive far less than average professional pay, the hours will be much longer than the normal long hours, indeed working conditions shall, in general, be considerably more difficult, and that this, in fact, is the only way in which the film can even conceivably be completed given the budget? It could be argued — fairly, I believe — that the balance between what is considered full and adequate compensation and what is actually received is an investment, financial in nature among other things, by the crafts person in the given picture. It is a risk taken not dissimilar to that made by the financial investor. Is it not, then, reasonable to expect that the crafts person, too, not just the investor, is entitled to a return? I believe so, the return in this case being not money but a reasonable product which the crafts person can display with pride and which might promote future work. In this situation it would seem to me that the crafts person has some rights, not necessarily total or unilateral, to participate in those decisions that might adversely affect his return. A third possibility is where the cameraman negotiates in advance of shooting for the actual right to approve or disapprove all final release prints. Ozzie Morris in a talk last year to the C.S.C. indicated that 4/Cinema Canada this was how he attempts to handle thé probem. The success of Outrageous has given rise to much conversation that the future of filmmaking in Canada may rest, at least in part, with lower budget features. Low budget features invite and insist upon many and very large compromises from all concerned, producers, directors, writers, actors and the crafts people. If the future does hold this to be a means out of our economic dilemma, what becomes of vital importance is, not compromise or the avoidance of it but, the way in which fair, intelligent and effective compromises can be achieved. To that end I feel this can be more gracefully accomplished by people who have a firm concept of just what rights they have and how these rights interact and co-mingle with the rights of the others involved. The occasion of an article on Outrageous allows me, with thanks to Cinema Canada, to voice my concerns with regard to the complex, thorny problems of creating a more viable, internationally competitive, Canadian film industry. On a personal note, I wish to thank all those involved with the production of Outrageous for a valuable experience. With this my article would have ended. James B. Kelly, CSC Mountain Giraffe Films In Motion, Ltd. The article, ‘‘Seen from Behind the Camera”’ by Jim Kelly in our last issue, was written from a taped informal telephone interview initiated by us. It was given by Mr. Kelly with the understanding that his comments were to be incorporated into a broad article. We felt his ideas were interesting enough to stand alone. Henk Van der Kolk has advised Mr. Kelly that the budget for Outrageous exceeds $200, 000. The CFDC has advised Cinema Canada that the production budget for Outrageous was $165,000. Ed. C.A. Corrections { have just read my article which was published in issue No 38-39 of Cinema Canada, and would like to make two points of clarification. First, my reference to passing title on January 2nd should be extended to refer to any year-end, and only applies if the seller has a year-end which is different from that of the buyer. Second, my reference to ‘‘now-obsolete equipment” in the section on capital losses should read ‘“‘non-depreciable capital assets”. This should help clear up any confusion surrounding these points, for which I apologize. Kindest regards, Nel Smith, C.A. Avenged I have only now seen your brief item reporting on my association as producer of the early episodes of The New Avengers. Your are correct in noting that I did reassign casting responsibilities although, in truth, no formal arrangement had previously been made, but you wrongly suggest that I set about firing directors. I set about hiring directors, among them the very Peter Pearson whom you say I dismissed. Two directors were already committed to the series when I arrived. Both have remained to direct one or more episodes. It is true that Peter Pearson left the assignment, but this came about amicably when he asked permission to accept an enticing offer that would overlap the weeks of his work with us. In the sincere hope that we could get him back for a later epi sode, I agreed. Ross McLean Toronto Covert Lists Would appreciate an article sometime on our various activities in animation here in “Turkey town’’. In checking locally, I discover you no longer have a correspondent here. If you are having trouble locating coherent dependable people, I could supply you with a carefully acquired list which I amassed through much danger to my person following exceedingly covert research and assuming many false disguises. This list can be yours for the asking provided you can say very quickly or even say at all five times: “Canada does not end at the third post hole west of Bathurst Street”’. There’s something in the drinking water back there which causes a speech impairment for those trying to say that sentence. The only cure is to move west. It would be nice to see more mention of animation and film activities out here but you have the printing presses there in Berlin — oops! And we poor slobs at the western front will just have to fight the unknown fight. Pacific Cinematheque informs me you are not interested in ‘Commercial Animation”, which on pressing further they