Cinema Canada (Dec 1977-Jan 1978)

Grass rears dsseniipestione george pearson and anthony kent Cold Journey is one of the few feature films ever made at the National Film Board. Why was the film made as a feature rather than the traditional NFB documentary? George Pearson: When you think of feature films, you think of entertainment, mass audience, commercial. Cold Journey was given the go-ahead on the basis that it is within the NFB mandate to make feature films in the public interest, on some social or ethnic problem in the country — in this case the whole business of native education. It wasn't strictly a decision to make a feature film, but when we came down to it, the dramatic form and feature length seemed to be right for the material and for the magnitude of the issue we were dealing with. The film was also unusual in that the NFB later became involved in the distribution of the film. George Pearson: It was the first film we ever distributed. Normally we write a contract with a commercial distributor who takes care of all distribution arrangements. We didn’t want to lose control of Cold Journey to a commercial distributor who would have invested money in the distribution and then locked up the film for a minimum of five years. The NFB wouldn't have been able to touch the film for non-theatrical release before that time was up. But, although we had said the purpose of the film was not to make ita commercial success but to doa job of public information on a certain critical condition, the finished film did look like it had some commercial potentiel. We just weren't sure how long it would last in theatrical release, through we wanted to give ita chance. With financial assistance from the Secretary of State, we put together a whole promotion campaign and launched the film. It was doing well in the theatres where we opened. At the same time though, pressure was growing from other users of our films to release Cold Journey for non-theatrical distribution. Finally, we withdrew it from commercial release and started to concentrate on non-theatrical distribution. Anthony Kent: We held special launchings in Regina and Edmonton, | planned in collaboration with Indian Affairs, the Secretary of State and the local Indian organizations. In that way we were able to spread the word about the film before we started the grass roots distribution. Now the film is shown in church halls, mission and residential schools, council houses — virtually anywhere you can put up a projector. It has been shown on TV in the three Scandinavian countries and was recently sold to the CBC for Canadian television. Cold Journey is widely used to increase understanding in union situations, colleges and government departments across North America. Mr. Pearson, | believe you attended some of these screenings. Can you describe audience reaction to the film? George Pearson: There are different audiences and their reactions are fascinating. The native audience loves it every time. They see much humor in the film. A white audience by itself sees none of that humor and sometimes can feel quite threatened. They take the film as an inditement of themselves, particularly Northerners, who live and work with the Indians. What really fascinates me though, is the reaction to the film when it’s a mixed white and Indian audience. The white people begin to see what the Indians see in the film and begin to understand their reactions. To the Indians it is ahumorous film, a meaningful film. White people see the Indians reacting, moving with the film and they begin to understand the film on a level which is not so threatening. That’s the ultimate point of the film, to convey to the non-Indian audience better understanding. Indian people are often the subject of documentary films, but this is one of the first feature films in which they can see themselves ina _ positive light. How do you assess \ their feelings about the film? \ George Pearson: It was understood when we started discussing the film thatit had to be a true documentary, albeit drama picture, of a true native condition. After we screened the film at the annual meeting of the Indian Brotherhood of Canada we were very aware that it didn’t matter what we thought of the film — either the people at Indian Affairs, or the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister of Canada. It really was totally irrelevant what we all thought. The film was successful only if the native community of Canada would admit that it was a true depiction of areal condition. Did they? George Pearson: They passed two resolutions at that annual Congress, one saying it was a great film and two, urging the NFB to give it the widest possible distribution. They said it was the first time native people have been portrayed with sensitivity and accuracy in the media ... really, their support was overwhelming.