Cinema Canada (May 1980)

Sitting pretty, until the love triangle threatens to become a tug-of-war, Lanctét as Lucky in Blood and Guts. Below: In Jean-Guy Noél’s Ti-Cul Tougas. Cinema Canada: | think people are a bit confused by the lack of an overall whole : Canada’s regionalism seems to present identity problems. Micheline Lanctét : But the regionalism is what makes it so fascinating. When I was asked to play in Duddy Kravitz, | didn’t even know the book. I had read StUrbain’s Horseman, and | knew Mordecai. But even if it was going to be a crossover, | was going to do it. I was so excited that they were making the film out of a book that was Canadian. And then the film was attacked for “not being Canadian.” That film is profoundly Canadian. It’s us. It’s not an American film. People all over the world recognize themselves as Duddy Kravitz, and yet he was a Montrealer. You can always spot Canadians abroad. It happened to me when I was in L.A. for five years. They’re totally different from Americans. I don’t know what makes them Canadians; you can’t analyze it. But that’s what they are. Now that Pve been abroad, I don’t question my identity any more. I am a Quebecer. I don’t have to make Quebec films to be a Quebecer. And English Canada has to realize that, too ; whatever they make, it’s Canadian. They don’t have to reach for this mysterious ‘universality’ to make the product marketable. 10/May 1980 Cinema Canada: The word ‘industry’ connotes something big; and in order to turn Canadian film into something big, I guess big box office returns are your best yardstick. Micheline Lanctét: It’s an impossible problem. People seem to think that an industry can be built in a matter of days. It took fifty years for Hollywood to get where it is ; and it’s known some very low The regionalism is what makes it so fascinating. periods. I don’t think the answer lies in borrowing a structure from somewhere else. If you want to build a Canadian film industry, you have to build it for Canadian circumstances. If you want to make American pictures, go to America. | mean, even the unions borrow their rate structure from the American system. It can kill the industry here. You can’t inflict market conditions on cinema which it can’t support. No matter what policy the CFDC follows, it can’t change the fact that Canada has twenty-three million people ; and most of them live in rural areas, and don’t go to movies. So I think that the art market is still the best solution for any Canadian film — be it English or French. There are 1500 art cinemas in the United States ; if your film runs one day, it'll pay. I also think that Canadian films should be sold as foreign films: it’s about time we distinguished ourselves from the Americans, and that means re-evaluating the distribution system. France has the same problems: | think most of their cinemas are owned by American chains. The money doesn’t stay in France — it goes to the U.S. We need a government-run cinema chain. Cinema Canada: You dealt with both the CFDC and L’institut québécois du cinéma to make your film. How do you view the two organizations ? Micheline Lanctét: Well, I think subsidies are bad, but I can’t make films without them. I think L’Institut has less responsibility, because it deals only with Quebec film; so they can afford to be more artistically ambitious. Any government organization is going to draw parasites, liberty-takers ; but despite the nonsense, some good pictures get made. I think that, because it’s slightly freer of structures, L’'Institut can deal on a more emotional level than the CFDC can. | know cinema is an industry. I'd rather it be an art. Honesty is not well-tolerated when you're dealing with money: and that’s very wearying. Cinema Canada: You’ve mentioned that your last experience at Cannes, asa visiting actress, was a very distasteful one. How do you feel about returning ? Micheline Lanctét: The terms are very different this time. I’m going as a person with a product to sell — which is the only way to go. D