Cinema Canada (May 1980)

BOOK REVIEWS Seeing Ourselves; Films for Canadian Studies by James E. Page National Film Board of Canada, Montreal 1979, vi & 210 pp. $3.95 Professor James E. Page’s Seeing Ourselves is a well-written, earnest attempt to provide a source book for the use of film in the teaching of Canadian Studies to students from Kindergarten through University. Page is the current president of the Association for Canadian Studies. He served as part of T.H.B. Symons’ Commission on Canadian Studies. To a degree, his book is a response to that Commission’s 1976 report, Knowing Ourselves, which attempted to rectify the misuse and underuse of audio-visual resources noted in that document. Responding to that report could have Arthur Winkler, CLU Consolidated Insurance Agencies Ltd. Providing a specialized service to the entertainment industry since 1968. Consult us for budget estimates, quotations or information about your insurance requirements. 3101 Bathurst St., suite 201 Toronto M6A 2Y1 Telephone (416) 787-0304 30/May 1980 been an ambitious undertaking. The 1980 NFB/CBC Catalogue alone lists some 1700 titles. To this would have to be added the resources of private producers, circulating collections, and those archival materials that could be put into at least limited distribution. Seeing Ourselves however, does not represent a digestion of the total resources available. Instead, it concentrates on some 300 titles from the current NFB/CBC catalogue. Of these, 130 films receive detailed treatment under topic headings that include: Art and Artists, FrenchEnglish Relations, History, Literature, Native Studies, Political Process, Quebec, Regional Studies, Urban Studies and Women’s Studies. A second section provides 200 to 500-word reviews of the selected films, while titles that failed to make the final cut receive sporadic reference throughout. The indexing is formidable. While Page makes the standard disclaimer — i. e. that much of his selection is a matter of personal taste — his method of choosing films does leave room for argument beyond mere quibbles over individual titles. The decision to exclude films made outside the NFB and CBC is itself worth protesting. While Seeing Ourselves was sponsored by the NFB, it is being distributed through the Canadian Film Institute — an organization with a responsibility to the entire Canadian film community. The book leaves the reader wondering whether any of Canada’s independent filmmakers may have produced anything worth studying under the topic of Art and Artists, French-English Relations, Native Studies, the Political Process, Quebec, or Women’s Studies. Certainly a large addendum, and perhaps something of an apulogy, is needed. The bias against privately-produced films carries over to a bias against older works. Barely ten percent of the films chosen by Page were made before 1970. In this respect, he treats the past even. more shabbily than does the NFB or the CBC. In their 1980 catalogue, the two public institutions reserve approximately 25 percent of their collection for films more than a decade old. Had Page gone beyond this one source, the bias toward more recent work would be even more apparent — and even less justified. More importantly, the inclusion of archival films might have served to bring these works into general distribution. While teachers should be made aware of Nancy Ryley’s 1972 Grey Oul, they should also know that the original Grey Owl films exist. Their demand for those films could make them more easily available. The third bias reflected in the selection is that against drama, or dramatic reconstruction, alternate forms of documentary and film as art. Page does his duty by asking teachers to alert their students to the fictional nature of acted segments within documentaries, such as the Adventures in History series. But beyond that, he is reluctant to recommend dramatic material other than the obvious (Drylanders), and the unquestionably outstanding (The Best Damned Fiddler . from Calabogie to Kaladar). Why does he not take full advantage of the possibilities for Women’s studies inherent in King’s Maria, or consider what Carle has to say about Quebec in The Merry Life of Leopold Z? More importantly, could he not discuss filmed drama as part of Canadian culture and, at the same time, come to terms with the use of drama in the docu-. mentary context ? What about coming to terms with documentary itself? Although Page includes Rubbo’s Waiting for Fidel in the top 300, the film doesn’t make the final cut — | suspect, because it lacks that voice of God firmness that characterizes most of the book’s choices. Certainly, depriving any public school class of Rubbo’s Sir! Sir ! — because it doesn’t teach in a didactic, straightforward manner — is at least a misdemeanor. More seriously, the role of ‘citizens addressing the political process as presented in the Challenge for Change films cannot be ignored, even if these films are less accessible than standard social studies expositions. It isthe role ofa book like Seeing Ourselves to not only mention these films, but to take on the difficult task of providing a context for their use. Finally, one is at a loss to understand why Page does not make a more extensive use of those films that would be most