Cinema Canada (Mar 1983)

e OPINION e The work of foreign agents Why is it that the National Film Board will not just roll over and die quietly? It has already been declared dead by Applebaum-Heébert, and even the most sympathetic of observers walking through its now empty halls smells an advanced state of decay —sans purpose, sans direction sans distribution, sans leadership. As a functionally effective organization, it has already ceased to exist and only waits the stroke of the bureaucrat’s pen to put it out of its misery and will it, officially, from the face of this earth. And then suddenly —and it would seem out of nowhere— it hits the headlines south of the border. Its praises are sung by all three American networks on successive nightly news broadcasts. Editorials and articles appear in The New York Times, The Washington Post and serious newspapers across the country. American senators and congressmen beseige Film Board offices with requests for films. This is no way for the dead to behave. To understand what has kept'the Film Board alive, one must look, not to the present, but into the past, to the very birth of the National Film Board and its reason for existence over forty years ago. And here we encounter some ironies. The U. S. Justice Department wants to label National Film Board films “political propaganda,” the work of “foreign agents.” The irony is that they are completely right. Many Film Board films are propaganda and, muchas welike to think of ourselves as one big happy undefended border, Canadians are foreigners (although it does take a rather large stretch of the imagination to think of James de B. Domville as an agent). The U.S. Justice Department is right, but it is forty years too late. The foreign agent was, in fact, John Grierson who, working with the British government secret service, founded the National Film Board. Its express purpose was to gain access to American movie theatre screens and influence our isolationist neighbours to the south to save England by joining World War II. But Grierson took a longer view as well, and breathed a fire into the organization — a fire which still burns today, despite the crippling organizational effects of bureaucracy and old age. He created a National Film Board that is truely an independent voice. Secure in its funding, it is able to put its considerable resources behind films expressing an independent viewpoint. It is free to make films on controversial subjects. It is free to make films which are not particularly popular. It does not have to rely on the generosity of large corporations and is even permitted to bite the governmental hand which feeds it. The United States thrives on the myth of liberty of expression. But anyone who has experienced the actual workings of the American media will appreciate the ways in which the National Film Board is a truely unique organization. There are, in fact, no independent voices on American television. In the much vaunted private sector, there area sprinkling of ill-funded, independent documentary films, but few people get to see them. In the American film world, you are free; as long as you are rich. “Foreign agents,” yes. “Political propaganda,” yes; if you define propaganda as anything different from popularly held opinions. Crierson, who-revglled in controversy, must be looking down on his child with amused glee. Damned from without, arthritic from within, the old place still has some kick left in her. Ronald Blumer Ronald Blumer, ex-NFB freelancer, has written and co-produced two series with Bill Moyers for Public Television and is currently working on a CBS science special with Walter Cronkite. Alberta consensus A consensus of Alberta filmmakers has formed in response to impending changes in Canadian film and broadcast policy. The following four points state our major areas of concern; 1, The Applebert-Hebert Report recommends drastic CBC cutbacks, while the DOC speaks of creating a$30 million fund to augment the CBC's purchase of independently produced programming. Given the conflicting positions of the Applebaum-Hebert Report and the DOC on the future of the CBC, we would like to reserve our position on the CBC and state the following: Regardless of changes made in the CBC, our regional production industries need more access to CBC airtime and markets and more of an opportunity to speak to and hear from other regions of Canada via our national network. Centralized budgeting starves the creative potential of the regions. Broadcast policy plans for re organization of the CBC network should include measured steps to enhance regional autonomy and to increase signifi 16/Cinema Canada March 1983 cantly the proportion of the total CBC budget which goes to the regions forthe purpose of stimulating and purchasing independent productions. 2. The Applebaum-Hebert — Report speaks of a possible profit tax on private broadcasters to “upgrade the quantity and quality of Canadian programming,” while the DOC speaks of creating a “Broadcast Program Development Fund,” a pool of some $30 million derived from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or by a program production levy on cable and pay television subscribers. We support strongly the creation of such a fund but ask what formula will be applied to its distribution 7 Will it stay mostly in Ontario and Quebec, or will it be used to encourage the creative energies of Canada’s many regional film communities ? Having already experienced the deluge of foreign signals via cable, and with more to come with the new technologies (DBS's, video-cassetles, etc.), we must resolve to develop our indige nous production industry so that we may compete on a worldwide scale. We must capitalize on all our available resources and build upon our regional production communities as well as on those in Central Canada. The fund could be a tremendous asset to our industry, but its administrating body must be flexible and responsive and composed of a balance of appointees acceptable to both the Federal Government and to industry representatives throughout the provinces. Key to the fund's success will be the degree to which its resources address the market problems unique to Canadian film and television. 3. Chapter 9 of the Applebaum-Hébert Report is written from a distinctly centralist point of view. For example, the report is unfair and inconsistent on the subject of the NFB. The regional produc tion studios of the NFB have helped provide hands-on training for new filmmakers, aided innovative and exploratory projects, and provided access to tools in the very manner the ApplebaumHébert Report suggests. Over the past few years, the NFB has opened up the sponsored film program, and we ask that there be an even greaterreliance on our regional film communities in this area. The greatest complaint the regions have about the Board is its lack of regional autonomy. The structure of regional programming committees with Advisory Councils of local filmmakers, already exists at the NFB. All that remains is to grant local communities the freedom to be responsible for the works they create. 4. The Applebaum-Hébert Report calls for a vastly increased role for the CFDC. In such a scenario, we ask that there be greater recognition of regional production communities than the present token “desk” that the Corporation has in Vancouver. Before the CFDC mandate is broadened, let it prove its effectiveness by increased support for our regional production industries. For the last decade, the focus has been on the To ronto-L.A. axis. In a renewed effort to enhance Canada’s production industry, let more attention be paid to the talent of our regional filmmakers. Commercial profitability must be balanced with our developmental needs, and we must be certain that the maximum financial support goes directly to our artists rather than being lost in administrative structures. The Consensus Committee Nick Bakyta President, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association Ted Barris President, ACTRA Writers’ Guild/Alberta Branch Dave Billington Edmonton Sun media columnist Jerry Ezekial Programme Director, Banff Television Festival Wendy Hill-Tout Calgary Film Co-op Lorne MacPherson President, Alberta Motion Picture Development Corporation Tom Peacocke Actor Tom Radford Executive Producer, North West Production Studio, National Film Board of Canada David Scorgie Assistant Director, Film and Literary Arts Branch, Alberta Culture He eT se Kh Se Perverts cornered As if it weren't sufficiently furtive and , humiliating to be slipping into the newsstand, penniless, just to leaf through No. 93 of Cinema Canada and assure myself that my lousy little notice was still in your Production Guide, you just had to put some half-naked man on the cover holding a two-and-a-half-foot long thing. , I ended up with the other leafers in Perverts’ Corner where I found you snuggling up to Blueboy, Hot Load and The Salami Quarterly. ; Can't you guys think of anything in advance ? Or did you do this to me on purpose ? Answer fast with a free subscription or else this goes directly to the Canada Council. I’ve got the polaroids. David Lieber Montreal Chetwynd winner With regard to the recent announcement of the CFTA 1982 Awards in Cinema Canada (November-December, 1982), I notice that the Chetwynd Award was missing from the list of winners. The Chetwynd Award went to Creative House, Vancouver, B.C., an organization which has demonstrated the greatest imagination and achievement in business promotion in the Canadian visual images industry over the past year. Robin Lecky, a partner in Creative House, accepted the award for Come Together in Calgary, a twelve-projector, two screen audio-visual presentation which was largely instrumental in convincing the International Olympic Committee to award the 1988 Olympics to Canada, an event with a great deal of business potential for Canada’s visual images industry. Robin Chetwynd President & General Manager Chetwynd Films Ltd. Eyesore This is in response to the article “Burden of Dreams” by Emil Sher which appeared in your January issue. While we applaud the support and coverage you have given to independent film co-operatives, (two successive issues including articles on same — we must be doing something right!), we were, however, somewhat disturbed by the actual layout and placement of the article — forced to the margins of an article on Le Festival du Nouveau Cinema. Don’t you think we have been mar _ cite