Cinema Canada (Jun 1983)

ee ———eeEeESeerr rere Oe ee A OS OES TO ~ a ee EEE LAROCHELLE nstead, follow “more universal, more contemporary, more American trends... yes, more American !” Similarly Héroux criticized English-Canadian nationalism at the Toronto premiere of Quest For Fire: Said Héroux with disgust: ‘One English producer in Toronto sent me a letter telling me that Quest For Fire should not be financed because it did not have the soul of Canada in it.’ As Claude Héroux, Quebec representative of Filmplan International, once pointed out to students, “in a state of crisis, we have to actona more international level; American film markets are coveted, therefore we must adapt to the language of that cinema, to its subjects, its content...” And Gilles Carle said recently on Radio-Canada: “Nationalism closes itself off within its nationalist culture, which has become the new parish with its new priests.” So it seems to be enough to turn to the panaceas of universal efficiency, viability and exportability, to rid ourselves of narrow, chauvinist nationalism. But that is not all. These minstrels of universality are themselves nationalists since they advocate nationalism on the economic level for the purpose of creating a solid, private film and television industry; and, as has been noted, they don’t mind adding to this financial! nationalism, an incidental cultural nationalism whenever they need it. Up to a point this economic nationalism of the cultural industries has the same relation to its Canadian/Québécois roots that an oil tanker feels for its Panamanian ‘registry! In this sense, to reject nationalism only means to attack a national content whose characteristics are more than simply those of economic values. il. FOR THE PQ THE FRUITS WERE NOT WHAT THE BLOSSOMS PROMISED Why, since 1976, have Quebec's cinema assistance policies (politique d’aide de /'Etat au cinéma) developed in much the same wayas federal assistance policies ? The reasons for this remain unclear because these policies adopt ed the veneer of Quebec nationalism, a nationalism better defined than the Canadian variety. Second ly, the relationship between Quebec’s filmmakers and the PQ was more ambiguous than the much clearer relationship with the “number-one enemy”, the federal government. In 1974 the filmmakers’ rebellion took place under the Bourassa government, which had created, under great pains, the IQC in 1975-1976. But, at the time of the electoral triumph of the PQ in 1976, things suddenly changed direction. Many filmmakers now found themselves chanting: “Quebec cinema... with our government for our society...” First of all, there was the matter of working with the PQ to “reclaim Quebec's cinema from foreign economy and ideology.” Some of this enthusiasm was reflected in the promises of the Livre Bleu of 1978 entitted Vers une politique du cinéma au Québec. But the PQ turned its back on the progressive nationalism of the ’60s and '70s, by institutionalizing another. kind of nationalism. From the beginning ittoo supported the concept of cultural industries, the necessary merging of enterprises and increased assistance to management and marketing. As Claude Godbout said in 1981, after having been elected president of the IQC, it was deemed necessary to help industry financing and markets, to find assistance for companies, to make the tax system work for the cinema, and above all to work on the investmentstructure ; to adaptto the context, to get outofthe documentary and to move towards the fiction film. Here too economic nationalism. dominated cultural nationalism, for the purpose of “building Quebec.” The homogeneity of the sixties no longerexists _ Centred on the logic of economic objectives, a certain cultural nationalism in the cinema quickly lost its aggressivity, its demanding character and even its richest fundamental elements. Instead, it put itself completely at the service of propaganda for the party, or else it became prey to folklore of macramé-cinéma; and finally fell in line with the past, fully giving in to a retrograde style. For some years now the fiction fea 32 ture film hardly speaks of the present: new features like Les Plouffe ll, The Tin Flute, Maria Chapdelaine, are no exception to this trend. This kind of nationalism is also abundantly found in the advertising film, with its avalanche of “made in Quebec”, “so much at home”, “six million hydro-quebecers”, etc. Not only small and medium-sized businesses wallow in this kind of ‘nationalism’, but also Canadian Tire, Kraft Foods, Alcan, Pratt and Whitney etc. This type of economic nationalism does not cover the whole of cinematographic activity by any means. The so-called “cultural” cinema does not decrease its production, regardless of good or bad years. But, over the years, serious rifts have appeared in the film community ; the unanimity of the sixties no longer exists. Certainly, filmmakers like Gilles Groulx, Arthur Lamothe, Michel Brault, Pierre Perrault, Bernard Gosselin, Pierre Hébert, and Yves Dion still follow in the traditions of the quiet revolution, even if they express themselves with marked ideological differences. Over the past two or three years another significant movement has appeared that has led to a renewed questioning of Quebec’s “first” cinema of the ’60s. Claude Jutra, for example, declares thathe is “not the militant type” and that he “does not believe in a national Quebec cinema.” Fernand Dansereau feels he is starting from zero: “We were far away from entertainment... this aspect, so essential to the cinema, had been neglected too often in favour of a cinema drained by national and social battles... In the beginning we wanted to make fiction films but social conditions forced us into the documentary.” Carle, who would like to reconcile fiction and documentary styles, speaks harsh words when he describes the cinematic tradition of the 60s as “... this cumbersome petitbourgeois tradition, of Quebec's new wave, so harmful to the cinematic professions.” Clément Perron, on a similar note, says: “... our auteur cinema has done awaywith the vitally important role of the script-writer.” Claude Godboutalso thinks thatitis necessary to establish “cinematic values that are somewhat different from the ones we have adhered to