Take One (Apr 1967)

ee eee the UMIUMIPals & TRIALS of © LARRY KENT I would never show a film in Canada. Certainly not until it got reviewed elsewhere. You mean you would have it reviewed in Europe or New York? In the States, anywhere — but not in Canada. I’'d never open or break a film in Canada — there’s no chance. I mean, the Canadian critics are so sure of their inferiority in every way, and they act in a very patronizing and snide way to any kind of art. Why? I don’t know. It’s a fact. Except for Gerald Pratley and Robert Russél, who are genuine and honest critics, I have yet to seeacritic in Canada who is not patronizing to the film maker. He acts as if he is totally superior and as if Canada couldn’t produce anything worthwhile anyway. Why? I don’t know, I don’t know. I couldn’t answer it. Do you think it is that the critics haven’t developed? Yes. The point is that the critics are trying to say to us you have to be tops in the world, which is reasonable enough, and they are not even third-rate; they are hundredth-raters. Every one of them from Wendy Michener down would love to work in the States, like for the Tribune or the New York Times, or have the position of Phyllis Powell in London. I mean, their articles are not good enough to be accepted in Sight & Sound, or any of the top magazines which are free-lance. They are third-rate writers. Third-rate? They are tenth-rate. And yet they consider — they have to, I guess, for their ownego — that they are tops. Now, if we don’t have first-rate critics, maybe we don’t have first-rate film makers. No, that’s not true. You know one has nothing to do with the other. Remember, what we don’t have is money. I mean this sincerely. But for the Film-maker Kent was interviewed for Take One by Richard Notkin. little film we’ve done, we’ve done very well. I’ve ‘only got to quote my reviews for Sweet Substitute (Caressed). In the States, it got really great reviews from the Herald Tribune, New York » Times, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Examiner, and from the Manchester Guardian. | only got knocked by the Vancouver Sun and Wendy Michener in Macleans and others. And then, after having written these reviews, eacn of these critics has acted as if he had given you a great review and said, ‘‘I knew you were tremendous.’’ Wendy Michener acts now as if she liked Sweet Substitute and gave it a great review when, in fact, she knocked it for being just another teenage film and she disliked it at the time. Starting back at the beginning — something about you — first, you’ve been inthe business how long? Well, I was the originator. I was the first guy in’ Canada, the first, and probably in the world (we don’t know too much about it), but certainly “one of the first to make a feature film at a university. How did you get the money for that? Well, I worked and my wife worked, and we made Bitter Ash for $5000. Did you make any money on it? We made about $5500. So you made a profit of $500? Maybe a little more. But this is the film that David Secter saw and sort of grabbed, and now David is screaming that he’s the first one to have done it, with his first film (Winter Kept Us Warm), ’ which is quite amusing because then I made Sweet Substitute also at the university. Before he had even made his first film,. I had made two student films. How much did it cost to make Sweet Substitute? It was $15,000. Did you make any money on that? Yeah — well it’s running, it’s doing very well in the States. Right now it’s run at first-rate art theatres throughout the U.S. I think it’s run in about 600 or 700 theatres — maybe a thousand before we finish.