A nation in search of a film industry

>> Sheila Copps launches a survey to find the Answer

by MATTHEW HAYS

Anticipation ran pretty high last week, when Heritage Minister Sheila Copps, considered a left-leaning, arts-friendly member of the prime minister's cabinet, was set to make a major announcement at the 30th-anniversary dinner for Telefilm. As hundreds of members of the press and film community shot back a few drinks and prepared to chow down at the Westin Hotel, Copps, flanked by her entourage, put forth what has become the typical Canadian government solution to a problem: propose another study.

A 20-odd page bilingual paper was handed out, titled simply, "A Review of Canadian Feature Film Policy." The text features a succinct overview of the nation's film industry, including various stats on marketing and distribution, profits and exhibition of Canadian cinema. The booklet concludes with a call for submissions, in which Canadians are asked to make recommendations about what should be done to bolster our film industry.

Though there wasn't a clear consensus, one body of opinion seemed to take the lead, and that was that Canadian movies need more government assistance to prop up their budgets. Home-grown movies just look too darn cheap, goes the suggestion, and that's why Canadians don't go see them. Canadian TV broadcasters should also invest more heavily in feature films.

At the same time, distributors and producers seemed intent on quashing the idea that quotas should even be considered. In last Saturday's Globe and Mail ("Film quotas spurned"), arts reporter Doug Saunders wrote, "Film distributors dismissed the notion of quotas, saying that Canadian movies could easily command more screen time... if they had bigger budgets and more popular themes."

Copps' discussion paper appeared to back this up. Though there were thought-provoking questions about Canadian control of distribution companies (an important question), additional funds for production (also important), the word 'quota' is mentioned only three times. This despite the long-standing debate about quotas, and the request for years from film types for legislation that would require five per cent of screen time (at very least) be taken up by Canadian film product. In 1984, in an article titled "The Best Film Policy This Country Never Had," Sandra Gathercole convincingly argued that one of the measures desperately needed to strengthen Canada's anemic film industry would be a quota system. "The government's ideological commitment to an unprotected market," she wrote, "means that policy is perpetually being built in economic quicksand. The belief that Canada can play ball with the Americans and win has been maintained in the face of consistent evidence and advice to the contrary."

The authors of Copps' discussion paper are either being decidedly ingenuine or grossly ignorant of the history of the Canadian film biz. The idea that somehow a simple pumping up of film budgets will make Canadian products more saleable is ridiculous. Doesn't anyone remember Bethune? A bunch of producers thought if they just gave a Canadian film an American-style budget, magic would happen. It didn't. (The best thing to come out of Bethune was, ironically enough, a low-budget documentary about its making called Strangers in a Strange Land.)The argument that big budgets make better movies is further shot down when one simply compares the likes of Waterworld (budgeted at $180 million) to umpteen indie films. We need look no further than our own borders: two of the most interesting films to come out of this country in as many years are Kissed and The Hanging Garden. Both have commanded attention internationally and both were made for under $1 million each. (As for the input of TV broadcasters, can you imagine some chump over at CTV investing any money whatsoever in either of these films, considering their subject matter?)

While government bureaucrats lament the poor success rate of Canadian films, they often point to the wondrous hit parade of the Canadian music business. But Canadian musicians have succeeded primarily because of Canadian content regulations faced by radio stations across the country--in other words, quotas. When faced with the choice of easy profits and big-name U.S. recording stars versus giving the little local guy a chance, most stations will opt for the former. Cancon rules, or quotas, have forced them to open at least a small portion of Canadian frequencies up to Canadian artists. That's perhaps the main reason why we have a music business today. Film distributors should be forced to do the same.

While the government may appear to be in a state of PR coverup about the fact that they intend to do nothing to help bolster the Canadian film industry, the wild card to be watched is Copps. She clearly does feel strongly about Canadian culture, and is often a loose cannon. Hopefully she has the stamina to stand up to the intensely powerful U.S. film industry lobbyists, who will be watching our government's every move. As Canadians have increasingly attended the cinemas over the past 10 years, the percentage of screen time for Canadian films has, amazingly, managed to shrink. The American film lobby has been laughing all the way to the bank, while our own artists' access to our own screens has been suffocated.

Comments to the federal government may be mailed (deadline March 20) to: Film Policy Review, Dept. of Canadian Heritage, 15 Eddy St., 15-4-E, Hull, QC, K1A OM5 or faxed to (819) 997-5690 or e-mailed to: film@pch.gc.ca