The reaction I got on the blog made me want to write more about it, but the thought of composing such a post actually sent me into a soporific coma.
Well, lo and behold, Playback today makes my point for me, and if you believe their spin, this year's Toronto International Film Festival means sunny skies and a new future for Canadian film. Excerpts from the article, "Canuck Films Sizzle With More Commercial Focus." :
But what will mark this year as a watershed point in the evolution of our national film industry is the incredible range of work, and an unprecedented trend toward genre pictures with commercial potential at home and abroad.
"People are playing with genre in a different kind of way -- certainly in the case of [Martin Gero's romantic comedy] Young People Fucking or [Chaz Thorne's black comedy] Just Buried, which is very sharp."
Gravestock observes that Canadian filmmakers are personalizing genre in a way that he's never seen before, making them more audience-friendly.
"They all seem very contemporary -- plugged into what's going on now," he says. "One of the problems with genre is the story doesn't necessarily change from one decade to the next. [This crop] plays with it, and feels very much about the way we live."
Telefilm Canada head Wayne Clarkson agrees that there has never been more diversity in homegrown fare, from the eight first features to the no less than five films based on Canadian literary works. He also clearly sees why.
"It's the changing nature of the business," he says. "I think what's reflected here is the degree of international involvement in Canadian films."
The Telefilm chief -- and former head of the Toronto fest -- also notes that it's a sure sign of the maturing of an industry, one that needs to be able to compete in the world market in order to sustain its growth.
I'm going to see "Young People Fucking" tonight. I have fingers crossed and an open heart. Or that might be the other way 'round. Who can tell nowadays?
34 comments:
I think that, for the last few years at least - Canadian Films have been superior to American (although obviously there aren't as many) if you like something that is well thought out, creative, well written, tells good stories and isn't afraid to take a risk.
American fare has been better if you like high production values and star power, and/or enjoy seeing a publicity machine run
Of last years contenders for 'Best Picture' in the states I liked 'Little Miss Sunshine' but didn't think it was best picture material. The rest I honestly didn't like. The Departed was clearly the best episode of Law and Order ever, but that's all it was.
Personally I like to be challenged, I like to see creative people take risks - I'd rather see them take risks and fail than not take risks at all. I like things that make me think, and that keep me thinking long after the show is over. But that's just me.
Yeah, but Justin, you stake out a huge sweeping terrain there and point to it as fact. As a generaliztion, it's a whole lot more suspect than my generalizations about the general cant of Canadian film.
I can't argue with The Departed being not to your taste, but you're being more than a little glib in dismissing American films such as Letters from Iwo Jima, Last King of Scotland, Half Nelson, Little Children, Devil Wears Prada, United 93, etc, etc, etc.
Your POV about Canadian film and why you like it is, in fact, the things that the defenders of Canadian film usually say. And it's framed the way you frame it -- as a reaction to the dominant American industry.
But I question that entire premise. If you are propping up the genre generally because you don't like American film -- well, that's a skewed approach. You don't have a mature industry if you're making movies to be different than Americans.
It's great that those films worked for you. But the rhetorical game of saying, "Canadian film is..." and then trashing the American industry and fllms as a whole is just elitism. And that's fine. But it is elitist. It's no truer a picture of the American industry than saying Canadian films are about people having sex with their Grandmothers in the snow.
Hmm. If that was your point, I think it came across as quite the opposite in your other post.
It may be elitist. But I think the definition of that has changed. It used to refer to people who liked classical music, and opera and Shakespear - in the 'old days' and elitist, for example, never would have had good things to say about "Shortbus"
But today, when "1 in 5 Americans can't find their own country on a map" and Paris Hilton is a celebrity who makes nightly news for doing nothing...things have changed a bit.
I haven't seen "Half Nelson", Forest Whitaker was amazing in "Last King of Scotland" but overall the film wasn't great - "the Devil Wears Prada", "Flight 93" and "Little Children" were, in my opinion, terrible.
If I'm an elitist that's fine. But I think elitist, based on your definition I can only take it to mean that I'm an intelligent person and expect to be treated as such by filmmakers (as well as TV makers, and other artists and content creators.)
To be fair, Diane, that wasn't my point in the earlier post. It really was a knee jerk reaction to Guy Maddin talking about how Canadian films are all different. It's the reaction and the more I thought about it that brought me to the riff Ijust laid on Justin.
Point, however, is that judging by the new generation of Canadian filmmakers debuting at TIFF, whether I articulated what I was thinking well or not, there's plenty of the new blood that agree with me.
The comfy cozy, "aren't our films wonnerful" CanFilm crowd are now going to have to deal with some pragmatic types who realize that there is a world and a market outside, that maybe genre films aren't evil -- and maybe you can even have fun twisting them a bit.
In twenty years in the Canadian media industry the thing that I feel I've constantly fought is this erroneous and simplistic view that anything with commercial appeal is like American stuff, and therefore evil. That kind of thinking has excused a whole lot of storytelling and filmmaking sins.
it's great to see that maybe there's a generation of new filmmakers that aren't going to argue the point like an old fart like me anymore -- they're just going to go out there and make films that are fun, and commercial, and not self-consciously trying to be different than something else.
I just reread that earlier post. I guess in a sentence, my view is this. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the filmmaker "treating the movie as a psychiatrist's office", as Maddin says -- unless they tell a good story, well.
Justin and I fundamentally disagree it seems, on the meaning of "good story."
Traditionally, the Canadian film community has thought more like Justin.
If Playback's trendspotting is on the money, there's a new crop who thinks more like me.
I win.
(I'm kidding.)
Sort of.
But when I read the playback article, I don't see what you apparently do. I don't see anything that looks like it is becoming more American (or 'commercial').
You're right, we do fundamentally disagree. I don't think that things should be made more generic to appeal to the "world and a market outside." (meaning primarily the US) and I think that "treating the movie as a psychiatrist's office" can be read in several ways. A good storyteller can think like a psychiatrist in considering the conscious and subconscious impact of various parts of their storytelling on the audience and if they are good it can work. When Lucas made 'Star Wars' he certainly played both psychiatrist and theologian.
What I don't want to see is Canada working it's way out from under US media dominance by making the same kinds of media that the US is dominating with. Otherwise what's the point?
Being like the U.S., in my view, is nothing to aspire to anymore - not in arts and media, politics, economics, business, education ...
Maddin and Gravestock make interestingly similar points - that Canadian filmmakers make more personal films, which make them less generic, which (and this part Maddin didn't say) makes them more palatable to audiences who are tired of, well, tired genres.
Wayne Clarkson's point sounds suspiciously like a point I keep hearing about Canadian TV, that mking them less Canadian via international partners and markets is making them more commercial.
As the lowly audience, I see so many similarities between the Canadian TV and film industries that it's a little peculiar to hear such a champion of one be so down on the other (that would be you, by the way).
I'm not sure the head of TIFF's Canadian programming or the head of Telefilm are the most objective observers here, any more than all the Canadian TV insiders who talk about our hugely successful TV industry because it sells cheap content to foreign markets and for a few months a year has two homegrown scripted shows in our top 30. "But they love us in Norway!"
Denis, tell me if I'm wrong here, but you wouldn't mind a film that took chances, was somewhat artsy and challenged the audience, as long as it focused on keeping the audience engaged and entertained first, right?
Justin, personally, I think you might be keeping a close mind by pigeonholing films that are entertaining and engaging can't be films that take chances and challenge the audience. I agree with you that American films may not be doing what you want them to do, but personally, I don't really care for navel gazing, chance taking and getting challenged if, frankly, the film doesn't keep my attention first.
Lex "personally, I think you might be keeping a close mind by pigeonholing films that are entertaining and engaging can't be films that take chances and challenge the audience."
Personally I frequently find films that take chances and challenge the audience to be entertaining and egaging. If I was being truly close minded I wouldn't see the films you're talking about at all. I don't see films just so I can say how much I hated them. But, if you read above, I have seen most of the films that Denis is talking about.
I just re-read everything, and to touch upon something Denis said, it's interesting that in the comments section, no examples of particular Canadian films have been mentioned. . .just that one American film from last year is OK and that the rest of them are debatable.
As an American, I'm kind of seeing the point Denis is making. Why not talk about the Canadian films in this situation positively as compared to bashing American films?
Otherwise. . .Justin, I haven't seen those Americans, so I don't have an opinion on them. I was just commenting on the general argument as I perceived it, which has come out to me as something like "A film is entertaining and engaging to Justin if it challenges the audience and takes chances."
I'm going to see ''Young People Fucking'' tonight too. Though I'll save $10 on popcorn and milk duds because it's at my usual secluded car park spot.
Ha! Bonus points to English Dave for introducing some levity.
Lex, Justin gave examples in the comments to the first post. I haven't heard examples of what DMc is talking about. Let's have a battle of the examples!
In my opinion, English Canadian film has had a lot of creative and audience-pleasing triumphs over the past several years ... pleasing to the audience who have managed to see them, that is. Eve and the Fire Horse, Water, The Snow Walker, Everything's Gone Green, Double Happiness, Partition are just a few examples of recent Canadian movies I've loved, liked, or been indifferent to, but that don't fit the stereotype of an industry that doesn't care about the audience, and that deserve more of an audience than they're ever going to get.
The film industry here suffers even more than Canadian TV from lack of awareness, competition from ubiquitous and bigger budget American fare, and the big one - it needs a bigger commitment from the audience, who have to be able to hunt them down at the few theatres they're playing in, and willing to plunk down money and invest in the time and hassle of going out. People are more likely to want a "sure thing" when they go to the movies, and a Canadian film you read maybe one review about if you're lucky, and no one you know has seen, is unlikely to be that sure thing.
Fido got a ton of marketing money devoted to it compared to other Canadian films, and it had all the makings of an audience pleaser, and it still did very little at the box office. Away From Her has done well commercially and critically but is it to be frowned on because it's more artistic, less commercial?
I'd suggest no one - not even DMc - has the answer to where the line is between thinking of the audience and pandering to them with disastrous results. Some of the most successful and entertaining films are deeply personal for the filmmaker and happen to resonate with the audience. I think our industry does that decently, but like with TV, for every success there's going to be a few failures, and because of the small size of the industry, we're talking about very small numbers of success, then.
''Some of the most successful and entertaining films are deeply personal for the filmmaker and happen to resonate with the audience.'
The eternal dichotomy.
''Some of the most successful and entertaining films are deeply personal for the filmmaker and happen to resonate with the audience.'
Example: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
Levity is good. But yeah, without talking about real things and having a comparable amount of examples on both sides, any kind of theoretical argument like this one probably won't go anywhere.
Your points about the marketing and getting the audience to watch reaches me, though, Diane. Most of the movies I've been going to lately are either (a) ones my wife brings me to, (b) sequels of movies that my wife has brought me to, (c) interesting reviews I've read in the paper or from bloggers or (d) are reminiscent of childhood toys (even though we haven't seen any of those lately).
Actually no. Examples simply muddy the waters in this case and make it a comparisons of personal taste. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the structural attitude of the industry itself and the heretofore dominant players in that industry.
The fact is that Canadian films don't reach a big audience. Quebec films do. Canadian films largely don't. Now, whether or not the films are good or not, there will be some that don't connect because of timing, marketing, etc. But there are so many avenues for films now that you would think that, if indeed there were all these gems, eventually they would find their love on home video or pay or TV. Most of them don't. Period. They don't connect with the audience. The praise for them is doled out on a sliding scale that doesn't consider the audience -- that in fact considers the audience people like Justin, who have a hate-on for American (read: Commercial) cinema.
The problem is that the Canadian Film industry, en masse, has been selling the idea blithely that it's entirely a case of poor distribution and exposure. I sat in the audience at the Genie Awards a few years ago and watched as person after person tromped up and complained 'we keep making these great films, and you don't watch them.' Any industry that blames its customer for its sins is craven indeed.
And if you go way back to my rant on 10 Ways to make Canadian TV better, you will see that I reserve contempt for those who try to pull the same thing about Canadian TV. The difference is that there ARE several TV shows that reach over that magic million mark -- that connect with audiences, so that the whole "Canadians don't watch Canadian TV thing" isn't actually even accurate.
But back to film. Last year in English Canada there were two hit films -- Bon Cop and Trailer Park Boys. Both were pooh poohed by the CanFilm crowd.
The CanFilm attitude is elitist, and its expressed here rather well by Justin.
It equates "commercial" with "simplistic or bad" or (in the CanFilm vocab) its synonym, "American."
Trying to be "not like American film" is as self conscious and pernicious a goal as trying to slavishly ape Canadian film. Neither leads to a confident, mature industry.
When Michael Bay stands up and blames the stars and the audience for not embracing The Island, he's rightly ridiculed in the press. But here, that kind of thing happens all the time - maybe not in the press, but in the chattering salons of film types. It's codswallop, plain and simple.
Clarkson et al who look at the new films as evidence of a mature industry aren't saying that they're mature because they sell. They're saying that they're mature because they eschew this kneejerk "different to be different" attitude and embrace things that the audience loves.
This is called "finding your voice." And it means that, yup, there will be Guy Maddins and the people that like his stuff can go find it. And there will be Egoyans. And there will be Rozemas. But there will also, hopefully, be Martin Geros -- who won't find that this country is hostile to them so they have to go to USA to make the things they want to make, so that then twenty years later they can come back to Canada for a weekend and have everyone kiss their ass left, right and centre.
By the way, YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING is a very dirty, very funny movie with a surprising amount of heart.
I hope it does really well.
The home market success of Quebec film has to be considered in light of the fact that something like 3 million folks there are unilingual French speakers.
No, not really. The comparison would be to Quebec films vs. Paris or French films.
Quebekers overwhelmingly prefer their own cinema. French films do Okay there, but they really do support their own.
That says that the language argument is not as important as you make it to be.
Okay, don't take the language spoken by the audience as a factor in the media they consume.
So it sounds like you're saying, dmc, that a more enjoyable Candianness will come out of a Canadian filmmaker or TV person if they don't try so hard to be not-American. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Having intentionally let the conversation go for a bit, a few points:
First, Denis's point about Canadian films eventually finding an audience - on DVD, Television, etc., is not grounded in reality. The same problems that plauge Canadian Films in the theatre plague them everywhere else too.
When an American film comes out, as I've said, it has a massive marketing budget. A budget that is probably matched dollar for dollar in free publicity - Talk shows, Entertainment Tonight, E! Television, Even Canadian national news - (TV, Radio, and Newspapers) are much, much more likely to cover American celebrities and American films. Even if someone does hear about a Canadian Film, chances are they can't see it. Canadian films get only 3% of the screen time in Canada and in many smaller cities and towns that means none at all. I mention all of this again because the marketing for a film when it is in theatres has a spillover effect into the success of the DVD. When Canadian films do finally come out on DVD, they are plagued with the same problem, American movies are heavily marketed when they hit DVD, commercials, posters, on sale at all the big box stores. Canadian films can afford none of that. My local (urban Toronto) video store might, get one copy (and might not) and it is then hidden in a corner on a bottom shelf while 60 copies of the latest Hollywood film dominate the shelves above. In smaller cities and towns there frequently isn't even a single copy of the DVD. Finally Canadian films aren't really shown on television. Even the CBC and TVO don't really show Canadian film. I know Denis doesn't think there is a correlation between marketing and finding an audience. I disagree.
I wonder how well Canadian Television would do if it got only 3% of screen time and no marketing budget?
I should also point out, a few things about myself just for the record.
First, I do volunteer work with First Weekend Club - which is in fact what I'm doing this evening. Feel free to visit their website if you don't understand why that is relevant.
Second, I am no one's target audience. I belong to Gen X - a tiny generation and no where near as lucrative as the Boomers or Gen Y. I've taken several IQ tests and generally score in the mid to upper 140s and while I don't have any kind of media degree I've done university coursework in film, theatre, literature, media studies, journalism and art. So I am, nearly always, in a minority and a much more discriminating customer than most television, film (and media generally) are aimed at. Still, I can't find it in myself to simply roll over and say 'yes it's fine' to fare that I find dull. I can only stand up for what I actually like.
Question from the American: Is there as much government subsidies (according to the different scales of industry) for films as there is for TV (or is that like comparing apples and oranges?)?
Subsidies for Canadian Film are considerably less. All film (and television) in Canada is subsidized to a degree, including foreign production - so when they came up here to shoot Chicago it was subsidized but not a Canadian film.
Here is a little primer http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/cbc/filmfact.html
Justin,
I.Q.? This is a forum about show business, tell us your cup size.
there seems to be a few too many generalizations here. DMC sounds a little bit like the TV writer who's had his first few years of exposure to some of the many asshole Canadian film directors who sneer at TV but remain incapable of making it on both artistic and practical levels while delivering movies to telefilm that, upon viewing, one can only bless the creators of HD cameras becuase at least they made the cash outlay a little less than it would have been twenty years ago.
and there a thousand of those movies.
But i don't think there is a new "movement afoot", I've read the same articles every couple years about the rebirth of the Canadian commerical film --FUBAR, that awful fucking thing AA got behind a couple years ago with Ryan Renolds, up to FIDO -- a movie that should have been ditched years ago once they arrived too late to the party (this is not the filmakers fault but once Shawn of the Dead came out they should have bailed on the project not to mention that doing a douglas sirk parody with zombies is just as fucking film school precious as anything Egoyan ever came up with.)
As for the whole IQ thing, I think it's just fantastic that you can tell what shape doesn't belong with the others...
Saying that blaming the lack of marketing is a copout is not the same thing as saying marketing is not important. Of course marketing is important. And marketing is a problem in Canada. But it's also used as a major excuse.
For all the money US openings have, 90% of films have that 60% dropoff in week 2. Marketing can open a film. That's all. Word of mouth is all.
Canadian films that have good sustained word of mouth -- Fubar, Hard Core Logo, Sweet Hereafter -- *do* go somewhere. You can first weekend club all you like, but hand in hand with that is people recommending the film to friends. Phil the Alien played longer than people thought in theatres because it got good word of mouth. I'm forgetting the name of the film now, but there was another movie last year that had the same experience.
As for the rest of justin's psychographic rundown, all I can say is that we match up in every respect there, Justin -- except for personal taste.
Yours is in line with the "establishment" of Canadian film.
Mine is not.
Except that it would be craven to delete my last post, I'm almost tempted to lock the thread and give blueglow the last word.
Fucking hilarious as usual. And more than a little bit true. Cheers.
"I wonder how well Canadian Television would do if it got only 3% of screen time and no marketing budget?"
Um, that kinda is the reality of Canadian Television.
And like any form of entertainment, except maybe English Canadian film, some of our shows do really well (Corner Gas, Degrassi, Trailer Park Boys, etc.) and some of our shows don't.
Yes, Canadian TV needs more promotion, publicity, etc. But the fact remains, as Denis pointed out already, that we do produce English Canadian hits in TV. Despite everything. And that's because the shows that work are distinctly 'Canadian' and yet are also shows that appeal to audiences.
Being 'discerning' or having a high IQ does not make one a better consumer of entertainment. In fact, if we'd actually look at this as the entertainment BUSINESS, then mass appeal should be right up there with artistic vision. In an ideal world, those two meld together.
Australia and Britain battle the same English-language behemoth that is Hollywood, and yet they've been able to break out hits with similar budgets and (lack of) promotion to Canadian film. And that's because they make commercial, yet distinctly British and Australian, films. Geographic proximity to the US be damned.
The problem is that the Canadian Film industry, en masse, has been selling the idea blithely that it's entirely a case of poor distribution and exposure. I sat in the audience at the Genie Awards a few years ago and watched as person after person tromped up and complained 'we keep making these great films, and you don't watch them.' Any industry that blames its customer for its sins is craven indeed.
Substitute "TV" for "film" and "Geminis" for "Genies" and I've heard the same thing many times, too.
Yes. And since this is primarily a TV writing blog, we've talked about that. In fact, we've talked about that
I've said that. Many. Many times.
But Canadian TV is learning that lesson, albeit more slowly than people would like. Film, being TV's slightly citified more pretentious cousin, is a little slower to change.
I don't suffer the fools in my industry who blame the audience for not connecting. And as blueglow intimated, I'm a little tired of the film folk who come in with their even more "fuck the audience" POV and bung up the small screen too.
A true "revolution" in Canadian film would not be an auteur driven thing -- it would be driven by people making commercially appealing films that still had artistic weight.
Believe me, I'd love to point out my personal list of the biggest sinning films of that type...but you know what? I stick my neck far enough out on this fucking thing. You don't get that piece.
But hey, all you lurkers on the statcounter from the NFB, CBC, CTV, Telefilm, "Government of Canada", Carleton, SFU, UofT and Ryerson -- feel free to chime in.
(and that's just the last 18 hours.)
I notice that no one chose to touch the question:
What would the state of Canadian TV be if there was no money for marketing, no can-con requirement and it only got 3% of screen time (not necessarily Network time, and probably not prime time)? Would it be doing better or worse than Canadian film? Or about the same?
Uh. Wrong, Justin. Aaron answered your question a few posts up. And very ably, too.
Okay, this has now devolved into heat-no-light.
We're done.
Post a Comment