Canada\'s Film Industry When Talking

Canada's Film Industry

When talking about movies, most people's mental representation consist of the sign from the Hollywood Hills, the well-known Hollywood's Walk of Fame or the glamorous Oscar ceremony which allows them to recognize their favorite actors or actresses. But how many realize that the roots of celebrities who are given the red-carpet treatment aren't exclusively American? For instance, how many cinephiles who have been touched by the story of Titanic, the renowned film that won 11 Oscars in 1998, know that its director James Cameron has Canadian origins? Furthermore, how many moviegoers have found out that contemporary cineplexes representing one of their favorite leisure destinations were invented by a Canadian? Certainly, the percentage of those people holding such information is very low as the world's "one and only" movie fortress is considered to be the U.S.A. Consequently, Canada seems to be absent from the film industry map existing in people's perception. Still, despite not being very well-known, Canada's contribution to the world's cinematography exists and history proves it.

A brief history of the Canadian film industry

The first Canadian filmmaker was James Freer, a farmer from Monitoba, who produced documentaries depicting life in the prairies. These were used as a tool for stimulating emigration to Canada and were exhibited in the U.K., from 1898 to 1899, by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Seeing the tremendous success that these movies achieved, the CPR organized a second tour in 1902 and hired a British company to produce Living Canada, a series of 35 films plus a 15-minute drama - Haiwatha, the Messiah of the Ojilway (1903), the first of its type in Canada. In 1910, CPR resorted to the Edison Company for the production of 13 story films which were intended to sell indigenous products abroad. The project was financed from autochthon funds, but it was drawn up by foreign professionals. This was one of the proofs probating Canada's distrust of its own potential which placed the national film industry in a shadow that the country is still fighting to escape from. Thus, while American companies began to use Canadian landscapes as film settings, the hosts had to settle for newsreels and travelogues as the only remaining niche which allowed their access to cinematography. 1912 was a prolific year because several film companies in Canada dedicated their time and financial resources to producing fiction and factual films. Some of that period's most representative outcomes were: Evangeline (1913) - the first Canadian feature, based on one of Longfellow's poems, made by the Canadian Bioscope Company from Halifax; The Battle of the Long Sault (1913), produced by the British American Film Company of Montreal; the comedies and adventure films from 1914 to 1915 signed by the Conness Till Film Company, in Toronto; and last but not least, The War Pigeon (1914) focusing on the 1812 war drama, produced by the All Red Feature Company.

Yet, the decline of the Canadian film industry seemed to reach its end after World War I when being driven by strong nationalist feelings; native professionals boosted the indigenous production. Such were the cases of George Brownridge who produced three admirable features, Ernest Ouimet whose name is bound to the world's first luxury movie theater that was established in Montreal in 1907, Blaine Irish - the producer of two short series and a feature named Satan's Paradise (1922). But the most successful filmmaker who brought Canada in the limelight was Ernest Shipman, the author of Back to God's Country, a movie made in Calgary in 1919 which was distributed worldwide and which returned a profit three times higher than the costs it implied. Furthermore, Shipman was the one who brought dynamism and authenticity to national films by opting in favor of location and not studio filming. Unfortunately, this optimistic trend which appeared to reinvigorate home industry suddenly faded. Thus, in comparison with 1922 which took pride in 9 features, 1923 limited its activity to only two features. Moreover, the American octopus stretched its tentacles over the distribution and exhibition of movies, a thing which seriously hindered Canadian films from being shown on domestic screens. The U.S. monopoly wasn't a phenomenon exclusively affecting its northern neighbor. It also tried to make European industries kneel down but these proved to be a very self-determined counterpart who flexed its muscles and opposed America's conquest dream through both controlling ownership over distribution and stimulating national initiatives. Unlike Europeans, Canadians ceased to U.S. corporations, but tried to maintain their ego or what was left of it by making "quota quickies" for the British market. The latter bought these productions due to the requirements imposed by the British law which established that a certain number of Commonwealth films must be shown. But this last hope of promoting 'home-baked' products disappeared in 1938 when the stipulation mentioned above was withdrawn as a punishment for the American interference, tolerated by the Canadian government. The only memorable feature from that period that archives remind of was The Viking (1930-1931), a movie describing the lives of seal hunters from Newsfoundland. The 1930s have also remained in the collective memory for another achievement - the first 'talkie' color film: Talbot of Canada, made in 1938. Still, the 1930s brought a sharp decline only in the beginning because, before reaching their end, new promising opportunities emerged in the form of new film companies, Odeon theaters, or John Grierson's report which led to the creation of the National Film Board (NFB), an institution providing trainings to Canadian filmmakers. Despite this apparent upward tendency, domestic productions continued to be poor.

The 1940s were especially kept in mind for one English-Canadian feature film - Bush Pilot (1946) and for the first 'talkie' in French - A la Croisee des Chemins (1943).

The 1950s lifted the barrier a little bit and managed to display five feature films. Two of these (A dangerous Age - 1957, A Cool Sound from Hell - 1959) were produced by a young Canadian, Sydney Furie, whose vision and talent won numerous international adherents. But as Canada was one of the countries which knew best how to play down the importance of its national values, it neglected Furie's potential and determined him to immigrate to Great Britain in 1960, an adoptive country which, unlike its native one, greeted him with open arms.

The 1960s made the art of the moving picture more accessible to Canadian students due to the 16mm camera which penetrated the market. This technical progress resulted in several low budget films which were not overlooked either because of the controversial sex scenes like those in Larry Kent's movie - Bitter Ash (1963), or because of the futurist perspective that then student David Cronenberg approached in two of his movies. 1967 was considered to be a significant year as it was related to the foundation of Canadian Film Development Corporation (now Telefilm Canada) aimed at enhancing the production of feature films. Although it was expected to boost home market from the very beginning, CFDC started with modest budget movies which had low adherence to audience or critics.

In the 1970s, co-productions making use of foreign talents came into fashion. Two of the most successful movies that this trend resulted in were The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (1974), and Lies My father Told Me (1975). Yet, the characteristic treat for that period was the lack of cultural identity, regardless of the two exceptions - Why Shoot the Teacher (1976) and Who Has Seen the Wind (1977) which were based on Canadian novels. But maybe the most important achievement which doesn't let us erase these years from the film industry's history is the opening of the 18-screen Cineplex in Eaton Centre, Toronto, an event which has been recorded even in the Guinness Book. Everything started with Nat Taylor's passion for movies and business. Being mesmerized by both the art of the motion picture and the vast sums of money that its selling could have brought, the Canadian bought the Elgin Theater from Ottawa in 1938 and divided it into two sections: the Little Elgin, dedicated to art movies, and the Big Elgin, focused on first-run features. Observing that this segmentation provided him with higher profits, he continued to add sections until he established a worldwide record in 1979 and invented the word cineplex to name its discovery.

The 1980s restored national pride through the high quality movie - The Grey Fox (1982), and the foundation of the Ontario Film Development Corporation in 1987 which began to take proper care of marketing Canadian films, a field which was thought to be Achilles heel at that time. The same period boasted encouraging initiatives of woman filmmakers like Anne Wheeler, especially known for the family drama Loyalties (1986) and Bye Blues (1989), or Patricia Razema, famous for her movie I've heard the mermaids singing (1987). Other filmmakers whose talent was fully unveiled were David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Peter Mettler, Jeremy Podeswa and so forth.

The 1990s relocated the Canadian film industry on the right wave. Thus, the home market became an agora of diversity. Ethnic issues began to tell their stories through the voice of Srinivas Krishma who returned to her Indian roots in Masala (1991) or depicted the life of a Vietnamese refugee in Lulu (1996). Black people outlined their problems due to Rude (1995), or The Planet of Junior Brown (1997), directed by Clement Vigo, and Soul Survivor (1995), produced by Steven Williams. Both of them had graduated from the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies, founded by Norman Jewinson in 1988. Sexual minorities were not neglected either, an eloquent example being John Greyson who made one of the best short films ever - The Making of Monsters (1991).

However promising this evolution may be, the English branch of Canadian cinematography continues to lack in distribution on the domestic market. Consequently, this results in low box-office revenues which are considered to be high enough when they exceed $1 million. But this merciless faith doesn't seem to extend over the French Branch which is more successful because of the language which determines the audience from Quebec to be more receptive (Verroneau, Morris, and Handling, 2006).

An attempt to explain the paradox

Suppose we invited a person who knew nothing about the Canadian film industry to read the following information: the National Film Board won 10 Academy Awards; the Canadian director Denys Arcand won the best foreign movie Oscar for Les invasions barbares (2003) and the Jury Prize of the Cannes Festival for Jesus de Monteral (1989); his colleague Atom Egoyan was awarded the International Critics' Prize in 1994 for Exotica and the Grand Prix, the International Critics' Prize, and the Ecumenical Jury Prize of the Cannes Festival for the Sweet Hereafter in 1997; Canadian director David Cronenberg won a Special Jury Prize in 1996 for his movie C.R.A.S.H. Undoubtedly, that person would be impressed by these achievements and wonder why he didn't hear about them. According to Peter Morris (2006), the main cause that overshadowed the national industry was a defectuous deal which followed World War II. In 1947, Canada owed the U.S.A. vast sums of money that the latter had lent during the conflagration. Consequently, when the NFB and CFDC tried to establish both a tax on American movies that were entering the country and distribution rights for Canadian films, U.S.A. reminded them of the balance payment. Therefore, the government was almost compelled to sign the Co-operation Project, a mephistotelic pact whose echoes continue to be propagated over nowadays industry, too. The agreement stipulated that American movies were allowed free access on the home market in exchange for their attempt to promote Canadian tourism through numerous enticing landscapes included as a setting in their motion pictures. This was obviously a pretext aimed at justifying a truce from which only one part came out victorious.

The decline that followed was sharp and even became subject to national jokes pointing at Canadian films' failure to cover their production costs. If one takes Australian pictures as a comparison term, he can see that despite having a smaller population, this country obtains much higher profits. An edifying example is Mad Max, the movie starring then unknown Mel Gibson, which had a budget of AU$350,000 and a revenue of AU$5.6 million on the home market alone. Moreover, if most Canadian actors went to Hollywood for making their entrance on the international market, Australian performers like Nicole Kidman, Guy Pearce or Hugo Weaving first became famous in their country and afterwards were recruited by Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Canada).Of course, we could argue that history was much more indulgent with them because they weren't obliged to fight the absurd consequences of an unfair agreement. Still, this doesn't seem to be enough when explaining the downward trend which requires seriously delving into its causes.

The first item refers to the inequitable balance between Canada and the U.S.A. In terms of competing on the same market. The usual average cost of producing and marketing an American feature amounts $60 million, not to mention blockbusters like Titanic whose record budget amounted $650 million. As Hicks states (1999), American studios like Paramount, Universal, Fox, Sony Pictures/Columbia, Warner Brothers etc. are "not only vast production lots with sound stages and property departments, studio sets, and location ranches for major productions, but also major investment houses" (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-68-1406/arts_entertainment/film_industry/).Now, if we think of Canadian films with an average budget of $2.1 million, this may sound as black humor. According to filmmaker Paul Donovan, making a movie in Canada is similar to "climbing Mount Everest without oxygen because of the indifferent public, harsh critics, limited funds and foreign-owned movie houses." He highlights that the art of the motion picture is a "labor of love" and international masterpieces like The Barbarian Invasions and Nobody waved Goodbye were born only because of the filmmakers' passion and self-determination to make their talent shine worldwide, regardless of financial drawbacks. But not all professionals accepted to fight that much in order to convince their home country that they deserved its attention. Admirable directors and producers like Ivan Reitman and Norman Jewinson chose Hollywood over Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal out of financial reasons but also because of Canadian snobbery. Referring to this last issue, Reitman mentioned some of his movies (including Metaballs) which despite bringing major revenues, were highly criticized by specialists. Others proved to be more stubborn and rejected the American Dream. This category boasts Davis Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Denys Arcand who made excellent movies although they stayed at home. Still, Arcand admits that the enchantment of the mighty dollar was very difficult to resist.

In conclusion, similar quality requires similar budget. The financial inequity between the two countries explains the character-driven dramas or quirky comedies through which Canada strives to continue its cinematographic tradition although these genres are tasted rather by critics than mass audiences. On the other hand, there are voices which claim that the tax policy implemented by the government didn't stimulate qualitative movies as the producers' single goal was to benefit from the tax credit. This means that not only poor budgets, but also filmmakers' eagerness to make profits without proper work created favorable conditions to a general decline.

A second reason which can explain the failure of Canadian movies is their lack of connection with the cultural heritage. For instance, people find it very difficult to believe that movies like Porky's or The Art of War were partially made in Canada. On one hand, this tendency may derive from the Canadian filmmakers' conviction that movies sell better when resembling the American ones. In the editorial posted on www.pulpandagger.com, the Masked Movie Critic makes a very interesting analysis of several films broadcasted by national televisions or exhibited in movie theaters. Thus, he refers to Siblings, a black comedy which despite using Canadian settings and cast doesn't mention these details on its credits. Moreover, when talking about a latent homosexual, the character uses the "queer as a three-dollar bill" expression although this doesn't exist in Canada. On the contrary, even the one and two dollar bills were long ago transformed into coins which bear the names of "loonie" and respectively, "toonie." The same movie makes use of "the third grade" syntagma in spite of the fact that Canadians say "grade three." Another example is the teen drama Falcon Beach which forgets that it is set in Canada and presents children waiting for the results of their Harvard application. The gap between the movie and the real life is huge as very few Canadians apply for foreign universities. The enumeration continues with the Terminal City mini series which at a certain moment focuses on Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," an American controversy that Canadians didn't share. Furthermore, the editorialist mentions the American accent from Canadian movies and the extent that this import of principles has reached, by evoking a scene in a Canadian shop: "A while back someone told me about overhearing a conversation between two people -- shopping in Toronto's Bohemian Kensington Market, yet -- trying to identify a longshoreman's type toque. And one of them described it as a "Relic hat" and the other instantly knew what was meant. Relic being, of course, a character in the old Beachcombers TV series who wore as his kind of signature garb that sort of cap" (http://www.pulpanddagger.com/movies/essay_36.html).

In conclusion, the taste for American models has become a stigma that doesn't look to be shuttered in the near future. And this problem doesn't consist of different accents or idioms alone. It also refers to distorting the Canadians' image of their real history. In this context, the same editorialist who was quoted above invokes the case of Battlestar Galactica, a U.S. science fiction series filmed in Canada, with a predominantly Canadian cast. The movie is broadcasted on TV and is highly appreciated by both fans and critics, exerting an overwhelming influence on viewers. In one of its episodes, the death penalty was brought into discussion although Europeans, Canadians and most American states don't resort to it. Moreover, even those states which continue to preserve it, haven't applied this drastic punishment for many years. The impact on Canadians is negative because those who know nothing about this subject will assume that the death penalty is common practice in their country while the others who are aware of its absence will consider it "a weird, temporary aberration," in comparison with the "normal" U.S. justice. And the inducement of American values doesn't end here because a contemporary movement in showbiz states that movies and TV shows should focus on U.S. cultural background and problems: "having an outsiders or observers perspective means Canadians can provide more telling insights into American society than Americans can. Which is kind of like telling a little girl that she shouldn't dream about growing up to be successful in life...she should only dream about marrying a successful man...that there's where her true calling lies" (http://www.pulpanddagger.com/movies/essay_48.html).Therefore, it may be asserted that this phobia for American values isn't generated by their commercial superiority alone. It is also generated by an inferiority complex which makes Canadians renegade their culture and embrace others that seem much more authentic and protective of their individuals. This social phenomenon is called cultural cringe by anthropologists and its consequences are difficult to remove because specialists proved that when a nation's image is negative to the nation itself, the others' perception of that nation will be even worst. This is why when joking about their movies, Canadians succeed in damaging the image of their film industry rather than showing their autoironia. This identity crisis was perfectly outlined by an article called "The Myth of Cultural Identity": "A stereotype of Canadians is that they are an annoyingly navel-gazing bunch, constantly trying to figure out who they are and what they stand for, as a people. Some have claimed, usually pejoratively, that Canadians define themselves less by what they are and more by what they're not -- not American.