The Great Canadian Filmmaker Rant

[vanguy]

Okay, I've wanted to do this for a long time, and I've seen fragmentary rants in other threads, so here it is:

The Great Canadian Filmmaker Rant Thread.

I'll start.

The National Film Board sucks, and doesn't help Canadian Filmmakers, only a nepotistic few insiders. It's hardly "National"...

Telefilm sucks, and tends to support "Canadian Cultural" projects that support a fairly narrow minority political view, but are not at all commercial.

Business in Canada (especially out West) is not at all entrepreneurial, and doesn't support film at all, unless it is a proven American product with Major American Money already behind it.


BUT!!!

At least out west, there's a thriving independent film community in Vancouver, poised to make some great movies very soon, if they can Just Find The Money.

And you can stand out if you decide not to be a Suckler of the Government Teat.


Discuss.

[Jeremy Hughes]

Since when does the National Film Board not help Canadian Filmmakers?

[Graeme Nattress]

I think the comment is about the geographic distribution of those it helps and that that distribution is limited compared to the distribution of filmmakers within Canada.

Graeme

[Andrew M.]

Who made Short Bus movie? Canadian?

[vanguy]

To some degree I was being a bit bombastic to get the thread going, but the NFB, at least in my experience, uses only staff directors. If an independent wants to get a film made, and goes through the NFB, they'll fly in their own director and kind of take over the project. It's not a funding or support body for Canadian Film, but more of a production company.

But then, I haven't had any direct dealings with them for a few years. Anybody have a different experience?

[Jeremy Hughes]

That's bad. I never really liked the idea of "handing off the film" to them afterwards either.

[Graeme Nattress]

To me, best way to fund Canadian film would be with a good tax credits programme, similar to their Scientific Research and Development tax credits. Then you've actually got to make a movie that makes a profit to get government help.

Graeme

[vanguy]

There are some tax credits programs, but they are ever-diminishing. Some of them, like the GST rebate, require the producer to pay the tax and then file for the rebate at the end of the year.

There used to be a 100% tax credit for Canadian productions, but that just led to people making really bad films purely for tax shelter purposes.

Currently there's a tax credit for labor costs only, maxing out at 11% of the film costs (although this kind of thing changes often, I could be wrong).

Then there's my favorite annoyance; the Telefilm development fund, which among other things stipulates two criteria for acceptance: 1) no script yet, and 2) a distribution deal in place. Anybody know how to get a distribution deal without so much as a script?

[vanguy]

I think what would make the whole tax thing moot is a way to make some really good (and popular) Canadian films, the way Australia did some years back, and New Zealand is now (although with a lot of American money).

But this kind of film is often specifically NOT supported by the Canadian funding system, because it's judged to be too "commercial".

I think we specialize in shooting ourselves in the foot up here.

But maybe I should shut up and make a film..?

[Graeme Nattress]

The only type of tax credits you can get on R&D come through making profits....

Graeme

[vanguy]

Wow, I heard you were smart, Graeme.

That might actually inspire investment in commercial movies, because instead of being penalized for being profitable, it makes a commercial film a BETTER investment.

It'll never fly. That's not how Canadian politicians think.

But you know what? I'm going to find the relevant MP and email them.

Keep thinking, bro Canuck. It's what you're good at.

[Jeremy Hughes]

But you know what? I'm going to find the relevant MP and email them.

Allright!

[Jeremy Torrie]

Hmm...where to jump in. I've had experience in all of these scenarios, and yes NFB did hoop me, but not before I got 3 Super 16 camera and lens packages for a film I did a year and a half ago and it was their 'contribution' to the film (in kind that is)...bad thing? Someone in the camera dept stole their Zeiss primes and it took nearly a year to settle with the insurance company. So since then my premiums have gone up because some monkey got sticky fingers (and they have never been caught).

Tax credits are a very good thing if you have at least one presale to a CDN broadcaster to trigger them, along with the balance of the financial structure (ideally private money, sometimes a distribution advance and some foreign sales), but getting a TV presale is not so simple.

In Manitoba we have up to 55% rebate on labor paid to resident tax payers which with the CAVCO credit comes out to about 25% of your overall budget. But you have to spend the money first before you get it back (of course we've learned how to interim finance the tax credits, presales, etc. and the only ones who really make any money are the banks by lending). One of the biggest pains in the ass however is if you happen to own a camera package and post facilities -the federal credit grinds down your overall production cost because it's considered non-recoupable...what this means is that say your prod co owns a RED One camera package and provides it to your film at market rate -essentially taking another equity position in lieu of paying out on the rental- well, the federal government will penalize you for trying to work outside the system and being creative with taking risk and trying to get a movie made.

As for Telefilm -it is untrue that you don't have to have a script to apply. I've been doing this for a decade, and they fund in phases...sometimes they will go from treatment to first draft, or first draft to second, or to polish, etc. Of course it is extremely difficult to actually get production money out of the fund...development not so much. Distributor letters are required because they want to see market demand for your concept -that it has passed the sniff test- plain and simple.

If you go the low budget feature program route, you don't need a distributor, but it helps because ultimately they will only give you a maximum of 200K and then you have to find the rest of the cash before Telefilm signs a contract and releases the dough.

So in some respects it's wonky, but on the other hand we actually have a leg up on other producers/filmmakers around the world because we have the ability to actually make films, get credits, learn the craft, and understand the business. I canno tell you how much more knowledgable I've become in knowing how to finance and produce a film (including negotiating with unions, guilds, banks, broadcasters and distributors) in comparison to many US based producers who cold call me because they hear its cheap to shoot up here and need someone to service their production. I end up educating them (I should really be charging a fee before I get on a conference call with all the other 'producers').

Would I love for the government to allow tax shelters again? Absolutely -then we wouldn't need Telefilm. But the reason it was abolished before was because it was abused like any tax shelter.

What I say is take advantage of what is here. Learn what you can and apply it to an entrepreneurial model. Believe it or not, Telefilm was created to help producers do this, but as you say, some have come to rely on sustained funding year after year, which is a terrible business model. Bottom line is your film should be good enough for people to want to shell out dough at a theater or a DVD outlet. Plain and simple.

[Jeremy Torrie]

The other thing I will say is that Telefilm equity support is akin to the kiss of death. Their AVERAGE recoupment on a film is 5%, and that includes the French cinema, which has been phenomenal by comparison to the English Canadian features.

When you say "Canadian Cultural" you have to remember they say it's their mandate to promote a Canadian cultural perspective, but I've been floored by some of the projects they've funded, and others that they haven't.

It's a total crapshoot for film -the Hollywood studio model uses a slate of projects with the expectation that at least one in five will be a hit or a blockbuster, and it will generate enough returns for the shareholders to justify going forward. So, if Telefilm has 100 Million CDN each year and more than half of that goes to French films, that doesn't leave much of a slate -i.e. the rest of us indie producers.

Almost none of the films Telefilm finances are commercial in a Hollywood sense, but they're trying. Look at Fido -an $8 Million pic with two stars, $2 Million in P&A by TVA -and it did 227,000 at the box office. The biggest problem is that the US owns our theaters and we cannot get access to them. But really, can you blame exhibitors? They're in the business of making money, not promoting our culture as Telefilm's mandate is supposed to be.

So, as Ned Flanders says, "it's a dilly of a pickle."

[vanguy]

Wow, Torrie, thanks.

I've gone through a lot of that as well, and in BC we don't have quite the tax breaks that you do in Manitoba. But I agree, start with a really good and commercial idea, make use of all the dribs and drabs of financing and whatnot you can lay your hands on, and make money.

Telefilm = kiss of death, yeah, probably. They have a jury to determine what "Canadian Culture" is, and they're on some strange drugs judging by their selection. That's the problem with a government funding organization; they have a political mandate, not an artistic or commercial one. But still worth filling out the application.

As a filmmaker and an artist, filling out all these forms and applications seems like a special kind of hell to me. Odd, I don't mind doing a budget, or filling out production reports. Perhaps I should just grit my teeth and fill in those little boxes.

Is it possible to set up a separate, arms-length company and rent yourself the camera for real money? Then invest that real money back into the production via another door? Or vice-versa. It would amount to the same thing as an in-kind investment, but it would look better on paper. I'm especially interested because I own a postproduction company.

As for our screens being bought out by American studios, I think this is a bit of mythology. The Fraser Institute did a study on this specifically, back in about '94 I think, and they came to the conclusion that the Canadian distribution system was "competitive". Meaning if you had a film worth showing that had a reasonable expectation of putting bums in seats, you could sell it to Canadian theatres. I don't think anything has changed.

And I'm inclined to believe that if you came with the same kind of package to, say, Famous Players as an American studio does, they would talk deal. We're just famous for making films no one wants to see (topic for another rant thread).


Awesome contribution, Torrie. That's why I started this thread.

[Jeremy Torrie]

The one thing all of this filling out of forms and ticking off the checklist means that you become used to doing things the right way as far as providing the full package of materials that any investor group would invariably want to see: budget, top sheet, financial structure, bank letters, actor commitments. production schedule, director notes, key crew resumes...

It is possible to obviously rent to yourself, but you have to show the money somehow up front, meaning you can put up the cash yourself, rent the equipment and re-invest the money back in -all parties want to see that the cash is real and where it will come from...the only way you really end up ahead is if you claim your producer or director fee via the tax credits. What this means is you will be paying taxes on income so you have to figure out if you end up ahead, and the other thing is, you're obviously killing yourself and proving how much you believe in the film as opposed to putting that money in the bank so when a year later from now comes and you have no money, you will have a reserve...but that's the gamble, right? One assumes you will have made some sales and recouped your investment.

Check Playback and look at how many screens per CDN film exist versus the US counterparts and it becomes clear...it comes down to your CDN distributor wanting to pay for prints, and aside from MPD (AAR) and maybe Odeon there are few who have the wherewithal to put a lot of prints out...invariably if you have 200 prints eventually they will leave Canada's theaters, and you probably want somewhere for them to go, which means more advertising in another territory, and what kind of distributor is going to already have a plan to put those prints in another territory?...then you get into sales agents and everything else. These are the areas where there isn't much experience as producers, and the CDN distribs generally offload the other territories to hedge their investment in the domestic territory.

There are plenty of CDN films that have had good reviews of late but disappear a week later because there isn't enough 'buzz' or support in advertising. It is a real problem, and 1994 is 13 years ago -it HAS changed for the worse. I've been to Show Canada and you cannot tell me that a CDN distrib can wow 'em like Universal or Warners or anyone else.

What we've begun to do is find properties that can look and feel American and our plan is that if they don't have theatrical distribution then we immediately work to get investor money back by selling DVD/home video. If it can get theatrical, then we will do everything in our power to make sure that the film doesn't look or feel or sound Canadian, and thus try very hard not to succumb to the kiss of death.

[MDP]

Hey Vanguy,

Just curious to what you think are some good westcoast (bc?) indie productions? Can you list some of your favorite canadian productions?


Do you their is a lot of talent but lack of resources for proper funding or the resources are there just the lack of overall talent?

I am back and forth between Vancouver and Toronto quite a bit and the problems I run into with independent production seems to be that their is either a good producer on board but bad script/director, or great script/director but no access to money.

Glad you brought this discussion up!

[vanguy]

I liked The Delicate Art of Parking, 2003, directed by Trent Carlson. For my money far funnier than Napoleon Dynamite, but didn't pick up nearly the same buzz. Should have been a huge cult hit. After looking for more than a day in many stores, I found it in the two for $5 bin at Rogers Video, with no jacket.

This year, Mount Pleasant, by Ross Weber, was a powerful film with very solid writing and superb acting. I don't know if it has public appeal, since it's a rather dark story. But really solid filmmaking.

and for short stuff, Ken Hegan makes some funny little films that do well with audiences (and he's a superb host at the Celluloid Social Club), but he's moving back East this month.

Then of course there's me, who's made a couple of short films that have done really well with audiences around the world. Super-Anon has been in over 60 festivals and won 18 awards or something (superanon.com). Ahem.

But there's a ton more out here, and you just have to look at any of the KickStart contenders to find amazing stuff (http://www.dgcbc.com/ie4/kickstart/kickstart.cfm). Say Yes by Niel Every is awesome.

Incidentally, Bon Cop, Bad Cop is picking up a buzz. It's made over $12 million in theatrical so far, presumably Just in Canada.

I think there's a lot of bad talent out there (I could tell you stories about doing post on some of those, but the therapy bills...), but that's true everywhere. Most producers tell you you have to read a hundred scripts to find one worth reading again. I know this because I've done this.

I think that there needs to be a good way of matchmaking a decent talent with good business people. They don't hang out in the same bars.

Because you're right; it seems it's either a good producer/bad script and director or vice versa.

I also think we need to get far more creative with marketing. Bring back the publicity stunt! And Torrie is right, the buzz is almost never picked up by the media. But if we could make a film that got a lot of attention here, it would get picked up across the border.

[vanguy]

I think it's a mistake to try and make a film "feel American". Every filmmaker has an individual voice, every script has its own life, and every production has its own distinct personality. I think that should be celebrated and not the least bit ashamed of. Imagine if Bon Cop, Bad Cop was "Americanized". The stress of the language barrier would be gone, as would the basis for most of the comedy.

We've got a diverse, often divided country with gong-show politics and all kinds of amazing stories (for forty years there were sightings of camels lost in the BC wilderness, released into the wild after a pack-animal company was run out of business for not using mules). We should be interesting enough for people around the world to watch.

The best films are the ones that simply are themselves. They don't try to be anything they're not. But they do tell a story that the audience wants to pay bucks to sit and watch.

[Jeremy Torrie]

What I meant by the statement was in the marketing, not in the telling of the story itself. Look at guys like Guillermo del Toro -he's got an amazing auteur voice, and I love it. Same with some of his colleagues in Mexico, or Alfonso Cuaron or Pedro Almodovar...

So to clarify, you market the same way you would a US indie that was picked up at Sundance or TIFF or Cannes, get some US market penetration, get on all the talk shows and such....I believe this is what has happened with Sarah Polley and Away From her. It's not my kind of flick, but it's getting plenty of buzz -as it were. And good for her. Every success story helps the rest of us.

I struggle with how far I want to take something creatively versus broad appeal all the time because of the pressure to ensure we get a big enough star, or the film will 'travel well' in other English speaking territories. But I also have a phenomenal script I've just finished that takes place in western Canada in a French-speaking Metis community...it's literally Bridges of Madison County meets American Beauty, and I would love to set this in the US to have broader appeal, and a couple of big lead actors, but I can't do it because the story feels so authentic when the characters are jumping in and out of French (as they often do). So I feel the pain, but perhaps there will be a day when people will embrace stories from here that are well told and well crafted.

[Cail Young]

Interesting reading, and what's really disturbing is you can almost substitute Australia for Canada and AFC for Telefilm and the situation in the first post is almost identical.

Still, perhaps we Commonwealth nations can learn from each other in turning around these film funding systems?

[Ace]

Actually, Australias been stepping up to the plate recently due to technological (read budget) advancement over the past few years.

This is something else the RED cam will have impact on. Small markets like Australia and UK have suffered from the s16mm/Video syndrome..Budgets simply dont allow for 35mm, and hence the "look" of the smaller productions coming out of here has suffered. Take a look at the TV Ad spots Australia, UK and NZ produce.. All 35mm, huge film/equipment budgets, great cinematography. The same hasnt been the same for cinema. Hopefully the prolifiration of 35mm will encourage a change for the better.

[Sean]

The best thing we can learn is not to rely on the film funding agencies. We can't use them as an excuse for the sorry state of our indigenous industries any longer. Not with technology like Red appearing on the scene. It's a new era and filling out bureaucratic cultural subsidy forms is the old way of doing things. We have to prove to private investors we have the talent to make commercially viable films. In short, we have to make our movies without Telefilm or AFC. And now, thanks to things like home-based NLE systems and Red Cameras, we can do just that! Hollywood wasn't built on arts grants from the NFB. It was built on artists and dreamers and savvy business people finding private money to make movies and selling them to the world.

[Jeremy Torrie]

I agree Sean, which is exactly why we're not loading the 9MM and putting in the mouth...finding another way can be pretty rewarding. I love the fact we can now generate 2K and apparently 4K outputs IF we happen to get a film that warrants a release on film.

I've been to New Zealand three times (to shoot, produce and edit docs) and Australia once -with a flight put off this spring where we hoped to do a CDN-Australia copro but getting the requirements down for both countries is monumental, and yet it's a project that actually takes place in both countries with Australian characters and CDN ones.

I've also been to Iraq and Italy and Greece and Taiwan and Chile...you think we have it bad, try getting stuff done there for pennies on the dollar and not having any real access to national broadcasts much less theatrical releases.

But it does come down to well told stories -it's really that simple. Jarred and Jim went to Wellington to visit Peter and Weta and Park Road Post. None of that would be there if it weren't for indie filmmakers with dreams of something bigger. Park Road is like Heaven, a true filmmakers facility. Then again you look at The World's Fastest Indian -plenty of money, a great actor, but a story that put people to sleep.

[vanguy]

I'm consoled to hear about woes around the world. But times are a-changing. The time for whining about what the government is not doing is past.

That's the thing about technology like Red; No More Excuses! Even having access to things like the DVX100 meant that you could, on a wing and a prayer, go out there and make something that looked halfway decent and could be shown in a large venue to an audience.

There's a lot of people out there that are scared by this technology. It happened to me a few years ago just after I'd bought into a fairly expensive editing system, and Final Cut Pro was released. It meant that being able to operate (or even owning) the equipment was not enough. You had to know how to use it well. And there were a couple of lean years for me, as producers went for the lowest bid -- usually some kid whose dad had bought him a computer -- but they quickly learned that talent is worth paying for.

That's the upside to all this; eventually talent will rise to the top. But it also means there will be a lot more dreck out there to clog the pipes. However, the festival system is an excellent dreck filter, and a great way to come out of nowhere and get noticed. So the opportunities are there.

I also think, that as difficult as it is, we need to spend more time on the story. People make the mistake of going into production before things are ready. This is a problem in Hollywood, too (witness: Catwoman). But there are things in place to help with that too. Here in Vancouver, we have the Cold Reading series, where you can get your script read by actors in front of an audience to see how it's working. And there's Praxis, which is a writers' workshop.

But the problem with these is that they're populated with artists. In order to be a success, your film has to play well in Surrey (insert any outskirts suburb here) to be successful.

I made a short film ("the Ticket", about a bum who wins the lottery, but has to travel 400 miles to collect his prize), and its first screening was for an audience of the hoi-polloi artistic critic types. They all said, "Hmmm... well, thanks for coming." And I was manifestly depressed. But EVERY screening since then has rocked. Including at the ruthless gong show screening, where they gonged EVERYBODY (except me). Lesson? You gotta please the guy with the beer in his hand.

We, as filmmakers, want to be Important. But we also have to be Entertaining. And I think that might be where the whole Canadian system is weak, from the Telefilm jurors to the NFB, down to the people making the films.

[vanguy]

Incidentally, check out Peter Jackson's story. His first film was not "Lord of the Rings". An excellent model to follow...

[Jeremy Torrie]

Yeah PJ did a few films prior, and it was his creativity that enabled him to propel him into the next stratosphere.

So where are we going with this thread now? Is there anything worth ranting about anymore? Or should we use the computer for more productive means?

[vanguy]

Let's make a movie!

[Ace]

We, as filmmakers, want to be Important. But we also have to be Entertaining.


Vanguy, you raise some interesting points.

Art for the masses does have its Caveats. As artists we all have something important and profound and world changing to share with the rest of the planet. At least when your young anyway. As more experienced is gained, and the more "jaded" one gets, one begins to realise that people are willing to listen to whatever you have to say, as long as its on their terms. Entertain us, and we'll listen. Dying kids in cambodia? We're listening as long as its entertaining. Getting the right formula is not something many filmmakers or pop artists have succesfully executed.

[vanguy]

Acehole, I wish I had time right now to get into this. But I'm in a session, so check back either late late tonight or tomorrow morning. To a large degree I agree. Film is a balancing act; it's rather different from other art forms. A painter can paint whatever he wants, and audience be damned, but a filmmaker has to answer to investors, and therefore must show a return, and therefore must please an audience. But if an audience thinks they're being pandered to, they don't like you either.

(Much) more later. Good discussion.

[GlennChan]

Some other viewpoints....

1- Not all Canadian film/video is doing poorly. We happen to be pretty decent at doing children's animation (i.e. Reboot, Beast Wars, etc.).

2- Brain drain: A lot of talented Canadians (actors, directors, etc.) end up working in the US instead of Canada.

3- The US has a well-developed star system in which other media outlets have a lot of coverage on the country's stars. Canada is only starting to do this with eTalk and ET Canada.

4- The "nobody knows anything" factor... sometimes the most unlikely shows succeed / it's hard to predict what will work. Corner Gas was put into production because CTV needed to spend money on a TV show. I don't think they expected it to become as popular as it did. Trailer Park Boys was pitched to someone who was drunk (apparently).

5- The US produces a lot more shows than Canada if you include pilots. And of course, they also have bigger budgets behind them. So perhaps it's expected that US shows dominate Canadian shows?
Conversely, some Canadian shows should really get the axe for low viewership but don't (i.e. Traders).

[vanguy]

Art for the masses does have its Caveats. As artists we all have something important and profound and world changing to share with the rest of the planet. At least when your young anyway.

This is the balancing act:

On the one hand, the best characters are the ones that argue with the writer over dialogue, insist on their own way, and take on a life of their own. The wise writer merely throws situations at them and then follows them around with a pencil. Stories are like that too. Every story has its own life (or at least the good ones do) and they take on a personality as the story is crafted. The story should be allowed to be itself, and not be forced into another mold. This is the art of storytelling.

On the other hand, filmmaking is too damned expensive to do as a hobby. Even with the Red camera. So businesspeople get involved, and they want to see good potential ROI, and that means butts in seats, and that means the show must do what it can to be accessible to audiences. And that's why so many sequels are made; it's the closest thing to a business model we have in this industry. So we do things like shoot a film in Kelowna, but pretend it's Nevada. Or Washington State.

These need not be mutually exclusive options. There are two resolutions to this dilemma:

1) Choose a story with mass appeal. If you've got two scripts in front of you, one about a failed accountant in Left Noob, Saskatchewan, who contemplates suicide, but never completes anything, and the other about a race car driver on his way to the top, but who is being foiled by his pit team, who are being paid off by his competitor, well, you can see which one is an easier sell. I'm not saying the Left Noob accountant film shouldn't be made, but it's not going to make a lot of money, and you shouldn't whine about not having access to Canadian screens when Cineplex turns you down.

2) Decide which elements of the story can be modified/killed/inverted/massaged without destroying the fabric of the universe. It may be possible to put an investor's daughter in a supporting role, even if she muffs a couple of lines of dialogue, if you're careful. But casting Muffy in the lead is another story.

3) Hey, it's just a movie. Make a crappy movie, make a few bucks, make your dream film later.


... the more "jaded" one gets, one begins to realise that people are willing to listen to whatever you have to say, as long as its on their terms. Entertain us, and we'll listen.

It's possible to say what you want to say, and say it in an entertaining way. There's a whole breed of American current events comedians (Dennis Miller, Stephen Corbet, Bill Maher) that communicate their points of view wrapped in humour. (Sorry: humor. They're American.) There's a whole slew of techniques to doing this. Michael Moore is a genius at it. He may be dodgy in his methodology, and even in some of his views, but he put the documentary-as-entertainment on the map.

So standing on a soapbox shouting to the masses "THERE ARE DYING KIDS IN CAMBODIA, YOU IDIOTS, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" won't get you very far. But telling a compelling story about someone who IS doing something about it will inspire, and perhaps, in rare cases, result in action. Incidentally, I know someone like this (http://ratanak.org/). Brian takes time off work as an RCMP ballistics expert, flies to Cambodia, builds hospitals and water towers, and helps villages ravaged by the Khmer Rouge. Amazing guy. Somebody should make a movie...

You have to love your subject. That love makes a compelling film. But you can choose what subject to love. That's good business.

There. My two bits on that.

[vanguy]

Some other viewpoints....
1- Not all Canadian film/video is doing poorly.

True. Just the vast majority of it.



2- Brain drain: A lot of talented Canadians (actors, directors, etc.) end up working in the US instead of Canada.

Yup. It's too bad. They pay more.



3- The US has a well-developed star system...

No argument there. We export self-deprecation.



4- The "nobody knows anything" factor... sometimes the most unlikely shows succeed

You gotta keep trying.



5- The US produces a lot more shows than Canada if you include pilots. And of course, they also have bigger budgets behind them. <SNIP>
Conversely, some Canadian shows should really get the axe.

If the population holds out, we should be able to produce 10% of the number of shows the Americans do, and expect 10% of the returns, or we sell them across the border.

I think we could do far better at international marketing, better at international sales, but we have this affinity for mediocrity, or obscure inaccessible, non-commercial cinema.

The system supports this, and frowns on "commercial" product. Which is self-defeating.


I'm tired. It's late. And I'm becoming convinced as I do this, through some kind of weird catharsis, that I should put my money where my mouth is. Or, since I don't have any money, I should put my nose to the grindstone and get out there and do it. There's certainly not a lot of serious competition...

[Ace]

This is the balancing act:

On the one hand, the best characters are the ones that argue with the writer over dialogue, insist on their own way, and take on a life of their own. The wise writer merely throws situations at them and then follows them around with a pencil. Stories are like that too. Every story has its own life (or at least the good ones do) and they take on a personality as the story is crafted. The story should be allowed to be itself, and not be forced into another mold. This is the art of storytelling.

On the other hand, filmmaking is too damned expensive to do as a hobby. Even with the Red camera. So businesspeople get involved, and they want to see good potential ROI, and that means butts in seats, and that means the show must do what it can to be accessible to audiences. And that's why so many sequels are made; it's the closest thing to a business model we have in this industry. So we do things like shoot a film in Kelowna, but pretend it's Nevada. Or Washington State.

These need not be mutually exclusive options. There are two resolutions to this dilemma:

1) Choose a story with mass appeal. If you've got two scripts in front of you, one about a failed accountant in Left Noob, Saskatchewan, who contemplates suicide, but never completes anything, and the other about a race car driver on his way to the top, but who is being foiled by his pit team, who are being paid off by his competitor, well, you can see which one is an easier sell. I'm not saying the Left Noob accountant film shouldn't be made, but it's not going to make a lot of money, and you shouldn't whine about not having access to Canadian screens when Cineplex turns you down.

2) Decide which elements of the story can be modified/killed/inverted/massaged without destroying the fabric of the universe. It may be possible to put an investor's daughter in a supporting role, even if she muffs a couple of lines of dialogue, if you're careful. But casting Muffy in the lead is another story.

3) Hey, it's just a movie. Make a crappy movie, make a few bucks, make your dream film later.



It's possible to say what you want to say, and say it in an entertaining way. There's a whole breed of American current events comedians (Dennis Miller, Stephen Corbet, Bill Maher) that communicate their points of view wrapped in humour. (Sorry: humor. They're American.) There's a whole slew of techniques to doing this. Michael Moore is a genius at it. He may be dodgy in his methodology, and even in some of his views, but he put the documentary-as-entertainment on the map.

So standing on a soapbox shouting to the masses "THERE ARE DYING KIDS IN CAMBODIA, YOU IDIOTS, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" won't get you very far. But telling a compelling story about someone who IS doing something about it will inspire, and perhaps, in rare cases, result in action. Incidentally, I know someone like this (http://ratanak.org/) (http://ratanak.org/%29). Brian takes time off work as an RCMP ballistics expert, flies to Cambodia, builds hospitals and water towers, and helps villages ravaged by the Khmer Rouge. Amazing guy. Somebody should make a movie...

You have to love your subject. That love makes a compelling film. But you can choose what subject to love. That's good business.

There. My two bits on that.


Excellent Input STEVE... Good stuff.

My initial comment actually came from my background in working with musicians, I saw so many young starting out bands and artists taking themselves WAY too seriously, producing music and lyrics that end up sounding too negative in the end.. Then usually something kicks in and they realise they gotta be a bit more indirect in the way they approach it.. and entertain while their at it. Take U2 for example. With all their politically motivated and charity based movement, they sing nothing of it in their music! (Apart from their Collab with Greenday). So your absoloutely right. Its just a movie, its just a song. It has to standup as one first and foremost.

[Bachman]

Then again you look at The World's Fastest Indian -plenty of money, a great actor, but a story that put people to sleep.

Jezz Torrie thats harsh....didnt put me to sleep, and cant be too bad if it got 8 stars on IMDb

PS They export great Canadians over here by the way. My DP and Business partner is one, so was my Grandfather and he was a DP in Hollywood in the 30's

[Jeremy Hughes]

I had a weird dream, there was a building in Toronto called "The Great Canadian Filmmaker Rant" and it was for funding Canadian Filmmakers.

[vanguy]

Excellent Input Jeff... Good stuff.

Actually, it's Steve.

[Ace]

Actually, it's Steve.

Oh fuck, sorry Steve. I actually dont know why I called you Jeff.. Lack of sleep perhaps.

Good chatting :-)

[vanguy]

I saw so many young starting out bands and artists taking themselves WAY too seriously, producing music and lyrics that end up sounding too negative in the end.. Then usually something kicks in and they realise they gotta be a bit more indirect in the way they approach it.. and entertain while their at it.

I'm doing a lot of doc work right now, and one thing we're finding is that if the message isn't intrinsic to the material, it shouldn't be in the film. That's just preachiness. And audiences typically don't like being preached to. It's condescending.

But if the message IS intrinsic, it's SO much more powerful. We're working on a show that has a strong political message, a controversial one (but a true one). But we've chosen not to say that message out loud, because the material makes its point for us, loud and clear. And emotionally, and powerfully.

[vanguy]

Oh fuck, sorry Steve. I actually dont know why I called you Jeff.. Lack of sleep perhaps.

Good chatting :-)

No worries. I've been called far worse things.

I've been enjoying this a lot.

[vanguy]

I had a weird dream, there was a building in Toronto called "The Great Canadian Filmmaker Rant" and it was for funding Canadian Filmmakers.

Hmm....

[Jeremy Torrie]

Hah -funding as a special interest group. Funny.

Too bad CFTPA doesn't step up and represent our views, even though I pay them annual dues and a percentage of my film budgets...what use are they again?

What I can say is that while it's not a new idea, we've been working hard on building a solid slate which has garnered significant interest in the US. Too bad we can't do the same here. Though when you get to a certain level in Canada as a producer either you go to LA or you end up getting a ton of service gigs and you don't have to produce what you love...I guess one could choose to, but I really don't know anyone who actually does that. Lantos has that ability to a degree I guess, but that's one guy.

[Samscad]

I hope I don't get hate mail for this, but I'm honestly interested to know if others have observed the same thing.

I think there's a fundamental cowardice in the Canadian film and television industry, which after many years of slagging Telefilm, I decided was not an instituional thing, but a cultural thing.

I find all the producers and funders I work with are constantly second guessing and worrying and trying to do the "right thing" which ultimately makes for mediocre content.

The Brits and the Americans don't think that way. They're happy to be in your face opinionated, down right offensive, or even plain wrong, (though each in their distinct ways.) If you know any Brits you'll know that when they hang out with their "mates" they spend most of the time insulting and trying to out smart each other. Canadians however are sweet and respectuful, which makes them great people, but somehow bad film makers.

Now, Telefilm has it's flaws, but the main flaw I think stems from the same cultural bias. Telefilm describe themselves as being in "risk management," which is probably the opposite way a major American studio would describe themselves. Film people are risk takers, except in Canada, where they minimize their risk by getting national funding.

I mean, bottom line here, you don't need the RED to make that feature any more than Rian Johnson needed it to make Brick or Shane Carruth needed it to make Primer.

So fellow Canadians, stop whinging and just make good movies. After RED, no more excuses at all. If Canada doesn't produce it's own Trainspotting or Cinema Paradiso, then we'll know, it's not the money, it's the culture.

[Jeremy Torrie]

Safe is probably the best adjective one can use when describing Telefilm funded pics.

Interesting though that there is room for risk in development. Sure it's a lot cheaper, but I have personally benefitted from three phases of development on a project I thought was ready to shoot a year ago. It IS better thanks to their coverage. A major distributor calls it the next Scarface, but I've yet to get it fully funded...I doubt Telefilm will put equity into it because it's got sex and drugs and a very dark story. I don't think they'll be able to withstand the criticism from soccer moms who wonder why tax dollars should fund something so 'commercial'. I say it's entertaining, and makes a great business case...so yes, we will take advantage of the tax credits, we already have a TV presale -now all we need is the Red and some private equity. And I'm not sitting around waiting for the phone to ring.

[Gbabymogul]

So fellow Canadians, stop whinging and just make good movies. After RED, no more excuses at all. If Canada doesn't produce it's own Trainspotting or Cinema Paradiso, then we'll know, it's not the money, it's the culture.I think that's a little harsh, but not too far off the mark. I would say that telefilm = PC. Maybe with a dollop of liberal arts thrown in.

Funding - won't allow U.S star's in above the line roles (mostly). Hence, the commercial prospects of the films go crapolla. Won't compete with decently funded films because they have a fear of competition, and rely on peculiar little dramas to create buzz. Yeah, niche marketing really works when half of the E.U is in on the market. Further, there is an elitism at work in the decision making process. (watch "Paint Cans")

Work force - our schools don't encourage originality. We prepare our students for roles in U.S productions. Risk takers are laughed at.

Bureaucracy - we encourage supporting producers, directors, actors, etc...but don't hold them accountable to marketplace realities. The boys club develops and they fund each others projects, perpetuating both the selection of particular material and the people who make that kind of material. Funnily enough the new producers, directors, DP's don't start out wanting to be part of the status quo but learn the game and are well payed not to tip over the canoe. As someone aforementioned, those with a entrpreneurial spirit, or are original risk takers leave for a more hospitable climate - L.A. They also realize that to be actually creating a project instead of working on one, they need to go to L.A... So, our best go to L.A and we're left with above the line who play it safe.

I have a bunch of ideas on how to change our industry, but there isn't the political will to change it, so it is what it is. We're going to see Atom Egoyan type films with earnest stories and politically correct verve shot with a sameness of directing choices and safe DP, t.v lighting. Sounds smashing.

There's a lot of fantastic talent in Canada, waiting for the paradigm to change. Hopefully, there are enough of us rebels to change it

PS - Robert Lantos (the most successful Candaian producer besides the U.S expats) said that there is no independent production in Canada, and if you wanted to be a producer, you should look elsewhere.
That was five years ago, and we listened closely, branching out to international co-productions and commercial/media - more vibrant markets... With RED, i hope it tips the scales ($ wise) so more independent producers and entrepreneurs take the chance and create genuinely original and fresh Canadian movies. I know that's our goal.

Maybe some of our L.A cousins will come back to work on Canadian films and not just U.S studio pics.

Looking for : Kick ass Canadian DP's like Mathew Libatique or D.Mullen (U.S dudes). And great writers who aren't afraid to tackle different genres, putting a sophisticated spin on them. "C'mon , we caan dooo it!"

[vanguy]

I think there's a fundamental cowardice in the Canadian film and television industry, which after many years of slagging Telefilm, I decided was not an instituional thing, but a cultural thing.

I find all the producers and funders I work with are constantly second guessing and worrying and trying to do the "right thing" which ultimately makes for mediocre content.

The Brits and the Americans don't think that way.

You may have a point, but I wouldn't describe Canadian film as "safe" unless you're talking politically. It's certainly not fiscally safe, if Telefilm has an average 5% return.

I would say it's narcissistic. Too many Canadian filmmakers are making films as some kind of introspective catharsis. Or, they go to the other extreme and try to emulate their perception of an American style.

You're right about the fear though, we need to be bold. Confident. Not exactly a Canadian cultural stereotype.

I think there's some change in the wind. But it'll be a couple of years yet. Meanwhile, start writing...

[Jeremy Torrie]

Huh. Take a look at this week's Playback, page 12. It's exactly what this thread is talking about. Nothing earth shattering as it's all been sasid before, but there is no alternative to Telefilm in our country, no other source for good scripts to go to and get the money. In the article Robinson says Bill Vince at Infinity in Vancouver is someone who could be the alternative as it were. Why should we limit to one person?

As for CDN DP's there are some very talented people, and of course they are always working. What I find however is to truly create a beautiful (or stark, depending on the material) look, you need a strong camera department who understands you, and the art department needs to be on board before your DP is...and as a director, you must have a clear idea of what the shots will look like in your sequence (yep editing baby) including notions of light and shadow. At least that's what I do and I've been complemented for my films NOT looking CDN.

And that is one step. Dialogue that's authentic works too, and yes that thing called the story.

BTW, I just read that Away From Her is on 13 screens it's opening weekend against Spiderman3. And there was an opinion that we cannot get on our own screens? Again, look at Playback. Disturbia was on 196 screens and has taken in 2.2 Million in one week (as of April 19), Perfect Stranger was on 217 screens and has done 1.5, Blades of Glory had 223 and 8 Million in box office, and Meet The Robinson has 201 screens -sheer volume. It also says a lot about the risk aversion of exhibitors.

Again, not a new idea, but perhaps there needs to be an incentive for exhibitors to allocate more screens for CDN films. Someone wrote in Playback last year it could be something as simple as allowing the exhibitor to keep the GST they collect on CDN films, or some other mechanism.

Oh, Vanguy -to clarify: you are allowed a Hollywood star in your film -you just can't claim a tax credit on it. That becomes your gamble as a producer -is that person going to get you the sales you need to recoup that fee and profit participation?

[vanguy]

Oh, come on. You're saying away From Her should open on as many screens as Spiderman 3? Not even in America. Sure, 13 screens is under-represented, but you're talking about a smallish drama up against one of the biggest blockbusters of the summer.

And there's been a lot of talk about the exhibitors being the Big Bad Wolf here. I don't think that's the case. I think we can lay a lot of blame at the distributors' and the marketers' door. Spiderman 3 has been shooting out teasers for over a year. I remember hearing Leonard Nimoy talking about the marketing for one of the Star Trek movies. They did a poll and found their recognition was only 50%. (only!) In order for the film to open, they needed a recognition OF OVER 90%. So they ratcheted up their marketing. What Canadian film has ever had that kind of marketing penetration before it opens?

This isn't about some evil plot to keep Canadian films off Canadian screens. It's about bums in seats. And shoddy Canadian marketing.

We can't cajole or legislate our way into going head-to-head with the majors. We've got to earn our way up. JUST LIKE THEY DID. Sam Raimi didn't start by making Spiderman. He started by making Evil Dead. And even before then, it was dozens of short films in high school.

Robert Rodrigues didn't have Telefilm to fund El Mariachi. He just went out and did it. No reason we can't do that here.

I think Samscad was right, we are not brave here in Canada. But that also applies to our marketing. Blades of Glory may be a piece of crap, but it was MARKETED to DEATH. We are the masters of self-deprecation here. We need to grow some balls and Take it to the Wall.

Sorry. The title of this thread DOES contain the word "Rant"...

[Jeremy Torrie]

Somebody must have pissed in your Corn Flakes.

In no way am I suggesting Away From Her should be entitled to 100+ screens. Yep, it is the responsibility of the distributor to step up, and it's also a financial risk for them. So naturally they will limit their exposure. That's what businesses do. Interesting how the tail wags the dog, huh?

It sucks that there are only a handful of CDN distribs in the country. It's shocking actually, and if you look at what they put up as MG's in exchange for the right to take all media for 20 years or more, it's a bum steer, but a requirement by Telefilm to trigger funding. I would like to either see much larger distribution offers by distributors with real P&A commitments, or have Telefilm forego the requirement. I know why they do it -they want some guarantee that it will be seen if they're going to buck up. Apparently they're talking about something because I see they have CDN Feature Fund Working Groups with lots of people around the table. I just don't know the substance of the conversations -I have asked if there are minutes, and whether they will share the ideas being thrown around. I do know what Wayne Clarkson's mantra is...

BTW Spiderman 3 will likely open on more than 300 screens, and some people I know have already seen it.

[vanguy]

You're right. Urine-soaked breakfast cereal always makes me owly. Sorry.

I had misread your post as whining, something I've heard too much of in the past couple of days. You know, "A Small Tale of Two Failed Hockey Moms" didn't open on the same number of screens as "Titanic" and therefore it's the government's fault. And other things I'd rather not talk about, but that are rather unfair and really annoying.

I could also put the blame on the fact I'm working on another very emotional project, and I'm forced to work long hours because the producer... but then I'd be whining. Which is SOMETHING I NEVER DO! (girlfriend begs to differ here...)

Back to it:

Torrie, you're one of the ones. You sound like you work hard at what you do, and do all the right things, and then have me going all postal.

There's some real inequity in the system, but I'd like to believe it's possible to do fairly well in spite of it all. I have to, or go insane. It's true the marketing of scale trumps Canadian nationalism. And Telefilm funds films based on-- well it's hard to tell, really. And distributors are lazy and will take a pre-packaged American film, complete with cross-border bleed advertising, over a Canadian show with a smaller marketing budget and a tougher row to hoe. And maybe even a Canadian show with similar marketing budget, but without that cross-border bleed. Not that there's ever a Canadian marketing budget that large...

We do have to break into our own market. And, to make a film profitable, we probably have to break into the American market as well, the most lucrative movie market on the planet. And Canadians have the opinion that no good thing can come from Canada, unless the Americans buy into it first. Which makes for a tough sell.

So there's several options here: Sell to the Far East. Japan buys stuff, and China is a huge and largely untapped market. Takes a little creativity to figure out how that works. Canadian Content laws mean that a Canadian broadcast license can be more lucrative than an American one for a similar audience size. But there's forms to fill out and hoops to jump through.

But mostly, we just have to be entrepreneurial, and entrepreneurial at all stages of the process. We need to choose films that both have public appeal, and are unique enough to compete with American films. We need to take an entrepreneurial approach when taking it to distributors, and we need to get entrepreneurial when marketing the film. There is no "sit back and let them work" position possible.

And the thought of all that tires me out. I just wanna make movies. But I'd also like to see Canadian film have a foothold in its own country. And there's no easy answers, but I want an easy answer.

But I do have the privilege of working on some amazing shows coming out soon. And I do have my own post house, which is a pretty cool toy room. And I can walk almost anywhere without having to beware of land mines. And I have a good supply of Starbuck's coffee in my cupboard. So there's really no problem. But it's fun to rant, no?

[Jeremy Torrie]

Well, to update the woe's of a CDN filmmaker (and in the spirit of a rant), the one film I talked about eariler that had French CDN content in it did not get Telefilm support today, even though this particular story has not been told before in setting, circumstance, and religious-cultural ramifications. So something that is uniquely Canadian and explores the cultural differences among Canada's two official languages cannot find support. I am blown away because the writing was so natural, and the characters had their own fascinating voices. However, as we've noted...I don't think Telefilm had the guts to support this film because it WILL be extremely controversial.

But I'm not about to throw myself in front of a bus because I've got 75 pages of a script (I submitted a treatment) that continues to write itself, and I know I can get a long list of A-list actresses over 40 to fight over this role if I can get it past their agents. With some of the other films we're doing I'll be able to finance this sucker and do it on my own for a couple million bucks with a RED next summer. And I have a feeling French distributors are going to get behind this one.

[vanguy]

Yikes. Maybe the Great Canadian Filmmaker Rant Foundation in Toronto can fund it.

BTW, how is it controversial?

[Jeremy Torrie]

Um, well. If you have ever been to a very religious community such as a small town of 150 Catholics where just about everyone goes to church (but aren't sure why) and you examine the landscape you will see a great deal of religious iconography such as crosses and pics of Jesus everywhere. But, beneath it all there are some very serious morality problems going on, and it all starts with a bang when the barmaid's daughter claims to be a stigmatic. Everyone believes its true, the Vatican pays a visit, and her father profits from selling her story to some Charismatic Pentacostals with a TV channel in the US. In all of this I question the relevance of a faith and its tenets that appears to have lost its relevance to these people in a town time seems to have left behind.

But perhaps the most controversial is the young priest who happens to counsel a young man in confession...and they begin a very hot and heavy affair. Zing...

So there is sex (extra marital, underage, gay and conventional), moderate drug use, alcoholism, multiple murders and a suicide -all based in reality. While much of this is composite material set in this fictional town, virtually everything described here is true -it has happened, there have been news stories. So while many of the characters have their issues to deal with, it is mainly about a mother who has an affair with a new stranger in town because she is really just searching for love -something that's been gone a long while in her own marriage.

On a side note: Interesting read online in The Globe and Mail about Mongrel...nice words, too bad he's told just about every other filmmaker in Canada to go f*** themselves, and I've taken a wide poll. So I guess his model works -if he decides he likes you, but he likely won't.

[Sean]

Torrie, it sounds like a cool story actually. But in describing your rejection by Telefilm, you're still using some of the same archaic language Canadian filmmakers have been reciting for two decades. Waiting for a single, government agency to greenlight your film is suicide. Telefilm can only support a small handful of films, and even then their track record for supporting anything of quality is dismal. You really have to ask yourself who is behind the desks there. What's their track record? Their training? When Canadian movies stink it makes us wonder if there are no good scripts in this entire country. But I find that conclusion highly unlikely. There are good writers and directors in every population--they're not common but they're there and there are methods of discovering and developing them which Telefilm has never figured out (but which Hollywood has mastered). In the end, Telefilm is a highly bureaucratic institution with political mandates that have nothing to do with making good movies. We can't wait for them. Telefilm should just be a small part of our filmmaking landscape. Not the be all and end all we've treated it as. If your script is good and you have a passion for it, finance it anyway--and you are talking that way, it's true--that's the "new Canadian filmmaker language." So many projects die just because one government agency says no. So if they die so easily, how good were those projects in the first place? How much did the people behind the projects believe in them if that's all it took to kill them? The old adage in Hollywood is that you can throw a great script out on the Santa Monica freeway and it will find its way to the top. Good stories and characters and a creative, inspired director will always win out.

Like you said, attach actors. Find investors. I'm glad your talking about making it on your own steam in any event. That's the revolution Red and new digital technologies offer us. My bet is the break-out Canadian movies over the next 5 years will not be Telefilm-financed movies. They will be the self-generated, original, creative endeavors of people entirely outside the Telefilm cocktail crowd.

Last thought--no one can read a treatment. Only a few people even have the vision and talent to read a script (yup it takes a bit of talent to read a script and see the potential) but almost NO ONE can read a treatment. So I'm not surprised they couldn't see the same vision you had for the project. Treatments are useless sales tools. They only work when you're a director they want to finance anyway, no matter what, and you're pitching something very high concept or with major franchise power (Spider-Man 7 will be financed based on a treatment).

[Jeremy Torrie]

Get this -they were going to disallow the submission anyway because the treatment was 31 pages and therefore 6 pages more than what their application requirements were...so that gives you an idea.

The reason I've ranted was that they even created a special Writer Program for English Writers in Quebec...so here I am writing a film that is half-French and I cannot get development. So bizarre.

Anyway, I wasn't waiting per se, considering I went ahead and am nearly finished the first draft. Once done, I can submit to broadcasters and distribs to determine interest, and of course circulate to actors.

One of the things I may do is submit it to the Sundance Institute. It's an option and people take that crop of writers very seriously...however I did see that Atom Egoyan is in the current selection and it made me wonder -why is someone the CDN media calls the Golden Child of CDN cinema taking a workshop with unknowns? What are his motivations? Does he respect the program so much that even he would workshop his story?

[Sean]

Get this -they were going to disallow the submission anyway because the treatment was 31 pages and therefore 6 pages more than what their application requirements were...so that gives you an idea.

Doesn't surprise me at all! And if anyone is wondering what's wrong with Canadian film financing (the traditional "Canadian way") this anecdote from Torrie should explain everything! To actually NOT consider a project because the treatment is 6 pages longer than the government decreed page length. It's absurd. It's offensive. It's Telefilm.


The reason I've ranted was that they even created a special Writer Program for English Writers in Quebec...so here I am writing a film that is half-French and I cannot get development. So bizarre.

Again, it's Telefilm. Don't rant. Leave 'em in the dust. Make a really cool movie.


Anyway, I wasn't waiting per se, considering I went ahead and am nearly finished the first draft. Once done, I can submit to broadcasters and distribs to determine interest, and of course circulate to actors.

I believe that's the answer. And it should have been the answer all along. Filling out forms and waiting for government bureaucrats is not how you make a movie. Don't even waste a breath on it.


One of the things I may do is submit it to the Sundance Institute. It's an option and people take that crop of writers very seriously...however I did see that Atom Egoyan is in the current selection and it made me wonder -why is someone the CDN media calls the Golden Child of CDN cinema taking a workshop with unknowns? What are his motivations? Does he respect the program so much that even he would workshop his story?

Huh? Egoyan is going to be a writer developing a script at the Sundance Institute? You sure he's not an instructor/mentor? Curious.

Last I checked, Canadians were not eligible for the Sundance Institute.

P.S. I'm not saying to never apply to Telefilm. I'm just saying treat it like the lottery it is. If you're a lucky winner and get a big chunk of change to make your movie, great! But don't count on it. If your script is any good, you'll find a way to make it anyhow.

Thousands of independent features are made in the U.S. every year, and they don't have a Telefilm.

[vanguy]

I'm not saying to never apply to Telefilm. I'm just saying treat it like the lottery it is.

Thousands of independent features are made in the U.S. every year, and they don't have a Telefilm.

I like this idea of thinking of Telefilm as a lottery. It shouldn't stop you from making your film.

I believe we need to be a lot more entrepreneurial. And Red makes this way easier.

[Jeremy Torrie]

Telefilm is exactly like a lottery, and if you are a business, it's a horrible way to make a living. If it weren't for other skills related to the biz, I would have been out of work a long time ago, or at least out of THIS work for long periods of time...

Thankfully I was smart enough to invest in equipment and post production. So while the rentals for gear is similarly up and down, it helps bring in cash. Writing and producing brings in the rest. I'm thankful I've been able to remain in the business in order to get better at it, hone the crafts, etc. I'm sure I wouldn't be the writer I am now if I hadn't remained in the biz. It's afforded me that luxury -athough I use that word sparingly because there's no such thing in any other respect to the work we do. Tons of sweat equity.

The one thing about the thousands of features that are made in the US -well, there are great tax incentives to allow for those with the appetite for risk to invest, to do so. In Canada there's no incentive. It's all risk-based. What I do like about the US model (if we're going to use a moniker) is that people are willing to take risks with their money, and everyone gets that if you can do a film for a reasonable amount of cash, take advantage of SAG Indie, and then use the various incentives, the end result is a film that will likely at least make money on DVD. And let's face it, very few indies get theatrical release. At the end of the day it's more about making back the cash for their investors than anything.

And I too am a realist. Not everything I do is going to have theatrical. I've got a dozen films that I want to make in various forms ready to be told. So I'm not getting hung up on one, or insisting that it requires at least X Millions to be made and has to have X number of screens. It all comes down to the realization that you're using someone else's cash to tell your story. I take that as a huge responsibility, and maybe that's part of the reason Telefilm fails. Why should the producer care about tax payer money, as long as there's some of it in the future to try something self-indulgent? But if you have to look a group of investors in the eyes and face the music, you better be prepared to back up every decision you made. So for me I find that an advantage having had the producing experience...as a director I know what it means when we're going into OT, I know what the helicopter is going to cost, and so on...and it motivates me to get it done.

[tj williams]

Anti Canadian rant:
re runaway production.

1. Canadian film govt. help...doesn't go to Canadian producers. most films in Canada are US projects.
2. These finished tv series and mow then come back into the US for distribution, tax free as "art objects"
3. The reason for the productions going to canada is about 95% Economic as Canadian govt. has the best givaways on the continent second only to the ia having done a second cheaper crew rate in Canada. Looks to me that The Canadian govt. so interested in getting this biz because of the high unemployment there, combined with the social programs they are having difficulty paying for.
4. several crew people who have gotten their cards in Canada are now working in LA. Go ahead LA guy just try to work in Canada. Unless you are above the line, or can prove that no Canadian could do your job. Then you can go there and work for the cheaper Canadian local ia rate!

Strangely it's below the line folks who "endanger Canada's unique culture" Directors Producers and Writers can't cause any culture damage however, perhaps because of their full pockets.

Bill Clinton signed this deal, I watched him do it, we shoulda been watching his pen hand and not so concerned about his other parts.

[Jeremy Torrie]

What I will say about service production is that people who complain about this need only look at how much money the studios and networks make by selling their films or DVD's or programs to us -hint: it is a multi-billion dollar industry (and we're talking strictly profit).

Producers are often required to do more for less, and with the exchange (not so bad now as a few years ago) it makes fiscal sense to create your product for as little as possible. For example I take meetings and when producers tell me that a Showtime or Lifetime or an HBO Original Movie only offers so much money -the economics mean it can't be made unless there are additional funds found to physically be able to make a property...

The union rates up here are much less too, and the skills are pretty much the same (I'm tlaking about below the line crew). For example you can get the best gaffer in our province (with an impressive resume) for less than 30/CDN/hr not including the tax credit. If you apply that, then you're getting this person for 15/CDN/hr. -hard to argue the math if you've only got so much money to make a film, especially when you consider the costs to do it domestically. I'm not saying it's perfect or fair, only the reality. Nobody is forcing the hand of the producers who call and ask us to prepare budgets and do breakdowns for nothing. And sometimes even with the tax credits these producers find they have to do multiple projects back to back, rolling over crews in order to make better economic sense.

The incentives have nothing to do with high unemployment -most numbers across the country are around 5%, and has nothing to do with the social programs (please do not get me started about the politics b/t our two nations as it will flame out quickly and I for one would like to stay away from political differences in opinion). By way of example any government studies for such incentives demonstrate the ancillary benefits (spinoffs) to the local economies are of the order of 11-13 times the initial spend. So if you're a goverment looking for economic development or ROI, those are very good returns, especially when you can collect taxes on the employees working on the projects as well as provincial sales tax on pretty much everything from gas to hotels to car rentals. BUT when the films are not being made (maybe it's winter) our crews can collect unemployment insurance -paid by the federal government until another service production comes to town, and they can be rehired by the new single purpose production company and keep working.

As an independent filmmaker and business owner, I do not have the luxury of collecting EI while I wait for the next project to materialize. I still have to find a way to provide for my family and pay my mortgage. Some of our crews conveniently forget this, and it is a delicate issue.

On the other hand, believe me, as a local/indigenous producer I am not particularly impressed with the impact of service production -the union dues have GONE up, and it is virtually impossible to get crew when the service productions roll into town because they can afford to throw money around and take the best available crew. But the skill sets will get better by osmosis...

So how do we bring this into perspective of the thread? If we had our own viable domestic film and television industry we would be collectively stronger. If the business taxes were leaner, we could re-invest and create slates, ultimately becoming self-sustaining. We can go on about this but my fingers are tired.

[Sean]

I agree that the whole anti-runwaway-production thing has been clouded by a lot of misinformation. It was a lot of "blame Canada" for problems that actually had nothing to do with Canada. It's complex. Not nearly as black and white as the anti-runaway folks wanna paint it. For example, let's not forget that Canada is a DOMESTIC territory for U.S. film distribution. Canada is not a foreign territory. And the U.S. owns our theatres. So is it really any more of a runaway production than something that shoots in New Mexico or North Carolina? Plus all of the talent comes from the U.S. for most of these shoots. These are projects that would simply not get made at all if there weren't cheaper locations. So the alternative would be Universal makes 7 movies instead of 11. No one benefits from that scenario, including the American writer, director and stars who would be sitting at home in Beverly Hills when the phone rings and they're told that their movie will not go forward because Universal has greenlit all the movies it can afford for the year.

But, like Torrie says, lets not get into it (oops, I guess I sorta did) cuz we're Red brothers (and sisters?) and borders aren't so relevant. Besides, we were talking about indigenous production, which is supported by government. That's what this Canadian Filmmaker rant was about. It's an entirely different ball of wax than U.S. production, because indeed Canadians make a lot of film and TV indigenously without U.S. involvement. In Toronto, it is now almost entirely local Canadian production, and very little U.S. service work. Those days are over (for now).

[vanguy]

I think that probably the discussion about runaway productions should have its own thread.

This thread is about trying to get Canadian films made in Canada, and the frustrations of that. Of course, it's not an isolated situation, especially when you're trying to book a crew and everyone's working on American shows. Or when everyone's rates are higher because they're used to working on bigger budget shows.

But let's talk about enabling Canadian filmmakers, and Canadian Filmmakers enabling themselves.

Alternately, let's rant about how hard it is to make a film up here.

[Sean]

You're right. Or better yet, runaway production should have no thread. It's a dead horse. And cuts too close to the bone for too many hardworking film compatriots. Let's talk about how to make Canadian movies with Red.

As for ranting about how hard it is to make a film up here, I ask to what end? The ranting part I mean. Let's just make them. Of course it's hard. It's hard everywhere.


I think that probably the discussion about runaway productions should have its own thread.

This thread is about trying to get Canadian films made in Canada, and the frustrations of that. Of course, it's not an isolated situation, especially when you're trying to book a crew and everyone's working on American shows. Or when everyone's rates are higher because they're used to working on bigger budget shows.

But let's talk about enabling Canadian filmmakers, and Canadian Filmmakers enabling themselves.

Alternately, let's rant about how hard it is to make a film up here.

[vanguy]

Kinda joking about the rant part.

Much more interested in people's experiences making films, especially using new technologies that have been evolving, culminating in Red (although no one's got one yet).

Or how Red's going to change everything.

Still more interested in how people sold or distributed their films, and how we can make enough money at our career to break even...

[Jeremy Torrie]

How do people sell? It's years of relationship building, and one intro to the next. Something may not materialize for awhile, but eventually it pays dividends. Plenty of calls and emails and hopefully something gets the attention of a person in a position to make an executive decision. Vague? Yeah, cuz every deal is different.

I will say that with new technologies we've had the chance to do some cool little projects where everyone enjoyed themselves and we ended up with good product. I'm not sure I could do an entire film this way, but it shows that it COULD be done.

As for shooting in one part of the globe versus another...even we with the most attractive tax credit in Canada have looked elsewhere, and for us we're going to the Balkans for two films where labour there is 1/4 of what we pay weeklies here. Of course safety and security are issues, but when there's a will, there's a way.