From: cosulliv@fraser.sfu.ca (Christina Marie O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Best foreign films, by country
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:23:38 GMT

spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca (THE EYE-BALL KID) writes:
>> About the only place you find Canadian films in English Canada is in "art"
>> theatres that show all those "foreign" (often Quebec) subtitled films
>> and on TV (CBC, and First Choice, probably to fill a Canadian content quota).

>Yes, and have you noticed that when CBC runs French-Canadian movies, they DUB
>them into English. Maybe it's just me, but DUBBING makes almost ANYTHING look
>and sound ridiculous. If you go to one of the "Art Houses", you'll at least see
>a subtitled version.

>I haven't seen any of these, but the most depressing part about Canadian
>"cinema" is that the most "interesting" films seem to be coming out of French
>Quebec. I'm an anglo trying to work in the film business here and I haven't
>seen anything solid (creatively) since Black Robe -- in English (and that
>wasn't so hot either).

That could be because les Quebecois have a more entrenched and vital interest
in preserving their language and culture.  Being one of the most populated
provinces and carrying significant weight in federal politics, Quebec
filmmakers are probably more favoured when it comes to grants from The Dept.
of Communications and Telefilm Canada. It's only a shame they aren't more
recognized at say, the Genies.   When a Quebec filmmaker makes a film, chances 
are there's already a relatively huge local audience who will be attracted by
the film, as it will have something to say about their culture, and even 
better, be in a language they can understand.
Anglophone Canadian filmmakers have a more difficult time, I would think,
centralizing an audience.  What could a film that focusses on, say, Sudbury have to say to someone in Tuktoyuktuk, Edmonton, or Montreal?

>Maybe the subtitles are disguising the short-comings, but Canada is notorious
>for gutless investors, and tasteless producers. With the business relying on
>Telefilm for money, a few government beaurocrats are making decissions about
>what will represent "Canada" in the world market place.
     Yes.  And it seems that the government bureaucrats, in this case the
Department of Communications and their subdivisions, would like to see more
of an emphasis on rural, peripheral communities: "Young Yannick from a
Doukhobor community in the prairies finds himself coming of age, torn between
tradition and his personal future"; and less of the urban, hip comedies, which
is a shame.  I don't think Telefilm Canada or the Department of Communications,
when considering marketable films that have a chance of wide-screen 
distribution, can afford to get picky: 60% Quebec, 39% Ontario, 1% BC appropr-
iation of funds, 60% rural emphasis, 40% urban, etc.... may be the way of the
Canada Council, but should never be the way of developing a vital filmmaking
community in our home and native land.

>In an interview with Adriane Clarkson, Norman Jewison complained that the US
>invests EIGHT BILLION (8,000,000,000) dollars in it's film and television
>industry every year. With one tenth of the US population, you'd think we might
>be able to invest 800,000,000. Say, 500,000,000 because of the pop.
>discrepancy. I have no figures to back this up, but I THINK Canadian film and
>TV runs around the 100,000,000 mark -- IF WE'RE LUCKY!

>Sorry to rant like this, but I thought it might lead to an interesting
>discussion...
   Well, Ocular Juvenile, I hope I've made a remotely interesting point.
>Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

> spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca
Christina O'Sullivan
cosulliv@sfu.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies