Point was missed

I would like to clarify the context of the remarks attributed to me in Playback, April 25, concerning Telefilm Canada (‘Telefilm targets distribs,’ p. 1). What was printed was the ‘reductio ad absurdum’ conclusion of the argument without the main point having been made.

In response to recent pronouncements from Telefilm, a number of colleagues in Quebec expressed to me a strong concern that Telefilm might become more involved in producer functions on productions rather than less. It is my view, supported by producers from coast to coast, that Telefilm is a cultural instrument and an investment bank not a studio. If the agency wishes to become more involved creatively, the ultimate absurdity would be their ‘helping’ the producer in choosing his or her assistant editor.

I apologize to assistant editors for using them as an example, but I am reminded of an early point in my career when I discovered that an assistant editor, to whom we had given an entry position into the industry, was also evaluating our projects as a reader for the cfdc!

Playback’s reflection of industry concern on the ‘studio’ issue vis-a-vis Telefilm is entirely accurate. I trust we can rely on Telefilm’s protestations of innocence.

w. paterson ferns,

president,

primedia,

toronto.