wins few

admirers

Canadian Heritage’s long-awaited Secor study on the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada has been met with a mixture of condemnation, indifference and a smidgen of approval by the film and television production industry.

Following numerous delays and months of speculation, the controversial 200-page document, which says the nfb should be turned into a film school and Telefilm should implement a corporate funding envelope, was released Oct. 31.

While government film employees are gasping at the study’s major recommendations, industry is all too ready for some fundamental changes in government intervention. The question is whether the Secor study is the right guide.

Originally commissioned by the former Conservative government and prepared by Montreal-based consulting firm Secor Groupe, the study set out to examine, within an overall context of the Canadian audio-visual industry, the efficiency of the nfb and Telefilm in attaining cultural and economic objectives.

The most critical recommendation for the nfb is to turn the public production facility into a film school, with documentary production farmed out to the cbc and subsequently to the private sector.

For Telefilm, Secor suggests funding criteria be shifted from a project-by-project to a corporate financing basis, with an emphasis on investment returns. The report also designates an allotment for ‘cultural’ product which would operate on the old project-by-project system.

Filmmaker Paul Donovan (Paint Cans) of Salter Street Films, Halifax, calls the report ‘completely bizarre’ and the recommendations for Telefilm ‘bogus.’ ‘There are a couple of Canadian illnesses,’ says Donovan. ‘One is where bureaucrats control everything and the other is family compact. This (report) is family compact.’

The report’s significance is dubious for many reasons including its crucial omission of the agencies’ cultural mandates in its analyses.

But its ruin will more than likely come at the mercy of the Liberals’ own cultural agenda.

Until Canadian Heritage Minister Michel Dupuy’s complete cultural policy is finalized (expected in 18 months) and the program review of all government agencies is settled, word is the Secor report will be put on the shelf to gather dust.

Keith Kelly, director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, certainly hopes so. ‘I don’t often say this about government reports, but I hope that it finds its rightful place on a dusty bookshelf and lingers there for years.’ Kelly says the study is ‘naive’ and ‘makes assumptions about the way the film industry works that are not supported by reality.’

Both Telefilm and the nfb had harsh responses to the study; Telefilm says the ‘analytical framework developed by Secor suffers from numerous weaknesses which undermine its credibility,’ and the nfb calls the report’s process of evaluation ‘absurd.’

According to Telefilm interim executive director Peter Katadotis, the Secor report is ‘tendentiousÉit tries to arrive at a conclusion without valid facts.’

‘There are lots of assertions in the report that are simply not proved, for example, the amount of money that can be saved in administration, or the potential for recoupment levels,’ says Katadotis.

Donovan echoes Katadotis, saying the report’s suggestion that savings are to be had in overhead expenses by implementing the corporate envelope are not explained or justified. ‘I would question it. If they maintain the cultural side, they would maintain the same overhead to stay involved on a subjective basis for films d’auteur,’ says Donovan.

Aimee Danis, president of Montreal’s Verseau International, says the notion that all projects must be profitable is a blunt suggestion to Quebec producers that they must work in English, and it is wrong to judge Telefilm outside its mandate, which is both commercial and cultural.

‘No national feature film industry outside the u.s. is profitable,’ says Danis. ‘If the emphasis is placed uniquely on profitability, Quebec producers will be forced to work in English.

Michael MacMillan, Atlantis Communications ceo, says there is a lot to recommend the corporate envelope and he thinks it deserves a closer look. ‘I think Telefilm has to figure out how it will continue to focus its funding and increase its return,’ he says. In addition, MacMillan believes it would increase stability in the industry.

The corporate envelope concept also appeals to Catalyst head Charles Falzon. ‘To me what is vital is that it is an industrial development motivation as opposed to a cultural motivation.’ The potential drawbacks are a ‘closed club’ and ‘having an agency determine who the players should be. It should definitely be left up to free enterprise,’ he says.

Sandra Macdonald, president of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, sees corporate financing as ‘an important dimension and one that has not been notably available except in the sense that the Ontario Film Investment Program and the Quebec tax credit effectively work as corporate financing.’ Nonetheless, she does not hold much faith in the report, saying ‘it does not take into account nearly fully enough the total environment for supportive production.’

Although Canadian Independent Film Caucus cochair Barri Cohen approves of the Telefilm recommendation, because ‘(it) forced Telefilm to come out of the industrial closet,’ her primary concern is to ensure room is made for the middle and little companies.

‘What are the guarantees that newer companies will have access, and what about some of the middle companies that are not completely bottom-line driven but at the same time may have some good, viable projects? For example, Breakthrough Films, which had Dudley the Dragon in development for five years, might not be supported by this kind of policy.’

MacMillan says, ‘All companies should gain. The reality is that this industry is based on partnerships. The report referred to 740 production companies – that isn’t probably the basis for an infrastructure that is going to be able to compete internationally and make distinctively Canadian shows on a regular basis. So there needs to be some way to get folks to co-operate.’

Macdonald cautions against bypassing Telefilm’s cultural mandate: ‘There is not only an important policy reason for some mechanism left which focuses on the cultural dimension, but if we get too far away from (it) in funding areas, we really run a lot of risk of running afoul of the Free Trade Agreement.’

Falzon says culture is a ‘natural byproduct’ of development in domestic film and television production and distribution and stands a better chance in a commercially successful spectrum.

‘I happen to believe that the biggest contribution to our culture from a television point of view has been through commercial successes. If you talk to most Canadians and (ask) what is good Canadian television, they will probably refer to shows that have also been commercially successful and not to the specialty shows that had to be done because they were important to the fiber of the country,’ he says.

Aldo DiFelice, Sullivan Entertainment coo, says he is in favor of such a change at Telefilm, provided ‘the real qualifications (are) that the company be both active and show superior profitability.’

While nfb chairman Joan Pennefather objects to the report’s accuracy (there are numerous errors including the conclusion that each nfb producer has an $850,000 annual production allotment), it is the leveling of the board that really irks her: ‘I totally agree that things have changed around us and at the nfb. The fact that we are using more independent filmmakers is our recognition that there is a larger community out there. But why suddenly turn and say you don’t need an nfb anymore? Why withdraw from the documentary community an organization that is responsible for 40% of the documentaries in the country?’

While Secor’s answers are not necessarily favored, industry criticism of the board seems inexhaustible.

Says Cohen: ‘Frankly, there is no love lost there. The nfb is out of touch with its constituency. Its infrastructure is heavy and it needs to rethink its own relevance.’

So while Cohen approves of a dissection of the nfb, she says handing the money over to the cbc is ‘a terrible idea.’

The fundamental problem is an irreversible difference in the two institutions’ approaches to the documentary form. ‘People forget that there is a long-standing animosity between the cbc and nfb, precisely over the notion of point of view.’ Cohen says the cbc is learning, but lacks the nfb’s expertise.

Macdonald calls the nfb ‘a great Canadian icon,’ but says it’s 20 years out of date. ‘The time has certainly come for a significant reassessment of what activities need to be done by a public producer and what ones don’t,’ she says.

Macdonald is intrigued by the film school scenario and feels it was ‘glossed over far too readily’ in the report, but adds so far, ‘there is no prescription in the notion of the film board as a film school that reflects the needs of the next generation of filmmakers.’

Donovan says ‘the nfb explores the boundaries of inefficiency,’ and while he doesn’t agree with the recommendation that the board be turned into a school because it’s ‘too sclerotic,’ he says, ‘they can stop production and act as a financial support group.’

Donovan thinks the creation of an nfb tv channel that would air the board’s library and commission ‘nfb-type material’ from the private sector might be a constructive end for the 53-year-old institution.

Although industry reaction in general is that the Secor study will go the way of the dodo, Macdonald is concerned that the report will find a home. ‘My great fear,’ she says, ‘is that the recommendations for how to save money – particularly with respect to the Film Board – will be pounced upon by the deficit reducers.’

Katadotis says Telefilm hopes the report is shelved, adding, ‘based on conversations I’ve had (with Canadian Heritage) there is no intention to act (on the report) at this time.’