No matter how many film boards are spawned, Atlantic Canada needs to attract outside investment, and to do that, the region needs big producers

This production catch-22 has some eyebrows raising over the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation board’s new focus on smaller companies – with New Brunswick’s new film commission following suit – in the aftermath of the perceived domination of nsfdc resources by established producers Salter Street, Imagex, Cochran Entertainment and Citadel, and the exit of Roman Bittman.

When the current acting exec director of Film NB sums up the difference in its approach over that of the nsfdc (such as the support of non-revenue-generating shorts and experimental films) with the remark, ‘we don’t want to bury up-and-comers under a few big people,’ some of the tacks being taken leave room for questioning the industrial strategy of the decisions, given that the film commission owes its existence to lobbying under an industry banner.

Even experimental filmmakers need access to facilities and services, and facilities and services need an ongoing level of production to thrive.

The fact that Nova Scotia has substantial producers, in addition to the film industry tax credit, has encouraged the influx of coproduction projects that benefit all. In addition to drawing outside financing, this has provided employment for crew, sustained service companies and has enabled talent to stay put, so that when other producers need these resources they exist. They also benefit from the fact that the craftspeople grow more experienced. Local producers also stand to benefit from the success of Salter, Citadel and Cochran now that the triumvirate are poised to go ahead with the Electropolis studio, filling what many see as an essential infrastructure need.

As to the steering committee’s desire to be seen to be operating under an arm’s-length policy, that too has its pros and cons. Organizations need heads who are able to make decisions, and in the case of film/tv production, sometimes quickly. With limited funds, when projects which can benefit the most people are given priority in the hopes of kick-starting a new production center, the appearance of bias can rear its head. However, numerous little companies cannot offer the same scale of payoff for the industry at large. The bottom line is that the nsfdc delivered growth within the indigenous industry while also attracting studio pics. After all, when the results show growth tripling – from $7 million in 1993 to a $21.5 million projection for 1996 – how bad a model can the nsfdc be?

While there’s no question that smaller producers need access to funding, there’s a limit to the loaves-and-fishes capacity. It would be a shame if individual decisions in the past triggered a strategy shift that sent the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Given the recent dismal fates of other provincial film corps and investment programs, the nsfdc’s ‘incredible and rapid growth,’ which producers credit Bittman with helping to spur, serves a political, and therefore perhaps crucially, a life-sustaining purpose as well.