Montreal: Producers and creative teams should be given more autonomy and flexibility in determining the subjects, treatments and budgets of their movies, says Quebec’s producers association. The proposal is one of many feature film policy ‘orientations’ published in a recent discussion paper by l’Association des Producteurs de Films et de Television.

In ‘Development, Financing, Production and Marketing of Feature Films,’ the apftq says additional public support for movies, specifically federal support, as well as new funding from broadcasters and exhibitors should be used to close the growing budget gap between English-Canadian and Quebec films and films produced in comparable foreign territories.

Citing government studies covering 1988 to 1997, the paper says ‘the average Canadian feature film budget declined by 15% [in today’s dollars – 13% for English-language movies, 20% for French]. During the same period, the average budget for films made in France went up 17%, in Italy by 20%, in the United Kingdom by 29% and in Australia by 76%.’

The paper also says the average budget for an English-language Canadian movie is $3.3-million (considerably less for a French-language film) and represents only half or a third of budgets for movies in competitive jurisdictions such as France, Australia or the u.k.

Feature film policy is again on the agenda with the anticipated announcement of a new consolidated feature film fund. Industry sources say Heritage Minister Sheila Copps has received ‘the green light’ on the new fund and an announcement is expected during the first few days of next month’s Toronto International Film Festival.

Copies of the apftq discussion paper have been sent to various industry players, including government, says apftq chair Denise Robert. Robert says the document provides insight ‘into the reality of the feature film industry, who we are, where we came from, and where we want to go.’

‘It’s based on real numbers, not fictional numbers,’ says Robert. ‘We want to build and we need the tools to do that – more money and more flexibility – certain changes in programs and [more] participation from broadcasters as real serious partners, which is something I think we’ve seen happen in the past couple of years.’

Meanwhile, distributors and exporters in the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters are coming out with their own proposals, which association president Richard Paradis says were submitted to the Heritage Department on Aug. 11.

APFTQ proposal highlights

A summary of the apftq feature film policy proposals includes:

* ‘An invitation’ to government to explore the possibility of transferring a portion (20%) of the federal and Quebec production tax credit for a given production to the development or production of another qualifying production.

The producers say the measure would help producers plan beyond the standard case-by-case scenario, take more measured risks and reduce dependency ‘on the largely discretionary decisions of public support agencies.’

* An allocation of annual or multi-annual aggregate envelopes – reserved funding similar to what exists for development and distribution – to recognized producers with qualified projects.

This measure would serve to increase the autonomy of production companies, and in this regard the apftq reiterates its position that ‘the Canadian Television Fund, as initially foreseen, should not be involved in content analysis or the choice of subjects or shooting locations once [the ctf] is satisfied the production is Canadian…that all key creative posts are held by Canadians or that the film is produced under an official coproduction treaty.’

* More balance and competition in what the apftq sees as a highly concentrated distribution sector.

Robert says producers continue to push for better returns from films which do well at the box office, and ‘the negotiated contract [between producers and distribs] should include a clause guaranteeing a preferential recoupment corridor for producers based on gross box office receipts and [the contract] should provide for standard exploitation reports.’

* The producers are again asking government to seriously consider, again, the imposition of a fixed percentage (5%) levy on the gross annual Canadian revenues of large theatre chains. Funds would be used to support production of homegrown theatrical films.

Fees and overhead

Producers’ share of revenues in the form of fees and administration or overhead charges is often misrepresented in the industry, and more often those sums are very modest, according to the apftq.

In an analysis of 15 French-track movies funded in ’97/98, the audited budgets show producer fees made up 6.43% of the total Canadian share of the budget while overhead charges represented 2.99% of the budget. Once the overhead and producer fee total (9.41%) was reduced by over-budget expenditures – the responsibility of producers alone – the average net fee and overhead charge by producers represented only 5.87% of the total budget.

Not only have budgets declined since the mid-’80s, the situation is compounded in Quebec by the growing number of first-time directors receiving funding from the agencies.

‘Whatever kind of fund we have, whether it’s a $5-million or $10-million or $20-million fund, we have to ask where do we want our cinema to be in the next few years,’ says Robert. ‘Last year there were 21 or 22 feature films financed [by Telefilm Canada in Quebec], and 13 were from first-time directors. You have to ask what do you do for those directors for their next project and the ones from the year before who also did a first feature.

‘We hardly have money for directors with confirmed talents who should be moving forward to make their next picture; we can’t even guarantee that and we’re starting with new ones! I find that to be very irresponsible.

‘When you decide to finance [a movie] it’s a big decision. This is a major career move [for a new director], and are we really going to be able to support the 13 new directors from last year and the six from the year before? There is space for new talent, but it should be accompanied by a vision of just what this industry can support,’ says Robert.

CAFDE counters

cafde’s Paradis says a tax on the exhibition sector won’t work ‘because politically it’s extremely difficult after the fact…because Cineplex and Famous Players are so strong.’

cafde supports an enhanced feature film fund but is putting forward many views which diverge from those of the producers.

Paradis says cafde’s own report pushes for a new policy ‘which reaches out to Canadian movie-goers.’ He says the issue is ‘making sure Canadians go to see Canadian films. That’s the focus – and that’s the only focus we have as distributors.

‘The bottom line is that producers want everybody else to give them money,’ he says. ‘There is already an existing producer corridor [determined by success at the box office]. The problem with the formula now is that if they [the producers] have a loser [a weak film] everybody else loses but not the producer, because everybody else takes the risk.

‘The basic flaw in the policy right now, which [cafde] hopes will be considered, is how to increase the actual involvement and risk on the part of both the producer and his or her production. And we are going to make recommendations where both the distributor and producer will increase their financial risks in projects.’

Paradis says there’s a wide range of players in the distribution sector. cafde members include bigger companies like Alliance Atlantis, TVA International and Lions Gate, but also small and mid-sized companies like France Film and Film Tonic and regionally based companies like Forefront Releasing and Red Sky.

Paradis says the new policy should place added pressure to perform on both distribs and producers.

‘That’s our key objective and we think it’s the same as the government’s.’

Telefilm’s role

Robert says the apftq fully supports Telefilm management of a new consolidated feature fund.

‘We feel the survival, existence of Telefilm is an essential part of this industry. There are many reasons. There’s the understanding of the industry, the impartiality, which is very important, and I think they really understand how our industry works. Consultation with the private sector is important, and I believe there is a request for more consultation on policy with an advisory committee. Not everybody has been pleased with all the policies, but there are changes and a certain degree of openness.’

The producers are widely opposed to policy and selective criteria as determined by the current ctf points system.

‘If a movie is adapted from a Canadian book, whether it’s a good book or a bad book it gets [the ctf] points. If a writer/director does an original screenplay, you don’t get points. How do you explain that logic? It’s harder to write a new screenplay than to adapt a book,’ says Robert.

Robert says she’s also concerned with the ctf notion of ‘visibly Canadian elements.’

She says the key element in features and drama in general is not subject matter, but treatment. She points out Denys Arcand’s new movie Stardom did not qualify under last year’s ctf rules. (Robert, president of Montreal’s Cinemaginaire International, produced Stardom with Robert Lantos of Toronto’s Serendipity Point Films. The Canada/France coprod also involved France’s Cine b and Alliance Atlantis.)

‘We didn’t get it because part of the action [story and locations] happen outside of this country. It’s amazing to see which films don’t qualify. We are preparing a film and they [ctf] have put money in – and we are very appreciative – but we have changed the storyline so we could qualify. Now that is not my ideal way of making a picture. I don’t think the creative process should be dictated by rules. We should encourage talent, and that is how we will keep talent here.’

As the rules stand now, she says, our best filmmakers cannot reach out to the world’s literary heritage – whether it’s Shakespeare or Moliere – because the stories aren’t Canadian.

Robert says there’s increased pressure to deliver commercially successful movies, but the public isn’t lining up to see ‘Canadian’ movies, the public preference is for ‘good movies.’ *