Within two weeks of its release, Passchendaele passed the $2-million mark at the domestic box office. The flashing smiles at Telefilm Canada can be seen for miles. Meanwhile, Whizbang Films, the shingle of Paul Gross, the man behind that film, is the latest Canadian production company to be approved for Telefilm’s CFFF Slate Development Pilot Program.

The timing is crucial – in every sense.

As a colleague puts it, the chalk circle around the English-Canadian box office was nearly complete until Passchendaele came along. Mr. Gross et al will be credited for single-handedly boosting the percentage share of the English-language box office for this year. Even the most optimistic onlooker would be excused for anticipating that Passchendaele will be the exception that proves the rule: English-Canadian feature film is a losing proposition.

But Telefilm is determined that this not be so. If you’ve heard that one before, you might take a second look at the SDPP guidelines – or better yet, the FAQ accompanying them. Therein lies something of a landmark:

Q: The guidelines indicate that Telefilm Canada will not conduct a qualitative evaluation of the creative materials (scripts). Will there be any type of evaluation conducted of the scripts?

A: Yes, Telefilm Canada must read the scripts to ensure that the basic eligibility criteria is met… Telefilm Canada’s decision to support a slate of projects with a line of credit will not be based on the qualitative merits of the creative materials (scripts), but rather on the demonstrated strength of the application components…

To put it another way, Telefilm has decided to try to let the market decide. ‘Let the market decide’ sounds dangerous in these parlous times, but, in this context, there’s plenty of merit.

As put by Dan Lyon, Telefilm’s feature film unit director for Ontario and Nunavut, ‘certain sectors’ of the Canadian industry (that would be the producers and distributors) have bent Telefilm’s ear, asking the agency to take a step away from artistic input and let producers and distributors make the call as to which scripts should move toward production.

In return, Telefilm is asking those in the market to put their money where their mouths are: producers fees are not included in the plan, and distributors are required to put up more upfront. 

Lyon insists there remains a place for Telefilm’s selective decision-making, but, he says, ‘We listened to the industry… If there is demonstrated market interest in a project, we should have a development financing program which can respond to that market interest.’ Hence, the SDPP.

It’s a big ‘if’. Remember Fido? The 2006 zombie comedy produced by Vancouver’s Anagram Films showed that market interest doesn’t necessarily translate into box office. But it’s still an indicator.

Not coincidentally, Anagram was the first production company to get a spot in the SDPP. Toronto distributor Maple Pictures signed on to be Anagram’s partner despite never having distributed an Anagram film, in part because Fido was an accomplished model of the entire process: from development, to packaging, to production. The film was not a hit, but it brought ‘market interest’ to the Anagram brand.

This is the underpinning of the slate concept. Not every film can be a smash, but a production company that generates enough good ideas – and, more importantly, executes them – will eventually produce some hits. Imagine a company in Canada like Working Title Films, the U.K. indie prodco behind hit features including Four Weddings and a Funeral, United 93, Burn After Reading and many more.

The prevailing production model is an eggs-in-one-basket situation for most producers, especially those without a CFFF performance envelope. Most can only afford to have one project in development, because the selective system was designed that way. The SDPP brings efficiencies to bear on both sides of the producer-distributor relationship as well as on Telefilm’s part.

As Anagram principal Mary Anne Waterhouse says, ‘The difference is: A – the feedback from the distributor and the direction. It’s double-edged in the sense that you may be giving up some creative control, but I think it’s a good tool to have. B – it gives us speed. We don’t have to apply and wait eight to 10 weeks to have an answer. Projects have a momentum. You can’t keep the momentum going if you have to wait.’

Meanwhile, access to that SDPP line of credit keeps the lights burning.

For Maple’s part, says company COO Brad Pelman, ‘Getting into the development cycle at the earliest stage lets us give feedback, allows us to deal internationally in bringing money to the table and, in short, helps Telefilm make better decisions.’

Telefilm investment analyst Lori McMurdry says the SDPP is modeled on successful slate-style programs in the U.K. and Australia. As she writes in an e-mail: ‘Experience determines that when real at risk [italics mine] money is invested into a project, there is potentially greater commitment and time and energy spent in seeing the project succeed…’

Fingers crossed.