"New measures to spread Québecois culture," reads the headline on this Parti Québecois campaign graphic; at the bottom, it reads "Culture is not an expense but a profitable investment, both economically and socially."
[Cancon] Elvira Lount has posted a Facebook Note objecting to the new proposed Telefilm requirements for development funding. According to her synopsis:
1. In order for Canadian producers to access Telefilm feature film development funds they will have to have produced a feature film in the past 5 years.Her main objection is that this will squeeze inexperienced producers out of development. Why would an experienced producer team up with an inexperienced when they have their own projects?
2. Producers will be graded using the new 3 point performance criteria of box office, festivals/awards and private funding as presented at the recent Telefilm public meeting. It seems that your grade will affect the amount of development funding you will be able to access -- in what seems to be a much expanded development performance envelope.
3. Telefilm won't be providing creative input. It will be up to the producers to handle the development.
4. Producers who aren't eligible - haven't produced a feature film in the past 5 years - will have to partner with a producer who is eligible. There is no info on which partner will control the funds, but most likely it will be the eligible producer since they'll be getting the money - I'm assuming. No info on whether they can be just an executive producer or have to be an actual co-producer with part ownership of your project. No info on whether your TV or service production credits will count, or whether if you've produced films without Telefilm involvement they will count or be assessed under the new performance criteria and render you eligible.
5. A producer can apparently apply for an exception exemption- for instance if you have feature film credits but not in the past 5 years -- you may be able to convince Telefilm that your should be eligible. But, that would be very limited - exceptional circumstances only.
6. There is likely to be a 1st & 2nd time producer development stream - but no indication of how much will be allocated, the assessment process etc. Given that most of the funds will go to the much expanded development "performance" envelope this stream is likely to be heavily oversubscribed.
I'm not convinced the new regulations are a bad idea. Doesn't it make a whole lot of sense to evaluate a development money request not only on the strength of the script or story, but the producer's track record? If I bring a TV project to a network, they are certainly going to judge the project not only on its creative merits on paper, but on my ability to execute, and the producer's track record. Same goes if I bring a project to a studio. Why wouldn't the government be equally careful with taxpayer money?
I disagree that eligible producers will ignore ineligible producers. I spent about 8 years as a development exec before I made my living writing, so I have some experience in production companies. Bigger producers team up with little ones all the time. Why? Because it keeps their overhead low. If I'm E1, say, and a smart emerging producer brings in a project she's nurtured, then I've saved myself a lot of headaches. I don't have to sift through 1000 scripts to find one good one. I don't have to do a deal with the writer. I don't have to give the writer notes. And I have someone who will shepherd the project for me. All I have to do is leverage my relationships with distributors and beat up on talent agents, which is something I, E1, can do better than an indie producer.
Why do you think studios have producers on the lot? Because producers who have everything riding on the project are better at picking winners than employees are.
And, keep in mind that the 40% allowable producer fees/overhead on the development funds will have to be divided between the 2 producers/production companies (most likely 50/50) with the balance going to the writers and story editors. So, on a development budget of $25,000 that combined producer/overhead fee will be $7000 split 2 ways - $3500 per producer/production company - and with that you are expected to devote months or years of your life to developing the project that you no longer own or control and to run your office. Plus, of course you will need to pay a lawyer to draw up the co-producer contract -- so this is an additional expense that will eat into your $3500 share -- let's say it will cost you at least $1000 to make sure you don't get screwed by the other producer. So, now you're left with $2500 and you've given away half your project, or maybe even the whole project.Here's the thing. The development overhead is not supposed to be how you pay the rent as a producer. It's supposed to tide you over. You are supposed to make your living producing movies. I've heard it said too often that many producers make their living developing scripts. Meaning, that's all they do. The Telefilm development money is not supposed to be there to support people working in the industry. It is supposed to support movie making.
First, what eligible producer is going to be willing to take on someone else's project for that paltry sum of $2500 when they can keep the whole allowable 40% fee by developing their own projects?
I've often noticed that many producers, particularly in Québec, do not seem very interested in reading my, and other writers', material. What they want to do is develop their own pet projects. An exec friend of mine recently tried to forward an interesting script to a producer I've worked with. He wrote back, "What makes you think I'm interested in reading other people's scripts?"
And frankly, if you're an emerging producer, you ought to be able to negotiate a reasonable deal for yourself with an established producer.
Of course, I worked in LA for 10 years. There was a year where I was exactly an emerging producer with no credits trying to sell my projects to established producers. So all of this seems extremely normal to me, except for the part where the government helps people fund their projects.
I think it makes sense to get Telefilm out of the business of giving notes. I have many friends who are Telefilm analysts, and they're pretty sharp folks. They've often helped me make my scripts better. But doesn't it make sense that the notes should come from the person who lives or dies by the critical and/or commercial success of the movie? No Telefilm analyst was ever fired because their notes made a movie less commercial or less of a festival winner. If Denise Robert wants to make another potential Oscar winner, shouldn't she have the final say on whether the script is perfect the way it is? If Muse wants to make the next big dumb comedy, you know the analyst is not going to say, "we need more fart jokes." But sometimes you just need more fart jokes.
I guess the only quibble I would have with the guidelines is that 5 years might be short. It takes a long time to develop and produce a feature. I think you could be a very good producer and not necessarily have a feature in the past 5 years for entirely legit reasons. I think 7 years might be more reasonable.
Look, I'm as scared of the big bad Conservatives as anybody. And I keep waiting for some terrible drastic change to the creative landscape. But these seem like entirely reasonable and fair new guidelines.
I rented LES HAUTS ET LES BAS DE SOPHIE PAQUIN, the hit hourlong Québec comic drama that was remade as the Canadian comedy SOPHIE.
The problem is, my French is not good enough to watch francophone TV. I can pitch a show to a producer in French, and I can direct a film crew in French. I listen to the news in French in my car. But TV comes at you a bit faster and stronger than someone you're having a conversation with. (Also, my hearing is a bit degraded from too many nights at the Pyramid Club and too many days in the NYC subway system in my wasted youth.) So I was hoping for subtitles.
No subtitles.
How about closed captions? Surely there are closed captions so the hard of hearing can watch? I read French just fine.
It took me half an hour to figure out how to turn on closed captions on my TV, basically because...
... there were no closed captions to turn on.
This is a shame. Québec's TV industry is vibrant. It really speaks to its audience, who don't see themselves reflected in Canadian TV, or French TV, or American TV. It has funny comedies and dramatic dramas. It doesn't pull punches. Why do you think they keep remaking Québec shows?
It's possible that some Canadians might want to watch it, if only out of curiosity. And maybe, with a few subtitles, they could get into the characters and the stories.
Ditto Québecois movies. A lot of those aren't subtitled or closed captioned either.
Of course subtitles cost money, and Québecois TV shows are made on ridiculously tiny budgets -- think $170,000 per half hour instead of $500,000. So producers and distributors are not going to spring for them.
This strikes me as a problem worth throwing government money at. Subsidize subtitles!
Why? I've been deliberately using inflammatory language in this post, in case you didn't notice -- using "Canadian" to refer to Canada outside Québec. Why, you'd almost think I was a sovereigntist. And obviously, having gone to the trouble of immigrating to Canada, I'd like to keep Canada whole.
But I don't see Québec on Canadian TV. And I sure as hell don't see francophones on Canadian TV. It's practically verboten to show anyone with a Québec accent. A British accent, no problem. An Italian accent, no problem. A Turkish accent, no problem. But Québec? Sorry.
My producer and I were told by a funder that if we had anyone speaking French in our romantic comedy, which is set in Montreal, no one would see it outside of Québec. Maybe if Canadians got a little Québec culture now and then, they wouldn't feel it was "pretentious" for a movie to show a little bilingualism.
If francophones never see themselves on Canadian TV, and Canadians can't experience Québec TV unless their French is already perfect, is it any wonder that so many Québeckers feel like they live in a different country already? I get that feeling myself.
Culture binds a society together.
Subtitles are pretty cheap sutures.
UPDATE: The Collaborative for Communication Access via Captioning is an advocacy group for more closed captioning. Check'em out if you're interested.
Last night, in case you were distracted by the Osama news, the Harper Conservatives gained a very solid majority of 167 in the 308-seat Canadian Parliament. For the next five years, barring a dozen disastrous by-elections, the Conservatives can do what they want.
It will be interesting to see what that is, exactly -- interesting, and to those of us in the Canadian arts, a little terrifying. Canadian productions are heavily subsidized so long as they fulfill requirements of including Canadian creative talent and setting shows in Canada. The Conservatives are, as I understand it, generally in favor of letting business do as it pleases. To what degree they will loosen content regulations in the film and television industry is the big question. I doubt we'll see a sudden influx of money into the Canada Media Fund. But will they allow US media conglomerates to buy up Canadian media conglomerates? Will they abolish the Canadian content requirements, decimating showbiz here? I don't think anyone outside Steven Harper's inner circle really knows.
In Québec, culture is the third rail of politics; the Conservatives missed winning a majority in 2008 because they stepped on it. Ironically, the day after voters deserted the separatist Bloc Quebecois, my Facebook account is filled with calls for Quebec independence. Will a right-wing, corporatist government push this left-wing, culturalist people to secession? And if so, is there a place for anglophone artists here?
These are the questions whizzing around in my corner of the world. How about yours?
Okay, we're holding a fundraiser for Tyrone Benskin on Thursday, 7-9, in the Old Port. RSVP...
(Canadian politics)
As some of you may know, Canada is in the throes of an election. I was delighted to see that Tyrone Benskin, VP of ACTRA and Artistic Director of Montreal's Black Theatre Workshop, is not only running for parliament in Jeanne-Le Ber, but is within 1.1% of winning it.
I had the pleasure to work with Tyrone on Charlie Jade (he played Karl Lubinsky), and he is a wise and thoughtful man, easy to work with yet passionate about the work, a rare combination.
I think it would be great to have a voice in Parliament who knows the concerns of the performing arts community firsthand. And with the NDP surging in Québec, it's suddenly possible. So I'm going to organize a little fundraiser this week. In the mean time, check out his site, http://tyronebenskin.ndp.ca, and if you feel like it, come to our fundraiser..
