@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Applied Science, Faculty of"@en, "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Christy, June Beverley"@en ; dcterms:issued "2011-02-11T23:57:42Z"@en, "1991"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """The purpose of this thesis is to assess the potential of establishing a viable indigenous feature film industry in British Columbia. An understanding of the B.C. situation was gained by researching and illustrating the organization of the various parts: production, distribution, and exhibition. This was undertaken by reading various industry publications on the "business" of film making and reading newspaper and trade journal articles. Information about the history of public policy as well as current federal and provincial programs for feature film making was taken from task force reports, Canadian Film Corporation reports, and Telefilm Canada annual reports. Statistics on the industry were gained from Statistics Canada, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Film and Video Certification Office, and provincial agencies, in particular, B.C. Film annual reports. Personal interviews based on a questionnaire were held with eighteen British Columbia producers who were initiating feature film projects in 1988. Canadian producers are dependent on access to federal and provincial sources of finanicng for as much as 62 per cent of their financing. The balance is provided by broadcasters, private investors, and deferral agreements, or through co-productions with other countries. Because of Hollywood's control of Canada's exhibition market, only 3-5 per cent of screen time is accorded to Canadian feature films. Because of our small domestic market, Canadian producers must rely on international sales to break even. Moreover, feature filmmaking in Canada, like in most other countries, is characterized by great risk and little chance of profitability. The Canadian government is now supporting a nucleus of Canadian-owned distributors with subsidies to help them establish both a capital base and contacts in the international marketplace. Domestic television production has also been a factor in Canada's feature film development. Writers, directors, producers, and technicians have gained experience by being able to work in the broadcast medium. Successful production companies produce a mixture of both television and feature films. As well, these companies have established relationhips with companies in other countries, thereby providing them with an expanded market and opportunites for co-productions. B.C.'s feature film sector is comprised of small production companies with limited revenues who produce feature films on a project-by-project basis through the opportunities provided by B.C. Film and Telefilm. Few have enough capital to plan and manage substantial feature film or television production. Increases in B.C. production are a direct result of success in getting this support. However, Telefilm's funding to the province's filmmakers is unreliable, evidenced by the production of eleven films in 1988 and only one in 1990. A major drawback for B.C. producers is the geographic distance from head offices of existing Canadian broadcasting networks and major feature film distribution companies in Eastern Canada. However, B.C. producers have access to a strong local base of crews, studio facilities, and substantial post production, facilitated by the breadth of American location shooting and commercial production being done in our province. The need is to establish a new, realistic level of operation for the feature film industry in B.C. and to provide the support to sustain it for 5-7 years in order to it to become viable. Given the above conditions, the three main factors in achieving a viable feature film industry in B.C. will be: a) the development of several medium-size companies; b) the provision of adequate funds from federal and provincial sources; and, c) the promotion of the supply of good quality scripts."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/31230?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "PROSPECTS FOR A FEATURE FILM INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA By JUNE BEVERLEY CHRISTY B.a., The University of Calgary, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF A p r i l © June Beverley BRITISH COLUMBIA 1991 Christy, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to assess the potential of establishing a viable indigenous feature f i l m industry in B r i t i s h Columbia. An understanding of the B.C. si t u a t i o n was gained by researching and i l l u s t r a t i n g the organization of the various parts: production, d i s t r i b u t i o n , and exh i b i t i o n . This was undertaken by reading various industry publications on the \"business\" of f i l m making and reading newspaper and trade journal a r t i c l e s . Information about the history of public policy as well as current federal and pr o v i n c i a l programs for feature f i l m making was taken from task force reports, Canadian Film Corporation reports, and Tel e f i l m Canada annual reports. S t a t i s t i c s on the industry were gained from S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Tele f i l m Canada, the Canadian Film and Video C e r t i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e , and p r o v i n c i a l agencies, in p a r t i c u l a r , B.C. Film annual reports. Personal interviews based on a questionnaire were held with eighteen B r i t i s h Columbia producers who were i n i t i a t i n g feature f i l m projects in 1988. Canadian producers are dependent on access to federal and p r o v i n c i a l sources of finanicng for as much as 62 per cent of their financing. The balance i s provided by broadcasters, private investors, and deferral agreements, or through co-productions with other countries. Because of Hollywood's control of Canada's exhibition market, only 3-5 i i i per cent of screen time i s accorded to Canadian feature films. Because of our small domestic market, Canadian producers must rely on international sales to break even. Moreover, feature filmmaking in Canada, l i k e in most other countries, i s characterized by great r i s k and l i t t l e chance of p r o f i t a b i l i t y . The Canadian government i s now supporting a nucleus of Canadian-owned d i s t r i b u t o r s with subsidies to help them es t a b l i s h both a c a p i t a l base and contacts in the international marketplace. Domestic t e l e v i s i o n production has also been a factor in Canada's feature f i l m development. Writers, d i r e c t o r s , producers, and technicians have gained experience by being able to work in the broadcast medium. Successful production companies produce a mixture of both t e l e v i s i o n and feature films. As well, these companies have established relationhips with companies in other countries, thereby providing them with an expanded market and opportunites for co-productions. B.C.'s feature f i l m sector i s comprised of small production companies with limited revenues who produce feature films on a project-by-project basis through the opportunities provided by B.C. Film and T e l e f i l m . Few have enough c a p i t a l to plan and manage substantial feature f i l m or t e l e v i s i o n production. Increases in B.C. production are a d i r e c t result of success in getting t h i s support. However, Telefilm's funding to the province's filmmakers i s unreliable, evidenced by the production of eleven films in 1988 and only one in 1990. A major drawback for B.C. producers i s the geographic distance from head o f f i c e s of e x i s t i n g Canadian broadcasting networks and major feature f i l m d i s t r i b u t i o n companies in Eastern Canada. However, B.C. producers have access to a strong l o c a l base of crews, studio f a c i l i t i e s , and substantial post production, f a c i l i t a t e d by the breadth of American location shooting and commercial production being done in our province. The need i s to e s t a b l i s h a new, r e a l i s t i c l e v e l of operation for the feature f i l m industry in B.C. and to provide the support to sustain i t for 5-7 years in order to i t to become viable. Given the above conditions, the three main factors in achieving a viable feature f i l m industry in B.C. w i l l be: a) the development of several medium-size companies; b) the provision of adequate funds from federal and p r o v i n c i a l sources; and, c) the promotion of the supply of good q u a l i t y s c r i p t s . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v I would l i k e to thank Gerald Hodge for his patience and good advice throughout the research and writing of t h i s t h e s i s . Without his help I would never have completed t h i s . A special thanks to my daughter Jesse Winter whose sunny di s p o s i t i o n kept up my own s p i r i t s throughout the l a s t three years. Thanks also to John Olver and Craig Davis. v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS v i LIST OF TABLES ix CHAPTER ONE - SETTING THE STAGE Introduction 1 Purpose 1 Feature Filmmaking in B r i t i s h Columbia 2 Significance of the Thesis 4 Methodology 7 Problems in Data C o l l e c t i o n 8 Overview 9 CHAPTER TWO - THE MECHANICS OF A FEATURE FILM INDUSTRY Introduction 10 Production 11 Development 11 Pre-production 12 Pr i n c i p a l photography 13 Post production 13 Canadian Production Companies 13 Di s t r i b u t i o n 23 Canadian D i s t r i b u t i o n Companies 29 Thea t r i c a l Exhibition 33 A n c i l l a r y Markets 37 Home Video 37 Pay-television 39 Canadian Network Televison 41 Canadian Syndicated Television Stations ...42 U.S. Pay Television 42 U.S. Network Broadcast Television 43 Foreign Theatrical Exhibition 44 Foreign Pay and Broadcast T e l e v i s i o n . . . . 45 The Hollywood Eff e c t 46 Feature Film Financing in Canada 51 Development Financing 51 Production Financing.... 53 Conclusion 56 CHAPTER THREE - FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Introduction 58 Federal Programs 1968 - 1983 58 Capital Cost Allowance Program 59 O f f i c i a l Co-production Treaties 61 Screen and Import Quota Program 61 The \"Boom Years\" - Impact of the CCA 62 Federal and Pro v i n c i a l Programs After 1983 69 The Broadcast Fund 73 Feature Film Fund 79 Feature Film D i s t r i b u t i o n Fund.... 81 Film Importation Act 82 B.C. FILM 84 Impact of the Feature Film Fund, the D i s t r i b u t i o n Fund, and B.C. Film 85 Conclusion .91 CHAPTER FOUR - SURVEY OF B.C. FILM PRODUCTION COMPANIES Introduction 95 Limitations of Methodology :...96 Composition of Feature Film Companies in B.C 99 Categories of Production Companies/Producers 102 Television Commericals. 102 Government and Corporate Sponsored Videos 104 Television Dramas and Documentary Films 104 Feature Films 105 v i i i Current Feature Film Projects 106 Development Funding 106 Production Budgets 108 Production Financing ...108 Factors Af f e c t i n g Production in B r i t i s h Columbia 111 Training 114 Addendum 114 Conclusion 116 CHAPTER FIVE - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 118 Context of Canadian Feature Filmmaking 118 B.C.'s Feature Film Sector .120 The Ontario Experience ...123 Prospects For Feature Filmmaking in B.C 124 Recommendations 1 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 30 APPENDIX Feature Film Production Companies in B.C 137 ix LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTION COMPANIES: 1987-1988 15 TABLE 2 TOTAL PRODUCTION REVENUE BY CLASS OF CUSTOMER AND BY PROVINCE OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY: 1987- 1988 17 TABLE 3 EXPORT SALES BY CLASS OF CUSTOMER OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY: 1987-1988 18 TABLE 4 REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF PRODUCTIONS BY TYPE PRODUCTION AND REGION OF PRODUCTION COMPANY: 1979-1983 20 TABLE 5 TOTAL PRODUCTION REVENUE BY CLASS OF CUSTOMER AND BY PROVINCE OF PRODUCTON COMPANY: 1985-1988 22 TABLE 6 NUMBER OF FEATURE FILMS PRODUCED IN CANADA BETWEEN 1983-1989.... 23 TABLE 7 NUMBER AND COST OF SHORT AND FEATURE PRODUCTION BY YEAR: 1 974-1983 64 TABLE 8 TOTAL VALUE OF CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT AND VIDEO PRODUCTION, BY LOCATION OF PRODUCTION COMPANY: 1974-1985 66 TABLE 9 TELEFILM PRODUCTION SUPPORT, EXCLUDING THE BROADCAST FUND: 1983-1986 68 TABLE 10 TELEFILM PARTICIPATION IN SCRIPTWRITING AND DEVELOPMENT: 1983-1 989 75 TABLE 11 PROVINCIAL BREAKDOWN OF BUDGET AND TELEFILM PARTICIPATION SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE BROADCAST FUND: 1983-1989 76 TABLE 12 SOURCES AND PERCENTAGE OF FINANCING FOR PROGRAMS SUPPORTED BY THE BROADCAST FUND: 1988- 1989 77 TABLE 13 PROVINCIAL BREAKDOWN OF BUDGET, NUMBER OF PROJECTS, AND TELEFILM PARTICIPATION SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE FEATURE FILM FUND: 1986 1989 87 X TABLE 14 SOURCES AND PERCENTAGE OF FINANCING FOR FEATURE FILMS SUPPORTED BY THE FEATURE FILM FUND: 1988-1989 88 TABLE 15 COMPANIES INVOLVED IN FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION IN B.C.: 1986-1988 100 TABLE 16 CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPANIES INVOLVED IN FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION IN B.C.: 1986-1988 103 TABLE 17 DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FOR CURRENT FEATURE FILM PROJECT: 1988 107 TABLE 18 BUDGET OF FEATURE FILMS RECEIVING PRODUCTION FINANCING: 1988 109 TABLE 19 PRODUCTION FINANCING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES: 1988 1 10 \\ 1 PROSPECTS FOR A FEATURE FILM INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION There i s only sporadic mention in our magazines, newspapers, and other media of Canadian films opening in theaters, and never any mention of films o r i g i n a t i n g from B r i t i s h Columbia filmmakers. In B r i t i s h Columbia, much attention i s given to the presence of American production companies using the province as a location for their f i l m and t e l e v i s i o n productions. Set against t h i s have been numerous government e f f o r t s to nurture a feature f i l m industry in Canada. Born out of a long-time c u r i o s i t y about these anomalies and encouraged by such recent c r i t i c a l successes as The Decline of the American Empire and A Winter Tan, this thesis examines B r i t i s h Columbia's indigenous feature f i l m industry: i t s problems and prospects. PURPOSE The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to assess the potential of establishing a viable indigenous feature f i l m industry in B r i t i s h Columbia. The focus i s limited to private sector production of feature length films ( i . e . , 75 minutes or longer and intended for t h e a t r i c a l release), and proceeds upon the following objectives: 1 . To id e n t i f y the factors that are central to the development of a viable and indigenous feature f i l m industry; 2 2. To examine the extent to which these factors are currently present in B r i t i s h Columbia; and, 3. To determine the policy response of the province toward developing an indigenous industry in B r i t i s h Columbia. An indigenous f i l m industry in B r i t i s h Columbia indicates that the major share of the production process i s located in the province. Therefore, an indigenous industry requires a nucleus of producers who, through ongoing production companies, can i n i t i a t e , manage, and complete the production process. Moreover, they must be able to f i n d the necessary financing to carry out production and arrange e f f e c t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n and sales. These producers, in turn, create opportunities for d i r e c t o r s , writers, and other creative personnel. FEATURE FILMMAKING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Foreign Production in B r i t i s h Columbia Up u n t i l the l a s t few years, B r i t i s h Columbia has been used by American companies primarily as a location for feature filmmaking and t e l e v i s i o n series (Audely, 1986; Testar, 1985). The B r i t i s h Columbia Film Promotion Of f i c e has been successful in a t t r a c t i n g increasing numbers of American and foreign productions to the province. For example, over $150 m i l l i o n was spent on production in B r i t i s h Columbia in 1987 by foreign producers. Ninety-five percent of t h i s production originated in the United 3 S t a te s (Cox, 1987). I nc luded among the obv ious reasons f o r t h i s a re the c u r r e n c y exchange r a t e , a t t r a c t i v e l o c a t i o n s , adequate s t u d i o f a c i l t i e s , and lower wage s c a l e s . F o r e i g n p r o d u c t i o n i n B.C. has been an important f a c t o r in the growth of e x p e r i e n c e d t e c h n i c a l crews, s t u d i o f a c i l t i e s and a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of post p r o d u c t i o n s e r v i c i n g be ing done in the p r o v i n c e (Aude ly , 1986). A c c o r d i n g to a p r o v i n c i a l Department of Communications su rvey , 2,550 i n d i v i d u a l s were d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the p r o d u c t i o n i n d u s t r y in B.C. ; however, l o c a l t a l e n t in the American p r o d u c t i o n s i s s t i l l r e l e g a t e d to s u b s i d i a r y r o l e s , wh i l e key c r e a t i v e p e r s o n n e l , such as l e a d i n g a c t o r s , d i r e c t o r s , w r i t e r s , c inematographer s , and e d i t o r s , a re imported f o r the h i gh v i s i b i l i t y , h i gh pay ing jobs (Brunet , 1986). N e v e r t h e l e s s , t he re i s concern over the dependence of B.C. on f o r e i g n p r o d u c t i o n . The volume of such p r o d u c t i o n c a r r i e d out in B.C. may vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y over time depending l a r g e l y on f a c t o r s beyond p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r o l . For example, changes in American government p o l i c y , changes in the c u r r e n c y exchange r a t e , or changes in f e d e r a l tax p o l i c y w i t h i n Canada can a l l a f f e c t the degree of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the p r o v i n c e as a p r o d u c t i o n l o c a t i o n . Constant f l u c t u a t i o n in the l e v e l of U.S. p r o d u c t i o n s i n c l u d i n g the c u r r e n t drop in o v e r a l l U.S. f i l m p r o d u c t i o n 1 and c o m p e t i t i o n from the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n a t t r a c t i n g s t u d i o - b a s e d p r o d u c t i o n make B .C . ' s c u r r e n t l e v e l v u l n e r a b l e . There a re p r e s e n t l y 44 s t a t e s and 60 c i t i e s i n the U.S. w i th f i l m promot ion o f f i c e s (Cawdery, 1986). 1. C h r i s t o p h e r H a r r i s and Dav id Sherman, \"Not a Bad Wrap to the Decade, \" P l ayback , January 22, 1990, p. 3. 4 Indigenous Fea tu re F i lmmaking P r i o r to 1987, the re were on l y a h a n d f u l of f e a t u r e l e n g t h f i l m s produced i n the p r o v i n c e . In the e a r l y e i g h t i e s , th ree ve ry low budget (under $200 thousand d o l l a r s ) f e a t u r e f i l m s were produced u s i ng a combinat ion of p e r s o n a l investment and f e d e r a l fund ing (B ruyere , 1986). In 1983, f o r example, of a t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n revenue of $8.1 m i l l i o n (up from $3.0 m i l l i o n f i v e yea r s e a r l i e r ) 80 percen t of i t was earned from the p r o d u c t i o n of t e l e v i s i o n commerc ia l s , e d u c a t i o n a l , and c o r p o r a t e f i l m s . The remainder was made up from t e l e v i s i o n dramas and documentar ie s . In 1983, B .C . -based companies r e p r e s e n t e d 5.4 percent of the revenues of the Canadian i n d u s t r y . SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THESIS Indus t ry t rends and government i n i t i a t i v e s are p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the i n d u s t r y in B r i t i s h Co lumbia . The f e a t u r e f i l m s e c t o r i s p a r t of a complex of f i l m and t e l e v i s i o n - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y t ha t i n c l u d e s not on l y t h e a t r i c a l e x h i b i t i o n , but now the growing a n c i l l a r y markets of home v i d e o and pay t e l e v i s i o n . E i g h t y pe rcen t of a f e a t u r e f i l m ' s revenue i s generated from these t h r e e markets ( T e s t a r , 1985). P a y - t e l e v i s i o n expanded i n the e a r l y 1980's at a r a t e of 50 per cent per y e a r , and the market f o r home v i d e o at 25 per cent per y e a r . Of t h i s , 16% of revenues a re expected to come from home v ideo d i s t r i b u t i o n , and 5 evidence indicates that t h i s figure w i l l continue to grow for several years as the number of home VCR sales in Canada continues to increase annually (Cawdery, 1986). As a r t i c u l a t e d in many royal commission reports, the Canadian government has long recognized the importance of f i l m as a c u l t u r a l resource and vehicle for a r t i s t i c expression. In addition to entertainment and relaxation, i t i s a means of communicating to vast audiences (Moore, 1986). In the U.S., 99% of the films viewed in the theaters are domestic films, while 97% of the films viewed in Canadian theatres are made outside of the country. In comparison, Australian domestically produced films take up 20% of t o t a l screen time while in B r i t a i n and France the figures are 20% and 49% respectively. Robert Fulford remarked: \" i t would seem that a given population should from time to time be able to see i t s e l f on the screen. That just seems fundamental and not even for n a t i o n a l i s t i c purposes, but because of questions of i d e n t i t y \" (Fulford, 1982). Television has further expanded the influence of American mass entertainment. The substantial part of English language Canadian t e l e v i s i o n programming, a considerable part of which i s f i l l e d by feature films, i s almost e n t i r e l y American in content (Masse, 1986). Domestic feature f i l m production in a l l countries, except the United States, depends on a support structure of f i n a n c i a l assistance from public sources. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true in Canada because of a small domestic market in proximity to the U.S. To further these ends, the i n s t i t u t i o n s of the National Film Board (NFB), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and Tele f i l m 6 Canada are mandated by parliament to define, enhance, and support Canadian identit y and c u l t u r a l expression. Ever since the National Film Board was established in 1939, the federal government has provided assistance in support of the industry. Through the Canadian Film Development Corporation (renamed Tel e f i l m Canada in 1984) and the Canada Council's f i l m programs, the goverment has provided for an a r t i s t i c , technical, and economic climate in which i t s creative talents could be translated onto the screen. Further to t h i s , since 1986, changes to the 1968 Broadcasting Act gave the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) the authority to enact more stringent regulatory p o l i c i e s for Canadian content in the broadcasting system. Since 1983, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has represented an important market for independently-produced Canadian programs. Federal I n i t i a t i v e s The federal government, through T e l e f i l m Canada, invests $95 m i l l i o n annually for the development of f i l m production through three funds: the $35 m i l l i o n d o l l a r broadcast fund created in 1983, (raised to $60 m i l l i o n in 1988); the $35 m i l l i o n d o l l a r feature f i l m fund created in 1986; and, the $17 m i l l i o n d o l l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n fund created in 1988. 7 The CBC had set a goal of obtaining 50% of i t s programming from independent producers, and, as stated in the recent broadcasting policy of 1988, the CBC has been mandated to achieve 95% Canadian content by 1990 2. A 1987 agreement between the NFB and Te l e f i l m Canada was struck to aid feature f i l m production in the regions outside of Montreal and Quebec. These funding bodies would make available $5 m i l l i o n annually for twelve feature f i l m co-productions with independent producers. P r o v i n c i a l I n i t i a t i v e s Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, B r i t i s h Columbia, and Saskatchewan a l l have programs to support f i l m production. A l l programs make i t a condition of funding that the majority of the production budget i s to be spent in the province so that the majority of economic benefits that flow from production a c t i v i t y accrue to the province involved. In September 1987, the B.C. government established B.C. Film, an agency that invested $10.5 m i l l i o n from l o t t e r y proceeds over three years. The fund i s intended to strengthen the indigenous industry and to complement the success the industry has had in a t t r a c t i n g foreign production into the province. B.C. Film also provides funds to B.C.-based companies and individuals for s c r i p t development, production, pre-production, promotion, and d i s t r i b u t i o n . 2. Kathryn Young, \"Fulfillment of 95% Dream Growing Closer,\" Playback, March 6, 1989, p. 19. 8 METHODOLOGY An under s tand ing of the B.C. s i t u a t i o n was ga ined by r e s e a r c h i n g how the f i l m i n d u s t r y f u n c t i o n s and the i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p s and o r g a n i z a t i o n of the v a r i o u s p a r t s : p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , and e x h i b i t i o n . T h i s was undertaken by read ing v a r i o u s i n d u s t r y p u b l i c a t i o n s on the \" b u s i n e s s \" of f i l m making and read ing newspaper and t r ade j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , the Canadian magazines of Cinema Canada and P layBack . I n fo rmat ion about the h i s t o r y of p u b l i c p o l i c y as w e l l as c u r r e n t f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l programs f o r f e a t u r e f i l m making was taken from task f o r c e r e p o r t s , Canadian F i l m C o r p o r a t i o n Annual Repor t s , T e l e f i l m Canada annual r e p o r t s , es says and c r i t i c i s m from the J o u r n a l of Canadian s t u d i e s , one of the few sources f o r a r t i c l e s on government f i l m p o l i c y . S t a t i s t i c s on the i n d u s t r y were ga ined from S t a t i s t i c s Canada, T e l e f i l m Canada, the Canadian F i l m and V ideo C e r t i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e , and p r o v i n c i a l a g e n c i e s , in p a r t i c u l a r , B.C. F i l m Annual r e p o r t s . P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s based on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (appendix one) were h e l d w i th e i gh teen B r i t i s h Columbia p roducer s who were i n i t i a t i n g f e a t u r e f i l m p r o j e c t s in 1988. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the p r o d u c t i o n companies was f a c i l i t a t e d by d i s c u s s i o n s w i th the c u r r e n t d i r e c t o r of the B.C. F i l m Fund, as w e l l as a government o f f i c i a l i n the M i n i s t r y of Tour i sm, R e c r e a t i o n and C u l t u r e . S e v e r a l open-ended i n t e r v i e w s and phone c o n v e r s a t i o n s were h e l d w i th the v a r i o u s i n d u s t r y a s s o c i a t i o n s . 9 PROBLEMS IN DATA COLLECTION There i s a considerable amount of specialized history of Canadian filmmakers and c u l t u r a l and h i s t o r i c a l accounts of the National Film Board and the CBC. Furthermore, most analysis of the Canadian f i l m industry concerns the role of government. Research and publications about the marketing and d i s t r i b u t i o n of films are few, even in the United States. Rarer are studies dealing with the ''business' of independent filmmaking in Canada. OVERVIEW Chapter two provides an understanding of how the industry functions as whole, including the three p r i n c i p a l sectors of the industry: production, d i s t r i b u t i o n , and exh i b i t i o n . Included are the a n c i l l a r y markets of conventional t e l e v i s i o n , pay-t e l e v i s i o n , and home video. Chapter three outlines the current policy directions of the federal and p r o v i n c i a l government. Chapter four presents a p r o f i l e of B.C. producers who have i n i t i a t e d feature films, in addition to an analysis of the scale, l e v e l of a c t i v i t y , s t a f f i n g and sources of financing of these companies. The methodology (a f i e l d survey) and i t s subsequent l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l also be addressed in t h i s chapter. Conclusions about the feature f i l m industry in B.C. are suggested in the f i n a l chapter (and recommendations are made with respect to present p r o v i n c i a l and federal programs). 10 THE MECHANICS OF A FEATURE FILM INDUSTRY CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION Feature filmmaking i s a collaborative process. One or more producers must bring together the many a r t i s t i c (e.g. writing, d i r e c t i n g , and acting) and technical s k i l l s required, as well as the necessary financing, to complete a feature f i l m . S i m i l a r l y , as an i n d u s t r i a l process, feature filmmaking i s also c o l l a b o r a t i v e . In other words, there must be a working relationship among the three major sectors: production, d i s t r i b u t i o n , and ex h i b i t i o n . Producers must fi n d and esta b l i s h e f f e c t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n and exhibition in both Canadian and foreign markets. Without such relationships, a f i l m may be made but not seen. Since i t i s important to understand the i n t e r -relationships between the three sectors, t h i s chapter i s provides an overview of the complex process of production d i s t r i b u t i o n , and exhibition. This includes the process and mechanics of each stage, the foreign and domestic markets for feature f i l m , and the location of the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n sectors in Canada. Since the American industry i s well known and better documented than Canadian feature filmmaking, the mechanics of the industry was gleaned from American publications. A d d i t i o n a l l y , since foreign control of d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e a t r i c a l exhibition l i m i t s Canada's revenue capacity, a brief history and impact of major Hollywood production, the \"hollywood e f f e c t \" , i s provided. F i n a l l y , methods of financing Canadian feature films in a li m i t e d market are discussed. PRODUCTION During the film-making process, which takes approximately 12 to 24 months from the start of the development phase to t h e a t r i c a l release, a feature f i l m progresses through four p r i n c i p a l stages: (1) development, (2) pre-production, (3) p r i n c i p a l photography, and (4) post production. 1. Development In the development stage, underlying l i t e r a r y material i s acquired, either outright, through an option, or by engaging a writer to create a s c r i p t . In Canada, sc r i p t w r i t e r s may approach a producer to develop their project or, frequently, the producer performs the functions of writing, producing, and d i r e c t i n g . The s c r i p t must be s u f f i c i e n t l y d e tailed to provide the production company and others p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the financing of the f i l m with enough information to estimate the cost of producing i t . In Canada, production budgets can range from under $200 thousand to an average of $3 m i l l i o n . 1 The producer uses t h i s package to obtain commitments for production financing which can come from a combination of investors, d i s t r i b u t o r s , broadcasters such as networks and pay-t e l e v i s i o n services or government agencies. The conventional wisdom of the American f i l m industry (and the pattern i s similar in Canada) i s that one in ten potential properties acquired by producers are put into serious development; of these, one in ten w i l l be produced (O'brian, 1987). In the United States, agents are frequently used by a producer to package the financing and marketing campaign and make sales once the project i s completed. 2. Pre-production During pre-production, the producer completes the necessary financing, d i s t r i b u t i o n and business arrangements. The selection of the dir e c t o r , production manager, actors, actresses, and technical personnel i s begun. Preproduction i s complete when commitments for production financing are locked in place and a budget i s prepared. 1. Occasionally, production budgets have been higher. Notable examples are David Cronenburg's Dead Ringers with a budget of $14.2 m i l l i o n and Bethune: The Making of a Hero, a co-production between Canada, France, and China, with a budget of $20 m i l l i o n . Playback, August 20, 1990, p. 1; Tel e f i l m Canada Annual Report, 1987-1988, p. 61. 13 3. P r i n c i p a l photography The production financing i s the money used to complete p r i n c i p a l photography and post production. P r i n c i p a l photography, the actual filming of the film, i s the most costly and requires intensive labour use and cash flow. It involves the technicians hired from various unions, the cast, the lease of outside locations or studio f a c i l i t i e s , and the purchase or rental of a l l the supplies and materials that w i l l be required. 4. Post production During the post production stage, the e d i t i n g , scoring and mixing of dialogue, music, and sound effects tracks of a feature f i l m take place and master prints are prepared. These a c t i v i t i e s require te c h n i c a l l y sophisticated editing and sound and e f f e c t s laboratories. Canadian Production Companies According to S t a t i s t i c s Canada 2 there were 519 production and 152 laboratories and post-production service companies operating in Canada in 1987-1988. The production sector i s almost completely Canadian-owned and i s 2. Government of Canada, \" S t a t i s t i c s on the Film Industry,\" S t a t i s t i c s Canada Cat. -87-204, Table 1 and Table 8, Annual, 1987-88. concentrated in Ontario (277 firms) with 63 per cent of t o t a l production revenue, Quebec (116 firms) with 25 per cent of t o t a l production revenue, and to a lesser degree, B r i t i s h Columbia (63 firms) with 7 per cent of t o t a l production revenue (Table 1). Production companies primarily produce t e l e v i s i o n commercials, t e l e v i s i o n dramas, documentaries, educational programs, government sponsored programs, i n d u s t r i a l (corporate) programs, and feature length films. They receive revenue for their productions from d i s t r i b u t o r s , conventional t e l e v i s i o n broadcasters, pay-television services, advertising agencies, educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , government agencies, corporations, and other production companies in both domestic and foreign markets.-* In 1987 - 1988, Canadian production companies earned 30 per cent of the $379 m i l l i o n t o t a l production revenue in the production of commercials for advertising agencies. Television broadcasters were the second largest customer at $91 m i l l i o n in sales, while d i s t r i b u t o r s , the primary buyers 3. Revenue i s received from other production companies by providing post production services, camera work, editi n g , and other contract work. PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF PROVINCE FIRMS Atlantic Reg ion 21 Quebec 116 Ontario 277 Manitoba 10 Saskatchewan 10 Alberta 22 British Co lumbia, 63 Northwest Terr i tor ies and Yukon T O T A L 519 TABLE 1 CANADIAN PRODUCTION COMPANIES 1987-1988 ($000) PAID EMPLOYEES TOTAL FULL TIME PART TIME REVENUE $,000 78 14 4,650 634 353 94,189 1,443 560 229,383 35 5 2,395 16 8 1,313 101 9 10,112 279 54 26,700 2,586 1,003 378,742 of feature films and t e l e v i s i o n programs, generated $36 m i l l i o n in revenue (Table 2 ) . 4 A high degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n exists within the industry in B.C. and Canada as most companies l i m i t their a c t i v i t y to one or two categories of production ( i . e . , t e l e v i s i o n programs, t e l e v i s i o n commercials, corporate videos e t c . ) . For example, in 1987-1988, 23 of the 63 production companies earned 32 per cent of their revenue from advertising agencies, whereas only one quarter of the firms reported production revenue from two or more d i f f e r e n t types of production a c t i v i t i e s (Table 2). An additional $19 m i l l i o n in Canada was earned d i r e c t l y by producers in export revenues, (Table 3)^ down fom $30 m i l l i o n the previous year.** Foreign d i s t r i b u t o r s primarily buy feature films and t e l e v i s i o n programs and revenue to producers from these categories was $3.3 m i l l i o n . Additional buyers of feature films are pay-television services ($188 thousand) and to some degree, conventional t e l e v i s i o n ($1.2 m i l l i o n ) . However, i t i s not possible to ascertain how much 4. Government of Canada, \" S t a t i s t i c s on the Film Industry,\" S t a t i s t i c s Canada Cat. 87-204, Table 3, 1987-1988. 5. Ibid., Table 4. 6. Government of Canada, \" S t a t i s t i c s on the Film Industry,\" S t a t i s t i c s Canada Cat. 87-204, Table 4, Annuals 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. 17 TABLE 2 Total Production Revenue, by Oast of Custom«r and by Province of tha Production Company 1987-1688 Distributors Free Television Pay/Cable Television Advertlslnn Aoondea Educational Institutions Government Province or Region Number of firms Revenue VSpool Number of Revenue W00)._ Number of firms Revenue Number of Aims Revenue y$oool Number of firms Revenue •(two) Number of Revenue firms •'S0O0) Atiartoc-Atlantique Quebec - Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia, Yukon & Northwest Territories Columbia Britannique. Yukon et Territories Nord-Ouest Canada 5 33 58 1 $13 $17,538 $17,047 $7 $721 4 50 79 1 1 3 $175 $37,955 $44,468 9 20 $649 $5,529 9 21 74 6 3 4 $6,760 $599 $16,741 $85,653 $643 $347 $1,531 $8,587 $114,101 4 16 $251 $226 $2,196 $32 $20 $879 12 39 58 5 7 12 $1,327 $5,327 $8,611 $241 $266 $2,087 $4,245 Industry Other Production Company _Qjher_ Unspecified Total All Customers Province or Region Atlantic-Atlantique Ouebec - Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia, Yukon & Northwest Territories Columbia Britannique, Yukon et Territories Nord-Ouest Canada Number of \"nra Revenue f$O00' Number of firms Revenue •($000) Number of Dim: Revenue •'$ooo' Number ol firms Revenue •($0001 Number of Dans Revenue 13 42 112 4 6 13 30 220 $1,471 $9,723 $46,400 $410 $611 $3,139 $3,854 $65,608 3 22 53 2 2 5 13 100 $77 $2,127 $14,481 $8,423 $25,346 42 2 3 $621 $1,216 $8,845 x $64 $1,347 $345 $13,446 2 12 $6,153 $305 $9,102 21 116 277 10 10 22 63 519 $4,650 $94,189 $239,383 $2,395 $1,313 $10,112 $26,700 $378,742 TABLE 3 EXPORT SALES, BY CLASS OF CUSTOMER AND PROVINCE OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY: 1987-88 CLASS OF CUSTOMER Distributors Free Television Pay/Cable Television Advertising Institutions Educational Institutions Province No, 50% from this production category comes from t e l e v i s i o n commercials. Of the eighteen companies, five companies reported that a l l of their revenue came from feature f i l m production although a percentage of their time was devoted to developing t e l e v i s i o n programs as well. The remaining thirteen companies reported that more than 50% of their revenues came from producing government and corporate sponsored films, t e l e v i s i o n dramas, and documentaries. Interest in developing feature f i l m projects i s on the r i s e in B r i t i s h Columbia both in regard to those devoting most of t h e i r time to feature film-making and those involved in other categories of f i l m production. These eighteen companies had a t o t a l of 34 feature f i l m projects and 25 t e l e v i s i o n dramas in development. Companies involved primarily in feature f i l m production reported the highest number of feature f i l m projects in development with an average of 3 films per company (Table 15). The production background of the individuals and their s t a f f ranged from creative: d i r e c t i n g , acting, writing, cinematography, sound recording - to business: finance, banking, business management, administration and market research. When asked the percentage of time each respondent spent in p a r t i c u l a r production areas ( i . e . , s c r i p t w r i t i n g , producing etc.) on the i r current feature f i l m project, a l l respondents claimed that more than 50 per cent of their time was spent as producer. Three respondents claimed that 30 per cent of the i r time was spent s c r i p t writing. Between 1986 and 1988, two of the eighteen companies had completed two feature length f i l m s . One of these films was produced by a company whose revenue came from the 102 production of t e l e v i s i o n dramas and documentaries. This feature f i l m was produced with financing funds from B.C. Film and T e l e f i l m Canada and other sources. At the time of the survey, t h i s company had received a d i s t r i b u t i o n agreement with an Ontario-based d i s t r i b u t i o n company. The second feature f i l m was low-budget f i l m produced by a company whose t o t a l revenues came from feature f i l m production. This f i l m was 100 per cent financed in a partnership with an American-based company. The producers were generally reluctant to reveal their average annual revenues; however, data were obtained for 4 companies for 1986 and 6 companies for 1987 and these figures reveal a range of $20,000 - $3 m i l l i o n (Table 16). CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTION COMPANIES/PRODUCERS 1. Television Commercials These companies have been in existence for an average of nine years and employ between 10 and 13 permanent s t a f f , the highest number of f u l l time employees of a l l the production categories. Of the four production categories, they are the largest employer of freelancers, employing up to 200 free-lancers as technicians, production assistants, make-up a r t i s t s , editors, art d i r e c t o r s , actors and actresses, s c r i p t supervisors, sound engineers, c r a f t service personnel, camera assistants, and directors of photography in 1987. Both companies stated that for the years 1986 and 1987, 100% of revenues came were from the production of t e l e v i s i o n commercials. Only one of the companies reported having one feature f i l m and two t e l e v i s i o n projects in TABLE 16 CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPANIES INVOLVED IN FEATURE FILM PRODUCTIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA AVERAGE NUMBER OF Years in Full time Business Staff Gross Revenues From Production Televis ion Commerc ia l s 9 (5-13) 11 (10-13) Government and Corporate Sponsored 10 (2-23) 3 (1-4) $25,000 Telev is ion dramas and Documentar ies 7 (2-15) 2 (1-14) $50,000 - $3,000,000 Feature F i lms 4 (1-6) 2 (1-4) $22,000 F ie ld Survey, 1988 104 development (Table 15). This company reported spending up to 20% of i t s time in t h i s area in 1988. Both companies plan to s h i f t into feature f i l m and t e l e v i s i o n production in the next f i v e years. No revenues or salary costs were given. 2. Government and Corporate Sponsored Videos These are small companies which are either single ownerships or li m i t e d partnerships of between 2 and 4 persons and they do not employ permanent s t a f f . They have been in existence between f i v e to twenty-three years. They employ freelancers, primarily in the areas of s c r i p t w r i t i n g , production assistants, researchers, d i r e c t o r s , technicians, editors, and production managers. Their revenues primarily came from corporate and government sponsored films; however, a percentage came from such production categories as commercials, educational films, equipment rentals, and supplying post production f a c i l i t i e s . Only one company reported annual revenues of approximately $25,000. 3. Television Dramas and Documentaries This production category contains the largest number of companies. These companies have been in existence an average of seven years and range from two to f i f t e e n years. With one exception, a l l companies are either single ownerships or partnerships of between one and three partners and only one of these has a permanent employee. Three of these companies reported losing one partner or permanent employee between 105 1986 and 1987. These companies reported a t o t a l of 14 feature films in development, an average of two per company, 13 t e l e v i s i o n dramas, and six documentaries. At the time of t h i s survey, one company had finished p r i n c i p a l photography, with financing from B.C. Film and Te l e f i l m . This company had raised the remaining portion of i t s financing through the sale of public issues the preceding year. This company has 14 permanent employees and reported that ninety per cent of i t s 1986 and 1987 revenues came from the production of documentary films. Of a l l the production companies in t h i s survey, t h i s company has the highest number of feature films and t e l e v i s i o n dramas in development: four features, six dramas, and two documentaries (Table 15). 4. Feature Films These companies have been in existence for an average of four years and, with one exception, are characterized by single ownerships or lim i t e d partnerships of two people. The exception i s a private investment company with .two d i v i s i o n s ; 1) a private f i n a n c i a l investment d i v i s i o n that functions as a managing general partner in two fil m investment limited partnerships; and, 2) a private Canadian-cont r o l l e d f i l m production company whose four p r i n c i p a l s act as executive producers on selected projects. Their f i l m investment d i v i s i o n primarily invests in c e r t i f i e d Canadian t e l e v i s i o n and feature films. The production d i v i s i o n reported having f i v e feature films and two t e l e v i s i o n dramas in development. For reasons of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , very 106 l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be o b t a i n e d as to i t s o p e r a t i o n s . However, u n o f f i c i a l sources suggest tha t t h i s company i s r e c o g n i z e d by the Canadian Employment and Immigrat ion Commission (the CEIC) as a \" p r i v a t e l y a d m i n i s t e r e d investment s y n d i c a t e \" and, a c c o r d i n g l y , i s a b l e to a t t r a c t A s i an i n v e s t o r s through B .C . ' s Immigrant I nves to r Program. T h i s company i s e s t ima ted to be worth over $35 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . CURRENT FEATURE FILM PROJECT For those companies tha t r e c e i v e d e i t h e r development or p r o d u c t i o n f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e i r f e a t u r e f i l m s , i n f o r m a t i o n was ga thered c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r sources of f i n a n c i n g (Tab le 17 and 19). The p r o d u c t i o n budgets of those f e a t u r e f i l m s which has completed p r o d u c t i o n f i n a n c i n g are set out in Tab le 18. Development Funding E l even companies r e c e i v e d development fund ing from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s . In a d d i t i o n to a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of producer involvement in the development of t h e i r p r o j e c t s , the h i ghe s t l e v e l (32 per cent ) was r e c e i v e d from T e l e f i l m Canada and p r i v a t e i n v e s t o r s (29 per c e n t ) . There was very l i m i t e d involvement by F i l m B.C. (3 per cent ) a t the development s tage (Table 17). The remain ing n ine per cent of development monies were o b t a i n e d from d i s t r i b u t o r s , the NFB, the CBC, the Canada C o u n c i l , p r i v a t e t e l e v i s i o n TABLE 17 DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES FOR CURRENT FEATURE FILM PROJECT Persona l /P roducer Investment 3 2 % Private Investment 2 9 % Federa l (Telefilm) 2 7 % Other Federa l Programs 2% Provincial (B.C. Film) 3% Distributor 1% Broadcaster - C B G 1% - Private 1% Pay-Televis ion 4% T O T A L 100% (N=11) Field Survey, 1988 108 stations, Canadian pay- t e l e v i s i o n services, the Federal Department of Supply and Service (DSS), and the Pr o v i n c i a l Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. Production Budgets Eight companies had completed production financing for the i r feature films. Total production budgets were $14,872,000 and comprised several low budget films (Table 18). One s c r i p t was based on a Canadian novel and another was based on a radio play. In both cases, the options were purchased and the s c r i p t writing was done by B.C. writers. The remaining six screenplays were o r i g i n a l concepts and were written by the producer. Production Financing Producers received the highest proportion of their production financing from T e l e f i l m Canada's Feature Film Fund (29 per cent) and B.C. Film (25 per cent). These companies received the majority of their development funding from T e l e f i l m with r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d involvement by B.C. Film at t h i s stage (only three per cent). A s i g n i f i c a n t amount (22 per cent) came from private equity investment, through public sale, and a small proportion from crew, cast, and service d e f e r r a l s . The remaining 26 per cent came from d i s t r i b u t o r s in the form of revenue guarantees, technical services from another province, license fees from the CBC and Canadian pay-television, and a small amount from the Telefilm's Broadcast Fund (Table 19). TABLE 18 BUDGET OF FEATURE FILMS RECEIVING PRODUCTION FINANCING 2 Government and $3,000,000 Corporate Sponsored $550,000 1 Television Dramas $2,300,000 and Documentaries 5 Feature Films $882,000 $2,800,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $340,000 TOTAL $14,872,000 Field Survey, 1988 TABLE 19 PRODUCTION FINANCING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES: % OF CURRENT BUDGET FROM VARIOUS SOURCES Persona l Investment 12% Private Investment 2 2 % Federal Sources Broadcast Fund 3% Feature Fi lm Fund 29% N F B 1% Provincial (Film B.C.) 2 5 % Other 2% Distributor 4% Broadcaster - C B C 2% - Private Pay-Telev is ion 2% T O T A L 100% (N=8) Field Survey, 1988 111 FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA The respondants were asked to l i s t the a reas of most concern to them as a producer/company i n B r i t i s h Co lumbia . T h e i r concerns were ranked i n t o the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s and summarized below. MAJOR CONCERNS Rank 1 Weak b r o a d c a s t / d i s t r i b u t i o n o u t l e t s 2 Lack of good s c r e e n p l a y s 3 Lack of mature p r o d u c e r s / e x p e r t i s e 4 Inadequate government fund ing 5 Lack of C a p i t a l 1 . Weak b r o a d c a s t / d i s t r i b u t i o n o u t l e t s The l o c a t i o n of d i s t r i b u t i o n o u t l e t s in O n t a r i o and Quebec and the co r re spond ing l ack of any main d i s t r i b u t i o n companies i n B r i t i s h Columbia was, by f a r , the major concern of these p r o d u c e r s . There i s on ly one d i s t r i b u t i o n company capab le of d i s t r i b u t i n g f e a t u r e l e n g t h f i l m s l o c a t e d in B.C. . as compared to a dozen l o c a t e d in T o r o n t o . S ince T e l e f i l m r e q u i r e s d i s t r i b u t i o n guarantees i n the development s t a ge , l a r g e t r a v e l c o s t s to Toronto or to the U n i t e d S t a te s in sea rch of d i s t r i b u t i o n i s i n c u r r e d . Producers p o i n t e d out tha t they had l i m i t e d U.S. and i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n t a c t s and no \" t r a c k r e c o r d \" f o r approach ing them. 1 12 The CBC was perceived to be a major obstacle to production opportunities because of centralized decision-making and the absence of regional t e l e v i s i o n productions ori g i n a t i n g in B.C. 2. Lack of good screenplays A l l producers pointed out that there was a lack of qua l i t y s c r i p t s . They stressed the importance of developing writers and advised that p r o v i n c i a l programs should focus on the creative aspects (writers and producers) over the technical aspects of filmmaking. They linked \"continuity of production\" to a a v a i l a b i l i t y and volume of s c r i p t s and projects in a l l phases of development. Furthermore, the successful development of producers, writers, and directors in the United States was linked to the frequent and regular opportunities available to these people for work in t e l e v i s i o n where c r e d i b i l i t y can be established. 3. Lack of Mature Producers/Expertise For a production industry to be viable in B.C., mature and proven producers are needed. Support for creating producers and companies with strong \"corporate bases\" was mentioned frequently to a t t r a c t corporate and development funding. For the smaller budget films to succeed, large \"ongoing production e n t i t i e s \" are required with sophistocated executive producers who can arrange the financing necessary to produce the smaller films. 4. Government Funding Mechanisms Concern was shown for policy to develop slowly in accordance with the l e v e l of capacity within the province. 113 The federal tax structure was pointed out to be neither useful nor supportive. There was a mixed attitude towards T e l e f i l m ranging from a perception that Tel e f i l m possessed a \"limi t e d sense of the capacities of the Western provinces\" to the perception that T e l e f i l m had \"funded every B.C.-based project they possibly could have\". Some f e l t that federal p o l i c i e s lagged behind other countries in promoting c u l t u r a l l y relevant films because of the tremendous pressure in Canada to make films s i m i l i a r to American fi l m s . Suggestions regarding B.C. Film's programs were that the agency's f i n a n c i a l interest should be r e l a t i v e to the amount of money that they i n i t i a l l y invested in a project and that too much of the producer's p r o f i t s were required. Furthermore, B.C. Film's maximum grant for a one-half hour t e l e v i s i o n drama i s $25,000, whereas a one-half hour series l i k e Danger Bay costs $400 thousand per episode. B.C. Film's development loans should be forgiveable, as in Tel e f i l m Canada's. The producers noted that indigenous f i l m making does not seem to rank very high in the province. Other p r o v i n c i a l ministers should talk about f i l m as being a v i t a l part of the community. They also pointed out that there were no consistent venues in B r i t i s h Columbia, as in Quebec, for public viewing. 5. Lack of Capital Raising c a p i t a l was a time-consuming and arduous process which frequently involved approaching three to six government agencies as well as private investors. 114 TRAINING This section of the questionaire sought information concerning the areas of t r a i n i n g that would be most b e n e f i c i a l to producers in B r i t i s h Columbia. The areas judged most in need of education were knowledge of financing arangements, market research, accounting, business plan preparation, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n industry. Because there are few opportunities for B.C. filmmakers to gain experience, workable mechanisms for t r a i n i n g needed to take place. Although Film B.C. has a small apprenticeship program for producers, the producers f e l t that the Canadian t e l e v i s i o n networks should become more involved in t r a i n i n g programs aimed at d i r e c t i n g and producing. ADDENDUM A t o t a l of $5,482,280 was spent by Film B.C. in the period from September 1987 to A p r i l 1989 and a l l o t t e d to the areas l i s t e d below. CATEGORIES Number B.C. Film of Projects Investment Feature Film 11 $4,561,647 Script Development 35 $ 233,382 Pre-production 4 $ 71,500 Short Production 12 $ 344,868 Non-theatrical 5 $ 47,348 SUBTOTAL 67 D i s t r i b u t i o n Professional Development Bursaries/grants $5,258,745 $ 35,525 $ 46,600 $ 141,410 TOTAL 5,482,280 B.C. Film's t o t a l spending of $5.2 m i l l i o n in 1988 went towards the d i r e c t financing of 67 projects, and $4.6 m i l l i o n , or 83 per cent, of B.C. Film's budget was directed towards the financing of 11 feature films. Other s i g n i f i c a n t sources came from the CBC ($1,364,111), independent broadcasters and d i s t r i b u t o r s ($3,514,150), and the private investment community ($5,722,841). Another s i g n i f i c a n t financing source for these producers was received from public sale of equity units. B.C.'s dramatic increase in feature f i l m productiona (from one feature f i l m in 1987 to 11 out of a t o t a l of 34 Canadian features produced in 1988-1989) r e f l e c t s Telefilm's 1988 commitment to regional production that year as well as the several low budget films that received financing. A focus by B.C. Film on production financing rather than development monies possibly r e f l e c t s the fact that B.C. Film was established six years after most other p r o v i n c i a l agencies and that the majority of these projects, with previous aid from Telefilm, were prepared for production. The establishment of B.C. Film has enabled producers in the province to complete a portion of their financing, to lever funds from T e l e f i l m Canada, and to e s t a b l i s h c r e d i b i l i t y and experience. In 1990, B.C. was a l l o t t e d $15 m i l l i o n in funding (raised from $10 m i l l i o n ) for another three year period. This subsequent allotment of funds to B.C., from T e l e f i l m was worth $12.7 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s as i l l u s t r a t e d in Chapter three. Telefilm's B.C. spending increased from $2 m i l l i o n in 1987 to more than $12 m i l l i o n in 1988. Evidence gained through recent newspaper a r t i c l e s indicate that the opportunity afforded to producers by B.C. Film and Tele f i l m has led to further developments in 1990. A B.C. production company produced and completed a 22 episode t e l e v i s i o n series currently a i r i n g on CTV. An Ontario-based company i s currently co-producing a t e l e v i s i o n series with a B.C. production company interviewed in t h i s survey. This series i s based on a feature f i l m completed by a company interviewed in t h i s survey. Two additional companies interviewed in t h i s survey have formed venture c a p i t a l funds and one of these companies have made bids on Burnaby's Bridge studios, now owned by B.C. Pavilion Corporation. CONCLUSION Though there has been some modest development in B.C.'s production sector in the la s t two years, few companies in B.C. are producing or concentrating exclusively on feature films but serve other markets such as i n d u s t r i a l and government sponsored production. The few companies developing feature films are small, short-term companies (have been in existence less than four years) and are comprised of either individuals or partnerships of one or two people who apply for funding on a project-by-project basis. These producers have been attracted to feature f i l m production primarily because of the opportunities afforded by B.C. Film and T e l e f i l m . As compared to the large Eastern-based companies l i k e A l l i a n c e Entertainment with annual revenues of $100 m i l l i o n , whose p r i n c i p a l s have produced 50 feature films, five°mini-series, and the on-going t e l e v i s i o n series, Night Heat, B.C. companies do not have a large and d i v e r s i f i e d volume of both t e l e v i s i o n and feature f i l m productions from which to gain a cash flow. Since B.C. companies rely heavily on government funding, the two most s i g n i f i c a n t factors for further feature f i l m production have been the opportunities afforded by B.C. Film and T e l e f i l m . 118 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS CANADIAN CONTEXT OF FEATURE FILMMAKING To make a feature f i l m in Canada, producers must obtain financing, bring together a r t i s t i c and technical s k i l l s , obtain access to production f a c i l i t i e s , and arrange for d i s t r i b u t i o n and sales. Although there has been some c r i t i c a l l y acclaimed and f i n a n c i a l successes such as The Decline of the American Empire (grossing $20 m i l l i o n in sales), very few Canadian feature films have attained the volume in sales needed to incur a s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g feature f i l m industry. Because of Hollywood's control of Canada's exhibition market (only 3-5 per cent of screen time i s accorded to Canadian feature films) and because of our nation's small domestic market, Canadian producers must rely on international sales to break even. Moreover, feature filmmaking in Canada, l i k e in most other countries, i s characterized by great risk and l i t t l e chance of p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Canadian producers are dependent on access to federal and p r o v i n c i a l sources of financing for as much as 62 per cent of t h e i r financing. The balance i s provided by broadcasters, private investors, and d e f e r r a l agreements, or through co-productions with other countries. To obtain t h i s government funding, producers must f i r s t secure a commitment from a Canadian-owned d i s t r i b u t i o n company and d i s t r i b u t i o n plans for international t e r r i t o r i e s must be in place. The. Canadian government i s now supporting a nucleus of Canadian-owned d i s t r i b u t o r s with subsidies to help them esta b l i s h both a c a p i t a l base and contacts in the international marketplace. While the r e t a i l home video market in Canada i s expanding rapidly, i t i s not yet a s i g n i f i c a n t source of financing or revenue for Canadian feature films. As i t matures and integrated chains develop, i t i s hoped that a new source of financing for Canadian feature films w i l l emerge. Domestic t e l e v i s i o n production has also been a factor in Canada's feature f i l m development. The Canadian Broadcasting corporation has played a major role in invigorating the industry by t r a i n i n g writers, d i r e c t o r s , producers, and technicians, giving them the experience of working in the broadcast medium. The CBC i s s t i l l the l i f e l i n e for the independent producer, being by far the biggest buyer of Canadian productions.Successful production companies produce a mixture of both t e l e v i s i o n and feature films. As well, these companies have established relationships with companies in other countries, thereby providing them with an expanded market and opportunites for co-productions. Investors are attracted to ongoing production e n t i t i e s which are capable of producing a consistent output of both t e l e v i s i o n and feature films. Concern for support and development of the arts, including f i l m , have been on the national agenda since the 1930's when the Massey Commission recommended the establishment of an endowment fund for the a r t s . We are in many ways and to an unaccaptably high degree, a c u l t u r a l l y 120 occupied country. The books and peri o d i c a l s we read, the films we watch, the radio and t e l e v i s i o n programs to which we are exposed, are ovewhelmingly foreign and predominantly American and the Canadian component i s marginal at best. The Canadian market for feature films i s dominated by the United States. Unless matched by support at home, the net eff e c t of no support would be to lose a l l of our options while gaining none we don't already have. It i s important that Canadians have access to the works of Canadian creators, works that r e f l e c t Canadian experiences and aspirations from a Canadian perspective. Given the nature and pace of technological development, the small control we currently exert w i l l only dwindle unless appropriate measures are taken to enhance the Canadian c u l t u r a l infrastructure and provide a stronger Canadian alt e r n a t i v e to an all-pervasive foreign culture. They are concerned, as they should be, that are means of communication remain in Canadian hands, the better to r e f l e c t the Canadian r e a l i t y , however that may be perceived by our filmmakers. Since enormous sums of money can be spent to make a f i l m , the governments also use less costly devices whenever possible. New laws, regulations, l i c e n s i n g , and low cost support in areas l i k e marketing, d i s t r i b u t i o n , t r a i n i n g and promotion. B.C.'S FEATURE FILM SECTOR Previous to 1987, there were only a limited number of feature films produced in the province. Chapter four outlined the current stage of development of the indigenous feature f i l m sector in B r i t i s h Columbia. Information based on a self-designed questionnaire was c o l l e c t e d to i l l u s t r a t e the present c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c a p a b i l i t i e s of the production nucleus and to determine the extent to which the factors necessary for an indigenous industry are present. This questionnaire was personally administered to executives and producers of eighteen productions companies developing feature f i l m projects in 1988. Information was sought regarding the nature of the production company, categories of production engaged i n , the current (1988) feature f i l m , sources and extent of financing of the current feature f i l m , and the concerns of the industry. Table 16 from the f i e l d survey i l l u s t r a t e s that B.C.'s feature f i l m sector i s comprised of small production companies. They are either single ownerships or limited partnerships of between 2 and 4 persons and do not employ permanent s t a f f . The average gross revenues from productionfor these companies were approximately $30,000. Therefore, these companies do not have enough c a p i t a l to plan and manage substantial feature fi l m or t e l e v i s i o n production. The f i e l d survey examined the sources of financing from these 18 production companies and showed that most companies rely on, and compete for, f i n a n c i a l support from T e l e f i l m and B.C. Film (table 17 and 18). Increases in B.C. feature f i l m production are a dire c t result of success in getting t h i s support. However, Telefilm's funding to the province's filmmakers i s unreliable, evidenced by the production of eleven films in 1988 and only one in 1990 (Table 15). 122 Table 15 from the f i e l d survey shows that the majority of production revenues of B.C. companies i s s t i l l garnered from i n d u s t r i a l and government films and t e l e v i s i o n commercials. Television and feature f i l m production produces only a minority of t h e i r income. A major drawback for B.C. producers i s the geographic distance from head o f f i c e s of e x i s t i n g Canadian broadcasting networks and major feature f i l m d i s t r i b u t i o n companies in Eastern Canada. However, B.C. producers have access to a strong l o c a l base of crews, studio f a c i l i t i e s , and substantial post production, f a c i l i t a t e d by the breadth of American location shooting and commercial production being done in our province. The r e a l i t y i s that, at present, B.C. has small production companies with li m i t e d revenues who produce feature films on a project-by-project basis through the opportunities provided by B.C. Film and T e l e f i l m . Currently, B.C. Film has an allotment of $15 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s which i s to be spread over the next three years, but t h e i r mandate includes funding t e l e v i s i o n and documentaries, thereby reducing the share for feature films. Other factors, such as B.C. producers' annual competition with other provinces for their share- of Telefilm's $35 m i l l i o n d o l l a r feature f i l m fund reduces our annual output to between one and six feature films per year. The Ontario Experience By comparison, Ontario's feature f i l m production equals 10-15 films per year. This l e v e l of output has been consistent in the l a s t ten years. Ontario companies have 123 been the primary b e n e f i c i a r i e s of federal assistance programs and have garnered the majority of t h i s funding since the development of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in 1968 and the Capital Cost Allowance program in 1974. Ontario also has a longer history of funding f i l m a c t i v i t y through the Ontario Arts Council and the Cultural Industries Branch in the s i x t i e s and seventies. Currently, the Ontario Film Development Corporation with an annual budget of $20 m i l l i o n continues t h i s t r a d i t i o n . T e l e f i l m has also been aiding feature f i l m d i s t r i b u t i o n companies, and these are presently located in Ontario. The province also provides p r o v i n c i a l tax c r e d i t s worth $20 m i l l i o n . Thus, Canadian t h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t o r s are investing in Ontario-based feature films, thereby helping a well-established nucleus of reputable international and domestical producers. t The broadcast fund s t i l l gives major support to Ontario companies. Five or six of the largest feature f i l m and t e l e v i s i o n production companies are located in Ontario. Some of these companies began as small i n d u s t r i a l f i l m companies, by marketing their productions to, and developing international contacts with, European and American cable broadcasters and d i s t r i b u t o r s . In Canada, they have co-produced with the CBC, Global, and Canadian pay-television. As well, independent broadcasters such as Global and TV Ontario, the educational broadcaster, has provides s i g n i f i c a n t development financing and enters into co-productions with Ontario-based producers. 124 PROSPECTS FOR FEATURE FILM MAKING IN B.C. Given the above conditions, what are the prospects of establishing a viable f i l m industry in B.C.? The three main factors in achieving t h i s w i l l be: a) the development of several medium-size companies; b) the provision of adequate and consistent funds from federal and p r o v i n c i a l sources; c) the promotion of the supply of good q u a l i t y s c r i p t s . The present B.C. feature f i l m sector has no large or medium-size companies. This has led to the . i n a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e extensive funding on a continuous basis. For example, the number of feature films produced annually since 1986 varies from one to eleven. This e r r a t i c pattern means that resources cannot be planned and l o c a l s c r i p t writers cannot be assured of a regular market. The need i s , thus, to e s t a b l i s h a new, r e a l i s t i c l e v e l of operation for feature filmmaking in B.C. and to provide long term and consistent support. The threshold l e v e l would, therefore, require the following: a) that there be scope for 2-4 firms to develop to medium-size (e.g., $5-10 m i l l i o n per year). b) that federal and p r o v i n c i a l funding be available for 2-5 productions per year (e.g., t o t a l production budgets $3 m i l l i o n each); and, c) that an adequate supply of s c r i p t s be available (e.g., 20- 50 s c r i p t s per year). As stated in Chapter two, the conventional wisdom of the f i l m industry i s that one in ten screenplays are put into serious development. There needs to be a pool of s c r i p t s written B.C. in the range of 10 to 20 s c r i p t s per y e a r . B.C. F i l m c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e s up to a maximum of $15,000 f o r the development of a f e a t u r e f i l m s c r e e n p l a y . At t h i s fund ing l e v e l , i t would c o s t B.C. F i l m approx imate l y $300,000 to $1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y i n d i r e c t f und ing . B.C. w r i t e r s can a l s o acces s the programs a v a i l a b l e through T e l e f i l m and FUND. T e l e f i l m c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e s up to a maximum of $25,000 per s c r e e n p l a y . FUND commits $1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y in i n t e r e s t - f r e e l o a n s , payab le on the f i r s t day of p r i n c i p a l photography and have a program f o r more e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s , commit t ing a maximum of $50,000 d o l l a r s . An average Canadian f e a t u r e f i l m c o s t s approx imate l y $1 - $3 m i l l i o n to p roduce . For p r o d u c t i o n f i n a n c i n g , c u r r e n t f e d e r a l f e a t u r e f i l m programs p r o v i d e up to 49 percen t of the f i n a n c i n g (or $1.5 m i l l i o n ) and B.C. F i l m p r o v i d e s up to $600,000, to a maximum of 25 per cent of the budget fo r h i gher budget f i l m s . At t h i s l e v e l of government f und ing , B.C. F i l m would have to commit $ 1 - 2 m i l l i o n a n n u a l l y f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of two f i l m s per y e a r . I t ' s ve ry d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n the l e v e l of development monies needed and f o r how long a p e r i o d i n o rder f o r s t a b l e p r o d u c t i o n companies to d e v e l o p . However c e r t a i n f a c t o r s a re nece s sa ry : long term p o l i c i e s from f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l a g e n c i e s , r e g u l a t i o n , and a h e a l t h y b r o a d c a s t i n g i n d u s t r y . 126 In o rder to c r e a t e these c o n d i t i o n s , there w i l l be a need f o r a c t i o n by both the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments and t h e i r f i l m development a g e n c i e s , T e l e f i l m and B.C. F i l m . The minimum s teps each w i l l have to take a re se t out below. RECOMMENDATIONS B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Government 1. The p r o v i n c e shou ld p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t fund ing to B.C. F i l m ( e . g . $4-5 m i l l i o n per year ) over the next 5 year s f o r p r o d u c t i o n f i n a n c i n g . Other a s p e c t s of B.C. F i l m ' s mandate w i l l r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l funds . ' 2. B r i t i s h Columbia shou ld c o n s i d e r o f f e r i n g investment i n c e n t i v e s in the form of tax c r e d i t s comparable to those a v a i l a b l e i n O n t a r i o and Quebec. 3. B r i t i s h Columbia shou ld p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l seed money to the Knowledge Network to encourage c o - p r o d u c t i o n s and development. 4. The p r o v i n c e shou ld a c t i v e l y and p u b l i c l y market the ind igenous f i l m i n d u s t r y to B.C. p e o p l e . B.C. F i l m 5. B.C. F i l m shou ld be mandated to c o n s u l t w i th T e l e f i l m , the NFB, CBC, and the CRTC on f i l m - r e l a t e d i s s u e s . 6. B.C. F i l m shou ld promote s t rong p r o d u c t i o n e n t i t i e s and c u l t i v a t e B.C. f i lmmaker s , w r i t e r s , and o ther i n d u s t r y p r o f e s s i o n a l s , both those that a re proven and unproven. 127 7. B.C. F i l m shou ld promote and ma in ta in Canadian and f o r e i g n d i s t r i b u t i o n and broadcas t through c o -p r o d u c t i o n s . 8. B.C. F i l m shou ld promote i n i t i a t i v e s tha t focus on d e v e l o p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p roducer s i n o ther p r o v i n c e s . 9. B.C. F i l m shou ld des i gn programs to encourage new producer s and the development of low-budget f i l m s . 10. B.C. F i l m shou ld e s t a b l i s h a s c r i p t - w r i t i n g fund and a program to promote the development of 20-50 s c r i p t s per y e a r . T e l e f i l m Canada 11. T e l e f i l m shou ld a l l o t $2-5 m i l l i o n per year to B.C. f e a t u r e f i l m s . 12. The support program f o r d i s t r i b u t o r s shou ld be c o n t i n u e d , c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the e s t a b l i s h e d companies in the e a s t . F e d e r a l Government 13. The F i l m Importa t ion Act shou ld now be passed to g i v e Canadian d i s t r i b u t o r s the o p p o r t u n i t y to o b t a i n f o r e i g n d i s t r i b u t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g v i d e o r e t a i l ) r i g h t s . 14. An a d v i s o r y committee shou ld be e s t a b l i s h e d to a d v i s e and r e p o r t on i n d u s t r y comp l i ance . 15. The CBC shou ld be funded to ensure that t h e i r mandate (95 per cent Canadian con ten t ) i s r eached . CRTC should continue to monitor Canadian content requirements by pay-television services thus ensuring that as revenues increase, Canadian content also increases. 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY REPORTS OF PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL FILM FUNDING AGENCIES A l b e r t a Mot ion P i c t u r e Development C o r p o r a t i o n . Annual Repo r t s . 1985-1986, 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1988-1989. B a s s e t t , John . The F i l m Indus t ry i n O n t a r i o . O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of I ndus t ry and Tour i sm, 1973. B.C. F i l m . Annual R e p o r t s . 1987-1988, 1988-1989. B.C. F i l m Indus t ry A s s o c i a t i o n and T e l e f i l m Canada. M inutes of Meet ing w i th Members. February 3, 1988. ( Typew r i t t en . ) B i r d R. M.; Bucovsky M.W.; and and Yatchew A. Tax I n c e n t i v e s f o r the Canadian F i l m I n d u s t r y . I n s t i t u t e f o r P o l i c y A n a l y s i s , 1981. Bureau of Management C o n s u l t i n g . F i l m Study. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1976. Canadian F i l m Development C o r p o r a t i o n . Annual Repor t . 1981— 1982. Canadian F i l m Development C o r p o r a t i o n . Annual Repor t . 1978-1979. Cox, K i rwan. \"The N a t i o n a l F i l m Board and T e l e v i s i o n , \" Task Fo rce on B r o a d c a s t i n g P o l i c y . 1986. ERA C o n s u l t i n g Economists L t d . An E v a l u a t i o n of the Impact on the Canadian Fea tu re F i l m Indus t ry of the Inc rease to 100% of the C a p i t a l Cost A l l owance . Ottawa: S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , 1979. Government of Canada. \" F l o r a MacDonald Announces New P o l i c y to L i c e n s e the Impor ta t ion of F i l m s f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n i n Canada, \" News R e l e a s e . Feb rua ry , 1987. Government of Canada. Department of Communicat ions, Canadian F i l m and V ideotape C e r t i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e . The Canadian F i l m and V ideotape C e r t i f i c a t i o n P r o c e s s : I n t r o d u c t i o n . 1983. Government of Canada. Department of Communications ( P a c i f i c Reg i on ) . \"A P r o f i l e of the B r i t i s h Columbia Program P r o d u c t i o n I n d u s t r y . \" 1986. Government of Canada. \" S t r u c t u r e of the Canadian F i l m I n d u s t r y , \" Ottawa: 1985. Government of Canada. Report of Film Industry Task Force, Canadian Cinema, A S o l i d Base. November, 1985. Government of Canada. The National Film and Video Pol i c y . May, 1984. Government of Canada. \"Cultural S t a t i s t i c s . \" S t a t i s t i c s Canada Catalogue 87-620, 1977-1979. Government of Canada. \" S t a t i s t i c s on the Film Industry.\" S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Catalogues: 87-204, Annual, 1983, 1985, 1986-1987,1987-1988, 1988-1989. National Film Board of Canada. An Operational Plan Presenting Strategies for the Production and Di s t r i b u t i o n of Films at the National Film Board of Canada. 1985. National Film Board of Canada. An Operational Plan Presenting Strategies for the Production and Di s t r i b u t i o n of Films at the National Film Board of Canada. 1985. \"Notes for Remarks by the Honourable Flora MacDonald, , Minister of Communications on New Measures Concerning Film Importation in Canada.\" Toronto. February 13, 1987. Ontario Film Development Corporation. \"Program Guidelines of the Ontario Film Development Corporation.\" March 17, 1986. Tel e f i l m Canada. Annual Reports. 1983-1984, 1984-1985, 1985-1986, 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1988-1989. Tel e f i l m Canada. P o l i c i e s : Feature Film Fund. (Pamphlet). T e l e f i l m Canada. Procedures: Feature Film Fund. (Pamphlet), Te l e f i l m Canada. Procedures: Canadian Broadcast Program Development Fund. (Pamphlet). Urbanics Consultants Ltd., The B r i t i s h Columbia Film Production F a c i l i t i e s Study. 1985. CANADIAN BROADCASTING Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Annual Report. 1986-1987. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Let's Do I t ! A Vision of Canadian Broadcasting proposed to the Federal Task Force on Broadcasting Pol i c y . December 1985. 132 Canadian R a d i o - T e l e v i s i o n and Te lecommunicat ions Commiss ion, Annual Repor t . 1988-1989. Canadian R a d i o - T e l e v i s i o n and Te lecommunicat ions Commiss ion. More Canadian Programming C h o i c e s . 1990. Coopers and Lybrand C o n s u l t i n g Group. \"Impact of S e l e c t e d P o l i c y Changes i n the Canadian B r o a d c a s t i n g Sys tem,\" Task Fo rce on B r o a d c a s t i n g P o l i c y . 1986. Report of the Roya l Commission on B r o a d c a s t i n g (Fowler R e p o r t ) . Ottawa: Queen ' s P r i n t e r , 1957. Report of the Committee on B r o a d c a s t i n g (Fowler 2 ) . Ottawa: Queen 's P r i n t e r , 1965. Report of the S p e c i a l Senate Committee on Mass Media (The Davey R e p o r t ) . Ottawa: Queen ' s P r i n t e r , 1970. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Aud ley , P a u l . Canada ' s C u l t u r a l I n d u s t r i e s : B r o a d c a s t i n g . P u b l i s h i n g , Records and F i l m . T o r o n t o : James Lor imar and Company, 1983. Bergman, M i c h a e l . \"The Rea l Cost of the F e d e r a l D i s t r i b u t i o n B i l l . \" Cinema Canada. November 1988. B r yan t , P e t e r . \"The Role of the Producer i n Independent P r o d u c t i o n . \" T e l e f i l m Canada. (Mimeograph. 1986. Compaine, Benjamin, e d . Who Owns the Media? New York : Knowledge Indus t ry P u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . , 1979. \"Canada ' s Communication C h i e f B l a s t s U.S. Ma jo r s ' Dominat ion of D i s t r i b u t i o n M a r k e t p l a c e . \" V a r i e t y . September 22, 1983. \"Coopers and Lybrand Management Rev iew.\" Cinema Canada. September, 1987. D rab in sky , G a r t h . Mot ion P i c t u r e s and the A r t s in Canada. T o r o n t o : McGraw-H i l l Ryerson L t d . , 1976. E l l i s , Ra l ph . \" T e l e v i s i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n , \" Making I t . e d . Barbara Hehner. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and T e l e v i s i o n and Doubleday Canada L t d . 1987. Globerman, S teven . C u l t u r e , Governments and Market s : P u b l i c P o l i c y and the C u l t u r a l I n d u s t r i e s . Vancouver : The F r a s e r I n s t i t u t e , 1987. 133 Globerman, Steven. Foreign Ownership and Canada's Feature Film D i s t r i b u t i o n Sector: An Economic Analysis. Vancouver: The Fraser I n s t i t u t e , 1987. Guback, Thomas H. The International Film Industry: Western Europe and America Since 1945. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1969. Guback, Thomas H. \"Hollywood's International Market,\" The American Film Industry. Balio. ed. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1976. Hardin, Herschel. Closed C i r c u i t s : The Sellout of Canadian Tel e v i s i o n . Vancouver: Douglas and Mclntyre, 1985. Harris, Christopher, and Sherman, David. \"Not a Bad Wrap to the Decade.\" Playback. January 22, 1990. Haskins, Colin and McFadyen, Stuart. \"Market Structure and Television Programming Performance in Canada and the U.K.: A Comparative Study.\" Canadian Public Policy. Vol. VIII, 1982. Haskins, Colin, and McFadyen, Stuart. \"The Canadian Program Development Fund: An Evaluation and Some Recommendations.\" Canadian Public Policy. Vol.XII. 1986. Hehner Barbara, ed. Making i t : The Business of Film and Television Production in Canada. Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television and DoubleDay Canada Ltd. 1987. Huettig, Mae. Economic Control of the Motion Picture Industry: A Study in Industrial Organization. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944. Johnson, Brian J . \"Casting Hollywood North.\" Maclean's. February 17, 1986. Keast, Ronald, G. \"The Role of the Provinces in Public Broadcasting.\" The Task Force on Broadcasting Policy. Kelly, V i r g i n i a . \"Against A l l Odds.\" Cinema Canada. September, 1987. Leiterman, Douglas. \"The Budget.\" Making I t . ed. Barbara Hehner. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television and Doubleday Canada l t d . , 1987. Levine, Micheal. \"I Never Heard Them C a l l i t Show Art: The Business Side of Film Production in Canada.\" Journal of Canadian Studies. Vol. 16, 1981. 134 MacFayden, Stuart; Hoskins, Colin; and G i l l e n , David. \"Canadian Broadcasting: Market Structure and Economic Performance.\" I n s t i t u t e for Research on Public Policy, 1980. Maslove, A l l a n . \"Loans and Loan Guarantees: Business as Usual Versus the P o l i t i c s of Risk.\" Journal of Taxation. February, 1982. McQuillan, Peter E. Investing in Canadian Film: Evaluating the Risks and Rewards. Toronto: CCH Canadian, 1980. Motion Picture I n s t i t u t e of Canada. \"Feature Film Financing Seminar.\" (Typewritten.) 1979. O'Brien, Peter; and Nielson, Richard. \"The Property.\" Making I t . ed. Barbara Henher. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television and Doubleday Canada Ltd. 1987. Paul Audley and Associates Ltd., \"The Development of the Film Industry in B r i t i s h Columbia: Review and Recommendations.\" December, 1986. Pendakur, Manjunath. \"Economic Relations Between Selected Canadian Film Producers and American Major D i s t r i b u t o r s : Implications for Canada's National Film Poli c y . \" Canadian Journal of Communications. Spring 1985. Quantalytics Inc., The Film and Video Industry in B r i t i s h Columbia: Industry Structure and Market Survey. August, 1985. Rosen, David; and Hamilton, Peter. Off Hollywood. The Sundance Inst i t u t e and the Independent Feature Film Project. 1987. Rotstein Abraham. \"The Use and Misuse of Economics in Cultural and Broadcasting Po l i c y , \" The Task Force on Report on Broadcasting Policy. 1986. Sherman, David. \"Telefilm has Eyes On Market: Annual Report.\" Playback. Seoptember, 1989. Tadros, Connie. \" F i f t h Column on the March: Roth Leads Forces to Battle L e g i l s a t i o n . \" Cinema Canada. May 1988. Tadros, Connie. \"D i s t r i b u t i o n Movie House of Cards: A Canadian Construction.\" Cinema Canada. May, 1988. Testar, Gerald. Clearing Hurdles: A Task Force Rport on the Motion Picture Industry. Vancouver: Film and Video Industry Association, 1985. / 135 Vancouver Women in F i l m and V ideo S o c i e t y . P roducers Workbook. 1989. Weinzweig, D a n i e l . \" F e a t u r e F i l m D i s t r i b u t i o n . \" Making I t . e d . Barbara Hehner. The Academy of Canadian Cinema and T e l e v i s i o n and Doubleday Canada L t d . , 1987. Wise, R i c h a r d . \"A C ineramic View of Mot ion P i c t u r e F i l m Inves tments . \" Canadian Tax J o u r n a l . M a r c h - A p r i l , Volume XX1V, 1976. Woodside, Ken. Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y . Department of P o l i t i c a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Gue lph, S p r i n g , 1979 Woodrow, B r i a n R.; Woodside Kenneth; Wiseman, Henry. C o n f l i c t over Communications P o l i c y . M o n t r e a l : C D . Howe I n s t i t u t e , 1980. Young, Ka th ryn . \" F u l f i l l m e n t of 95% Dream Growing C l o s e r , \" P l ayback . March 6, 1989. CANADIAN CULTURE AND HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS B e r t o n , P i e r r e . Ho l l ywood ' s Canada. T o r o n t o : M c C l l e l l a n d Stewart L i m i t e d . 1975. Camera West: B r i t i s h Columbia on F i l m 1941-1965, 1986. C rean , S. M. Who's A f r a i d of Canadian C u l t u r e ? Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o : Genera l P u b l i s h i n g C o . , L t d . , 1976. Ekos Research A s s o c i a t e s I n c . , \" C u l t u r e in Canada Today . \" Report f o r Research and S t a t i s t i c s D i r e c t o r a t e A r t s and C u l t u r e Branch, Department of Communicat ions. Ottawa, 1986. Fox, S t a n l e y . \"We are Where We Came From: The Founding of a F i l m Community in B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1945-1970.\" J o u r n a l of Canadian S t u d i e s . 1945-1970. F u l f o r d , R., \"The Canada C o u n c i l at T w e n t y - F i v e . \" Saturday N i g h t . March, 1982. Gray , J a c k . \" P u t t i n g C u l t u r e on the N a t i o n a l Agenda. \" Canadian Bus iness Review. Summer, 1986. J o u r n a l of Canadian S t u d i e s , 1981, \" E n g l i s h - C a n a d i a n Cinema S ince 1945 K e a t i n g , L u l u . \"The Independent F i lmmaking Groups in E n g l i s h Canada: The Tu rn ing of the T i d e . \" J o u r n a l of Canadian S t u d i e s . V o l . 16, No.1, S p r i n g , 1981. 136 K ing , A l l a n . \"The Co f f ee Boy Syndrome and Other O b s e r v a t i o n s on the S ta te of the Canadian F i l m I n d u s t r y . \" J o u r n a l of Canadian S t u d i e s . V o l . 16 1981. Knelman, M a r t i n . Home Mov ies : T a l e s from the Canadian F i l m Wor ld . T o r o n t o : Key P o r t e r Books L t d . , 1987. McCormack, Thelma. \" C u l t u r e and the S t a t e . \" Department of S o c i o l o g y . Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y . York U n i v e r s i t y : X :3 :267 -277 , 1984. M o r r i s , P e t e r . Embat t led Shadows: A H i s t o r y of Canadian Cinema 1895-1939. M o n t r e a l : M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1978. N e t z e r , D. The S u b s i d i z e d Muse. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P re s s , 1978. O s t r y , B e r n a r d . \" C u l t u r e i s the Key to Canada. \" G lobe and M a i l , 1988. Pendakur, Manjunath. \" C u l t u r a l Dependency i n Canada ' s Fea tu re F i l m I ndus ty . \" Canadian J o u r n a l of Communicat ions. V o l . 31. 1981. Report of the Roya l Commission on N a t i o n a l Development in the A r t s , L e t t e r s and S c i ence s (Massey R e p o r t ) . Ottawa: K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1951. Report of the F e d e r a l C u l t u r a l P o l i c y Review Committee (Applebaum-Hebert R e p o r t ) . Department of Communicat ions. Ottawa, 1982. T o t s t e i n Abraham. \"The Use and Misuse of Economics i n C u l t u r a l and B roadca s t i n g P o l i c y , \" The Task Fo r ce Report on B r o a d c a s t i n g P o l i c y . 1986. Bergman, M i c h a e l . \"The Canadian F i l m Indus t ry in the Late 1980's and i n t o the 1 9 9 0 ' s . \" Cinema Canada. November, 1988. Johnson, B r i a n . \" C a s t i n g Hol lywood N o r t h . \" Mac leans . F e b r u a r y , 1986. Johnson, B r i a n . \"K ing of the S i l v e r S c reen : Movie Mogul Gar th D r a b i n s k y ' s S tunning R i s e To Wealth And Power.\" Mac leans . September 28, 1987. 137 APPENDIX QUESTIONAIRE: FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION COMPANIES IN B.C, PART ONE THE PRODUCTION COMPANY/PRODUCER 1. How long has your company been in existence? years date established 2. Was the company set up to complete one project? no yes 3. What i s the form of your company? single ownership lim i t e d partnership no. of general partners j _ other describe 4. Is the company a d i v i s i o n of some other company? no yes location of head o f f i c e 5. At the present time, do you have any feature-length projects in development? no _yes How many? Budget_ Describe 6. What other kinds of projects do you have in development? Please specify project category: 7. How many? number 138 8. Have these r e c e i v e d committed development fund ing? 9. no yes How many p r o d u c t i o n s was your company i n v o l v e d i n 1986 and 1987? 1986 1 987 1988 10, Development Completed T o t a l For the y e a r s , 1986 and 1987, p l e a s e l i s t as percentage the amount of revenue your company r e c e i v e d from each k ind of p r o d u c t i o n : 1986 3 Fea tu re F i l m 3 T h e a t r i c a l Shor t s 3 Documentar ies 3 An imat ion % News/Journa l i sm 3 TV Commercials 3 TV S e r i e s 3 O thers (spec i fy ) 1987 3 Fea tu re F i l m 3 T h e a t r i c a l Shor t s 3 Documentar ies 3 An imat ion % News/Journa l i sm 3 TV Commercials 3 TV S e r i e s 3 O thers ( s p e c i f y ) 11. What was your g ross revenue from p r o d u c t i o n ? 1986 $ 1987 $ 12. For your p r o d u c t i o n s t a f f , what were your s a l a r y expenses? 1986 $ J987 $ 139 13. I f you s o l d f e a t u r e f i l m s , to whom were they s o l d to? CAN U.S. OTHER F i l m / v i d e o d i s t r i b u t o r s T e l e v i s i o n N e t w o r k s / s t a t i o n s ZZZZ-Pay T . V . Other ( s p e c i f y ) . 14. What i s the company's goa l i n the next f i v e year s ? f e a t u r e f i l m s t e l e v i s i o n o ther PART B KEY PRODUCTION PERSONNEL/ STAFFING 15. Of key p r o d u c t i o n p e r s o n n e l , how many d i d you employ 1986 1987 on a permanent b a s i s ? On a temporary b a s i s ? 16. Among your permanent s t a f f , what k inds of s k i l l s do they have? P l ea se s p e c i f y : 17. I f you employ f r e e l a n c e r s ; what i s t h e i r f u n c t i o n ? ( e . g . r e s e a r c h e r , s c r i p t s u p e r v i s o r , w r i t e r , e t c . ) 18. L i s t the o r g a n i z a t i o n s tha t you and your permanent s t a f f a re members of in the i n d u s t r y . 2. 3. 140 TRAINING 19. What type of t r a i n i n g do you f e e l would be u s e f u l f o r the temporary and permanent employees i n your company? ( e . g . p roduc t i on /marke t r e s e a r c h , a c c o u n t i n g , p ro spec tu s p r e p a r a t i o n , e t c . ) 20. Do any of the i n d u s t r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s p r o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e to the employees of your company? no yes Nature of a s s i s t a n c e 21. In your most recent p r o j e c t , ( c h o o s e a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f . f . p r o j e c t ) what percentage of your t ime d i d you spend working i n the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s ? % Producer (packaging and p r e s e l l i n g ) % E x e c u t i v e producer % L i n e p r o d u c e r / P r o d u c t i o n Manager % L o c a t i o n Manager % D i r e c t o r % S c r e e n w r i t e r / s c r i p t e d i t o r % Researcher % Accoun t ing % Ca s t ing /Agent 22. I f your bus ines s i s l e s s than 100% f o r f e a t u r e f i l m s in the i n d u s t r y and i s supplemented by o ther employment, what percentage of t ime i s i n the f i l m i n d u s t r y and what percentage of income? % Time % Income PART C The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s devoted to the c u r r e n t f e a t u r e f i l m p r o j e c t tha t your company has comp le ted . If t he re a re no completed p r o j e c t s , then p l e a s e choose one tha t i s i n development. 141 CURRENT FEATURE FILM PROJECT 23. What i s the budget of the f i l m ? $ DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY/SCRIPT 24. Source of P roper t y o r i g i n a l s c r e e n p l a y based on another work o ther s p e c i f y 25. D id your company or the w r i t e r r e c e i v e any fund ing f o r s c r i p t development? yes Source : no 26. What was the form of the p r o p e r t y when you began development? f i n a l d r a f t o u t l i n e t reatment o ther ( s p e c i f y ) 27. D id the o r i g i n a t o r remain i n v o l v e d in the p roce s s u n t i l p r o d u c t i o n ? no ( d e s c r i b e ) yes ( d e s c r i b e ) 142 DEVELOPMENT FINANCING FOR THE PROPERTY 28. What means d i d you use to f i n a n c e the development of the p r o p e r t y ? P l ea se l i s t as a pe rcen tage . P e r s o n a l / P r o d u c e r Investment P r i v a t e Investment FEDERAL N a t i o n a l F i l m Board T e l e f i l m broadcas t fund program(s) i f e a t u r e f i l m fund program(s) Other F e d e r a l Programs PROVINCIAL (B.C.) C u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s Branch B r i t i s h Columbia Development C o r p o r a t i o n M i n i s t r y of I ndus t ry and Smal l Bus ines s D e v e l . F i l m B.C. OTHER Indus t ry O r g a n i z a t i o n s Coproduc t i on w i th another p r o v i n c e ( d e s c r i b e ) _ C o p r o d u c t i o n w i th another company l o c a t i o n _ C o p r o d u c t i o n w i th another coun t ry l o c a t i o n D i s t r i b u t o r / S a l e s Agent: (Can) l o c a t i o n (Fo re i gn ) \" l o c a t i o n B roadcas te r Pay-TV Other d e s c r i b e : 143 PRODUCTION FINANCING 29. What means have you used to f i n a n c e the p r o d u c t i o n , post p r o d u c t i o n or d i s t r i b u t i o n of your work? % Pe r sona l Investment % P r i v a t e Investment % D e f e r r a l s PUBLIC % Broadcast fund % Fea tu re f i l m fund % B.C. F i l m Fund Other P rov i nce s % C o - p r o d u c t i o n % T h e a t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t o r s / S a l e s Agents % Advance % E q u i t y investment j % D i s t r i b u t i o n guarantee % B roadca s te r s % Pay-TV % Home v i d e o DISTRIBUTION/MARKETING 30. . D id you p a r t i c i p a t e in the f i l m ' s market ing e f f o r t s ? no yes D e s c r i b e 31. Do you have any p l an s to a t t e n d any of the major f e s t i v a l s or t r ade shows?: no yes I f you have a d i s t r i b u t o r , a re they p a r t i c i p a t i n g ? no yes Mont rea l F i l m F e s t i v a l F e s t i v a l of F e s t i v a l s (Toronto) MIP-TV -Cannes, France London Market NAPTE - New O r l e a n s , U.S.A. ' B e r l i n F i l m F e s t i v a l Cannes I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m F e s t i v a l American F i l m Market - Los Ange les o ther ( s p e c i f y ) 32. What percentage of your budget was used f o r a d v e r t i s i n g ? % DISTRIBUTION 33. Can you d e s c r i b e the p roce s s you went throught to seek d i s t r i b u t o r involvement in your p r o j e c t . Was the re t r a v e l i nvo l ved? Was t h i s a l a r g e p o r t i o n of your development or p r o d u c t i o n budget? 34. Have you ever r e c e i v e d any d i s t r i b u t i o n f i n a n c i n g ? no yes 35. At what stage d i d the d i s t r i b u t o r get i nvo l ved? s c r i p t deve lopment /p reproduc t i on pr oduc t i on post p r o d u c t i o n F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G P R O D U C E R S I N B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A In r e c o g n i t i o n of the f a c t tha t f e a t u r e f i lmmaking in Canada i s a f a c t of l i f e - d e s p i t e : immense \" s t r u c t u r a l \" c o n s t r a i n t s r e g a r d i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n and e x h i b i t i o n , lukewarm f e d e r a l and at t imes , (when t h e y ' r e even aware) p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c i e s , and of c o u r s e , our sma l l domest ic market; p l e a s e answer the f o l l o w i n g from your own s t andpo in t as a producer in B r i t i s h Co lumbia : 36. I n d i c a t e i n descend ing o r d e r , the areas of most concern to you as a producer in B.C. ( I ' v e o f f e r e d the f o l l o w -ing as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t ) . g u a l i t y of s c r i p t s l a ck of s c r i p t s t r a v e l c o s t s ( i n p r e p r o d u c t i o n stage) t r a i n i n g / e x p e r t i s e ( i n what a reas? ) market ing a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s o ther (p lease l i s t i n o rder of importance) "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0100560"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Planning"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Prospects for a feature film industry in British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/31230"@en .