Canadian Content
I got into a discussion recently about the Canadian film industry and it made me start to think. At what point does a film become “Canadian?” No doubt the industry has any number of criteria to distinguish “our” films from those made elsewhere, but indulge me for a moment or two. Climb aboard my train of thought. There are quite a number of Canadian actors, directors, and writers, who work in Hollywood, yet these productions, are never considered “Canadian.” Major films are shot on location in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal; many times using Canadian technical and production staff but these, too, aren’t Canadian.
So what does it come down to? Let’s suppose, for sake of argument that we wanted to make a comedy. No doubt we’d be hunting around for a good comedic leading man. The current poster boy is someone like Jim Carrey, but we could just as easily go for someone like Mike Meyers. If we wanted to go more old school, we could with Dan Aykroyd, Eugene Levy or Martin Short (though I freely admit that none of these guys can carry a movie nowadays, but that’s not the point). We could easily make a decent ensemble cast out of Canadian comedians.
Alright, so we’ve got the onscreen talent covered. What about behind the camera? There is any number of Canadian directors who might fit the bill for our fictional creation. If we wanted to go with the nostalgia angle even more, we could snag Ivan Reitman (Canadian immigrant) to direct and produce, while getting Lorne Michaels to produce and maybe do some of the writing. Just for additional giggles, we’ll shoot in Toronto. So now we have a film that is written, produced and directed by Canadians, and shot in Canada. Is it a Canadian film yet? I would be inclined to say yes, personally. But what happens if the film is backed by 20th Century Fox?
It seems to me that the moment a film gets picked up by the Hollywood machine that it seems to lose all connection to Canada. Wacky, huh? Is it really all about the money? If Canadian talent is being used in the principle/important roles yet backed by a major studio, then why do we consider it American? I would love to hear some opinions on this. Til next time…
Labels: Canadian Film
posted by Al B Here @ 2:44 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
For me, a Canadian film has to take place in Canada and the culture and environs of Canada be an understood and open part of the movie. It doesn't have to be super-Canadian or anything, just be a movie that Canadians would see and feel some level of cultural familiarity with. So The Fly, which effectively was a Canadian product doesn't really count. Nothing wrong with that, but it's more like a north american movie.
These things get really fuzzy because as I was writing this, I could already think of exceptions to this idea (like is "Under the Tuscan Sun" an Italian movie?).
It's easier with TV shows, Puppets Who Kill, Trailer Park Boys, Corner Gas, definitely Canadian.
FUBAR is Canadian. Most Québecois movies are definitely québécois (though whether that is Canadian or not is another argument :))
Now if we could just make good funny movies like that in the rest of Canad, we wouldn't have to worry about Canadian content.
I get what you're saying, but hopefully what I said makes some sense, too. We shouldn't go too far and take ownership of every Hollywood film that has Canadian stars, but maybe there should be some sort of middle ground.
How much does it cost to make a movie?
I haven't the foggiest idea how much it costs. But that's not the point. Where the money ultimately comes from shouldn't define the identity of the film.
If investors are risking $20 million and up, I doubt their principle concern is how to work in a scene with back bacon. Regardless of artistic vision, the vast majority of films are commercial vehicles involving rather large sums of money.
Post a Comment
<< Home