and 21 Directors during the festival. - Why does the Federal government telephone calls from yourself and your And all sorts of wontierful things give a special one-time grant of $125,000 "Misleading companion demanding that your films will be announced - all within the to reduce the CFI deficit - what makes and erroneous..." be included in the Programmed Screen­ atmosphere of euphoria created by one the CFI so special above all other film ings and threatening to publicize your of the most friendly specialized festivals activities ? The following letter was received in discontent in Canada. No one will ask awkward - How did the past Directors let a deficit response to one printed in issue 86 of Your widely distributed letter of June questions to spoil the lovely summer rise to such olympian heights - what Cinema Canada and entitled "Com­ 11,1982 is a deliberate attempt to harm film mood... so I'll ask them now. about budgets, financial statements, plaints to register." the Festival by discrediting it with false management forward planning ? information. Contrary to the contents of - How can the CFI justify its existence - Why did Frederik Manter, Executive Dear Ms. Grossman: your letter the Festival is an interna­ as a film institute, when it has no Director of the CFI for at least six years, Your letter of June 11, 1982 has been tional event. This year if received and National Film Theatre programs in the fail to realize the extent of the CFI deficit reviewed by members of the Toronto processed 246 film entries from ten dif­ capital city or across the nation, no and warn the Directors ? Supers Film Festival Committee and by ferent countries. Five different countries others present at the event archives, no reference material ? - What "contract service" is the NFB were represented by its Workshop - Why does the CFI need 21 Directors going to receive from the CFI in return We wish to draw to your attention Speakers and its Trade Show included to run such a small organization ? for a maximum of $60,000 ? that your letter is both misleading and technical experts and manufacturers' - How are the CFI Directors nominated - Will the CFI make public its annual erroneous. representatives as indicated in the pro­ and by whom ? audit which must now be concluded, as First the letter claims to represent gram. Half of the people attending the Festival were from outside Toronto, one - Why were CFI memberships wiped the fiscal year ends May 31 ? two filmmakers who requested informa­ third of these being from the United out thus cutting off support by people Any CFI-watcber can go on and on tion and submitted films in advance of States. who careti about non-commercial film with questions including in my opinion, the Festival instead of one. It should be in this country? the really big one. Why wasn't the CFI made clear that you alone and not your The Festival Committee and the Ad - Why does the CFI need two office allowed to fold quietly? Its present companion, who co-signed the letter, ministrative Staff take exception to the locations ? truncated form does not fulfill the func­ was involved in this respect. The facts type of behaviour displayed by you - If the CFI needs a distribution pre­ tions of a film institute, and it would are as follows: during the event and to the contents of sence in Toronto, why doesn't it need have been cheaper for the taxpayers, 1. You requested and received the your letter referred to above. The FesH- one in too? too. Maybe Manter fights so hard to keep Festival's newsletter and entry form, val is for the benefit of Super 8 film­ - If, as Frederik Manter has said, the the CFI head above the waves in order copies of which are attached hereto. makers in general and we are not pre­ CFI wants "to get away from the public to keep his job- in these hard times it is 2. You repeatedly telephoned the pared to sacrifice its integrity when trough," why does it maintain an office understandable, but not laudable in this Festival Office in advance of the event faced with threats and abuse from in ? case. # inquiring about accommodation in particular individuals. Toronto for yourself and your compa­ nion. Richard H. Hill A letter to Cinema Canada 3. On May 14th you mentioned on the Festival Chairman telephone that you wished to enter a The Toronto Super 8 Film Festival "The recent decision of the Minister proached the Minister of Commu­ film. The Festival Director advised you of Communications to award a spe­ nications for assistance. to send your film immediately by over­ cial one-time grant of $125,000 to the "Overriding considerations in our night express in order to be received in Canadian Film Institute iC'.FIj ap­ examination of tiif CVT situation time for the jurying as the final entry No breakthrough pears to have been misinterpreted by were the undoubted f:ontrilujtions of date was May 20th. some sectors of the film community. the Institution in the past and its 4. Your entry, postmarked May 17th, tor best film I wish to clarify the matter, future potential, as a ((intinuing re- was received by the Festival Office on "The CFI has long enjoyeti close .source to the film industry in Cana­ May27thby which time it was much too The following letter is addressed to cooperative relationships with the da, These considerations and the late for viewing by the Jury, (Extensions Wayne Clarkson, director of Toronto's Government of Canada and its relat­ prcsonl difficulties made il cleai Ihat had been made up to May 23rd for late Festival of Festivals; a copy was sent to ed film agencies. It has provided if assistance were possible then il entries,) Cinema Canada. For a reviewofthefilm valuable services, consistent witli its should b(; provided This was the We note that your letter falsely indi­ in question, The Breakthrough see mandate as a film institute, over a basis of the decision made by ihe cates that you received information to Cinema Canada No 85. period of 46 years. For the last 7 years Miitister, Mr, Fox indicated thai Ihe the effect that "all films would be the Institute carried the burden of an grant was special and specific It) Iho screened at the Festival regardless of Dear Mr. Clarkson: accumulated deficit of more than retirement of the CFI deficit and a jury selection," This is contrary to the $100,000. Efforts at self-imposed recognition of the tilts past and Newsletter and has never been a practice I am writing this letter on behalf of Peter economy in cultural organizations potential contributions to film in of the Festival in its seven years of Williamson and Ira Levy. Although they create their own internal problems Canada. operation. However, films not selected are currently on location in Ecuador 1 and the CFI was no exception in this "The Institute is now free to develop by the Jury could be screened by the have spoken to them by phone and Ihey regard ongoing sources of support for itself filmmaker under "Open Screening" in were anxious that I should immediately "The combination of overall con­ and its programs, unlramiuelled by an area designated for this purpose as express to you their disappointment straints in cultural funding over the burden of a major deficit, 1 cannot outHned in our newsletter. and sense of frustration on learningthat recent years and the severe fluctua­ imagine why anyone would wish In reference to your treatment at the the Festival of Festivals has rejected tions in interest rates last year frus­ thcin other than the best of luck as Festival we would like to set the record their documentary film The Break­ trated CFI efforts to handle their Ihey tackle the difficult tasks ahead." straight through. deficit and maintain their programs. 1. Upon arrival at the Festival you Despite receiving the 1981 Bijou Award The cost of carrying the deficit be­ demanded that your films, although un­ for the Best Independent Production came insupportable and there were J.A. Ouellette seen by the Jury, be included in its Pro­ and despite being purchased in July last no further practical internal econo­ Director General grammed Screenings. year by CTV, The Breakthrough has yet mies that could be made; at this Arts and Culture Branch 2 The Director kindly arranged for to receive a public showing. The pro­ point the Executive- Director ap­ Cultural .Affairs two Jurors and Mark Mikolas, author of ducers felt however, that at least they The Super 8 Handbook, to view your could look forward to seeing the film at films in a personal screening attended the Festival of Festivals since it must A statement by yourself and your companion. qualify on three counts - as a first rate 3. Your films were given a rating of 4 Canadian film; as an independent pro­ The Canadian Film Institute is unable the reorganization of the Canadian to 5 out of 10 by the two Jurors (7 being duction and as a film which, despite its to provide material to Cinema Canada Film Institute with modified goals the lowest score of any film selected for critical success, few people have had to complement the article on the and objectives, the result of extensive screening in your category). the opportunity to see. They were dis­ Institute which we understand is discussion and work over the last 4. The Jurors and Mark Nicholas dis­ mayed to discover that these weighty being written by Mrs. Patricia Thomp­ several months. cussed the shortcomings of your films qualifications did not equal the seem­ son and published in this issue. Until the new Board has had the with you and suggested that you attend ingly inconsequential fact that a corpo­ As most people know, the Institute opportunity to consider the plans the Jury Nomination Reel Screenings to ration (Commodore Computers) funded has just emerged from a period of and proposals for the future of the view the prize-winning film in your The Breakthrough. extreme financial difficulty and at­ CFI, it would be neither proper nor category as it happened to deal with the Does this mean that the Festival of tendant internal strife. prudent to make these public. same subject matter as your own. Festivals would have turned down an At the recent Annual General Meet After the August 13th meeting, the 5 According to our information you opportunity to premiere Beds because ing held on June 30, 1982 an earlier CFI will welcome any expressions of showed no interest in benefiting from it received financing from Gulf and CFI Board decision to increase the interest in the statement it intends to the suggestions made at your personal Western ? or Quest for Fire because of Board both in terms of its constituency make. screening and made no arrangements the Royal Bank's involvement? Does the and regional representation was car­ for an Open Screening of your films. Festival of Festivals really only ever ried through. The expanded Board Peter Mortimer 6. Following your personal screening show films funded by private investors will be meeting for the first time on Vice President the Director and other members of the (contonpageM 13 August 1982 to discuss and approve Canadian Film Institute Festival administration received several

32/Cinema Canada- August 1982 , w ere given the task, and they wisely chose to take a few quantum 's leaps beyond the ordinary bx shooting their film, Hail Columbia ! in IMA.\ Onl\ Hail Columbia! IMAX, with dimensions ten times greater than conventional 35mm film, could do justice to the Columbia's awesomeness, and convey in its proper significance In his recent book. 2081, eminent physi- this historical event cisl'thinker Gerard K. ONeill offers a Both Ferguson (North of Superior) suqirisingly positive view of the future, and Kroitor f Tiger C/ii/d) are veterans of pretiicting for instance, that in 30 years the si.vstorey screen, which makes it all time we'll be shuttling into space with more disappointing that Hail Columbia! the same frequency we take holiday - even with its intoxicating visual di­ cruises today. To some, this may sound mensions - fails on almost every count like sheer science fiction but ONeill's as a film Outside of 60 exhilarating reasoning is both eloquent and inspiring. seconds of footage showing the Colum­ Its hard to resist his enthusiasm for bia's breathtaking liftoff, the film rarely super technology, especially the Space manages to rise above mediocrity. Shuttle, which be believes will shape For some inexplicable reason Fergu­ our tomorrows the way the wheel son and Kroitor are infatuated with that much. It was written by Amy Jo shaped the past. Viewed in this light the splitscreen techniques, which only Larry Moore's Cooper who has worked with Playing world's first spaceship takes on global serves to muddle the effect of IMAX, and With Time on its Kids of DeGrassi Si importance It represents far more than give the entire film an outtiated. Expo series. It colours the melancholy feeling just another example of Yankee inge­ '67 feel. Even more disturbing is the way Jimmy and Luke of the film, and provides basic informa­ nuity. the two chose to ignore the grandness of tion. But the plot and real emotional It is fitting then that there is a film to the event, instead concentrating on a dynamics of the film are built mainly commemorate the maiden fiight of the comparatively irrelevent sideshow: will through the editing of Stephan Fanfara, Columbia. A welcome surprise is that Columbia's tiles fall off during takeoff or Jimmy and Luke opens with a long tight who co-produced with director Moore, two Canadians, Graeme Ferguson anti re-entry? Yes, this was a consideration pan across the huge mural painted by He puts Jimmy in motion, and keeps during the mission but the whole bu­ the kids of Bain Ave. Public School. him bouncing between Luke, AunI HAIL COLUMBIA ! d. Graeme Ferguson siness has a somewhat trumped-up, Imaginative, expansive and colourful; Agnes, and his own fantasy world. The p. Roman Kroitor, Graeme Ferguson assoc. p. boring ring to it. thats half the quiet but powerful 27 result is a portrait of a child who, you Phyllis Wilson narr. James Whitmore narr. writer Ferguson and Kroitor also miss the minute drama directed by Larry Moore can feel, senses he doesn't really belong Roman Kroitor ed. Ton! Trow composers Micky Crhe. Maribeth Solomon music consult Zaiman target when it comes to showing the and produced by Film Arts in Toronto. anywhere. Vanovsky d.o.p. Graeme Ferguson, David Douglas, activities surrounding launch Instead The other half of the theme is friend­ Luke Gibson's music fills in the back­ Richard Leiterman c,s.c„ Haskell Wexler a,s,c„ of an international celebration we get ship and communication. The story is a ground, so that the story is strong and Ronald M Lautore, Phillip Thomas cam. assist something that resembles a Texas back­ Martin A, Lautore. Gordon Harris, Lawrence E triangle, not of lovers, but of three awk­ complete, yet simply stated and acces­ Orlick, Douglas C Hart, Bonnie Bass Parker, Steve yard barbecue, with endless shots of ward strangers. It centres around sible to viewers of all ages. Jimmy and Stafford, James Neihouse, Gary Jay, Conrad Hall wide-ended Americans parading near Jimmy, a boy of about nine or ten, who is Luke has a lot in it. pilots Ken Baker. Steve Feaster loc. sd. Tom the launch site, waving the stars and presented as totally isolated in his own Hidderley, John Megill, Aerlyn Weissman, Lance stripes, gulping their Budweiser beer. fantasy world. He has an invisible friend Hoffman research Stephen Low 2nd unit loc. Jolin Brooke t man. David Keighley prod, assist Karl Each tech. Why two Canadians gave Hail Colum­ named "Johnny," with whom he talks support Jim Hooton, Ron Hurst, Colin Gardiner bia ! an entirely American slant probably anti plays, but the real people in his life JIMMY AND LUKE d. Urry Moore sd. assist ed. Roberta Kipp sd. ecL David Evans, has a lot to tio with who financed the are blocked out. The kids his own age stephan Fanfara d.o.p. Fred GaIhe e«. p. Don Haig Wayne Griffin assist sd. ed. Kelly Hall re-rec The tease and harass him because he's so assoc. p. Paul Caulfield p. Stephan Fanfara, Larry Film House Group, Paul Coombe, Mike Hoogerv film. Nevertheless, it is inexcusable be­ cause Ferguson and Kroitor not only strange, and Aunt Agnes, his guartiian, Moore sc Amy Jo Cooper Lp. Luke Gibson, Anne boom, Elius Caruso advisors and consultants Anglin, Paul Braunstein p.c. Film Arts/Mekanique William C, Shaw, William Breukelman, Robert Kerr, have made a poor film, but have missed tries, but just can't make contact. Prod, running time 28 min„ 16mm, colour dist W, Michael Sullivan, Bruce Hoover: Technicolor a glorious opportunity to create a lasting The one person who seems to be able Canadian Filmmakers Dist, Centre, Graphic Services lab & optical co-ord. Fred celluloid document of a truly important Langenbach post prod, consult David Keighley to spark Jimmy is a streetsinger named optlcals MGM Optical Effets/Camera-Wm. M, event for future generations. Insteati Luke. Jimmy is drawn to his music; he Hughes Jr titles Burke Mattsson, MGM Titles/Based they've made a Yankee Doodle promo, imitates Luke, first with a broken tennis LBIlBrS (contfrompSZ) on original design by Theo Dimson labs Metrocolor, the likes of which we've seen far too raquet, and follows him around. Luke's or departments of government? If so, The Film HouseGroup, PSI Film Laboratorv- Inc. pr. many. .Allan Bowen, Janice Kaye, Joan Rogers, Gayle Bonish a sad loner He's perplexed by Jimmy's this may be because the Festival board p.c. Ima,x Systems Corp, running time 36 min. attention, but he allows the kid to tag think it is not as easy to obtain showings colour, 70mm-IMAX dist Imax Systems Corp, S. Paul Zola • along and eventually they become part­ for such films as for films funded by a ners... (Jimmy's cute presence with his corporation. This is patently not the pretend guitar is good for business)... case for The Breakthrough. A compar­ and almost friends. able film - also a powerful documenlaiy Aunt Agnes leads a drab life, struggling dealing with social issues-is Prison For to support bear dead sister's son, and Women. This film's source of funding love him too. She tries to be patient with has clearly not hampered its distribution Jimmy's invisible friends (as far as Aunt and The Breakthrough's source of fund­ Agnes knows, Luke is just as imaginary ing has clearly not helped it. The vagaries as "Johnny") and she even helps Jimmy of distributing and funding independent construct a guitar out of cardboard and films are far more complicated than the string. But Jimmy's silences leave her Festival of Festival's qualifying rules. feeling hopeless most of the time. Where one might reasonably hope Watching Luke trying to cope with the that the board of the Festival of Festi­ responsibility of a friendship be doesn't vals would support independent Cana­ really want anti Aunt Agnes clumsily dian filmmakers they are making life trying to build a relationship with her even more difficult. nephew creates reverberations that last The producers of The Breakthrough long after the film is over Luke is given a do not regard filmmaking as a private low-keyed gruff dignity by Toronto art. It is important to them that their musician Luke Gibson. For the aduhs films are seen. They do not want to miss who see the film, the isolation of the the opportunity the Festival of Festivals character is scary. And there is nothing can provide for Canadian filmmakers so romantic or wistful about Ann Anglin's they have decided to obtain and publi­ Agnes; she's terribly single, doesn't cize a showing of The Breakthrough to seem to understand the world at all, and coincide with the Festival. After all. The .\ el she knows that somehow she has to Breakthrough is still a prime example help this lonely kid participate in it. of independent Canadian filmmaking Paul Braunstein's sad face is the per­ despite the Festival of Festival's neglect. fect reflection for the characters of these two isolated grown-ups. (Don't worry, the story has an ending Siobhan Flanagan that is balanced in favour of the happy.) Script Consultant The script is very sparse, but it feels to on behalf of Peter Williamson be just right; lonely people don't talk and Ira Levy

36/Cinema Canada - August 1982