• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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 Montreal 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 Ottawa? 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.

Load more

  2

Copy Link