"We Must Be Burning Film Like Mad": Exploring Canadian Production Cultures at Cinepix, 1976-1986

Home , Cannibal Girls, Don Carmody, Meatballs Part II, Toronto New Wave, Videodrome, Wyndham Wise

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2018-09-05 "We must be burning film like mad": Exploring Canadian production cultures at Cinepix, 1976-1986.

Arnatt, Mary

Arnatt, M. R. (2018). "We must be burning film like mad": Exploring Canadian production cultures at Cinepix, 1976-1986 (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/32921 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/107745 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

“We must be burning film like mad”: Exploring Canadian production cultures at Cinepix, 1976-

1986.

Mary Reay Arnatt

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

SEPTEMBER, 2018

This thesis examines the Canadian production, distribution, and exhibition company Cinépix between the years 1976-1986. Best well-known for their films Valérie (1969), Shivers (1975),

Meatballs (1979), and My Bloody Valentine (1981), Cinépix has been neglected in the field of

Canadian film studies. This thesis uses the framework of Media Industry Studies, and especially

John Caldwell’s research on production culture, examining Cinépix’s previously unused archival material, including original memos, letters, storyboards, scripts, production notes, location documents, and producer’s notes on rushes. Films researched include the previously under- examined Meatballs III (1986), State Park (1988), Ilsa: Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (1976),

The Vindicator (1986), and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983), among others. This research argues that Cinépix’s production cultures were defined through commercial adaptability, independence, masculinity, and most importantly, the concept of the producer, exemplified by the company’s figureheads John Dunning and Andre Link. Through its use of

Media Industry Studies approaches, this thesis also presents a new way of conceptualizing

Canadian cinema and provokes new research within the discipline.

ii Acknowledgements

Many thanks to my supervisor Dr. Charles Tepperman, who first introduced me to Cinépix via the wonderful world of Don Carmody, and whose constant support, enthusiasm, and insight was truly invaluable throughout the course of this degree. My grateful thanks also goes out to my two examination committee members, Dr. Annie Rudd and Dr. Gregory Taylor for taking the time to participate in this process and for agreeing to sit on my committee during the summer months.

I would also like to thank Greg Dunning and his family, who welcomed me into their home in Montreal to dig through boxes of scripts and storyboard within their basement. Without their generosity, this thesis would not have been nearly as rich and detailed. I would also like the thank the staff at the TIFF Bell Lightbox’s FRL for their friendly assistance over the summer of

2017. This thesis was financially supported by the TIFF Jeffrey and Sandra Lyon’s Canadian

Film Scholarship and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Thanks also to the

Film Studies Association of Canada, where I was able to present some of my findings at the 2018

Gerald Pratley lecture.

My thesis could not have been completed without the loving support of friends and family, of which there are too many to list by name. Special thanks should be awarded to my (two) sets of parents for supporting me throughout the last several years, as well as my wonderful graduate studies cohort (and the beautiful purple grad room), who provided a space to vent, discuss ideas, laugh, study, watch Riverdale and The Office, and talk true crime podcasts. Across the country,

Katie Wackett (and Lou) continued to be a beaming ray of sunshine and support.

Lastly, I would not have survived this process without the constant love and support of my partner, Colin, who believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself. You’re simply the best.

iii

Table of Contents Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... iv Introduction: “Another day in the history of Canadian filmmaking” ...... 1 Chapter 1: History of Cinépix ...... 7 Chapter 2: Canadian Film Scholarship, Media Industry Studies, and production cultures 14 2.1 English language Canadian Cinema: Trends, Frameworks, and Criticisms ...... 14 2.2 Media Industry Studies and production cultures ...... 30 2.3 Methodology ...... 42 Chapter 3: Cinépix, Canada, and the Struggle to Survive ...... 48 3.1 A Broader Context: 1976-1986 ...... 48 3.2 “At least we know his loyalties lie with us”: Cinépix in Canada ...... 51 3.3 Cinépix International: American collaborations and State Park ...... 58 Chapter 4: “Canada and Cinépix Inc - a good company to know”: The Producer and Cinépix’s Deep Texts ...... 67 4.1 The Producer at Cinépix ...... 68 4.2 “Wear your wildest things - hot pants, see-throughs or minis”: Cinépix’s Public Persona ...... 76 4.3 “The best film name to know - in Canada”: Fully Embedded Deep texts in correspondence ...... 79 4.4 “They’ve ruined my whole summer and I want them to go”: Fully Embedded versus Publically Disclosed Deep Texts ...... 87 Chapter 5: “Shannon has a real bod”: Gender at Cinépix ...... 97 5.1 Meatballs III: Introduction and history ...... 98 5.2 “Getting some jiggle”: Gender in Production ...... 101 5.3 “In reality need a kinky type”: Additional Examples ...... 112 Conclusion ...... 116 Bibliography ...... 120 Filmography ...... 132

iv Introduction: “Another day in the history of Canadian filmmaking”

At approximately 10:00 PM I heard some rushing about in the hallway and found out that Art Hindle was bitten by a dog on set. I went on set, which was about 2 to 3 minutes after the incident, and saw Art lying on the floor, with the sleeve of his jacket and shirt cut off by the wardrobe dresser... Upon arriving at the hospital, Art was taken into the emergency and immediately examined by a doctor... and advised me that Art would need stitches. I then consulted with the doctor concerning the fact that Art was an actor, and requested that all be done possible to make the stitches [on his elbow] as esthetically attractive as possible. The doctor assured me that he would do them as well as they could be done... I left the hospital, went home, champagneless, and ended yet another day in the history of Canadian filmmaking.1 - Irene Litinsky

The above quotation was taken from a letter, dated December 7, 1983, from Irene Litinsky to

Cinépix’s lawyer, Charles (Chuck) Smiley, on the set of the 1984 erotic thriller The Surrogate

(1984). Found in a battered box and tucked in the basement corner of Greg Dunning’s basement, the copious letters and legal notes associated with the “dog bite incident” portray an alternative and often hidden side of Canadian film production, delving into the practical, hands-on lived reality of individuals working and creating product within the industry. Often characterized by documentary, auteur, animation, and experimental traditions, the commercial side of the

Canadian film landscape is frequently overlooked.2

My research attempts to negotiate the discourse surrounding the commercial English

Canadian film industry by examining the Canadian exhibition, distribution, and production company Cinépix Inc. Formed as a distribution company in 1962, Cinépix Inc. (referred to hereafter as Cinépix) was co-owned and operated by John Dunning and André Link, who worked closely as business partners from the early 1960s until Cinépix was sold to the Lions Gate

1 Correspondence from Irene Litinsky to Charles Smiley, “Art Hindle Incident,” December 7, 1983. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

2 Jim Leach, Film in Canada (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2006), 5.

1 Entertainment Corporation in 1998. Most recognized for the production of films such as Valérie

(1969), Shivers (1975), Rabid (1977), Meatballs (1979), and My Bloody Valentine (1981), and spawning the careers of David Cronenberg, Ivan Reitman, and Don Carmody, Cinépix was an incredibly prolific and successful company, producing over forty films in their thirty-year tenure and distributing hundreds.3 However, in Canadian film scholarship, little attention has been placed on Cinépix’s films and the practices that made it one of Canada’s most profitable film companies. Thus, this thesis attempts to unpack some of the mysteries surrounding Cinépix, guided by the central research question: How did Cinépix self-define and maintain their identity as a Canadian commercial film studio between 1976-1986? Within this guiding research question, several supplementary questions arose: what was Cinépix’s relationship with other film production and distribution companies? What was its relationship with the American studios who occasionally bankrolled the films? Who made the creative decisions at the studio? and finally, as a male-dominated company, what were the roles and attitudes towards women at

Cinépix?

To interrogate these questions, I use the overarching framework of Media Industry Studies, and specifically the study of production cultures spearheaded by John Caldwell, to explore and analyze original (primary historical) production files, along with historical newspaper and publicity documents. These documents include memos between production personnel, annotated screenplays, storyboards, notes from production meetings, poster and advertising designs,

3 Director of Shivers and Rabid, David Cronenberg went on to become a critically acclaimed Canadian icon, directing Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), Dead Ringers (1988), and A History of Violence (2005), among others. After his films Foxy Lady (1971) and Cannibal Girls (1973) were distributed by Cinépix, Ivan Reitman was hired to produce Shivers, Death Weekend (1976), and helmed Meatballs for the Canadian studio. Reitman later relocated to Hollywood, produced Animal House (1978) and directed Ghostbusters (1984). Hired as a production assistant, Don Carmody quickly worked his way up at Cinépix, becoming vice-president of production. Carmody is now the most financially successful Canadian film producer of all time, producing Porky’s (1981), Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), Chicago (2002), and Denis Villeneuve’s Polytechnique (2009).

2 costume designs, budgets, and the producers’ notes on rushes. These original production, advertising, and newspaper articles are supplemented with secondary sources, primarily John

Dunning’s memoir, which proved invaluable for gleaning Cinépix’s history and providing detailed insight into the minds and lives of the people behind Cinépix.

The years 1976-1986 were selected because they encompass a large amount of change for both the Canadian film industry and Cinépix. As will be discussed in Chapter one, this decade follows Cinépix’s transition from a small, independent Canadian film company, to one that produced large-scale films for American studios. Additionally, Dunning and Link continued to operate Cinépix’s theatrical and distribution subdivisions during this time, essentially resulting in a vertically integrated Canadian film company. The broader film industry in Canada also underwent some key changes during this time, notably the creation and dissolution of the much- criticized 100% Capital Cost Allowance policy from 1978-1982, the formation of Telefilm

Canada in 1984, and the launch of TIFF’s “Perspectives Canada” series, often heralded as launching a new wave of critically acclaimed Canadian cinema.4

I broke down my analysis of these documents into three broad themes: first, Cinépix’s strategies to survive in the incredibly hostile Canadian film landscape. Second, how the company defined itself internally and externally, who held a majority of power in production, and how the company presented itself both to the public and other companies in the film industry. Third, how

Cinépix cultivated a highly gendered production culture, and how that production culture was ultimately translated into the finished film. Using Caldwell’s framework, I argue that Cinépix’s production culture was shaped primarily by the guidance of their two producer-figureheads, John

Dunning and André Link. The resulting production culture was marked by commercialism,

4 David Pike, Canadian Cinema since the 1980s: At the Heart of the World. (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 6-7.

3 adaptability, independence, and masculinity.

The stories contained inside these documents are plentiful, demonstrating an entire alternate history to the “received wisdom” that typifies English language Canadian film scholarship.5 As the quotation by Irene Litinsky that opens this thesis demonstrates, Litinsky approaches the potentially very serious situation with a sense of humour, playfully refuting the presumed idea that filmmaking is a glamorous profession with a sly remark about missing champagne, connecting the incident to the overarching history of Canadian film.6 Thus, this quotation demonstrates individual worker’s agency and “industrial self-theorizing and sense making” practices, analyzing both their own work within media production and the larger culture of the Canadian film industry.7

This research should not be considered a full and complete history and analysis of Cinépix, as it only scratches the surface of potential research. Instead, this thesis should be considered a starting point, demonstrating avenues of future research. Notably, as much of this thesis examines Cinépix’s original film productions, I was compelled to ignore two-thirds of Dunning and Link’s work in exhibition and distribution. In addition, the amount of historical and archival documentation that I gathered was simply enormous, and including to over 1,800 individual production, press, and newspaper records. As such, more work could be undertaken on understanding Cinépix and examining the massive amount of surviving historical documents.

Further suggestions for future research are suggested in the conclusion.

5 Peter Urquhart, "You should Know Something - Anything - about this Movie. You Paid for it.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall, 2003), 65.

6 Hindle did end up filing suit against Cinépix for the traumatic incident, settling for a fee of $19,571.40. Correspondence from Charles Smiley to André Link. “Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and 120451 Canada Inc. -vs- La Compagnie de Protection Le Baron Ltee (Centre Canin Des Ruisseaux).” October 29, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

7 John Caldwell, Production Culture. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), 18.

4 Chapter one is a brief history of Cinépix. An incredibly prolific company that was involved in film production, distribution and exhibition and whose history spanned over forty years, a detailed examination into the company’s history is beyond the scope and page limit of this thesis.

As such, I’ve condensed Cinépix’s history as much as possible while also including an overview of all of its main initiatives, films, and turning points.

In chapter two I first interrogate the underlying assumptions and biases that contribute to much writing on commercial English language Canadian cinema. Tracking the discourse, I argue that despite much recent criticism concerning traditional writing on Canadian films three reductive themes continue to exist when scholars attempt to resuscitate the status of certain commercial genre films. First, scholars often link a genre film to an auteur’s larger body of work.

Second, writing connects a film’s themes to outdated and often homogenizing canonical writing on Canadian cinema, namely Fothergill’s “Coward, Bully, and Clown” model. Third, researchers argue that a commercial film is worthy of study because it has elements of ‘national culture.’

After examining these elements, I explore some recent writings that present new ways of conceptualizing and researching Canadian film. Second, I examine the field of Media Industry

Studies, and, specifically Caldwell’s research on production cultures, to provide an alternative way to study the Canadian film landscape that negates many of the drawbacks inherent in traditional screen studies. Finally, I explain my methodology and the challenges and ethical concerns that one should consider when conducting historical research.

Chapter three is an examination of the various strategies that Cinépix undertook to survive within the volatile Canadian film industry. This chapter first examines the larger policy shifts in

Canada from 1976-1986, followed by an explanation of Cinépix’s business strategies, including vertically integrating their company, employing as many money-making tactics as possible, and

5 diversifying into a large variety of products, including, most notably, adult film distribution and exhibition. Chapter three concludes with a case study of Cinépix’s collaborations with other, often American, studios. Primarily, I analyze the conflict-ridden production of State Park, a co- production between Cinépix and British/American company ITC, where the Cinépix producers found themselves losing creative control as they collaborated with larger, American companies.

Chapter four analyzes Cinépix’s structure and how the company’s executives, namely

Dunning and Link, crafted Cinépix’s culture and communicated with other companies in the film industry and to the general public. Specifically, I argue that Dunning and Link were the main creative figures in charge at Cinépix, negating and challenging the focus on the director-auteur that is prevalent within film studies. I then examine how Dunning and Link shape Cinépix’s ethos by analyzing their publicity stunts and brochures before concluding with an examination of publically disclosed versus fully embedded deep texts, exploring Cinépix’s reaction to a scandal on the set of Meatballs III (1986).

In Chapter five I analyze the role of women at Cinépix, arguing that while women were employed at the company, they were often hired in non-creative roles. The gender inequality in above-the-line positions led to a gendered and masculine production culture. To support this claim, I analyze the production of Cinépix’s Meatballs III, claiming that the gendered culture behind the screen was translated into the finished film. I thus draw historical parallels between

Meatballs III’s production culture and issues concerning contemporary gender inequality within the film industry.

Finally, the conclusion provides ideas and areas for future research. As there is a plethora of unused historical material on Cinépix, much of which concerns distribution and exhibition and is not discussed in this thesis, there are several intriguing avenues for later research.

6 Chapter 1: History of Cinépix

Cinépix was, first and foremost, a financially successful Canadian film company that produced, distributed, and exhibited English and French language commercial films with the key goal to produce films that would entertain an audience.1 A complete examination of Cinépix’s company practices is outside of the bounds of this research, yet a (relatively) concise history is needed to conceptualize the company. Cinépix co-founder John Dunning started working at a young age in his father’s movie theatres, co-founding Cinépix in 1962 with Wilfrid Dodd as a distribution company.2 The two men hired André Link soon after founding Cinépix, and Link quickly bought out Dodd’s 50% share of the company.3

After remaining in distribution for several years, Cinépix broke into feature film production in 1968 with the release of Valérie, often cited as launching the ‘Maple Syrup Porn’ sub-genre in Quebec.4 Valérie, and the few films within this sub-genre that Cinépix produced immediately following its success, such as L’initiation (1970) and Pile ou face (1971), is by far

Cinépix’s most well documented time period, as its films challenged Quebec’s strict censorship rules and coincided with the province’s Quiet Revolution.5 In the early 1970s, Cinépix was briefly sold to Kalvex, an American company, in a bid to “increase our capitalization and to

1 John Dunning, You’re Not Dead until You’re Forgotten (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014), 114.

2 Ibid., 47.

3 Ibid., 60.

4 Paul Corupe, “Sin and Sovereignty: The Curious Rise of Cinépix Inc.” Take One 44, (2005), 19.

5 As demonstrated by Corupe, “Sin and Sovereignty, 2005; Tim Covell, "To Know Ourselves: Possible Meanings of Canadian Pornography." Sexuality and Culture 20, no. 1 (2016): 124-129; Garald Peary, "Babes in Boyland: An Irreverent Peek at Women in Canadian Cinema." Take One: Film & Television in Canada 4, no. 8 (1995); Pierre Véronneau, "Genres and Variations: The Audiences of Quebec Cinema," In Self Portraits: The Cinema of Canada since Telefilm, edited by André Loiselle and Tom McSorley (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Film Institute, 2006).

7 obtain American distribution outlets for our products.”6 However, Dunning and Link immediately regretted their choice and purchased Cinépix back in 1973.7 On their decision,

Dunning remarked that there was increasingly more government support for the film industry in

Canada, stating “We feel like the climate is better; we can now make it on our own.”8

While Cinépix produced and distributed films, it also retained its theatre holdings which were branded nation-wide as the Eve Theatres in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and

Vancouver (with planned expansions into Calgary, Sudbury, and Ottawa) and the Midi-Minuit theatres in Quebec City, Montreal, Sherbrooke, and Trois-Rivières.9 Notably, both chains were hardcore adult film theatres, exhibiting the films that Cinépix also distributed. However, although the films that Cinépix distributed and exhibited were originally filmed as hardcore pornography, some Cinépix employees may have edited the films to make them soft-core in order to appease the Ontario and Quebec censors.10 Future research could be undertaken to better understand Cinépix’s distribution and exhibition practices, which continues to be completely overlooked in scholarship.

Cinépix garnered a large amount of controversy in 1975 with the release of David

Cronenberg’s Shivers due to the Canadian government’s financial investment in the film through the Canadian Film Development Corporation (CFDC). Although Cinépix had previously received state funding to produce films such as Keep it in the Family (1973), Shivers was

6 Dane Lankin,"Cinépix comes back to Canada." The Gazette (Montreal, QB), Feb 15, 1973. TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

7 Dunning, You’re Not Dead until You’re Forgotten, 77-78.

8 Ibid.

9 “Join the ‘family’... Our Eve & Midi-Minuit Cinema Family...” Montreal: Cinépix inc.. n.d. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/about/cinema/cinema_brochure.pdf

10 Malcolm Dean, Censored! Only in Canada (Toronto: Virgo Press, 1981), 144.

8 provocative due to its graphic sexuality and violence. As has been well documented, the controversy began with Robert Fulford’s (writing as Marshall Delaney) article in the magazine

Saturday Night, where he blamed Shivers for essentially stealing money from the Canadian taxpayers to create an exploitative, perverse, and ultimately ‘un-Canadian’ film.11 His article started a dispute in Canadian cultural and political circles, with both sides debating whether the

Canadian government should be investing in genre films. In response, Cronenberg, Dunning, and

Link prepared a pamphlet that contained both sides of the argument and sent it to governmental officials, such as R.W. McDonald, the Director of Film Classification, and Stephen Lewis, the

Ontario Leader of the New Democratic Party.12 After this backlash, the Canadian government still wanted to invest in Cinépix’s future projects due to Shivers’ commercial success but were afraid to openly contribute due to the public uproar. Cronenberg claimed that the CFDC, eager to invest in Rabid, secretly funneled money into it by cross-investing in other Cinépix films.13

However, the CFDC is listed as a financial partner in Rabid’s closing credits, perhaps contradicting Cronenberg’s tale of government rebellion.

Additionally, Cinépix was directly involved with the Ilsa series, some of the most notorious films of the 1970s. After distributing Love Camp 7 (1969) in Canada, Dunning saw the public (and financial) interest in producing a film along the same, exploitative lines, hiring

11 Robert Fulford, "You should know how bad this film is. After all, you paid for it." Saturday Night, (Toronto, ON), Sept 1975, 83.

12 Correspondence from R.W. McDonald to Cinépix. Jan 7, 1976. Cinépix online archive: http://Cinépix.ca/downloads/12/Shivers%20-%20Article%20-%20Cinépix%20responds%20to%20critics%20- %20Reaction%20Piece.pdf; Correspondence from Stephen Lewis to Orval Fruitman. Feb 17, 1976. Cinépix online archive: http://Cinépix.ca/downloads/12/Shivers%20-%20Article%20- %20Cinépix%20responds%20to%20critics%20-%20Reaction%20Piece.pdf

13 David Cronenberg. “Cronenberg Interview: Rabid.” Rabid, special edition, DVD, directed by David Cronenberg (Thousand Oaks, CA: Ventura Distribution, 1976).

9 University of Toronto professor John Saxton to write Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS (1975). 14 Almost the entire production team filmed using pseudonyms, including Dunning and Link who were not

‘officially’ involved with the film upon its release. Despite being riddled with controversy, Ilsa:

She Wolf of the SS was a massive financial success for Cinépix.15 Two sequels followed: Ilsa:

Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (1976) and Ilsa: The Tigress of Siberia (1977). A fourth film,

Ilsa: The Wicked Warden (also called Wanda: The Wicked Warden; 1977), was produced by a

Swiss company and distributed by Cinépix.16 Two additional films, Ilsa: She Devil of the Mau-

Mau and Bruce Lee Meets Ilsa in the Devil’s Triangle, were also slated (the latter advertised in

Cinépix’s distribution pamphlets), but both were cancelled when Cinépix returned to producing

“normal movies.”17 Dunning was especially involved in this series, creating the eye-catching poster art and devising the original story concept. This exposes both the overlooked influence that Cinépix (and Dunning) had and is also a prime example of how there may be hidden histories behind popular films, demonstrating why conducting historical research is important.

In the late 1970s - 1980s, Cinépix enjoyed more mainstream success, somewhat negating their status as the “Roger Corman of Canada.”18 In addition to the very (thematically) Canadian films The Mystery of the Million Dollar Hockey Puck (1975) and Yesterday (1981), Cinépix attracted Hollywood attention with the films Happy Birthday to Me, which Columbia bought for

$3,189,166.38, and My Bloody Valentine, a horror film shot and set in Nova Scotia, which

14 John Saxton is not to be confused with actor John Saxon.

15 Dunning, You’re Not Dead until You’re Forgotten, 94.

16 Ibid., 95.

17 Ibid., 96.

18 Ibid., 95.

10 Paramount distributed.19 Cinépix’s most prominent film from this time period was Ivan

Reitman’s Meatballs. Starring Bill Murray, Meatballs was released by Paramount and was the highest grossing Canadian film of all time until it was overturned by Porky’s.20 With this mainstream success, Dunning and Link produced several films for American studios:

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone 3D (1983), a bloated $12 million film for

Columbia, The Vindicator (1986) for 20th Century Fox and State Park (1988) and Whispers

(1990) with British/American company ITC. In addition to these films, Cinépix also produced

Blackout (1978), Hot Dog Cops (1980), Junior (1985), and Meatballs III between 1976-1986.

With the exception of the Gemini nominated Princes in Exile (1990), a co-production between Cinépix, the CBC, and the NFB about terminally ill youth at a summer camp, Cinépix’s films became less noticed, both commercially and critically, starting in the mid-1980s. The Snake

Eater trilogy (1989 - 1992) reached absurd levels of camp, and other films made in the 1990s, including Vibrations (1996), Ski School 2 (1994), and Bounty Hunters (1996), were both critical and commercial failures, vanishing from the public consciousness even faster than Cinépix’s films from the previous decade.

In 1998, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation purchased Cinépix, renaming it Lions Gate

Film, and the company framework shifted from where Dunning and Link picked their next project based on personal opinion to an “investment oriented” structure. 21 Under new management, Link was content to serve on various boards, however, Dunning grew frustrated

19 Cheque from Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. to The Birthday Film Company. April 10, 1981. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

20 Coincidentally, although not a Cinépix production, Porky’s was produced by Cinépix collaborator Don Carmody.

21 Ibid., 193.

11 with the lack of creative control, openly expressing his dissatisfaction. 22 In a July 15, 1998 memo letter to another Lionsgate executive regarding corporate restructuring, Dunning writes:

“We don’t make that many films that there can’t be better communication between us. I have enough paranoia being left out of so many communications of our company but I feel strongly about the productions we’re involved in. All parties in production should be aware of the actions of others.”23 Under Lionsgate, Cinépix continued to produce films such as Buffalo ’66 (1998) and Prisoner of Love (1999), and although Link continued to produce films in the 2000s, such as

Baby for Sale (2004), Prisoner of Love was Dunning’s last producer credit until 2009, when both

Dunning and Link were recognized as executive producers on the 3D remake of My Bloody

Valentine (2009). Dunning passed away in 2011, and Link currently resides in Montreal, Quebec.

Although Cinépix received awards and acknowledgements within the Canadian film industry, including a special award for Outstanding Contributions to the Canadian Film Industry at the 1993 Genie awards, Dunning and Link never received the same kind of critical success that encompassed other Canadian film companies or producers, including their protégée, David

Cronenberg. Whether their films were too commercial, too provocative, or too American,

Cinépix is largely ignored in both the Canadian film industry and scholarly discourse.

My research occupies an interesting position in Cinépix’s history, exploring its transition from a small, Canadian film company, making low budget horror and exploitation films, such as

Rabid or the Ilsa films, into a production company that increasingly produced legally Canadian films for American studios, including Columbia’s 3D extravaganza Spacehunter. Throughout these years, Cinépix continued to operate its theatre holdings, bankrolling its expensive films

22 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 167.

23 John Dunning, “Re: Corporate Restructuring.” July 15, 1998. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/about/distribution/distribution_article_letters_2.pdf

12 (and flops) through the revenue generated through its distribution and adult film theatre holdings.

Thus, my research, broadly spanning from 1976-1986 (but with a few key examples from either side of the decade), aims to examine the broadest slice of Cinépix’s history, tracking the company’s productions alongside the turbulent Canadian film industry during the 10-year span, including, as will be discussed in chapter three, both the creation and dissolution of the 100%

Capital Cost Allowance, and the transformation of the CFDC into Telefilm Canada.

13 Chapter 2: Canadian Film Scholarship, Media Industry Studies, and production cultures

This chapter examines the current state of Canadian film studies discourse, followed by an explanation of how Media Industry Studies (MIS), and more specifically, the study of production cultures, can help rectify gaps in Canadian film scholarship. The theoretical framework of MIS, combining political economy of media with cultural studies, further invites the researcher to explore alternative ways of studying Canadian cinema. To conclude this chapter, I discuss my methodology, explaining my process and the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking historical research.

2.1 English language Canadian Cinema: Trends, Frameworks, and Criticisms

English language Canadian film scholarship has been criticized for primarily legitimizing and studying films that fit into nationalistic conventions.1 In recent years, certain scholars have moved to resuscitate the status of certain films and movements within the Canadian canon.

However, on closer inspection, many of these works continue to fall into the same arguments that characterized traditional research. Thus, there is a persistent bias that legitimizes certain films, companies, movements, and individuals while ignoring others. While applying homogenizing techniques to diverse products has created a gap in the discourse, this thesis offers some alternative techniques to conceptualize and study Canadian film.

Film studies has traditionally centered its focus on authorship, textual analysis, and

1 Much has been written on the difference between English language and Quebec cinema. Although Cinépix was originally based in Montreal and many of their productions were filmed in Quebec, its last French language film was 1975’s Tout feu, tout femme, which does not fit into the chronology of this thesis. As such, most of my literature and thesis is centered on Cinépix’s relation to English language Canadian film.

14 subject-formation.2 In this vein, much research on Canadian film has been centered on textual analysis, placing judgements about a film’s content in relation to its value within a system of perceived national characteristics. While Canadians regularly attended the cinema after Canada’s first public film screening in 1896, Canada produced few feature films in the early 20th century, the most notable being Nell Shipman’s Back to God’s Country (1919).3 Canada gained international acclaim with the formation of the National Film Board (NFB) in 1939 which was created in order “to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations,” constructing an image of a unified nation.4 Much traditional and formational writing on English language Canadian film ignores commercial cinema, and instead choose to praise films that have a gritty ‘documentary realism’ aesthetic that represents an alternative model to American cinema and culture such as

Nobody Waved Good-bye (1964) and Goin’ Down the Road (1970).5 Thus, English language

Canadian film scholarship has traditionally focused on the NFB (or documentary aesthetic), auteur, experimental, and art film traditions, all of which are markedly different from the commercial big-budget model that Hollywood favors.

As Peter Morris argues, formational Canadian film scholarship during the 1960s and 1970s was heavily biased towards nationalism, with scholars and critics intent on creating a unified canon of Canadian cinema, citing perceived commonalities between certain films and completely ignoring others that did not fit into their predetermined categories.6 Robert Fothergill’s 1977

2 Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang, Global Hollywood 2 (London, UK: BFI, 2009), 42.

3 Ted Magder, Canada's Hollywood: the Canadian state and feature films (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1993): 20-27.

4 Peter Morris, The Film Companion (Toronto, ON: Irwin Publishing, 1984), 283.

5 Pike, 17-33.

6 Peter Morris, “In our Own Eyes: The Canonizing of Canadian Film.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies, 3, no. 1

15 paper “Coward, Bully or Clown: The Dream Life of a Younger Brother” exemplifies these problematic tendencies. Fothergill argues that the male protagonists in English language

Canadian films are characterized as either the titular ‘coward, bully, or clown,’ and are symptomatic of Canada’s national inferiority complex with the United States.7 Not only is this idea deterministic, but it implies that there is a singular national culture and that everyone will ingest the “distinct consciousness” equally with no regards to age, gender, class, or race.8

Notably, the films that Fothergill examined, such as the aforementioned Goin’ Down the Road and Nobody Waved Good-bye all had the same basic themes, featuring economically depressed individuals struggling with tangible real-life issues.9 Thus, Fothergill and other early scholars and critics writing in the 1960s-1970s created an unbalanced and unrepresentative idea of what

Canadian cinema is, rejecting most commercially oriented Canadian films.

The tendency of privileging English language Canadian film as an alternative to commercial Hollywood cinema permeated much research. For example, Delaney wrote that films such as The Grey Fox (1982) represent a sense of national culture via “a complacent appearance of permanent colonial status,” while Knelman argued that Canadian cinema should be viewed as an art form.10 Much writing continues to focus on the NFB and its continued dominance in Canadian filmmaking practices. 11 Likewise, Canada’s experimental film tradition

(1994): 37.

7 Robert Fothergill, "Coward, Bully, or Clown: The Dream Life of a Younger Brother." In Canadian Film Reader, edited by Seth Feldman and Joyce Nelson, 235-50. (Toronto, ON: P. Martin Associates, 1977), 244-245.

8 Ibid

9 Ibid., 237-239.

10 Marshall Delaney, “Artists in the Shadows: Some Notable Canadian Movies.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 2 – 17. (Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984): 3; Martin Knelman. Home Movies: Tales from the Canadian Film World. (Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books, 1987), 18.

11 Since its inception, Canada has been known for the NFB and its documentaries. Some recent and historical

16 is also presented as an alternative to Hollywood.12 Other scholars examine a director’s body of work (often viewed through the lens of the auteur tradition) whose films, often with explicitly national themes, are typically made and set inside of Canada.13 Notable directors include Atom

Egoyan,14 Guy Maddin,15 and David Cronenberg.16 Thus, Canadian cinema has been conventionally treated as an alternative to a dominant Hollywood model, often founded in the presumption that Canadians do not make commercial films with strong heroes, looking towards documentaries, experimental film, and even Canadian literature, such as the work of Margret

articles include: Bruno Cornellier, "The Thing About Obomsawin's Indianness: Indigenous Reality and the Burden of Education at the National Film Board of Canada." Canadian Journal of Film Studies 21, no. 2 (2012): 2-26; Gary Evans, In the National Interest: A Chronicle of the National Film Board of Canada from 1949 to 1989. (Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2000); Jennifer Gauthier, "Digital Not Diversity? Changing Aboriginal Media Policy at the National Film Board of Canada." International Journal of Cultural Policy 22, no. 3 (2014): 1-22; Peter Harcourt, “Cinema, Memory, and the Photographic Trace.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 229-235. (Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984); D.B. Jones, “Brave New Film Board.” North of Everything: English Canadian cinema since 1980, edited by William Beard and Jerry White, 19-45. (Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2002); Alison Loader, "Convergence and Collaboration in the Cold: Norman McLaren and 1950s Stereoscopic Animation at the National Film Board of Canada." Animation Journal Xxii, no. 1 (2014): 4-26; Peter Morris, “After Grierson: The National Film Board 1945 – 1953.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 182-194. (Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984); Gerald Pratley, Torn Sprockets. (Associated University Press: 1987); Sean Purdy, "Framing Regent Park: The National Film Board of Canada and the Construction of ‘outcast Spaces’ in the Inner City, 1953 and 1994." Media, Culture & Society 27, no. 4 (2005): 523-49; Kieron Smith, "Madawaska Valley: John Ormond's Lost Film at the National Film Board of Canada." Canadian Journal of Film Studies 25, no. 1 (2016): 27- 175.

12 R. Bruce Elder, “Image: Representation and Object – The Photographic Image in Canadian Avant-Garde Film.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 246-263. (Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984); Michael Zryd, “A Report on Canadian Experimental Film Institutions, 1980 – 2002.” North of Everything: English Canadian cinema since 1980, edited by William Beard and Jerry White, 392-401. (Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2002).

13 The auteur tradition, briefly explained, is a way of conceptualizing the director as ‘author’ of the picture, making them primarily responsible for a film’s creative decisions: Barrett Hodsdon, The Elusive Auteur: The Question of Film Authorship Throughout the Age of Cinema. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2017), 2-3.

14 William Beard, “Atom Egoyan: Unnatural Relations.” Great Canadian Film Directors, edited by George Melnyk, 99 – 124. (Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2007).

15 David Church, Playing With Memories: Essays on Guy Maddin. (Winnipeg: MB, University of Manitoba Press, 2000).

16 William Beard, “The Canadianess of David Cronenberg. Mosiac 27, no. 2 (1994): 113-133; Piers Handling, “A Canadian Cronenberg.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 80-91. (Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984); Adam Lowenstein, “Canadian Horror Made Flesh: Contextualizing David Cronenberg.” Post Script 18, no. 2 (1998): 37- 51; George Melnyk, “David Cronenberg: Mapping the Monstrous Male.” Great Canadian Film Directors, edited by George Melnyk, 79-97. (Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2007); Pike, 50.

17 Atwood for inspiration.17 Within this dogmatic view of English language Canadian film, there is little room to valorize commercial cinema.

The tendency to snub commercial Canadian film continues into scholarly writing concerning the 100% Capital Cost Allowance (also known as the Canadian tax shelter, which was in effect from 1978-1982), one of Canada’s most prolific periods of commercial film production. Gerald Pratley, writing in 1987, unleashed a barrage of insults at commercial English language Canadian films, writing that the mainstream films produced in the 1970s-1980s were

“paltry efforts” and that, contrary to what the CFDC wanted the public to believe, “the majority of [the films] are a disgrace to this country and best left unshown.”18 Pratley ultimately dismissed the entire tax shelter period, writing “The cash returns for this sellout were said to be considerable, and the returns in terms of national identity and the recognition of Canadian life and characters were almost nill.”19 Harkness, writing in 1982, likewise insults the tax shelter films, calling them “stupid...mawkishly sweet...aggressively obnoxious...[and] you can market any sort of crap with a pretty enough package.”20 In Knelman’s 1987 personal history of the

Canadian film industry, the tax shelter years are painted in a very negative light as he criticizes

Michael McCabe, the executive director of the CFDC, for encouraging producers to disguise

Canadian geographies in order to make the locations more generic or ‘American.’21 Despite later critiquing the practice of canon formation, Morris, writing in 1984, also dismissed the tax-shelter era films, pronouncing that “most of the films made...were designed for a mass-market, North-

17 Peter Morris, “In our Own Eyes: The Canonizing of Canadian Film,” 37.

18 Pratley, 129; 154.

19 Ibid., 125.

20 John Harkness, “Notes on a Tax-Sheltered Cinema.” Cinema Canada, 87 (1982): 26.

21 Knelman, 23

18 American audience, not a Canadian one, and usually involved Canadian cities masquerading as

American ones.”22

Although recent trends demonstrate a shift towards studying Canadian genre cinema, much research published after the tax shelter ended nevertheless overlooks the films produced during the program. In his 1990 book, Pendakur argued that the films produced during the 100% CCA were stripped of Canadian national identity, allowing American producers who “spoke the language of the capitalist cinema” to take advantage of and devalue the Canadian film industry.23

Similarly, Wise states that “a great deal of damage was done” during the tax shelter years, and

Gittings, writing in 2002, dedicates just two pages of his book, Canadian National Cinema:

Ideology, Difference and Representation, to the Tax Shelter films.24 One key thread that runs through a majority of these criticisms is that concept that Canadian genre cinema does not showcase ‘Canadian’ characteristics, national events, signifiers, themes, or locations.

Despite these commonplace attacks on popular Canadian cinema, some scholars, both recently and historically, have attempted to legitimize the status of certain commercial English language Canadian films. However, I argue that these defenses typically fall into three reductive categories: the film as part of an auteur’s larger oeuvre; explicitly connecting the film to

Fothergill’s Canada-as-younger-brother motif, or picking out elements of ‘national culture’ within the film itself. However, these qualities are all found in traditional scholarship, and continue to reject other films that do not fit into these categories. These three themes are not

22 Quoted in Peter Urquhart, "You should Know Something - Anything - about this Movie. You Paid for it,” 63.

23 Manjunath Pendakur, Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy of the Canadian Film Industry. (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1990): 175.

24 Christopher Gittings, Canadian National Cinema: Ideology, Difference and Representation. (London, UK: Routledge, 2002): 97; Wyndham Wise, “Canadian Cinema from Boom to Bust: The Tax Shelter Years. Take One 8, no. 22 (1999): 24.

19 exclusive, and many defenses of certain films or directors typically use multiple themes simultaneously (for example, saying that a director consistently has national content/themes in their films).

David Cronenberg is the most discussed commercial English language Canadian director, however, many scholars legitimize Cronenberg by stating that his films have implicit Canadian characteristics, thus allowing a valorization of the previously detested genre films Shivers and alongside more presumably artistic films such as Dead Ringers and Videodrome. For example,

Handling attempts to situate a sense of ‘Canada’ within Cronenberg’s then-blossoming body of work, defending Cronenberg’s films against critics who complain that they do not follow a documentary realist model by stating that “Cronenberg’s male protagonists fall into a time- honored tradition of Canadian men,” directly comparing them to Fothergill’s ‘Coward, Bully, and Clown’ archetype and the work of Margret Atwood.25 Likewise, Beard’s passionate defense of David Cronenberg rests on Cronenberg being a Canadian auteur, arguing that “his work reflects and embodies the national culture,” negating Cronenberg’s genre film heritage by stating that his films’ commercial nature barely hides “the way that the Cronenberg male protagonist resembles the long line of Canadian cinematic and literary un-heroes and their pattern of failure, powerlessness and hopeless waste.”26 While not all scholarly work on Cronenberg attempts to find a sense of ‘Canadianess’ within his films,27 and some attempt to discover what precisely

25 Handling, 84.

26 William Beard, “The Canadianess of David Cronenberg,” 118; 121.

27 Such as Mark Browning, David Cronenberg: Author or Filmmaker? (Bristol UK: Intellect, 2007); Reni Celeste, “In the Web of David Cronenberg: Spider and the new Auteurism.” Cine Action 65, (2005); Simon Riches, The Philosophy of Popular Culture: The Philosophy of David Cronenberg. (Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2012); Scott Wilson, The Politics of Insects: David Cronenberg’s Cinema of Confrontation. (New York, NY: Continuum, 2011).

20 makes him considered ‘Canadian,’28 several authors base their argument surrounding

Cronenberg being a Canadian auteur in areas of specific national content or characteristics found in his films. 29 This practice places Cronenberg’s commercial features as secondary to his status as a nationally ‘Canadian’ filmmaker.

Furthermore, instead of rejecting Fothergill’s homogenizing ‘Cowards, Bullies, and

Clowns’ theory of Canadian masculinity, several recent scholars use Fothergill’s dated concept to legitimize their arguments concerning Canadian genre film. Arguments include comparing

Fothergill’s analysis of failed masculinity in Goin’ Down the Road to the male leads in The

Trailer Park Boys franchise, Fubar (2002),30 and Strange Brew (1983). 31 Corupe conceptualizes a new masculine archetype found in English Canadian cinema to add to Fothergill’s masculine trifecta: the “Brute,” which can be found in Canadian exploitation films Death Weekend,

Vengeance is Mine (1974), Blackout, and Siege (1983).32 Thus, Fothergill’s idea that a set of homogenizing characteristics run throughout canonized Canadian films continues to shape contemporary writing on commercial English language Canadian cinema.

Finally, and related to the previous qualifiers, other authors argue for the legitimization of certain Canadian films, movements, or companies based on the fact that they have, or are intrinsically intertwined with ‘national culture.’ Pike argues that the recent surge of writing on

28 Jennifer Vanderburgh, “Ghostbusted! Popular Perceptions of English Canadian Cinema.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies 12, no. 2 (2003).

29 The most notable being William Beard, “The Canadianess of David Cronenberg”; Handling; Lowenstein; Melnyk, “David Cronenberg: Mapping the Monstrous Male”; Pike.

30 Ryan Diduck, “From Back Bacon to Chicken Fingers: Re-Contextualizing the “Hoser” Archetype.” Off Screen 10, no. 1 (2006): n.p.

31 Pike, 43.

32 Paul Corupe, “(Who’s in the) Driver’s Seat: The Canadian Brute Unleased in Death Weekend.” In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, ed. by Gina Freitag and André Loiselle, (Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015): 92.

21 Canadian horror films means that “the genre does have a specific relation to issues of Canadian identity.”33 For example, My Bloody Valentine, like Goin’ Down the Road, centers on economic disparity in Nova Scotia, showing Canadian characters, locations, and themes in a commercial genre format.34 Pike also compares the opening credits sequence of Ginger Snaps (2000) to an

NFB documentary and that, “Ginger’s plight [of lycanthropy] resonates strongly with the

Canadian tradition of realism as well as the Canadian capacity to see all sides of the equation.”35

Likewise, Subissati, Thompson, and Freitag explore national and cultural themes in Canadian horror films: Pontypool (2008), Orca: The Killer Whale (1977), and a series of Canadian eco- horror films, respectively.36 Corupe and Taylor both examine how the 3D film The Mask (1961) contains national tendencies.37 By neglecting films that do not fit into any of these conventional traditions within Canadian film scholarship, scholars risk building an incomplete history and understanding of the Canadian film landscape. Thus, in order to fully conceptualize the diversity and plurality of the national industry without getting wrapped up in ideas of the ‘nation,’ we should explore alternate frameworks that invite new ways of conceptualizing Canadian film.

Traditionally within the humanities, there are two different and highly problematic ways of conceptualizing screen effects. First, the ‘Domestic Effects Model,’ or DEM, focuses on

33 Pike, 184.

34 Ibid., 186.

35 Ibid., 191.

36 Andrea Subissati, “Viral Culture: Canadian Cultural Protectionism and Pontypool.” In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, ed. by Gina Freitag and André Loiselle, (Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015); Peter Thompson, “Eco-horror and Boundry Transgressions in Orca: The Killer Whale. In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, ed. by Gina Freitag and André Loiselle, (Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015); Gina Freitag, “The [Hostile] Nature of Things: A Cultural Dialogue on Enviromental Survival.” In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, ed. by Gina Freitag and André Loiselle, (Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015).

37 Paul Corupe, “Taking off the Mask.” Take One 44, (2004); Aaron Taylor, “Blood in the Maple Syrup: Canon, Popular Genre and the Canuxploitation of Julian Roffman.” CineAction 18, no. 2 (2003).

22 individual psychology, namely that some media texts have adverse effects on the viewer if they consume the ‘wrong’ text.38 Second, and more pertinent to this paper’s argument, is the Global

Effects Model, or GEM. Here, scholars posit that media has the potential for creating a collective national and political identity within viewers: “[the screen makes the viewer] a knowledgeable and loyal national subject, or a duped viewer who lacks an appreciation of local custom and history.”39 Scholars who use this framework are primarily concerned with the effects of foreign

Hollywood texts on other national viewers.40 A key shortcoming is that both models assume that individual viewers are easily deceived into believing what is on-screen, thus stripping away any individual agency. The GEM model is visible within Canadian film scholarship, as authors are consistently concerned with national culture appearing in Canadian films, of which only a specific kind is legitimized in scholarly discourse. This creates a doubly problematic way of thinking about Canadian cinema and screen effects: assuming that the viewer has no agency and that Canadian cinema needs to show specific, somewhat arbitrary, elements of ‘national culture’ to make it less harmful.

Scholarship on Canadian film policy and industry is also trapped in a reductive and self- defeating position. While textual analysis tends to examine Canadian themes and imagery within the films themselves, existing research on the industry focuses on policy analysis, examining how the Canadian government constructed the film industry. While we should not dismiss the importance of the state in constructing Canada’s filmic landscape, especially considering how many Canadian films are government subsidized, this research often ignores an account of

38 Toby Miller, et al., 33-35.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

23 individuals working within and negotiating elements of these government policies. In other words, these works utilize a top-down theoretical framework and methodology, assuming that government policies are the definitive creators and shapers within the Canadian film industry. By systematically analyzing government policies, discourse, and programs, the experiences of individual workers are ignored and invalidated in favor of the government’s (and other key cultural elites) idea of what Canadian national cinema should be.

Three main texts have shaped and guided this research on the Canadian film industry.

Pendakur’s book Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy of the

Canadian Film Industry, uses a radical political economy framework to claim that Canada is simply “a cultural colony of the United States,” examining the government’s attempts to create an indigenous film industry and the tension that exists between the Canadian government and the

American products that dominate the Canadian cultural marketplace.41 Second, Dorland’s book

So Close to the State/s: The Emergence of Canadian Feature Film Policy uses Foucault’s theory of Governmentality to investigate the discourse used in creating policies that shaped the

Canadian film industry. Although Dorland critiques traditional canon formation, noting that a

“verbal universe was established in which a Canadian film industry was conceived, argued, and legislated, and then put into public circulation,” he presents a deterministic analysis of the State decisions that constructed the original discourses regarding the Canadian film industry during the

1950s-1960s.42 This gives the central legitimizing role to the governing individuals who created the legislation, and thus to the elites in power, contributing to a prescriptive and historical version of the Canadian feature film industry and the films produced within it. Finally, Magder’s

41 Pendakur, 19-31.

42 Michael Dorland, So close to the State/s: the emergence of Canadian feature film policy. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 137.

24 book, Canada’s Hollywood: The Canadian State and Feature Films, provides a comprehensive investigation into Canadian film policy, negating the conventional “media imperialism” theory that Canada is completely subservient to the United States.43 Instead, Magder argues that

Canada’s film policy, which often favors the United States, is a product “of the contradictory dynamics of Canadian society and the Canadian state.”44 Magder dismisses many traditional political economy of media approaches, notably Dallas Smythe’s ‘consciousness industry’ theory, arguing that they portray Canada’s relationship to the United States as overly simplistic, presenting Canadian policy makers and audiences as submissive tools to the dominant American state.45 Instead of providing broad generalizations, Magder provides a highly detailed and complex history of Canadian film policy from 1906 – 1990s, drawing special attention to not only the policies that were passed, but also the ones that failed and the ways that various groups/individuals resisted certain policies.46 Of the three books, Magder’s is the most neutral, showing individualized resistance within the larger state machine.

This type of macro research ultimately contributes to a top-down investigation of what

Canadian cinema is and how it was formed. For example, Pendakur assumes that Canada’s dependency on the United States is a failure of policy and government, who did little to support the national film industry in its formative years.47 These readings view the State as a key figure responsible for creating what the Canadian film industry is and should be. This move discredits and ignores the individuals working within the film industry itself and the ways that they may, or

43 Magder, 9.

44 Ibid., 18.

45 Ibid., 14-17.

46 Ibid.,157.

47 Pendakur, 95.

25 may not, negotiate issues of nationality and culture.

Despite these tendencies, recent research has been undertaken that helps redefine the field of Canadian film studies. These texts present alternative methods for studying Canadian cinema, and, although none are quite the same as my research, demonstrate a shifting current, exploring new ways of studying Canadian cinema and industry. Urquhart directly challenges the oversight that critics place on the tax shelter films, commenting that scholars often dismiss all of the films produced in these years as being too ‘American’ while simultaneously praising Canadian films that demonstrate presumed national characteristics.48 Demonstrating the hypocrisy of these arguments, Urquhart reveals that several of the tax-shelter films, including Cinépix’s Yesterday and Hot Dog Cops, feature the same elements of national culture that scholars praised in other, more presumably ‘Canadian’ films, effectively indicating that critics of the tax shelter films conflate the entire period, dismissing several films that fit their arbitrary criteria of nationalism.49

Elsewhere, Urquhart rejects the conventional narrative that the Canadian film industry is marked by failure, arguing that Canada’s successful service sector is essential in growing the domestic film industry, and that scholars and critics should not limit themselves to only examining theatrical gross as a measure of a film’s success, as most Canadians consume their media through ancillary markets, such as television.50

Vanderburgh examines Cronenberg’s Videodrome and Reitman’s Ghostbusters. Rather than attempting to analyze the content of the films themselves for signifiers of ‘national identity,’

Vanderburgh instead analyzes how the two films and their director’s personas are divergently

48 Urquhart, “You Should Know Something – Anything – About this Movie. You Paid for it,” 67-68.

49 Ibid., 71.

50 Peter Urquhart, “Film and Television: A Success?” in Cultural Industries.ca: Making Sense of Canadian Media in the Digital Age, edited by Ira Wagman and Peter Urquhart (Toronto, ON: Lorimer, 2012), 26-30.

26 marketed: Ghostbusters as a Hollywood film, and Videodrome as a Canadian art film.51

Vanderburgh argues that the perceived nationalism apparent in each film is more of a function of public marketing rather than something that intrinsically exists within the films themselves.52

Longfellow likewise examines Black Robe (1991), I Love a Man in Uniform (1993), and

Calendar (1993) through the lens of globalization, stating that a dated ideal of national belonging can evolve into a plural “respect for difference,” negating homogenizing concepts of what

Canadian national culture is.53 In a later article, Longfellow tracks the creation of the Toronto

New Wave, and despite being focused on the director/auteur, situates the movement (in addition to the experiences of individual workers and filmmakers) within industrial, political, and cultural climates while actively disavowing traditional scholarship on textual analysis and canon formation.54 Similarly, Tepperman examines the policy implications and ramifications of

Telefilm’s controversial From Script to Screen policy; explaining not only the historical and industrial context that the policy was conceived in, but also its consequences for individuals working within the industry.55 My thesis broadly fits in alongside these writings, finding new and alternative ways of conceptualizing Canadian film and its industry.

Throughout these articles, we glimpse brief flickers of Cinépix’s legacy. However, they are often stripped from their original production context, with only certain films legitimized.

51 Vanderburgh, 83

52 Ibid., 94-95.

53 Brenda Longfellow, “Globalization and National Identity in Canadian Film.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies 5, no. 2, (1996), 15.

54 Brenda Longfellow, “Surfing the Toronto New Wave.” In Self Portraits: The Cinema of Canada since Telefilm, edited by André Loiselle and Tom McSorley. (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Film Institute, 2006), 172.

55 Charles Tepperman, “Bureaucrats and Movie Czars: Canada’s Feature Film Policy since 2000.” Media Industies 4, no. 2 (2017), 73-74.

27 Corupe’s chapter on Death Weekend places the film’s importance squarely in response to

Fothergill’s original classifications.56 Research on My Bloody Valentine connects it to either its

Nova Scotia heritage or combines it with the early 1980s American slasher film cycle.57 Valérie, by far the most written-about Cinépix film, is typically discussed in relation to the maple-syrup porn subgenre that it helped create,58 its connection to Quebec culture at the time,59 or with relation to its director, Denis Héroux.60 Examinations of the Ilsa series primarily examine it as

Naziploitation, often focusing on portrayals of violence and sex.61 As previously stated, the two

Cronenberg-helmed films that Cinépix produced, Shivers and Rabid, are often lumped into

Cronenberg’s oeuvre, using his status as an authentic Canadian auteur to mark them as important films.

Only one article has been published on Cinépix as a company. However, Corupe’s

56 Corupe, “(Who’s in the) Driver’s Seat: The Canadian Brute Unleased in Death Weekend.”

57 Richard Nowell, ""There's More Than One Way to Lose Your Heart": The American Film Industry, Early Teen Slasher Films, and Female Youth." Cinema Journal 51, no. 1 (2011): 115-40; Richard Nowell,""Where Nothing Is Off Limits": Genre, Commercial Revitalization, and the Teen Slasher Film Posters of 1982-1984." Post Script - Essays in Film and the Humanities 30, no. 2 (2011): 53-68; Richard Nowell, ""The Ambitions of Most Independent Filmmakers": Indie Production, the Majors, and "Friday the 13th" (1980)." Journal of Film and Video 63, no. 2 (2011): 28-44; Pike, 22.

58 Covell; Peary; Véronneau.

59 Peter Harcourt, "Roads Not Taken, Avenues Not Explored: Confessions of an Unconscious Canonizer." Take One: Film & Television in Canada 4, no. 8 (1995); James Leach, "Second Images: Reflections on the Canadian Cinema (s) in the Seventies." The Dalhousie Review (1982); Jean-Pierre Tadros, "The State of Quebec." Cinema Canada (1977); Alan Jones, "“Notre Valérie Nationale”: The films de fesses as a catalyst of socio-cultural transformation during Quebec’s Quiet Revolution and beyond." PhD diss., Concordia University, 2017.

60 Marc Gervais, "Features/Les Plouffe." Cinema Canada (1981).

61 Adam Brown, "Screening Women’s Complicity in the Holocaust: The Problems of Judgement and Representation." Holocaust Studies 17, no. 2-3 (2011): 75-98; Magilow Bridges et. al., Naziploitation!: The Nazi Image in Low-brow Cinema and Culture. (New York: NY, Continuum, 2012); Lynn Rapaport, "Holocaust pornography: Profaning the sacred in Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 22, no. 1 (2003): 53-79; Deb Waterhouse-Watson and Adam Brown, "Between whores and heroes: women, voyeurism and ambiguity in holocaust film." Outskirts 30 (2014).

28 investigation only discusses Cinépix pre-1978, connecting the studio’s output to current cultural and social movements happening in Quebec and Canada at the time.62 Thus, Corupe completely ignores almost twenty years of the company’s highly diverse history (from 1980-1997) on the grounds that Cinépix became increasingly Americanized.63 Corupe’s decision to ignore these years implies that because these films were less explicitly ‘Canadian’ than their previous features, either in content or production context, that they are less worthy of study.

A notable exception of this trend is Vatnsdal’s book They Came from Within: A History of

Canadian Horror Cinema, which frequently references Cinépix, and especially Dunning and

Link’s influence on the Canadian film industry, writing “their imprint upon the Canadian horror film scene is as vast as a Yeti’s.”64 However, as Vatnsdal’s book is only focused on the horror film, many of Cinépix’s films are missing from his survey, and Cinépix’s later horror films, including Junior and Whispers are notably overlooked.

In conclusion, problems with scholarship about the Canadian film industry are twofold:

First, is the problematic ideal that all authentic Canadian films should contain a noticeable and quantifiable element of national culture. While Fothergill’s work reads as outdated and has been partial to criticism, a similar focus on nationalism continues within other research, with scholars often using homogenizing ideas of national characteristics to legitimize the study of certain

Canadian films. Second, is the research conducted on Canadian film policy and business that researches the industry in a top-down manner, often focusing on governmental policies.

Although informative, I would caution the belief that specific institutions are responsible for all

62 Corupe, “Sin and Sovereignty: The Curious Rise of Cinépix Inc,” 17-20.

63 Ibid., 21.

64 Caelum Vatnsdal, They Came from Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema. (Winnipeg, MB: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2004), 44.

29 of the issues within the Canadian film industry. To refer back to the GEM of viewing audience effects, a strictly political economy approach, such as Pendakur’s, which takes an especially negative view of American cinema and culture, also assumes that audiences are passive recipients of harmful non-Canadian culture.65 The following section investigates the ways in which a Media Industry Studies approach that incorporates both a cultural studies and critical political economy framework can open new avenues of research into the Canadian film industry, inviting researchers to ask new questions that do not fit within traditional scholarship.

2.2 Media Industry Studies and production cultures

In this section, I will argue that research conducted within the subfield of Media Industry Studies

(referred to hereafter as MIS) can help rectify some problems inherent within Canadian film scholarship. Put simply, MIS is an interdisciplinary field of study that researches various issues concerning both micro and macro media organizations and the individuals working within them.

This subfield provides a framework that encompasses larger, political research, such as work done by Madger and Pendakur, while simultaneously promoting the importance of individual agency and culture formation by individuals within the larger structure. By moving film studies away from textual analysis and strictly top-down policy formation, MIS, and especially the framework that Caldwell uses to study production cultures, promotes a new way to study the

Canadian film industry that circumvents many of its traditional problems and contradictions identified previously.

First, by focusing on the industrial side of media, including production, issues of labor, and exhibition, MIS allows us to circumvent some of the issues found in simply studying media texts. Traditionally, film studies have been concerned with a narrow set of research topics and

65 Ibid., 175.

30 interests, including, most notably, textual, auteur, and a very limited kind of audience-based analysis.66 In favoring this type of research, film studies under-emphasizes media’s social elements, thus reflecting the larger scholarly divide between social sciences, represented by the fields of communications and economics, and humanities, which has traditionally housed film studies.67 This division is detrimental to film studies as it discourages research on the social aspects of film, including reception, production, and economics.68 Rather than continuing to follow this tradition, MIS promotes the combining of humanities and social sciences models to foster a new way of studying film and screen cultures. Miller et. al. argue that the current iteration of screen studies needs to move away from its current practice, which includes the aforementioned textual analysis, auteur theory, limiting concepts of subject formation, as well as the reductive DEM and GEM models (all of which, I would argue, make up a majority of the existing writing on Canadian film).69 In its traditional form, film studies is unable to persuasively answer important questions concerning politics, economics, and public policy.70

Within MIS, two key theoretical frameworks, critical political economy and cultural studies, are used to help film scholars investigate these questions. Put briefly, and somewhat simplistically, the political economy of media is concerned with “the fact that the production, distribution, and reception of culture take place within a specific economic and political system, constituted by relations between the state, the economy, social institutions, and practices.”71

66 Miller et al., 30.

67 Ibid., 30-31.

68 Ibid., 30-31.

69 Ibid., 42.

70 Ibid., 28-29.

71 Douglas Kellner, "Media Industries, Political Economy, and Media/Cultural Studies: An Articulation." In Media

31 Despite its long lineage, dating back to the 18th century, political economy was only taken up in communications and media studies in the 1950s and 1960s, with the work of Dallas Smythe and

Herbert Schiller.72 Notably, Smythe argued that communications play an important part within the economy and should not be overlooked, challenging that Western Marxists had traditionally ignored communications and media in their research.73 Mosco states that the theory asks us to consider “a specific set of social relations organized around power or the ability to control other people, processes, and things... This would lead the political economist of communication to look at shifting forms of control along the circuit of production, distribution, and consumption.”74 Thus, the political economy of media is centrally concerned with who owns what, and how that constitutes a power dynamic that disadvantages certain individuals, groups, or even companies who aim to break into a trade already dominated by a few larger companies, as well as studies on the role of labor in media production, the relationship between media and state power, and the connection of media and mass communications to democracy and the idea of the public sphere.75 Existing research on the Canadian film industry has characteristically adapted this slant, focusing on how the industry has been disadvantaged and dominated by

American media products. While understanding the existing framework is essential in creating an accurate picture of the system that the media product has been produced in, the theory on its

industries: history, theory, and method, by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 95-107. (Chichester, UK: Wiley- Blackwell, 2009): 101.

72 Janet Wasko, “The Study of the Political Economy of Media in the Twenty-First Century.” International Jounral of Mdia and Cultural Politics 10, no. 3 (2014): 260.

73 Janet Wasko, “Studying the Political Economy of Media and Information.” Comunicacao e Sociedada 7, (2005): 27-29.

74 Vincent Mosco. The Political Economy of Communication. (London, UK: Sage Publications LTD, 2009): 24.

75 Wasko, “Studying the Political Economy of Media and Information,” 27; Wasko, “The Study of the Political Economy of Media in the Twenty-First Century,” 263.

32 own risks being too monolithic and all-determining.76

In contrast, cultural studies is concerned with how individuals can “manipulate imagery and information to their own ends, to build their own identities and local politics from the vast array of mediated bits and pieces they have at their disposal.”77 Cultural studies is an incredibly broad and interdisciplinary theoretical field that rejects a brief and easy classification with no definite, focused methodology or framework.78 Rodman argues that this sense of instability is what gives cultural studies its power as a political methodology as it attempts to “unstable fault lines of the culture.”79 Often cited as beginning in the 1960s-1970s within the Center for

Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, cultural studies is concerned with “[examining and rethinking] culture by considering its relationship to social power.”80 A political theory, its ultimate goal is social change.81

Hesmondhalgh argues that cultural studies defining characteristics are, first, the idea that everyday culture must be taken seriously, thus rejecting the conventional delineation between high/low culture; second, the concept of multiple kinds of culture or subcultures, rather than just one, monolithic notion of culture; third, the importance of who gets to speak and decide what the dominant ‘culture’ is; fourth, and finally, “cultural studies has fore fronted issues of textuality,

76 Natalie Fenton, "Bridging the Mythical Divide: Political Economy and Cultural Studies Approaches to the Analysis of the Media." In Media studies: Key issues and debates, edited by Eoin Devereux, 7-31. (London, UK: Sage Publications LTD, 2007): 15.

77 Fenton, 8.

78 Gilbert Rodman, Why Cultural Studies? (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014): 40.

79 Ibid., 29

80 David Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries. (London, UK: Sage Publications LTD, 2007): 41.

81 Fenton, 16.

33 subjectivity, identity, discourse, and pleasure in relation to culture.”82 Thus, cultural studies shifted the focus from a conventional view that media works on the audience, to the concept that viewers are active agents, able to manipulate texts for their own uses and pleasures.83 Cultural products, such as television, newspapers, fashion, and film, are fundamentally connected to all elements of society, and culture influences society as much as society influences culture.84

Critics of cultural studies state the field is too broad, too vague, and therefore is not a concrete

‘discipline’ in the traditional academic sense.85

Although both frameworks may be used on their own to study various iterations of media industries, combining the traditions is a productive way to study the various contours inherent within the Canadian film industry. When scholars combine both theoretical traditions in the study of media industries, one is able to analyze both the larger structural elements that constrain both producers and consumers, but also see how individuals and groups are able to negotiate meaning and gain agency within a specific context. This allows for the legitimization of both above-the-line workers, such as directors, which film studies typically focuses on, and below- the-line workers, such as costume designers, who are often excluded. Additionally, combining these traditions necessitates a specific historicizing. Miller et al. writes that scholars must detail

“the conditions under which a text is made, circulated, received, interpreted and criticized. The life of any popular or praised film is a passage across space and time, a life remade again and again by institutions, discourses and practices of distribution and reception.”86 This concept

82 Hesmondhalgh, 41-42.

83 Fenton, 17.

84 Michael Ryan, Cultural Studies: A Practical Introduction (West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2010): ix-v.

85 Ibid., 4-5.

86 Miller et al., 41.

34 fundamentally frees the text from being understood in one way forever. Furthermore, it also prompts the researcher to place texts within specific production circumstances, thus breaking

Fothergill’s, and others, simplistic notion that a homogenizing ‘national culture’ is automatically transmitted into a film.87 Instead, and especially when utilizing a cultural studies framework, the researcher is asked to comprehend the production/reception of specific texts at specific times. In addition to being centered on the media industry, one could use these theories to shatter

Dorland’s idea that discourse surrounding commercial Canadian feature film production is doomed to be repeated “endlessly.”88 While the discourse around a film or films continuously changes, discourse surrounding an industry also transforms.

Research in MIS takes on a variety of different themes and subjects, from smaller, micro studies to larger research, using a variety of methodologies such as interviews,89 ethnography,90

87 Fothergill, 235.

88 Michael Dorland, So close to the State/s: the emergence of Canadian feature film policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998: 136.

89 Miranda Banks, “Oral History and Media Industries: Theorizing the Personal in Production History.” Cultural Studies 28, no. 4 (2014); Jane Landman; "“Not in Kansas Anymore”: Transnational Collaboration in Television Science Fiction Production." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 140-53. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Elana Levine, "Crossing the Border: Studying Canadian Television Production." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 154-66. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Sherry Orther; "Studying Sideways: Ethnographic Access in Hollywood." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 175-89. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Matt Stahl, “Privilege and Distinction in Production Worlds: Copyright, Collective Bargaining, and Working Conditions in Media Making.” In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries. Ed. by Vicki Mayer, Miranda Banks and John Caldwell, 54-67. (New York: NY, Routledge, 2009); Serra Tinic, "Borders of Production Research: A Response to Elana Levine." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 167-72. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Stephen Zafirau, "Audience Knowledge and the Everyday Lives of Cultural Producers in Hollywood." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 175-89. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009).

90 Levine; Orther; Zafirau.

35 and additional theoretical frameworks, such as feminism,91 Marxism,92 and even Actor-Network-

Theory.93 Topics include national culture and cinema,94 the difference between above-the-line and below-the-line workers,95 the issue of gaining and maintaining ‘access’ to individuals and geographic spaces,96 globalization,97 economics,98 policy,99 film producers,100 and the role of women.101 Examining both macro and micro topics from both a top-down and bottom-up approach, MIS provides a dynamic framework to examine the Canadian film industry.

91 Banks; Erin Hill, Never Done: A History of Women's Work in Media Production. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016).

92 Vicki Mayer, Miranda Banks, and John Caldwell, "Introduction: Production Studies: Roots and Routes." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Caldwell. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Landman.

93 Oli Mould, "Lights, Camera, but Where’s the Action?: Actor-Network Theory and the Production of Robert Connolly’s Three Dollars." In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 203-13. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009).

94 Landman.

95 Banks; Caldwell, Production Cultures; Landman; Stahl.

96 Other, John Caldwell, “Both Sides of the Fence: Blurred Distinctions in Scholarship and Production.” In Production studies: cultural studies of media industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 214-29. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009).

97 Michael Curtin, "Thinking Globally: From Media Imperialism to Media Capital ." In Media industries: history, theory, and method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 108-19. (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.); Nitin Govil, "Thinking Nationally: Domicile, Distinction, and Dysfunction in Global Media Exchange." In Media industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 132-43. (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); Aphra Kerr, "Placing International Media Production." Media Industries 1, no. 1 (2014): 27-31; Christina Venegas, "Thinking Regionally: Singular in Diversity and Diverse in Unity." In Media industries: history, theory, and method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 120-31. (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

98 Stuart Cunningham and Terry Flew, "Reconsidering Media Economics: From Orthodoxies to heterodoxies." Media Industries 2, no. 1 (2015): 1-18; Philip Napoli, "Media Economics and the Study of Media Industries." In Media industries: history, theory, and method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 161-70. (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

99 Des Freedman, "Media Policy Research and the Media Industries." Media Industries 1, no. 1 (2014): 11-15.

100 Andrew Spicer and A.T McKenna, The Man who got Carter: Michael Klinger, Independent Production and the British Film Industry, 1960-1980. (London, UK: Tauris, 2013), 7.

101 Banks; Melanie Bell, “Learning to Listen: Histories of Women’s Soundwork in the British film industry.” Screen 4, no. 1 (2017); Hill.

36 Specific to this thesis, I narrow this field down into the study of production cultures, a methodological and theoretical framework spearheaded by John T. Caldwell. He argues that production cultures, made up of both above-the-line and below-the-line workers, are constantly engaged in “self-analysis and self-representation.”102 In this concept, media producers

“constantly dialogue and negotiate their cultural identities...through the tools, machines, artifacts, iconographies, working methods, professional rituals and narratives that practitioners circulate and enact in film/video trade subcultures.”103 Thus, the film industry itself, and especially the site of production, is seen as a place of “cultural expressions and entities involving all the symbolic processes and collective practices that other cultures use.”104 Caldwell utilizes methods from a variety of humanities and social sciences disciplines to research the off-screen work worlds of production personnel.105

Caldwell argues that workers in media production are constantly involved with “industrial self-theorizing.”106 In contrast to academia, which is often concerned with high-level theorization that is “systematic, logical, and/or convincing in accounting for how film/media works or means,” workers theorize at the jobsite and through their practices.107 This framework is especially important for my research, as it legitimizes the self-theorizing tendencies of individuals working at Cinépix, negating a more traditional top-down, deterministic model.

102 Caldwell, Production Cultures, 1.

103 John Caldwell, "Cultures of Production: Studying Industry's Deep Texts, Reflective Rituals, and Managed Self- Disclosures." In Media industries: history, theory, and method, by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 199-212. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009: 200.

104 Caldwell, Production Cultures, 2.

105 Caldwell, "Cultures of Production: Studying Industry's Deep Texts, Reflective Rituals, and Managed Self- Disclosures," 200.

106 Caldwell, Production Cultures, 18.

107 Ibid.

37 Caldwell posits six ways that media workers self-theorize. First, workers demonstrate an instrumental and inductive perspective when explaining their work publically, often connecting their practices to a broader, often academic tradition; for example, when screenwriters connect their method to Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth.108 Second, workers are ecumenical and eclectic, adaptable and versatile, able to draw from a variety of resources.109 Third, self- theorization is often unintentional and effacing, with workers explaining how a media text creates itself (for example, editors saying that the footage was speaking to them), rather the worker imposing a predetermined plan onto the media text.110 Fourth, it is reductive and propriety, as publically disclosed materials (such as behind-the-scenes features) spend little time on the actual technology and skills, often simplifying filmmaking to the “magic... of artists,” effacing much of the technical, and more daunting work that goes into production. 111 Fifth, as much self-theorization happens before the film is released in advertising materials and marketing campaigns, it is also preemptive or real-time.112 Finally, it is also commonsensical, with workers dismissing the fact that the media text they work on “has intellectual or cultural significance, or that it participates in a broader theoretical dialogue outside of industry.”113 Thus, far from being neutral creators of media, workers are constantly self-theorizing about their work and their place within media production. This notion is valuable when considering how Dunning, Link, and other Cinépix employees construct and legitimize their own production cultures through various

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid., 19.

110 Ibid., 20.

111 Ibid., 21.

112 Ibid., 22-23.

113 Ibid., 24.

38 means, including promotional materials, memos, storyboards, and production notes.

Also useful for my research is Caldwell’s theoretical structure for analyzing industrial

“deep texts.”114 Caldwell argues that the aforementioned texts and practices that workers negotiate their identities through can be read in different ways depending on how embedded they are within the industry. For example, “Fully embedded deep texts and rituals,” such as union workshops, demo tapes, and equipment iconography are designed for workers within the industry to speak to one another.115 These deep texts are presented in opposition to “Publicly disclosed deep texts and rituals.”116 While fully embedded deep texts and rituals are designed by and for working professionals, publicly disclosed ones are designed for consumption by the general public, and involve practices such as DVD commentaries, fan conventions, and official websites.117 Not only does Caldwell provide an excellent methodological framework for considering how workers create their own cultures to communicate with each other through textual, symbolic, and interpersonal means, but his research encourages a specific contextual approach to study film production, thus negating deterministic and uniform conceptions surrounding media industries.118

Notably, while Caldwell’s research provides a great overarching framework, none of his research is historically oriented. To aid me in constructing a theoretical and methodological strategy for analyzing my historical documents, Spicer and McKenna’s recent research on film

114 Caldwell, "Cultures of Production: Studying Industry's Deep Texts, Reflective Rituals, and Managed Self- Disclosures," 202.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid., 202-203.

39 producers—especially their book on British film producer Michael Klinger—and Erin Hill’s book on the role of women in early Hollywood provide excellent resources. Spicer and McKenna primarily grapple with historical documentation, utilizing previously unstudied historical archival sources, including annotated scripts, memos, letters, promotional material, cost breakdowns, and memoirs. 119 Spicer, McKenna and Mier’s research also provide a helpful framework for thinking about the contours of the producer’s role, often overlooked in favor of the director. Specifically, they argue that the producer is marked by creativity, often conceiving of a project and remaining with it through to exhibition, marketing, and promotion.120 This creativity includes direct involvement with a film’s production, but it also includes the creative process of “securing funds for a project by manipulating markets, negotiating deals, pre-selling, and all the other elements of a complex financial package.”121 Thus, the producer’s role is highly complex, flexible, and essential in a film’s creation, a key insight in understanding how Dunning and Link’s contributions shaped Cinépix’s production cultures.

Hill, arguing against the traditional rhetoric that women were excluded from early film production in Hollywood, instead claims that women have always had a role in the film industry.122 However, women were forced into jobs that had previously been established as

‘women’s work,’ including clerical labor, detail-oriented work, light manufacturing, and positions that required emotional labor.123 Hill’s book provides a ‘Transhistorical’ approach with

119 Spicer and McKenna, The Man Who Got Carter: Michael Klinger, Independent Production and the British Film Industry, 1960-1980, 7.

120 Andrew Spicer, A.T. McKenna, and Christopher Mier, Beyond the Bottom Line: The Producer in Film and Television Studies, (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2016), 11.

121 Ibid., 13.

122 Hill, 1-3.

123 Ibid., 7.

40 the intention of studying “a contemporary issue [the existing gender divide in film production] through historical roots.”124 By explicitly arguing that this gender divide is a current problem that needs attention, Hill’s book has a sense of urgency and heightened importance. In addition, Hill demonstrates how Caldwell’s theories, arguments, and case studies can be translated into other contexts through examining how some of Caldwell’s theories of self-reflexivity can be applied to historical documents, as Hill does by applying Caldwell’s theory of DVD bonus features as promotional materials to film studios during the 1915-1920’s practice of aggressively self- promoting in trade and fan magazines.125 My research aims to achieve a similar goal by utilizing

Caldwell’s basic terminology to take a ’transhistorical’ approach to not only argue for the importance of studying Cinépix, but also, especially when it comes to gender, to demonstrate that many issues raised in these production documents continue to haunt to the contemporary film industry in the wake of the #metoo and #timesup movements.

As the aforementioned examples demonstrate, MIS and production cultures can provide several new ways of examining media that traditional approaches to film studies cannot. When examining the Canadian film industry, a MIS framework that utilizes both cultural studies and political economy allows the researcher to ask questions about areas which have been underrepresented or ignored in Canadian film scholarship. Specifically, this framework allows us to tackle Cinépix as a company without falling back on overused theories of national culture while considering the roles of the individual worker and how they shaped Cinépix’s unique production culture. While acknowledging the larger political economy factors as important, this framework invites us to examine the lived experience of people at Cinépix, inviting them to have

124 Ibid., 8.

125 Ibid., 30-31, 235.

41 the agency that is often ignored in traditional film scholarship. In conclusion, while previous approaches within Canadian film scholarship emphasize a political economy, top-down approach, as well as fostering an ideal of national themes/content within the films themselves, a

MIS approach decreases a reliance on the text and increases the experience of individual workers and groups. Thus, this approach allows the research to ask new questions and gives agency to both workers and consumers.

2.3 Methodology

My method was based on primary historical research that is supplemented with secondary sources, most notably John Dunning’s memoir. All of the archival documentation that I used were gathered from three archives.126 First, the Film Reference Library at the TIFF Bell

Lightbox; the online archive at www.Cinépix.ca, and the Dunning private collection housed at

Greg Dunning’s residence in Montreal. My precise methodology for each archive is as follows.

I was lucky to receive the Jeffrey and Sandra Lyons Canadian Film Scholarship from the

Toronto International Film which allowed me to research in the TIFF Bell Lightbox’s FRL for a month. I went to Toronto from July - August 2017. At the FRL, I pulled all of their files and articles on Cinépix and its films, including those that the company distributed. The FRL had a large number of newspaper clippings and press releases, which were instrumental in shaping my history of Cinépix and providing information into their distribution practices. In addition, I also examined the John Dunning and David Cronenberg special collections, which mostly contained information on Shivers and Rabid. Unfortunately, much of the David Cronenberg special collection was closed to researchers at the time of my visit, including personal journals that

126 I also gathered materials from the University of Toronto’s Media Commons, but as their holdings were only focused on Cinépix’s output during the 1990s, it was not used in this thesis.

42 would have been interesting to examine. Next, the website www.cinépix.ca contains a database that houses scans of original production documents and newspaper clippings that the Dunning family saved over the years. I contacted Greg Dunning through the Cinépix website asking if he had any additional production documents not featured on the website. Upon his positive response and invitation, I travelled to his residence in Montreal, where I was invited to go through boxes of original production documents. As time was limited, I took photographs of each document.

Since my research focuses on the years 1976 - 1986, most of my energy was focused on collecting information on these films, but, when I had time, I did look for information on

Cinépix’s other films as well.

Once all of this documentation was gathered, I created two private online research databases using the software Airtable.127 In these databases, I was able to upload a photograph or scan of the original document, provide an annotation of its contents, and tag it with the date, what film(s) were discussed, the individuals mentioned in the documentation, and what the basic theme of the document was.128 In total, between the three databases, I collected around 1,800 individual production documents, press releases, and newspaper articles. This database allowed me to easily search for themes, keywords, and people throughout all the production documents.

As I was not undertaking a quantitative study, understanding the qualitative content of each document was essential and this database provided an easily searchable way of finding and classifying the raw material. Once entered into the database, I went through film by film, taking notes on major themes and notable quotations. After notes on each film were collected, I

127 I made two separate archives of the original Dunning files and FRL files based on both their separate content and to make sure that I was under the storage limit for Airtable’s free option.

128 Sorted into pre-production, production, distribution, advertisement, finances, photos, script, legal, news release, contracts, call sheets, pick-up shots, producer notes, and post-production.

43 compared my notes on the production documents between films, looking again for major themes and trends between films, which were then selected for focus in this thesis.

Throughout this process, and in writing my thesis, I constantly reflected on the challenges and limitation of studying historical and archival documentation. There is no strict methodology for studying history, as historical research rather refers to a particular set of data, rather than a specific methodology.129 While there are guides for creating ‘good’ history in the field of communications and media studies, there is no one specific methodology that a researcher has to follow, and the researcher should select one that is best suited to their specific project.130

Additionally, most historians reject an objective view of history and historical facts, instead acknowledging that “knowledge does not simply reflect reality; it creates this reality in the process of knowing it...there is no objective reality or objective truth, simply relativistic truths and reality.”131 Startt and Sloan write that all history is fundamentally filtered through the historian and that different historical interpretation is based on three fundamental factors: first, when (in time) the historian was writing; second, the new materials and raw data that is constantly being unearthed; third, any new research tools that the historian has access to.132 Thus, history is never value-free and raw facts are interpreted differently depending on the researcher’s specific approach.133 For example, it is a fact that certain television shows premiered on a certain

129 Clive Seale, Researching Society and Culture. (London, UK: Sage Publications, 2012), 264.

130 Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 6.

131 Norman Wilson, History in Crisis?: Recent Directions in Historiography. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), 111.

132 James Startt and Michael Sloan, Historical Methods in Mass Communication. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 19-21.

133 Startt and Sloan, 3.

44 date at a certain time, however, historians will interpret this fact differently depending on when they are writing and what they are looking at. An important criticism of history is the notion that history is always dependent on whatever data is available. Thus, history is only as accurate as what survives. A historian may want to research an unrepresented subject, but the records may be incomplete or closed to the public, meaning that past facts or data may be concealed.134

Lastly, there are notable ethical implications associated with historical research. Although this thesis did not directly interact with human participants, there are still ethical consequences that the researcher must keep in mind. First, some historical documentation that the researcher encounters may be morally challenging and hard to handle. Startt and Sloan explore this topic, arguing that “what was the good life for one group in society may have been exploitation or oppression to another group.”135 Careful ethical work must be undertaken so as not to take the oppressors side, with the researcher acting as an interpreter without passing too much of a value judgement.136 Historians must still consider ethics when researching historical documents, as they must be aware of the ethical implications of what they reveal and choose to keep hidden.

With these concerns and guidelines in place, I was constantly aware of the restrictions and biases that I might inform into this the conclusions that I draw in this thesis. Notably, what documents remain within the archives is telling: all the saved documents were from above-the- line workers at Cinépix who were most, if not all, white men. As much as I would have liked to research the workings of below-the-line workers at Cinépix—who have been even more marginalized within existing research—there was no saved documentation concerning them in

134 Seale, 267.

135 Startt and Sloan, 1989, 48.

136 Ibid., 49-50.

45 any of the archives that I had access to. In an effort to move away from the existing focus on certain Cinépix films in the Canadian cinematic canon, such as Rabid and Meatballs, I also made the decision to primarily analyze films that have been conventionally overlooked in the scholarly discourse. This thesis was also shaped by which films I had the most archival material on. The film with the most existing documentation, from development to press releases to advertisements was by far Meatballs III. While there are Cinépix films that I wanted to analyze, this research is also determined by what films I had access to. Additionally, as many of Cinépix’s films are out of print and hard to find, there are several cases where consulting the filmic text would have been beneficial, but no copy was available. For example, Meatballs III is only available in a sub-par

VHS format where the closing credits are impossible to read and its IMDB page is missing key information. Having access to a good, clear copy of these films would have been useful to gain access to the full cast and crew list. The case studies that make up this thesis were primarily determined by their accessibility and how they exemplify certain aspects of Cinépix’s production cultures that are found throughout the historical documents. In addition, my interpretations are greatly shaped by only examining these historical records, had I included interviews in my research data, it is entirely possible that my findings may have been different. However, due to the large number of archival records that I had collected, I decided to only study these documents.

Finally, this research was particularly influenced by the recent #timesup and #metoo movements, and the slew of accusations (and downfall) of prominent Hollywood figures such as

Harvey Weinstein, which came to the forefront as I was writing the chapter on gender at Cinépix.

Had this movement not occurred while I was writing, it is possible that the focus on gender would not have been as pronounced. The decision to include a section on gender was not easy to

46 make, as I had to consider the ethical dilemma of respecting the workers at Cinépix while also addressing significant issues that are forefronted within the documents. What made this decision especially hard was the recognition that this research owes to the Dunning family and estate.

Without their generosity in allowing access to original production documents, my thesis, as it currently stands, would not be possible. I simultaneously want to examine the company that

Cinépix was, acknowledging its significant and often overlooked contributions to Canadian film history, while also understanding that there are certain tendencies apparent within surviving production documents that speak to a common societal issue. Thus, this thesis is an effort to provide an honest interpretation of certain trends and themes found in these documents. I believe that it is possible to respect and acknowledge the company that Cinépix was, while simultaneously recognizing certain faults that Cinépix, and the film industry in general, suffer from. With this in mind, I aim to contribute to a transhistorical approach, connecting these ways of discussing women and other underrepresented individuals to current issues surrounding the film industry today.

47 Chapter 3: Cinépix, Canada, and the Struggle to Survive

This chapter tracks Cinépix’s strategies to survive within the often volatile Canadian film industry. To examine this aspect of Cinépix, I first explain the overarching state of the English national film industry between (roughly) 1976 – 1986. This timeframe marked a period of change in both the Canadian industry and Cinépix. In the Canadian film industry, those years saw the creation and dissolution of the 100% Capital Cost Allowance and the transformation of the CFDC into Telefilm Canada. Within this system, Cinépix worked to survive in any way that they could, namely by diversifying their assets, partnering with other companies, and using some unusual cost-saving strategies on their film sets. This chapter concludes with an examination of

Cinépix’s co-productions, specifically The Vindicator, Spacehunter: Adventures in the

Forbidden Zone, and State Park. Here, I examine the power dynamics that occur when a smaller,

Canadian, film production company co-produces a film with a larger, American, company, and how Cinépix’s creative decisions were dismissed.

3.1 A Broader Context: 1976-1986

The time period between 1976 - 1986 encompassed several large changes in Canadian film history. Between 1978-1982, Canadian film policy was changed to promote a 100% tax write-off for investors. This move led to a short-lived boom in commercial film production in Canada, a period that is often derided for encouraging production of faux-American films for an international audience.1 Additionally, the Toronto International Film Festival began their

1 Wise, 21.

48 Perspective Canada series in 1984, ushering in a period of critically acclaimed Canadian films that further legitimized the difference between commercial and more art-focused Canadian film.2

Canadian cinema has historically maintained a strong connection to government and state funding, making it challenging to sustain a profitable and self-sustaining feature film industry.

As such, the cultural content that Canadians ingest is most often American. Scholars such as

Pendakur view this as a sign of Canada’s dependency on the United States and trace its origins to policies in the early 20th century.3 The formation of the National Film Board in the 1940s cemented the importance of the Canadian government in feature filmmaking.4 Not only was producing feature films difficult, gaining access to distribution and exhibition in a climate dominated by larger American companies also constructed barriers for Canadian filmmakers.5

Although independent Canadian films of the sort produced by companies such as Crawley films

(which produced short, documentary, and feature length films, often funded privately), and individuals including Sidney J. Furie, Julian Roffman and William Davidson, such as The Mask, existed, they were often rare, with little commercial English Canadian feature film production occurring until the tax shelter era in the 1970s.6

The CFDC was formed in 1968 with the purpose of expanding feature film production in

Canada.7 The previous 60% tax write off, which had been available in Canada since 1954, was

2 Liz Czach, "Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema." The Moving Image 4, no. 1 (2004): 76-88.

3 Pendakur, 48.

4 Pike, 27.

5 Pendakur, 148.

6 Corupe, “Taking off the Mask,” 21.

7 Wise, 18

49 considered a “total farce” as investors were almost guaranteed a profit, even if the film was never released, contributing to the idea that “Canadian films were made to lose money and were box- office poison.”8 In 1978, the CFDC, which managed what kind of films would qualify for tax write-offs, implemented a new strategy for feature film production, shifting its focus onto commercial film production explicitly designed for export.9 Thus, although the CFDC had allowed a 100% tax write-off since 1975, in 1978 they restructured their investment strategy to focus on bridge financing, providing financiers the seed money to fund a film, which would then be repaid once they received private film financing.10 This private financing could be done in two ways: first, producers could have one or more large investors finance a film; second, producers could offer a larger amount of shares to a larger number of individual private investors.11 These individual investors, including “doctors, engineers, lawyers, and other professional people,” most of whom had no experience in the film industry, rushed to capitalize on the tax advantages advertised.12

This restructuring led to a boom in commercial feature filmmaking within Canada, with approximately 66 feature films produced domestically in 1979 alone, up 78% from the previous year.13 However, problems were rampant, as countless films produced were made for quick financial gain, and many were never released at all.14 In 1980, the CFDC altered the guidelines to

8 Ibid., 19.

9 Magder., 181-82.

10 Ibid., 182-83.

11 Ibid., 183.

12 Pendakur, 175.

13 Magder, 168.

14 Ibid., 190-91.

50 ensure that they would only invest in films that had Canadian creative personnel, did not unnecessarily disguise Canadian locations, and had a lead Canadian actor.15 By 1982, the tax- shelter boom was over, and the policy was modified to allow an investor a 100% write-off over two years.16 The CFDC became Telefilm Canada in 1984, with a new focus on television production and investing in prestigious feature films.17 The CCA was further decreased in 1987, dropping from a 100% write-off to a 30% write-off over a two-year period.18 This dramatic cutback led to film producers and financiers predicting a sharp decline in film production in

Canada.19 As Cinépix was a profitable film company in Canada, it is important to examine their strategies for success during this era. As I will demonstrate, Cinépix incorporated several tactics to ensure that they remained profitable.

3.2 “At least we know his loyalties lie with us”: Cinépix in Canada

Cinépix operated within this system in three important ways. First, it diversified its revenue streams, gaining capital from several different sources within the Canadian film industry, including multiple streams of exhibition and distribution. Second, while Cinépix was a private company, Dunning and Link often collaborated with other entities (both governmental and private) to ensure that they did not take on too much risk alone, embarking on as many money- saving opportunities as they could. Third, and related to the above, the producers did everything in their power to cut costs and save money within this system.

15 Ibid., 191.

16 Wise, 24.

17 Ibid.

18 Michael N. Bergman, "Bye Bye Tax Shelter." Cinema Canada (1987): 6.

19 Brian Milner, "Tax Break Cuts Shake Canadian Film Industry." The Globe and Mail, Sep 12, 1988.

51 First, and as I briefly stated in my chapter on Cinépix’s history, Dunning and Link diversified their revenue streams, thus allowing Cinépix to receive money from a variety of different sources. Unlike a production company, which is only involved in one area of the film industry and whose sole revenue stream would be the money that their film made through distribution/exhibition agreements and investments, Cinépix’s revenue stream was diversified so that Dunning and Link could finance their productions from money made in their distribution and exhibition divisions. As stated previously, Cinépix was originally established as a distribution company that primarily distributed adult films. A brochure from 1971-1972 lists the films that Cinépix had available for Canadian exhibition, and although they distributed prestige titles such as Cabaret (1972), the prime focus was on softcore and hardcore adult films.20

Cinépix also distributed short films, older genre films such as House on Haunted Hill (1959) and provided double bills of adult films for a discounted rate, including the Russ Meyer films Vixen

(1968) and Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965).21 Notably, Cinépix was the Quebec distributor for landmark adult film Deep Throat (1972).22 Although adult cinema has existed since the early days of cinema, the 1970s are often considered the golden age of pornography, especially in the pre-home video era when it was still possible to make a large amount of money in adult theatrical exhibition.23

Furthermore, not only did Cinépix distribute these films, but it also retained national theatrical holdings: The Eve and Midi-Minuit. By distributing and exhibiting exploitation films

20 “Now in release from Cinépix Inc.” May 3, 1972. Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

21 Ibid.

22 Dunning, You’re not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 69.

23 David Flint, Babylon Blue: An Illustrated History of Adult Cinema. (Creation Books, 1999), 31.

52 that could be purchased relatively cheaply and that made money through sensationalist advertising, Dunning and Link guaranteed that they would have enough money to fund their feature films. While other production companies had to depend on government funding and private investments, Dunning and Link were able to produce films using CCA and CFDC funds, private investments, and by investing their own money that they made in distribution and exhibition, ensuring that Cinépix could consistently produce a large number of films that had relatively high production values. Cinépix did encounter some pitfalls using this model as well.

As Dunning details, he tried to open a series of video stores in the 1990s that would cater to film collectors. However, their markup was too high, and Dunning and Link eventually closed both stores in Toronto and Ottawa to a strong financial hit, with Dunning fronting most of the losses.24

Despite this misstep, I would argue that a majority of Cinépix’s success is based on this model of a vertically-integrated adult film company. While Cinépix only produced soft-core movies, they were still able to build an entire company on the profits of adult entertainment, thus able to produce more ‘prestige’ Canadian films such as Yesterday on the backs of distributing and exhibiting adult films such as the John Holmes/Johnny Wadd film Tapestry of Passion (1976).

Second, Cinépix often collaborated and merged with other companies, as well as taking advantage of government and private investments to save money and reduce risk. The Canadian government, through the CFDC, invested in several of Cinépix’s films, beginning with Keep it in the Family, but most notably with the controversial Shivers. Once the CFDC was renamed and rebranded as Telefilm, they continued to invest in Cinépix’s work, including The Surrogate and

The Vindicator.25 In addition, Cinépix also collected provincial tax credits whenever they could,

24 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 150-151.

25 “Telefilm Canada: The Surrogate.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/27/Surrogate%20- %20Advertising%20-%20Telefilm%20Canada%20foreign%20sales%20one-sheet.pdf; “Telefilm Canada: The

53 as evidenced in the Snake Eater films, especially the second movie, which SOGIC claimed did not qualify for a tax credit because it was not an original Canadian script; Dunning and Link eventually spent two years in court before being granted their tax credit.26

Private tax shelter investments were another way that Cinépix recouped some costs. State

Park was publicly advertised in The Globe and Mail as being an exciting Canadian tax shelter investment “from the Producers of Meatballs.”27 Additionally, a brochure stating the potential benefit of investing in State Park advertises the economic factors of how it is cheaper to film in

Canada and how Canadian performers “Sound American” so the films are “perceived as ‘home- made’ in the U.S.” linguistically negating any potential cultural content which may defer investors who had a negative view of Canadian cinema.28 Likewise, memorandums for Meatballs

III, then titled Meatballs: The Climax, were advertised in a comprehensive brochure that promised “Canadians an extraordinary investment opportunity because of the stunning commercial international success of the original “Meatballs” movie.”29 Investors would each own part of the film and would “receive worldwide revenue from Theatrical Distribution,

Network, Cable and Pay T.V. And ancillary rights.”30 Also included in both brochures are biographies of the main producers (Link, Dunning and Carmody); Dunning and Link’s success

Frankenstein Factor.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/30/Vindicator%20- %20Telefilm%20Festival%20and%20market%20One-sheet.pdf

26 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 147.

27 “A tax shelter investment” The Globe and Mail. November 20, 1986. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Investment%20Tax%20Shelter%20Ads.pdf

28 “Some straight talk on a Tax Shelter Investment.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Investor%20Prospectus.pdf

29 “Offering Memorandum: Meatballs: The Climax.” 3. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/29/Tax%20Shelter%20Brochure.pdf

30 Ibid.

54 with Meatballs and Carmody’s involvement with Porky’s are all used to demonstrate that not only will investors receive their tax break, but Meatballs: The Climax, will be profitable, netting investors a large amount of money in the future. Utilizing private investors allowed for Cinépix to split the cost, and thus the risk, with a larger number of backers. Furthermore, because Cinépix could distribute the film as well, it was often able to retain distribution rights without losing a large cut of profits to an outside distribution company (unless the film would be purchased by a larger, American, studio). In the case of State Park, which Cinépix co-produced with ITC, the two companies likewise had a predetermined contract where Cinépix would produce the film and

ITC would distribute. However, as will be demonstrated in this chapter’s final section, production did not go as smoothly.

Cinépix also collaborated with other companies to leverage each other’s resources. In addition to collaborating with other companies for productions, they also joined with various distribution and exhibition companies throughout their tenure. For example, Cinépix and Famous

Players formed CFP Distribution in 1989, which ended when Cinépix purchased the entire company a few years later upon Dunning’s realization that they were deemphasizing focus on production; in the 1990s Cinépix also became the sole Canadian distributors for Miramax.31 The largest merger, of course, was Cinépix’s sale to Lionsgate in 1998. Additionally, Cinépix also asked other individuals in the film industry for their expertise. In an archived letter from F.R.

(Budge) Crawley, the producer responds to Dunning’s request that he read their script for

Meatballs III (at the time called My Special Angel) and provide feedback on casting and potential filming locations.32 Crawley provides Cinépix with some useful information, additionally stating

31 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 156.

32 Correspondence between F.R. Crawley and John Dunning. “My Special Angel.” October 26, 1983. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

55 that hopefully, My Special Angel “will outgross PORKYS [sic].”33 This demonstrates that

Cinépix was a collaborative and resourceful company, willing to work with other companies and leverage connections. But, as will be discussed in the following section, Dunning and Link were also fiercely independent, wanting to have complete creative control over their films.

Finally, Cinépix also worked to save money on every production. Unlike larger studios which may inflate (or artificially inflate) budgets, as a smaller production company, Cinépix was concerned with films being completed on-time and within budget.34 This included many cost- saving strategies during production. For example, in discovering that key reaction shots were missing for Canadian musician Ronnie Hawkins’ cameo in Meatballs III, Dunning proposes salvaging the excess material by suggesting “that some kind of documentary [has] been done on him for the CBC or CTV and we try and sell it.”35 Here, rather than Cinépix taking a financial hit for the amount of useless film shot for this scene, or, as Dunning stated, “we must be burning film like mad,” he suggests selling it to television stations to capitalize on Hawkins’ celebrity status.36

One excellent example of this tendency is found throughout the documents for Ilsa: Harem

Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (referred to hereafter as Harem Keeper). Shot in Los Angeles over 14 days, but with only 10 days in the studio, Dunning meticulously constructed the shooting schedule and budget, noting that they were upgrading the production by adding two additional days to the original Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS (referred to hereafter as She-Wolf) shooting schedule

33 Ibid.

34 Producers during the tax shelter often artificially inflated budgets to get a higher tax write-off: Pendakur, 175.

35 John Dunning, “Comments on Rushes, Day 27.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

36 John Dunning, “Comments on Rushes, Day 16.” August 8, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

56 of 12 days.37 Although filming in the original She-Wolf studio was an option, the producers were concerned about the cost to run electricity into the set, making note of the costs associated with each option before noting that "We have to be aware that by limiting the phone use and office use we can save on the extras which added up to an enormous amount last time."38 Another way to save money was deciding which production company to use, noting that She-Wolf was mostly financed using personal funds and accounts, but for Harem Keeper, using DAL (Cinépix) for liability and legal reasons to pay for insurance and studio costs would be the best option, as setting up a new production company would cost between $700 - $1000. Another option weighed could involve finding “a company which is inactive but we may be rudely awakened to find we have inherited a problem.”39 Hiring an accountant was another place to save money. The producers decided to hire Bob Perras who never worked as an accountant before, but would work under a flat, rather than an hourly rate and “at least we know his loyalties lie with us.”40 Finally,

Dunning, Link, other executives debated not using the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to save money. The disadvantages of using SAG include the potential to negate the production’s

Canadian status, the need for consecutive, scheduled days for cast members, and the additional financial cost. However, Dunning notes that, regarding the extra cost, “I'm told you can get it back from most actors under the table but we could get into a bind.”41 Here, Cinépix demonstrates that saving money and finishing the shoot as quickly and cheaply as possible is of

37 “Notes on Production of Harem Keeper.” April 15, 1975. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

57 utmost importance, even going as far as to hire a non-accountant as Cinépix’s bookkeeper and asking SAG actors to surrender some of their union-ordered paycheques.

As demonstrated in this section, although Cinépix existed in a system that makes it challenging for private and commercially motivated film companies to exist, it constantly employed strategies to save money in order to survive within the Canadian film industry.

Although some of these strategies are unconventional, and, in the case of the SAG debates, potentially immoral, Cinépix successfully survived and, at times, thrived in an often unfriendly environment.

3.3 Cinépix International: American collaborations and State Park

Finally, this section explores the specific, influential, and highly conflicted process of

Cinépix’s co-productions with other countries and companies. I briefly examine Cinépix’s relationship with Columbia and 20th Century Fox in producing Spacehunter: Adventures in the

Forbidden Zone and The Vindicator, before leaping into a case study of Cinépix and ITC’s production of State Park, or, as it was released in Canada, Heavy Metal Summer. Originally called National Park, which would have held some linguistic semblance of a Canadian location, the film was renamed State Park by ITC and most Canadian cultural references were edited out of the final film. In this chapter, I will refer to it as State Park.

Of importance within this chapter is the difference between treaty and non-treaty co- productions and how Cinépix played with the distinctions between them to produce (legally)

Canadian films that were collaborations with other, often American production companies.

Briefly stated, while treaty co-productions are “guided by bilateral agreements that are negotiated by governments for the development of cultural goods and content productions,” non- treaty co-productions are “collaboration with countries currently not covered by a bilateral

58 agreement...Co-ventures allow for greater production flexibility [for example, there is no requirement for cultural content].” 42 Thus, while treaty co-productions are legally regulated by both countries, non-treaty co-productions are ultimately harder to classify. The productions that

Cinépix embarked on with other countries and companies are even more difficult to fit into pre- existing classifications. Briefly, Cinépix’s first two experiences with co-productions were treaty co-productions with France: Ah! Si mon moine voulait... (1973) and Blackout, which appear to have gone relatively smoothly with no major issues (aside from star Ray Milland spending

Blackout’s shoot intoxicated).43 Pertinent to this section, however, are the non-treaty co- productions that Cinépix embarked on. With these productions, Cinépix produced films that would be considered legally Canadian (meaning that they qualified for Canadian tax-write offs) for American companies, using partially American funds. Canada does not have a co-production treaty with the United States, indicating that any collaboration between Cinépix and an American company would automatically be classified as a non-treaty production. However, as Cinépix was collaborating with other companies and not countries, I have chosen to give these films the title of illegitimate co-productions; caught between non-treaty classification and Hollywood, these films, namely Spacehunter, The Vindicator, State Park and Whispers are caught in a regulationless purgatory of official classification as Cinépix fought for creative control over these legally ‘Canadian’ films.44

42 Doris Baltruschat. “International TV and Film Co-production: A Canadian Case Study” in Organization and Production edited by Simon Cottle (London, UK: SAGE Publications, 2003). N.p.

43 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 109

44 The Vindicator received funding from both Telefilm Canada and (notably) 20th Century Fox. On the Canadian Feature Film Database it is also listed as being a co-financed film (with Canada contributing 33% of the budget). However, aside from 20th Century Fox’s financial contribution, there is no evidence in any of the databases (including examining the original budget) of another country’s involvement. Whether the 33% listed was Cinépix’s deal with 20th Century Fox, or if the database is incorrect, I cannot be certain, as the Canadian Feature Film Database purports to collect information on both treaty and non-treaty co-productions. "The Vindicator." Library

59 The catalyst for this non-treaty co-production period was Ivan Reitman. Reitman started at

Cinépix producing Shivers and Meatballs, among others, was, by the early 1980s, working for

Columbia on his film Stripes (1981). By 1982, the federal 100% CCA was effectively over, with distributors and exhibitors remarking that the Canadian film industry had grown too quickly, resulting in an inferior product.45 After Cinépix sold Columbia Happy Birthday to Me, which was a moderate financial success, Dunning, Link, and Carmody sent the film outline for Road

Gangs to Reitman.46 Reitman brought Columbia on board to contribute financing to the film and to distribute it. While Cinépix’s older films primarily had Dunning and Link in charge of all elements of the film’s production, Road Gangs or Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden

Zone, as it was retitled, offered a different sort of challenge: namely, another financial partner, and thus another voice in the creative process. One of the requests Columbia made was to film in

3D to capitalize on the short-lived 1980’s 3D craze, including reshooting large chunks of the film to add pop-out gimmicks.47 This caused the budget to balloon to $12 million, as Dunning wrote

“[Columbia was] throwing money away like water. It was almost obscene.”48 Ultimately,

Spacehunter was a commercial disaster, and the Cinépix producers were exhausted by the process.49

The Vindicator was first conceived in 1984 by Dunning as Frankenstein 88’, later The

Frankenstein Factor, before being renamed as The Vindicator to capitalize on the popularity of

and Archives Canada, July 02, 2015. Accessed July 27, 2018. Canadian Feature Film Database.

45 Wise, 23-24.

46 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 123

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., 124.

49 Ibid., 123 - 24.

60 The Terminator (1984). 20th Century Fox agreed to provide financing and distribute the film worldwide but sent one of their producers to supervise production and make several changes to the original story, including giving ‘Frankenstein’ human eyes in order to humanize him, threatening to pull Cinépix’s funding if Dunning and Link did not comply.50 Although The

Vindicator received funding from the newly renamed Telefilm Canada, Cinépix was still under the thumb of 20th Century Fox to appeal to their wishes. Ultimately, 20th Century Fox killed the film in distribution, sending it direct-to-video. As Dunning reflected: “When the studio imposes a producer on you, that producer’s game is to justify his existence with the studio bosses who hired him... questioning our motives and always calling Hollywood to complain about us but pledging to fix everything... as independent producers, we didn’t have a chance in hell of working harmoniously with Hollywood.”51 I would argue that working as independent Canadian producers also contributed to this aura of inadequacy. Although Cinépix had produced several major films at this point, the company was seen as less important in the American studio’s eyes.

In 1986 after those two negative experiences with Hollywood, Cinépix decided to work with yet another foreign company on a two-picture deal.52 ITC Entertainment, best known as a television and film distribution company in Britain responsible for The Last Unicorn (1982), and

The Muppet Movie (1979), had recently been acquired by an American company with offices in

California that production head Jerry Leider worked out of.53 The two films that Cinépix and ITC ended up producing together were State Park and Whispers. When deciding to produce State

Park, Dunning and Link were under the misconception that “we would simply cop a fee as

50 Ibid., 133 - 34.

51 Ibid., 134.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

61 producers of this six-million-dollar movie and that would be that.”54 Unlike the other co- productions that have been examined thus far, State Park’s narrative was not conceived by anyone at Cinépix, but rather, by a female screenwriter at ITC. According to Dunning, the writer was professionally and personally involved with Jerry Leider, so when she delivered a script that was one hundred and sixty pages long, the Canadian producers were told to “shoot it as it was,” effectively stripping the Cinépix producers of overseeing the script and the production.55

State Park follows a group of teenagers who want to save Weewankah State Park from a greedy businessman who wants to buy the park to build a pesticide plant. These teenagers include Eve and her two female friends, Eve is determined to take home the $5,000 scholarship for winning the Weewankah Wilderness Challenge. Other teenagers include two heavy metal musicians who become love interests. As can be expected, the businessman would have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for those meddling teenagers. Ted Nugent also appears for an extended musical cameo.

Once filming started, Carmody, initially slated to co-produce, left to work on another film, and, when the shoot was four days behind schedule after only two days of filming, original director Kerry Feltham was fired.56 Allegedly, when the writer was asked to change certain story elements on-set, she would make important script decisions by casting the I Ching, going against the very logic and business-minded Canadian producers.57 As the shooting script was an astonishingly long 160 pages, the first cut of the film was three and a half hours.58 Dunning and

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid., 135.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

62 Link realized during the editing process that there was enough material for two films with completely different storylines, one focused on the three teenage girls and the second centered on the heavy metal teenagers.59 Upon this realization, Cinépix suggested using the material to create two films: State Park and Heavy Metal Summer, however, ITC decided against the suggestion.60

Original correspondence from 1986-1987 between Cinépix and ITC demonstrates the conflicts in post-production. Based in California, ITC dictated the editing process primarily through correspondence, giving Cinépix lists of changes. As they had a massive amount of material to work with, several different versions of the film were created. For example, in a

December 9th, 1986 fax to John Dunning, Marc Stirdivant requests certain edits to go back to how they were in “the 127 minute version [which should be] the basis from which we should work.”61 Stirdivant instructs the Canadian producers to lose full scenes, cut entire characters, and construct entirely new sequences from the apparent mountains of existing material. For example, he states: “Lose all shots involving the nude girl leaving the tent, going swimming, being trapped and being rescued...Lose scene with Johnny and truck driver. Replace it with scene of Johnny and the trash bin...Lose the Creamjeans scene...Lose Dick and Jane trip Eve. We’ll explain her injury with an off camera voice...Build a Montage, between two and three minutes long.”62

Stirdivant lists 41 major changes to be made to the film, before concluding that “there will be additional notes for reels nine through twelve.”63 In response, Dunning provides feedback

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 Correspondence between Stirdivant and Dunning. “National Park.” December 9, 1986. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Editing%20Battle.pdf

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

63 regarding all the requested changes, either with an “Ok” or stating that there might be continuity/narrative problems by removing and inserting so much material, such as having a character’s clothes and hair wet when the rest of the camp is dry due to the removal of an earlier scene, as well as getting rid of “one of the few shots that give some production value to the film.”64 With regards to the montage, Dunning questions “adding 2-3 minutes?” before concluding that “All this is great but this version will be back up to around 120 minutes. What do we do next?”65

Nineteen days later, after Stirdivant and Carol Lampman, a writer at ITC, had travelled to

Montreal to assist in the editing process, Dunning wrote a cable to Jerry Leider in California voicing his concerns as:

If we are to proceed to any rapid finalization of the cut, I would appreciate you clarifying the ground rules. We are doing things against the unanimous advice of editors, director and producer and I look to your guidance in establishing ITC’s final release copy. There are probably going to be a dozen or so points that Carol and I are going to he [sic] loggerheads over... My prime concern is that we make the best film possible, not only in its story sense, but also in its visual presentation, which I feel is sometimes being sacrificed for small story points.66

The same day, Leider responded, saying that he was giving complete control of ITC’s cut of the film to Lampman and Stirdivant, asking Dunning to hold back all comments until after the final cut had been assembled, with the aim of giving Dunning “the perspective of someone with enough distance from the daily workings to clearly see the whole once it’s been assembled.”67

64 Correspondence between Dunning and Stirdivant. “Re: Your memo of December 9, 1986.” December 10, 1986. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Editing%20Battle.pdf

65 Ibid.

66 Correspondence between Dunning and Leider. December 29, 1986. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Editing%20Battle.pdf

67 Correspondence between Leider and Dunning. December 29, 1986. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Editing%20Battle.pdf

64 With that, the correspondence, or at least, any remaining record of it, halted for two months.

Come February, State Park was now on Version G, with the running time cut down to a manageable 87 minutes, and test screenings underway. In correspondence to Jerry Leider, John

Dunning says that he is now “pleasantly surprised” by the finished film.68 However, there are still points of contention that Dunning thinks need to be discussed between himself and Leider as

“I’m afraid if we get lost in a committee with Carol, Marc, Rafal and the editors its [sic] going to go on forever.”69 Among these changes are the addition of two complete characters back into the film, re-adding lines, and re-cutting certain scenes.

Whether any of these changes came to light ultimately depends on what version of the film you watch. After the aggravation and conflict, Cinépix ended up with the Canadian distribution rights for the film, cutting their own, completely different version of the film and releasing it in

Canada as Heavy Metal Summer. ITC’s cut of the film, released in America and internationally, was titled State Park. Ultimately, the film produced lukewarm business, grossing $5,040,000 internationally on a six million dollar budget.70 Neither version of the film has been released on

DVD and is difficult to find on other home video formats.

These case studies demonstrate the economic and creative conflicts that occur in various co-productions. While any film may have a fair amount of conflict in production, the conflict present in these productions demonstrates how political issues present themselves when a larger

(American) company offers funding to a smaller (Canadian) company, inherent on the assumption that American money and power leads to certain creative control. Although the

68 Correspondence between Dunning and Leider. “National Park – Version G.” Feb 19, 1987. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/31/National%20Park%20-%20Editing%20Battle.pdf

69 Ibid.

70 “Cinépix Film Cost and Revenue Report.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

65 system of treaty co-productions may not be perfect, and involving governments creates its own entire set of problems, these illegitimate and non-treaty co-productions also demonstrate the power discrepancy when there is not any sort of regulatory system.

As demonstrated, Cinépix survived and thrived within this system diversifying their company and holding on to their adult film distribution and exhibition holdings. However, when collaborating with other, larger, American companies, Cinépix (especially Dunning), found itself at creative odds with the American producers. Ultimately, Cinépix thrived when working under its own terms, but when interacting with other companies, Cinépix found itself in a strong power dynamic and lost creative control. This trend is somewhat surprising and amusing, given that

Cinépix’s films were often written off in film scholarship that they were too ‘American.’

However, these examples demonstrate that Cinépix, and especially Dunning and Link, functioned best when they were producing independent Canadian films. Although there may be scant signifiers of ‘national culture,’ Cinépix’s success in producing these smaller films mark them as an essential part of our Canadian film history.

Cinépix’s downward trend when they collaborated with other, large, production companies continued into its merger with Lionsgate, as Dunning found himself losing more and more creative control in productions. Dunning frequently expressed his dissatisfaction, as explained in

Chapter One. While Cinépix was incredibly successful as a private film company in a very state- funded culture, they thrived being a solo company with Dunning and Link in control, as Dunning writes on their experience working on these films: “This has been a real learning experience for

André and me. We wanted to go back to our low-budget independent film roots. There was just no upside. It wasn’t pleasure. It was all aggravation.”71

71 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 135-36.

66 Chapter 4: “Canada and Cinépix Inc - a good company to know”: The Producer and Cinépix’s Deep Texts

This section examines how Dunning, Link, and others self-defined themselves through deep texts designed for both public and internal consumption. Most notably, Cinépix demonstrates the plurality of the producer’s job, ranging from full creative control of a film, to being in charge on set, to managing finances. Production documents from these films and written statements by Dunning exemplify the multiplicity of roles. Additionally, this chapter argues that

Cinépix was defined by adaptability, altering their company persona through publically and fully embedded deep texts depending on the product being sold and/or the message that is conveyed.

In this section, I will first examine the role of the producer in Cinépix and how it complicates traditional notions of the auteur within the Canadian film landscape. Second, I will show how Cinépix cultivated its public persona through publically disclosed deep texts designed for unrestricted consumption. Third, this section examines fully embedded production documents which demonstrate how individuals within the company negotiated their roles. Fourth, and finally, I examine Cinépix’s publically disclosed versus fully embedded deep texts through two examples. Together, this section composes a comprehensive view of the kind of production cultures that were created at Cinépix.

To analyze these texts, I primarily use Caldwell’s framework of deep texts. Specifically,

Caldwell writes that texts and practices which workers negotiate their identities through can be read in different ways depending on how embedded they are within the industry. In contrast to fully embedded deep texts and rituals, which characterize texts designed to circulate within the media industry, publicly disclosed deep texts and rituals are designed for consumption by the

67 general public, thus only giving the appearance of entry.1 Although Caldwell does not include exactly the same examples that I discuss here (such as publicity stunts), I would argue that publicity stunts, like conventions and public websites (that Caldwell does discuss), are highly constructed texts and events, designed for public consumption and to shape the public’s information and perception of Cinépix in specific ways.2

4.1 The Producer at Cinépix

This chapter examines how Cinépix was organized, and, specifically, who held power within the production. Moving from a tiny distribution company to one that had distribution, exhibition, and production wings, Cinépix underwent several large changes during its history, however, the leadership and hierarchy remained consistent. Specifically, Cinépix is a company that is defined by the producer.

Central to my thesis, and Cinépix’s production culture is the idea of ‘the producer,’ a diverse concept exemplified by John Dunning, André Link, and the other producers at Cinépix, notably for this research, Don Carmody, each encapsulating a different job and position within

Cinépix. Briefly stated in the previous chapters, Dunning was the creative force behind the company’s productions, while Link mostly performed financial duties, handling Cinépix’s distribution and financials, travelling overseas to Cannes and other film festivals to both purchase films for distribution and to sell Cinépix’s original productions.3 For example, in the promotional advertisement for the Cinépix’s The Clean Up Squad (also titled Hot Dog Cops) at

Cannes, Link’s contact information, along with other Cinépix staff members, Rita Leone and

1 Caldwell, "Cultures of Production: Studying Industry's Deep Texts, Reflective Rituals, and Managed Self- Disclosures," 202.

2 Ibid.

3 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 58.

68 Warner Wolfe, are listed in the middle of the document, along with information of where the screening for potential buyers would take place.4 Link and Dunning’s differences can be easily summarized in the following quote by Link: “[Dunning] was in command on the artistic end, and

I was the money.”5 Importantly, as my thesis is primarily focused on Cinépix’s production culture, a majority of it is centered on Dunning, and people working in production, like

Carmody, with less of a focus on Link and the people who worked Cinépix’s office, distribution and exhibition wings.

Nevertheless, Cinépix’s power was split equally between the two producers. Link stated that they were like “Siamese twins,” and that they would not go ahead with any business decision if either partner felt apprehension.6 In a graph mapping the hierarchy of power in

Yesterday’s production, from producer to assistant, Dunning and Link occupy the very top of the tree, as if they were the family patriarchs, watching, guiding, and overseeing the rest of the production below them.7 Both were credited as producers—one financial and one creative—and both held a majority of the production’s power. Although director Larry Kent is often credited as the key creative force, it was ultimately Dunning and Link who were in charge, with Dunning even contributing to the film’s advertising campaign, mocking up different poster designs, titles, such as Another Time, Loving Days, Dreams, and The First Time, and taglines, a couple of notable examples being “This is Matthew. Love him at your own risk” and “Even a guy like

4 “Cinépix Cannes: Our Screenings. The Clean-Up Squad.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/22/En%20-%20News%20-%20Clean%20Up%20Squad%20- %20Cannes%20screening%20promotion.pdf

5 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 170.

6 Ibid., 164.

7 “Yesterday Hierarchy.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

69 Matthew can get a broken heart.”8 While Spicer, McKenna, and Meir explain that the combination of creative and financial skills often make a lone producer successful, Dunning and

Link demonstrate that their partnership was so prosperous because they each, individually, occupied one of those roles, effectively being able to split the work of one successful producer between two men, thus making Cinépix especially productive.9

In contrast to auteur cinema, which, as I argued, overshadows much writing on Canadian cinema, at Cinépix, the director is hired to execute the producer’s creative project. While there are certainly exceptions, directors were generally hired in the same manner as other crew members. Dunning notes that Cinépix did their best to avoid working with writer/directors and that the producer-approved script had to be “the bible. We have to approve it. Then it has to be shot, as is, with no deviation unless we agree... stay away from directors who write their own scripts, because you are only inheriting double trouble.”10 Even when they hired an individual to both write and direct a film, as in the case of Death Weekend, it was Ivan Reitman who conceived of the original story idea, and William Fruet was simply brought on to complete

Reitman’s original vision, leaving the film’s producers, Reitman, Dunning, Link, and Carmody, with most of the decision making power.11 Likewise, David Cronenberg, arguably the most auteur-like director that Cinépix hired, had less control over Shivers and Rabid than scholars examining him as a Canadian auteur claimed; Cronenberg himself stated that Cinépix was his film school and that Dunning and Link were his “mentors,” teaching him everything he knew

8 “Early Teaser Ad Concept Art.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/23/En%20- %20Adv%20-%20Yesterday%20-%20Early%20Teaser%20ad%20concept%20art.pdf

9 Spicer, McKenna, and Meir, 10.

10 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 87.

11 Ibid., 105-106.

70 about narrative filmmaking.12 Evidence of this structure is littered throughout the production documents: for example, a list of possible directors was drafted in the pre-production stage of My

Special Angel (later Meatballs III),13 and regarding Douglas Jackson, the director of Whispers,

Dunning wrote that Jackson was hired because “He had a reputation for always bringing films in on budget.”14

In contrast to the auteur-director, Dunning is perhaps the best example of the concept of the creative producer, a term defined by Spicer and McKenna as a producer who is creatively involved with film production, conceiving of story ideas, and providing detailed notes, that I have found.15 Dunning was heavily involved with all aspects of Cinépix’s productions, envisioning the stories for most of their films and providing storyboards for pick-up shots, such as with The Surrogate, where Dunning explicitly detailed specific shots that were needed to make certain sequences and narrative twists visually make sense.16 Dunning also provided a mountain of notes on story concepts and screenplays, such as in a handwritten development note from Harem Keeper, stating specific elements that need to appear in the film, including “a belly dancer sequence – popular in US now... [and] a scene where we use ants,” and providing notes on character motivating and dialogue on Blackout’s first screenplay draft, where Dunning crossed out lines of dialogue, writing that “Christie should talk more elegantly - he’s been well educated.”17

12 Robert Emery. The Directors—Take Four. (New York, NY: Allworth Press, 2003), 120.

13 “Possible Directors: “My Special Angel.”” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

14 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 146.

15 Spicer and McKenna, 73.

16 “Blind Rage Pick-Up Shots.” December 19, 1983. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

17 “Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks Scene Elements.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec,

71 Dunning also wrote notes for every single day of rushes, an important involvement which he, in a memo to The Vindicator’s director, Jean Claude Lord, described the practice as “not criticisms but...as a reminder of what questions come to mind when I see the rushes.”18 However, when providing notes to Don Carmody, who stepped up from producer to director on The

Surrogate, Dunning wrote that “These comments are meant as constructive criticism so they will read like there’s a lot of faults. There’s no point in commenting on the good stuff.”19 Regardless of how they were intended, Dunning was meticulous about making sure that each film was perfect, critiquing everything from Art Hindle’s hairstyle in The Surrogate, saying that “extreme care has to be taken with his hair, it’s too thick at the neck and because of his prominent jaw, the hair should be neat and trimmed,” to commenting that Pam Grier’s hairstyle in The Vindicator did not “[look] fierce enough... Her hair exploded around her face giving her a very soft and feminine look.”20 Dunning criticizes more than just the actor’s hair throughout these memos, but these two examples illustrate how detail oriented and involved he was with the creative process, especially compared to the financially-oriented Link. Dunning’s contributions endure into post- production, where Dunning designed the film’s posters, as in the aforementioned example from

Yesterday, and even titles, as can be seen with the various title drafts for Spacehunter which included Roadgangs, Roadpunks, Roadrats, Roadwolves, and Roadman.21

Canada; “Blackout by John C.W. Saxton. First Draft.” September 30, 1977. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

18 Correspondence between Dunning and Lord. October 15, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

19 Correspondence between Dunning and Carmody. “Notes on Day 1 Rushes.” November 11, 1983. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

20 Correspondence between Dunning and Carmody. November 15, 1983. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes Day 1.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

21 Spacehunter Possible Title Drafts. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

72 In addition to the creative producer and the financial producer, the other key kind of producer that Cinépix regularly employed was essentially an on-set producer, a role that Don

Carmody filled in most of the films that I examined. Dunning, was often absent from the set due to his chronically poor health, thus making Carmody responsible for overseeing the shoot. In a production meeting for Harem Keeper, the producers note the importance of having a reliable on-set, permanent producer at Cinépix:

We need not replace with another “line producer”, who will look upon this solely as a job to do and get done with. A really good production manager can get us all the openings to “buried bodies” that we need... someone who can make final decisions at the moment... if Don Carmody is to be the actual, real line producer then he must be allowed to make these decision [sic] without having to call in beforehand.22

Thus, Carmody became, as a memo from The Vindicator, put it, “the final word on all major [creative and financial] decisions,” on-set. 23 Throughout his years a producer at Cinépix,

Carmody also acted as a unit director, conceiving and shooting additional 3D footage for

Spacehunter, filming stunts and other scenes on the Meatballs III set, writing The Surrogate,

Junior, Snake Eater II: The Drug Buster and Whispers, and directing The Surrogate.24

With the strong focus on producer-oriented production, conflicts occasionally arose between the producers and director, especially with Cinépix’s emphasis on following the

(producer approved) script. This focus on the script was crucial at Cinépix, especially when

Dunning was not there to supervise the film’s production. In feedback for The Vindicator,

Dunning notes that one scene did not follow the script, writing that “if this was an ad-lib line, I think it’s awful... some arrangements have been now made to cover ourselves for these

22 “Notes on Production of Harem Keeper.” April 15, 1975. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

23 “The Frankenstein Factor: Production Meeting Notes.” August 24, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

24 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 124.

73 impromptu ad-libs. I would be happy to see one take with the lines as they are written and one take with the ad libs lines so we at least we may have a choice.”25 Responding to footage for

Meatballs III, Dunning restates this point: “I would like to recall the agreement made between us when discussing “shtick” we would always shoot it in the way indicated in the script... if these ad libs are going to help the film (I have doubts) the only good line was the one about the Cheerios.

However, Cheerios is a copyrighted trade name and can’t be used without legal consequences.”26

Following the script has practical reasons: it has been cleared for copyright and allows for an easier time post-dubbing the film. But, more importantly, by following the pre-approved script that the producers developed, Dunning and Link ensure that their vision is what appears in the finished film. This structure can be seen throughout the production documents, and while the director normally understood and respected this hierarchy, occasionally a director rebelled from these producer-imposed restrictions – most notably in the case of Meatballs III, where the director, George Mendeluk, and the producers, principally Dunning and Carmody, fought for creative control. According to the producers, Mendeluk’s coverage was consistently thin,27 continuity errors were rampant, such as Rudy’s gold chain consistently disappearing and reappearing between takes,28 expensive stunts were filmed incorrectly and needed to be reshot,29 and actors proved difficult to work with, Dunning noting that “I know [the actor] is a difficult

25 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes - - Day 1.” July 18, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

26 John Dunning “Comments on Rushes, Day 10.” July 31, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

27 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes Day 5.” July 24, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

28 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes Day 17.” August 9, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

29 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes Day 9.” July 31, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

74 person to work with and probably if we had to do it over again we wouldn't use her. However, we're stuck with her..."30 Amid all of these issues, Mendeluk disputed Dunning’s criticisms, condemning Cinépix’s producer-oriented organization. In Mendeluk’s retort, he says that scenes were working “splendidly,” and the bad rushes were “a result of two units not working together,” the other unit presumably headed by Carmody, as Mendeluk states that blurry shots were “not directed by me, but by Don. It was out of focus which Don knew. He shouldn’t have printed it, but I’m glad he did because I thought it was inadequately staged.”31 A later memo shows these tensions surface as Mendeluk explicitly expresses his dissatisfaction with Cinépix’s hierarchy:

As the director of the picture I take all responsibility that is mine to bear. A situation where the director has all the responsibility and not all the authority is a difficult one indeed. Clearly, mistakes were made all around. However, I feel strongly in stating that I have not got in this instance- and in some of the instances in the past which we all know about - the support that a director should have, especially in these circumstances…On the issue of interpretation. It was my understanding that this was the only area in which I had relative authority... however, I am not the Producer and I will gladly re-shoot it having had clear instructions from you as to how you wish the scene to be shot and directed. My only regret is the accusatory and hostile tone with which you confronted me on this issue. In view of my effort and performance on this picture, I feel it is unjustified and ungentlemanly. I am not yet clear as to how adding an extra day to the schedule will effect [sic] my bonus.32

Here, Cinépix’s producer-focused hierarchy caused tensions between crew members who had divergent thoughts about who should have creative control. While the producers, Dunning,

Carmody, and, to a lesser extent, Link, retained creative control, Mendeluk was upset that he was not able to have the autonomy normally granted to a director, feeling smothered and

30 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes Day 7.” July 27, 1984, John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

31 Correspondence between George Mendeluk and John Dunning. “RE: Your comments on Rushes Day 19.” August 16, 1986. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

32 Correspondence between George Mendeluk, John Dunning and Don Carmody. “Re: Scene 128 – Rats.” August 25, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

75 micromanaged by the constant oversight.

The importance of the producer at Cinépix, especially Dunning, Link, and Carmody cannot be overstated. They controlled all aspects of a film’s production, from creative to financial to on- set supervisory roles. While Canadian cinema is often classified as an auteur and director- focused activity, Cinépix actively rejects this classification. Although one can examine certain directorial traits in Cinépix’s films (for example, the visual effects of Cronenberg’s two films do speak to similarities to his later work), one must consider the input of Cinépix’s producers, especially Dunning, who was intimately involved with all elements of a film’s production, a role,

I would argue, that makes him the key creative personnel. Cinépix’s hands-on approach to production again caused tension when they worked with other, larger companies, as was discussed in the previous chapter. As Cinépix’s identity is so tied up with Dunning and Link, the remainder of this chapter discusses how Cinépix negotiated its identity, both publicly, within the industry, and in a case-study between public press reactions and internal communication for one conflict on the set of Meatballs III.

4.2 “Wear your wildest things - hot pants, see-throughs or minis”: Cinépix’s Public Persona

Over their tenure, Dunning and Link implemented several notable publicity stunts, campaigns, and other advertisements designed for public consumption. In this section, I will detail how these practices create a specific kind of ethos surrounding Cinépix. By understanding what kind of company Cinépix wanted to be viewed as one can better understand the company’s internal production culture. As stated previously, although Caldwell did not use the terminology of publically disclosed deep texts to refer to publicity stunts or public press releases directly, his examples of websites and other publically disclosed deep texts can certainly be seen as simply newer examples of Cinépix’s strategies.

76 Cinépix regularly undertook sensationalized publicity stunts to promote their films. This showmanship is connected to Dunning’s career in film exhibition, as he quickly learned what sensationalist elements would sell films to audiences—a knowledge and strategy that was implemented at Cinépix, and is a skill that is essential for any producer to have.33 From the company’s conception, Dunning and Link’s strategy of selecting films for distribution was relatively simple. Dunning writes, “The key thing for us was to have an exploitative angle we could use in newspaper advertising to hype the film, along with retitling it with something more provocative.”34 With this mandate, Cinépix primarily distributed foreign horror films, softcore and hardcore pornography, and other exploitation films. In a list of the films that Cinépix had available for distribution in 1972, titles include Her Bikini Never got Wet (1962), [The] Sweet

Sins of Sexy Susan (1967) and Pink Pussy, Where Sin Lives (1964), among other titles.35 Clearly, aside from the prestigious films that Cinépix released in Canada, such as Belle de Jour (1967), the aforementioned films were chosen for distribution based on their potential for generating salacious posters, titles, and tag-lines. This is especially apparent in how The Mermaids of

Triburon, itself a rather innocent title, was retitled into the much more risqué Aqua Sex (1962).36

However, Dunning and Link were careful to distribute only very specific kinds of erotica.

Dunning writes that, after a failed attempt to distribute a film about incest, they learned to “stay away from anything kinky; it turns off mainstream audiences. Heterosexual stuff sells, but the

33 Spicer, McKenna, and Meir, 10.

34 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 54.

35 “Now in release from Cinépix Inc.” May 3, 1972. Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

36 Ibid.

77 weird stuff, like incest or S&M, stiffs.”37 Thus, Cinépix’s key concern was making money and distributing films that they assumed the public was interested in watching. This tenacity and drive to distribute popular products continued into the films that Cinépix produced in the following decades.

Despite these restrictions on the extremity of films that Dunning and Link chose to distribute, the aforementioned salacious titles were reflected in the promotional materials and stunts that Cinépix used to promote its films. At one point, to circumvent obscenity laws in

Quebec that prevented graphic advertisements, Cinépix hired students to go into crowded public spaces to loudly talk up how obscene and groundbreaking the latest Cinépix-distributed film was.38 Once Dunning and Link started producing and distributing original product in the late

1960s, they employed other publicity stunts that communicated a specific kind of company culture in the minds of the public. For the Toronto premiere of Cinépix’s production Love in a

Four Letter Word (1970), Dunning and Link promoted the film with “a hot pants party in the world’s largest water bed.”39 Attendees of the party were encouraged to “Wear your wildest things - hot pants, see-throughs or minis - anything that will identify you with the free and uninhibited spirit of the movie. Expect the unexpected when you enter the world’s largest, most sensual bed.”40 To advertise Loving and Laughing (1971), Cinépix flew a man and a woman to the top of a previously unclimbed mountain and had them walk about naked on top of the

37 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 65.

38 Ibid., 63.

39 Roy Shields, “Will sex bridge two solitudes?” The Toronto Telegram. Feb 23, 1971: 66. Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

40 Ibid.

78 summit.41 The press assumed that two people had scaled the mountain before Cinépix revealed that it was a publicity stunt, flying the people off the mountain before law enforcement was called.42 Finally, to promote Keep it in the Family, Cinépix flew in Xaviera Hollander, the author of the 1972 best-selling autobiography The Happy Hooker to the film’s premiere where she held a press conference while naked under bed sheets.43

These four publicity stunts demonstrate the kind of public image that Cinépix was interested in cultivating through strategically released publicity materials. Notably, all of the stunts include a sexual undertone. Thus, Cinépix fostered a public image of a fun, youthful, and sexy studio, rejecting the conventional discourse of Canadian cinema as dramatic, serious, and documentarian. Yet these texts also demonstrate a problematic turn towards the gendered exploitation of females and the female body for commerce, which will be discussed in depth in the final chapter’s case study of Meatballs III.

4.3 “The best film name to know - in Canada”: Fully Embedded Deep texts in correspondence

This section examines the ways that Cinépix communicated with other film companies, notably, distribution and exhibition companies that they hoped to sell their films to. Since

Cinépix’s formation, Dunning and Link, and later, Link and Rita Leone, travelled to Cannes during the film festival to sell their original and acquired films to global distributors/exhibitors and to purchase new products. The documentation and advertising used to sell these films is an example of fully embedded deep texts and rituals, and while a majority of this thesis centers on internal company documents, it is important to interrogate the ways that Cinépix communicated

41 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 84.

42 Ibid., 84.

43 Ibid., 89

79 with other companies in the same industry. Thus, this section examines several pertinent illustrations of Cinépix’s attempts to communicate and connect with companies using visual and written communications. I argue that Cinépix formed two distinct personas depending on the product that was being sold, one marked by professionalism and ties to Canada, and the second portraying Cinépix as a metaphorical escort service, selling female fantasies to male customers.

First is Cinépix’s “Cannes 1976” brochure, which lists the films that Cinépix is selling at

Cannes, as well as the films’ screening times, posters, contact information, and some basic information regarding the company. Of the films that Cinépix distributed that year, the brochure advertises that it has “Films full of action. Suspense. Shock. Drama. Mystery. We’ll show you

Canadian films with real box office potential.”44 However, it is what Cinépix promoted themselves as that is notable. On the top right of the front page of the brochure, Cinépix state that it is “Canada’s Top Distributors” followed by the text:

We can show you Canada’s best films. Now, we’d like you to show us what you have to offer, We’re distribution specialists - professionals who know how to sell foreign films in Canada. We’ll book your films in the right theatres. We’ll promote them - properly. And we’ll create advertising campaigns that fill theatre seats. We’re also bilingual - so we can distribute films in either English or French speaking Canada. We’re Cinépix Inc. - The one Canadian distribution company you should know.45

Later, the brochure states that Cinépix is actively looking for companies and countries to engage in co-productions with, writing:

With over twenty major motion pictures to our credit - we represent some of Canada’s busiest, most successful film production companies. That’s because we know professional people with the experience and the know-how to bring a film in… on time and within budget. Not only do we know competent people - we also

44 “Cinépix Canada: Cannes 76. May 13 – May 28th, 1976.” 1976. Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

45 Ibid.

80 have access to viable screenplay properties - full production facilities - and complete distribution services. If you’re interested in co-producing good money making films - let’s get together. Canada and Cinépix Inc - a good company to know.46

Here, Cinépix explicitly brands itself as a certain type of company. First, it repeatedly states that it is a “professional” company, as demonstrated by the repeated words and the fact that Cinépix has access to facilities and that it is known to bring in films within budget, and sell/distribute these films, making commercial viability a fundamental element. Cinépix is not selling or looking to produce auteur-driven films with deep, personal themes (the kind that typically personifies Canadian cinema). Instead, the brochure advertises that they have “access to viable screenplay properties,” thus implying that the access to ready-made and commercial properties is what makes Cinépix a valuable company to work with. 47 Cinépix will not help a foreign auteur produce their dream project, but a company that will make money for like-minded producers.

Second, Cinépix consistently connects its branding to Canada. This strategy is especially prevalent in how the brochure states that Cinépix can, again, sell films. Explicitly, the brochure affirms that Cinépix is able to sell product across Canada due to its status as a bilingual company and thus does not limit itself to exhibiting/distributing films in one language or in a limited geographic location. Here, Cinépix uses its bilingual ‘Canadian’ status as an explicit selling point. Unlike other companies that may only sell in either French or English speaking Canada,

Cinépix boasts, that, being the premiere Canadian distribution company, that it can do both. Also important is the repeated use of the word Canada. Throughout the brochure, Cinépix states that it has “Canada’s Finest Films,” that it is “Canada’s Top Distributors...The best film name to know

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

81 - in Canada,” “Canada and Cinépix Inc,” and “The one Canadian distribution company you should know.”48 By consistently repeating the word ‘Canada’ and by associating its identity as a company almost squarely through its nationality, Cinépix tells distributors and exhibitors on a global stage that it is Canada, that this is what Canada is. In a cultural environment where

Canadian cinema is consistently diminished, Dunning and Link’s explicit proclamation that they are Canada and that Canadian film, audiences, and co-productions are something to valued is somewhat unexpected and a notable example of Caldwell’s “industrial self-theorizing,” as

Dunning and Link contradict the accepted mythology of Canadian film’s failure.49

The second text is Cinépix’s “Movie Wow!” brochure. Unfortunately, no publication date is available, but, based on the films advertised, it dates from around the same time period as the

“Cannes 1976” brochure. Unlike the previous advertisement, which promoted Cinépix’s professionalism and national ties, this brochure explicitly promotes one thing: sex. Or, more specifically, the promise of fetishism and sexual titillation. Printed on white with blue font and images, the brochure folds out like a map to reveal a multiplicity of adult film posters on the inside.50 An image of a naked woman and multiple lines of texts cover the three inside flaps; on the left flag, Cinépix’s logo is printed in large font on top of an image of a nude woman reclining on a leopard print chair.

However, it is the text on the center and right flaps that make this brochure noteworthy.

The center flap has two separate pieces of text. The top section reads: “A female has many

48 Ibid.

49 Caldwell, Production Cultures, 18.

50 Perhaps a visual connection to the trend of calling adult movies “blue films.”

82 names…”51 while the bottom section says “A female can be…”52 Underneath each heading is a list of words. Under a “names” is listed: Schoolgirl. Nymphet, Bird Lass, Wench, Foxy Lady,

Virgin, Broad, Hooker, Tease, Flirt, Temptress, Femme Fatale, Baby Doll, Hussy, Teeny

Bopper, Love Goddess, and Nympho Woman, among other, similar labels.53 Likewise, under the list of what a female “can be,” some words that are listed include: Aggressive, Attractive,

Bawdy, Baby-Faced, Bewitching, Chaste, Eager, Frigid, Heartless, Impish, Lithe, Lonely,

Lustful, Kinky, Natural, Promiscuous, Seductive, Timid, Tender, Vain, Wanton, and Womanly, among others.54

The section on the right-hand side continues this theme, loudly announcing in capital, bolded letters: “Most important, the right woman can help you make a fortune,” followed by the text:

And, we have the right women • KinKy [sic] ladies from Bourbon Street • Cheerleaders • Convent cuties • College Co-Eds • Bored Housewives • Nurses • Stewardesses • Blondes, • brunettes, redheads [sic].

Women from all over the world • Swedish minxes • Danish delights • American beauty roses • British birds • French pastries • Exotic Eurasians

We can introduce you to the world’s most exciting ‘blue movie queens’, or, shy, innocent virgins. They’ve been around and they’re all look for just one thing - a good man just like you!

Book us now! Cinépix inc.55

This language reflects the image on the inside of the brochure. Laid out like strips of film,

51 “Movies Wow!” Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

83 the posters advertised have titles like Baby Rosemary (1976) and Deep Jaws (1976) with corresponding provocative imagery. In contrast to the previous brochure, which legitimized

Cinépix’s importance as a company by referencing its professionalism, its commercialism, and by explicitly connecting the company to Canada, this brochure, aimed at a completely different audience and promoting an alternative product, promotes a divergent kind of production culture.

Important here is what Cinépix reflects itself as, and who it views its fellow distributors and exhibitors as. While the “Cannes 1976” brochure is fairly neutral in assuming both Cinépix’s and reader’s identities, the “Movies Wow!” brochure adapts a decidedly masculine stance. The most obvious example of this is in the concluding line of the three-part inset, reading: “They’ve been around and they’re all looking for just one thing - a good man just like you!”56 The reader of the adult film brochure is thus explicitly assumed to be male, as demonstrated by both the language and the images of nude females in sexualized positions throughout the brochure. This tendency demonstrates a number of key assumptions about who works in the adult film industry, reinforcing the misogyny and sexism present within pornography: that there is no female pleasure and no women would be interested in viewing or working (in any capacity other than performing on-screen) in it. Not only does this assumption project outwards onto other companies and the industry, but it also projects inwards towards Cinépix, designating its culture of adult film distribution as one seeped in masculinity and hetronormativity. In the brochure,

Cinépix proudly announces that “we have the right women” and “we can introduce you to the world’s most exciting ‘blue movie queens,” taking on the metaphorical role of escort service, selling various, sexualized, ideals of what women are, stripping them down to their most basic

56 Ibid.

84 characteristics and removing any individual agency for the goal to “help make you a fortune.”57

The industrial culture cultivated and communicated here is thus steeped in heteronormativity and sexism.

Additionally, these two brochures demonstrate how Cinépix altered its external company image depending on the context and environment. While the “Cannes 1976” brochure, advertising films such as Death Weekend and Mystery of the Million Dollar Hockey Puck, uses language that promotes a sense of professionalism, equating Cinépix with Canadian culture and mentioning Dunning and Link by name as Cinépix’s president and vice-president, the “Movies

Wow!” brochure instead adopts a highly masculine perspective, assuming that only men will be working in this segment of the film industry. Notably, Dunning and Link’s names are missing from the “Movies Wow!” brochure, only providing Cinépix’s basic contact information for their

Montreal office.58 Although the reasoning behind this choice cannot be fully known, I argue that by removing specific names from the “Movies Wow!” brochure, certain individuals and employees will not be explicitly connected with the adult film industry. This anonymity is important when trying to sell, on one hand, a children’s film such as Mystery of the Million

Dollar Hockey Puck, and, on the other, a title such as Girls Come First (1975). This is similar to how Dunning and Link removed their names from the Ilsa films, their significant involvement remaining relatively anonymous. In addition to these two separate production cultures existing to sell different products, they can also be broadly mapped onto Cinépix’s practices as a distribution/exhibition vs. production company. While its exhibition and distribution practices often relied on strategies filled with sexual titillation, when selling its own films, especially in

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

85 later years (when the company moved beyond its brief dalliance with maple-syrup porn), the focus grows increasingly focused on commercial products and professionalism, effectively segregating the distribution/exhibition as being characterized by sexuality, while Cinépix’s film production was primarily focused on professionalism and commercial cinema. Thus, these two distinct industrial cultures work to fragment the company based on the specific product being sold.

To further enhance this point, similar trends are found in other promotional texts. In a one- sheet distribution advertisement entitled “Triple the Pleasure… Triple the Fun,” the text informs the reader that they can “triple your box office grosses with these ‘sure-fire’ adult film hits.”59

Beneath the text is rows of images promoting triple features of adult films. Like the “Movies

Wow!” brochure, no contact names are associated with Cinépix and the poster is covered with images of half-naked women. Here, these films, or, more precisely the women within these films, are advertised as being a financially secure investment for any exhibitor. In contrast, a

1974 pamphlet advertising Cinépix’s new line up of films that are available on 16mm film portrays a company culture much similar to the “Cannes 1976” brochure. Attached to the 16mm brochure is a printed letter, letting exhibitors know that several Canadian films (along with two foreign titles) are now available on the smaller format. Inside the brochure, Cinépix advertises themselves as “one of Canada’s foremost producers and distributors of fine Canadian films” before launching into a statement that “Interest in Canadian film is growing rapidly.”60 Although some of the black and white film posters on the cover of the pamphlet display nudity, there is not

59 “Triple the Pleasure... Triple the Fun.” Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

60 “Canada’s Finest Films Now Available in 16mm” Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

86 the same emphasis on female nudity and objectification as both the “Movies Wow!” and the

“Triple the Pleasure” brochure demonstrate.

These examples demonstrate how Cinépix communicated with other companies and individuals working within both the international and domestic film industries. Importantly, they show how Dunning and Link molded Cinépix’s ethos and external production culture based on the films that they were promoting and whom they presumed that the other companies/individuals were. More than anything, Cinépix was a company that changed its external company culture based on specific situations, demonstrating a dynamic and commercially focused company that was focused on cornering all sectors of the cinematic marketplace.

4.4 “They’ve ruined my whole summer and I want them to go”: Fully Embedded versus Publically Disclosed Deep Texts

Finally, this chapter will briefly examine a case study of how Cinépix constructed its public image through a comparison of texts designed for public consumption and fully embedded deep texts from Meatballs III. These production documents are especially rich with details and instructions on how to handle and construct narratives for public consumption. Two instances are especially helpful: the constructed nature of press visits and photos, and second, the publicity surrounding complaints that the local community made about the film’s production. These examples demonstrate the difference between fully embedded and publically disclosed deep texts and the importance of differentiating between them when doing research of this nature.

First, is the difference between fully embedded and publically disclosed texts in publicity photos. At one point in Meatballs III’s production, the press was invited to the set for a day to witness the day’s filming and take photos. However, contained in the production documents are correspondences between executives and crew members with instructions how to stage the set

87 for the press. In the memo, John Dunning instructs Piroshka Mihalka, the on-set stills photographer, to capture certain shots. Specifically, Dunning notes that they want “Staged group shots with River Rats and their girls. Separate cheesecake pin-ups of girls alone and in groups…

I would also like to see some shots of sexy girls looking over their shoulders “pin-up” style with

“Property of the River Rats” on their behinds.”61 Although the set itself was plagued with strife and arguments, both within members of the set, and with the members of the larger Hudson community and the crew, the tone of this memo instructs the set photographer to present a front that both reflects the content of the film and includes specific elements of the film’s production culture. Namely, both the film itself and the production culture surrounding Meatballs III was filled with heteronormative perspectives. As argued later in this thesis, these moments appear consistently throughout the production documents and the film itself. In presenting a certain visual image to the media, and thus the public, it is important to note what kind of culture

Cinépix wants to present outwardly. Notably, the presented culture here is not very different from Cinépix’s earlier publicity stunts as an attempt to construct a commonality with the average male moviegoer is present in this photo request. Thus, not only does the memo (implicitly) state to show a happy, youthful set, it also aims to appeal to the same male audience that Cinépix had become known to primarily cater towards over the previous decade. As with the previous examples, ranging from the waterbed party to inviting Xaviera Hollander to a film premiere, these instances demonstrate how Dunning and Link were active in constructing and maintaining this identity.

The newspaper articles coming from Meatballs III’s set carry much of the same tone and ethos. One publication, “’Meatballs’ comes to Hudson: Filming means fun and frolic for

61 Correspondence between Dunning and Mihalka. “Tomorrow’s shoot with the River Rats.” July 25, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

88 Montreal ‘extras,’” was printed in the Montreal Gazette after the writer, Bruce Bailey, visited the set. Visually, the article contains two photos: a large vertical image of the all-male crew filming a scene, and a smaller, square, inset of Shannon Tweed, smiling, in a swimsuit. In addition to providing basic information about the film itself, such as a brief overview of Cinépix, the article also contains a couple of interesting facts. First, the Montreal Gazette mentions its involvement in locating female extras who were prepared to waterski topless after the producers found it difficult to find women who were willing.62 Second, Bailey promotes the ‘fun’ aspect of the shoot by writing about the Molson Canadian sponsored boat-building contest, complete with

$1,500 for whoever could build the most creative vessel.63 On the same note, Bailey eagerly describes watching an exciting stunt of a man tossed through the marina’s roof, heightening the tone that the Meatballs III set was a fun and immature place to be, going on to state: “The most interesting thing on the water, however, is Tweed lounging around in a blue bikini on a small canopied barge,” taking on an extremely masculine stance and literal gaze.64

A second article, “Meatballs III: A Zany Affair,” by Alastair Sutherland for The Chronicle documents his personal experience as an extra. Sutherland goes over the casting process before delving into his experiences on set. The sequence that Sutherland appeared in exemplifies an external masculine ethos: “One of the sequences called for four girls in a boat to flash themselves

(expose their breasts) to the ‘nerdish’ young star, Patrick Dempsey. Interesting, I thought, but before I know it the shot was over… I spent the rest of the day paddling around the marina in a bright yellow water-pedal boat, drinking from a tumbler of scotch that a fellow extra (with major

62 Bruce Bailey. “‘Meatballs’ comes to Hudson.” Montreal Gazette, n.d. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

89 connection) had slipped me.”65 Like Bailey’s article, the implications here are the same: the set was a fun place to be, where a young white man is fed, can relax in a boat, drink, and watch attractive women flash the camera (and, by extension, everyone else on set). Although

Sutherland does mention some negative experiences on set, notably, much of the day was spent waiting around for the shoot to begin, the Meatballs III set is nevertheless publicly presented in much the same way that Cinépix hoped the film would be: a fun place for a masculine, heteronormative male.

Both articles effectively demonstrate how Cinépix’s culture was translated for public consumption and interest. The idea that the set is a fun place to be, filled with stunts, contests, liquor, and, most importantly, beautiful women (sometimes topless, sometimes famous) is cultivated. Cinépix’s company persona translates well into what the film itself was about. If the actual hard work and arguments present in the film’s production had been published, it may have damaged Cinépix’s public persona as a fun, youthful company - and who wants to see a teenage sex film from a company filled with middle-aged men arguing about going over budget?

However, this juvenile public persona cultivated through these articles would soon be overturned as Hudson residents began to complain about the very ethos that Cinépix represented.

Finally, this section examines how producers suddenly and hurriedly attempted to alter their public persona in the light of public complaints, which was evidently a concern early in production. A memo from the producers to all crew members, dated on June 22, 1984, reminds the crew that, “we are shooting in a residential area and that we should make every attempt not to disturb our neighbours,” providing some base rules, including that “all vehicles should drive very slowly and carefully… the squealing of tires and unreasonable use of auto horns is absolutely

65 Alastair Sutherland. “Meatballs III: A Zany Affair.” The Chronicle, n.d. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

90 prohibited…There will be no shouting, no unnecessary noises, loud music, etc… The property limits for out production are clearly indicated with red stakes. Nobody is authorized beyond these markers.”66 The stern and authoritative tone of this memo is heightened through the frequent use of underlines. These features are dissimilar from the fun and carefree public persona that Cinépix encouraged through publicity materials.

However, these comments were ignored once Meatballs III began filming on July 16,

1984. Along with the general loud noises of filming stunts and party scenes, the cast and crew held “a beer bash on the set” every Friday night after filming.67 Some local Hudson residents retaliated by sabotaging the production, starting noisy lawnmowers when they heard the director call “action.”68 Dunning estimates that they had to pay citizens about $750 in bribes to not interrupt production.69 In addition, several upset Hudson residents went to the newspapers to complain. During the first week of August 1984, reports surfaced in local Montreal newspapers that crew members were being disruptive and disrespectful. An article published in The Gazette states that issues started soon after filming began, but recently escalated after a rowdy party when police were called.70 Local resident Wendy Fox upheld that crew members were vomiting and urinating near her home and that “It was disgusting. The screaming and yelling was terrible… They’ve ruined my whole summer and I want them to go.”71 Another article published

66 “”Meatballs – The Climax” Memo. RE: Operating regulations at 226 Main Road, Hudson (Marina Location).” June 22, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

67 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 130.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 Daniel Maceluch. “‘Disgusting’ party last straw: Town wants film-makers out.” The Gazette, n.d. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

71 Ibid.

91 in The Chronicle elaborated, saying that twenty-five residents complained in council chambers about “excessive set construction noise, loud walkie-talkies, squealing car tires, raucous parties, blocked driveways and litter on private property,” resident Joy Foster stated “The filming has ruined my whole summer… We cannot enjoy our privacy with the noise of generators, shouting, delivery vans, motorcycles and trespassing of crowds of extras on our land.”72 William Fox is quoted saying “This is an unsavoury movie, not in keeping with the character of Hudson… The people are uncivilized and the staff does not live up to its promises… I am magnificently unimpressed by the creepy types (of people) on the site and the drunken driving, obscene language and rowdy behaviour.”73 Finally, resident Diane Bellemare complains that Cinépix misrepresented its building plans when the producers got her permission to build the set in view of her property and “is frightened of a live bull on the film site 24 hours per day and secured only by a chain,” elsewhere stating that she had two Canadian flags stolen from her property and replaced by American ones.74 While the public image of Cinépix was constructed much in the same manner as the film’s content, this example demonstrates what happens when the public image of a company comes at odds with the community's morals. Rather than celebrating the fact that Meatballs III is a fun, sexy film (and production), the local residents demonize it for taking on such qualities. Sutherland’s descriptions of watching topless girls and sneaking drinks on set take on a different connotation in this context.

Cinépix attempted to minimize these infractions in a variety of ways. Internally, they

72 Diane Williamson. “Crew of film panned by Hudson residents.” The Chronicle, n.d. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

73 Ibid.

74 Williamson. “Crew of film panned by Hudson residents.”; Daniel Maceluch and Karen Seidman, Karen. “Movie producers give Hudson resident cash.” The Gazette, n.d. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

92 attempted to make peace with the neighbours and handle it “diplomatically,” most notably with the aforementioned bribes.75 Externally, Cinépix attempted to resuscitate their public image again through the newspaper. In each article condemning Cinépix, the company provided a statement through Jim Hanley, one of the production executives. Hanley states that the particularly rowdy party raised $1000 for runner Steve Fonyo and that they are attempting to mend relations with the rest of the residents, excusing the behavior by saying “It’s a tradition for us to have a party every Friday after a hard week’s work… But a few stragglers went against our rules and partied a little too much.”76 In another article, Hanley apologizes to the community, verbalizing that Cinépix will try to get the rowdy behavior under control and that “on busy filming days, 175 people are on set, including many extras, and sheer numbers make things difficult to control.”77 One article, published in The Gazette, tracks the attempts the crew made to make peace, including giving one resident between $100 - $200 dollars, a bouquet of flowers and an apology letter in a move that Cinépix insisted was not a bribe.78 However, on-set producer

Don Carmody stated that “complaints are inevitable with a 200-member crew,” and that the film has generated a lot of money for the town, as they spend “more than $4,000 a week at a local gas station.” 79

Additional newspaper articles began to be published in the days and weeks following the initial public complaints that worked to rebrand Cinépix’s public image. Two short letters to the

75 “Notes RE: Script Readthrough.” June 22, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

76 “Meatballs unpalatable to Montreal residents.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

77 Williamson, “Crew of film panned by Hudson residents.”

78 Maceluch and Seidman; Although Dunning’s memoir does in fact, confirm that it was bribery. Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 130.

79 Maceluch and Seidman.

93 editor (to The Chronicle and another, undocumented newspaper clipping) defend the film’s production. In The Chronicle, an M. Hutchens says that the printed story that condemned

Cinépix was biased: only three residents had complained at city council rather than the 25 that was reported and several locals had defended the film crew, concluding that the newspaper should do more research.80 The second letter, by an I. Croombs likewise defends the crew, saying that “A more polite and professional group of people would be hard pressed to meet these days... [they] contribute greatly to the life and culture of our community. They will be welcome in my house any time.”81 Important to note on the last supportive letter, a member of Cinépix’s staff wrote, in bold black letters, “Ok - make prominent” with red pen marks around the most complimentary parts of the article.82 These annotations demonstrate Cinépix’s immediate reaction to try and use this approving article to try and remake the company’s public image.

While the critical articles remark on how unprofessional and juvenile the crew is, these letters, providing information that is directly oppositional, stating how professional Cinépix is are important in rejuvenating its ethos, at least in the eyes of the community.

Cinépix’s strategy here to change its public image with Hudson residents rested on several key components. First, the assumption that the complaints were the result of a few problem individuals in an otherwise good crew, which, as is repeatedly stated, should be expected with such a large production. Second, is the fact that the film was good for the local economy, a statement brought up by Carmody and in other testimonials by Hudson Mayor Taylor Bradbury

80 M. Hutchins. “Only 3 complained about crew.” The Chronicle, August 15, 1984: 6. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

81 I. Croombs. “‘Meatballs’ crew gets high marks.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

82 Ibid.

94 in defense of the film.83 Third, are the voices of other residents who defended the production. As evidenced by the annotations on one of the letters to the editor, Cinépix was actively looking at using it as good publicity. These strategies all demonstrate how Cinépix tried to rebrand itself as a professional company in light of local animosity.

These two case studies provide a valuable insight into how Cinépix attempted to mediate its public persona through the use of carefully controlled publically disclosed texts. First, to create an ethos that reflected not only its past films but also Meatballs III’s content. Second, to mediate damage control when Cinépix’s juvenile ethos was rejected by the local residents of

Hudson. All the while, the production had some serious internal issues, with arguments between producers, the director, and members of the crew. Ultimately, neither of these publicly cultivated personas reflected Cinépix’s complete production culture. It reflects elements of it, such as the masculine heteronormative behavior, but other aspects are downplayed, such as the importance of the producer. Ultimately, these examples demonstrate the importance of understanding the difference between fully embedded and publically disclosed deep texts. This is not only important in understanding the nuances of Cinépix’s production culture, but also to understand how external, publically disclosed deep texts are always constructed and designed to promote a specific agenda. These endorsed ideas and concepts concerning what kind of company Cinépix wants to be publically portrayed is just as constructed as the company’s films and should be equally interrogated.

As demonstrated, Cinépix’s company structure and methods of communicating, both inside the company and externally, spoke to the kind of company that they wanted to be perceived as.

As evidenced, Cinépix was entirely controlled in production, distribution, and exhibition by their

83 Ibid.

95 two figureheads: Dunning and Link, and, to a lesser extent, other producers. In any film, the producers ultimately held a majority of power, leading to occasional conflict between crew members.

Cinépix also attempted to cultivate a specific kind of public and internal ethos through the distribution of both fully embedded and publicly disclosed deep texts. Having access to both types of texts is rare, and I was fortunate to be able to analyze Cinépix’s multiple layers.

Throughout these texts, Cinépix increasingly tried to construct an ethos that replicated the film’s content, filled with sex, nudity, and energy. Within the film’s production documents, a similar trend can be found, stilted somewhat by the desire to produce a good film. Crude language and slang are found in within the production documents in several films, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

96 Chapter 5: “Shannon has a real bod”: Gender at Cinépix

Murmurings of power and gender occur throughout these documents. With the #MeToo and #TimesUp movement, and especially concerning the recent accusations against Harvey

Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, among others, slivers of these issues also appear in

Cinépix’s documents. As evidenced, most of Cinépix’s key creative personnel were predominantly white men. While Cinépix employed women in several important positions, such as Debra Karen, an editor who worked on several films, Rita Leone, who worked alongside Link in distribution, and Irene Litinsky, who, like Don Carmody, worked her way up from assistant to producer, and now is an executive at Muse Entertainment, in most of the films that I examined, women occupy a space in primarily below-the-line, non-creative work. In Cinépix’s fifteen films produced between 1976-86, there are only five credited women working in above-the-line roles, none as directors, and, when they acted as writer or producer, it was one woman amongst several men, such as Edith Rey, the only credited woman out of six contributing writers to the

Spacehunter script. Perhaps most importantly, in the copious memos, production notes, and correspondences, there are often no female voices or input, and the language that the men use to discuss female actors is highly gendered and often sexual.

This section is not an attempt to critique Cinépix, as plenty women worked in its offices, in distribution and non-creative positions, but rather to draw attention to how fragments of the same kind of culture that contributed to recent social movements are visible here. This speaks to the larger, systemic problem of gender representation within the film industry, inviting us to question the relationship between gender parity behind the screen, and how women and other underrepresented groups are portrayed on-screen. Throughout this chapter, I hope to demonstrate

97 how the gendered production culture behind the scenes of Meatballs III contributed to the misogynistic portrayal of women on-screen. Meatballs III was selected due to the quantity of surviving archival material in conjunction with what is contained in the material and in the film itself. While other films, notably the Ilsa series, are more outwardly and explicitly problematic, the surviving archival documentation was far less extensive. In addition, while the Ilsa films are controversial and well-known for their graphic sexual and violent content, Meatballs III’s sexism, although dated, is more normalized and banal, with similar types of mainstream films produced in more recent decades, such as American Pie (1999), Superbad (2007), and Sex Drive

(2008). The persistence of these films makes this case study especially important.

To begin this chapter, I first examine the film’s production process and basic narrative, followed by an analysis of power and gender in Meatballs III’s pre-production, production, and advertising. I additionally provide a selection of similar examples of behavior from Harem

Keeper. Finally, I conceptualize this thesis in relation to recent investigations on gender in the film industry, arguing that it is important to understand gender behind-the-screen when we analyze gender on-screen.

5.1 Meatballs III: Introduction and history

Meatballs III originated in 1982 as a screenplay entitled My Special Angel. After producing the original Meatballs, Cinépix sold the title for Meatballs II (1984) to another company, and presumably only considered My Special Angel as the third Meatballs film once they acquired the title rights back prior to Meatballs II’s release.1

Original correspondence between John Dunning and Milton Moritz, who worked for

1 “Offering Memorandum: Meatballs: The Climax,” 6. Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/29/Tax%20Shelter%20Brochure.pdf

98 American International Pictures, demonstrates that Dunning was involved in creative discussions concerning the film in April 1982, offering ideas for the script, story elements, and providing suggestions as to what films My Special Angel should draw inspiration from. The title My

Special Angel, despite being attached to the film until 1983, was never seriously considered as the film’s final name. Other titles were considered, including Soul Mates, which was dismissed by Dunning as it “sounds like a black film.”2 Location scouting for the film began in 1982 and

Parker, Arizona, along the Colorado River, was originally considered. However, production was eventually moved to Hudson, an off-island suburb of Montreal.

My Special Angel was submitted to readers at MGM/UA in 1983, presumably to see if the studio would consider providing money for production and/or distribution. Possible directors were also considered at this time, and out of a list of ten possibilities, including Ron Howard and

John Candy, and two females were considered (Lisa Gottlied and Amy Heckerling), although the eventual director, George Mendeluk, did not appear on this preliminary list.3

The film was officially associated with the Meatballs franchise in 1984 when the film’s script, then titled Meatballs: The Climax, was submitted for copyright research. This document demonstrates that several allusions to the original Meatballs film were added at this stage to make it loosely fit in the world of the original film, including having photos of Tripper (Bill

Murray) decorating the set.4 However, aside from the main character, Rudy appearing in the original film (although played by a different actor), all other continuities were removed in the final product. Meatballs III finally entered into pre-production in June 1984, and filming began

2 “RE: “Angel”: Notes on Treatment.” June 1, 1982. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

3 “Possible Directors: “My Special Angel.”” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

4 “Research on: “Meatballs - - The Climax” by Michael Paseornek & Bradley Kesden (Feature Film).” May 11, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

99 on Monday, July 18th, 1984. Although production started on a good note, with Dunning remarking that Day 2 of production was “A Good Day!” the production, and crew morale, quickly declined.5 As demonstrated in production correspondences, tensions quickly rose as the film’s two producers, Dunning and Carmody, clashed with the director, as discussed in chapter four.

Meatballs III completed principal photography on-time but remained unreleased until

1986. What exactly happened to the film during these two years is unclear, as documents are missing from the post-production phase. However, sometime during post-production, the title was changed to Summer Job, completely dropping the reference to Meatballs. Although advertising was mocked up for Summer Job, including tag-lines, television advertisements, and posters, the film’s name was eventually changed to Meatballs III: Summer Job, which it was released as in 1986.

As another example of Cinépix’s frugality, as Meatballs III finishing filming, Carmody and Dunning heard that the marina they had built for the film was going to be torn down once the film wrapped. Faced with the news that the marina was going to be destroyed regardless,

Dunning and Carmody decided to shoot another film and burn the marina in its climax.6

Carmody and Dunning wrote the script for Junior (also called Hot Water) in three days and told the civic official that they needed extra time to finish Meatballs III. Junior was filmed in ten days on Meatballs III’s set, and was released in 1985, a year earlier than Meatballs III.7

Briefly stated, Meatballs III’s narrative is about Rudy (played by a young Patrick

5 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes: Day 2.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

6 Dunning, You’re Not Dead Until You’re Forgotten, 130.

7 Ibid., 131.

100 Dempsey), a young, nerdy teenager, who spends his summer working at a marina for ‘Mean

Gene.’ Rudy wants nothing more than to lose his virginity, especially to Mean Gene’s bombshell wife, the ‘Love Goddess’ (Shannon Tweed). Luckily, Rudy has the help of recently deceased porn star Roxy Doujor (Sally Kellerman), who needs to complete a good deed to get into heaven, effectively mimicking the basic narrative of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). As could be expected, the film narratively and formally embodies a teen sex comedy. For example, there is a running joke throughout the film that, when it comes to women, “no means yes” and “stop means go.”

Roxy imparts this knowledge on Rudy who attempts to sexually assault at least one woman.

However, this ‘joke’ did not appear in a vacuum and was the product of a highly gendered production culture that shaped the film that appeared on the screen.

5.2 “Getting some jiggle”: Gender in Production

This section presents a case study of the gender dynamics and hierarchy present in the pre- production, production, and advertising stages of Meatballs III. Within these documents, a specific pattern emerges that privileges and legitimizes a white, heteronormative, perspective.

Women are continuously treated as the subject of the memos, the production notes, and the advertisements. Women’s bodies are highlighted, their personalities reduced in broad, sexualized strokes, their agency stripped away in the face of male executives and the diegetic male protagonist. Gender, especially as it relates to female characters, permeates all elements of the production. In addition to women being placed in specific and demeaning roles in the film itself

(either a non-sexualized mom/nerd role or the hypersexualized roles of Roxy and the Love

Goddess), men are likewise placed in restrictive roles. For example, Rudy is unable to attract women until he adopts signifiers of traditional masculinity (such as changing his clothing, removing his glasses, and punching a romantic rival). Likewise, the antagonists are defined by

101 masculine tropes. For example, in a running gag, Mean Gene attacks any man who looks at the

Love Goddess, and Rudy’s male bullies attack him for lacking conventionally masculine attributes.

I argue that these damaging and problematic characterizations inherent within the film are also apparent within its production culture. Specific language, words, and images are used in these documents, demonstrating a production culture permeated with a white male heteronormative ideology. Notably, while this section focuses on gender and not just the treatment of women, it is important to note how, although men are equally stereotyped within the story of the film itself, they are not focused on or presented in the same manner that females are.

Throughout the language of the production documents, it becomes explicit that females are presented as the ‘other’ as men consistently talk about them, and their bodies, in objectifying terms. Thus, while the aforementioned gender stereotypes apply to the way both men and women are talked about, the production culture actively adopts a masculine stance where workers openly differentiate themselves from women, making comments that heighten this gendered separation.

In the pre-production stages for Meatballs III, then still called My Special Angel, the film’s producers wanted to appeal to females moviegoers. To accomplish this, Dunning suggests that

‘the angel’ helps the ‘boy’ out of several awkward situations, most notably his inability to communicate with women: “He would have to be doing things or be in situations where his ineptness and inexperience result in him going absolutely against the female grain.”8 Notably, the men charged with screenplay development were unsure of what specific blunders ‘the boy’ could make that would be funny to women. Thus, Dunning suggests that “research in female

8 Correspondence between Dunning and Moritz. “My Special Angel: Screenplay development.” April 30, 1982. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

102 sexuality and fantasy books will provide some leads [into what women find attractive].”9 In addition, Dunning suggests that ‘the angel’ could have previously written a sex advice column, such as Xaviera Hollander’s column in Penthouse: “The Happy Hooker.”10 Dunning writes the

Penthouse “column might be another source of research.”11 Here, rather than consulting actual women for their own opinions and/or experiences in the script production stage, Dunning suggests that a column in men’s magazine Penthouse may be a good place to gain insight into women, disregarding that the column is published in a magazine designed exclusively by and for heterosexual man and may not be the most unbiased source. Thus, even when individuals exerted effort to find out what appeals to women, their sources are still fully masculinized.

The 1982 location scouting documents that present Parker, Arizona as a potential place for the film to be shot and set are also notable. In the report, rather than discussing the state’s tax incentives, the expertise of local crew, or other pertinent logistical points, the author instead highlights how Parker’s party-friendly atmosphere reflects the film’s content. In contrast to the sleepy nearby community of Havasu City, Parker is portrayed as a party town. A major section of this report details what locals do for a good time, including: “ogling the naked or near-naked bodies of extremely attractive young people, attempting to locate a bed-partner, water skiing

(often naked or behind an airplane), [and] participating in a wet T-shirt or Jock Strap contest.”12

Although none of these examples necessarily point towards women as being the sole target of these comments, the eighteen photographs that accompany this report solidifies their gendered nature. Of these eighteen photographs, fifteen are long to extreme long shots of the geographic

9 Ibid.

10 Dunning misidentifies the column’s name, it was actually entitled “Call me Madame.”

11 Ibid.

12 “Parker, Arizona,” 3. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

103 locations in the area, occasionally with long shots of individuals (often male) partaking in water sports.13 One image is of a sign advertising “Live band, Free Party. 2pm,” while another is a long shot of people relaxing by the beach in swimsuits. However, one of the last pictures in the report explicitly connects to this issue of gender. The image in question is a tight medium close-up of a woman’s midsection in a bikini. While images of other individuals within this document were framed in a long shot and designed to showcase either the background geography or the excitement of the location, the image of the woman, as nothing else of interest is within the frame, is designed solely for visual pleasure and to showcase the “near-naked” body of a young female.14 With this image accompanying the aforementioned text, in addition to the images of

(most often) men partaking in exciting watersports in Parker, the text takes on a decidedly gendered turn. The production staff member who compiled and wrote this report becomes the aforementioned ‘ogler’ of attractive women, infusing a sense of heteronormativity and gender bias into filming location.

Original character artwork and costume design also highlight this gender gap. A series of five original sketches survive. These sketches, all unsigned, appear to be done by two different artists, as three pictures are drawn in a fine, scratchy style, with the remaining two images drawn with thick, dark, smudged lines. Notably, the costume designer, Mary McLeod, is female, and one could assume that at least some of the drawings were hers. Regardless of who physically drew the sketches, the fact remains that they were commissioned and produced in a highly gendered production culture, replicating and reinforcing it.

Of these five drawings, one is of a male, standing alone; one is of a male and female

13 “The Colorado River.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

14 “Parker, Arizona,” 3. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

104 standing together, and the remaining three are of women standing alone.15 The image of the lone male River Rat portrays him in a traditionally masculine stance. He has under-eye bags, beard scruff, and a tattoo of a playing card that reads “suck.” His clothes also reflect this agenda, with chains, combat boots, and a skull-adorned beret. Likewise, his stance is gendered, with legs spread, one hand raised and grasping a chain that goes over his shoulder. Together, these elements contribute to a sense of hypermasculinity.16 In contrast to this masculine image, the three costume sketches of women are highly feminized. All three show a woman with a slim, hourglass figure dressed in tight and revealing clothes. Two of the drawings show her in a tight dress, while the other is of her in a 1950s style one-piece swimsuit. Based on the styling choices in the finished film, I assume that these drawings are of Roxy. In contrast to the masculine stance of the River Rat, these drawings of Roxy are highly feminized and sexualized: one hand is on her hip in each drawing, while the other is drawn in an outstretched, dancer-like manner. Two of the drawings also show Roxy in a highly disproportionate and sexualized body type; her breasts are exaggerated, her waist nipping into an unrealistic degree and her hips extended out in an inhuman manner. By drawing Roxy as having a highly feminized figure with specific, and sexualized body parts highlighted, the artist visually infuses the character and costume designs with traditional and heteronormative ideology.

Both concepts come together in the drawing of the male and female River Rat. The man is standing in the center of the frame, and, like the previous sketch, his stance is wide and he has scruffy facial hair. His clothes are ripped and adorned with pins and studs, along with a bizarre

15 “Concept art of characters, logos, and Mean Gene’s Marina.” Cinépix online archive: http://www.Cinépix.ca/downloads/29/Character%20Art.pdf

16 This term is used to refer back to the specific trend in 1980s cinema whereupon “the white male body - became increasingly a vehicle of desire – of musculature, of beauty, of physical feats, and of a gritty toughness.” Susan Jeffords, “Can Masculinity be Terminated?” in Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in the Hollywood Cinema, edited by Steve Cohan and Ina Rae Hark (New York, NY: Routledge, 1993), 245.

105 fox-head piece, fingerless gloves, and what appears to be a leather codpiece; grasped in his right hand is a can of Coors beer, and hanging off his left shoulder is the second feature in the drawing: an attractive blonde woman. Facing away from the viewer, she contorts her back in such a way that her uncovered rear and semi-exposed breast are both visible. Her clothing consists of a spaghetti-strap crop top and a very short, ripped skirt that is riding up at the back.

Around her waist is a bullet belt, and her face (like the sketches of Roxy) is heavily adorned with makeup as she seductively gazes towards the viewer. More so than the previous drawings, this image explicitly connotes a sense of strict gender identity and inequality. The man is in the center of the image, and, as his pose and clothing demonstrate, he is dominant and hyper- masculine. In contrast, the woman stands to the side, and, despite having a bullet belt, has no weapons, her ripped clothes establishing vulnerability, rather than a sense of strength. Here, explicit gender roles are visually created in these original costume and character design sketches, infusing the production with gender inequality which carried forward into the characters created in the finished film.

Likewise, the film’s storyboard visually legitimizes the sexualization of women. These storyboards demonstrate that shots were visualized before shooting began. Original storyboards display a crude drawing of a male water-skier approach two female water-skiers, stealing their bikini tops and escaping.17 Another sequence illustrates a scene filmed through Rudy’s POV as he stares at various women sunbathing in the marina. These storyboarded images focus on the female body, the women’s faces harshly drawn, but the very poses that they should be positioned in are solidified.18 Throughout all of these images, the focus is always on the female form. Rudy

17 Storyboard for Meatballs III. “Pg. 85, Scene 140.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

18 Advertising Storyboard for Meatballs III. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

106 is never seen, the camera, and thus the viewer, embodying his lecherous gaze.19 Thus, gender dynamics are infused from the very conception of the project, as all the individuals in correspondence in the project development stage were male. Unfortunately, this gender imbalance continued into the film’s production.

The gendered elements continue into aspects of Meatballs III’s production. From purely factual statistics of gender inequality in the crew to subtler ways that the male above-the-line workers constructed women as objects within the film. First, within this correspondence, only two women were included multiple times: Debra Karen, the film’s editor (and a frequent collaborator of Cinépix, also editing Meatballs, Yesterday, Happy Birthday to Me, among others), and Mary McLeod, the wardrobe head. Other women are all alluded to in passing as brief, supplementary mentions to the larger, masculine machine. These women, sometimes only referred to by their first names, typically work in either secretarial/assistant positions within the office or in casting. Notable here is the fact that all of these roles have been codified as

“women’s work” over time within the North American film industry, relating to early expectations of what work women should be doing, which are often related to clerical positions, or ones that require emotional, rather than physical labor.20 All of the women who worked on

Meatballs III and were mentioned, even in passing, in the saved documents, fulfil one of these roles; these workers are office workers (Irene Litinsky), editors (Debra Karen), casting agents

(Barbara Claman, Chantal Condor, Ginette D'Amico, Lucinda Sill), and wardrobe (Mary

McLeod). Although there were women working on the film, they occupied roles that are

19 This storyboard and other images visually reflect Laura Mulvey’s seminal notion of the male gaze, in which the spectator assumes and identifies with the masculine protagonist, while women are relegated to erotic spectacle and object, both in the visual language of the film and within the narrative. Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Screen 16, no. 3 (1975): 11-12.

20 Hill, 6-7.

107 conventionally gendered female.

In addition, the lack of women in saved production correspondence is also notable. Hill notes that “The location (or lack thereof) of evidence serves as evidence in itself, and helps to tell the story of women workers through the ways they were variously remembered, classified, and erased in archives.”21 Here, the lack of correspondences between female workers provides this gap. In one particularly illuminating example, correspondence between the male executives and director reveal some animosity between Mary McLeod (head of wardrobe) and the above-the- line workers. In a letter dated August 25, 1984, Mendeluk dismisses the wardrobe department as a whole, writing “You well know my feelings about the Wardrobe Dept. and Mary McLeod's performance. In my opinion, I found that consistently they have been sloppy, and with respect to

Mary McLeod, she has spent more time interfering in other departments than carry out the wishes of the Producers and supporting the Director.”22 Here, it is the lack of response that is important, there is no correspondence from McLeod, not even a record of what specifically the wardrobe department had done wrong. In the hierarchy of workers on the set, her correspondence

(if there was any) was not saved.

Various instructions or descriptions of women in production notes demonstrate what was important to capture in the film, creating a highly gendered environment on and off the screen.

Throughout the production documents, women are constantly referred to through descriptions of their physical attributes. Male characters, especially extras, are often referred to through broad cliché or racial stereotypes, for example, the lone black River Rat is referred to in notes as the

“coloured River Rat,” an overweight character is referred to as “the fat kid,” and Dunning

21 Ibid.

22 Correspondence between Mendeluk, Dunning and Carmody. “Re: Scene 128 – Rats.” August 25, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

108 complains that the male extras are “Latin types with scraggly moustaches and strange looks… the guy standing behind Wendy when she comes in looks like a monster.”23 One notable exception occurs in the instance where Dunning voices concern over one bit-player’s voice, saying that “[the actor] will have to be post synched - he delivers his lines like a real fag.”24 The presumed threat that this actor offered was the disruption of the heterosexual fantasy that is carefully cultivated throughout both the film and its production. In contrast to these examples, women are normally described in relation to specific body parts. For example, one female extra is referred to as “jiggling boobs,”25 another memo describes “sexy girls,”26 and “pretty girl.”27

Furthermore, In casting these extras, Mendeluk was tasked with selecting and casting the

“breasts & bottoms.”28 Linguistically, while male extras are often reduced to broad racial or physical stereotypes, female extras are referred to with words that refer to specific, often sexualized, body parts.

Like the descriptions of extras, the importance of the female body is constantly established within the production documents. These moments and shots did not just spontaneously appear within the film but were purposely placed there by above-the-line workers for a specific

23 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 30.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 15.” August 7, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 8.” July 27, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

24 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 34.” September 4, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

25 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes: Day 7. Rudy on Dock Mesmerized by girls.” July 27, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

26 Correspondence between Dunning and Mihalka. “Tomorrow’s shoot with the River Rats.” July 25th, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

27 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 13: Rudy, Rita and Roxy and the Cigarette Machine Gag.” August 3, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

28 “Script Notes for Week 3: July 30 – August 3.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

109 purpose—to make the film more appealing to the male audience. The body of the Love Goddess is a hotly discussed topic. For example, Dunning notes that they need to have backlit shots of the

Love Goddess in a “diaphanous nightgown” to best show off her body.29 This comment was repeated in another memo, this time commenting on the fact that an errant railing had broken up the backlit silhouette of her body, yet despite this blunder, “Shannon looks good,” and “Shannon has a real bod.”30 While elsewhere in these production notes, the producers almost always refer to the actor’s by their characters names (for example, in the several examples where creative members complain about Isabelle Mejias, they refer to her by Wendy, her character), and elsewhere call Tweed’s character The Love Goddess (in fact, Dunning refers to her by this name in the same memo), in these two examples Tweed is referred to by her actual name. When referring to the actors by their character’s names, a kind of wall is set up, distancing the male staff from the female cast by talking about her as a character in the film. For example, it is not

Isabelle Mejias who acts bratty, but Wendy. In contrast, referring to Tweed by her actual name feels alarmingly personal and intimate. It is not The Love Goddess, viewed through the safety of the camera lens and abstracted into a fictional world, who has a “real bod,” but Tweed.31

As stated previously, throughout the film’s production, the producers were at odds with

Mendeluk over creative control of the film. Notably, the producer’s critiqued the footage that was shot, stating that they were unhappy that females had not been filmed in a sexually appealing manner. Dunning specifically notes that “I taped the Wayne Grisby show and I think

29 Correspondence between Dunning and Mendeluk/Art Department. “RE: Week 2: July 23 – July 27.” July 23, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

30 John Dunning. “Comments on Rushes, Day 6: Rudy Meets Mean Gene, Evening Shots of Rudy Coming out of Water, Love Goddess Close Up.” July 25, 1984. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Dunning, “Comments on Rushes: Day 7. Rudy on Dock Mesmerized by girls.”

31 Dunning, “Comments on Rushes, Day 6: Rudy Meets Mean Gene, Evening Shots of Rudy Coming out of Water, Love Goddess Close Up.”

110 we should all have a look at it. Their cameraman captured alot [sic] of bikinied asses on the dock. I am not sure that we did likewise.”32 Dunning reminds the rest of the production team that they need to pick-up a shot of a “C.U. Of Val’s boobs to connect with Rudy’s eyeline.”33 Again, noting that they need to get an “extreme close up on [the actor’s] boobs just moving her by on a dolly and getting some jiggle.”34 Notably, all of these comments are referencing pick up shots.

The sequence has already been shot with enough coverage, but the producers found that they needed to invest more time and money to go back and recapture these sexualized images.

Like in the pre-production and production stages, the post-production environment also exemplified these gender roles in two key examples. First, potential tag-lines emphasizes a masculine perspective, either of the potential viewer or of the main character. In alignment with the main character, the tag-lines tended to use the pronoun “he” or “his,” for example in the tagline “Until this summer, he’s made a career out of virginity!”35 The emphasis on attracting and identifying with a potential viewer likewise takes on a similar tone. For example, the potential tagline “It’s an experience you’ll never put on your resume!” while not explicitly gendered, certainly is more inclined to attract a male audience, especially when combined with the corresponding poster mock-ups that show a female stripping.36

This masculine, heteronormative perspective is also taken up in the proposed visual advertising as well. The television spot, also created by LarsenColbyKoralek tracks a floor

32 Ibid.

33 Dunning, “Comments on Rushes - - Day 1.”

34 Dunning, “Comments on Rushes: Day 7. Rudy on Dock Mesmerized by girls.”

35 Correspondence between Martin Rabinovitch, John Dunning, and Don Carmody. “Summer Job Alternate Copy.” March 13, 1986. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

36 Ibid.

111 covered in men and women’s discarded clothes, centering on a door and a broom when a male arm reaches out, closing the door. The title of the film, Summer Job, appears on the screen, affixed with an illustration of a broom and bikini. The sexual connotations in this advertisement are clear, especially in the inclusion of the bikini incorporated in the title. A preliminary trailer for Summer Job was also created. Narrated by Rudy, two shots of the proposed advertisement feature scantily-clad women. The first, a shot of a woman dancing on a table at the bar is juxtaposed with Rudy’s line that there are lots of “dances” there; the second shot is composed of a medium shot of two women’s backs and bottoms in bikinis, Rudy’s voiceover informing the viewer that “it is a really really great place for sight seeing.”37 These visual examples demonstrate how a masculine perspective was constructed, creating a masculine world where visually objectifying women is expected and legitimized.

5.3 “In reality need a kinky type”: Additional Examples

Far from Meatballs III being an outlier, this language and sexualization of women continue into some of Cinépix’s other films. Although going into a detailed discussion of all of these examples would make this thesis too long, here are a few other important examples from Oil

Shieks. In the film’s pre-production, the producers note that they need to have various exploitation elements appear in the film, including “a scene where we see oiled naked girls chained to walls...some good harem sequences featuring gorgeous girls – doing or learning intimate love secrets...double shot of tit press using cantaloupes...Sheik wants to unlock chastity belts to see goodies. Good shot as we see them pop open,” and “Force feeding of girl to make her fat. These girls are sent to Africa as fertility symbols to tribal chiefs.”38 In another document, the

37 Advertising Storyboard for Meatballs III. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

38 “Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks Scene Elements.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

112 producers further discuss the two black characters who act as Ilsa’s servants and their interaction with the overweight women: “Adrienna is to supply costume for fat lady... The beaming black leading her is the coloured cheik [sic] in the film. This is a big scene and one which all the girls should be oiled. This does not refer to the fat lady...”39 Both the black women and the overweight women are linguistically ‘othered’ from the conventionally attractive white women that populate the rest of the film. Satin and Velvet are consistently referred to through racialized terms such as the aforementioned “beaming black,” and “black beauties,” while Katsina, an Asian character, is described as "Japanese - kinky costume - tongue specialist, in reality need a kinky type.”40 These female characters are constantly defined and fetishized by their race, feeding into conventional stereotypes and assumptions concerning race and femininity within the media; for example, in contrast to most women in the film, who are portrayed as physically weak, Satin and Velvet are both pictured as tough fighters, able to defeat and “deball” a man with their bare hands, acting as exotic attractions that deviate from the norm. 41

Likewise, the overweight women are linguistically separated from the other, more conventionally attractive women. Their various weights are specifically determined to be from

130-450 pounds, and while the two lightest ones should be topless, the heaviest woman should be totally naked for a “shock revelation,” and, unlike all the other, more conventionally attractive, women, the overweight females should not be oiled.42 Here, female characters who

39 “Final Notes.” July 7, 1975. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

40 Cast of Characters.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Meeting notes between John Dunning, Jack DeGoviam and Don Edmonds. “Ilsa Harem Keeper to the Oil Sheiks.” May 17, 1975. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

41 “Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks Scene Elements.” John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

42 “Final Notes.” July 7, 1975. John Dunning personal collection, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

113 deviate from the white, thin norm are branded as ‘other’ by both their race and their body type: they are nothing more than devices to create feelings of disgust, eroticism, or perhaps both.

To take a “Transhistorical” approach, recent trends show that the number of women working in creative, above-the-line positions continues to be minimal.43 This gap lingers in the

Canadian film industry, as a recent study from 2015 demonstrates that the gender divide of directors, writers, and cinematographers in Telefilm funded projects continues, with only 17% of directors, 22% of writers, and 12% of cinematographers being female or female-identifying.44 In a 2017 study on the American film industry, women’s roles have barely improved in the last 20 years, and in some cases, have actually gone down. For example, in 1998, 13% of women were employed as writers and 20% as editors, but in 2017 the number of women in these roles had decreased to 11% and 16%, respectively.45 In Meatballs III, there were only two women creatively involved in the production: Costume designer Mary McLeod and editor Debra Karen, both of whom were barely mentioned in the production documents. Thus, while it is not surprising that studios that made exploitation films were filled with a masculine production culture, it is nevertheless important, especially in relation to recent events, to tackle these issues head-on. Although Cinépix did hire and work with multiple women in important roles, a majority of their creative production staff was male, creating an environment where, not only were the

43 Hill, 8.

44 Rina Fraticelli. Women in View on Screen. (Toronto, ON: 2015), 6. Accessed July 27, 2018. http://womeninview.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Women-In-View-On-Screen-2015.pdf; It is worthwhile to note that in 2016, following the publication of this report, Telefilm Canada did announce that they were enacting a plan to help create gender parity in the Canadian film industry by 2020. Although a great initiative, one must be aware that this only applies to films that Telefilm finances, and that the private Canadian film industry has no set guidelines on gender parity.

45 Martha Lauzen, The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 100, 250, and 500 Films of 2017. (San Diego, CA: The Centre for the Study of Women in Television and Film), 1. Accessed July 27, 2018. https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017_Celluloid_Ceiling_Report.pdf

114 producers were in charge, but their decisions created a highly gendered production culture.

115 Conclusion

Cinépix was an incredibly prolific film company, influencing the landscape of Canadian film in distribution, exhibition, and production. How different would the international cinema landscape look without the influence of Cronenberg’s body horror, Reitman’s comedies, and

Carmody’s involvement in everything from Porky’s to Denis Villeneuve’s Polytechnique?

However, as a commercial company, they have been overlooked in traditional Canadian film scholarship. This thesis attempts to circumvent some of these conventions by examining

Cinépix’s production cultures through the lens of Media Industry Studies, offering a new way to study the Canadian film industry while contributing to the growing subfield of research.

Interacting directly with original production documents invites us to explore different and provocative avenues of research, rather than one that is constrained by concepts of Canadian nationalism.

In this thesis, I surveyed three of Cinépix’s separate, but interrelated facets. Chapter three examined Cinépix’s broad relationship with the larger film industry, examining the various strategies that Dunning and Link used to survive, concluding with an analysis of the conflicts that occurred when Cinépix collaborated with larger, American, companies. This analysis determined that Cinépix was adaptable, commercially oriented, and, while sometimes producing films with and for foreign companies, were ultimately independent.

Chapter four argued that Cinépix was a company led and shaped by its producer- figureheads, Dunning and Link, challenging the existing convention that Canadian cinema is shaped primarily by auteurs. Dunning’s creative contributions to all of Cinépix’s films are invaluable, and this thesis, rather than centering on the director’s creative output, instead asks us to consider the role of the creative-producer, a role that Dunning exemplified. Additionally, this

116 chapter examined how Cinépix communicated their identity to other film companies and the general public. I argue that Cinépix altered their external image based on their perceived audience, from youthful, to ‘Canadian,’ to professional, to masculine. This further amplified

Cinépix’s position as a company marked by adaptability, as Cinépix changed their visible company culture depending on the situation.

Finally, chapter five examined how Cinépix crafted a masculine and heteronormative production culture, exemplified by Meatballs III’s case study. Throughout documents relating from the film’s production, women were portrayed in a specific and demeaning manner, as the documents broadly ignore women’s viewpoints, instead treating them as the sexualized ‘other’ in contrast to the normalized male perspective. I argue here that the gendered portrayal on-screen represents Cinépix’s broader production culture, hypothesizing that gender parity behind the screen is key for on-screen equality as well.

My thesis, far from being a conclusive, all-encompassing analysis of Cinépix and the workers within it, only scratches the surface of potential research. More research could be undertaken to understand Link’s role in distribution and exhibition. Throughout these historical documents, there were allusions to Link and his work, but his voice and stories were notably absent. Gaining a larger insight into Cinépix’s distribution and exhibition branches and how

Dunning and Link merged their adult film practices with their work as a mainstream film company, is essential in order to fully understand the nuances of the Canadian film industry.

Additionally, my research only covers a very small segment of Cinépix’s history. As stated previously, Cinépix’s films in the 1990s are even less studied than the time period I examined, and more research could be undertaken to investigate the films that Cinépix produced during these years. My thesis also could not encompass all of the films produced and distributed

117 between 1976-1978. Cinépix productions Rabid, Meatballs, Happy Birthday to Me, My Bloody

Valentine, Blackout, Death Weekend, Ilsa: The Tigress of Siberia, and Hot Dog Cops are not analyzed in any major extent. This is partially due to my choice to not analyze films that have been previously studied, but it was also, most often due to the fact that my thesis was constrained by what historical documents survive.

Thus, this thesis also forces us to question the nature of archival documents, and who creates the history that we remember. We have to weigh what documents remain, including the proliferation of above-the-line documentation. Notably, this particular history is entirely shaped by surviving documentation. Through this research, one is invited to question how different it would look if I had examined the below-the-line workers at Cinépix, through interviews or other means. What stories do they have to tell, and does it contradict this particular history that I crafted? Finally, what about the women who worked at Cinépix? Why do we place emphasis on

Don Carmody’s career trajectory from production assistant to mogul producer, when Irene

Litinsky had the exact same career path at Cinépix (only taking a decade longer, despite beginning their careers at the same time), later producing episodes of The Kennedys (2011 - present), Being Human (2011 - 2014), and the recent remake of Death Wish (2018). More work could still be done in this area to rectify these missing histories, adding to a more complete understanding, not only of Cinépix, but of the diverse nature of the Canadian film industry. The decision to open this thesis with a quote by Litinsky was deliberate, for while she is missing from a majority of Cinépix’s surviving documentation, she played a large role in the company’s overall history. While recent research has been undertaken on the place of women within these production cultures, and in the American film industry, more research needs to be undertaken on the historical role of women within the Canadian film industry.

118 By examining the plurality of Cinépix’s production culture(s), this thesis aims to demonstrate not only the importance of Cinépix as a Canadian film company, but also invite researchers to explore new pathways in Canadian film research. Marked by its producers

Dunning and Link, but also adaptation, gender, independence, and a hunger to survive in the volatile Canadian film landscape, Cinepix’s history is diverse, messy, and at times controversial.

However, their contribution to Canadian film is prolific and often overlooked. A complete understanding of the Canadian film landscape must therefore encompass all films, genres, and companies that exist within it. Neglecting one segment, as has been often done in conventional scholarship, leads to a false understanding of the kaleidoscope of lived experiences that make up the Canadian film industry.

119 Bibliography

Primary Sources Cinépix online archive: www.cinépix.ca

Cinépix Inc. Subject File, FRL-30833, TIFF Film Reference Library. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

John Dunning personal collection. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Secondary Sources

Baltruschat, Doris. “International TV and Film Co-production: A Canadian Case Study.” Media

Organization and Production, edited by Simon Cottle, n.p. London, UK: SAGE

Publications, 2003.

Banks, Miranda. “Oral History and Media Industries: Theorizing the Personal in Production

History.” Cultural Studies 28, no. 4 (2014): 545-60.

Beard, William. “Atom Egoyan: Unnatural Relations.” Great Canadian Film Directors, edited

by George Melnyk, 99 – 124. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2007.

Beard, William. “The Canadianess of David Cronenberg. Mosiac 27, no. 2 (1994): 113-133.

Bell, Melanie. “Learning to Listen: Histories of Women’s Soundwork in the British film

industry.” Screen 4, no. 1 (2017): 437-57.

Bergman, Michael. "Bye Bye Tax Shelter." Cinema Canada (1987): n.p.

Bridges, Magilow et. al., Naziploitation!: The Nazi Image in Low-brow Cinema and Culture.

New York: NY, Continuum, 2012.

Brown, Adam. "Screening Women’s Complicity in the Holocaust: The Problems of Judgement

and Representation." Holocaust Studies 17, no. 2-3 (2011): 75-98.

Browning, Mark. David Cronenberg: Author or Filmmaker? Bristol UK: Intellect, 2007.

120 Caldwell, John. “Both Sides of the Fence: Blurred Distinctions in Scholarship and

Production.” In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki

Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 214-29. New York, NY:

Routledge, 2009.

Caldwell, John. "Cultures of Production: Studying Industry's Deep Texts, Reflective Rituals, and

Managed Self-Disclosures." In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method edited by

Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 199-212. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell,

2009.

Caldwell, John. Production Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.

Celeste, Reni. “In the Web of David Cronenberg: Spider and the new Auteurism.” Cine

Action 65, (2005): 2-5.

Church, David. Playing with Memories: Essays on Guy Maddin. Winnipeg: MB, University of

Manitoba Press, 2000.

Cornellier, Bruno. "The Thing About Obomsawin's Indianness: Indigenous Reality and the

Burden of Education at the National Film Board of Canada." Canadian Journal of Film

Studies 21, no. 2 (2012): 2-26

Corupe, Paul. “Sin and Sovereignty: The Curious Rise of Cinépix Inc.” Take One 44, (2005): 16-

21.

Corupe, Paul. “Taking off the Mask: Rediscovering Nat Taylor and the B-Movies of Canada’s

Past.” Take One 44, (2004): n.p.

Corupe, Paul. “(Who’s in the) Driver’s Seat: The Canadian Brute Unleased in Death Weekend.”

In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, edited by Gina Freitag and Andre

Loiselle, 92 – 107. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

121 Covell, Tim. "To Know Ourselves: Possible Meanings of Canadian Pornography." Sexuality and

Culture 20, no. 1 (2016): 124-139.

Cunningham, Stuart and Terry Flew. "Reconsidering Media Economics: From Orthodoxies to

heterodoxies." Media Industries 2, no. 1 (2015): 1-18.

Curtin, Michael. "Thinking Globally: From Media Imperialism to Media Capital." In Media

Industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 108-

19. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Czach, Liz. "Film Festivals, Programming, and the Building of a National Cinema." The Moving

Image 4, no. 1 (2004): 76-88.

Dean, Malcolm. Censored! Only in Canada. Toronto: Virgo Press, 1981.

Delaney, Marshall. “Artists in the Shadows: Some Notable Canadian Movies.” In Take Two,

edited by Seth Feldman, 2–17. Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984.

Diduck, Ryan. “From Back Bacon to Chicken Fingers: Re-Contextualizing the “Hoser”

Archetype.” Off Screen 10, no. 1 (2006): n.p.

Dorland, Michael. So Close to the State/s: The Emergence of Canadian Feature Film Policy.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Dunning, John. You’re Not Dead until You’re Forgotten. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University

Press, 2014.

Elder, R. Bruce. “Image: Representation and Object – The Photographic Image in Canadian

Avant-Garde Film.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 246-263. Toronto, ON: Irwin

Pub, 1984.

Emery, Robert. The Directors—Take Four. New York, NY: Allworth Press, 2003.

122 Evans, Gary. In the National Interest: A Chronicle of the National Film Board of Canada from

1949 to 1989. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Fenton, Nathalie. "Bridging the Mythical Divide: Political Economy and Cultural Studies

Approaches to the Analysis of the Media." In Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates,

edited by Eoin Devereux, 7-31. London, UK: Sage Publications LTD, 2007.

Flint, David. Babylon Blue: An Illustrated History of Adult Cinema. Creation Books, 1999.

Fothergill, Robert. "Coward, Bully, or Clown: The Dream Life of a Younger Brother."

In Canadian Film Reader, edited by Seth Feldman and Joyce Nelson, 235-50. Toronto,

ON: P. Martin Associates, 1977.

Fraticelli, Rina. Women in View on Screen. (Toronto, ON: 2015), 6. Accessed July 27,

2018. http://womeninview.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Women-In-View-On-Screen-

2015.pdf

Freedman, Des. "Media Policy Research and the Media Industries." Media Industries 1, no. 1

(2014): 11-15.

Freitag, Gina. “The [Hostile] Nature of Things: A Cultural Dialogue on Enviromental Survival.”

In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, edited by Gina Freitag and Andre

Loiselle, 135-52. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

Fulford, Robert. "You should know how bad this film is. After all, you paid for it." Saturday

Night, (Toronto, ON), Sept 1975.

Gauthier, Jennifer. "Digital Not Diversity? Changing Aboriginal Media Policy at the National

Film Board of Canada." International Journal of Cultural Policy 22, no. 3 (2014): 1-22

Gervais, Marc. "Features/Les Plouffe." Cinema Canada (1981).

123 Gittings, Christopher. Canadian National Cinema: Ideology, Difference and

Representation. London, UK: Routledge, 2002.

Govil, Nitin. "Thinking Nationally: Domicile, Distinction, and Dysfunction in Global Media

Exchange." In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt

and Alisa Perren, 132-43. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Handling, Piers. “A Canadian Cronenberg.” In Take Two, edited by Seth Feldman, 80-91.

Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984.

Harcourt, Peter. “Cinema, Memory, and the Photographic Trace.” In Take Two, edited by Seth

Feldman, 229-235. Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984.

Harcourt, Peter. "Roads Not Taken, Avenues Not Explored: Confessions of an

Unconscious Canonizer." Take One: Film & Television in Canada 4, no. 8 (1995).

Harkness, John. “Notes on a Tax-Sheltered Cinema.” Cinema Canada, 87 (1982): 22-26.

Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. London, UK: Sage Publications LTD, 2007.

Hill, Erin. Never Done: A History of Women's Work in Media Production. New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press, 2016.

Hodsdon, Barrett. The Elusive Auteur: The Question of Film Authorship Throughout the Age of

Cinema. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2017.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall, 2011.

Jeffords, Susan. “Can Masculinity be Terminated?” in Screening the Male: Exploring

Masculinities in the Hollywood Cinema, edited by Steve Cohan and Ina Rae Hark, 245-

62. New York, NY: Routledge, 1993.

124 Jones, Alan. "“Notre Valérie Nationale”: The films de fesses as a catalyst of socio-cultural

transformation during Quebec’s Quiet Revolution and beyond." PhD diss., Concordia

University, 2017.

Jones, D.B. “Brave New Film Board.” North of Everything: English Canadian cinema since

1980, edited by William Beard and Jerry White, 19-45. Edmonton, AB: The University

of Alberta Press, 2002.

Kellner, Douglas. "Media Industries, Political Economy, and Media/Cultural Studies: An

Articulation." In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, by Jennifer Holt and

Alisa Perren, 95-107. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Kerr, Aphra. "Placing International Media Production." Media Industries 1, no. 1 (2014): 27-

32.

Knelman, Martin. Home Movies: Tales from the Canadian Film World. Toronto, ON: Key Porter

Books, 1987.

Landman, Jane. "“Not in Kansas Anymore”: Transnational Collaboration in Television Science

Fiction Production." In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited

by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 140-53. New York,

NY: Routledge, 2009.

Lauzen, Martha, The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top

100, 250, and 500 Films of 2017. (San Diego, CA: The Centre for the Study of Women in

Television and Film), 1. Accessed July 27, 2018. https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2018/01/2017_Celluloid_Ceiling_Report.pdf

Leach, James. "Second Images: Reflections on the Canadian Cinema (s) in the Seventies." The

Dalhousie Review (1982).

125 Leach, Jim. Film in Canada. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Levine, Elana. "Crossing the Border: Studying Canadian Television Production." In Production

Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks,

and John Thornton Caldwell, 154-66. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.

Loader, Alison. "Convergence and Collaboration in the Cold: Norman McLaren and 1950s

Stereoscopic Animation at the National Film Board of Canada." Animation Journal Xxii,

no. 1 (2014): 4-26

Longfellow, Brenda. “Globalization and National Identity in Canadian Film.” Canadian Journal

of Film Studies 5, no. 2, (1996): 3-16.

Longfellow, Brenda. “Surfing the Toronto New Wave.” In Self Portraits: The Cinema of Canada

since Telefilm, edited by Andre Loiselle and Tom McSorley, 167-200. Ottawa, ON:

Canadian Film Institute, 2006.

Lowenstein, Adam. “Canadian Horror Made Flesh: Contextualizing David Cronenberg.” Post

Script 18, no. 2 (1998): 37-51

Magder, Ted. Canada's Hollywood: The Canadian State and Feature Films. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, 1993.

Mayer, Vicki, Miranda Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell. "Introduction: Production Studies:

Roots and Routes." In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited

by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 1-12. New York, NY:

Routledge, 2009.

Melnyk, George. “David Cronenberg: Mapping the Monstrous Male.” Great Canadian Film

Directors, edited by George Melnyk, 79-97. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta

Press, 2007.

126 Miller, Toby, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang. Global

Hollywood 2. London, UK: BFI, 2009.

Milner, Brian. "Tax Break Cuts Shake Canadian Film Industry." The Globe and Mail (Toronto,

ON), Sep 12, 1988.

Morris, Peter. “After Grierson: The National Film Board 1945 – 1953.” In Take Two, edited by

Seth Feldman, 182-194. Toronto, ON: Irwin Pub, 1984.

Morris, Peter. “In our Own Eyes: The Canonizing of Canadian Film.” Canadian Journal of Film

Studies, 3, no. 1 (1994): 27-44.

Morris, Peter. The Film Companion. Toronto, ON: Irwin Publishing, 1984.

Mould, Oli. "Lights, Camera, but Where’s the Action?: Actor-Network Theory and the

Production of Robert Connolly’s Three Dollars." In Production Studies: Cultural Studies

of Media Industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton

Caldwell, 203-13. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.

Mulvey, Laura. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Screen 16, no. 3 (1975): 6-18.

Napoli, Philip. "Media Economics and the Study of Media Industries." In Media Industries:

History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 161-70.

Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Nowell, Richard. ""The Ambitions of Most Independent Filmmakers": Indie Production, the

Majors, and "Friday the 13th" (1980)." Journal of Film and Video 63, no. 2 (2011): 28-

44.

Nowell, Richard. ""There's More Than One Way to Lose Your Heart": The American Film

Industry, Early Teen Slasher Films, and Female Youth." Cinema Journal 51, no. 1

(2011): 115-40.

127 Nowell, Richard. ""Where Nothing Is Off Limits": Genre, Commercial Revitalization, and the

Teen Slasher Film Posters of 1982-1984." Post Script - Essays in Film and the

Humanities 30, no. 2 (2011): 53-68.

Orther, Sherry. "Studying Sideways: Ethnographic Access in Hollywood." In Production

Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks,

and John Thornton Caldwell, 175-89. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.

Peary, Garald. "Babes in Boyland: An Irreverent Peek at Women in Canadian Cinema." Take

One: Film & Television in Canada 4, no. 8 (1995): n.p.

Pendakur, Manjunath. Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy of the

Canadian Film Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

Pike, David. Canadian Cinema since the 1980s: At the Heart of the World. Toronto, ON:

University of Toronto Press, 2012.

Pratley, Gerald. Torn Sprockets. Associated University Press: 1987

Purdy, Sean. "Framing Regent Park: The National Film Board of Canada and the Construction of

‘outcast Spaces’ in the Inner City, 1953 and 1994." Media, Culture & Society 27, no. 4

(2005): 523-49.

Rapaport, Lynn. "Holocaust pornography: Profaning the sacred in Ilsa, She-Wolf of the

SS." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 22, no. 1 (2003): 53-79.

Riches, Simon. The Philosophy of Popular Culture: The Philosophy of David Cronenberg.

Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2012.

Rodman, Gilbert. Why Cultural Studies? Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.

Ryan, Michael. Cultural Studies: A Practical Introduction. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell,

2010.

128 Seale, Clive. Researching Society and Culture. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2012.

Smith, Kieron. "Madawaska Valley: John Ormond's Lost Film at the National Film Board of

Canada." Canadian Journal of Film Studies 25, no. 1 (2016): 27-175.

Spicer, Andrew and A.T McKenna. The Man who got Carter: Michael Klinger, Independent

Production and the British Film Industry, 1960-1980. London, UK: Tauris, 2013.

Spicer, Andrew, A.T. McKenna, and Christopher Mier. Beyond the Bottom Line: The Producer

in Film and Television Studies. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Stahl, Matt. “Privilege and Distinction in Production Worlds: Copyright, Collective Bargaining,

and Working Conditions in Media Making.” In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of

Media Industries. Edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda Banks and John Caldwell, 54-67.

New York: NY, Routledge, 2009.

Startt, James and Michael Sloan. Historical Methods in Mass Communication. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.

Subissati, Andrea. “Viral Culture: Canadian Cultural Protectionism and Pontypool.”

In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, edited by Gina Freitag and Andre

Loiselle, 30-43. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

Tadrs, Jean-Pierre. "The State of Quebec." Cinema Canada (1977).

Taylor, Aaron. “Blood in the Maple Syrup: Canon, Popular Genre and the Canuxploitation of

Julian Roffman.” CineAction 18, no. 2 (2003): 18-28.

Tepperman, Charles. “Bureaucrats and Movie Czars: Canada’s Feature Film Policy since

2000.” Media Industies 4, no. 2 (2017), 62-80.

"The Vindicator." Library and Archives Canada, July 02, 2015. Accessed July 27, 2018.

Canadian Feature Film Database.

129 Thompson, Peter. “Eco-horror and Boundry Transgressions in Orca: The Killer Whale.

In The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, edited by Gina Freitag and Andre

Loiselle, 153-68. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press, 2015.

Tinic, Serra. "Borders of Production Research: A Response to Elana Levine." In Production

Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks,

and John Thornton Caldwell, 167-72. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.

Urquhart, Peter. “Film and Television: A Success?” in Cultural Industries.ca: Making Sense of

Canadian Media in the Digital Age, edited by Ira Wagman and Peter Urquhart, 17-31.

Toronto, ON: Lorimer, 2012.

Urquhart, Peter. "You should Know Something - Anything - about this Movie. You Paid for

it.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall, 2003): 64-80.

Vanderburgh, Jennifer. “Ghostbusted! Popular Perceptions of English Canadian

Cinema.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 81-98.

Vatnsdal, Caelum. They Came from Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema. Winnipeg,

MB: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2004.

Venegas, Christina. "Thinking Regionally: Singular in Diversity and Diverse in Unity." In Media

Industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 120-

31. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Véronneau, Pierre. "Genres and Variations: The Audiences of Quebec Cinema." Self Portraits:

The Cinemas of Canada since Telefilm, edited by Andre Loiselle and Tom McSorley, 93-

127. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Film Institute, 2006.

Wasko, Janet. “Studying the Political Economy of Media and Information.” Comunicacao

e Sociedada 7, (2005): 25-48.

130 Wasko, Janet. "The Study of the Political Economy of the Media in the Twenty-First

Century." International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 10, no. 3 (2014): 259-

271.

Waterhouse-Watson, Deb and Adam Brown. "Between Whores and Heroes: Women, Voyeurism

and Ambiguity in Holocaust Film." Outskirts 30 (2014): n.p.

Wilson, Norman. History in Crisis?: Recent Directions in Historiography. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Wilson, Scott. The Politics of Insects: David Cronenberg’s Cinema of Confrontation. New York,

NY: Continuum, 2011.

Wise, Wyndham. “Canadian Cinema from Boom to Bust: The Tax Shelter Years.” Take One 8,

no. 22 (1999): 17-24.

Zafirau, Stephen. "Audience Knowledge and the Everyday Lives of Cultural Producers in

Hollywood." In Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki

Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 175-89. New York, NY:

Routledge, 2009.

Zryd, Michael. “A Report on Canadian Experimental Film Institutions, 1980 – 2002.” North of

Everything: English Canadian cinema since 1980, edited by William Beard and Jerry

White, 392-401. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press, 2002.

131 Filmography

Anders, Sean, dir. Sex Drive. 2008; Summit Home Entertainment. DVD.

Anderson, Michael, dir. Orca: The Killer Whale. 1977; Paramount Pictures. Film.

Anderson, Paul W.S., dir. Resident Evil: Afterlife. 2010; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

DVD.

Antel, Franz, dir. The Sweet Sins of Sexy Susan. 1967; Constantin Film. Film.

Bass, Jules and Arthur Rankin Jr., dir. The Last Unicorn. 1982; Maple Pictures. DVD

Beresford, Bruce, dir. Black Robe. 1991; The Samuel Goldwyn Company. Film.

Borsos, Phillip, dir. The Grey Fox. 1982; United Artists Classics. Film.

Bunuel, Luis, dir. Belle de Jour. 1967; The Criterion Collection. DVD

Cameron, James, dir. The Terminator. 1984; Orion Pictures. VHS.

Capra, Frank, dir. It’s A Wonderful Life. 1946; Paramount Home Video. DVD.

Carmody, Don, dir. The Surrogate. 1984; Cinema International Canada (CIC). VHS.

Castle, William, dir. House on Haunted Hill. 1959; Allied Artists Pictures. Film.

Clark, Bob, dir. Porky’s. 1981; 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. DVD.

Colberg, Alan, dir. Tapestry of Passion. 1976; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Cronenberg, David, dir. A History of Violence. 2005; Alliance Atlantis Motion Picture

Distribution. Film.

Cronenberg, David, dir. Dead Ringers. 1988; The Criterion Collection. DVD.

Cronenberg, David, dir. Rabid. 1977; Shout! Factory. DVD.

Cronenberg, David, dir. Shivers. 1975; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Cronenberg, David, dir. The Fly. 1986; 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. DVD.

Cronenberg, David, dir. Videodrome. 1983; The Criterion Collection. DVD.

132 Damiano, Gerald, dir. Deep Throat. 1972; Bryanston Distributing. Film.

Dell, Perry, dir. Deep Jaws. 1976; Something Weird Video. DVD

DiMarco, Steve, dir. Prisoner of Love. 1999; Sterling Home Entertainment. DVD.

Donovan, Paul and O’Connell, Maura, dir. Siege. 1983; Norstar Releasing. Film.

Dowse, Michael, dir. Fubar. 2002; Alliance Atlantis Home Video. DVD.

Dubois, Alberto, dir. The Pink Pussy: Where Sin Lives. 1964; Something Weird Video. DVD.

Fosse, Bob, dir. Caberet. 1972; International Film Distributors. Film.

Edmonds, Don, dir. Ilsa: Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks. 1976; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP).

Film.

Edmonds, Don, dir. Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS. 1975; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Egoyan, Atom, dir. Calendar. 1993; Alliance Atlantis Home Video. DVD.

Erschbamer, George, dir. Bounty Hunters. 1996; Lions Gate Films Home Entertainment. DVD.

Erschbamer, George, dir. Snake Eater. 1989; Cinépix / Famous Players Distribution. DVD.

Erschbamer, George, dir. Snake Eater II: The Drug Buster. 1989; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP).

DVD.

Erschbamer, George, dir. Snake Eater III: His Law. 1992; Cinépix / Famous Players

Distribution. Film

Fawcett, John, dir. Ginger Snaps. 2000; Columbia Tristar Home Video. DVD.

Feltham, Kerry, dir. State Park. 1988; Cinépix / Famous Players Distribution. Film.

Fournier, Claude, dir. Hot Dog Cops. 1980; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Fournier, Roger, dir. Pile ou face. 1971; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Franco, Jesús, dir. Wanda, the Wicked Warden. 1977; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Frawley, James, dir. The Muppet Movie. 1979; Walt Disney Home Entertainment, DVD.

133 Frost, Lee, dir. Love Camp 7. 1969; Olympic International Films. Film.

Fruet, William, dir. Death Weekend. 1976; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Gallo, Vincent, dir. Buffalo ’66. 1998; Lions Gate Films. Film.

Hanley, Jim, dir. Junior. 1985; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Hartford, David, dir. Back to God’s Country. 1919; Image Entertainment. DVD.

Hayes, John, dir. Baby Rosemary. 1976; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Héroux, Denis, dir. L’initiation. 1970; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Héroux, Denis, dir. Valérie. 1969; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Jackson, Douglas, dir. Whispers. 1990; Cinépix / Famous Players Distribution. DVD.

Johnson, Lamont, dir. Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone. 1983; Columbia Pictures.

DVD.

Kent, Larry, dir. Keep It in the Family. 1973; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Kent, Larry, dir. Yesterday. 1981; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

LaFleur, Jean, dir. Ilsa the Tigress of Siberia. 1977; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

LaFleur, Jean and Svatek, Peter, dir. The Mystery of the Million Dollar Hockey Puck. Maple

Pictures. Film.

Lamb, John, dir. Mermaids of Tiburon. 1962; IndieFlix. DVD.

Landis, John, dir. Animal House. 1978; Universal Pictures. DVD.

Lord, Jean-Claude, dir. The Vindicator. 1986; Twentieth Century Fox. VHS.

Lussier, Patrick, dir. My Bloody Valentine. 2009; Maple Pictures. DVD.

Marshall, Rob, dir. Chicago. 2002; Alliance Atlantis Communications. DVD.

Matalon, Eddy, dir. Blackout. 1978; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

McDonald, Bruce, dir. Pontypool. 2008; Maple Pictures. Film.

134 McGrath, Joseph, dir. Girls Come First. 1975; New Realm Entertainments. Film.

Mendeluk, George, dir. Meatballs III: Summer Job. 1986; Cinépix Video. VHS.

Meyer, Russ, dir. Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!. 1965; Eve Productions. Film.

Meyer, Russ, dir. Vixen. 1968; Eve Productions. Film.

Mihalka, George, dir. My Bloody Valentine. 1981; Paramount Pictures. DVD.

Mitchell, David, dir. Ski School 2. 1994; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Moranis, Rick and Dave Thomas, dir. Strange Brew. 1983; MGM/UA Entertainment Company.

Film.

Mottola, Greg, dir. Superbad. 2007; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. DVD.

Owen, Don, dir. Nobody Waved Good-bye. 1964; National Film Board of Canada (NFB). Film.

Paseornek, Michael, dir. Vibrations. 1996; Dimension Home Video. VHS.

Pierson, Claude, dir. Ah! Si mon moine. 1973; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Reitman, Ivan, dir. Cannibal Girls. 1973; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Reitman, Ivan, dir. Foxy Lady. 1971; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Reitman, Ivan, dir. Ghostbusters. 1984; Columbia Pictures. DVD.

Reitman, Ivan, dir. Meatballs. 1979; Paramount Pictures. DVD.

Reitman, Ivan, dir. Stripes. 1981; Columbia Pictures. Film.

Roffman, Julian, dir. The Mask. 1961; International Film Distributors. Film.

Roth, Eli, dir. Death Wish. 2018; 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. DVD.

Shebib, Donald, dir. Goin’ Down the Road. 1970; Alliance. DVD.

Sone, John, dir. Love in a 4 Letter Word. 1970; Cinépix Film Properties (CFP). Film.

Sone, John, dir. Loving and Laughing. 1971; Cinépix USA. Film.

Svatek, Peter, dir. Baby for Sale. 2004; Lifetime Home Video. DVD.

135 Trent, John, dir. Vengeance is Mine. 1974; Ambassador Film Distributors. Film.

Villa, Jaques, dir. Her Bikini Never Got Wet. 1962; Gaston Hakim Productions. Film.

Villeneuve, Denis, dir. Polytechnique. 2009; Alliance Vivafilm. Film.

Walker, Giles, dir. Princes in Exile. 1990; Cinépix / Famous Players Distribution. Film.

Weitz, Paul, dir. American Pie. 1999; Universal Studios Home Video. DVD.

Wellington, David, dir. I Love a Man in Uniform. 1993; A-Pix Entertainment. Film.

Wiederhorn, Ken, dir. Meatballs Part II. 1984; RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video. VHS.

136