01Chap1.qxd 7/8/02 10:24 AM Page 3 1 Cinema in the Age of Globalization My first recollection of the film industry in British Columbia dates from , when my friend Gord Darby invited me to attend the Vancouver pre- mier of a film in which he claimed to have played a central role. Gord is -foot- and played college basketball. As he tells it, he received a phone call at home one evening from a film producer, whose first words were, “I hear you’re tall.” Gord was thus recruited to wear the large and cumbersome cos- tume of the monster in the John Frankenheimer horror movie Prophecy, which was shooting some scenes in North Vancouver. We laughed all the way through this ridiculous film – until the end, that is, when Gord’s name was excluded from the credits, leading us to believe that none of his scenes had made the final cut. I had a similar experience in when another friend, Larry Pynn, a reporter with the Vancouver Sun, signed on as an extra for the Michael Chapman fantasy Clan of the Cave Bear, then filming on Bowen Island. At the film’s Vancouver debut, it seemed that most of the audience consisted of extras like Larry. To this day, Larry still searches for himself on the screen – midway through the film, at the edge of the frame of a busy scene in which hundreds of extras adorned in animal skins arrive for a gathering of the clans. I found him as hard to recognize as Gord had been in his monster cos- tume. The credits, at least, verified Larry’s participation. 01Chap1.qxd 7/8/02 10:24 AM Page 4 The BC film industry was in those days, to me and my friends at least, a lark, nothing we were prepared to take seriously. Even when, as a student at Simon Fraser University, I began to study the Canadian film industry during the free-trade debates of the late s, I had little regard for what was hap- pening all around me. Filmmaking in British Columbia was not real cinema, because the province was little more than a Hollywood back lot, and because the films shot in British Columbia were almost always set somewhere else. The province’s role seemed no more integral to these films than Gord and Larry had been to theirs. To my mind, the products of what had come to be called Hollywood North lacked the integrity of those rare home-grown films like Phillip Borsos’s The Grey Fox or Sandy Wilson’s My American Cousin, films that were conceived, shot, and set in British Columbia. I was convinced that, for the most part, real cinema took place elsewhere. But the film industry in British Columbia has become harder and harder to ignore. It has grown steadily, producing more films and television pro- grams, and spending more money in the province each year. Some years have been leaner than others, certainly, but Hollywood’s anticipated desertion of British Columbia has never materialized. In fact, during the busy summer months, often enough film crews and studio space aren’t available to satisfy Hollywood’s demands. If anything, Hollywood’s presence in British Colum- bia has become further entrenched in recent years as major Hollywood stu- dios establish local production facilities. At the same time, a small indigenous industry has emerged, gaining notice and occasionally awards at film festivals throughout Canada and internationally. British Columbia has become in the span of twenty-five years one of the largest centres of film and television production in North America. Compared to just productions and $ million in direct spending in , the film and television industries spent $. billion on productions – including fifty-six feature films – in British Columbia in (BC Film Commission b). These numbers are significant not only to British Columbia. They attest to the growing importance of regional and foreign location production within the Canadian film industry. Every province in Canada has at least one government office promoting film production, and within the provinces there are regional and municipal film commissions seeking to attract loca- tion activity to their areas. At the same time, these numbers underscore the increasing internation- alization of commercial film production by the major studios, a development Cinema in the Age of Globalization 01Chap1.qxd 7/8/02 10:24 AM Page 5 California film workers have found threatening. Two Hollywood labour orga- nizations – the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild – commissioned a study that singled out British Columbia as a chief culprit in luring film and television production away from southern California (Mon- itor Company ). During the spring and summer of , California film and television workers staged rallies in Burbank, Sacramento, and Holly- wood, calling for action from the state legislature to stem so-called runaway production (Movie, TV workers ). A report commissioned by the International Trade Administration (, ) of the US Department of Commerce estimated US$. billion in direct expenditures were lost to runaway production in , although the Directors Guild of Canada claimed the figure was closer to a still-substantial US$. billion. The Film and Television Action Committee () said that of the percent of all US-developed film and television productions in made in foreign locations, percent were made at least partly in Canada; it accused Canada of trying to steal the film industry from the United States (see also Magder and Burston , ). By October , a bill had been introduced in Congress asking the US government to provide wage-based tax credits for small to mid-size projects filmed in the United States (Garvey a). In December , the Film and Television Action Committee and the Screen Actors Guild filed a petition with the US Department of Com- merce, asking Washington to impose penalties on film and television pro- ductions shot in Canada (Garvey b). Canadian film and television production has become a $. billion industry, creating the equivalent of , full-time jobs annually. The industry produces about forty Canadian feature-length films each year (Yaffe ). British Columbia occupies a distinct place within this industry, given its relatively recent emergence as a production centre, its heavy reliance on foreign service production, and its consequent modest contribution to Canada’s stock of indigenous films and television programs. From to , for example, spending by foreign film and television producers accounted for more than two-thirds of the industry’s economic activity (BCFC b). As recently as , BC production represented just percent of Canadian production budgets, compared to Ontario’s percent and Quebec’s percent (CFTPA , -). British Columbia’s heavy reliance on foreign location production raises an obvious question: What does it mean, in an age of global image flows Cinema in the Age of Globalization 01Chap1.qxd 7/8/02 10:24 AM Page 6 and transnational audiovisual production, to speak of the British Columbia film industry, an industry with clearer links to Hollywood than to Canada? Besides being the geographical site of production, what relevance does this place have to the dramatic cinema that is produced within its boundaries? Such questions have been the source of some angst, as the opening para- graphs of a front-page article in the Vancouver Sun attest: “It’s the old famil- iar story. In the movie business, BC residents are the hewers of wood and drawers of water for a seductive foreign culture – and Beautiful British Columbia itself stands in for less beautiful foreign parts, usually in the United States. The movie invasion of British Columbia by US producers may be good for Canada’s economy, but what is it doing for our soul as a nation? In the circumstances, the nickname ‘Hollywood North’ takes on an ominously ironic ring” (Canadian culture? ). Where does British Columbia fit within this cinema? Is it merely a convenient yet expendable site of production? Or can it make a more integral claim to the cinema made within its boundaries? These questions arise from unstated assumptions about the nature of cinema and the proper relationship between a cinema and its site of produc- tion. These assumptions, which cast the BC film industry as some kind of misfit, thwart serious evaluation of what kind of cinema it is and how we might understand its relationship to place. The idea that British Columbia’s feature film industry is a dis-placed cinema is written into the nicknaming of Vancouver, the province’s centre of film production, as “Hollywood North” or “Brollywood.” The New York Times has called Vancouver “The City That Can Sub for All of America” (Elias ). Cinema As National Cinema If cinema is one of the media through which we imagine place, it must also be acknowledged that place is one of the templates with which we imagine cinema. Cinema, in other words, has commonly been analyzed as a medium of expression specific to a geographically situated culture. And within cin- ema’s taxonomy, privilege has been granted to national cultures. Even those studies that foreground genre or auteur analyses frequently appeal to national cultural contexts to explain specific characteristics of film texts. Thus, we read about German expressionism, Soviet socialist realism, Italian neo-realism, French impressionism and surrealism, and the American west- ern (see Cook ; Bordwell and Thompson ; Turner ). Cinema in the Age of Globalization 01Chap1.qxd 7/8/02 10:24 AM Page 7 Certainly it can be argued that context remains pertinent to the analysis of both film industries and film texts. But what is less clear is how context itself should be demarcated. Classifying cinema as national cinema can no longer be assumed to be the most appropriate category of analysis for a body of films produced within a given nation-state, nor can it be taken for granted that all film industries are national industries.