| "Get used to it."
That was basically what I was told, as an intern, when I complained about the sheer bureaucracy and complexity of the Canadian funding system. Acquiring funding for film and television productions was more like an exercise in filling out and putting together the perfect application package. That is, it required piles of application packages to different funders, each requiring a slightly different version of the same thing – and all for the same project. Then there is the waiting for weeks to months on end, followed by joyous celebration for the lucky few. The rejected ones are subject to frantic appeals or outright abandonment of their projects.
Perhaps that is a cynical view of how the Canadian funding system for film and television operates, but there is much to be pessimistic about these days. If there were plenty of cash to spread around, then maybe there would not be so much to complain about. However, there is currently a dark shadow hanging over the industry. Much of the industry news out there is about the $25-million cut to the government-supported Canadian Television Fund (CTF) – a cut that many say needs to be reversed or it will lead to the downfall of television production in Canada. This cut has also put even more stress on other already severely overburdened public and private funds for both television and film. On top of that, there are the ongoing talks about changes in rules and policies for funding and tax-credit structures, which are supposed to make things easier for the Canadian producer. The all-too-familiar result, though, is that Canadians are still generally seen as making movies and television shows that nobody watches.
Canadian-Hollywood producer Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters, Six Days Seven Nights) summed up the Canadian system perfectly in his keynote speech at the Prime Time in Ottawa conference in February 2003.
"The Canadian producer has been trained and encouraged to focus on qualifying for a range of content, rules and points set by an ever-changing platoon of politicians and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, this intense focus on technical criteria sometimes means that creating films for the real world is ignored.
"The audience is forgotten. It’s as if successfully navigating the minutia of this hermetically sealed world of institutionalized filmmaking genetically selects Canadian producers for failure," said Reitman.
To be fair, Reitman offered hope that producers in Canada will rise above our "institutionalized" system. He encouraged Canadian producers to be more entrepreneurial and take back-end compensation instead of receiving a salary or fees. This back-end pay means the producer would take a percentage of any profits the project would make. Although a novel idea, you can only expect a producer to take on so much risk given the size of the Canadian market for film and television – especially since most Canadian film and television shows do not turn a profit. Yes, Canadian producers may need an entrepreneurial shift in thinking about funding film and television, but the intensely institutionalized system itself must also be changed to make it all work.
"That’s producers’ number one complaint – not having enough money and not being able to get it efficiently," says Jane L. Thompson, vice-president of communications for the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. "At the same time, when you’re looking at the flip side, it is the whole accountability issue," she adds, referring to the complexity of the Canadian funding system. "When you’re taking money, especially from the government, it needs to be traced in a certain way."
Even if the process of acquiring and dealing with funding were to be more streamlined, securing the funding needed for any given project can still be a gamble even for the experienced and proven producer. For example, 13 episodes of a Canadian one-hour children’s series could have, including the broadcast licence, a $6-million budget, with over a dozen different funders, financiers, distribution sales and tax credits. Each of these elements of the financial structure can range from contributions of less than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of the production’s budget. To illustrate its importance, it is not unusual for the CTF contribution itself to amount to more than 20 per cent of such a production’s financial structure.
"In Canada, it’s so fragile. If you lose one piece of your funding pie, the whole production can come apart," states Thompson.
To put things in perspective, Americans are constantly cranking out productions with budgets that are 10 times that of their Canadian counterparts. Though it may be tempting to look towards the U.S. as an example of how to finance and prosper in film and television, that type of comparison is wholly unfair. The revenues that can be generated within the U.S. result in a purchasing power so great that no funding system is needed to support the American entertainment industry.
"The U.S doesn’t have our problem. They have a massive market and they’re able to afford their own product," says Douglas Berquist, independent producer and president of Calgary-based DB Entertainment.
While not market powerhouses like the United States, most other countries do not share Canada’s funding problem to the same degree. Berquist suggests that part of the problem is Canada, unlike other countries, does not have incentives to encourage private investors to participate in the film and television industry.
As an experienced international co-producer, Berquist’s knowledge of private-investment tax incentives in other countries has led to his development of models to entice private investment into the Canadian film and television industry. According to him, in every other country where "soft money" incentives are available, there are also tax incentives for the individual private investor. Currently, because of the way the tax laws work in Canada, the Canadian producer cannot take advantage of what Berquist has in mind for private-investment tax structures.
"Essentially, my models take the private-investment structures that are already available in Alberta and Canada that are available to other industries, but just not in the motion-picture industry. I adapted these models to the motion picture industry," says Berquist.
Investors, especially in Alberta, are looking for alternative investment opportunities to supplement their oil and gas-heavy portfolios. According to Berquist, The response so far with the investors he has been in contact with has been very positive.
"If I can offer investors an investment product that is better than, or at least competitive with other investment products that are available right now, then suddenly you’re in the game. I’d have 10 times the business I have right now if the government would get on side and allow the private sector to get involved," he adds.
"You’re then not relying 100 per cent on government funding and incentive programs – they become complements to one another."
Joanne Levy, executive director of the A-Channel Production Fund and manager of Independent Production at Craig Media Inc., believes part of Canada’s problem in film and television funding lies in the quality of our productions. According to Levy, Canada produces too much "derivative swill" reminiscent of big-budget American movies and television shows, which gets largely ignored by audiences.
"Just trying to redo what the Americans do is hardly a recipe for success," she says.
Although acknowledging that intrinsically Canadian material needs the support of public funding, Levy believes that models for successful programming for television can be implemented that do not use public funding. As an example, she says, a combination of the A-Channel Production Fund, provincial incentives, foreign pre-sales and federal tax credits can be used to make successful television that people want to watch, as long as we stop imitating American television.
"We have to find our own ways of doing things," she says. "I believe we have the storytellers, craftspeople and the artistic vision to create great television that people want to watch."
As the philosophy behind funding film and television in Canada is debated, more people are finding it a struggle to make a living in the industry. The lack of cash, an institutionalized funding system and general instability and unpredictability are all stressing producers to the limit these days. The days of plentiful public funds are rapidly dwindling – a change in the system and a shift in thinking about film and television in this country are in order. Whether some of that change will be the injection of private-investment incentives and monies, or showing more innovation without public funding by using lower budgets, remains to be seen. However, if nothing changes the film and television industry in Canada will continue its slow slide downwards into complete insignificance. |
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.