Canadian Realist Tradition
MASSEYSCanadian cinema has been dominated by a realist tradition due to its industrial limitations, the influence of government agencies upon production and Canada’s desire to construct a national identity. These factors can only lead to an environment dependant on realism, especially when combined with the industry’s creation headed by John Grierson, a documentarian.
As film became a worldwide industry, Canada did not protect its own nation’s livelihood as the United States began to dominate foreign markets. Ted Magder argues, among Gerald Pratley and others, that Canada’s allowance to let American films dominate Canadian screens allowed most of the money created through exhibition to travel to the states, instead of remaining in Canada to further production, unlike Britain and France who established quotas or bans and effectively secured some local production. The domination of Canadian screens also prevented Canada in developing its own filmmakers, as the low-budget shorts were no competition for the lavish, full length fiction films funded by American banks.
With no money to even start-up an agency or an industry, the U.S. domination led to a severe lack of film personnel within Canada. The only existing agency was Badgely’s Motion Picture Bureau which highlighted the scenic landscapes of Canada, a cultural commodity depicted in American “outdoors” films. The bureau’s connection to the Department of Trade and Commerce also encouraged the depiction of landscapes for tourism and commercial enterprise, as Joyce Nelson points out. This documentation of Canada for foreign investment was soon disrupted by the arrival of John Grierson. His appointment as film commissioner inevitably controlled the films that Canada would produce. Nelson displays that Grierson’s background in British documentary and his personal distaste for fiction films, as highlighted in his film policy, removed any chance of creating a domestic feature-film industry. Grierson argued that feature films did nothing to “reflect a purposive society but rather a neurotic, meaningless society.” He favoured short, documentaries due to their level of information and seriousness. Grierson then established the Canadian film board by hiring members of the British documentary movement. Documentary became the initial starting point from which all other works would evolve. Grierson also started the production of social films, as he believed that they could be applicable to most nations, and that fiction films were only effective in certain regions. The documentary and social ideals were expanded as Grierson decided, not to hire the few experienced filmmakers available, but instead to train inexperienced staff to create the films that he wanted.
These films were created using the only source of income available, the Canadian government. The Film Board itself was created as a Parliamentary act in 1939, and immediately became a tool of the government in creating propaganda during WWII. Rohama Lee explains that the since the NFBC’s production did not rely upon commercial return, it was destined for special interest films. Lee states that due to government funding, production was divided mostly into films for government departments and for educational purposes. Films were created to help create a national identity for Canada by depicting the large diversity of people, and the local scenery that defined certain regions of Canada. This left only a third of production for films of artistic intentions. Gerald Pratley also takes up the problem with federal funding as he argues that the inherent strive for capital deflects the necessity of cultural advancement.
Not only did the federal strive for profits affect production, but the actual intentions and limitations of certain departments affected the topics and interpretation of certain films. Some films were suggested from specific departments, and were produced merely as an obligation due to funding. These projects limit the possibility of artistic films even further. Pratley discusses how even though a filmmaker wishes to document a social problem such as a strike, they would have to subject the content of their film to approval by the appropriate departments, in this case the Department of Labour. This censorship was also applied to any independent artists who were hired to work for the board. This censorship and objective depiction of Canadian society lasted until the sixties when the layout of the NFB underwent significant changes.
Even though Canada was regularly producing shorts by the sixties, it still lacked a national identity or style that could be utilized to help promote a more prosperous industry. Bruce Elder argues that the development of national art passes through three stages outlined by Frantz Fanon. After assimilating with the colonizer’s art, and before creating a native culture, a nation will go through a phase with is an “affirmation of the past.” The Candid-Eye movement of the sixties, Elder argues, was this second phase, along with the cinéma-vérite movement. These two movements were a reaction against the previous cinema where the aesthetic value was created through the separation of the cinematic object and reality. These new movements destroyed the separation, resulting in the filmmaker’s active participation in the creation of a film. Instead of taking an objective stance, many of these films often incorporated or relied upon the presence of the camera, or filmmaker, in order to reveal the truth worth documenting. Programs such as Challenge for Change were the product of Canadian film evolution. Even though Challenge for Change was a success and was critically received and was considered free of the federal censorship originally placed upon filmmakers, the movements were still restricted. With little funding, most film crews consisted of a handful of people and most equipment was portable, lightweight and 16mm. These movements, while rebelling against the only standard, Grierson’s initial, objective documentary industry, still was unable to make the leap to feature length production. If anything, these movements pushed Canadian film even further from producing feature films, as documentary lost its objective quality which is normally associated with fictional films. Despite this setback, Canada at least began to develop a national identity through the movements’ desire to record and preserve social traditions. David Clandfield expresses this movement’s desire through his analysis of Pierre Perrault’s film Pour la suite du monde and the revival of the beluga trap in a small Québec town. The catalogue of traditions and rituals was also present in Anglophone productions, such as The Back-Breaking Leaf. John Grierson’s preference and grit for documentary created the national standard from which later cinema evolved and rebelled against. When combined with the financial and industrial deficiencies that Canada possessed, in comparison to the United States, documentary and the quest for realism became the Canadian cinematic tradition.
As film became a worldwide industry, Canada did not protect its own nation’s livelihood as the United States began to dominate foreign markets. Ted Magder argues, among Gerald Pratley and others, that Canada’s allowance to let American films dominate Canadian screens allowed most of the money created through exhibition to travel to the states, instead of remaining in Canada to further production, unlike Britain and France who established quotas or bans and effectively secured some local production. The domination of Canadian screens also prevented Canada in developing its own filmmakers, as the low-budget shorts were no competition for the lavish, full length fiction films funded by American banks.
With no money to even start-up an agency or an industry, the U.S. domination led to a severe lack of film personnel within Canada. The only existing agency was Badgely’s Motion Picture Bureau which highlighted the scenic landscapes of Canada, a cultural commodity depicted in American “outdoors” films. The bureau’s connection to the Department of Trade and Commerce also encouraged the depiction of landscapes for tourism and commercial enterprise, as Joyce Nelson points out. This documentation of Canada for foreign investment was soon disrupted by the arrival of John Grierson. His appointment as film commissioner inevitably controlled the films that Canada would produce. Nelson displays that Grierson’s background in British documentary and his personal distaste for fiction films, as highlighted in his film policy, removed any chance of creating a domestic feature-film industry. Grierson argued that feature films did nothing to “reflect a purposive society but rather a neurotic, meaningless society.” He favoured short, documentaries due to their level of information and seriousness. Grierson then established the Canadian film board by hiring members of the British documentary movement. Documentary became the initial starting point from which all other works would evolve. Grierson also started the production of social films, as he believed that they could be applicable to most nations, and that fiction films were only effective in certain regions. The documentary and social ideals were expanded as Grierson decided, not to hire the few experienced filmmakers available, but instead to train inexperienced staff to create the films that he wanted.
These films were created using the only source of income available, the Canadian government. The Film Board itself was created as a Parliamentary act in 1939, and immediately became a tool of the government in creating propaganda during WWII. Rohama Lee explains that the since the NFBC’s production did not rely upon commercial return, it was destined for special interest films. Lee states that due to government funding, production was divided mostly into films for government departments and for educational purposes. Films were created to help create a national identity for Canada by depicting the large diversity of people, and the local scenery that defined certain regions of Canada. This left only a third of production for films of artistic intentions. Gerald Pratley also takes up the problem with federal funding as he argues that the inherent strive for capital deflects the necessity of cultural advancement.
Not only did the federal strive for profits affect production, but the actual intentions and limitations of certain departments affected the topics and interpretation of certain films. Some films were suggested from specific departments, and were produced merely as an obligation due to funding. These projects limit the possibility of artistic films even further. Pratley discusses how even though a filmmaker wishes to document a social problem such as a strike, they would have to subject the content of their film to approval by the appropriate departments, in this case the Department of Labour. This censorship was also applied to any independent artists who were hired to work for the board. This censorship and objective depiction of Canadian society lasted until the sixties when the layout of the NFB underwent significant changes.
Even though Canada was regularly producing shorts by the sixties, it still lacked a national identity or style that could be utilized to help promote a more prosperous industry. Bruce Elder argues that the development of national art passes through three stages outlined by Frantz Fanon. After assimilating with the colonizer’s art, and before creating a native culture, a nation will go through a phase with is an “affirmation of the past.” The Candid-Eye movement of the sixties, Elder argues, was this second phase, along with the cinéma-vérite movement. These two movements were a reaction against the previous cinema where the aesthetic value was created through the separation of the cinematic object and reality. These new movements destroyed the separation, resulting in the filmmaker’s active participation in the creation of a film. Instead of taking an objective stance, many of these films often incorporated or relied upon the presence of the camera, or filmmaker, in order to reveal the truth worth documenting. Programs such as Challenge for Change were the product of Canadian film evolution. Even though Challenge for Change was a success and was critically received and was considered free of the federal censorship originally placed upon filmmakers, the movements were still restricted. With little funding, most film crews consisted of a handful of people and most equipment was portable, lightweight and 16mm. These movements, while rebelling against the only standard, Grierson’s initial, objective documentary industry, still was unable to make the leap to feature length production. If anything, these movements pushed Canadian film even further from producing feature films, as documentary lost its objective quality which is normally associated with fictional films. Despite this setback, Canada at least began to develop a national identity through the movements’ desire to record and preserve social traditions. David Clandfield expresses this movement’s desire through his analysis of Pierre Perrault’s film Pour la suite du monde and the revival of the beluga trap in a small Québec town. The catalogue of traditions and rituals was also present in Anglophone productions, such as The Back-Breaking Leaf. John Grierson’s preference and grit for documentary created the national standard from which later cinema evolved and rebelled against. When combined with the financial and industrial deficiencies that Canada possessed, in comparison to the United States, documentary and the quest for realism became the Canadian cinematic tradition.
Labels: Canadian Cinema
posted by Phantom at 5:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home