Introduction
A broad topic, the city
of Toronto and its relation to its film industry will be explored in this essay.
As Canada’s largest city, with a diverse population of over 2.8 million people,
there has been a growing film production investments in the city of over $1
billion dollars each year since 2010. This essay will focus on the film
industry from the perspective of governmentality as the industry engages with
national film and media funding bodies, its subsidiaries and festival
platforms. The three areas that will be studied are Telefilm, TIFF and the city’s
film commission. There is not just one locatable Toronto film industry so this
essay will define it in terms of its relation to these institutions where they
intersect most prominently. All three of the institutions are supported by
funding from differing federal, provincial and municipal levels within the
Canadian government, which has led to their continued sustainability, growth and
popularity, while also sparking a larger interest in film from the city’s
residents. To provide a first-hand perspective of what kind of work these
institutions are providing, this essay will rely on first-hand interviews with
some of the important figures of these institutions. These include Dan Lyon
from Telefilm, the Senior Canadian Programmer at TIFF Steve Gravestock, and
Michele Alosinac from the Toronto Film, Televison and Digital Media Office. The
goal being to better understand what Toronto provides, in terms of
governmentality and the Toronto film industry, to a global visual culture.
Dan Lyon and the Role of Telefilm
The role of Telefilm
Canada is both in financing development and production of Canadian features
while also stimulating demand and access to Canadian productions. Its
responsibilities consist of both service productions, which are used by
Americans or other non-Canadians who utilize Canadian locations, crews and
service tax credits; and Canadian productions controlled by Canadian production
companies, which are the only projects eligible for Telefilm support.
A
broad responsibility that Dan Lyon, the Regional Feature Film Executive for
Ontario and Nunavut, works, along with a full office, diligently to fulfill.
Through an interview with Lyon the particularities of his role at Telefilm
become clearer.
But
perhaps to better understand some of Lyon’s ideas and the debates surrounding
the role of government subsidized Canadian filmmaking his and Michael J.
Trebilcock 1982 book Public Strategy and
Motion Pictures: The Choice of Instruments to Promote the Development of the
Canadian Film Production Industry needs to be explicated. This legislative
study for the Ontario Economic Council explored the production and distribution
strategies of Canadian films as they related to public- and private-interests
theories of government intervention through the history, instruments and
results of major Canadian film-related institutions such as the National Film
Board, Canadian Film Development Corporation, Canada Council, Provincial and
Municipal Programs, Capital Cost Allowance, and regulation. Much of it is the
familiar account of these major Canadian film-funding institutions but with a
precise contemporaneous analysis of their recent efforts and economy. The
often-times repeated (and true) conclusions about the Canadian cinema are also
addressed (and still relevant today): The colonized eye of the Canadian
filmgoer hasn’t allowed for a successful film industry to fully emerge.
But
Lyon and Trebilcock still agree on the cultural importance of a Canadian cinema
and the role for government intervention,
The
final market-failure argument for intervention – positive cultural
externalities – is elusive and difficult to verify, but it seems to have force.
The argument here is that all Canadians, film-viewers or not, are likely to be
made better off by a strengthened sense of common heritage, natural identity,
and common values and purposes. To the extent that feature films can promote
this objective by emphasizing Canadian themes, runs the argument, subsidies
should be forthcoming; in their absence, this social benefit cannot be fully
captured by private economic agents in private market transactions, so the
result is underproduction of a socially desirable good. (Pg. 115)
The
conclusion of Public Strategy and Motion
Pictures is that the government should
have a subsidy policy, as it is one of the only available instruments of
intervention to remedy the market failure. Lyon and Trebilcock argue for the
necessity to determine the output criteria of the sponsored films and
determining more precise content guidelines that relate to a Canadian identity,
while avoiding a narrow nationalism and too much of an emphasis on economic
qualifiers.
Over
thirty years later, these are now Lyon’s responsibilities at Telefilm where he
works on deciding which first-time, intermediate and even well-established
filmmakers will receive funding from his department. Lyon is responsible for
the micro- and lower-budget stream of financing at Telefilm, which means that
most emerging Toronto filmmakers would have to persuade him if they wanted to
receive some of Telefilm’s funding. On the subject of the Toronto film
industry, these investments and relations are how Lyon financially contributes
and participates to it. The focus is less on the industry as a whole but on
very specific projects that Telefilm is in partnership with in either
development, production, post-production, about to premiere or get a theatrical
release.
From their 2014-2015 their funding
program provided $89.1 million in the support for the Canadian audiovisual
industry, which 68% ($60.8M) went to the production financing of 87 feature
films, 13% ($11.3M) in marketing funding for 87 feature films, 9% ($7.8M) to
the development support for 301 projects, and the remaining to promotional
events relating to Canadian film.
Some
of the 87 films that were funded through the Telefilm production programs
include Deepa Mehta’s Beeba Boys,
Robert Budreau’s Born to Be Blue,
John Crowley’s Brooklyn, Pavan Moondi
and Brian Robertson’s Diamond Tongues,
Philippe Faucon’s Fatima, Philippe
Falardeau’s Guibord s'en va-t-en guerre,
Patricia Rozema’s Into the Forest,
Anne Émond’s Les êtres chers, Nadia Litz’s The
People Garden, and Igor Drljaca’s The
Waiting Room. While some upcoming projects that Lyon is excited for include
Gaurav Seth’s Prisoner X (2005),
Director X’s Across the Line (2015),
David Bezmozgis’s Natasha (2016) and Jeremy
LaLonde‘s How to Plan an Orgy in a Small
Town (2016).
There
has also been a qualitative shift in the success index of these films, which
accounts for its cultural returns. These are broken down to 60% commercial:
which is 40% of the box office receipts in Canada, 10% gross domestic sales
excluding box office, and 10% international sales. 30% cultural: which is 10%
selection at certain international film festivals, 10% prizes received at said
festivals, 10% awards won at national competitive events and festivals. Finally
10% industrial: in regards to the amount of private funding the project
received.
To
stimulate demand and access to Canadian productions there must be more information
about them, which makes social media important to Telefilm. For example their
shared Twitter account is regularly updated, in both English and French, with
news about many of their projects and events. Lyon also highly recommends the
Canadian film industry website and digital magazine Playback. It is the voice of the Canadian film industry as it
relates all news relating to it along with providing reviews and box office information.
For example, Playback’s newest Spring
2016 issue has a feature on the new technological developments in digital
reality and on their website a recent post on the two Canadian films by Kim
Nguyen and Nathan Morlando who will be going to Cannes with their newest films.
Lyon
reaffirms the healthiness and affluence of film and television productions in
Toronto, which is that of an over $1 billion industry. Lyon’s particular
responsibilities at Telefilm are the lower-budget stream of its investments,
which can be anywhere between $250,000 to $2.5 million, and which are meant to
invest in provincial filmmakers who have strong personal visions. These are not
loans but an investment for a recoupable equity share of revenues from
exploitation in all media. It is collaborative work not only with the
filmmakers as Lyon also spoke of the necessity to have positive relationship
between his department with Toronto’s other film institutions such as the
Toronto film office commissioner Zaib Shaikh or Tasso Lakas from ACTRA who runs
its micro-budget program TIP. The Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC)
is also referred to as an important resource, whose activities are investing in
Ontario film productions, administering the provincial tax credits, and
providing location services.
The
Telefilm lower-budget stream investments are part of the Canada Feature Film
Fund (CFFF), which is one of their talent building initiatives. Filmmakers who
are accepted for receiving this fund would receive notes, comments, feedback,
and advice for possible improvements on their films. But it is more like
constructive criticism, as they would propose methods on how to refine the film
posed in the form of open questions. Telefilm also has a Marketing Fund which
allows producers who self-release without distributors to receive a loan of up
to 75% of the marketing and distribution costs of the film. Lyon describes
these low-budget stream investments as more creative relationships than it would
be with the more established national fund filmmakers.
Two
recent Telefilm collaborated films provide case studies to discuss more
concrete examples of what kind of work that they actually do. For example,
Andrew Cividino’s feature debut Sleeping
Giant (2015) is an example of one of these lower-budget stream films. Lyon
speaks about how Cividino came to Telefilm two years prior to the completion of
the film for financing and was eventually rejected for not having a good enough
business plan. So Cividino’s production team would produce and direct the film
themselves without Telefilm, but afterwards they would return to them to
benefit from their Post-Production Fund. This fund helps filmmakers finalize
the completion of their projects, which can later be eligible for the Marketing
Fund and the International Marketing Fund which provides assistance for
filmmakers to attend important international festivals, promote their films and
make foreign sales.
An
example of a National Fund film is Paul Gross’ Hyena Road (2015). The story tells the epic tale of the Canadian
forces in Afghanistan. Hyena Road can
be seen as the opposite of Cividino’s smaller project. Gross’ film got
investment from Telefilm’s National Fund. All films which receive funding from
the National Fund have production budgets in excess of $2.5 million. The level
of Telefilm investment varies, but is typically varies from $700,000 to $4
million. The production budgets of National films are often over $7 million and
have ranged up to $30 million, but Telefilm’s investment in any one film is a
maximum of $4 million. These National
Fund projects have the mandate of reaching an audience, which is different than
talent building, with a higher expectation on monetary returns. Some examples
of these types of films include Michael Dowse’s Goon (2011), Richard J. Lewis’ Barney’s
Version (2010) and John Crowley’s Brooklyn
(2015). The international co-productions within this group must follow all of
Telefilm’s rules to be available for the investments and tax-credits, which
includes a splitting of employment between the creative and acting talent along
with the equipment and production staff. These are films that are expected to
reach an audience and cover their expenses. The National Fund films are made
with more experienced producers and directors who are allowed more freedom to
create than do the low-budget stream filmmakers who are offered more guidance
and support.
There
also needs to be a community of audiences to eventually watch these films when
they get a theatrical release. Lyon highly recommends the First Weekend Club, which
helps build audience for the new Canadian releases by promoting their opening
weekend screenings. As well as the work of the National Canadian Film Day
organized by Real Canada, which just in 2016 included 417 events across the
country.
Finally,
for Lyon some of the best Toronto films are ones where the city is on full
display. Some examples of these favorites include David Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers (1988), Edgar Wright’s Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), John
Fawcett’s Ginger Snaps (2010), Sarah
Polley’s Take This Waltz (2011) and
Murray Foster’s The Cocksure Lads Movie
(2014).
Steve Gravestock and Programming Canadian Films
The Canadian programming
at TIFF is perhaps the most important
showcase of Canadian films each year, which makes it the perfect spotlight for
some of the best work of the Toronto film industry. Steve Gravestock is the
Senior Programmer of its Canadian film section along with being responsible for
the Canadian film programming year-round, which includes Canada’s Top Ten Film
Festival and the Canadian Open Vault. Gravestock’s perspective on the Toronto
film industry is that of a veteran Canadian film programmer and scholar (having
written the essential monograph on Don Owen).
Gravestock’s
knowledge of upcoming Canadian films is quite thorough. He describes being
ahead of the news, hearing about upcoming Canadian film projects through word
of mouth conversations, familiarity with the filmmakers and the industry, and
through the film festival submissions. He describes the amount of Canadian film
submissions rising so that just in 2015 there were at least 1,225 Canadian
submissions, with an estimate of somewhere between 100 to 300 feature films and
the remaining amount shorter works, which he makes sure himself and his
programming team watches. Gravestock describes the reasons for the increased
submissions due to the rise of prominence of the festival both in Canada and
internationally, how it is easier to access high quality filmmaking equipment,
and the fostering of more filmmakers in Toronto whether they are from the
entertainment industry or are more independent. There is a lot of competition
to get into the Canadian program at the film festival and the premiere has
risen in importance, becoming the new currency for most film festivals. These
filmmakers either come from television, are older award-wining filmmakers, more
independent and minimalist, previous Canada First! alumni, or are first-time
emerging filmmakers (who might have previously made short-films). The amount of
filmmakers applying has become so large that without splitting the focus
between these different groups there would be too many important Canadian
productions that would be potentially overlooked.
The
Canadian program at the festival typically premieres between 20-30 films with
perhaps five or six that have premiered already elsewhere. But, for example in
2015 the total was 39 Canadian features, including co-productions, which is up
from 31 features in the previous years. There is no longer a purely Canadian
section at the festival, though. The Canada First! section was eliminated after
2011, and prior to that there was the Perspective Canada from 1984 to 2003. These
films now go into the first films or contemporary world cinema categories. These
changes occurred due to several reasons, with the most prominent ones being
that producers and distributors saw the label as negatively effecting their
chances of being purchased along with the rise of international co-productions
that complicated the matters. Part of the reason for this is because the
industry has a different definition of what makes for a Canadian film. The
festival itself privileges authorship along with Canadian financing while the industry
itself is more concerned with what country’s money is the film being produced
with.
Now
having had so many filmmakers pass through its previous Canadian cinema slots
over the years, there are so many experienced and veteran filmmakers that need
to be represented. For example, just from the impact of the Canada First!
section there had been the stewardship of such filmmakers like Michael McGowan,
Stéphane Lafleur and Kazik Radwanski. The festival’s award for Best Canadian
First Feature and Best Feature Film has been a valuable asset to its previous
winners. These wining films have included Don McKellar’s Last Night (1998), Stéphane Lafleur’s Continental, un film sans fusil (2007), Jeffrey St. Jules’ Bang Bang Baby (2014), and Andrew
Cividino’s Sleeping Giant (2015). This
is along with its Best Canadian Film award, which is typically reserved for
more accomplished filmmakers. These prizes have a monetary component, which has
been able to benefit the filmmakers with the ability to continue to work. There
has also been the rise of initiatives such as that of the TIFF Rising Star and
Studio to increase the visibility of young Canadian actors and producers.
Gravestock
describes the Canadian film prize as a great incentive to encourage the winning
filmmakers to stay active and help with their future projects. While the
Canada’s Top Ten allows the filmmakers to celebrate once-again their
accomplishments and to get more visibility. Some reoccurring filmmakers that
were nominated for the short-film section and then later returned with a feature
films include Stephen Dunn, Andrew Cividino, and Don McKellar. Other Toronto filmmakers
that Gravestock highlights include Simon Ennis, Ingrid Veninger, Charles
Officer, Igor Drljaca, Albert Shin, Nadia Litz and Luo Li.
The Canadian Open Vault is one of Gravestock’s projects
whose goal is to screen classic films from Canadian film history, which is to
remedy what Gravestock quoting Piers Handling describes as the amnesia of Canadian
audiences towards Canadian films. For Gravestock the distribution of Canadian
films is a problem and he thinks the government should be doing more to help
with. Gravestock does not think that the system is perfect either as even more
established filmmakers have difficulty and sometimes cannot receive funding for
their projects, even though it is still perhaps easier for them as they have
more connections and longer track records. While Gravestock sees the major
problem being that there is not enough access for Canadian films to get onto
Canadian screens. He cites Michael Spencer’s book Hollywood North as illustrating quite well how the industry had
failed in the past for the implemention of quotas.
Gravestock
sees the Toronto film industry as being layered with television sales having a
central importance to it. The city is quite rich in resources, from studios to
production companies to post-production facilities, and it is amenable to the
point of being willing, for some exceptions, to even close down some of its
major streets to help with certain film projects. According to Gravestock, it
is the tax-credits and the cheaper Canadian dollar that are the main reasons
for why Americans come to make their own films in Canada. His counter-examples
are Saskatchewan in 2014 and Nova Scotia in 2015 whose film industries were
killed off by the tax credits getting pulled, due to the government being
suspicious of them as the foreign companies are sometimes then just able to
keep their own production’s taxes.
Michele Alosinac from Film & Entertainment
Industries in Toronto
The Toronto Film,
Television and Digital Media Office is part of the City of Toronto's Economic
Development and Culture Division, Film & Entertainment Industries Unit, which
includes film, music, tourism and special events.
The
Toronto Film, Television & Digital Media Office promotes investment in the
Toronto economy for diverse productions to either be filmed on location or in a
studio and includes physical production, post-production, visual effects,
animation and digital media. Operationally it coordinates and issue permits for
location filming that takes place on Toronto's streets or properties, which in
2016 included over six thousand shoot days for more than one-thousand-three-hundred
films, television and commercial projects.
In
its 2014 year-in-review presentation, the film bureau reported that
expenditures has reached a then record high of $1.23 billion. From this amount $953.1
million was on major productions, $195 million on commercials, $87.1 million on
animations, and $1.2 million on music videos. Out of the major productions
there were 100 TV series ($757.4 million), 51 features ($171.3 million), and
the remaining on television and movie of the week specials.
These
statistics are a source of pride for the department, which has seen the
industry grow throughout the years: 2015 has been the fifth consecutive year
that the total production spending has exceeded $1 billion with a 4.3% increase
in total spending from 2013 to 2014, and then from $1.23 billion in 2014 to
$1.5 billion in 2015. These statistics illustrate how film in Toronto is
experiencing a vibrant period, both contributing to the city’s cultural and
economic life. With the Toronto International Film Festival in September, the
city is seen as both a film city and
a film-loving city that knows how to
celebrate and appreciate film, which has led to the rise of investment in production
that has made it one of the city’s five key industries
But
what exactly does the office do beyond these impressive statistics? From an
interview with the Film Sector Development Officer Michele Alosinac a clearer
picture emerges. According to Alosinac what is important is to have a base
structure and steady employment to maintain a successful year-round industry. In
the early 2010s there was a lot of investment to create a strong and sustained
significant domestic production base for television series, which has greatly
contributed to its maintenance.
According to Alosinac, the Film in Toronto department is
split between 50% domestic productions with the other 50% service production
for international productions, with 80% of investment coming from television. This
is important as it leads to and creates a sustainable, productive and important
base for the Toronto film industry as relationships are formed, both internally
and externally, and it demonstrates a high working standard and expectation that
raises the norms of professionalism.
According
to Alosinac, there are plenty of production companies in Toronto but their
activity fluctuates depending on the new projects and contracts that are
available. The production companies that the Toronto Film Office has worked
closely with over the years include Don Carmody Productions and Whizbang Films
which offers a complete production service infrastructure for domestic, US and
European co-productions filming in Canada. Take 5 Productions, for instance, is
known for facilitating television co-productions and is known for its post-production
work. There is Shaftesbury Films, which is best known for the popular CBC series
Murdoch Mysteries (already in its
tenth season), and IFC Films with Ilana Frank executive producing shows like Saving Hope and Rookie Blue. To cite just one example more in depth, Don Carmody’s
production works closely in bringing major Hollywood studio projects to Canada
which has led to Variety describing
its founder Carmody as ‘Hollywood’s Man in Canada.’ Some of Carmody’s
productions include Réjeanne Padovani
(1973), Death Weekend (1976), Rabid (1977), Meatballs (1979), Good Will
Hunting (1997), Polytechnique (2009),
Goon (2011), Pompeii (2014), and the Resident
Evil films among many others. In the spring of 2016 filming in the city were
television series American Gothic
(produced by Frank Siracusa), Schitt’s
Creek (Colin Brunton), Suits
(Aaron Kosh) and feature films like Alexander Payne’s Downsizing (Paramount/Mega Omaha Films).
The
Toronto Film Commission has co-production treaties with over 90 countries,
which allows for the creation of more and diverse projects from animation to
post-production. The ability to co-produce allows for both countries to
maximize their incentives and bolster financing of their projects. For example,
there is a government memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and
Ireland, which leads to more co-productions like the 2015 Oscar winning success
Room directed by Lenny Abrahamson and
post production on Game of Thrones. Co-productions
create an environment that is mutually beneficial for the creation of more
short-term and long-term jobs and craft development.
The
city of Toronto does not offer any tax benefits, relying on provincial
incentives as is standard in the North American model of province/state tax
credits/rebates. The Toronto Film Office is mandated by Council to operate as ‘revenue
neutral’, which means that they would not charge for extra cost for services
beyond revenue recovery. This affordability is appealing to production finance
decision makers and contributes to the desirability of Toronto as a filmmaking
friendly city. To process the permits, the Toronto Film Office has been
mandated to a forty-eight hour turn-around to respond, edit or confirm
filmmaking permits, which is attractive to the film industry. Recognizing the
impact of filming as an economic driver City council have mandated these
initiatives. These permits can be inputted both online and in person at their
offices, which will include eight offices of by the end of the year. For
example, in 2015 the city issued 6000 permits. These permits are challenging and
labor intensive as a typical permit application can have up to ten edits.
For
a massive Hollywood film like Suicide
Squad, Alosinac describes it as a herculean task to coordinate with the
internal city divisions and for the production to coordinate the business and
resident collaboration to close off Yonge Street for location shooting. For a
project of this scale, the city’s Film Manager would have worked closely with
the film’s Location Manager, along with many internal and external stakeholders.
There were multiple meetings to make sure everything is properly organized and
that it all occurs smoothly. They would need to get permission from the
neighborhood by way of forms and signatures of over 50% of the neighboring
residents, and make sure that it is fine with all of the small and larger
business owners. Whether these were compensated would be negotiated by the
production.
For
major productions an important issue is to have their resources available which
necessitates the renting of street space to park their large trailers. They
would need to clear the allocation of the space through these permits and pay
whatever is the quoted renting rate. The city’s film department does not
interfere with private film contracting and productions that do not engage with
the city’s public spaces, such as using roadside parking or blocking its
sidewalks. One requirement for filmmaking to take place in the city and to have
access to these services and permits is that for the crews to have insurance.
For
the Toronto Office to improve, Alosinac mentions that they are improving the
permitting system to create a more compatible IT system that coordinates within
all effected City Divisions. What is important for the Toronto Film department
moving forward is a positive collaboration and stability between the industry
and the city. This is more important, according to Alosinac, than the Canadian
dollar exchange rate. What is important is that the production companies and
residents are productive and supportive, and that the streets and neighborhoods
are shared for the mutual benefit of all to contribute to the vitality and
economy of the City of Toronto.
Alosinac
at Toronto Film personally loves all of the productions that she has worked
with, and appreciates watching Toronto-produced media. She is particularly proud
of the supportive fan communities around television shows such as Suits and Murdoch Mysteries.
Conclusion
This essay tended to
focus first on understanding the work
that is being done by these institutions, and as they are important and quite
complex, the focus was primarily on their core responsibilities through specific
examples. The willingness and transparency that the three interviewees have
provided has been very beneficial to this understanding. But there are also a lot
of other institutions and resources available in Toronto that can just as
easily be considered important to the Toronto Film Industry. There are
communities, businesses and organizations spread across the city, and even
though emerging filmmakers are not guaranteed a high salary, the city offers
more industrial work through its television contracts that can help acquire
more technical and professional skills. There is not just one Toronto film
industry but many and combined together these many agencies, production
companies and screens when they work effectively together are able to showcase
some of the city’s best work that makes Toronto a leading film and television
creator in a global visual culture context.
