SIMON HOUPT in the Toronto GLOBE & MAIL shills Gross Canadian FLOP "Hyena Road", one day before the same newspaper issues their immortal endorsement of Canada's Conservative Party to win another mandate, creating history by issuing the most moronic editorial ever written in Canada - Commentary and Report By Greg Klymkiw

THE REAL CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES:
Globe and Mail SHILLS Gross FLOP Hyena Road

Commentary and Report By Greg Klymkiw

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift in "Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting"

You would think Jonathan Swift might well have penned the aforementioned words as a kind of prescient reference to Canadian "filmmaker" Paul Gross, whose grotesquely bloated Afghanistan war picture Hyena Road enjoyed a World Premiere Gala at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF 2015). Opening theatrically soon after, with an unprecedented amount of publicity courtesy of Cineplex Entertainment, various levels of provincial and federal marketing assistance (the Canadian taxpayer) and the film's Canadian distributor Elevation Pictures, the film was a resounding FLOP!!!

One would assume this latest effort by Mr. Gross, known the world over as Constable Benton Fraser, the scarlet-uniform-adorned Mountie in the inexplicably long-running TV series Due South, would have been assailed by a Swiftian Confederacy of Dunces; but no, Mr. Gross was instead hailed by a decidedly non-Swiftian Confederacy of Dunces in the form of virtually every member of the Canadian media and critical establishment.

One can forgive the professional shilling of supposed entertainment "journalists" in print and broadcast media, since that is what arts reportage has been reduced to in these Dark Ages. One might even be tempted to forgive the ludicrous number of positive notices the movie received from Canadian film critics, since many of them could care less about the genuinely great Canadian cinema that takes the world by storm and long to accept something vaguely commercial. That said, there's virtually nothing commercial about Hyena Road, save for its dull levels of borderline competence. Essentially, the picture is bargain basement war-pornography extolling the virtues of all the Canadian soldiers whose lives were wasted in a completely unnecessary war and certainly one in which Canada should never have succumbed to participating in.

Is there, then, anyone we should not forgive? Of course. Canada's purported "newspaper of record", the Toronto Globe and Mail has been part of an obvious shill effort to canonize Paul Gross and his dreadful film(s) and career for some time now. The most egregious act of shilling occurred in the Globe courtesy of "reporter" Simon Houpt in the article headlined: "Hyena Road’s battle at the box office brings in $486,000", followed by the puffery of a ludicrous lead which reads: "Hyena Road, the new Canadians-in-Afghanistan war drama, scored the biggest opening of any Canadian film of the year last weekend, bringing in $486,000 at the box office."

This is all well and good, but he merely swallows this dubious honour based upon the bumph supplied to him by the Canadian distributor Elevation Films who are quick to point out how well the film did in Western Canada (where the deservedly-trounced Conservative party remained the strongest after the recent election to become the Official Opposition to Justin Trudeau's new majority government of Liberals).

Though Houpt hammers home the historic grosses of this $12.5 million effort (a nice chunk of which was borne by Canadian taxpayers), he also benevolently allows the distribution company to make excuses for the film's performance by suggesting that Canadian grosses for all films were down right across the board for the entire Thanksgiving weekend due to the Toronto Blue Jays and their playoff bid. We furthermore find out that there was, in fact, only a small drop in the grosses twixt the holiday Monday and Tuesday which, according to Houpt, "may augur well for sustained business."

Alas, as the numbers played out, it did not auger well, but Houpt is forgiven for not being clairvoyant. He does, of course, include the ludicrous comment from Elevation Pictures that this drop in box-office “goes to show that people wanted to see the film, but they weren’t rushing out.”

"Not rushing out" seems a whopper of an understatement.

The film's second weekend turned out to be even MORE dismal.

What Houpt fails to point out in his obvious shill piece is what any reporter worth their salt might have noted. In his box-office report for Movie City News, veteran film critic and film industry reporter Len Klady notes: "In Canada Afghan war saga Hyena Road was unenthusiastically received with a $337,000 gross." Granted, Klady is referring to the three-day weekend and not Houpt's four-day long weekend numbers, but Klady, instead of slanting a shill in favour of Hyena Road presents his comments, not on the misleading cumulative grosses, but on what (I reiterate) ANY REPORTER WORTH THEIR SALT would have noted:

The per-screen average of Hyena Road was dismal. Even going by Houpt's numbers, a cumulative gross of $486,000 and a screen count of 184, tells a much different story than Houpt's shill-prose: The film grossed an average of $2600 PER SCREEN. Let's be generous here and say that the average ticket price is $10 (quite conservative, but we'll use it). This means that Gross's film's grosses were so pathetic that a grand total of 260 people went to see the film in each cinema over FOUR DAYS, FOUR SHOWS PER DAY!!! Doing the math even further, an average of sixty-five (65) people saw the film on each screen over the same period - PER DAY!!! Let's do the math even further: Sixteen (16.25 to be precise) people saw the movie each show over the same period. I won't even bother doing the math on how many people saw the movie per show, per day - that would be cruel.

These, of course, are averages. Granted. They especially do not accurately represent the numbers in cinemas located in the redneck Conservative enclaves of Western Canada, but even those numbers could not have been that much higher than the rest of the country. The fact remains that the film's distributor, its exhibitor (primarily the monopoly known as Cineplex Entertainment) and the Canadian Taxpayer forked out a whopping amount of dough, not to mention effort, for a promotional budget which was up there with any major release (at least in Canadian terms).

The film's second weekend per-screen average was a mere pubic hair over $1000. As for its third weekend, I didn't even bother looking for grosses, but I couldn't help but notice that many screens had already dropped the film entirely or reduced its daily runs to two shows a day.

In spite of the movie flopping so obviously on its opening weekend, it's a bit distasteful to see that Houpt, not only shills, but turns himself into an apologist for Gross, the film, its distributor and all those who backed this spindly Thanksgiving Turkey when he writes:

"...the strong theatrical opening positions Hyena Road well for a video-on-demand run, and would likely increase viewership when it appears on the pay-TV channels TMN and Movie Central. The film has also been sold to CBC-TV.

'This is a Canadian film that now has huge awareness, which will play out for the life of the film,' he [the film's Canadian distributor] said."

Great! The movie will play on TV. We might even see DVDs and Blu-Rays in the Wal-Mart $5.00 bargain bins across the country. In spite of crappy box-office grosses, there is a "huge awareness". Really? Huge?

And why, oh why, does Simon Houpt's Globe article accept what the film's Canadian distributor says at face value? Had this reporter never thought about scouring the trades outside of Canada? Or taking a look at the numbers via Rentrak Corp., the world's most prestigious viewership data and analysis companies? Was there any thought at all to perhaps getting a quotation from either the industry scribe Klady or, for that matter, RentTrack's topper Paul Dergarabdian who offers opinions/analysis to virtually any outlet that asks him for it?

I can only assume that Houpt chose not to do any of the aforementioned because he is a shill and/or not an especially good reporter.

However, let's not blame the messenger 100%. Surely Houpt's editors at the Globe had something to do with this. They're either shills themselves or don't care or worse, are part of the Moron Club at the Globe who green-lit the most idiotic editorial in the history of journalism in Canada. One day after Houpt's shill for Hyena Road appeared, the Globe urged all Canadians to give the fascist Conservative party another mandate to govern. This would be bad enough, but that the Globe would idiotically suggest Canadians vote the Conservatives to a majority and in the same breath call for ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper's resignation is tantamount to gross stupidity.

Yeah, right! If the Conservatives had won, Herr Harper would have listened to the Globe editors and resigned - NOT! Love him or hate him, Stephen Harper is/was the Conservative Party of Canada. He's also more intelligent than all the knot-heads who make up the rest of the party combined.

The election is over. The Conservatives have been defeated. Harper has resigned as party leader. BUT NOT because of the Globe.

And Hyena Road is the stinking flop nobody wants to admit to.

Oddly, I feel like the Swiftian Confederacy of Dunces. I have dared to piss on the genius that is Paul Gross as well as the utter failure of his film at the box-office. It seems, publicly, that I am a Confederacy of one on this front.

That said, I offer the following by asking: Who comprises the genuine, non-Swiftian Confederacy of Dunces?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

My review of Hyena Road is HERE.

My review of Guy Maddin's Hyena Road "making of", Bring Me The Head of Tim Horton is HERE.

My review of Guy Maddin's The Forbidden Room which was partially finished by monies funnelled to Maddin for his Hyena Road "making of" is HERE.

My editorial commentary "The Unbearable Promotion of War: Buying Grosses for Wasteful Gross Film" is HERE.

My editorial commentary "Maddin Fêted in New York with Fine Single-Screen Opening Weekend Numbers While Gross Multimillion Dollar Canadian Pro-War Film a FLOP with Paltry Per-Screen Average" is HERE.

My review of Paul Gross's execrable Passchendaele is HERE.

Simon Houpt's article in the Globe and Mail is HERE.

The Globe and Mail's moronic editorial endorsement of the Conservatives is HERE.

Do You Know what a VPF is? You should - IF YOU CARE ABOUT INDEPENDENT CINEMA. Collusion Between the Big Six Studios and Major Exhibition Chains are Potentially Destroying Independent Theatrical Exhibition & Distribution: -Editorial Commentary By Greg Klymkiw

VPFs: A conspiracy to snuff out independent theatrical distribution, exhibition & production?
AND ON THE HOMEFRONT,
IS INDIGENOUS CINEMATIC CULTURE
BEING PENALIZED FOR BEING CANADIAN?
FOR BEING "SMALLER"?
FOR BEING FIERCELY INDEPENDENT?
ARE SMALL CANADIAN DISTRIBUTORS
BEING SQUASHED BECAUSE THEY DON'T
RELEASE HUNDREDS OF HOLLYWOOD PRINTS IN CANADA?

Editorial Commentary By Greg Klymkiw

Do You Know what a VPF is? You should - IF YOU CARE ABOUT INDEPENDENT CINEMA. Indies charge that "Collusion" Between the Big Six Studios and Major Exhibition Chains are Potentially Destroying Independent Theatrical Exhibition, Distribution and Production.

This is especially troubling in Canada. Our country represents 10% of the North American marketplace and if there is, indeed a War (albeit insidiously silent) upon Independent Cinema (and by extension, Canadian Cinema), then it's high time for those most affected to stand up, speak out and refuse to take this lying down.

Even more egregious is that Canada's largest movie theatre chain has already demonstrated its ho-hum commitment to indigenous motion picture product (and a whole lot of foreign indie product handled by smaller Canadian distributors) whilst they happily continue to get approval from the Federal Government to gobble up so many more screens that the Company's Virtual Monopoly could well become a Genuine Monopoly.

VPFs plus a Monopoly might be the Death Knell for producers, providers and END USERS who prefer to see independent films theatrically. They might even want to see more Canadian product if it had a consistent home in the marketplace, but unless things change, this will never be the case.

Though this piece is Canada-centric (and to an extent, North-America-centric), independents the world over have similar issues facing them. The Seventh Seal, so to speak, is upon us - a calm before the storm. It's time to be informed and to act NOW!!!- GK

"I'm so glad you're talking about VPFs. Nobody in the mainstream media is talking about it. Even the trades haven't dealt with it properly. Nobody in our industry wants to talk about what's happening because of VPFs, probably because the ones who benefit most from them are perfectly happy while the ones who are hurt by it fear reprisals by going public. VPFs and their effect upon independent film is one of the biggest conspiracies happening in the film business." - DEEP ESOPHAGUS (One of many sources for this piece who do not wish to be named.)

VPF, in the parlance of motion picture distributors and exhibitors is the acronym for "Virtual Print Fee", but before explaining what that actually is, even I, at this point, am compelled to first ask, "What in the name of Christ, is a virtual print?" Well, a print is, of course, the physical entity by which the movie you go to see is projected onto the screen, but a virtual print (?) is, uh, what? The Free Dictionary Online defines the word "virtual" thusly:

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) adj. 1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo. 2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text. 3. Computer Science Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chatroom.

Obviously the first definition doesn't necessarily apply, though in this day and age it's probably safe to suggest, as per The Free Dictionary, that film prints as we once knew them are virtually extinct (save for archival prints and those used for special cinematheque/festival showings). Number two definition most definitely doesn't apply, though given that fees are charged for "virtual prints", a little part of me would assert that yes, indeed there are prints that exist in the mind or as an imaginary product. Number three seems the likeliest choice given that films are now projected via digital media. So yes, I will accept that within this context, a "virtual print" can indeed exist, though in all fairness, there are any number of physical mechanisms and media utilized to deliver the 1s and 0s as projected movies to the masses, so I still find the term "virtual print" a tad oxymoronic.

Quite the conundrum, mais non? Baby, you ain't heard nor seen nothin' yet!

So, prior to cinemas converting to digital projection, movies were screened using actual film prints - celluloid mounted on metal reels - of which, each reel would contain approximately 20-30 minutes of the motion picture. A typical 90 minute feature might then be comprised of 3-4 reels shipped in heavy steel cans. Shipping and storage costs were considerable, but even more onerous was the cost of generating prints for distribution - usually $1500 - $2000 per print.

In the "old days", two projectors would deliver the picture, necessitating that a human being would actually need to do the reel change. As well, before the development and use of long-lasting Xenon Bulbs, the projectors were often fired up via carbon rods which needed to be carefully observed and replaced by - you guessed it - a human being. Even once the reels could be mounted on huge platters, thus making reel changes obsolete, a human being still had to "break down and revise" the film print in order for it to be properly projected.

The human beings I refer to are projectionists - UNION projectionists. The IATSE union had one of the most rigorous apprenticeship programs for projectionists and these were no mere button pushers, but highly skilled technicians, craftsmen and yes, artists in their own right with respect to the overall sense of showmanship that used to occur in movie theatres when you went to the pictures. Alas, in Canada, and elsewhere, these highly skilled professionals were replaced with pimply teenage concession attendants. And even here, in the oft-slightly-left-of-centre Land of Maple Sugar, the Projectionist Union was busted by a major cinema chain that still exists, though now in a far different and larger form. And yes, folks, our governments idly sat by and watched as the corporate pigs flushed this great branch of a great union and very integral position down the toilet.

So now, we pretty much don't need human beings to project film, save for the aforementioned acne-magnet button-pushers. The prints are digital. Film, for the most part, is dead. (And frankly, even though the digital resolution is in the 2K to 4K range, I can assure you that the picture projected onto your screens still looks like a pile of shit compared to the resolution, warmth and colour of 35mm FILM prints.) I've also encountered so many problems with DIGITAL screenings - everything from - yes, it happens - corrupted files, awful showmanship (everything from masking issues to lights going on and off when they're not supposed to) and endless sound problems that maintaining REAL projectionists might have been a damn good idea. They were a resilient and adaptable bunch and could well have been an important tie that binds.

That wouldn't happen, though, since so many major exhibition chains and even many major distribution entities have, since the early 1980s been slowly swirling down the toilet because of greed and laziness. More than ever, cinema is being treated as waste product by little more than septic specialists.

Still, something had to be done. The cost of physically getting prints to the venues was astronomical. Do the math on print costs alone via the now de rigueur wide releases of 800 to 2000 (and sometimes higher) screens. Let's modestly use figures thusly: 1500 prints in one territory, multiplied by $1500 = that's an expenditure of 2 and ¼ million smackers. Film prints in a territory like North America - especially considering that so many other costs needed to be factored into the distribution of said film prints - the numbers to achieve this had indeed become stratospheric. Digital technology changed all this. Now, film distributors are looking at hard costs of about $150 per print - a fraction of the earlier celluloid-based print costs.

Ah, but here's the rub. The biggest expense of the switchover from film print to digital print had to be borne by exhibitors with the cost being anywhere in the neighbourhood of at least $100,000 or more. In the long run, this was going to be a good move (not aesthetically, but from a business standpoint) to everyone.

So something had to give - or rather, someone had to give - COLD HARD CASH, and it's the giving part that must now concern us - the VPFs - Virtual Print Fees. The costs associated with conversion had to be covered and the studios decided that Virtual Print Fees would be the way to do it .

Unfortunately, it's turning into a potential Death Knell for the theatrical exhibition of independent cinema as many know it and love it.

"As digital cinema was looking like it would be a reality, the spin they put on it was that audiences were demanding it. This is such total bullshit. The audiences weren't demanding it at all. The initiative was completely studio generated - they bought into the new technology in a big way - especially Sony who literally bought IN to digital technology. It was a money-saver and money maker, but also part of taking anti-piracy measures. There's also the market reality of 3-D which, by virtue of up-selling consumers the ludicrous additional charges, it was much easier and more cost effective to make 3-D prints digitally, but also was another way to make money - LOTS more money." -DEEP ESOPHAGUS

D. Esophagus is right about the spin. Yes, the industry has been experimenting with digital exhibition for twenty or so years, but in such smatterings that the only audiences who would even care or know the difference were movie geeks of the geekiest order and most of them were not clamouring for this change. In fact, most audiences don't know the difference. In fact, it shocks me when I encounter anyone in the movie business who can't tell the difference. In any event, audiences were not demanding it. Greed and laziness on the part of the major providers demanded it.

The Big Six Studios (Columbia/Sony, Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox and Universal) had a series of sit-downs with the major American exhibition chains to discuss a revolutionary idea - initially, and on the surface, a damn good one for those with deep pockets.

The studio set up a third party, (purportedly) arms-length corporate entity, referred to as . . .

"THE INTEGRATOR".

The integrator's role was (and still is) to provide substantial loans to exhibitors to do the film-to-digital conversion. The loan is paid back over ten years, a time period that also contractually insists upon strict maintenance procedures for the equipment which, in turn, is essentially owned by the Integrator until the loan is paid back in full.

To make the loan happen, exhibitors charge the studios (distributors) a Virtual Print Fee (VPF). The VPF is then paid to the Integrator who takes a cut for its third party services and applies the rest to the loan. Both the studios and the major exhibitors are signatories to these agreements with The Integrator.

The VPF itself is, at least in North America close to $1000 - per first-run print, per venue.

In theory, this sounds great - for studios and major exhibition chains - not so much for everyone else. Several "Deep Esophagi" in the independent distribution and exhibition sectors in the USA confirm they were NOT a part of this initial set-up and they had issues much different from the majors that should have been addressed. Many of them have even used words such as "collusion" and "conspiracy" to describe what went down.

The Indies are most affected by the following:

(i) A $1000 hit per print per screen for small distribution companies with specialty pictures is far too steep. Many of my Esophagi have confirmed the majors got and continue to get substantial breaks on the VPFs due to the high volume of screens they command for their product. Essentially, small films from small distribution companies are being penalized and potentially being driven into the ground to pay for film to digital conversion in mostly cash-rich, profit-wallowing exhibition chains.

(ii) In many countries there is now more than one "integrator" to choose from, resulting in rather inconsistent deals that the small distributors must wend their way through.

(iii) In spite of their "third party" status, many integrators are closely connected with the companies that actually provide the digital projection upgrades or worse, huge exhibition chains that are more than happy to have their upgrades paid for by the studios. The problem, however, is that it's not just the Big Six providing the funds to cash-rich chains, it small independent companies. Oh, and here's a good one, for you - many major exhibitors house arms-length integrators within their physical brick and mortar corporate castles. They'll tell us all, however, that they're merely renting space to the arms-length companies.

(iv) Print turnover is a huge issue here. If you're an exhibitor, the more times you turn over the prints, the more VPFs you can collect from the distributors. The more VPFs collected, the more money the Integrator will be able to knock off of the debt for the digital projection changeovers. Huge exhibition chains don't have to worry too much about print turnover as they have more than enough screens to hold onto prints doing business on smaller screens within their complexes.

(v) The VPF hardly is an equivalent to the cost of one 35mm print if you take into account that one print on very limited release could be platformed from one cinema to the next in each major venue and one would certainly not be shelling out $1000 for every playdate in every cinema. Even if you expanded on the number of prints, the overall cost would be considerably less than if you were to pay the VPF.

What happens if you're a single screen art house, or a smaller chain specializing in indie films? Well, according to several of my Deep Esophagi, exhibitors in this position are pressured by the integrators to turn over as much product as possible, as quickly as possible in order for those exhibitors' suppliers (usually art house or indie distributors or companies that also supply art product) to keep paying VPFs that they can't keep affording to pay because:

(a.) The distributors might have specialty product that requires time and word-of-mouth to build an audience or grosses. Most major exhibition chains don't give a shit about this and screw everyone over anyway, including the smaller suppliers, their product, the producers of said product and the end users who might actually want to see the product theatrically. In a sense, they're even forcibly buggering the indie exhibitors by forcing them into a position where they are changing the way they do business. This is clearly a danger to indies on every level.

(b.) Indie product might even be doing business right off the bat, but there's little incentive for exhibitors to hold the product since holding means it's taking longer to pay down the conversion debt. The losers here are the indie distributors, their product, their producers and audiences (and to a certain extent the indie exhibitors themselves).

(v) The major exhibition chains, seemingly in collusion with the Big Six, look upon indie product as a major pain in the ass. Indie product often requires the sort of time and nurturing they're not prepared to give. Even worse, the major exhibitors are placing the most horrific demands upon independent smaller distributors:

(a) Some chains are illegally (or at least, immorally) demanding that the distributors give them exclusive windows on the product and not allowing day-and-date VOD and other home streams. It's very admirable of these exhibitors to preserve the integrity of theatrical exhibition this way, until you realize that many of them are imposing two-to-six-month exclusive windows before the product can be released to other methods of content delivery, but then, treating the product like garbage and not committing to proper runs in the first place.

(b) On certain indie product, the chains demand theatrical exclusivity over smaller exhibitors, play the product and then, even if it's doing business, they blow it off the screens, rendering the product unusable for move-overs to calendar houses. In fact, the major exhibitors should be letting the calendar houses play the product first, then take on the indie product on move-over. This would be, however, an annoyance for them and would gobble up screens for Big Six product.

Here's one added insult to the injury. There are exhibition chains demanding upfront guarantees from smaller distributors. Sometimes what happens is a smaller film might well genuinely flop and after all the math is done, the distributor owes the exhibitor money because the VPF still must be paid.

What everyone seems to ignore is the math on the monies raised by the Integrators. Over the past three to four years, SURELY, most, if not ALL the debts have been paid off - long before they were estimated to have been paid. Still, the cinemas collect VPFs, turn them over to the Integrators (who keep collecting their cut of the action) and one wonders where all this money is going? Who is profiting from it? Why are these fees still be charged? Is this yet another film industry scam to make money on the backs of others? Will it take government intervention to end this ludicrous practise? Or will it simple end once all independent producers, distributors and even exhibitors are VPF's out of business?

Even more ludicrous in Canada is that some of our larger exhibitors refuse to give small distributors a firm playmate for the product. Many times a distributor will find out on a Monday or Tuesday morning that they'll be opening on a Friday.

Great! Lots of time to promote the film.

Is there a positive side to any of this? A small one. Certain exhibitors refuse to be signatories to the agreements with Integrators which makes them attractive venues to smaller distributors. No longer are they shut out of potentially good product because a chain is sewing it up. The problem, though, is that these screens are few and far between. Independent product needs a good mix of venues to be theatrically viable. The major exhibition chains could care less. The Big Six, obviously, could care less also. After all, who needs competition when what they do is relatively easy and lazy?

Canada is in a terrible situation right now for its domestic product. The vast majority of it is being affected by all of the above, and then some. Worst of all, the country's largest chain, Cineplex Entertainment has not stepped up to the plate and exercised its corporate responsibility to ensure enough screens with long-enough playing times for domestic product. They'll deliver the goods on a few generic titles with big stars, but good domestic product getting a fair shot is virtually an anomaly.

Even the federal government through Telefilm Canada, the country's major public investor in Canadian motion picture product is allowing VPFs as legitimate Prints and Ads (P & A) expenses for Canadian distributors seeking market support for Canadian motion picture product. This might actually be the most grotesque example of corporate welfare as public funds are going to distributors to pay to integrators to pay for the loans on film-to-digital conversions that have MOSTLY been incurred by large exhibition chains that, in turn, treat Canadian motion pictures like so many cesspools.

For Canada, there could be a simple solution to all this:

1. Canadian product should be exempt from VPFs.
2. Canadian distributors not aligned in any way, shape or form with the Big Six, should - for all non-Canadian product - be allowed a massive reduction on VPFs.
3. Our country's largest exhibition chains could exercise some corporate responsibility to Canadian film culture and completely revamp the manner in which Canadian cinema is exhibited - even if it's at a loss. Such losses could well take the form of tax credits or some other reasonable incentive to provide consistent homes for Canadian product.

If things don't change, the changes resulting from the current Status Quo could be sheer disaster - perhaps even a major cultural genocide. All independents - distributors, exhibitors, producers and perhaps even end-users need to take a long, hard look at how their business is being manipulated by cash-rich corporations. Independents MUST fight back. Independents must COLLUDE. Collusion in business is given lip service as a dirty word, but as such, it's alive and well in the film industry amongst major exhibitors and distributors. It's hurting everybody and those most affected by it need to be informed, but they also need to fight back collectively with all their might.

And will the major exhibitors and distributors deny all this?

Of course, they will. They'll come up with whatever spin and outright lies they need to come up with to cover their reeking posteriors. It's time for indies to pull out some huge cans of aerosol air freshener, mask the fetid odour, then dive in with gloves on to empty the viscous fluids churning about in the innards of these unrepentant FAT CATS.

Theatres in CANADA that DON'T charge VPFs (& hence, aren't in the business of conspiring to DESTROY independent & Canadian Cinema) include:

BLOOR HOT DOCS

KINGSWAY THEATRE

RAINBOW CINEMAS

REVUE CINEMA

THE ROYAL THEATRE

TIFF BELL LIGHTBOX
WINNIPEG (FILM GROUP) CINEMATHEQUE
RPL (REGINA PUBLIC LIBRARY)
BROADWAY (SASKATOON)
METRO CINEMA (@GARNEAU, EDMONTON)
KINGSTON SCREENING ROOM
PRINCESS (WATERLOO)
BOOKSHELF (GUELPH)
HYLAND (LONDON)
ByTOWNE (OTTAWA) 
CARBON ARC (HALIFAX)
CINEMA DU PARC (MONTREAL)
CINECENTA (VICTORIA)
VIFF VANCITY (VANCOUVER)

and most other independent cinemas.

*NOTE* Any Canadian Cinemas That Wish To Be Added To This List, Just Let Me Know In The Handy-Dandy Comments Box Below

JOHN DIES AT THE END - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Don Coscarelli delivers a terrifying and funny foray into a fantastical world replete with gore, gags and HORROR GALORE

JOHN DIES AT THE END is the brilliant new film by Master Genre Director Don Coscarelli. Be on the lookout for my in-depth interview with Mr. Coscarelli that will appear in the May-June 2013 issue of the legendary Joe Kane's ultra-cool genre print magazine "Phantom of the Movies VIDEOSCOPE". Until then, here's my RAVE REVIEW of a new Horror Classic from the director of the PHANTASM films and the magnificent BUBBA-HO-TEP!!!

John Dies at the End (2012) ****

dir. Don Coscarelli

Starring: Chase Williamson, Rob Mayes, Paul Giamatti, Glynn Turman, Clancy Brown

Review By Greg Klymkiw

Don Coscarelli is, without question, the real thing - a truly inspired Master of Horror. (He might also be certifiably insane, but what do I know? I'm no shrink.) As the director of cult classics like the Phantasm pictures (with Angus Scrimm as the diabolical wielder of blood suckin' and a spurtin' silver spheres) and the finest entry in that unbeatable genre of Elvis-duelling-with-dangerous-denizens-of-Ancient-Egypt Bubba-Ho-Tep, his latest offering is one mo-fo of an eye-popping mind-bender.

John Dies at the End gives new meaning to the oft-heard phrase in only the finest grease-laden, alley-cat-for-chicken-serving Oriental restaurants in the Occident - "Can you please pass the Soya Sauce?"

If you buy me a MEAT MONSTER today,
I will gladly pay you back on Tuesday.

Oh, and what a delectable platter of Szechuan Steak Coscarelli's new movie is - like mouth watering morsels of fine flank (of cow, NOT dog), marinated in the saltiest Eastern Black Gold and wokked within an inch of its life in an indelible mixture of oil, garlic, ginger, scallions and, of course, the distinctive pepper from the dried rind of the prickly ash tree. The picture serves up gore, shocks and suspense accompanied by healthy dollops of black humour and psychedelic surrealism that ranks right up there with a Dim Sum rice roll chock full of Luis Buñuel, Alejandro Jodorowsky and James Whale.

I NEED SOYA SAUCE - NOW!

Damn! Before I get too hungry, allow me to dive directly in to what you're going to see in this contemporary genre classic. In a nutshell, two best buds, David (Chase Williamson) and John (Rob Mayes), are mega-slackers - not unlike Bill and Ted, only they're not stupid and they go on an adventure that is in no way, shape or form an EXCELLENT ADVENTURE (though we, the viewers, are afforded a most excellent adventure, indeed).

And how, pray tell do they find themselves on this harrowing journey up the river into a veritable heart of darkness? Simple. They've gone and ingested a completely mind-pummelling hallucinogen called - you guessed it (or not) - SOYA SAUCE.

Now, if you will, put on your mathematician's hat and add together every bad acid trip you've ever taken, multiplied by every single bad acid trip anyone's ever taken and our heroes are plunged with Hoover Dam ferocity into a world of scary shit where reality morphs with fantasy until the world of the trip becomes horrifyingly real to the extent where everything they think is real springs to life as a nightmare that never ends and keeps turning in on itself repeatedly and with more convolutions than the too-sickeningly-horrendous results of, say, Terence Malick on crack cocaine.

THE BIBLE BELTER

The hallucinogen itself is, you see, not some mere chemical. Soya Sauce is a living thing - a slithering, slurping glob of putrid viscous discharge that rips your sense of reality into a finely blended wad of chopped liver and KFC creamy coleslaw.

This stuff fucks you up big time. It scares the living faecal matter out of you, but worse, it - and most of all - what IT creates is alive. It's so alive, you can die at any time and frankly, you might actually be dead already - careening wildly from one horrendous scenario to another in a purgatory of horror with no end.

PAUL GIAMATTI CRAVES SOYA SAUCE

Add to this witch's brew the likes of Paul Giamatti as a sleazy reporter trying to get both the truth AND the Sauce, the brilliant Clancy Brown as an Amazing Kreskin-like Mentalist crossed with Tony Robbins and, like Hugh Hefner, always flanked (as it were) by a bevy of bodacious babes and last, but not least, one of the great living contemporary character actors Glynn Turman as a cop who meets way more than he bargained for when he's forced into dealing with a scourge that exceeds every slime-bucket he's ever had to deal with in leaps and bounds.

BABES TO THE EAST, BABES TO THE WEST, HE BE STROKIN'

Coscarelli handles these proceedings with imagination, skill and one hell of a great sense of humour - NEVER tongue in cheek, but always rooted in the absurdist elements of the drama itself. Revealing anymore, however, will do you absolutely no favours. And as for the title, there's a damn compelling reason for you to keep watching. If John dies at the end, how, OH HOW will he finally bite the bullet within the context of this complete whack-job of an utterly inspired fright-fest.

"John Dies at the End" is playing across Canada for one night only as part of Raven Banner's visionary foray into the Cineplex Entertainment Front Row Centre events.

BUY TICKETS HERE

Here's a complete list of participating cinemas:

Lotus Land
Odeon Victoria Cinemas – Victoria, BC
Galaxy Cinemas Nanaimo – Nanaimo, BC
Colossus Langley Cinemas – Langley, BC
Silvercity Riverport Cinemas – Richmond, BC
Cineplex Odeon International Village Cinemas – Vancouver, BC
(NOTE: Dope Smoking not allowed in cinemas, so toke-up before you enter the premises and/or discreetly utilize the handicapped crappers. Do not forget to disarm smoke detectors and sprinklers.)

Stevie Harper KKK Headquarters
Scotiabank Theatre Edmonton – Edmonton, AB
Scotiabank Theatre Chinook – Calgary, AB
(NOTE: Cross Burnings not allowed indoors. Moonshine not for sale in cinemas, but can be smuggled in.)

Armpit of Canada
Galaxy Cinemas Regina – Regina, SK
Galaxy Cinemas Saskatoon – Saskatoon, SK
(NOTE: You must leave your livestock tethered to the front of the cinemas. Feel free to smuggle in your own smoked hog ears for good eatin' during the show.)

Second Biggest Armpit of Canada
SilverCity Polo Park Cinemas – Winnipeg, MB
(NOTE: The rest of the province is mosquito-ridden swamp land populated by inbreds who do not watch movies or do much of anything besides fight and fornicate in the winter and fish with dynamite charges and big nets in the summer - beer included.)

Centre of the Known Universe (and surrounding environs)
Cineplex Odeon Devonshire Mall Cinemas – Windsor, ON
SilverCity London Cinemas – London, ON
Galaxy Cinemas Waterloo – Waterloo, ON
Cineplex Odeon Winston Churchill Cinemas – Oakville, ON
SilverCity Hamilton Cinemas – Hamilton, ON
Cineplex Cinemas Mississauga – Mississauga, ON
Cineplex Odeon Queensway Cinemas – Toronto, ON
Colossus Vaughan Cinemas – Vaughan, ON
SilverCity Fairview Mall Cinemas – Toronto, ON
Cineplex Odeon Yonge & Dundas Square Cinemas – Toronto, ON
Cineplex Odeon Eglinton Town Centre Cinemas – Scarborough, ON
Coliseum Ottawa Cinemas – Ottawa, ON
SilverCity Gloucester Cinemas – Ottawa, ON
SilverCity Sudbury Cinemas – Sudbury, ON
(NOTE: Torontonians proclaim that Toronto is the Centre of the Known Universe. Most of us know better - especially all the venues OUTSIDE the GTA)

La Belle Province
Cineplex Odeon Forum Cinemas – Montreal, QC
(NOTE: French people do not like horror movies as they are all Catholic. The few who do are politely asked to leave their separatist literature at home and refrain from screaming "Je me souviens!" every ten fucking minutes.)

CLOUDBURST - Thom Fitzgerald's exquisite new film is playing theatrically all across Canada with the fantastic support of indie cinemas and smaller chains across the country, but NO real support from the supposedly all-Canadian exhibition chain (with a virtual monopoly - ahem - I mean, market share) Cineplex Entertainment. This is yet another example of Cineplex Entertainment's - ahem - stellar support of Canadian Cinema. If you have not yet seen CLOUDBURST - NOW IS THE TIME!!! Below find current playdates, a rave review of the film and some thoughts about how Cineplex Entertainment might deliver even more playdates for this and other Canadian films.

Oscar Winners Olympia Dukakis & Brenda Fricker

Here is a complete list of CLOUDBURST playdates across Canada. 

You have NO EXCUSE to miss this TERRIFIC Canadian MOVIE with BIG STARS, and a GREAT STORY from a GREAT DIRECTOR. 

NO EXCUSES ALLOWED! NONE! NONE WHATSOEVER!!!  

ONTARIO PLAYDATES:
TORONTO: Playing until March 14 at The Carlton Cinema
SUDBURY: Playing until March 14 at Rainbow Cinemas
PETERBOROUGH: Playing March 18 at Galaxy Theatres
WATERLOO: Playing March 26-27 at Princess Cinema

YARMOUTH: Playing until March 14 at Empire Cinemas

VANCOUVER: March 15 - April 1 at Vancity Theatre

EDMONCHUCK: Playing until March 13 at Metro Cinema
"Metro" is a nice Ukrainian first-name.
Special note to Ukes in Edmonchuck:
Prove how progressive your kind has become.
See the movie at Metro Cinema.
Name your first-born male child Metro.
Name your first-born female child Olympia.
(Greeks brought Christianity to Ukraine, after all)

The delightful maniacs at the lovely Mayfair Theatre in Ottawa posted this humungolicious poster of my original review in their front window.

Please note, HOWEVER: There is only ONE date on the aforementioned list at a theatre from the Cineplex Entertainment chain, a supposedly all-Canadian company with a virtual monopoly over exhibition in this country.

Cloudburst is a THEATRICAL feature. More importantly, it is a Canadian theatrical feature - and, I might add a commercial one. Alas, Canada's major exhibitor Cineplex Entertainment, rather than displaying the sort of vision I used to take pride in Canadians having, has scuttled into the unimaginative, lazy realm of American-styled notion of biggest return for least investment (and work - God forbid the rich from working). If Cineplex displayed even a pubic hair's worth of vision that Canadian independents and smaller exhibition chains have displayed, we could actually have something resembling a far more successful and vibrant THEATRICAL industry of feature film.

For films like Cloudburst (and many others) television, PPV, VOD, etc. are the LAZY WAY of exhibiting THEATRICAL FEATURE FILMS. They need a decent theatrical life to begin with - THEN everything should follow. The Americans (both distribution and exhibition) are rolling over independent and foreign films on their tummies and freely offering up the respective prostate glands of indie product to TV, PPV, VOD instead of WORKING for a living (which theatrical exhibition truly is).

Canadian feature films are at an even bigger disadvantage. If one TRULY STUDIES the history of exhibition and distribution in this country (as I and those who I can count on two hands have done), the cold, hard facts are that cinema in Canada, most notably English-language Canadian cinema didn't ever have a proper chance to get on its feet. My argument is not specifically to do with financing, but proper exhibition of Canadian films. Cineplex Entertainment can more than afford to do it, but it takes someone in the organization to do it properly with a decent budget to LOSE MONEY to eventually MAKE MORE than they could have imagined.

Our brave boys in World War I, whose corpses fertilize Europe, were the real spirit of Canada. That spirit seemed to die on those battlefields while the Status Quo who sent them to die in the first place, insidiously and slowly pulled the strings of both government and visionary entrepreneurship to make a lot of money for the very few.

Screw the Canadian people.

Screw Canadian Culture.

Screw Canada.

I blame Canadian producers, too. Those who are led to the trough could care less and all the rest are quivering in their boots to do anything about this. Nothing's going to change until EVERYONE in this industry marches into Chair Phyllis Yaffe's office at Cineplex Entertainment (or perhaps the office of the company's head film buyer Michael Kennedy), occupies it and chants incessantly, "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

The solution to this issue MUST come from within and it cannot be half-assed. I'm so sick of seeing exhibition, distribution and production in this country handled in the most lazy, vision-bereft and greedy manner. An all-Canadian entertainment company with a virtual monopoly has a responsibility to Canadian culture and, frankly, their own self worth as a potentially important corporate entity that actually displays its balls, vulvas and vision where it counts.

Does the industry need to perpetuate the models it created and that new generations merely accept? I began my life in this business over 30 years ago in journalism, THEN; exhibition, film buying and distribution before moving into producing and I lived through that world before, during and after. One thing I know is that models can be changed for the better and that cycles of this sort of corporate stupidity/laziness are often manufactured by the puppeteers. As producers are a viable force in the industry, they have a right to lobby violently for proper exhibition models. They MUST violently lobby for this.

The new model of limited (or worse, NO) theatrical realease followed by home viewing opportunities (which, frankly, used to be called "ancillaries") is pathetic - a pale shadow of what still could be revived, restored and revitalized for the next century and beyond. There is a strong aesthetic argument to be made for revitalizing big screen bricks and mortar experiences for ALL audiences. Granted, I'd need about 2000 words or so (if not more) to adequately explain (with a proper historical context) WHY there is a difference aesthetically between a film intended for theatrical release and one intended for home viewing. One only needs to look at any theatrical original (let's say Sam Raimi's wonderful Darkman) and its straight-to-home-viewing sequels. The latter are not only cheaper, but the story aesthetics are sans the same levels of high stakes AND sweep. One can compare this easily to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films where II was even better than I because it was infused with the aforementioned attributes. By the way, I'm using big genre pictures as examples because they refute the notion that all Hollywood product is aimed at young audiences - ultimately the aforementioned titles were celebrated by all on the big screen. (The pathetic Spidey reboot was not.)

The bottom line is that there is a lot of truth to the old adage: "Everything old becomes new again." It's never too late to restore the glory of movie-going for ALL. It takes WORK and VISION - both of which are ALWAYS worth cherishing. Theatrical IS a real release for motion pictures crafted as such. Never mind small indie films (or most Canadian films). Under the current exhibition/distribution system, we'd NEVER see films like Warren Beatty's Reds or Pollack's Out of Africa or Cimino's The Deer Hunter. The list goes on and on and that's truly, deeply and madly sad.

All those extended series on HBO etc. that have an epic scope are a completely different medium than theatrical. Ridiculously, some will argue that they replace real adult-oriented epics made for the big screen. They should enrich the choices, not replace them. Adults WILL go to great movies: big, medium or small - it's the industry that requires the VISION to make it so.

When I was a film buyer in the early 80s, the country was overflowing with bricks and mortar cinemas - almost every small town or city had one. These were my primary clients. When the studios began closing the windows between theatrical release and video release, it destroyed most of those brick and mortal businesses. I saw it with my own eyes and experienced the deep sadness of this. It was like the 50s of Larry McMurtry's The Last Picture Show (which, as a movie, would never be made today as a theatrical feature) happening all over again. The industry created this - it was easier, less work.

It's laziness - pure and simple.

Fitzgerald's Cloudburst and so many other worthy Canadian films are not only stuck in this mire, but plunged even deeper due to the ludicrous history of English-Canadian exhibition and distribution.

While I think it's great that independent Canadian cinemas and smaller chains are picking up the slack and exercising their responsibility to their Canadian audiences to play great Canadian films (and I'd never want to see this change), the fact remains that Cineplex Entertainment has a CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY to support the exhibition of Canadian Cinema. There are plenty of cities and communities in Canada that have yet to play Cloudburst - many of these cities have Cineplex Entertainment-controlled multiplexes (like the Galaxy Theatres). In addition to presenting foreign opera, theatre and films (the recent Cineplex Digital Film Series) should  - for LIMITED PLAYDATES - be carving out a niche for the Canadian Cinema through their Front Row Centre Events (not if they do it half-assedly, though). On the Cineplex webite, they tout their Front Row Centre Events thusly:

Front Row Centre Events: Bring the world of entertainment to your community and put you in the centre of the action with the best seats in the house! Presented in High Definition via satellite with Digital Surround Sound onto screens as large as 60 feet wide. These programs are unique and Cineplex Entertainment is pleased to be presenting them in theatres across the country.

Audiences across Canada have already enjoyed the sights and sounds of spectacular performances ranging from the Metropolitan Opera to World Wrestling Entertainment. Canadians are laughing along with the world's funniest comedians or rockin' with some of the world's greatest musicians right in their own local movie theatre. There's more!! Live speaking engagements, documentaries, family programs and world premieres are just the beginning. Cineplex Entertainment continuously shops the world of entertainment for the most exclusive events, guaranteed to take your breath away and put you front row centre!

The word "world" keeps popping up in all their bumph. It's great they're bringing the world to Canadian audiences, but how about bringing Canadian Cinema to Canadian audiences?

Now, after you read the review below, feel free to come back here and click on the link HERE for my commentary on Cineplex Entertainment's commitment to Canadian Cinema and some elaboration on how THEY as a major Canadian company can funnel some of their huge profits into an initiative that's not merely philanthropic, but one that could yield even more profits in the long-run.

If you build it, they will come.

Cloudburst (2011) dir. Thom Fitzgerald
Starring: Olympia Dukakis, Brenda Fricker, Ryan Doucette, Kristin Booth

****

By Greg Klymkiw

"They danced down the streets like dingledodies, and I shambled after as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes 'Awww!'" - Jack Kerouac, On The Road

The open road is freedom, but in reality and in the best popular culture, there is always a point where one must reach the end of the road. Sometimes it's sad and empty, sometimes it's not what you expected, often it's bittersweet. Whatever lies at the end of the journey, it's the ride that should always be the thing. It's what you discover and celebrate on the road that is often far more important than what's waiting there (if anything) when it ends.

Stella (Olympia Dukakis) and Dot (Brenda Fricker) have lived an incredible journey of love and mutual respect as a couple for over 30 years, but when circumstances seemingly beyond their control threaten the joy and happiness they've had, the open road becomes the only real way to obtain a pot of proverbial gold at the end of a new journey.

Family, it seems, is not always defined by blood - it takes love - and for this couple, family comes in the unlikeliest of places and circumstances. Love is what defines lives well lived and this couple have had love in spades, but in order to keep it unfettered from the unwelcome intrusion of a well meaning, but completely out-to-lunch blood relative - public affirmation becomes the ultimate goal. They must marry.

The problem is that they live in the United States and can only gain the legal status as a married couple in Canada. What's a foul-mouthed, cowboy-hat-adorned, k.d. lang-obsessed, self-described old dyke and her jolly, sweet, visually-impaired longtime companion to do? What would you do? Me, I'd hop in my half-ton pickup truck, stock it with k.d. lang CDs, pick up a hunky male hitchhiker headed to visit his ailing Mom in Nova Scotia and cross the 49th parallel to get myself good and hitched - kind of like Stella and Dot do in the lovely, funny and touching new film written and directed by Thom Fitzgerald.

Cloudburst is a movie that needed a deft directorial touch and a script that could take the cliches normally associated with road movies and generate truth, humanity and humour and thankfully, for the most part it succeeds in this regard.

For years I kept wondering when director Thom Fitzgerald, who made one of the most thrilling feature debuts of the 90s, The Hanging Garden, was going to generate a picture that fulfilled the considerable promise displayed in that exquisite heartbreaker of a movie. This is not to discount the intervening years of work, but Cloudburst feels like a return to form and, on occasion, a step or two forward.

Olympia Dukakis and Brenda Fricker are tremendous actresses, but given the emphasis these days upon demographics and the usual requirements from studios and other financiers to cater exclusively to younger audiences, the number of great roles for talents in this august age group are getting fewer-and-far-between-er. Fitzgerald crafted two roles that any great actress would love to sink her teeth into and frankly, Dukakis and Fricker are so captivating, moving and funny, I have to admit it feels like they were born to eventually step into these parts.

Set against the lush, superbly photographed backdrop of Nova Scotia, Fitzgerald took this story, a sort of gentle retirement-age Thelma and Louise, and both wisely and bravely delivered a tale that's as mature as it's downright universal. Love should have no boundaries and his direction indelibly captures a love story that's familiar, but bolstered by such genuine compassion, that I frankly can't imagine any audience not succumbing to it's considerable charms.

There are a few overwrought moments of humour that try a bit too hard, but for the most part, I found myself laughing heartily and genuinely and damn it all, I shed more than a few tears.

It's one of the few unabashedly sentimental celebrations of love I've seen in quite some time. The picture wears its heart proudly on its sleeve and while there's something just a little bit old-fashioned about that, Fitzgerald handles the proceedings with such grace, that everything old becomes happily new again. Some might choose to deny the power of sentiment, but they'd be lying (or just plain foolish). We all need sentiment from time to time and Cloudburst is the right time, the right place and just the right film to make us all feel grateful for the joy that life, with all its ups and downs, bestows upon us and hopefully prepares us for whatever journey we take beyond the end of the road.

"Cloudburst" is playing across Canada. See list of playdates above.

On the eve of the Genie Awards, Canada's newspaper of record in that dying medium has asked several experts to weigh in on their thoughts regarding the current state of Canadian Cinema. Here are my thoughts in response.

A collection of experts weighed in on "What the Canadian Film Industry Needs Most" via Gayle MacDonald in the March 7, 2012 Edition of the Globe and Mail. On the eve of the 32nd Annual Genie Awards, only one of them directly addressed what I suspect is the real problem. Here then are my responses to some of the comments and my own thoughts on the matter.

What the Canadian Film Industry Needs Most Is Less Punditry. That Said, Here's More Pundrity. It's the Canadian Way!

By Greg Klymkiw

CAMERON BAILEY

Cameron is one of Canada's most astute film critics and since he took over as co-director of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), we're alternately all the better for it (as he seeks out great cinema for us to watch) and all the worse for it (since we don't get to read his punchy, musically-styled prose on cinema on a regular basis). Cameron suggests that English Canadian Cinema needs to snuffle back a bit o' that magical Quebec oxygen. He opines:

"Quebec is turning out films of ambition and depth that look outward rather than just in. I think there's talent equal to Quebec in the rest of Canada, but maybe somebody needs to throw open a window and let some of that air in."

I suspect Cameron would, if given a few more column inches, have admitted the whopping number of Quebec films that do NOT look outward. While many of these indigenously delightful Joual-tinged knee-slappers go through the roof in their home province, they certainly do zero business outside of French Canada (and not just in English Canada, but worldwide and EVEN in French-speaking territories outside of Canada).

Frankly, English Canadian Cinema has, especially since the late 80s and early 90s, often looked outward, and in fact, has performed extremely well in foreign markets. The list includes David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Guy Maddin, Patricia Rozema, Vincenzo Natali, Brad Peyton and a whole whack of others. On the homefront, though, things are more dire. I shall opine on this later.

RUBBA NADDA

Rubba Nadda is the director of Sabah, Cairo Time and the upcoming thriller Inescapable. Here are her thoughts:

"Sometimes I just think it needs more balls, more courage. The Canadian industry is so afraid of taking risks. When I took the script for "Inescapable" to the United States, everyone wanted to do it. I got the first support from the States, not from Canada. It’s the Canadian way to hesitate."

I have no quarrels with this. Canada (particularly on the English side) is a country that is far too mired in the sort of bureaucracy that places emphasis on "fairness", "committee" decision-making, political correctness bordering on fascism and pathetically obvious self-serving nest-feathering which results in a seemingly conservative approach to all matters cultural. It's the Canadian way to smile whilst stabbing in the back instead of looking directly into one's eye as they gut you. This dweeb-ish cowardice is abominable. The worst thing is when purse-string holders - even within private business - are more apt to hide behind the proverbial "we". "The committee" is the oft-used term as opposed to "I". We need more people within the system to take personal responsibility for their often wrong-headed decisions - rooted in the kind of "well-meaning" approaches that are hardly a conducive approach to the "balls" and "courage" Ms. Nadda refers to above.

KEVIN DEWALT

Kevin Dewalt is one of Canada's most successful producers from Regina. He hits a nail on the head here that's been bugging me since I started in this industry.

"Canadian films need larger budgets to attract bigger international stars to compete in the international market place. There are tax schemes in Britain for private investors to invest in British films. The King’s Speech is a prime example. Without private-equity funding out of the U.K., this movie would never have been made. By creating similar private-investor programs in Canada, we would be able to increase our budgets and compete more effectively in the global marketplace."

Though I'm not sure larger budgets are ALWAYS going to be the answer, this country desperately needs an aggressive and progressive tax shelter. End of story. Everyone focuses upon the negative aspects of the Canadian tax shelter days, but for all the bad movies generated during that period, the number of artistically and/or commercially significant works produced then equals if not betters what's been generated without it. Filmmakers need the freedom to generate truly private investment. My oft-repeated no-brainer formula of aggressive tax shelters, larger tax credits and substantial tax incentives for marketing, exhibition and distribution may seem simplistic, but there's the old screenwriting adage, KISS ("Keep it simple, stupid") which is best applied to most things in life.

ROBERT LANTOS

Robert Lantos is the closest thing Canada has to a bonafide mogul. He began his illustrious career hawking the New York Erotic Film Festival and steadily built more than enough empires in this business based on his vision and astute dipping into every public trough imaginable. Here is the sum total of his thoughts on this:

"Prime-time access to and meaningful investment from broadcasters, as is the case in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and most other countries where films are made."

Thank you, Robert, for your detailed response.

NIV FICHMAN

Niv Fichman is not only a mensch and a half, he's produced one great Canadian film after another. Beginning his career overseeing some of the most world-class arts and culture productions ever made and then delivering gems like Last Night, The Saddest Music in the World and Hobo With a Shotgun, he can certainly be forgiven for his part in the recent career of Paul Gross (most notably Passchendaele and GOD HELP US ALL - Gunless).

"What Canadian film most needs right now is a new voice. The voice of a young generation that grew up with the Internet and YouTube and digital cameras and [video editing software] Final Cut Pro. A generation that has been making films since they were children and self-distributing their work on YouTube."

In theory, I agree. In practise, I think it's unhealthy to encourage the "anyone can make a film" tradition that's sprouted from the digital revolution. I do agree that genuinely talented young voices need to be supported. Interestingly, I think there already exists a new hope in English Canadian Cinema. They call themselves "Astron-6", a filmmaking collective from Winnipeg that's been generating a series of mind-blowing short films and two features for absolutely no money. Their influences have been 80s direct-to-video genre pictures as well as the post-modern flights of fancy already pioneered by their 'Peg confreres John Paizs and Guy Maddin. In 2011 these psycho kids - who are REAL filmmakers with a distinctive voice - delivered one of the most insane sci-fi love letters to the 80s I've ever seen. Imaginative, naughty and knee-splappingly hilarious, MANBORG, replete with tres-cool visuals, was made for just over $1000. Their other triumph is FATHER'S DAY, a truly brilliant splatter-fest that was made for a mere $10,000 (courtesy of Troma's Lloyd Kaufman) and has played theatrically all over the United States. This particular item focuses upon a serial killer from hell who specializes in raping and butchering fathers and is hunted down by a rag-tag group of brave avengers (led by a one-eyed Jason Statham-lookalike). This a truly warped, sick, funny, disgusting and deliciously bum-blasting masterpiece. Niv! These guys need someone just like YOU! Ditch this Paul Gross fellow and embrace the utter madness that is Astron-6.

INGRID VENINGER

Ingrid Veninger might well be cinema’s only living equivalent to a whirling dervish. Like a dervish, she honours her Creator (cinema), her prophets (Cassavetes, Leigh and others), then whips her creative concoction into a frenzy – literally living and breathing cinema – producing film from within herself, her devotion and life itself. Ingrid has produced a whack of features including the mega-Genie-nominated Nurse Fighter Boy and has directed three terrific features including i am a good person/i am a bad person. Here's what she had to offer:

"Exhibition quotas. Our cinemas should be mandated to screen a percentage of Canadian content, just like our television broadcasters and radio. People say, “Theatrical quotas will never happen. It's impossible,” but I say, “People make the impossible happen every day.” Claude Jutra (Mon oncle Antoine) once said, “Not making the films you want to make is awful, but making them and not having them seen is worse.”

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (as I've said this many times before and will keep saying it), English Canada needs an exhibition quota.

In English Canada, there is one primary target: Cineplex Entertainment. The "Canadian" exhibition chain owns and/or controls more screens than anyone in the country. They'll always argue that their only concern is their stockholders and that they'll play any Canadian movie as long as it makes money. That's all well and good when it comes to no-brainer programming choices like the start-studded Cronenberg spanking-fest A Dangerous Method or Michael Dowse's brilliant hockey splatter fest GOON, but what about the rest of the product?

A secondary target for scrutinous ire-infused debate on the state of Canada's domestic motion picture product is the gaggle of domestic film distributors that adhere to the status quo, but in all fairness to them, they're only going to spend money on the marketing necessary to keep the product on screens if they actually GET screens. Cineplex Entertainment is stingy with those. They have far too many Hollywood movies to play (often to empty or near-empty houses given the ridiculous number of screens said product hogs).

There's no two ways about it. English Canadian cinema lags far behind other indigenous industries outside of North America in terms of audience support for its own work. Canadian audiences are not quick to embrace their own cinema, but in order to embrace it at all, the work needs venues. This, of course, is not (and has never been) a problem in Quebec as the province has had very stringent guidelines regarding Quebec-based distributors and a more-than-level playing field for the exhibition of French-language product - thus allowing for the development of audiences ravenous for homegrown movies.

I'd also argue it's not necessarily always the fault of the product, either. Many decent, perfectly entertaining and/or artistically challenging movies get little chance to be seen.

If screens cannot be secured and held onto, there is no real way to adequately develop an interest in domestic product. Until Cineplex Entertainment does the right thing and gets off its lazy corporate duff and waggles its piggy tail in the direction of Canadian cinema and - even at a loss - does its corporate duty with respect to AGGRESSIVELY making DECENT screens available to said product, thus fulfilling their responsibility in supporting cultural initiatives in this country, then things are going to continue their snail-paced incremental changes.

Here are some thoughts I shared at a previous juncture on this site:

I saw Don Shebib's classic Canadian feature Goin' Down the Road when I was a kid at a huge first-run theatre in Winnipeg. I loved it then and loved it more every time I saw it. When I heard Shebib had crafted a sequel, Down the Road Again, I was imbued with a bit of healthy skepticism. That said, I was still excited to see it.

I was out of town for the first two weeks of the film's theatrical run at Cineplex's flagship Toronto venue, the Varsity Cinema. When I returned during the film's third week of release, I hightailed it down to the Varsity (not bothering to check the showtimes as is my wont) and was shocked (genuinely) that it wasn't playing. I quickly accessed my iPhone movie listings and was even more distressed that the movie, at least for that evening, was playing absolutely nowhere in Toronto.

There was, however, one lone screening the following evening at the Royal cinema, everyone's favourite indie venue in Little Italy. What shocked me even more was that Barbara Willis Sweete's film adaptation of Billy Bishop Goes To War was the other film playing at the Royal the same evening - first run and ENDING!!! Okay, my fault for being out of town, I guess. Excuse me all to hell for expecting movies with a reasonable pedigree by Canadian standards were (a) not available on any Cineplex screen in the country's largest city and that (b) they were both ending.

No matter, I sashayed on down the next night to The Royal. I really enjoyed Billy Bishop. I first experienced it as a kid in Winnipeg when John Gray and Eric Peterson presented the play at the Manitoba Theatre Centre's Warehouse venue. I loved it then and was delighted to see a film that preserved its theatrical roots. (I won't rant about one of my many pet-peeves involving the idiotic, myopic assumption on the part of critics and film types who should know better that anything and everything based upon a theatrical piece MUST be opened up for the cinema. Just don't get me started and I promise to stop now.)

My first thought was, "Hmmm, there are wads upon wads of people my age and older who love this play ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. This would have been a perfect film to platform wide in the Front Row Centre-styled exhibition format that Cineplex has been exploiting in big cities and beyond." I played out a release pattern for the film in my mind whilst waiting for the Shebib to begin: Coast-to-coast, hugely hyped one-shot screenings of the film at the premium Front Row Centre prices. You'd have to blow a decent whack o' dough on advertising, BUT, with the same kind of thought and elbow grease that USED to go into marketing ANY movies (never mind Canadian films), there would be all sorts of alternate advertising venues with far more reasonable ad rates than traditional outlets anyway. As well, there would be an inordinate number of cross-promotions and tie-ins with theatre companies and arts groups across the country. Hell, target theatre schools also - not just including private companies, or even secondary schools, but given that virtually every post-secondary institution has a theatre program, promote the picture there. In any event, my fantasy release of Billy Bishop then included regular screenings one week later in many of the same venues it played at in the Front Row Centre release. Those post-Front-Row screenings may or may not have had numbers to sustain the secondary runs that long, BUT, the important thing is that Canadians would have been able to see the movie on a BIG SCREEN in a COMMUNAL ENVIRONMENT. This, in turn, would have created a far more advantageous bed of hype and anticipation for any number of home entertainment venues.

Alas, the way the movie was released feels like home penetration was the only real goal.

Whose fault was it?

Well, I can't be sure if the film's distributor considered my aforementioned form of theatrical penetration, nor do I know if the movie was even offered Cineplex. What I can say is this. SOMEONE should have thought about it and SOMEONE should have committed to playing it in this fashion. In fact, give the success of these types of special event showings in the Cineplex chain, you'd think someone THERE might have thought about approaching the film's distributor about mounting the film in this fashion.

Here's the thing. The business has changed for the worst, but it's not impossible to reapply good old fashioned showmanship on both sides of the distribution and exhibition fence. I started my life in this business as both a writer ABOUT movies and then as a film buyer on behalf of independent exhibitors in the late 70s and early 80s. I lived through the "old ways", lamented the shift in delivery and accessibility of product and now I get absolutely livid when I see how complacent and lazy both sides have become.

Down the Road Again was an entirely different story. I loved the picture, but also conceded its theatrical appeal would be limited. Limited, yes - but there IS an audience out there that would have loved to see the movie on a big screen. Part of this IS a distribution issue. However, I also think Canada's major exhibitor is shirking its place in creating a proper venue for Canadian cinema. Responsibility to shareholders be damned. Besides, even leaving Canadian Cinema out of the equation, those shareholders are going to have very little to count on if things don't change in the exhibition industry.

And yes, it IS the fault of exhibition - especially within major chains like Cineplex. They offer no real choice. Pure and simple. They rest on the laurels of whatever crap they're handed. I live for much of the year in a remote rural area. Cineplex has a seven-screen multiplex. All the same movies are locked in there for ages. I can assure you that in the late 70s and early 80s, the small market audiences had FAR more CHOICE in what was available than they do now. And idiotically, it's not that the product is NOT there. There's tons of product. Much of it good and much of it never getting screen time. Yes, having to program and promote such product takes time and effort. Yeah? So? Do it. They call it elbow grease.

As for Canadian product, I will ultimately and vigorously ALWAYS point an accusatory finger at Cineplex. Every major country outside of North America had or continues to have strict indigenous content quotas. Many of these countries have leaps and bounds on Canada by decades in this respect. Many of these same countries are making indigenous product that appeals to their national audiences and, in many cases, to international audiences. Much of this product isn't of the blockbuster variety, either. It often provides entertainment to niche audiences - theatrically. These audiences exist because efforts had been made in the past to ensure cultural sovereignty. These movies mostly do NOT compete with Hollywood, anyway. In fact, they enhance the viability and attraction to theatrical exhibition period.

I do not propose legislating exhibition quotas anyway.

I frankly think it would be good for business if Cineplex undertook a major corporate responsibility in exhibiting Canadian films - EVEN IF THEY LOSE MONEY! Oh horrors! Isn't that horrible?

Down the Road Again needed far more marketing and promotion than it got. This, to be sure, a distribution issue. That said, movies like this will NEVER find a theatrical audience if they are not out there. I personally think a movie like Shebib's sequel DEMANDED being placed in more cinemas across the country and held longer - even at a loss. Take one screen in every bloody multiplex and screen Canadian product exclusively. Take another screen in every bloody multiplex and program product of an indie nature exclusively - booking it, if necessary in a repertory style.

Cineplex is a Canadian company.

Forgive me for thinking Canada is different than our neighbours to the south. We are. We have higher literacy rates, more progressive values AND most of all, we ARE innovators. Cineplex should FORCE themselves to exhibit Canadian films at a loss. (I'm sure there are potential tax incentives that can be whipped up for this anyway.)

Why, you say, at a loss? Because there could well be a pot at the end of the rainbow. If the product - good, bad, middle of the road - is made available on a consistent basis, audiences might eventually develop a thirst for a certain type of product that speaks to THEM.

It's worked everywhere else in the world - out there, beyond the confines of North America.

It was, however, legislated. I say again, though, legislation is no longer the answer. Besides, such quotas would fall under provincial jurisdiction, so getting all the provinces on board would be ridiculous. Cineplex as the most powerful exhibitor in the country should legislate it THEMSELVES as corporate cultural policy within their business mandate. They could actually become world leaders in this extraordinary move to actively build an audience. More importantly, they could take a leadership role even beyond Canadian product and offer theatrical accessibility to a far wider range of product.

This, frankly, is good for Canada, good for foreign product, good for Hollywood, good for AMERICAN independents, good for cinema as the greatest artistic medium of all time and MOST IMPORTANTLY, good for the end-users, the customers, the myriad of movie lovers who have been lured away from the communal experience for many different reasons, but most of all, because of a lack of diversity in programming.

In the meantime, though, the true heroes of Canadian theatrical exhibition are Alliance Cinemas, AMC Theatres, Independent Canadian Exhibitors (The Royal, Revue, Winnipeg Film Group Cinematheque, Canadian Film Institute, Pacific Cinematheque, etc.). They all regularly screen Canadian films - both first-run and second. TIFF Bell Lightbox in just over a year has displayed incredible courage and commitment to screening Canadian product theatrically.

They, however, are just a small part of the equation.

It's up to a major corporation like Cineplex to do their duty.