A Push to Lift Canada From Hollywood’s Shadow

It’s ironic that Canada’s Sheila Copps was in Los Angeles last weekend for Hollywood’s biggest event, the Oscars, given that she is regularly at odds with the U.S. entertainment industry.

As that country’s heritage minister, Copps, who was in town to celebrate Canadian director Norman Jewison’s Irving G. Thalberg Award, is an outspoken proponent of aggressive government actions that aid Canadian books, magazines, music, TV shows and movies, sometimes at the expense of American product.

Citing figures such as 98% of the box office receipts in Canada going to U.S. films and 60% of the television watched in Canada being American, Copps says that her mission is to make sure Canadian stories are told amid a dominant U.S. entertainment industry. Copps, 46, touched off a heated exchange with U.S. officials in 1997 when she decried “American cultural imperialism” and suggested a trade war might even result.

Her frequent critics in the U.S., including the Motion Picture Assn. of America led by Jack Valenti, say Copps and other Canadian officials are overly protectionist. They argue that the free market should properly decide what people want to watch and read. In Canada, for example, 30% of the music played on radio stations must be Canadian content, passing various tests to determine its status.

Critics also argue that such policies ignore that the entertainment business is increasingly a global industry rather than a U.S. one. Indeed, one of the major players in Hollywood, Seagram Co., owner of Universal Pictures, is based in Montreal. Critics point out that more open attitudes in U.S. entertainment have allowed Canadian natives such as actor Jim Carrey, director James Cameron and singers Shania Twain, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette to flourish.

Copps’ edited comments were made during an interview at the Canadian Consulate in downtown Los Angeles.

*

Q: You’ve had disagreements with the U.S. film industry. Its response is, why does the government get involved? Why not let the free market decide?

A: We’ve been involved in providing a legislative framework for magazines for 30 years. The same holds true for television. The same holds true for books. The same holds true for the music industry. The only area where the government has not been involved is the one area [film] where our domestic stories are almost nonexistent. If you knew 98% of the box office receipts in Canada were going to another country, you’d say there is something that needs to be fixed.

*

Q: There are some highly successful Canadians in the U.S. entertainment industry.

A: I think you’re mixing apples and oranges. Obviously, we have successful Canadian artists who made it big in Hollywood.

If you go back historically, most of the Canadians who want to make a contribution to the movie business tend to come to Hollywood because that’s basically where the action is. Because historically we have had no Canadian distribution network for Canadian films, even though we have some fabulous films, they tend not to be seen on the movie screens.

*

Q: Why don’t they get better exposure? We have distributors of independent films like Miramax.

A: Let’s use the example of “Titanic.” “Titanic’s” distribution and advertising budget was $35 million. “The Sweet Hereafter” [from Canada] had an advertising budget of $750,000. You can’t compare the impact of a $250-million film with a $35-million advertising budget with a $3-million film with a $750,000 advertising budget. It’s very apples and oranges. They’re both good films. The only area in our country where we’re completely nonexistent in terms of getting our stories told is in film.

*

Q: “The Sweet Hereafter” got Oscar nominations.

A: It got critical acclaim. It did make money relative to the cost. But if you walk down Santa Monica Boulevard or walk down Young Street in Toronto and ask 10 people if they’ve seen it, the answer to most is no. In our country, it didn’t get a lot of exposure in the movie theaters. The people who bring the movies in control the production and they control the movies and they only promote the movies they produced and control.

*

Q: Many foreign films and art house films that in the past wouldn’t have gotten much exposure are getting it because of companies like Miramax. “Life is Beautiful” is an Italian film with subtitles that is doing very well.

A: Look at where Italian films have been in the past 20 years. I’ll track you the numbers. “Life is Beautiful” is a good example about how good films are being made all over the world. The question we ask ourselves is why aren’t these films being seen?

*

Q: “Life Is Beautiful’ is being seen.

A: It is. But get yourself a list of where “The Sweet Hereafter” played in movie theaters around the world.

*

Q: Do you think the Motion Picture Assn. is too quick to use the word protectionism?

A: As I said to Mr. Valenti when I met him, how could we be protectionist when 98% of what we spend our movie dollars on is American? How protectionist is that? Our challenge is to ensure diversity of choice. There is an appetite for a world market in Hollywood movies, but there also is an appetite to hear your own stories told.

*

Q: There seems to be a move to blame Canada for why production is somewhat slower here. Has Canada become a whipping boy for this issue?

A: I think the movie business has undergone tremendous expansion in the last decade, in particular the American movie business. That’s slowing to a certain extent. What you’re seeing is a very healthy industry that is going through some changes. Frankly, those changes need to be dealt with domestically.