The TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) CTT (Canada's Top Ten) has just wrapped its run at TIFF Bell LightBox and the Genie Award Nominations for outstanding achievement in Canadian Film have just been announced. This should be a time of celebration, but a dark cloud is hanging over these events and raining on the parade. In a country where the largest, most powerful "Canadian-owned" exhibition chain refuses to uphold its corporate responsibility to Canadian Culture, every little bit helps.

WITHER CANADIAN CINEMA?
CELEBRATION, PLEASE - NOT CASTIGATION!
CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT IS ALREADY DOING
A VERY GOOD JOB IN THE LATTER DEPARTMENT!

By Greg Klymkiw

When the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) Bell LightBox presented a week-long celebration of Canadian cinema earlier this month - screening all the features and shorts selected in its annual Canada's Top Ten (CTT) - a number of print and online articles sparked a flurry of hot debate on such social networking sites as Twitter and Facebook. I can also attest to such conversations being hotly debated in any number of face-to-face social situations. Canadian filmmakers have much time on their hands to debate such matters. ("I'm between films," was the oft-heard remark prefacing most verbal trashing of TIFF's CTT.)

No sooner did the dust clear from those debates when rumblings began to surface from within the roiling volcano of Canuckle industry pundits and players. On the eve of the big day when The Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television (ACCT) would announce nominations for the 32nd annual Genie Awards (Canada's - ahem - "Oscars"), ruminations of the same kind began to surface.

Would the new ACCT head honcho Helga Stephenson (former TIFF topper), a leaner (and supposedly meaner) Board of Directors, as well as substantial amendments to the Genie Awards entry fees and qualifications actually make a difference in rendering the awards relevant to Canadians outside of the movie business? (Or, for that matter, anyone living north of Dupont Street in downtown Toronto?)

Well, scrutiny and slags are just fine, but I have to admit that far too many pundits and players in Canada (including, sadly, more said players and pundits who really ought to know better) seem, I think, to be looking in the wrong directions to level their volleys of criticism. TIFF's CTT and the ACCT Genie Awards are not it.

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 the 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 and others of this ilk (no matter how acclaimed or not they might be), 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 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.

Until Cineplex Entertainment does the right thing, any efforts that can be made to promote Canadian cinema must be welcomed and supported.

This is where TIFF's CTT and the Genie Awards come in - promotion and celebration!!!

End of story.

Does this mean both entities are above scrutiny? Of course, not. However, I'm not sure the scrutiny applied in recent weeks has proven all that effective other than getting noses already out of joint - out of joint even further.

And for what?

With TIFF's CTT, the first volley in print came from film critic Norman Wilner in that pseudo-left-wing-rag I (stereotypically, but genuinely) use to line my budgie cage when I can't get enough free copies of the Toronto Star (the latter being freely dispensed at flea markets, home shows and, on occasion, WalMart). Wilner's piece asserted that "the problem" with TIFF's CTT is "a larger tendency in Canadian cinema" to elevate "our filmmakers to Great Cultural Hopes as soon as they wow a festival or win a prize, never reassessing them once they’re up."

Huh?

When they're up?

Up?

From what? Bed? An erection? A snort of coke?

Wilner attempts to elaborate on the aforementioned thesis (as it were) by suggesting that "when someone like Cronenberg has an off year, his picture still gets in because the potential media outcry if we exclude the country’s most esteemed working filmmaker would be unimaginable."

I doubt anyone WOULD raise much of a hue and cry when a genuinely dreadful (or even good) picture is excluded. That includes Cronenberg. Wilner does, however, offer-up an interesting question that might have had more weight (and reason for serious analysis) if he'd bothered to elaborate properly on how or why he believes a "potential media outcry" would occur.

Wilner's question is thus: "But what if that exclusion led to an honest conversation about the way the Canadian entertainment media pander to the idea of national treasures?"

Great question.

For the life of me, I can't even begin to fathom why Canadian critics were so kind to Paul Gross' execrable Passchendaele. This is a movie that deserved to be laughed off by every critic with anything resembling taste, intelligence and/or self-respect.

The movie STUNK!

End of story.

The domestic boxoffice gross for Passchendaele (such as it was) was bought and paid for with a whole lot of tax dollars (directly and indirectly), so I doubt one can genuinely say the picture was a hit. And to reiterate, it was equally disturbing that most of Canada's critics didn't use their prose to wipe Gross' shit from their collective asses instead of politely spreading the falsehood that it was a noble effort worth seeing.

Wilner uses Passchendaele, along with Barney's Version as examples of the sort of Cunuckle-headed movies that "were at best competent stabs at complex material that desperately needed an artistic vision behind them" and cites the ludicrous "buzz" on both that was "whipped up by friendly newspapers for months before the films reached theatres, the better to convince the public that seeing these films was an act of patriotism."

That said, it still doesn't adequately support his notion that the exclusion of those films on the CTT would have caused explosive jets of indignant diarrhea from the media. Those critics who shamed themselves by being polite to Passchendaele were, no doubt, secretly delighted (save for the brain dead amongst them) that someone had the guts to ignore it and I cannot locate an even passing mention criticizing the film's exclusion from the CTT. (That the miserably directed Barney's Version secured a CTT nod will always be beyond me, but I suspect not too many would have cried foul if it HAD been excluded.)

Paul Corupe's Canuxploitation! site appears to side with Wilner unequivocally, going so far to title its analysis of the CTT "Canada's Token 10?" Corupe proclaims: "If you only read one article about the Top 10, make it Norman Wilner’s recent piece for Toronto alt-weekly NOW, 'Canuck Conundrum,' which takes issue with the TIFF panel’s reliance on established and celebrated Canadian directors–even when their latest work is not considered up to par."

Corupe elevates Wilner's piece in lofty enough terms that I'm reminded (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) of Pauline Kael comparing the New York Film Festival's premiere of Last Tango in Paris to the unveiling of Le Sacre du Printemps.

In fairness to Wilner, he does indeed cite David Cronenberg's loathsome A Dangerous Method for what it is and calls it "a dud", but again, this does little to PROPERLY support his assertion that its exclusion from the CTT would have raised media ire.

I do agree most wags would certainly have been tut-tutting, but the bigger and more interesting question is, why did critics (not just in Canada) rave about this movie? In a sense, A Dangerous Method is not unlike an eager Bukkake recipient of critical, egghead and arthouse-snob jets of spunk, splashing ever-so voluminously upon its greedy face and into its wide open mouth.

(Oh, and as a side note, allow me to clarify that I use the term "arthouse-snob" to describe pseuds who don't REALLY like art films, but prefer movies that make them THINK they're seeing art.)

Look, there's no way this movie would have been excluded from the CTT - none! The buzz on the picture has been extremely positive world wide. IF all the aforementioned loved the movie as much as they did, there's no way in hell the CTT jury wouldn't have also. A Dangerous Method is no Passchendaele. Tons of people loved the former all over the world, whilst the latter drew mostly polite accolades domestically and derision and/or indifference everywhere else. And frankly, in spite of the fact that Wilner acknowledges that A Dangerous Method is "inert and schematic and doesn’t illuminate its subject" (in addition to the aforementioned "dud" declaration), I'd argue he's being as polite as all those other Canucks who politely hailed Passchendaele when he says that Cronenberg's snore-fest is "a stately and well-acted drama".

Hey, that's reason enough for movies to win Oscars.

(The King's Speech, anyone?)

For his part, Corupe cites "Peter Morris’ essential 1994 article "In Our Own Eyes: The Canonizing of Canadian Film” [which] asks some worthy questions about the way certain kinds of Canadian films have been canonized over the last few decades while others, many equally deserving, are brushed aside. Imagine, for example, an alternate Canadian film landscape where John Paizs’ superior Crime Wave scooped the 1985 Best Picture Genie from the actual winner, the far less essential My American Cousin.

I am probably one of Paizs' biggest champions. I've seen Crime Wave more times that I can easily remember. Its genius, humour and innovation have few equals in Canada and most importantly, Paizs paved the way for an entire generation of Canadian filmmakers with his indie-minded vision. Even Guy Maddin will admit how much of his career he owes to John Paizs.

While Corupe's comment is clearly focusing on the landscape that might well have been affected by such a win (and not suggesting that the movie necessarily should have won the Genie), I suspect that the Genie-snubbing of Paizs and many of those who followed him is part of what contributes to a vibrant counter-culture. Alas, many whacko indie-minded Canuck films found much more eager audience support outside Canada's borders and in spite of the unquestionable brilliance of Crime Wave, I suspect its magnificent pop-culture sensibilities derived from such deliciously oddball sources as 50s crime pulp mixed with the bizarre Canadian tradition of National Film Board and corporate filmmaking kept it from exploding in the same European territories that many other indie Canuckle pics did. It was bereft - thankfully - of snob appeal and it truly found its way into the world as cult film via homevideo during a strange period (the 80s and 90s) when many THEATRICAL venues for cult product were closing down or changing their programming strategies to be second run cinemas.

That said, it ultimately wasn't necessary for a movie like Crime Wave, which will be revered and remembered when most Canadian films are rendered to a slag heap, to win a Genie Award. Paizs, and by extension, Crime Wave, having to join any club that would have someone like him or his film as a member seems unthinkable. Besides, I don't recall David Lynch's Eraserhead, John Waters' Pink Flamingos or Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Kill Kill winning any Oscars. They will, however, live a whole lot longer than, say, The King's Speech.

I agree wholeheartedly with Wilner when he says: "When we exalt filmmakers into icons, we stop seeing them as artists who have hits and misses. If you can do no wrong, you can never be challenged, and any perceived failings in your work must be the failings of the audience." Hell, I'm more than guilty on that front when it comes to John Ford - I even like Seven Women for Christ's sake!

Bottom line: Those who love film ALWAYS tend to "exalt filmmakers into icons" and there are any number of filmmakers on the CTT list who, frankly, deserve it. (For me, it's Guy Maddin. Yeah-yeah, full disclosure: I'm an old friend and produced some of his movies. Big deal. I love them all. Well, maybe all save for one, but I'm not telling.) Hell, even Wilner acknowledges that Cronenberg is "a legitimate artist and a Canadian treasure... [and looks forward] to each new project that bears his name, and always will."

Moi aussi!

All that said, there aren't enough of us who hate A Dangerous Method and can see it for what it really is and that alone, I suspect, is what DEMANDS inclusion on the CTT list.

Wilner is completely off-base when he states: "Pretending it’s one of the year’s best films does no one any favours. It just makes it look like TIFF is playing favourites – and why wouldn’t they? Cronenberg’s name guarantees media coverage."

Huh?

Who, pray tell, is pretending?

Most of Wilner's colleagues, domestically and internationally think it's one of the year's best. Do you really think THEY are playing favourites? No. As wrong-headed as they might be on this one, the accolades all seem genuine. Why then would Wilner assert that TIFF is playing favourites by including it on the CTT? As for the media coverage, Cronenberg's movie had ALREADY been afforded plenty of support long before the CTT was announced.

Corupe asserts "that Morris’ notion is taking on extra importance this year, perhaps due to an increasing disconnect between 'officially' canonized CanCon and the varied Canadian films that audiences (and, obviously, more vocal critics) now want to see. It may also be a symptom of frustration with the way Canadian film industry is portrayed so reductively by lists and award shows–they seem to infer that the only game in town is a handful of the same old established icons."

Sorry, I'm not swallowing that one. How does this differ in any other country? It doesn't.

Corupe offers up the old "national insecurity" argument to condemn the notion that Canada "reassures" itself that our "filmmakers are global leaders" by "awarding them the same homegrown prizes every few years". Ho-hum. That's as boringly Canadian as the assertions made by all of the other CTT critics.

Wilner, however, astutely asserts "that leaving out a lesser work by an established filmmaker might actually generate a conversation this country needs to have about how we see our cinema." Yeah, it would, but I just don't see how this has happened with the 2011 CTT? Other than A Dangerous Method, which really isn't a good example to boost this argument, Wilner dashes off Sarah Polley's Take This Waltz as being "problematic but genuinely felt" and dismisses its inclusion as being merely the result of "star power".

Other than Polley and Cronenberg, Wilner's piece offers no real backup to the assertions he makes that "lesser work" was included in the CTT. (I agree the Cronenberg stinks, but its inclusion makes sense and frankly, I think Polley's film is terrific and a much braver work than the universally loved Away From Her.)

Corupe seems to extol the flawed arguments in Wilner's article whilst reporting upon "a panel discussion on TIFF’s picks, as published on Cinema Scope magazine’s blog. The participants only briefly touch on the idea of 'pandering' that Wilner notes, with AV Club Toronto editor John Semely again singling out A Dangerous Method as a curious selection, but the bulk of the conversation questions TIFF’s canonization of certain types of films over others, and even suggests that TIFF’s list is behind the curve of contemporary filmmaking trends."

A Dangerous Method is, according to John Semley, a "curious selection"? I reiterate: there's enough reason to suggest it isn't.

When Corupe reports upon the Cinemascope panel suggestion that the CTT titles are "behind the curve of contemporary filmmaking trends", I can only, ladies and gentlemen, present you with the dull, predictable 2012 Academy Awards nominations. Token nods to the genuinely great Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, nothing for Lars Von Trier's Melancholia, dick-all for Roman Polanski's Carnage, a completely disgraceful shutout for 50/50 (which boasted one of the best screenplays in years) and nary a wisp of acknowledgment in the direction of truly ahead-of-the-curve works as Bobcat Goldthwait's God Bless America, Jean-Baptiste Léonetti’s Carré blanc, Terence Davies' The Deep Blue Sea, Scott Leberecht's Midnight Son, William Friedkin's Killer Joe, Jeff Nichols' Take Shelter (I mean really! A nomination for Jean Dujardin's prancing, preening pantomime over Michael Shannon for Best Actor?) and among many, many others, Lucky McKee's The Woman.

How is it, again, that the CTT choices are "behind the curve of contemporary filmmaking trends" when one can compile several lists of a myriad of films that have NOT been acknowledged by the Oscars this (or any) year (and, for that matter, any number of critical Ten Best lists that stuck like flies to shit on mostly tried and true stodge-fests)?

Christ, at least the CTT has Guy Maddin's Keyhole on it. Whether anyone loves it or hates it, the movie is definitely ahead of the curve. There's NOTHING out there like it.

For his part, Wilner too swims in the same waters as Corupe and the Cinemascope panel on this. He states that "Far too often, we assign merit to a project based on the talent attached or the source material." We? We, who? Canadians? Uh, I think not, Norm. To the former, I give you the undeserved Jeff Bridges Oscar nod for Crazy Heart and for the latter, allow me to provide you my almost foolproof method of picking winners in the Best Short Drama or Short Documentary Oscars (none of which I ever see prior to the Awards telecast). I read the synopses and look for subjects that include - in this order - the Holocaust, the environment and the homeless.

This is not a Canadian problem. In fact, I'm not even sure it IS a problem.

It's just the way things are.

Wilner's article also opened the other tin of that dreaded clostridium botulinum bacteria - the much-hated (mostly, it would seem, by me) notion that we must always be celebrating what's new and fresh. Give me a break. I'm not just being a curmudgeon here when I say how sick and tired I am of every Tom, Dick and Harry going out of their way to extol the virtues of the new and unsung. Wilner suggests he'd "much rather see an awards list that celebrates the actual passion expressed by younger, hungrier filmmakers" and cites the CTT-acknowledged "first-timers" Nathan (Edwin Boyd) Moraldo and Jason (Hobo With a Shotgun) Eisener as worthy inclusions on this list. Maybe so, but I'd argue that both films, whatever their merits, are NOT the sort of cutting-edge first features worthy of citation based on the "passionate" ideals of "younger" and "hungrier". If these are criterion by which to present lists of the "best", where then are the works of the truly mad geniuses comprising that Winnipeg-spawned filmmaking collective Astron-6? These psychos gave us the magnificent bum-blasting $10,000-budgeted splatter-fest of the funniest and highest order Father's Day and the phenomenally imaginative and hilarious $1000-budgeted (!!!!!) Manborg. (Full disclosure: I don't personally know any of these miscreants of cinema brilliance who hail from Winnipeg, but I AM from Winnipeg and have, like every member of the Astron-6 collective, consumed the drinking water from all those 'Peg pipes laden with delicious and nutricious asbestos.)

Besides, there's a reason more established filmmakers with a great track record are oft-cited in such lists. They've got more than "hunger", "youth" and "passion" on their side, they've generally got the sort of life experience and canon of work that yields movies that end up, more often than not, being imbued with a universality that extends well beyond the ephemeral frissons that tub-thumpers for "new and fresh" ignore. (For example, I've had my fair share of problems with centenarian filmmaker Manoel de Oliveira's recent output, but it ultimately speaks with the voice of experience and I'll take his flawed work over the best of some snazzy young turk with very little to say - ANYTIME!)

Hell, even most of the predictable Oscar nominees (including ones I hate) are, at the very least, ABOUT something.

Corupe, wisely notes that the CTT has often acknowledged very cool Canuckle genre fare. As a genre geek, I've ALWAYS appreciated this. I, however, did (as noted above) not register surprise over the inclusion of Hobo With a Shotgun - compared to the work of Astron-6, the movie is extremely conventional. I also did a major double-take when, during the Cinemascope roundtable, The Grid's Jason Anderson lamented the absence of The Corridor - this was hardly the paragon of genre excellence some might think it is. I mean, come on - a bunch of smelly guys in a cabin in the woods inspired to kill each other by some mysterious force? Dullsville, baby, Dullsville. And nary a single babe to spice up the proceedings.

I certainly do share Wilner's shock at the CTT exclusion of Ingrid Veninger's phenomenal i am a good person/i am a bad person and certainly it's a better movie than A Dangerous Method or Starbuck, but here's one thing that needs to be addressed: LISTS ARE SUBJECTIVE!

End of story.

In fact, the way in which the CTT is administered seems really fair. There isn't a single person on the jury who shouldn't be there. This year's crop of jury members seemed especially stellar and more than up to the task. As Curtis Woloschuk astutely notes in the Cinemascope roundtable: "Ultimately, I think it is inevitable that the responsibility for an undertaking like CTT will fall to an established gatekeeper. With TIFF’s cultural clout, it ensures that a worthy panel of voters can be assembled and that the press (and, in turn, public) will take notice when the results have been tabulated."

And as for the various notions akin to Art Bell-styled conspiracy theories about the selection process, I'd pretty much have to say they're a crock. As Woloschuk adds: "I tend to believe that CTT represents what the voters, for better or worse, truly believed to be the year’s best films."

Wilner ends his piece by saying: "And, yeah, you can write all of this off as a critic cranking about how the 2011 list doesn’t properly represent his values or opinions. But before you do, ask yourself whether it represents yours."

Norm, of course it doesn't. Neither do your lists, my lists or anyone else's lists.

They represent those who compiled them.

And you know what? Whether people agree with the choices or not, I agree wholeheartedly with Woloschuk that the CTT promotes Canadian Cinema and gets people talking about Canadian films and seeing them (at least) in Toronto (and as a result, hopefully beyond), English Canada's undisputed Centre of Excellence (as a Winnipegger this sad truth makes me gag).

I generally detest juries and committees. I especially think Canada relies too heavily on them. I also don't want to seem like I'm waving some sort of flag for TIFF. They too have ignored many important films within their programming of the film festival proper (I'll never forgive them for not showing Monte Hellman's Road to Nowhere) and even more maddeningly, they've often scuttled behind the safe walls of "the committee". Just as annoying, I don't buy the other wall TIFF and others hide behind. An insider at TIFF told me that Hellman's film was excluded from the festival because "WE" didn't have room in the program for it. My response? Fuck off, it's Monte Hellman. MAKE ROOM!!!

Lord knows, I've had a few of my own films not invited to TIFF and/or turned down for financing from various agencies, investors, broadcasters and distributors with that cowardly Canuck preface of, "The committee felt that…"

My response is, "Yeah, but what the fuck do YOU think?"

They never say. It's so much easier to hide.

On the flip side I've found myself on all manner of selection committees in this business. It's not something I've ever been happy about - finding consensus is what leads to lowest common denominators - but during the aftermath, when I have to face the rejected, I can't ever recall resorting to "we". That said, I always enjoyed saying "I" when I was right and the committee/jury was wrong. To quote James Cagney in Raoul Walsh's Strawberry Blonde, "That's just the kind of hairpin I am."

"We" is such a detestable word. Like a mantra, the words "the committee", "the jury" or, finally, the dreaded "we" assault you as a filmmaker as deeply as a garotte slipped round your neck - from behind, of course. Canadians have a problem with looking you in the eye while they gut you with a Rambo blade. Happily, Steve Gravestock, TIFF's head honcho of all things Canuck has managed a fantastic way to make use of a jury and in his job as a programmer, he's one of the few people - in my experience - to ever use the word "I" instead of the royal "we".

This is what a mensch does.

Mice do the other.

And now, on the eve of the Genie Awards, nonsense about their value is being bandied about. Some of it I even agree with, but you know what? They're trying to make it better. Helga Stephenson is at the helm and she too is one of the real ones. I expect to hear the word "I" coming from her far more than the loathsome "we".

Sure, I have a whole mess of quibbles about the Genie nominations this year - I hate how Guy Maddin, for one, has been hosed bigtime with a mere one nomination. That said, given how gloriously insane Keyhole is, it stands the biggest chance of all the nominees and eventual winners to live well beyond this year and in particular, this year's Genie Awards. The other reprehensible genie snub is Mike Goldbach's stunning black comedy Daydream Nation with one token nod. This, for me, was the Canadian equivalent to the recent Oscar snub leveled at 50/50. That both of these films had some of the best writing of the year in Canadian (Mike Goldbach) and American cinema (Will Reiser) respectively, I can't begin to fathom either picture's exclusion in at least THAT category. And the biggest Genie hosing of all is Maddin-related: HOW IN THE NAME OF CHRIST DID THE BRILLIANT LOUIS NEGIN NOT GET NOMINATED FOR HIS GREAT SUPPORTING TURN IN KEYHOLE?

As for Norman Wilner's article - I've been especially hard on him. But allow me to be Canadian for just a second and say that in spite of the low-rub ink advertising rag that printed his article, he's a much better critic and writer than the column inches and word count he gets actually allows him to be. For all my disagreements with the article, it finally did what it was supposed to do. Bloggers blogged, tweeters twittered, wags wagged and the cocktail/canape set did what they always do when they don't really read what they're reading and accept what they want at face value to bolster whatever pathetic sour grapes are giving them the runs.

Wilner sparked debate and perhaps, in his own way, was as tub-thumping as those Cunuckles who extolled the virtues of Passchendaele. The difference is that the debate Wilner's article inspired contributed to further awareness of Canadian Cinema. (Those who rejoiced over the, uh, genius that was Passchendaele did little but pay lip service to it, and perhaps even bolstered the nay-sayers.)

As Corupe himself admits in summarizing the views of the Cinemascope panel: "It all boils down to one thing – the purpose of the Canada’s Top 10 intiative is to promote Canadian films and filmmakers to audiences. It’s about getting names of films in front of potential viewers."

So, if that's the case, what, I ask, is the problem in the first place?

Norman Wilner's full article can be found HERE, Paul Corupe's HERE and the Cinemascope roundtable HERE.

Canada’s 2011 Top Ten Feature films as chosen by the TIFF CTT Jury were:

Café de flore — Jean-Marc Vallée (Alliance Films)
A Dangerous Method — David Cronenberg (Entertainment One)
Edwin Boyd — Nathan Morlando (Entertainment One)
Hobo With a Shotgun — Jason Eisener (Alliance Films)
Keyhole — Guy Maddin (Entertainment One)
Marécages — Guy Édoin (Mongrel Media)
Monsieur Lazhar — Philippe Falardeau (Entertainment One)
Starbuck — Ken Scott (Entertainment One)
Take This Waltz — Sarah Polley (Mongrel Media)
Le Vendeur — Sébastien Pilote (Entertainment One)

Oh, a note about NOW Magazine's low-rub ink. When one is in a pinch (so to speak, loaf-wise), the paper still leaves a lot to be desired as toilet tissue.

DON'T MISS GUY MADDIN'S "KEYHOLE" and a host of other Canadian films (features and shorts) representing TIFF's CTT at the TIFF BELL LIGHTBOX

TIFF CTT

By Greg Klymkiw

Every December since that hallowed year when man was supposed to go to Jupiter and meet the Star Child, a jury of filmmakers, critics and other noted mavens of movie culture in Canada would assess and award the acronymous accolades now referred to as the TIFF CTT, or, if you will, the Canadian Top Ten. This genuine honour is primarily due to the tireless efforts of Steve Gravestock, head honcho of all things Canuckian at the TIFF cineaste dude ranch (or, if one must, Associate Director of Canadian Programming at the Toronto International Film Festival).

Following the announcements of what constituted the best films in Canada would be screenings of all the honoured titles at the Cinematheque Ontario - now better known as the premiere art house in Canada, the TIFF Bell LightBox, year-round home to Canada's largest, most star-studded film festival. The screenings are another way for movie-lovers to get another gander at these movies before they go on to first-run engagements.

And I reiterate, all this and more is possible through the efforts of one ass-kicking man of cinema and his partner in crime Magali Simard (TIFF's Senior Coordinator of Canadian Programming). Like the late, great Jack Palance as Curly in the immortal "City Slickers", Gravestock calls the shots for all wanna-be cowpokes - guiding them amisdst the joys and splendours of all Maple-infused movies the whole year through - year after year.

The bonus here, for all the films, is the publicity they receive, but I think, more importantly, they get to be screened theatrically in a communal atmosphere via the best means of projection since those halcyon days when most big-chain cinemas sported first-rate union projectionists instead of the underpaid, glorified concession staff and/or manager trainees who push buttons at the big box emporiums, mostly operated in this country by one faceless corporate entity that cares only about pleasing its shareholders rather than providing good, old-fashioned showmanship and first-rate presentation (and worse, displaying very little corporate responsibility in supporting homegrown product).

Seeing this selection of Canadian films at TIFF Bell Lightbox, might be one's only chance (at least in English Canada) to see these films properly presented and in an atmosphere conducive to the true celebration of cinema (save for the few independents and other festivals that actually care about what they show and HOW they show it).

There are a couple of notable omissions on the CTT list. The most egregious snub is Ingrid Veninger's astonishing no-budget joy-fest "i am a good person/i am a bad person" (Cassavetes meets "Bridesmaids"). The no-surprise omission is one of the most delectably original Canadian films just this side of Maddinville, the grotesquely hilarious splatter/sodomy-fest "Father's Day" from the brilliant Winnipeg filmmaking collective Astron-6. No matter, if the Gods are smiling, maybe TIFF Bell Lightbox will have the courage and foresight to program these two films a bit later.

The TIFF Bell Lightbox CTT mini-festival includes the following:

"Monsieur Lazhar", Jan6, 4PM
"Keyhole", Jan6, 7PM & Jan7, 4PM
"Edwin Boyd", Jan6, 9:30PM & Jan 8, 3PM
"Hobo With A Shotgun", Jan7, 9PM & Jan10 4PM
"Canada's Top Ten Shorts Programme A", Jan8, 7PM
"Canada's Top Ten Shorts Programme B", Jan8, 8:30PM
"Starbuck", Jan10, 7PM & Jan11, 3PM & Jan13, 3PM
"Marécages", Jan11, 7PM & Jan12, 3PM
"A Dangerous Method", Jan 12, 7PM
"Café de flore", Jan 13, 9PM & Jan15, 5:30 PM
"Le Vendeur", Jan 14, 6PM & Sunday Jan15, 12PM
"Take This Waltz", Jan14 9PM & Jan15 3PM

Guy Maddin's "KEYHOLE" made my TEN BEST FILMS OF 2011 List and the astounding Louis Negin from "KEYHOLE" made my Best Supporting Actor of 2011 Citation at KLYMKIW FILM CORNER(KFC) and Steve Gravestock (via my nod to TIFF), "Take This Waltz" helmer Sarah Polley, Guy Maddin and his screenwriter George Toles all made my 2011 TOP 10 HEROES IN CANADIAN CINEMA here at CANADIAN FILM CORNER(CFC).

The absolute MUST NOT MISS EVENT is Guy Maddin's "KEYHOLE". Below you'll find a slight rewrite of the full version of a review I wrote that was published last fall in "Electric Sheep Magazine - a deviant view of cinema". Read it and go! Or don't read it, go and then read it. Most of all, GO! I assure you that you'll have never seen nor will ever see anything like "KEYHOLE" ever again.

And below the "KEYHOLE" review, you'll find my merciless pan of Cronenberg's "A Dangerous Method", a slight rewrite of a piece previously published by Electric Sheep Magazine.

Again I urge you to see the CTT movies at LightBox to support their efforts in promoting and screening both Canadian and THEN, if you love any of the movies you see there, see them AGAIN if and when they open theatrically. I reiterate that Cineplex should be a leader in programming a much wider variety of product - Canadian and otherwise. I even suggest people do their second helpings of stuff they like at LightBox and/or any cinema OTHER than Cineplex. Screw the Man, until the Man does what's right - not just for their customers, but for BUSINESS and to fulfill their corporate responsibility to the community at large. Until those losers earn their right to be winners, do not give them money unless you absolutely have to. Also, if you go to Cineplex, it's soooo easy to sneak in your own food and beverages. Keep doing that, too - UNLESS they start doing the right thing.

KEYHOLE

Keyhole (2011) dir. Guy Maddin
Starring: Jason Patric, Louis Negin, Udo Kier, Isabella Rossellini

****

By Greg Klymkiw

Full disclosure: I produced Guy Maddin’s first three feature films, lived with him as a roommate (I was Oscar Madison to his Felix Unger – Neil Simon’s The Odd Couple sprang miraculously to life on the top two floors of a ramshackle old house near Winnipeg’s Little Italy district), continue to love him as one of my dearest friends and consider his brilliant screenwriting partner George E. Toles to be nothing less than my surrogate big brother.

Most importantly, I am one of Maddin’s biggest fans and refuse to believe I am not able to objectively review his work. Objectively, then, allow me to declare that I loved Keyhole. What’s not to love? Blending Warner Brothers gangster styling of the 30s, film noir of the 40s and 50s, Greek tragedy, Sirk-like melodrama and odd dapplings of Samuel Beckett’s Endgame and Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit, it is, like all Maddin’s work, best designed to experience as a dream on film. Like Terence Davies, Maddin is one of the few living filmmakers who understands the poetic properties of cinema, and this, frankly, is to be cherished as much as any perfectly wrought narrative.

This is not to say narrative does NOT exist in Maddin’s work. If you really must, dig deep and you will find it. That, however, wouldn’t be very much fun. One has a better time with Maddin’s pictures just letting them HAPPEN to you.

The elements concocted in Keyhole to allow for full experiential mind-fucking involve the insanely named gangster Ulysses Pick (Jason Patric as you’ve never seen him before – playing straight, yet feeling like he belongs to another cinematic era), who drags his kids (one dead, but miraculously sprung to life, the other seemingly alive, but not remembered by his Dad) into a haunted house surrounded by guns-a-blazing.

Populated with a variety of tough guys and babe-o-licious molls, Ulysses is faced with ghosts of both the living and the dead, including his wife Hyacinth (Isabella Rossellini – gorgeous as always and imbued with all the necessary qualities to render melodrama with joy and humanity), her frequently nude father (the brilliant Louis Negin – perhaps one of the world’s greatest living character actors, who frankly should be cast in every movie ever made), chained to his bed, uttering the richly ripe George Toles dialogue and Udo Kier (the greatest fucking actor in the world), whose appearance in this movie is so inspired I’ll let you discover for yourself the greatness of both the role and Udo himself.

Keyhole is, without a doubt, one of the most perversely funny movies I’ve seen in ages and includes Maddin’s trademark visual tapestry of the most alternately gorgeous and insanely inspired kind. For movie geeks, literary freaks and Greek tragedy-o-philes, the movie is blessed with added treats to gobble down voraciously.

Like all of Maddin’s work, it’s not all fun and games. Beneath the surface of its mad inspiration lurks a melancholy and thematic richness. For me, what’s so important and moving about the film is its literal and thematic exploration of a space. Strongly evoking that sense of how our lives are inextricably linked to so many places (or a place) and how they in turn are populated with things – inanimate objects that become more animate once we project our memories upon them – or how said places inspire reminiscence of said objects which, in turn, inspire further memories, Keyhole is as profound and sad as it’s a crazed laugh riot.

Of all the pieces about the movie that I bothered to read (after I saw the movie), I was shocked that NOBODY – NOT ONE FUCKING CRITIC – picked up on the overwhelming theme of PLACE and the SPIRIT of all those THINGS that live and breathe in our minds. It was the first thing to weigh heavily upon me when I first saw the movie. It has seldom been approached in the movies – and, for my money – NO MORE POIGNANTLY AND BRILLIANTLY than rendered by Maddin, Toles and their visionary young producer Jody Shapiro.

All the ghosts of the living and the dead (to paraphrase Joyce), the animate and inanimate, the real and the imagined, these are the things that haunt us to our graves, and perhaps beyond. And they all populate the strange, magical and haunting world of Keyhole – a world most of us, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, live in. We are all ghosts and are, in turn, haunted by them.

A Dangerous Method

A Dangerous Method (2011) dir. David Cronenberg
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen and Keira Knightley

*

By Greg Klymkiw

When David Cronenberg is good, he is very, very good.

When he is bad, he’s cerebral.

A Dangerous Method is dour, dull and decidedly humourless. That said, the first few minutes do suggest we’re in for a hootenanny of the highest order. The score, oozing with portent over a twitching, howling, clearly bonkers Keira Knightley, thrashing about in a horse-drawn carriage as it hurtles towards Carl Jung’s Swiss nuthouse, initially suggested a belly flop into the maw first pried open by such Cold War wacko-fests like The Snake Pit or Shock Corridor.

Alas, Cronenberg seems to have abandoned his pulp sensibilities and instead appears to be making an Atom Egoyan movie fused with Masterpiece Theatre. Sorry David, Atom Egoyan makes the best Atom Egoyan movies. And Egoyan has never, nor will he ever make Masterpiece Theatre. However, if Cronenberg himself genuinely fused Masterpiece Theatre with The Snake Pit and, say, Salon Kitty or The Story of O, with dollops of the madhouse scenes in Ken Russell's The Music Lovers, then he might have generated something not guaranteed to induce snores.

Cronenberg’s unwelcome return to the cold and clinical approach from his pre-Eastern Promises and A History of Violence oeuvres quashes all hope for a rollicking good wallow in lunacy.

Come on, David, we’re dealing with psychoanalysis and sex here.

A little oomph might have been in order. (Or as Norman Jewison is wont to say, "A little bit of the old razzle-dazzle.")

Lord knows Cronenberg’s dealt deliciously with psychoanalysis and sex before – most notably in The Brood. It starred a visibly inebriated Oliver Reed, crazily cooing about "the Shape of Rage" amid spurts of horrific violence laced with a riveting creepy tone. Most notably the movie provided us with the indelible image of a semi-nude, utterly barmy Samantha Eggar adorned with monstrous pus sacks dangling from her flesh, licking globs of gooey, chunky afterbirth from a glistening mutant baby expunged from one of the aforementioned pus sacks.

Now, THAT'S entertainment!

Annoyingly, no similar shenanigans are on view in A Dangerous Method. It’s pretty much a Masterpiece Theatre-styled period chamber drama with with Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) jousting with his mentor-rival Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) betwixt spanking sessions with Keira Knightley, a daft want-to-be-psychiatrist with Daddy issues.

Sadly, no proper views of open palms connecting with buttocks or slap imprints on said buttocks are afforded to us.

A pity.

For more info and tix, visit the TIFF website.

Here's my original coverage of TIFF 2011 (including the two above films) for Electric Sheep.

GREG KLYMKIW'S CFC PRESENTS THE TOP 10 HEROES OF CANADIAN FILM IN 2011

Greg Klymkiw's CFC presents the TOP TEN HEROES of CANADIAN FILM in 2011

By Greg Klymkiw

TOP TEN HEROES IN CANADIAN CINEMA (2011)
(in alphabetical order, by first letter of name/company)

Astron-6: The brilliant Winnipeg-spawned filmmaking collective (Adam Brooks, Jeremy Gillespie, Matthew Kennedy, Conor Sweeney and Steven Kosanski) delivered not ONE, but TWO astounding no-budget feature films this year. MANBORG was replete with mega-martial-arts, chase scenes, ATVs that fly, Tron-like arena jousts and plenty of shit that blew up real good. The movie was made for a thousand smackers, shot on glorious DV-CAM and included tons of in-camera and rudimentary effects resembling early 80s community cable blue screen and there is not one damn thing in the movie that looks awful (thanks in good measure to director Steven Kostanski who is also one of the very best special effects geniuses in Canada. Father's Day, is a bum-blasting gore-fest of the highest order wherein a one-eyed, stalwart Jason Statham-like hero kicks mega-butt (as it were) to track down a heinous serial killer from Hades who specializes in sodomizing and butchering hapless Dads. The movie is the ultimate evil bastard child sprung from the loins of a daisy chain twixt Guy Maddin, John Paizs, early David Cronenberg, Herschel Gordon Lewis and Abel Ferrara's The Driller Killer. The picture happily combines the effects of asbestos-tinged drinking water in Winnipeg with the Bukkake splatter of the coolest artistic influences imaginable. It was co-produced by the legendary Lloyd Kaufmann and Troma Films and it opens theatrically in New York in January.

Dan Lyon: I am the first person in the world to vigorously slag bureaucrats - in the public, private and non-profit sectors - for a variety of excellent reasons I won't bother going into here (though anyone who reads Chris Hedges or, uh, Franz Kafka, will know why they are, ultimately, evil). Dan Lyon is the head honcho of the Ontario branch of Canada's chief public financing agency Telefilm Canada. By rights, I guess this technically makes him a bureaucrat, but I've never thought of him this way because, frankly, he comes from a very real place in the world of film. Dan toiled away as a chief executive with Astral Films (and its various/subsequent theatrical distribution off-shoots) for mucho-moons. He was, with his late, great colleague, the inimitable Jim Murphy, a huge champion of the much-beloved Canuck feminist werewolf cult film Ginger Snaps and was the first executive IN THE WORLD (I repeat - IN THE WORLD) to pony up real dollars and cents support for Roman Polanski's The Pianist when it was in its earliest stages - a script. When he left the private sector to command the Ontario office of Telefilm Canada he secured two of the film industry's best script editors, Carrie Paubst-Shaughnessy and Anne Fenn, to buttress his team of creative analysts. (I personally had a great deal of experience with Carrie when she brilliantly contributed to the training of a number of young filmmakers I worked with in the area of story editing. As anyone who knows me, KNOWS, I do not suffer fools of any kind and her tutelage was of the highest order - so much so that within minutes after my first encounter with her I was easily able to expunge my usual "Yeah, tell me something I don't know" bile.) I have heard testimonials from innumerable sources - mostly writers (some burgeoning, others seasoned) - to know how valuable Dan and his team are at a creative level. I hope the recent boneheaded changes to Telefilm's feature development policies, which are the result of some head-office bean-counter's vision-bereft survey of trough-gobblers, won't have dire consequences upon the great work this office, under Dan's leadership, will be able to continue. Dan, like the very best executives in the film industry anywhere (in both historic and contemporary contexts) is NOT a bureaucrat. He's a filmmaker. Oh yeah, and he's cool. At a party last year, my wife asked me who Dan was. When I explained briefly that he ran the Ontario Telefilm office, she replied, almost incredulously, "Wow! He's really cool." That is, of course, what this country needs. Fewer nest-featherers with no vision and more cool dudes like Dan. (And thank Jesus H. Christ! Dan's office had NOTHING to do with the cinematic coat hanger abortion that is Passchendaele.)

Donald Shebib: As a movie nut since childhood, I'm happy and proud to say I saw many of the coolest movies in movie theatres in my pre-teen and teen years and they include such counter-culture Canadian pictures by Don Shebib as Rip-Off, Between Friends and yes, his legendary Goin' Down The Road, a movie that practically invented English Canadian cinema with its neorealist portrait of two losers from the Maritimes making their way in the big smoke, Toronto. For me, as a crazed lover of movies, Shebib continued to deliver the goods. I loved Heartaches and Fish Hawk and yes, even Running Brave (which Shebib used a nom-de-plume for his credit). Alas, much of his output for many years was unavailable to me as I gave up cable in the mid-80s and watched virtually no television since that time (where it appears he eventually did much of his later work in). In 2011 Shebib crafted Down the Road Again, a deeply moving and funny sequel that works as a continuation to a movie beloved by so many Canadians, but also works if one has never seen the original. It's a great movie about fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, friendships that last beyond the grave and most of all, the open roads of this magnificent country, Canada. Shebib's the real thing and I'm grateful he made this movie. I know he'd probably hate such effusive hyperbole, but screw it - I think he's a living patron saint of all of us who thought that maybe, just maybe, we could make movies in this country - movies that spoke to our own experience and that hopefully touched people beyond our borders. I know (yes, I was this much of a geek as a kid) that when I first read, as a youth, Pauline Kael's review of Goin' Down The Road, it infused me with considerable pride. Shebib's the man!

Foresight Features: Foresight Features is a powerhouse new force in Canadian cinema from the wilds of Collingwood. This burgeoning Canadian company produced Exit Humanity (post-Civil War western with… wait for it… ZOMBIES) and the delightful Monster Brawl (a completely whacko mocku-pay-per-view event with… wait for it… WRASSLIN' MONSTERS). These guys (in particular, helmers John Geddes and Jesse T. Cook) are making cool movies with extremely high production value, micro budgets, private financing, tons of sweat equity and no dining at the Telefilm Canada trough. They've signed with Anchor Bay and frankly, one of their productions is a natural for wide exploitation through the Cineplex Entertainment chain. Monster Brawl DEMANDS the biggest support and resources to go into launching this insane movie as a major theatrical special event not unlike the Front Row Centre or big screen wrasslin' matches. I wonder if Cineplex is cool enough to do this BIGTIME? Oh, allow me to add that the two aforementioned features from Foresight collectively include such astonishing cult figures in starring and supporting roles like: Dave (Kids in the Hall) Foley, Art (The Brood, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Face Off) Hindle, Robert (300) Maillet, Jimmy ("The Mouth From The South") Hart, Herb (UFC Martial Artist and Ref) Dean, Kevin (WWE, WCW and TNA Champ) Nash, Lance (FUCKING) Henriksen, Dee (E.T., Cujo, The Howling) Wallace, Stephen (James Dean, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, A History of Violence) McHattie, Bill (Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects) Moseley and Brian (the real, the original, the one, the only, the scariest Hannibal Lecter in Michael Mann's Manhunter) Cox. If Foresight isn't about showmanship, then nothing is.

Guy Maddin and George Toles: In this year of Our Lord 2011, Canadian cinema's national treasure delivered the utterly insane feature film Keyhole, a tantalizing amalgam of Warner Brothers gangster styling of the 30s, film noir of the 40s and 50s, Greek tragedy, Sirk-like melodrama, odd dapplings of Samuel Beckett’s "Endgame", Jean-Paul Sartre’s "No Exit" and, of course, male genitals - starring Jason Patric, Isabella Rossellini, Udo Kier and the incomparable Louis Negin. By extension, his longtime screenwriter George Toles shares the heroism of cinema I loft in Maddin's direction. He's a great writer, a brilliant critic, a superb actor and theatre director and frankly, the best goddamn teacher of film, theatre and English Literature in this country. In 2011, let us also not forget that Maddin presided over the madness of two astonishing productions of his cult classic Tales From The Gimli Hospital at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa and Lincoln Centre in New York that featured an original score, played live with musicians and singers, live narration by Udo Kier, live soundscape and foley and in one of the shows, live projections. Nobody, and I mean NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-BODY, makes movies like Guy Maddin. Yeah, full disclosure (blah-blah-blah), I produced his first three features, was his Oscar Madison-like roommate long ago in the 'Peg and overall pal amongst the 'Peg Drones that slacked as if our lives depended on it, benignly stalked young ladies we didn't know (nor ever would), haunted cafes, record stores, flea markets, drank cocoa whilst spinning 78 recordings of fruity tenors, taking midnight drives to Lockport and Gimli whilst playing Paul Whiteman or Bing Crosby or Edith Day full blast on tapedecks and committing to 13-hour pilgrimages on the open road to Minneapolis to see Twins games, but screw it! First and foremost, I'm his biggest fan! And damn! He makes great movies!

Independent Canadian Exhibitors (The Royal, Revue, Winnipeg Film Group Cinematheque, Canadian Film Institute, Pacific Cinematheque, etc.), Alliance Cinemas, AMC Theatres, TIFF Bell Lightbox, Toronto After Dark Film Festival (TADFF), Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) and pretty much anyone who publicly exhibits films except the "proudly Canadian" (self-proclaimed) Cineplex Inc.: 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, 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, as of this writing, I can't be sure if the film's distributor considered this sort of theatrical penetration, nor do I know if they even offered the movie to 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. I'm sure they'd argue that their responsibility is to their shareholders. Well, never mind Canadian movies, 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 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 this 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? Look, Down the Road Again needed far more marketing and promotion than it got. This is 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 - even 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. Look, it's worked everywhere else in the world - out there, beyond the confines of North America.

It was, however, legislated. I say again - why legislate? Cineplex as the most powerful exhibitor in the country should legislate it as cultural policy within their corporate 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, let us pause and acknowledge the true heroes of Canadian theatrical exhibition. It sure ain't Cineplex - at least until they consider getting their act together on this front. Canadian product has had a home at all my aforementioned picks for heroism accolades. Alliance Cinemas, AMC Theatres, Independent Canadian Exhibitors (The Royal, Revue, Winnipeg Film Group Cinematheque, Canadian Film Institute, Pacific Cinematheque, etc.) 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. In 2011, the tiny, fan-run Toronto After Dark Film Festival (TADFF) screened what must be a record number of Canadian genre films (features and shorts) - many of them winners. The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) also continues a leadership role in supporting Canadian film - not just with festival screenings, but such important initiatives as the Film Circuit (bringing fine cinema from Canada and the world to rural locales) and their ongoing work archiving and contributing to the restoration of Canadian cinema. Heroes deserving of special mention in the organization for this year would include Steve Gravestock who oversees all matters Canuckian, Colin Geddes who does Midnight Madness and selected whack-job stuff in other serctions and the incomparable Julie Lofthouse in the TIFF film reference Library.

Good on TIFF and all the aforementioned, but whose turn it is now? Allow me to quote directly for the Cineplex website:

"Cineplex Inc. ("Cineplex") is the largest motion picture exhibitor in Canada and owns, leases or has a joint-venture interest in 130 theatres with 1,352 screens serving approximately 70 million guests annually. Headquartered in Toronto, Canada, Cineplex operates theatres from British Columbia to Quebec and is the exclusive provider of UltraAVX™ and the largest exhibitor of digital, 3D and IMAX projection technologies in the country. Proudly Canadian and with a workforce of approximately 10,000 employees, the company operates the following top tier brands: Cineplex Odeon, Galaxy, Famous Players, Colossus, Coliseum, SilverCity, Cinema City and Scotiabank Theatres. Cineplex shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the symbol "CGX"."

Great! Let's see some of the real leadership and innovation that makes so many Canadians proud of Canada. Cineplex declares they're "Proudly Canadian". Great. Let's see it. For real.

Ingrid Veninger: I've said it before, I'll say it again - Ingrid Veninger might well be cinema’s only living equivalent to a whirling dervish. Like a dervish, she honours her Creator (cinema), her prophets (John Cassavetes, Mike Leigh and others of a very noble tradition), then whips her imaginary concoctions into a frenzy – literally living and breathing cinema – producing work from within herself, her devotion and life in all its joy and sadness. In addition to be a terrific actress, she's one of our country's most visionary producers and her astounding work here includes Charles Officer's Nurse Fighter Boy (which she co-wrote also) and Peter Mettler's mind blowing Gambling, Gods and LSD. She's a teacher and mentor to all those with passion and a desire to create cinema. This year, she delivered up her third feature i am a good person/i am a bad person, a micro-budgeted romp through the European film festival circuit that tells a funny and moving Mother-Daughter story. The picture is full of humour, gentle bits of human comedy and (surprisingly) full-on Bridesmaids-style blowjob and scatological knee-slappers. A worthy addition to her rapidly accelerating canon of features as a director including Only (which she co-directed with Simon Reynolds) and Modra.

Jody Shapiro and Robin Cass: These two gentlemen produced two of the best Canadian films of 2011. Shapiro delivered the goods with Guy Maddin's Keyhole and Cass did what everyone said couldn't/shouldn't be done. In so doing, he produced a terrific sequel to one of the most beloved, iconographic Canadian films of all time, Don Shebib's Goin' Down the Road followup Down the Road Again. Cass, with his Triptych Media partner Anna Stratton continue to place their faith in our country's writers. Shapiro, is also some kind of wonderful - a great photographer and director in his own right and a lover of cool movies. With producers like these, I still hold out hope that Canada as a filmmaking force will explode.

Sarah Polley: Earlier this year, within the context of a cinematic tribute to the late Jack Layton in the UK-based Electric Sheep Magazine, I had the opportunity to finally put into words why I love Sarah Polley. I'll reprint them here now because she really is, to my mind one of our country's great heroes. Sarah is not only one of the best actors in Canada, but she has proven to be one of the country's best filmmakers, serving up the astounding short drama I Shout Love, the tremendously moving Academy Award-nominated Away from Her and her soon-to-be-released Take This Waltz starring one of the world’s most gifted Canadian funny men, Seth Rogen. Sarah Polley is a maverick. I love mavericks and I most certainly love Sarah. As if she isn’t/wasn’t busy enough, Sarah always made time for ‘the little guy’. Since her earliest years, the former child star of Terry (out-of-his-fucking-mind) Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and the beloved family TV drama Road to Avonlea Polley had maverick qualities and activism hard-wired into her genetic code. For example, at the height of its popularity, Polley up and left Avonlea in protest over the increasing ‘Americanization’ of the Canadian series produced by Canuck Kevin Sullivan in collaboration with Disney. And, speaking of Disney, it’s been reported that she attended some public function the Mouse-Eared conglomerate was sponsoring and refused a dim-witted studio executive’s demand that she remove a peace-sign button affixed to her blouse. Who needs peace when you can start another useless fucking war? Through her teens and 20s Sarah continued to confound and delight movie fans the world over as she blossomed into adulthood – engaging in several political protests wherein she was physically assaulted by goons (uh, the fine members of Toronto’s Police Department), while on the silver screen she performed some truly major-zombie-ass-kicking in Zack Snyder’s surprisingly effective remake of George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead and butted heads with a crazed creature created from gelatinous amphibian goo cloned with her character’s own DNA in Vincenzo Natali’s deliciously fucked-in-the-head monster movie Splice. Sarah became revered and respected as one of our country’s most powerful and persuasive activists and artists. Socially, politically and culturally, Sarah Polley has led the way on so many fronts and, I might add, NOT in that annoyingly fashionable way contemporary Hollywood stars have done. Sarah was an activist early on in her life – long before celebrity activism became so degraded. She came by it truthfully, honestly and one might even say, innocently. Like the late Jack Layton, she has always fought for the rights of what’s genuinely right. She’s also funny and has one of the most perverse senses of humour I’ve ever encountered. Sarah Polley is probably one of 10 people on this planet who actually gets the insanely muted knee-slappers that Atom Egoyan occasionally dollops like globs of rich sour cream into the dour, though flavourful borscht of his movies. She’s also a thoughtful and generous human being. She's a star, but she sure doesn't act like one. And I do love her seemingly ages-old belief in a quota for Canadian theatrical features. She kicks ass! There's nobody like her.

S. Wyeth Clarkson: I first met Wyeth Clarkson in 1997 when he was studying editing. He was a GREAT editor. His instincts were pure, his craft impeccable and most of all, he was a filmmaker - first and foremost. As the years progressed, he partnered with his visionary pal Phil Daniels and together they formed Travesty Productions and have since produced several features, documentaries and shorts. 2011 was the year he brought to bear his most ambitious project to date. The Mountie is an old fashioned western replete with a strange blend of 70s cynicism, grit and, I kid you not lush panoramas and a weirdly affecting sentimental streak that would have made John Ford proud. It's a solid picture and one that Canadians would have enjoyed on a big screen - if they could find it. Clarkson took the figure of the Mountie, Canada's iconic red-coated crime-fighter and imbued it with a sense of myth that was both unabashedly Canadian and yet presented in homage to a myriad of great western traditions. His dream was to open the movie nationwide on Canada Day long weekend. It was, from an exhibition standpoint a total no-brainer. What happened was (apologies to his company's monicker) a travesty. Pictures speak louder than words, however, so let's examine this from that standpoint. As a Canadian, if I saw the following trailer repeatedly splashed in front of every movie I saw for two or three months before it opened, I'd have been there on Canada Day where it should have been - on a few hundred screens coast to coast. I doubt I'd have been alone. That, of course, would only have been possible if Cineplex Inc. had the guts to truly be "proudly Canadian" and programmed this trailer and subsequently, the film itself, with the same vigour as they do with Hollywood blockbusters people are avoiding like the plague. If Cineplex had any courage and vision to do this, the release would have no doubt received a huge amount of Prints and Ads support from Telefilm Canada. Watch this trailer. Okay, so now you've seen it. If you're into genre pictures and a Canadian, I defy you to tell me you wouldn't have been curious to lay down your dollars and see this movie in a theatre. What Clarkson ended up with was a handful of screens - mostly on AMC and/or independents, plus a prints and ads budget commensurate with such a small release. The numbers weren't great, but they were surprisingly on a par, if not higher than a number of Hollywood releases within the same multiplexes. Clarkson pushed and pushed to get screens. He got them, but not what he imagined and certainly not what he deserved. He made a cool movie that is even cooler in light of the fact that Canada, as a nation, strapped on extremely comfy kneepads during the Golden Age of Hollywood and struck a deal with the devil. Hollywood basically said, "Hey Canada, don't make feature films. Make documentaries and animated movies and educational films. Let US make movies about Canada. It'll be good for tourism." Canada swallowed this jism greedily and we ended up with no feature film policy and no quota system (unlike virtually every other major country in the world). What Hollywood produced in this deal worthy of Mephistopheles were hundreds of sub-par B-movies set in Canada, featuring some second unit or stock footage of Canada and often about - you guessed it - MOUNTIES!!! Good deal, Canada.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that flooding the screens with trailers for Canadian movies and ensuring screen time for said Canadian films is going to be the immediate solution, but given that Canada NEVER had an official policy (beyond the National Film Board of Canada) on feature film during the first 60-or-so years of cinema's history, something has to start somewhere.

A few years ago, sitting in the Cineplex flagship Varsity Cinema in Toronto, I watched a mediocre horror picture that had a decent, though not exceptionally large audience. Earlier that day I had just seen a trailer for Paul Fox's terrific Canadian horror picture The Dark Hours in a private screening. If Cineplex had exercised their corporate responsibility to Canadian film culture and played the trailer in front of every crappy and/or (God forbid!) good genre film and agreed to open the movie in more than ONE cinema in Toronto as they grudgingly did, I'd bet most people seeing the trailer would have been thrilled to go see the movie when it opened. Take a look. Again, I defy anyone who loves genre pictures to say they wouldn't have seen the movie after seeing that trailer, especially if Cineplex had committed to a whack o' screens which, in turn, would have given the distributor incentive to spend the money needed to hype it (and in fact, get a good whack of the dough to do this from Telefilm Canada).

Another example of 'Twas not to be.

That said, Wyeth Clarkson continues to fight the good fight - lobbying for accessibility to Canadian cinema on Canadian screens. Most of all, though, he's writing a new screenplay. Let's hope that by the time that movie is ready to be seen, there WILL be a system in place to provide the accessibility that Canadian films (and, in fact, all indie productions from a variety of countries) deserve.

MANBORG - Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2011 at Toronto Underground Cinema

MANBORG (2011) dir. Steven Kostanski
Starring: Adam Brooks, Matthew Kennedy, Ludwig Lee, Conor Sweeney, Meredith Sweeney, Jeremy Gillespie

RATING (out of ****) ****

By Greg Klymkiw

The time will come when we are dominated by a One World Government. This will be no mere conspiracy theorist's idea of a New World Order. Art Bell won't be predicting this one!

In fact, the Illuminati are pussy-whupped-momma-boy-teat-sucklers compared to what waits for us just round the corner. As dramatically postulated in the latest production from the kubassa-stuffed-to-overflowing loins of the Winnipeg-spawned hit machine Astron-6, be afraid - be VERY afraid of the future.

Straight from the jaws of Hell comes Draculon (Adam Brooks), a crazed totalitarian infused with a slavering desire to inflict pain. He makes the Dictator combo-platter of Adolph Hitler (former German Chancellor), Joe Stalin (former butcher of ten million Ukrainian garlic eaters), George W. Bush (annihilator of Islam) , Stephen Harper (current Il Duce of Canada) and Michael Bay (Brain Sucker Extraordinaire) look like your kindly Granny Apple Cheeks knitting her umpteenth doily and churning butter.

As brilliantly rendered in the opening minutes of this 70-minute masterwork, you will cringe as our pitiful armies do their best in battle with the demons of Mephistopheles, but even the best of the best of the best of mankind will be no match for the foul, pus-oozing Satanic beasts.

When a brave young fighting man hits the turf and pushes up the daisies, he is mysteriously and miraculously transformed by the mad genius Dr. Scorpius (Adam "Fuck me and a month of Sundays, this guy gets around!" Brooks) into the next best thing to Jesus H. Christ Almighty (or Robocop - take your pick!).

He is, and always will be:

MANBORG!!!

Blending cutting edge technology, Frankensteinian alchemy, Einsteinian science and the mind of mankind's leanest, meanest fighting machines, Manborg (Mathhew Kennedy) has, alas, retained the heart and soul of humanity. Instead of serving Draculon and his evil henchman The Baron (Jeremy Gillespie), he joins forces with three superHUMAN heroes in the struggle to free Earth from the clutches of Hades.

This trio of badass mo-fos includes the wildly pompadoured kick-butt-Kiwi (or Aussie, or Brit, or what-the-fuck-ever-his-deliciously-delightful-accent-is) played by Conor Sweeney, a blade-o-licious platinum-tressed kick-butt, delectably-racked, red-grease-painted-faced babe (Meredith Sweeney) and a melt-in-your-mouth, magnificently buff kick-butt Asian martial artist (Ludwig Lee) dubbed into English by someone who sounds like the offscreen voice artist who dubbed all of Steve Reeves's lines into English in his numerous Italian sword and sandal epics of the 50s and 60s (in spite of the fact that Steve Reeves actually, uh, spoke English).


Needless to say, our heroes save the world. (Yeah, I just released a wet fart of a spoiler.)

The movie is replete with mega-martial-arts, chase scenes on what appear to be ATVs without wheels that fly, Tron-like arena jousts and plenty of shit that blows up real good. Oh yeah, have I mentioned yet that the movie was made for about a thousand smackers, shot on glorious DV-CAM and includes tons of in-camera and rudimentary effects that resemble early 80s community cable blue screen? No? Well, I have now and there's not one damn thing in this movie that looks awful.

In fact, it is endowed with the kind of visual splendour that can only come from filmmakers who love movies and movie-making. Special effects that LOOK like special effects, have always held a humungous soft-spot in my heart. I love knowing that I'm watching a MOVIE. I love knowing the effects are - uh, just that - effects. I love to be reminded that I am in a world that only exists up on a big screen. For me, this IS magic.

The ultimate magic in the movie comes when two babes square off for a cat fight supreme. When one of the babes morphs into a demon, all my hopes and dreams momentarily diminished. Sure, it's fine to watch a babe kick a demon's butt, but for Christ's sake, babe-on-babe action always takes precedence.

But I digress.

As rendered by Steve Kostanski, MANBORG is a fairy tale of cosmic proportions for geeks and freaks the world over. It makes perfect sense that this, and the other Astron-6 works of consummate film art come from the recesses of Winnipeg.

In addition to the asbestos-lined water pipes, an insane need to tear down heritage buildings to build parking lots when the entire city is a fucking parking lot and a bowling alley bearing the name of the late, great Billy Mosienko (who, prior to his death, would man the counter and rent you bowling shoes), the 'Peg (my own former winter city) is not only the geographical-near-centre of North America, but boasts a grand tradition of what film critic Geoff Pevere dubbed as Prairie Post-Modernism.

Filmmakers like John Paizs, Guy Maddin, Noam Gonick, Lorne Bailey and Matthew Rankin forged a path that few in the 'Peg have been able to follow as memorably (though Regina-based cousins like Brian Stockton, Brett Bell and prairie-boy-at-heart Richard Kerr HAVE, in their own demented ways). Kostanski, by the way is a brilliant effects artist and his most recent makeup design is on view in the terrific Xavier Gens sci-Fi thriller The Divide (see my Daily Film Dose review HERE)

Make way, now, for a new generation of mad geniuses from Winnipeg.

They are Astron-6. And though some from this collective of total filmmakers have temporarily (one hopes) left the world capital of napping and Salisbury House Mr. Big Nips for bigger locales, the snug blankets and Icelandic sweaters of the prairies sprouted their grand vision that are and will continue to take the world by storm.

That said, I do expect that MANBORG II will have plenty o' babes catfighting.

MANBORG screened at Toronto After Dark 2011. While it'll be available for home consumption, it demands a BIG SCREEN heapin' helpin' of its considerable hospitality. Coming to CFC: An equally laudatory review of FATHER'S DAY, another Astron-6 picture co-produced by Troma and on glorious display at TADFF2011.J