The greatest danger in pitching ideas is not rejection. While rejection is common, the one benefit to rejection is that your idea remains your property. The greatest danger is finding a buyer, and that's dangerous because in exchange for getting your idea produced, you will generally lose ownership and control of the very thing you created.
Mike Valiquette of Canadian Animation Resources is now associated with Startoon, a competition to find an animated property worth producing. This competition is different, because they make no claim to your ideas if you don't win. This is in direct contrast to most other competitions, where the contest runners have the right to use your work forever in any medium simply because you entered.
It's too soon to know if this will result in a successful project or if the winning creator will feel satisfied at how he or she is treated, but it is encouraging that someone is willing to do business in a more creator-friendly way. Watch Mike's pitch below and find the complete details here.
Showing posts with label Canadian Animation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Animation. Show all posts
Friday, May 06, 2016
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Canadian Content, Regulations, and Audiences
Canada's federal government is interested in revisiting rules and funding regarding Canadian culture. In the TV business, broadcasters and cable channels are required to play a certain percentage of Canadian content daily in order to guarantee local producers access to audiences and give audiences access to local content.
As broadcast and cable were the only ways to get a show into homes, the old regulations focused on distribution. A producer needed a letter from a broadcaster or cable channel in order to qualify for money from various funding bodies.
These days, broadcast and cable have become less relevant with streaming and torrents. In effect, the audience has left the building and advertisers are going with them, leaving the broadcasters and cable channels with shrinking markets and dubious futures.
The question is whether the government will be smart enough to understand this and resist vested interests who will fight to preserve their positions.
With distribution available to everyone now, through Netlix, YouTube, etc, the focus should turn to creators. The problems creators face are financing production, earning enough to live on, and making the audience aware of their work.
While I am obviously biased in favour of creators, I'd be the first to say that those who can successfully engage the audience are a rare breed. Many can write, draw, direct or act, but only a few can hold an audience's attention.
Everybody can sing. No doubt with lessons and practice, everybody could sing better. But only some people sing well enough to sell tickets. I teach around 150 animation students a year. While there are usually a dozen who are genuinely good animators, there are rarely more than one or two with the ability to engage an audience.
The challenge for the government is setting up a system where those creators with the ability to engage an audience can survive economically, and the audience can be made aware of their work.
If creators succeed, government support should be withdrawn and the money and resources put towards discovering other people. If people fail, they should be barred from reapplying for a period of time. Too often in the past, people succeeded by working the government's system rather than creating successful products. That ends up being a wealth transfer from tax payers to mediocrities. Avoiding that and discovering new talent should be the focus of any revised set of cultural regulations. It's a big challenge and I hope that the government gets it right.
As broadcast and cable were the only ways to get a show into homes, the old regulations focused on distribution. A producer needed a letter from a broadcaster or cable channel in order to qualify for money from various funding bodies.
These days, broadcast and cable have become less relevant with streaming and torrents. In effect, the audience has left the building and advertisers are going with them, leaving the broadcasters and cable channels with shrinking markets and dubious futures.
The question is whether the government will be smart enough to understand this and resist vested interests who will fight to preserve their positions.
With distribution available to everyone now, through Netlix, YouTube, etc, the focus should turn to creators. The problems creators face are financing production, earning enough to live on, and making the audience aware of their work.
While I am obviously biased in favour of creators, I'd be the first to say that those who can successfully engage the audience are a rare breed. Many can write, draw, direct or act, but only a few can hold an audience's attention.
Everybody can sing. No doubt with lessons and practice, everybody could sing better. But only some people sing well enough to sell tickets. I teach around 150 animation students a year. While there are usually a dozen who are genuinely good animators, there are rarely more than one or two with the ability to engage an audience.
The challenge for the government is setting up a system where those creators with the ability to engage an audience can survive economically, and the audience can be made aware of their work.
If creators succeed, government support should be withdrawn and the money and resources put towards discovering other people. If people fail, they should be barred from reapplying for a period of time. Too often in the past, people succeeded by working the government's system rather than creating successful products. That ends up being a wealth transfer from tax payers to mediocrities. Avoiding that and discovering new talent should be the focus of any revised set of cultural regulations. It's a big challenge and I hope that the government gets it right.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Tax Credits, Exchange Rates and Thin Ice
(Updated Below)
Canadian Animation Resources has good coverage of Nova Scotia's decision to reduce it's tax credits for film and TV production (1, 2, 3).
It's going to be a painful disruption for many people. Undoubtedly, some studios will close, and some will shift work to another location. Those lucky enough to be offered jobs elsewhere will have to uproot their lives and relocate to another province. I'm sorry for everyone who will be affected by this.
This is an ongoing problem in Canada and I've seen it in multiple industries over multiple decades. Too many companies base their existence on some kind of government protection (such as content quotas, tax rebates and before free trade, import duties) or on the exchange rate, as the Canadian dollar is generally worth less than the American.
The problem with this approach is that it adds more variables to the already difficult puzzle of making a profit. Creating a product or service, pricing it properly, marketing it and fending off competition is never easy. When government policy or exchange rates are added in, companies are at the mercy of things they cannot control.
There is also the upcoming issue of the CRTC's pick and pay decision. As of next March, cable subscribers will be able to abandon packages of channels in favour of only paying for what they want to watch. To date, YTV has been paid for by everyone in Canada who subscribes to cable, whether they have children or not. They will undoubtedly lose subscribers. Teletoon is part of a package, and no one knows what percentage of the people who purchase it actually watch it.
(Update: Canadian Press is reporting that the number of cable subscribers fell by 95,000 in 2014. That compares to a drop of 13,000 in 2013. It estimates that Netflix went from 3 million to 3.9 million subscribers in Canada last year. Even without the CRTC decision, revenue for cable channels, where the majority of Canadian animation appears, is dropping and that is bound to have an effect on production levels, budgets and deadlines.)
While the animation business in Canada is booming at the moment, I'm not optimistic. I worry about a contraction coming within the next two years.
Canadian gaming studios tend to be either very large or very small. There are branches of Ubisoft, Rockstar and Electronic Arts in Canada. There are also small indie studios that are often less than a dozen people. Those small studios are surviving due to low overhead and a business model that allows them to sell directly to consumers over the web.
I suspect that Canadian animation studios are too married to series production and international financing to be able to work the low end of the market. I'm waiting (and hoping) to see the entertainment equivalent of indie game companies arise, where small groups develop their own intellectual property and take it directly to the audience.
So long as Canadian studios depend on government regulations and the exchange rate, they are skating on thin ice. We'll see how well Nova Scotia withstands the reduction of the tax credit, but what's happened in Nova Scotia could happen anywhere in Canada. I hope that studios are preparing for that eventuality.
Canadian Animation Resources has good coverage of Nova Scotia's decision to reduce it's tax credits for film and TV production (1, 2, 3).
It's going to be a painful disruption for many people. Undoubtedly, some studios will close, and some will shift work to another location. Those lucky enough to be offered jobs elsewhere will have to uproot their lives and relocate to another province. I'm sorry for everyone who will be affected by this.
This is an ongoing problem in Canada and I've seen it in multiple industries over multiple decades. Too many companies base their existence on some kind of government protection (such as content quotas, tax rebates and before free trade, import duties) or on the exchange rate, as the Canadian dollar is generally worth less than the American.
The problem with this approach is that it adds more variables to the already difficult puzzle of making a profit. Creating a product or service, pricing it properly, marketing it and fending off competition is never easy. When government policy or exchange rates are added in, companies are at the mercy of things they cannot control.
There is also the upcoming issue of the CRTC's pick and pay decision. As of next March, cable subscribers will be able to abandon packages of channels in favour of only paying for what they want to watch. To date, YTV has been paid for by everyone in Canada who subscribes to cable, whether they have children or not. They will undoubtedly lose subscribers. Teletoon is part of a package, and no one knows what percentage of the people who purchase it actually watch it.
(Update: Canadian Press is reporting that the number of cable subscribers fell by 95,000 in 2014. That compares to a drop of 13,000 in 2013. It estimates that Netflix went from 3 million to 3.9 million subscribers in Canada last year. Even without the CRTC decision, revenue for cable channels, where the majority of Canadian animation appears, is dropping and that is bound to have an effect on production levels, budgets and deadlines.)
While the animation business in Canada is booming at the moment, I'm not optimistic. I worry about a contraction coming within the next two years.
Canadian gaming studios tend to be either very large or very small. There are branches of Ubisoft, Rockstar and Electronic Arts in Canada. There are also small indie studios that are often less than a dozen people. Those small studios are surviving due to low overhead and a business model that allows them to sell directly to consumers over the web.
I suspect that Canadian animation studios are too married to series production and international financing to be able to work the low end of the market. I'm waiting (and hoping) to see the entertainment equivalent of indie game companies arise, where small groups develop their own intellectual property and take it directly to the audience.
So long as Canadian studios depend on government regulations and the exchange rate, they are skating on thin ice. We'll see how well Nova Scotia withstands the reduction of the tax credit, but what's happened in Nova Scotia could happen anywhere in Canada. I hope that studios are preparing for that eventuality.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
New CRTC Rules
The world of television is changing rapidly and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission is attempting to catch up. It set forth new rules today and while the new rules do not mention animation specifically, they will undoubtedly affect animation production.
Where in the past, specialty channels (which include channels like YTV and Teletoon) had individual requirements for the amount of Canadian content they ran, now all specialty channels will have the same requirement to run Canadian content 35% of the time. I can't find YTV's former requirement, but Teletoon's was 60%. They can now run considerably less Canadian programming.
While the CRTC has mandated that broadcasters must spend the same dollar amount as before, reducing the requirements for Canadian shows means fewer shows with higher budgets. This may be a problem for studios that don't own broadcast outlets. Nelvana and DHX are well positioned, as they will undoubtedly favour themselves with higher budgets rather than have their channels purchasing more expensive shows from other Canadian studios. If Nelvana subcontracts, will their subcontractors see any of the increased budgets or will the the subcontract budgets remain the same with any increase staying with Nelvana?
I'm afraid that these new rules will put the squeeze on smaller studios that rely on broadcasters and cable channels for their sales. Can Netflix or Amazon take up the slack? If not, there's a chance that we're going to see less production in the near future.
The Canadian TV animation industry is presently as large as it has ever been. At Sheridan, we are being approached by studios that are trying to get a jump on Industry Day and hire students before they graduate. Those of us who have been around for awhile have wondered how long the industry expansion can continue. It's possible that these new rules, put in place to improve quality and give broadcasters more flexibility, may not be good for Canadian animation.
Where in the past, specialty channels (which include channels like YTV and Teletoon) had individual requirements for the amount of Canadian content they ran, now all specialty channels will have the same requirement to run Canadian content 35% of the time. I can't find YTV's former requirement, but Teletoon's was 60%. They can now run considerably less Canadian programming.
While the CRTC has mandated that broadcasters must spend the same dollar amount as before, reducing the requirements for Canadian shows means fewer shows with higher budgets. This may be a problem for studios that don't own broadcast outlets. Nelvana and DHX are well positioned, as they will undoubtedly favour themselves with higher budgets rather than have their channels purchasing more expensive shows from other Canadian studios. If Nelvana subcontracts, will their subcontractors see any of the increased budgets or will the the subcontract budgets remain the same with any increase staying with Nelvana?
I'm afraid that these new rules will put the squeeze on smaller studios that rely on broadcasters and cable channels for their sales. Can Netflix or Amazon take up the slack? If not, there's a chance that we're going to see less production in the near future.
The Canadian TV animation industry is presently as large as it has ever been. At Sheridan, we are being approached by studios that are trying to get a jump on Industry Day and hire students before they graduate. Those of us who have been around for awhile have wondered how long the industry expansion can continue. It's possible that these new rules, put in place to improve quality and give broadcasters more flexibility, may not be good for Canadian animation.
Friday, September 05, 2014
Goodbye Canadian Content?
UPDATE: Those of you interested in what's happening to TV in Canada should read this article in The Globe and Mail. It's a good summary of all the potential changes that are coming and how it might change the production landscape. The reader comments show the level of animosity towards the cable companies and broadcasters. You can't hold an audience with regulations, only by giving them something they want to watch.
There's an alternate TV universe developing in Canada. It looks a lot like the old TV universe. In fact the majority of the programming comes from the old TV universe, but there's an important difference: it comes via the internet and not cable channels.
So what? Well, you can impose Canadian content quotas on cable, because no service gets on cable unless the Canadian Radio and Television Commission approves it. And the CRTC always imposes conditions on any license it grants.
However, the CRTC has decided to keep its hands off the internet, precisely because it can't stop anyone from using the internet to distribute content.
There are huge repercussions from this. First, when there were limited channels available and they had to run Canadian content, there was a demand (even it if was mandated demand and not audience demand) that had to be filled. Second, when the public paid for cable TV and when the cable channels earned money from advertising, a percentage of the money was put into the Canadian Media Fund, which provided money for the production of Canadian content, including animation.
The problem started when Netflix came to Canada. It allowed viewers to pay a flat monthly subscription rate to watch anything on the service. As Netflix arrives via the internet, it has no legal obligation to put money into the Canadian Media Fund or to use Canadian content. When a generation of young adults who have declined to have cable TV combines with disgruntled viewers who cut their cable to lower their bills, the cable companies panic. Their billing is dropping and the shrinking audience will force advertising revenues downwards as well. That's a one-two punch aimed at Canadian content.
Shaw and Rogers, the two largest cable TV providers, are fighting back. They're collaborating to create Shomi (pronounced "show me") to compete with Netflix. That's like Coke and Pepsi collaborating on a new soft drink, a move that could only be driven by desperation. Bell Media has just purchased a library of older shows from HBO for their own version of video on demand. Suddenly, the cable TV business has the cooties and everyone is running away from it. Because these new services are on the internet, there's no obligation to run Canadian content and none of the subscription money goes to the Canadian Media Fund.
This will make it harder to produce original animation in Canada. With lower ad rates, less money in the Canadian Media Fund and the audience abandoning cable, there will be less demand for Canadian content and it will be harder to finance. For better or worse, studios interested in creating shows will have to compete with the rest of the world, without the government carving out a protected space for them.
There will still be service work, but that doesn't bode well for the future of Canadian animation. Service work is sensitive to currency fluctuations. The Canadian dollar has ranged as low as 63 cents and as high as 1.03 compared to the U.S. dollar over the last decade or so. In addition, there is the volatility of tax credits and government subsidies. The new government in Quebec has cut their tax credits due to their deficit. Any deficit-ridden government (which is all of them at the moment) will be looking hard at expenditures. Service work is great for cash flow, but the flow stops when the job is delivered. There are no residuals and no money from merchandising. Studios doing service work are always just a few months away from a potential bankruptcy.
This could be a great opportunity for Canadian studios, forcing them to cut the government's apron strings and grow up, but I'm doubtful. History hasn't demonstrated that Canadian studios are eager for that challenge. In the last 35 years, no studio has walked away from government protection or money to stand on its own.
While Canadian animation is booming right now, the future is uncertain at best. The entire notion of Canadian content quotas may disappear quickly, not through government decree, but through cable TV erosion. While Canadian studios have worked hard to satisfy the regulations, now it's time for them to focus on satisfying the audience if they want a healthy future.
There's an alternate TV universe developing in Canada. It looks a lot like the old TV universe. In fact the majority of the programming comes from the old TV universe, but there's an important difference: it comes via the internet and not cable channels.
So what? Well, you can impose Canadian content quotas on cable, because no service gets on cable unless the Canadian Radio and Television Commission approves it. And the CRTC always imposes conditions on any license it grants.
However, the CRTC has decided to keep its hands off the internet, precisely because it can't stop anyone from using the internet to distribute content.
There are huge repercussions from this. First, when there were limited channels available and they had to run Canadian content, there was a demand (even it if was mandated demand and not audience demand) that had to be filled. Second, when the public paid for cable TV and when the cable channels earned money from advertising, a percentage of the money was put into the Canadian Media Fund, which provided money for the production of Canadian content, including animation.
The problem started when Netflix came to Canada. It allowed viewers to pay a flat monthly subscription rate to watch anything on the service. As Netflix arrives via the internet, it has no legal obligation to put money into the Canadian Media Fund or to use Canadian content. When a generation of young adults who have declined to have cable TV combines with disgruntled viewers who cut their cable to lower their bills, the cable companies panic. Their billing is dropping and the shrinking audience will force advertising revenues downwards as well. That's a one-two punch aimed at Canadian content.
Shaw and Rogers, the two largest cable TV providers, are fighting back. They're collaborating to create Shomi (pronounced "show me") to compete with Netflix. That's like Coke and Pepsi collaborating on a new soft drink, a move that could only be driven by desperation. Bell Media has just purchased a library of older shows from HBO for their own version of video on demand. Suddenly, the cable TV business has the cooties and everyone is running away from it. Because these new services are on the internet, there's no obligation to run Canadian content and none of the subscription money goes to the Canadian Media Fund.
This will make it harder to produce original animation in Canada. With lower ad rates, less money in the Canadian Media Fund and the audience abandoning cable, there will be less demand for Canadian content and it will be harder to finance. For better or worse, studios interested in creating shows will have to compete with the rest of the world, without the government carving out a protected space for them.
There will still be service work, but that doesn't bode well for the future of Canadian animation. Service work is sensitive to currency fluctuations. The Canadian dollar has ranged as low as 63 cents and as high as 1.03 compared to the U.S. dollar over the last decade or so. In addition, there is the volatility of tax credits and government subsidies. The new government in Quebec has cut their tax credits due to their deficit. Any deficit-ridden government (which is all of them at the moment) will be looking hard at expenditures. Service work is great for cash flow, but the flow stops when the job is delivered. There are no residuals and no money from merchandising. Studios doing service work are always just a few months away from a potential bankruptcy.
This could be a great opportunity for Canadian studios, forcing them to cut the government's apron strings and grow up, but I'm doubtful. History hasn't demonstrated that Canadian studios are eager for that challenge. In the last 35 years, no studio has walked away from government protection or money to stand on its own.
While Canadian animation is booming right now, the future is uncertain at best. The entire notion of Canadian content quotas may disappear quickly, not through government decree, but through cable TV erosion. While Canadian studios have worked hard to satisfy the regulations, now it's time for them to focus on satisfying the audience if they want a healthy future.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Is Canadian TV Animation Heading for a Cliff?
The TV animation business in Canada is on a roll right now. There's a lot of work out there, as a glance at the job board at Canadian Animation Resources confirms. While animation in Canada includes visual effects, features and videogames, TV still makes up the greatest proportion of production in terms of employment and the amount of material produced.
However, there are trends in several areas that make TV animation vulnerable. The ground is already shifting and there are more shifts to come.
Television in Canada is regulated by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. This government body determines which new channels will be allowed to exist, sets quotas for Canadian content and determines how much money from cable fees will be set aside for Canadian production.
The CRTC is aware of the effect that the internet and internet TV providers such as Netflix are having on the market and have been holding hearings to determine how regulations should change. There are several possibilities being considered. One is unbundling.
The CRTC has declared that certain channels such as YTV, a major Canadian animation market, are part of the basic cable package. In other words, everyone who has cable is forced to pay money towards YTV. Other channels featuring animation, such as Teletoon and Family Channel, are part of packages. You cannot buy these channels on their own. There are customers who don't care at all about animation who are contributing money towards these channels by purchasing the package they're included in.
Should the CRTC unbundle, allowing viewers to purchase only those channels they want, no one can predict how this might effect the demand for animation channels. The number of cable channels using animation has expanded to include Nickelodeon, Teletoon Retro, Cartoon Network Canada, Disney XD, Disney Junior and Treehouse. Can the Canadian market support all of these channels in an a la carte world? Can studios survive if the number of Canadian buyers goes down?
There is an entire generation that has replaced TV with the internet. The term "cord cutting" is used to describe people who give up cable TV, but there are many young adults who haven't had cable TV since leaving their parents' homes. Walking in Toronto, I see children in strollers playing with iPads. In a world of on-demand entertainment, does the concept of a broadcast schedule have a hope of surviving?
The shrinking audience is affecting even mainstream programming. W5, a 60 Minutes-like news show has just cut production on the number of episodes for the coming season and laid off staff due to shrinking ad revenues.
Many in Canada subscribe to Netflix instead of cable. No money spent on Netflix is re-routed towards Canadian production as it is with cable bills. This means that the Canada Media Fund, which funnels money towards various productions, has less to work with.
Finally, there is the issue of tax credits. Ontario just had a provincial election, so the government will be stable for the next four years, but it is trying to eliminate a deficit. No poll of the general public has ever put tax credits for media production high on the list of priorities. As a result, I would not be surprised to see the tax credits frozen at best and I anticipate some amount of claw back. Certainly, they won't increase, which means that if another jurisdiction surpasses Ontario's tax credits, work will leave Ontario.
While content quotas, bundling and tax credits have their place, especially for new enterprises, they turn into an addiction. Ultimately, animation has to please the public if it is to survive. Instead, too many studios have focused on satisfying regulations that generate money rather than on creating viable entertainment. I fear that they have built their enterprises on a foundation of sand. I have seen contractions in the Canadian animation industry in the past and they're not pretty. I hope that studios are preparing for changes that may destroy their current business model.
To learn more about this, read Michael Geist and listen to this Canadaland podcast.
However, there are trends in several areas that make TV animation vulnerable. The ground is already shifting and there are more shifts to come.
Television in Canada is regulated by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. This government body determines which new channels will be allowed to exist, sets quotas for Canadian content and determines how much money from cable fees will be set aside for Canadian production.
The CRTC is aware of the effect that the internet and internet TV providers such as Netflix are having on the market and have been holding hearings to determine how regulations should change. There are several possibilities being considered. One is unbundling.
The CRTC has declared that certain channels such as YTV, a major Canadian animation market, are part of the basic cable package. In other words, everyone who has cable is forced to pay money towards YTV. Other channels featuring animation, such as Teletoon and Family Channel, are part of packages. You cannot buy these channels on their own. There are customers who don't care at all about animation who are contributing money towards these channels by purchasing the package they're included in.
Should the CRTC unbundle, allowing viewers to purchase only those channels they want, no one can predict how this might effect the demand for animation channels. The number of cable channels using animation has expanded to include Nickelodeon, Teletoon Retro, Cartoon Network Canada, Disney XD, Disney Junior and Treehouse. Can the Canadian market support all of these channels in an a la carte world? Can studios survive if the number of Canadian buyers goes down?
There is an entire generation that has replaced TV with the internet. The term "cord cutting" is used to describe people who give up cable TV, but there are many young adults who haven't had cable TV since leaving their parents' homes. Walking in Toronto, I see children in strollers playing with iPads. In a world of on-demand entertainment, does the concept of a broadcast schedule have a hope of surviving?
The shrinking audience is affecting even mainstream programming. W5, a 60 Minutes-like news show has just cut production on the number of episodes for the coming season and laid off staff due to shrinking ad revenues.
Many in Canada subscribe to Netflix instead of cable. No money spent on Netflix is re-routed towards Canadian production as it is with cable bills. This means that the Canada Media Fund, which funnels money towards various productions, has less to work with.
Finally, there is the issue of tax credits. Ontario just had a provincial election, so the government will be stable for the next four years, but it is trying to eliminate a deficit. No poll of the general public has ever put tax credits for media production high on the list of priorities. As a result, I would not be surprised to see the tax credits frozen at best and I anticipate some amount of claw back. Certainly, they won't increase, which means that if another jurisdiction surpasses Ontario's tax credits, work will leave Ontario.
While content quotas, bundling and tax credits have their place, especially for new enterprises, they turn into an addiction. Ultimately, animation has to please the public if it is to survive. Instead, too many studios have focused on satisfying regulations that generate money rather than on creating viable entertainment. I fear that they have built their enterprises on a foundation of sand. I have seen contractions in the Canadian animation industry in the past and they're not pretty. I hope that studios are preparing for changes that may destroy their current business model.
To learn more about this, read Michael Geist and listen to this Canadaland podcast.
Friday, August 08, 2014
Guys with Pencils Down to Stubs
 |
| Andrew (left) and Adam |
The podcasts will remain available for awhile, but if you're not familiar with them, now's your chance to cherry pick the 172 episodes (so far) for whatever artists or fields you are interested in.
As somebody who has appeared on the podcast multiple times, I'd like to publicly thank Adam and Andrew for the opportunity to air my views on things like creator rights and for providing the animation community with such an informative resource.
I'm sure we haven't heard the last of these two. I've watched them go from students to working professionals and I look forward to seeing what they'll accomplish in the future.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
No Honour in His Own Country
 |
| Crac |
Frederic Back died on December 24. I first heard of it on Jerry Beck's Animation Scoop website and then found an obituary in the L.A. Times. Turning to Canada's media, there was nothing. Eventually, CBC radio's As It Happens aired a segment with Normand Roger, composer for Back's best films, remembering Back.
Now, over one week later, the two national papers, The Globe and Mail and the National Post, have yet to run any kind of obituary for the two-time Oscar winner and member of the Order of Canada. CTV and The Canadian Press have both done perfunctory obituaries. Only the French language Le Devoir has any kind of lengthy coverage.
There is no question that Back was the greatest living Canadian animator. Now that he is gone, I would be hard pressed to suggest a successor who is even close to Back's accomplishments. Not only was Back a brilliant artist and animator, he was a dedicated environmentalist whose films celebrated Quebec's landscape and culture. It's a crime that no one who regularly writes about art or film in English-speaking Canada has seen fit to comment on Back's death or his accomplishments.
The Globe and Mail did publish an obituary for Al Goldstein on December 19. It's disheartening to know that the paper feels that an American pornographer merits more coverage than an award winning Canadian animator.
Update: The Globe and Mail finally published an obituary one month and two days after Back's death. As of January 26, the National Post has still done nothing.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Composer Normand Roger Remembers Working with Frederic Back
Normand Roger, who composed the music for all of Frederic Back's films from 1975 on, remembers the late artist on the CBC radio show As It Happens.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Monday, August 20, 2012
DHX Buys Cookie Jar
Update: Canadian Animation Resources has links to stories with more information.
This may only be of interest to those working in the Canadian animated TV field, but DHX has bought Cookie Jar. While consolidation makes it easier for the two studios to compete internationally, it also makes it harder for independent producers to get their work on Canadian TV.
Michael Hirsh, CEO of Cookie Jar, was one of the founders of Nelvana. Cookie Jar rose out of the ashes of Cinar, a Montreal company that was plagued by scandals over fraud with regard to government tax credits and suffered from the untimely death of co-owner Micheline Charest. Hirsh reorganized Cinar into Cookie Jar and bought DIC in 2008. There was speculation from the beginning that he intended to take the company public. While that hasn't happened, there's still a large payday for Cookie Jar's owners.
DHX is the result of the 2006 merger of Decode and the Halifax Film Company. The merged entity later went on to purchase Vancouver's Studio B in 2007.
Whether this means that Michael Hirsh is retiring or will take a position with DHX is unknown at this time.
This may only be of interest to those working in the Canadian animated TV field, but DHX has bought Cookie Jar. While consolidation makes it easier for the two studios to compete internationally, it also makes it harder for independent producers to get their work on Canadian TV.
Michael Hirsh, CEO of Cookie Jar, was one of the founders of Nelvana. Cookie Jar rose out of the ashes of Cinar, a Montreal company that was plagued by scandals over fraud with regard to government tax credits and suffered from the untimely death of co-owner Micheline Charest. Hirsh reorganized Cinar into Cookie Jar and bought DIC in 2008. There was speculation from the beginning that he intended to take the company public. While that hasn't happened, there's still a large payday for Cookie Jar's owners.
DHX is the result of the 2006 merger of Decode and the Halifax Film Company. The merged entity later went on to purchase Vancouver's Studio B in 2007.
Whether this means that Michael Hirsh is retiring or will take a position with DHX is unknown at this time.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Toronto's Starz For Sale
Variety is reporting that Starz Media, which consists of Overture, Anchor Bay Entertainment, Film Roman and Starz Animation are for sale. The companies are available as a group or separately.
Starz was formerly owned by IDT and before that was Dan Krech Productions. It is one of the larger employers in the Toronto animation business.
Starz was formerly owned by IDT and before that was Dan Krech Productions. It is one of the larger employers in the Toronto animation business.
Monday, May 10, 2010
TCAF and Animation
Last weekend, the Toronto Comic Arts Festival was held at the reference library at Yonge and Bloor. The picture at left is only a portion of the festival. There were three more rooms of exhibitors and three rooms to house panels on various subjects.The enthusiasm and productivity in the comics field these days is staggering. Besides publishers who are specializing in graphic novels, there are hundreds of individuals who are creating work that they self-publish in print or on the web. The work, of course, is of variable quality, but the energy level is high. No one attending could doubt the health of the field or its prospects for the immediate future.
Animation artists are some of the people who are gravitating towards comics. Certainly, at Comicon International in San Diego, artists from studios like Disney and Pixar have been publishing and selling personal work. Canadian animation artists are also moving in that direction, including some Sheridan graduates.
Sam Bradley (at left) and Nick Thornborrow were there selling The Anthology Project, a collection of work by 15 artists (several of them Sheridan grads) in a full colour hardcover collection similar to the Flight volumes. Copies can be ordered here (and are available in these stores) and you can see art samples here. A second volume is already planned.
Paul Rivoche, comics artist and designer for many WB superhero animated shows was once again at TCAF, meeting fans and selling collections of his artwork. Paul is currently working on a graphic novel adaptation of The Forgotten Man: A New History of The Great Depression by Amity Shlaes.
I had the pleasure of meeting Graham Annable for the first time. Graham is currently doing story work at Laika (he helped board Coraline) but has been doing is own comics and animation for years. His YouTube channel has 10,000 subscribers and Dark Horse has recently published The Book of Grickle, a compilation of much of his comics work.
Graham's animation work is minimalist and his humour is deadpan. Both work well with the limitations of being an independent animator. His work on YouTube is the basis for a videogame that will be available come June.
While it was great to see animation people taking advantage of the possibility of comics, the vibe on animation was not all good. I ran into a veteran storyboard artist, who told me that he called several management-type folks he knew and suggested they attend TCAF, looking for properties. Of the four he called, only people from Starz, an American company, said they'd be attending. Hollywood regularly treks to San Diego to look for ideas, but Canadian producers and broadcasters can't be bothered to look in their own back yards.
The panel Indie Comics and Indie Animation (from left: Jay Stephens, Faith Erin Hicks, Troy Little, Meredith Gran and Graham Annable) came down firmly on the side of comics over animation. Hicks and Gran are both working on comics full time now and not sorry to be out of the animation industry. Hicks is working on a graphic novel for First Second, Friends with Boys, and Gran has done some animation to promote her web comic Octopus Pie. The general feeling was that the freedom in comics was preferable to the assembly line nature of the service work that Canada seems to specialize in. As Stephens, Little and Annable have all gotten animation projects off the ground based on their comics work, it's clear that the animation industry in Canada is ignoring the talent it employs and in some cases actually driving it away.Comics are definitely ascending at the moment and Canadian animation, at best, is standing still. Talent will flow towards the greater promise and unless Canadian animation can figure out a way to generate some excitement and provide greater creative opportunities, its long term health doesn't look promising.
Addendum: Something I've realized is that comics right now are a bottom-up phenomenon. Because the barrier to entry is low, the field is being driven by the large number of people who expressing themselves through comics. It's been this work, dating back at least to the 1980s that's allowed the field to hit a critical mass where mainstream publishers and bookstores are now invested in the field.
By contrast, due to the high cost of production, animation is a top-down phenomenon. As there are always fewer people at the top than at the bottom, and as business people are generally conservative --preferring to imitate proven successes rather than take chances-- animation has much less variety. It's more difficult for individual artists to have an impact on the wider field.
However, in the 1960s and '70s, comics were a top-down field as well. The field was dominated by just a few companies (Marvel, DC, Archie, Harvey) who turned out a narrow range of material and imitated themselves and each other. In the 1970s, newsstand sales tumbled and eventually the direct market and comics shops were born. The changing economics of the shops vs. the newsstands left some room for niche comics like Cerebus, Elfquest, Hate, Eightball and Love and Rockets and publishers like Fantagraphics. It was from these roots (and the earlier underground comix of the '60s) that produced the graphic novels of today.
The urge for self-expression was always there, but only when the economics of comics changed did the artists have room to begin pushing up from the bottom.
My hope (which might be a vain one) is that now that the economics of film and TV are beginning to change due to the web, animation artists will get the same chance as comics artists to start pushing the industry from the bottom up.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Death of C.O.R.E. Still a Mystery...
...according to this article in The Globe and Mail.
UPDATE: This comment at Canadian Animation Resources lists dollar figures from the Ontario Superior Court as to C.O.R.E.'s assets and debts.
UPDATE: This comment at Canadian Animation Resources lists dollar figures from the Ontario Superior Court as to C.O.R.E.'s assets and debts.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Great Canadian Migration
Two articles in The Globe and Mail caught my eye this week. They clearly point to the future and they have repercussions for Canadian animation.
A survey from Ipsos Reid shows that Canadian viewers are now spending more time on the internet than they are watching TV. The average now is 18 hours a week vs. 17 hours of TV watching. Time spent online has been growing annually, and there is no sign that it will stop.
The other important item was that the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, in charge of regulating TV, has dithered yet again. There's been a battle going on over whether broadcast networks would receive money from cable and satellite companies for their signals. Until now, the cable companies have retransmitted those signals for free. Rather than make a firm decision, the CRTC asked the Court of Appeals to decide whether the CRTC had jurisdiction. Should the court rule that it does, the CRTC says that broadcasters should receive compensation, but declined to say how much. The figure should be negotiated between broadcasters, cable companies and satellite providers.
No one knows how long it will take for the court to rule and if negotiations will produce any results. Everyone's assumption is that cable fees will increase to cover the compensation.
What we're left with is an audience that is walking away from television and a government bureaucracy that is ignoring that fact. The media landscape is changing rapidly and the government can't move faster than a crawl. Even if a decision is made quickly, any increase in cable rates for subscribers is only likely to drive people away from TV that much faster.
Canadian TV is in a death spiral. As the audience leaves, advertising revenues will go down. As revenues drop, so will TV budgets. Cheaper shows will drive more of the audience away, resulting in still lower revenues.
Those working in Canadian TV have never had it easy. Those animation studios depending on Canadian TV for their livelihood would be smart to start diversifying immediately. I'm betting that in five years, we won't recognize what Canadian TV has become and the CRTC will be powerless to stop the changes.
A survey from Ipsos Reid shows that Canadian viewers are now spending more time on the internet than they are watching TV. The average now is 18 hours a week vs. 17 hours of TV watching. Time spent online has been growing annually, and there is no sign that it will stop.
The other important item was that the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, in charge of regulating TV, has dithered yet again. There's been a battle going on over whether broadcast networks would receive money from cable and satellite companies for their signals. Until now, the cable companies have retransmitted those signals for free. Rather than make a firm decision, the CRTC asked the Court of Appeals to decide whether the CRTC had jurisdiction. Should the court rule that it does, the CRTC says that broadcasters should receive compensation, but declined to say how much. The figure should be negotiated between broadcasters, cable companies and satellite providers.
No one knows how long it will take for the court to rule and if negotiations will produce any results. Everyone's assumption is that cable fees will increase to cover the compensation.
What we're left with is an audience that is walking away from television and a government bureaucracy that is ignoring that fact. The media landscape is changing rapidly and the government can't move faster than a crawl. Even if a decision is made quickly, any increase in cable rates for subscribers is only likely to drive people away from TV that much faster.
Canadian TV is in a death spiral. As the audience leaves, advertising revenues will go down. As revenues drop, so will TV budgets. Cheaper shows will drive more of the audience away, resulting in still lower revenues.
Those working in Canadian TV have never had it easy. Those animation studios depending on Canadian TV for their livelihood would be smart to start diversifying immediately. I'm betting that in five years, we won't recognize what Canadian TV has become and the CRTC will be powerless to stop the changes.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Pixar in Vancouver Continued or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
I've been quite surprised by the absolute glee that has resulted from the announcement that Pixar will be opening a studio in Vancouver. It is, of course, a good thing. However, I hope that the people celebrating are not blinded by the Pixar dust in their eyes. It is a good thing, but not a great thing. There are limitations relating to Disney, Pixar, general corporate behaviour and the nature of Canadian industry.
The good things are fairly straightforward. It's always good when there's an increase in employment opportunities, especially in the current economy. There will undoubtedly be educational benefits. Pixar will bring their rigs, their pipeline and their software tools and more people will have the opportunity to use them. While they are proprietary, the nature of software is such that once something exists, it is relatively easy to imitate. Just as Disney knowledge spread into the larger animation industry at the time of the 1941 strike, Pixar's approach will spread into Canada.
The Pixar name will enhance people's resumes and job opportunities. A commenter in the previous post seemed to believe I was endorsing Pixar by praising them "for being THE place." I was not praising them so much as pointing out a Canadian reality.
To date, Canada has no animation studios that can compete with Pixar, Disney, DreamWorks, Blue Sky, etc. Canadian studios have yet to produce an animated feature that grossed $100 million or attracted the same kind of critical attention. Furthermore, those features that have come out of Canada are based on scripts and stories that originated outside the country (Pinocchio 3000, The Wild, Everyone's Hero, 9, etc.) so even if any of those films had done well at the box office, it would have been a mixed endorsement of Canadian studios at best.
Canadian studios are aware of this. Therefore, when they see a resume with a big name studio on it, they see it as a mark of excellence. A studio better than a Canadian studio has seen fit to hire this person, therefore, they have no reason to question the person's skills. This attitude is not unique to Canadian animation. Many people go to Harvard for the opportunity to have it on their resume and many employers are happy to welcome Harvard graduates.
This does not mean that all graduates of Harvard or all former big studio employees are uniformly excellent. It also doesn't mean that people who came from other places are unworthy. However, when the hiring is being done by someone who is unqualified to judge someone's skills -- and that person might be from Human Resources or be a producer -- or if a company is in a hurry to fill a position, the right name on a resume is a shortcut to a solution. This is not fair, but it is a fact of life. Those people who work at Pixar Vancouver will be taken more seriously than those who work at other Canadian studios.
The last bit of good news will be determined by the quality of films that come out of Pixar Vancouver. If they are good, then the people who work on them will have the pride and pleasure of doing good work in an industry where that is rarer than it should be.
Now, on to the bad. The following quote comes from an email list I'm on. The author is a Pixar animator who has given me permission to reprint the quote but has asked to remain anonymous.
Now we get to the ugly, and I'm sorry to say that it relates more to Canada than it does to Pixar. While I've lived in Canada since 1980, I was born and raised in New York City. As a result, I've got a dual perspective on Canada. There is much about this country that I love; I feel more comfortable politically here than I did in the U.S. I value ethnic and cultural diversity and living in Toronto I am surrounded by people from all around the world.
However, Canada suffers from two major problems. The first is colonialism and the second is a small population. Canada never fought for its independence and has historically seen itself as a junior partner to a larger, protector nation. Canada entered World War II in 1939 when the British entered the war, even though Canada itself was not attacked. Since the war, Canada has seen itself as depending on the economic and defense largesse of the U.S. While Canada has not marched in lockstep with the U.S. (Viet Nam and Iraq being two examples), no political decision is ever made in Ottawa without first thinking about U.S. reaction. I don't doubt that if the U.S. was not so vehement about its war on drugs that marijuana would be legal in Canada.
Canada's population is 1/10 the size of the U.S. population. It is easier for U.S. companies to expand their products or services by 10% to take advantage of the Canadian market than it is for a Canadian company to grow by 1000% to compete in the U.S. market. Besides logistical problems, there is also the problem of securing the necessary capital.
Canada's economy can be roughly divided into three parts: natural resources, branch plants and protected industries (primarily culture and communications). The presence of resources is just a matter of luck. Because Canadian companies have difficulty competing with American companies 10 times their size, it has been easier to open branch plants of American companies than to create Canadian companies. For instance, many countries have their own car companies. The U.S., Japan, Korea, England, Germany, Italy, etc. all have cars identified with their countries. Canada has many auto manufacturing plants, but there is no Canadian car.
Entertainment falls in the area of protected industries and this is an area of particular annoyance to me. Canadians don't create markets. They wait until someone else creates a viable market and then Canadians go to the government and ask for protection in order to participate in the market. It's easy for American studios to dump TV shows in Canada for less money than it costs Canadians to create original programming. For the Americans, the money is pure gravy. On the face of it, it makes sense that the government should carve out a percentage of TV air time for Canadian programs and then figure out a way to fund them.
The danger of not doing this can be seen in the film industry. The U.S. walked into Canada in the 1920's and owned all the movie theaters. They treated Canada as part of the U.S. domestic market and the Canadian box office is still considered part of the U.S. domestic gross. Furthermore, on average only 3% of screen time in Canada is devoted to Canadian films. As low as that number seems, it's actually lower because the percentage is higher in Quebec due to language differences. So in English speaking Canada, the percentage of Canadian films is actually less than 3%. The government, not wanting this pattern to repeat in other aspects of popular culture, instituted various quotas and then fought to have culture exempt from the free trade agreement and it's successor, NAFTA.
While this works in theory, the reality is another story. What happens is that the companies who are protected under the quota spend more time working the system than creating work that would allow them to compete. As in most democracies, profitable companies make political contributions to protect their interests and are happy to hire former government officials to lobby for them at salaries higher than those people made in government. So while Canadian television has benefited from government intervention in ways that Canadian film has not, it has not done a significantly better job of creating popular work because the companies have been too busy protecting their profits.
Name a Canadian animated character who is a worldwide success. If you managed to name one (and I'd be surprised if you could), I'll bet that it was based on a children's book and was not an original character. The branch plant mentality combined with government protectionism has killed risk-taking in Canada and creative Canadians know this. That's why so many of them head to the U.S.
The problem is not the talent, the problem is the management. I can personally name dozens of Canadians who have worked at ILM, PDI, Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, Sony, etc. and have done well at those studios. The U.S. welcomes people with ability while Canada is content to let them leave. There are no Canadian animation managements with the guts, brains and resources to create original material that entertains a worldwide audience.
That's why when a company like Pixar opens in Canada, people are so gleeful. Maybe here is an opportunity to go beyond the run of the mill Canadian product. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen. What comes out of Pixar Vancouver is going to be the equivalent of the direct-to-DVD Tinkerbell features. Those films make money for Disney, but nobody takes them seriously. They are there to bolster the bottom line, not to win awards, not to inspire critical essays, and are only known by parents with young daughters. With all due respect to the people who work on them, they are conceived as filler and they fulfill their corporate duty.
People in Vancouver have a right to be happy over Pixar's arrival, but keep it in perspective. The problems of Canadian animation (and entertainment generally) are still there and still awaiting solutions. When Canada produces its own Aardman or Ghibli, then no one will be cheering louder than me.
The good things are fairly straightforward. It's always good when there's an increase in employment opportunities, especially in the current economy. There will undoubtedly be educational benefits. Pixar will bring their rigs, their pipeline and their software tools and more people will have the opportunity to use them. While they are proprietary, the nature of software is such that once something exists, it is relatively easy to imitate. Just as Disney knowledge spread into the larger animation industry at the time of the 1941 strike, Pixar's approach will spread into Canada.
The Pixar name will enhance people's resumes and job opportunities. A commenter in the previous post seemed to believe I was endorsing Pixar by praising them "for being THE place." I was not praising them so much as pointing out a Canadian reality.
To date, Canada has no animation studios that can compete with Pixar, Disney, DreamWorks, Blue Sky, etc. Canadian studios have yet to produce an animated feature that grossed $100 million or attracted the same kind of critical attention. Furthermore, those features that have come out of Canada are based on scripts and stories that originated outside the country (Pinocchio 3000, The Wild, Everyone's Hero, 9, etc.) so even if any of those films had done well at the box office, it would have been a mixed endorsement of Canadian studios at best.
Canadian studios are aware of this. Therefore, when they see a resume with a big name studio on it, they see it as a mark of excellence. A studio better than a Canadian studio has seen fit to hire this person, therefore, they have no reason to question the person's skills. This attitude is not unique to Canadian animation. Many people go to Harvard for the opportunity to have it on their resume and many employers are happy to welcome Harvard graduates.
This does not mean that all graduates of Harvard or all former big studio employees are uniformly excellent. It also doesn't mean that people who came from other places are unworthy. However, when the hiring is being done by someone who is unqualified to judge someone's skills -- and that person might be from Human Resources or be a producer -- or if a company is in a hurry to fill a position, the right name on a resume is a shortcut to a solution. This is not fair, but it is a fact of life. Those people who work at Pixar Vancouver will be taken more seriously than those who work at other Canadian studios.
The last bit of good news will be determined by the quality of films that come out of Pixar Vancouver. If they are good, then the people who work on them will have the pride and pleasure of doing good work in an industry where that is rarer than it should be.
Now, on to the bad. The following quote comes from an email list I'm on. The author is a Pixar animator who has given me permission to reprint the quote but has asked to remain anonymous.
There are some factual errors in this article (big surprise). The Vancouver studio will only be producing ancillary work with legacy characters, like Cars and Toy Story. All the stuff that Pixar doesn't have the time or money to do to keep the franchises alive. The original shorts and DVD shorts will still be done in Emeryville. As I understand it, Pixar will still generate all the stories for the ancillary work, and the Vancouver studio will be strictly for production.In other words, Pixar Vancouver is for outsourcing. It will be owned by Disney and not a service facility bidding on work, but will still be treated like a subcontractor. In essence, it will do the work that Pixar doesn't consider important enough to bother with itself. The article referenced above also states "John Lasseter, chief creative officer at both Pixar and Disney Animation, is not expected to spend much time at the Vancouver studio." That's because his time is too valuable to waste on what will be produced in Vancouver. I don't doubt that Lasseter will make an early appearance to give the staff a pep talk about what great work they're going to produce, but with the budgets, concepts and stories being worked out in Emeryville, Lasseter has no need to spend time in Vancouver. Should Vancouver not produce sufficiently good work, the Vancouver managers will be called to account in Emeryville. Lasseter's appearances in Vancouver will be more for morale and publicity purposes than for making creative or managerial decisions.
Now we get to the ugly, and I'm sorry to say that it relates more to Canada than it does to Pixar. While I've lived in Canada since 1980, I was born and raised in New York City. As a result, I've got a dual perspective on Canada. There is much about this country that I love; I feel more comfortable politically here than I did in the U.S. I value ethnic and cultural diversity and living in Toronto I am surrounded by people from all around the world.
However, Canada suffers from two major problems. The first is colonialism and the second is a small population. Canada never fought for its independence and has historically seen itself as a junior partner to a larger, protector nation. Canada entered World War II in 1939 when the British entered the war, even though Canada itself was not attacked. Since the war, Canada has seen itself as depending on the economic and defense largesse of the U.S. While Canada has not marched in lockstep with the U.S. (Viet Nam and Iraq being two examples), no political decision is ever made in Ottawa without first thinking about U.S. reaction. I don't doubt that if the U.S. was not so vehement about its war on drugs that marijuana would be legal in Canada.
Canada's population is 1/10 the size of the U.S. population. It is easier for U.S. companies to expand their products or services by 10% to take advantage of the Canadian market than it is for a Canadian company to grow by 1000% to compete in the U.S. market. Besides logistical problems, there is also the problem of securing the necessary capital.
Canada's economy can be roughly divided into three parts: natural resources, branch plants and protected industries (primarily culture and communications). The presence of resources is just a matter of luck. Because Canadian companies have difficulty competing with American companies 10 times their size, it has been easier to open branch plants of American companies than to create Canadian companies. For instance, many countries have their own car companies. The U.S., Japan, Korea, England, Germany, Italy, etc. all have cars identified with their countries. Canada has many auto manufacturing plants, but there is no Canadian car.
Entertainment falls in the area of protected industries and this is an area of particular annoyance to me. Canadians don't create markets. They wait until someone else creates a viable market and then Canadians go to the government and ask for protection in order to participate in the market. It's easy for American studios to dump TV shows in Canada for less money than it costs Canadians to create original programming. For the Americans, the money is pure gravy. On the face of it, it makes sense that the government should carve out a percentage of TV air time for Canadian programs and then figure out a way to fund them.
The danger of not doing this can be seen in the film industry. The U.S. walked into Canada in the 1920's and owned all the movie theaters. They treated Canada as part of the U.S. domestic market and the Canadian box office is still considered part of the U.S. domestic gross. Furthermore, on average only 3% of screen time in Canada is devoted to Canadian films. As low as that number seems, it's actually lower because the percentage is higher in Quebec due to language differences. So in English speaking Canada, the percentage of Canadian films is actually less than 3%. The government, not wanting this pattern to repeat in other aspects of popular culture, instituted various quotas and then fought to have culture exempt from the free trade agreement and it's successor, NAFTA.
While this works in theory, the reality is another story. What happens is that the companies who are protected under the quota spend more time working the system than creating work that would allow them to compete. As in most democracies, profitable companies make political contributions to protect their interests and are happy to hire former government officials to lobby for them at salaries higher than those people made in government. So while Canadian television has benefited from government intervention in ways that Canadian film has not, it has not done a significantly better job of creating popular work because the companies have been too busy protecting their profits.
Name a Canadian animated character who is a worldwide success. If you managed to name one (and I'd be surprised if you could), I'll bet that it was based on a children's book and was not an original character. The branch plant mentality combined with government protectionism has killed risk-taking in Canada and creative Canadians know this. That's why so many of them head to the U.S.
The problem is not the talent, the problem is the management. I can personally name dozens of Canadians who have worked at ILM, PDI, Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, Sony, etc. and have done well at those studios. The U.S. welcomes people with ability while Canada is content to let them leave. There are no Canadian animation managements with the guts, brains and resources to create original material that entertains a worldwide audience.
That's why when a company like Pixar opens in Canada, people are so gleeful. Maybe here is an opportunity to go beyond the run of the mill Canadian product. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen. What comes out of Pixar Vancouver is going to be the equivalent of the direct-to-DVD Tinkerbell features. Those films make money for Disney, but nobody takes them seriously. They are there to bolster the bottom line, not to win awards, not to inspire critical essays, and are only known by parents with young daughters. With all due respect to the people who work on them, they are conceived as filler and they fulfill their corporate duty.
People in Vancouver have a right to be happy over Pixar's arrival, but keep it in perspective. The problems of Canadian animation (and entertainment generally) are still there and still awaiting solutions. When Canada produces its own Aardman or Ghibli, then no one will be cheering louder than me.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Great Canadian Animators in Canada?
I attended the opening of the exhibit of Frédéric Back at the Alliance Française de Toronto last night. I highly recommend it to anyone who can attend. Back's artwork is exquisite and I was surprised at how small and delicate much of it is. Many scenes were animated with characters fitting into a 5 field or 6 field. It takes great control (and courage) to work that small knowing that the art will eventually fill a theatre screen. You can find details here on the various Back exhibits currently in Toronto.
It also got me to thinking about the nature of animation in Canada. Are there many animators born and educated in Canada who did their most successful work here? During the glory years of the NFB (the 1940s-'70s), a great many NFB artists were immigrants to Canada: Norman McLaren, Kaj Pindal, Caroline Leaf, Ishu Patel, Lotte Reiniger, etc. During those decades, there was no animation education available that I'm aware of.
Since the '70s, there has been animation training available and certainly there has been a thriving commercial business. However, there has yet to be a break-out hit animated feature or TV series to originate in Canada. Dozens, and probably hundreds, of Canadian artists have worked on successful and award winning films made in the U.S.
So my question (and it's not rhetorical) is whether there are any Canadian animators who have done their most successful work while in Canada. Grant Munro of the NFB is one possible answer. I'd be curious to know if there are others.
It also got me to thinking about the nature of animation in Canada. Are there many animators born and educated in Canada who did their most successful work here? During the glory years of the NFB (the 1940s-'70s), a great many NFB artists were immigrants to Canada: Norman McLaren, Kaj Pindal, Caroline Leaf, Ishu Patel, Lotte Reiniger, etc. During those decades, there was no animation education available that I'm aware of.
Since the '70s, there has been animation training available and certainly there has been a thriving commercial business. However, there has yet to be a break-out hit animated feature or TV series to originate in Canada. Dozens, and probably hundreds, of Canadian artists have worked on successful and award winning films made in the U.S.
So my question (and it's not rhetorical) is whether there are any Canadian animators who have done their most successful work while in Canada. Grant Munro of the NFB is one possible answer. I'd be curious to know if there are others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
