{"id":13477,"date":"2016-04-22T15:06:03","date_gmt":"2016-04-22T19:06:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kqek.com\/mobile\/?p=13477"},"modified":"2016-05-02T02:03:13","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T06:03:13","slug":"scanners-stephen-lack-at-the-royal-cinema-cancon-distribution-headaches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kqek.com\/mobile\/?p=13477","title":{"rendered":"Scanners’ Stephen Lack at the Royal Cinema + CanCon Distribution Headaches"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"NCFD_poster_2016\"This past Wednesday was National Canadian Film Day<\/a>, a celebration organized by Reel Canada that\u2019s had tangible success in getting merchants, vendors, and exhibitors to participate with free screenings and video rentals, audience Q&As with actors & filmmakers, and activities for all age groups to show that yeah, amid the heavy saturation of Hollywood product and its heavily controlled distribution outlets, there\u2019s a Canadian film and TV industry that’s fun, provocative, and worthy of pride.<\/p>\n

On April 20th, 2016, Toronto\u2019s Royal Cinema<\/a> screened David Cronenberg\u2019s Scanners<\/strong> (1981), and NOW Magazine\u2019s senior film writer Norman Wilner<\/a>\u00a0conducted a Q&A with actor and artist Stephen Lack<\/a>, and discussed Scanners<\/strong>\u2019 35 years of cult fame, blowing up Louis Del Grande\u2019s head, co-star Patrick McGoohan, director Cronenberg, make-up whiz Dick Smith, and The Rubber Gun<\/strong>, a 1977 film co-written by\u00a0Lack and director Allan Moyle (Pump Up the Volume<\/strong>) which is seeking a Canadian partner in assembling a special edition release with rare materials from Lack\u2019s own private archives.<\/p>\n

I mention The Rubber Gun<\/strong> because it’s tied to a series of issues I touch upon in the tail-end editorial that follows a slightly edited excerpt from the Lack-Wilner Q&A. It\u2019s not a rant (per se), but it is a recapitulation of ongoing grievances, if you will, in which a wealth of Canadian movies (and TV shows, for that matter) are available nowhere, a situation that isn\u2019t helped when a native film is actually released by a U.S. label and has to be imported and sold up here for a hefty price. Sometimes it\u2019s a Criterion-level edition and it\u2019s worth the expense; sometimes it\u2019s on par with a VHS-quality dub.<\/p>\n

Access to and distribution of Canuckle films has and will likely remain a challenge (that\u2019s the most polite term one can use), and I envy independent American and Brit labels who take their own productions (and Canadian films) and assemble first-rate definitive editions that contextualize a work for future generations.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also an industry, home video special editions and producing value-added content (featurettes, interviews, commentaries, etc,), that I\u2019ve always wanted to become involved with.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s perhaps four main labels in Canada: eOne, Mongrel, Unobstructed View (formerly VSC), Anchor Bay Entertainment Canada. And media conglomerates like Bell and Rogers, themselves sitting on massive catalogues and licensing rights.<\/p>\n

Small U.S. and Brit home video labels keep approaching big studios who\u2019ve themselves been wisely transferring their catalogues to HD over the years, and license titles for special editions. No one makes a mint, but the movies circulate, fans get a crack at owning a cult or art film, and labels preserve memories and archival materials to create a historical document(s) as the pool of former film participants (actors, directors, writers, producers, etc.) continues to dwindle.<\/p>\n

And a small industry of home video producers and production personnel ensure indie labels survive. There were some significant labels in Canada, but their activities are either tied to rare efforts due to the cost of digitizing and producing special features content, or they were bought up by media conglomerates. Those special editions are often\u00a0out of print, and if they do re-materialize via another label, it may be as bare bones discs because the extras\u00a0mandate separate\u00a0licensing fees.<\/p>\n

Now let\u2019s get back to Scanners<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"Scanners_Ital_poster_m\"Bookending the roughly half-hour Q&A excerpt is the Editor\u2019s Blog that would\u2019ve run here, and this semi-podcast is available via iTunes<\/a> and Libsyn<\/a>. (I\u2019ll have a YouTube version up within the next 24-48 hours, as I might render a few effects for a visual edition.)<\/p>\n

Within the excerpted Q&A, Lack references a few films that I touch upon in my editorial that tend to exist only dead media.<\/p>\n

To accentuate this point, I slapped together a short video showing said dead media \u2013 a CED disc \u2013 being inserted, played, and ejected, and excerpted the first 5 minutes of the film to give an indication of the level of its audio-visual quality. It\u2019s basically VHS resolution, and that\u2019s what Canadians, more often than not, have to settle for if they do find their Holy Grail cult or classic film.<\/p>\n

Whereas Brit and U.S. labels seem determined to apply their model of \u2018rescuing\u2019 films and marketing them using a graduated and successful formula, we don\u2019t have that in place over here with a plethora of indie labels because if we did, Canadians wouldn\u2019t have to settle for contemporary film classics (and award winners, as well), that look like this:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n