From Author to Content Creator: The Balance of Power Between Creators and Producers in the Quebec Film Industry in the Age of Digital Competition
Emmanuelle Lacombe
University of Quebec at Montreal
Summary
This article summarizes the findings of a Master’s thesis in communications at UQAM on the power relations between film creators since the introduction of strategic policies by the Quebec government to ensure the discoverability of content on subscription video-on-demand services (SVOD). Thematic analysis and critical discourse analysis of the nine individual interviews conducted with groups of screenwriters (3), directors (3) and producers (3) enabled me to observe that while the relationships between the groups seem to have been minimally affected by SVOD services, an accelerated “entrepreneurialization” of creators is nevertheless currently underway, mirroring the taking of a new step in the industrialization of culture (Miège, 2017).
Introduction
The arrival of subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services on the Canadian broadcasting market has changed, in less than ten years, the way audiovisual products are consumed. During this decade, the streaming giants have been able to conquer audiences with few legislative obstacles, thanks to the Digital Media Exemption Order introduced in 1999. The years 2020 and 2021 marked a new stage in the onslaught of digital platforms, aided by prolonged episodes of confinement and isolation due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. By 2021, a higher proportion of adult Quebecers were subscribed to SVOD services than to conventional television (Académie de la transformation numérique, 2022). This reversal in the balance of power between traditional broadcasters and webcasters has completely changed the way the Canadian industry has operated since its inception in the 1930s. In the days when distribution channels were scarce (in those days, over-the-air television), a product’s ability to reach its audience was controlled by those who owned those channels and crafted programs for large audiences. Today, power has shifted to the other end of the value chain, that is to say, to viewers, who are now faced with an inordinate supply of content (Canada Media Fund, 2016).
SVOD services have become champions at capturing our attention, having developed tools that manipulate the promotion of the content they offer. According to Tchéhouali, algocracy, that is the power of recommendation algorithms and metadata to influence viewers’ attention (Gauvreau, 2022), is a formidable weapon for boosting the discoverability of their content. Canadian creators and producers trying to compete with these firms do not have access to this weapon. And yet, part of the burden of unfair competition lies on their shoulders, as Canadian cultural policies convey the idea that the “strongest creators will produce content that will stand out and not go unnoticed in the digital world” (Ipsos Canada Public Affairs, 2017, p. 34). In this sense, they are left to their own devices by the Online Streaming Act, for which its intent is to act as minimally as possible on “the need to alter the algorithms of broadcasting undertakings” to promote the discoverability of Canadian content on these platforms (Order to the CRTC, 2023).
As a result, French-language productions from Quebec, both television and film, currently find themselves without a safety net to protect the principle of cultural exception. Yet Canadian and Quebec governments were the first to sign the 2005 UNESCO Convention (CDCE), which sets out the principle of “the need to take measures to protect the diversity of cultural expressions, including their contents, especially in situations where cultural expressions may be threatened by the possibility of extinction or serious impairment [...]” (UNESCO, 2005, p. 3). But the digital universe has expanded in the years since the Convention was ratified, and UNESCO reacted too slowly (Saulnier, 2022, p. 84), while states are still struggling to adapt their regulations to the colonization of virtual space.
In this context, the Quebec film industry is feeling the pinch: how can it succeed in the unregulated world of recommendation algorithms? This challenge to the survival of a national cinematography has led the Quebec government to enter a race for innovation, adopting new strategic policies, notably on the issue of content discoverability, aimed at increasing the competitiveness of firms and the nation (Rioux, 2004, p. 124).
The discoverability of minority cultural content online
Institutional bodies (CMF, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions) use the same definition of discoverability as presented by the Observatoire de la culture et des communications in 2017, namely “the capacity, for cultural content, to be easily discovered by the consumer who is looking for it and to be offered to the consumer who was not aware of its existence.” (2020, p. 6). In a way, this discoverability has become the central issue of government authorities, who currently have no real regulatory shield against the imperialism of content platforms.
To respond to this ever-increasing pressure to ensure better discoverability of Quebec content, SODEC has set up additional funds through its “Aide à la production” and “Aide à la création émergente” programs as of summer 2020. These funds reflect the general objectives that include “optimizing the strategies for exploiting these productions, in particular by integrating a discoverability protocol and digital distribution methods” (SODEC, 2020). In this race for discoverability, it is up to creators and producers to optimize it, through a series of actions proposed by SODEC. For regular feature films, discoverability strategies are the responsibility of the distributors who obtain funding from the “Aide à la promotion et à la diffusion” programs.
The role played by government funding institutions in increasing the discoverability of content and the online presence of private Quebec companies bears witness to the paradox between interventionism and economic market self-regulation facing the modern neoliberal state. According to Foucault, neoliberalism assigns to the state the role of “general regulator,” a permanent watchdog over the market that intervenes indirectly by interfering in society. In other words, this “new rationality of government” seeks to intervene in society and its individuals to create the conditions necessary for competitive dynamics (Foucault, [1979] 2004, p. 151). Dardot and Laval also defend the idea that “neoliberalism seeks not so much the ‘retreat’ of the state and the expansion of the domains of capital accumulation, as the transformation of public action by turning the state into a sphere governed by rules of competition and subject to efficiency constraints similar to those faced by private enterprise” (2010, p. 354). In their view, the 1980s saw the emergence of the “efficient state” (État efficace) or “managerial state” (État managérial) (Dardot and Laval, 2010, p. 355) which, far more than Foucault’s permanent vigilance of the market, “imported the operating rules of the competitive market into the public sector, in the broadest sense, to the point of thinking about the exercise of governmental power in terms of corporate rationality” (Dardot and Laval, 2010, p. 357).
All this is reminiscent of the Trudeau administration’s stance in favour of a “flexible” approach (Order to the CRTC, 2023), adaptable to the business models of SVOD service companies (Radio-Canada, 2023). Creative Canada is also an example of the entrepreneurial spirit of the Canadian government and the way in which actions are geared to making the nation competitive, with a view to minimal and indirect intervention in the economic market:
It strengthens our existing cultural policy tools, sets out a path to renew the ones that require updating, and introduces new initiatives that will help Canada’s creators and creative industries succeed in a global, digital marketplace (Canadian Heritage, 2017, p. 5).
Instead of intervening directly in the regulation of firms and the market (in order to respect the principle of cultural exception, for example), the State wants to intervene directly with creators. Through the development of tools, measures and programs, the government wishes to “demonstrate creativity and ingenuity” and use a “corporatist vision of the cultural ecosystem, which will encourage the adaptation of its mechanisms to ‘generalizing and globalizing’ interests, expelling—increasingly—the logic of cultural protection through government regulation to make way for a logic of market regulation” (Aucoin, 2019, p. 137). The neoliberal ideology that permeates every page of Creative Canada is a direct reference to Foucault’s analysis of neoliberal society in The Birth of Biopolitics: a society governed strictly by a competitive order, “not a supermarket society – a company society” ([1979] 2004, p. 152), an observation also defended by Dardot and Laval (2010). In other words, according to neoliberal ideology, the nation must be made competitive through government measures and regulations. For the growth of Canadian cultural industries, this means increasing the profitability of their creators.
Content industries, content creators
The arrival on the market of digital platforms is profoundly changing the organization of global media production. However, this does not mean that the cultural industries are entering a new paradigm: rather, they are taking a new step in the industrialization of culture (Miège, 2017). Thus, Bullich and Schmitt compare SVOD platforms to a “Trojan horse” ensuring the takeover of the communication industries (telecommunications, web, IT) over the cultural industries, an argument first supported by Bernard Miège as early as the 2000s (Bullich and Schmitt, 2019, p. 1). In a revised version of his text in 2017, Miège went even further: the historical sectors of the cultural industries (including cinema) would be transformed into “content industries”systemFootnote 1 whose products would be treated “like other consumer products” (2017, p. 174). In other words, the film industry would be subordinated to SVOD services, ultimately serving only to feed these insatiable beasts of content.
This subordination has now become part of the institutional language, where the terms “content creators” or simply “creators” (54 jobs in the Order to the CRTC) have replaced those of “cultural creators” from Creative Canada, which in turn have replaced those of “artists” (four jobs) or “authors” (one job). Moreover, Creative Canada’s policy framework defines “creators” as “creative positions, from artists to stage directors, screenwriters to film producers, songwriters to performers, authors and digital media creators,” which demonstrates the vast expanse of professions understood by the term “creators” (Canadian Heritage, 2017, p. 11).
More broadly, in addition to the development of the Internet, the arrival of platforms, the liberalization of trade and the globalization of markets—all factors that have affected Quebec’s cultural industries—, these industries have also seen a series of disengagements on the part of government players. Over 20 years, spending on culture in the Quebec budget has fallen from 1.4% (2000) to 0.9% (2020) (Coalition la culture, le cœur du Québec, 2020). This budgetary downturn has shaken the entire sector, but especially its workers, according to the economic analysis conducted by Paradis, Ruscio and Dufresne: “From the early 2000s to the present day, five labour market indicators reflect a growing precariousness among cultural workers” (Coalition la culture, le cœur du Québec, 2020, p. 9). In this context, the competition for discoverability of content on SVOD platforms certainly intensifies the pressure for performance and return on the Quebec film industry and its creators. As part of this research, I asked myself about the balance of power between creators and producers since the implementation of the Quebec government’s strategic policies aimed at ensuring the discoverability of content on digital platforms. The data and findings detailed below summarize some of the results of the full study from which this article is drawn.
Conceptual framework and methodology
This research lies at the crossroads of two fields: the political economy of communication (PEC) and cultural studies (CS). By considering Quebec’s geopolitical situation and the workings of its cultural funding system—parameters specific to the PEC—but also the effects of the arrival of SVOD services on cultural production itself and on the experience of cultural workers—issues typical of CS—I was able to account for the phenomenon studied. I have also incorporated the contribution of work on author theory in cinema (Pacouret [2019], Esquenazi [2002]), as well as certain notionsFootnote 2 from platform studies (Lotz [2022], Lobato [2019]).
Semi-structured interviews with three screenwriters (A, B, C), three directors (D, E, F) and three producers (G, H, I) from the Quebec film industry were conducted between November 2022 and June 2023. I have chosen to speak exclusively with the creators and producers of feature-lengthFootnote 3 fiction films, since this is the most significant film format in terms of export, distribution and international representation of Quebec cinema. I have also chosen to concentrate my research efforts on this format, as it is the one favoured in the creation of SVOD service catalogues.
Once the interviews had been transcribed, I carried out a thematic analysis to interpret their content (Krief and Zardet, 2013), as well as a critical discourse analysis that captures the power relations between individuals, independently of their will or consciousness, through the language used explicitly or implicitly (Machin and Mayr, 2012). The Foucauldian notion of “discourse,” intrinsically linked to “power,” was central to the analysis of the responses of the participants in this research. By “discourse” we mean the construction of knowledge on a particular subject: the ideas received that are considered “useful, relevant and ‘true’ in that context”Footnote 4 at a given time (Hall, 1997, p. 6). In the specific context of this research, measuring the power relationships between the various groups sampled was only possible through an understanding of the economic, legislative, industrial and institutional system that shapes them today, and which constitutes the “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1972, cited in Hall, 1997, p. 49) of current Quebec film production. In this sense, the beliefsFootnote 5 conveyed through the various discourses (those of the participants but also those of the State) on digital competition articulate the power relations at the same time as they are affected. The concept of “power,” fundamental to the analysis of power relations, is expressed in terms of relationships between individuals or groups. In no case, according to Foucault, is “power localized in precise institutions or apparatuses (the State, etc.),” but circulates between actors or groups (Gros, 2017, p. 78). Like a photograph, this research sought to immortalize the balance of power between creators, producers and the two levels of funding at a given point in time, that is to say for the years 2022 and 2023.
As part of my analysis, I have also used the concept of “competitivism” (Deblock, 2019) from international political economy, which I have combined with cultural industry theory. Competitivism is a “practice, an art of politics [...] gauged in the light of its results and defined in an ad hoc manner in relation to the objectives sought” (2019, p. 271). This concept gives the government player the full measure of the international economic tensions that have been exerted on it since the globalization of markets and allows me to question the consequences of these strategic policies on creators and producers. The literature of international political economy sheds interesting light on issues of cultural sovereignty, in a context where cultural products are not generally excluded from free trade agreements between countries.
The balance of power between creators and producers
The data gathered for my study suggest that the balance of power between directors and producers remains unchanged, since symbolic authorship of the work still belongs to the director, in the imagination of industry players. In other words, the arrival of SVOD’s services and the implementation of SODEC’s and Telefilm Canada’s strategic policies do not seem to have had a significant impact on the power relations between these two groups, which remain united in the face of industry challenges. The terminology used on both sides to refer to this relationship suggested egalitarian, collegial and supportive relationships.
However, of the three groups, screenwriters reported the most difficult relationships with directors and producers. The relationship between screenwriters and directors is in a state of flux, with greater symbolic value being placed on the creative contribution of screenwriters thanks to SARTEC’s representation measures. In such a context, some filmmakers, in the same way as some French creators, are trying to claim a share of this creative input in order to benefit from the “A film by” credit, according to an anecdote told by screenwriter A about a female director’s request for a screenwriter’s credit on her work.
As far as the balance of power between screenwriters and producers is concerned, there are two distinct positions. If the screenwriter is the person responsible for the idea of the story, this person will have a more equal relationship with the producer. Although they are increasingly recognized as creators, they do not achieve the same level of ascendancy as directors. However, if the screenwriter is not responsible for the story’s ideation or is simply hired to write the adaptation of a novel, they are in a remarkably weakened position compared to the producer. In this particular case, a professional relationship that favours the producer is established.
Even so, these different power relationships do not seem to have been specifically and solely affected by the arrival of SVOD services on the Quebec market, nor specifically and solely by the implementation of government strategies to ensure greater discoverability of content. The transformation of cultural industries into content industries represents a new stage in the industrialization of cinematic art (Bullich and Schmitt, 2019; Miège, 2017). This is now reflected in a certain resignation on the part of creators to the change that has taken place in the value of their contribution to the production chain:
The myth of the writer-director who is omniscient, omnipotent, who understands everything, etc., is still seen as a creative ideal. But this is changing. Today’s screenwriters, rightly or wrongly, will often simplify their role a little, put it into perspective, and say to themselves: “My work is really important but is it really more important than the editor?” Maybe it is equal. (Producer I)
Certainly, the idea of cinema as a collaborative art was raised in my interviews, notably by Director D and Director F. However, my research data suggests that it is not the other craftspeople in the chain, such as screenwriters, who are rising to the level of directors as “authors,” but rather the directors who are seeing their author status pale under the effects of this new industrialization of culture. Although the producers we interviewed were behind the directors in defending their author status, the institutional literature does away with this terminology in favour of the term “content creator,” a title that does not reflect the type of work in question. Thus, various professions and roles in the chain—directing, screenwriting, production, and perhaps even cinematography and editing—can be included in this new profession of “content creator.”
The balance of power between creators and producers and the Quebec government
According to the participants in my study, SODEC does not interfere creatively with the films it finances. The creative autonomy of filmmakers is still assured by government funding: “No, here with the institutions, you’re the only one in charge.” (Screenwriter C) When it comes to choosing the films to be financed, the participants believe that the representation of Quebec’s different communities and gender parity are at the heart of the Quebec government’s concerns: profitability objectives are therefore perceived as subordinate to the government’s social responsibility. Since the selection of projects is made by a committee of peers, filmmakers are given a great deal of freedom, although SODEC reserves the right to veto the final choice of films to be financed.
The balance of power between creators, producers and the Quebec government (represented by SODEC) remains unchanged, despite the upheavals experienced by the Canadian film industry since the arrival of foreign digital platforms. SODEC adapts to social change to better represent the interests of its customers. When Quebec showcases talent on screen, it stays true to its core mission of fostering the development of Quebec cultural enterprises. However, these political goals of representing diverse communities lead to a dilemma, given the lack of financial resources to support the proliferation of production companies associated with emerging voices:
[...] It’s just that there’s no reflection on production in Quebec. [When] I talk about production, I’m not referring to [how films are made, as such] but to how production is organized in Quebec. If you’re making 25 films in a year, you can't have 340 different production companies. It just won’t work. What concerns me a lot [is that] SODEC is forcing [young producers] to lower their budgets and work for nothing. (Producer G)
Few realistic solutions seem viable to break away from this trend toward the proliferation of small production companies, so as to foster the emergence of creators and producers from historically underrepresented communities by and in Canadian film production. Faced with such a dilemma, the funding of Canadian films by SVOD services (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) is seen as a lesser evil to relieve some of the pressure on SODEC and Telefilm Canada’s funding deposits: “When films are made outside institutions, they [the funding agencies] aren’t upset. On the contrary, they are happy: more films will be made.” (Screenwriter C) That said, business opportunities through SVOD services are far from assured, and it is a safe bet that the companies that benefit will be a small, exclusive group of top producers. The historic first-look deal between Netflix and a Canadian production company (Attraction images) is evidence in support of this intuition (Lemieux, 2023).
From author to content creator
With an increasing number of projects submitted to public funders every year, producing a film with Netflix is a prospect that excites creators, as described by Director E:
[...] If a real platform asks me, “Do you want to make content for our platform?” I’d find it a bit [abject] of me, but at the same time, I’d be a little bit excited by the offer. It sounds like it would be something new in my life, so maybe I’d [try] to stay true to myself and not sell my soul. (Director E)
Speaking of selling one’s soul, Director E mentioned something fundamental for creators: artistic autonomy. Participants had mixed opinions when it came to the question “Does platform funding change the film making process?” According to Screenwriter C, there is a different mentality when creating for SVOD services. For Screenwriter C, Netflix, for example, has produced great films intended for theatrical release,Footnote 6 but this is almost already a thing of the past: “[...] Because today, in 2023, you would ask me: ‘Do you want to make a film for streaming?’ I’d write it based on streaming trends.” (Screenwriter C) This screenwriter therefore considers that writing a film for an SVOD service differs from writing a film for theatrical release.
For others, like Producer H, the creative process between a film for Netflix and one destined for traditional funding (SODEC and Telefilm Canada) is not all that different. This producer, however, mentions the possibility of moving toward funding SVOD services for a specific project, suggesting that even if the creative process is not necessarily any different, the DNA of the project would still determine the optimal funding strategy.
As for Director F, she takes a more nuanced view of the issue. According to her, there is a shift in how creative decisions are made during the production process: “I’m pretty convinced that Netflix is like working for television. In other words, there are many people above you who will approve things. I think that’s [the main difference]—we’re definitely not in independent production. But other than that, no, it wouldn’t change.” (Director F) In her comparison with television production, she sees the director’s job as a “creative middle management” role, where the approval stages are multiplied tenfold, which is also corroborated by Screenwriter C, who has experience in writing for SVOD services: “I think that like any big company, it’s managed by hundreds of executives. There are executives with decision-making powers, and we’ve come across one who held these powers.” (Screenwriter C)
In Canada, and especially in Quebec, the production of cultural content has always been intrinsically linked to the preservation of a national culture. At the root of the creation and development of Canadian cultural industries is the fear of American cultural colonization (Lacroix and Lévesque, 1986). In this sense, the production of content in itself is of no interest to Quebec creators, unlike the issue of intellectual property, which is written into the DNA of Quebec’s cultural industries. For Screenwriter A, creating content for an SVOD service like Netflix means accepting to create an object that does not carry a cultural identity: “You’re going to [work for] Netflix, but what will you bring to the table? A series that is disembodied from its culture? Maybe if I come up with this idea and I can sell it, I’ll go and do it.” (Screenwriter A) For Screenwriter A, a foreign streaming service like Netflix has no responsibility toward a culture, which is not to say, however, that Netflix has no economic (if not social) interest in promoting original productions outside the United States. Nevertheless, with the exception of Screenwriter B, who was more reluctant to produce for platforms, all the participants interviewed saw the new business and creative opportunities in productions for major foreign platforms.
First observation: A feeling of powerlessness when it comes to issues of discoverability
While all organizations (CMF, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions) and institutions (SODEC, Telefilm Canada) linked to the Canadian film industry agree that discoverability is “the top challenge the industry will face over the course of the next decade” (Canada Media Fund, 2016, p. 5), the path the Canadian government has finally chosen to take in regulating SVOD services is that of economic neoliberalism, because C-11’s objective is not to directly influence platforms’ metadata and recommendation algorithms, which the CMF addresses as “the digital economy’s ‘black gold’” (2016), but to promote the discoverability of Canadian content.
Without clear coercive measures to promote Canadian content on platforms, the discoverability of Quebec films remains, for the time being, the burden of distribution and production teams. What I learned from all these interviews is that these teams are doing their best, but they do not have the necessary levers to influence audience viewing behaviour, or even the platforms’ algorithmic recommendations, whereas the data collected on viewing habits and the influence of algorithms on these are the very essence of discoverability of content in the digital environment. Discussing the discoverability of Canadian content by setting aside algorithmic recommendations in its favour makes very little sense. Yet the discoverability efforts on which SODEC relies are lacking in substance and are proving to be of little use in fostering real discoverability of content on digital platforms (e.g., creating a Wikipedia and IMDB page, improving the metadata on the production company’s website, creating promotional content). Although these various actions cannot harm the online presence of productions, I fail to see how they could contribute significantly to making Quebec content more discoverable, “among a wide ensemble of other content, especially by someone who was not specifically looking for it” (Ministère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec, 2020, p. 5).
For SODEC, encouraging production and distribution companies to improve their online presence is the only way to increase the visibility of Quebec works. However, as Producer H summed up, the efforts made by production and distribution teams to ensure discoverability are only “an unconditional promise.” In other words, financing institutions do not necessarily expect concrete results or proven effectiveness from the actions taken by production and distribution companies to improve the discoverability of their titles. This lack of consistency in outcome expectations is particularly irritating for some creators, who expressed dismay during our interviews at the limited actions required of distributors to obtain additional funding from SODEC, and thus ensure this so-called discoverability. Finally, apart from the possibility (raised by Producer G) of negotiating the discoverability of their films on Quebec and Canadian screens directly with the SVOD, that is to say within the contracts for the sale of broadcasting rights, the participants in this research see no solution: “[...] There is no secret, there is no formula.” (Producer I)
On July 8, 2024, Quebec completed its public consultation for the creation of a bill to oblige SVOD services to highlight French and Quebec content (Ministère de la Culture et des Communications, 2024). Having tried, unsuccessfully, to graft measures to protect Quebec culture onto Bill C-11, the Quebec government wants to ensure that Quebec content is more accessible (Chouinard, 2023). As Director E puts it, we have to be realistic about viewers’ behaviour on these platforms: “When you’re kind of tired, sunk into your couch, and you want to watch a movie, you just scroll through Netflix, looking at the colours and faces, and you pick one. It’ll never be a Quebec film—it’ll never be that.” (Director E)
Second observation: The tension between cultural sovereignty and competitive pressures
Analyzing interviews has enabled me to observe that research participants have a very positive view of the two main funding institutions, namely SODEC and Telefilm Canada. They are seen as the “protectors of a certain idea, of the way cinema is made here.” (Screenwriter C) As a result, a certain show of solidarity from creators and producers for SODEC and Telefilm Canada over industry issues was seen through all nine interviews. Contrary to my research intuitions, the very choice of funded projects does not, according to the respondents, reflect a desire to compete with content produced by large foreign digital platforms. Canada’s cultural identity and the representation of its different communities (in keeping with the history of Canadian cultural industries) are imperatives that have always taken precedence over the objectives of profitability and competition for government agencies.
I see SODEC and Telefilm Canada as bastions of creative autonomy in the face of neoliberal incentives in Canadian cultural policy. Thus, the point of tension between artistic autonomy and creators’ output is not felt by the creative teams, but rather by the funding institutions. In other words, while my data suggests that creators do not feel increased pressure to perform, the fact that Canada’s 2017 cultural policy sees its creators as “the heart of the innovation model” (Aucoin, 2019, p. 120) can only logically create a tension that is hard to sustain within SODEC and Telefilm Canada, who are still protecting teams’ creative autonomy from competitive market pressures, without being entirely impervious to them.
Third observation: The rise of the cultural entrepreneur
Although the creative autonomy of production teams is protected by traditional public funding, the creators interviewed nonetheless demonstrated a certain appetite for working with foreign SVOD services like Netflix. The competition to produce feature-length fiction films is growing every year, as the number of requests for funding rises, making the future more unpredictable for creators. Faced with the possibility of being approached by a streaming service to finance 100% of her next film, Director D stated the following: “Every filmmaker would be lying if they weren't saying, ‘YES!’ It’s so hard to get funding.” Production opportunities through SVOD services represent a new avenue that, while in no way guaranteeing creative autonomy,Footnote 7 is nonetheless of interest to those involved as they seek new avenues of funding. In this sense, the producers and creators interviewed partly agree with the government, which, in its Order in Council to the CRTC for C-11, states that “competition driven by global services has benefited domestic consumers and creators while creating new opportunities and challenges” (Order to the CRTC, 2023). The creators and producers in this study embrace this neoliberal injunction that encourages them to develop their potential for economic profitability, with an obvious view to ensuring the continuity of their practice in the industry. Public disengagement from the regulation of Canada’s cultural industries, systematic over the past 40 years, seems to be transforming creators into creative entrepreneurs.
In his 2016 book, McRobbie made a connection between Foucault’s “reason of state” (Foucault, [1979] 2004) and the artist as human capital in the age of the creative economy (McRobbie, 2016). For their part, Dardot and Laval see the neoliberalization of the exercise of governmentality (or even its “entrepreneurialization”Footnote 8) as a way of “homogenization of human discourse around the figure of the company” (2010, p. 408).
By making artists aware of their economic potential and engaging them in government innovation strategies (Aucoin, 2019), Canadian administrations have, since the 1980s, been slowly shaping Quebec film creators in the image of the competitive order of the telecommunications market, in the same way that the Thatcher and Blair administrations did with British creators: “The cheerful, upbeat, passionate, entrepreneurial person who is constantly vigilant in regard to opportunities for projects or contracts must display a persona that mobilizes the need to be at all times one’s own press and publicity agent” (McRobbie, 2016, p. 73). In this sense, the way in which the new cultural industries (creative industries) encourage the next generation to use their skills and talent as tools of profitability, with the avowed aim of creating commercial success (McRobbie, 2016), is worrying since it normalizes the precariousness of the sector and exacerbated competition: “expert of himself, employer of himself, inventor of himself, entrepreneur of himself: neoliberal rationality pushes the self to act on itself towards its own reinforcement in order to survive in the competition” (Dardot et Laval, 2010, p. 412). In other words, it is becoming increasingly normal for creators to try and do well in an industrial sector that is decreasingly regulated by the state, which could, on the contrary, protect them more from the dynamics of competition.
Conclusion
The aim of my research was to understand and document how film creators (screenwriters and directors) and producers perceive their own creative conditions today, in an industrial environment affected by issues linked to the arrival of digital platforms, increased pressure to perform and conquer markets, and the discoverability of content.
Analyzing the interviews has enabled me to identify slight changes in the balance of power between groups of creators, changes linked to screenwriters’ efforts to increase the value of their creative input. However, I believe that these changes are independent of the upheavals experienced by the industry following the arrival of streaming services.
The analysis of the interviews does indeed lead me to believe that Miège’s (2000; 2017) predictions about the subordination of cultural industries to information technology are already well underway, affecting the vision of the creators and producers involved, depending on their place in the production chain. The symbolic and aesthetic value of cinematographic creation tends to be reduced to a purely economic and industrial value, in an environment pressurized by national and now international competition.
My research data suggests that Telefilm Canada and SODEC are acting as “airbags” for creative teams in the face of the performance pressures of recent cultural policies. In other words, without being completely impervious to the capitalization of creativity, the creators and producers interviewed consider that the institutions still guarantee them artistic autonomy when funding comes from them. In fact, despite the efforts made to ensure the discoverability of content, production teams still have full creative control and are in a favourable position in terms of their relationship with SODEC and Telefilm Canada, which exercise no creative control over financed projects. The imperatives of representing Canada’s diverse communities outweigh those of profitability and performance, in keeping with their mission and, more broadly, the long history of the creation of Canadian cultural industries (Lacroix and Lévesque, 1986).
To earn a decent living as a filmmaker, you need to be able to receive regular funding from state institutions (every three or four years). Competition has increased with the emergence of new voices, forcing the creators and producers interviewed to look for new funding avenues. This is where SVOD services become interesting for creators, as they unblock the production pipeline of state institutions. Canada’s neoliberal policy on content discoverability and the regulation of SVOD services is therefore, in a way, promoting the creative entrepreneur, which, like the British youth observed by McRobbie (2016), romanticizes the precariousness of the industry.
Contrary to my research intuitions, the arrival of streaming services on the distribution market is not solely responsible for the disruption experienced by the film industry: it is also the governments’ response to it that defines the future structure of the Canadian film industry’s production chain. For example, given the almost total adoption of the term “content” in government documents and reports, funding institutions, the scientific and journalistic community, and even the discourse of creators and producers, it could well be that the symbolic value of the director as author is tending to diminish, becoming just another artisan in the industrialized chain of film production. My research findings lead me to predict, as a logical consequence, that the status of screenwriters and film directors will shift from that of authors to content creators.
Bibliography
Académie de la transformation numérique. (2022, 26 janvier). Portrait numérique des foyers québécois - NETendances 2021. [Enquête].
Affaires publiques Ipsos. (2017). Ce que nous avons entendu aux quatre coins du Canada : culture canadienne dans un monde numérique. [Rapport].
Aucoin, H. (2019). L’irruption de Netflix sur le marché canadien : la réponse du gouvernement canadien. [Mémoire de maîtrise, Université du Québec à Montréal]. Archipel.
Bullich, V. et Schmitt, L. (2019). Les industries culturelles à la conquête des plateformes? Tic & société 13(1-2), 1-12.
Chouinard, T. (2023, 12 octobre). Québec serre la vis à McGill et à Netflix. La Presse.
Coalition la culture, le cœur du Québec. (2020). 2% du budget du Québec en culture : pourquoi et comment? [Rapport].
Coalition pour la diversité des expressions culturelles. (2020). Le défi de la découvrabilité, l’urgence d’agir pour défendre la diversité des expressions culturelles. [Rapport].
Dardot, P., Laval, C. (2010). La nouvelle raison du monde: Essai sur la société néolibérale. La Découverte.
Deblock, C. (2019). Du mercantilisme au compétitivisme : le retour du refoulé. Dans Bélanger, É., Mottet, É. et Rioux, M. (dir.), Mondialisation et connectivité: Les enjeux du commerce, de l’investissement et du travail au XXIe siècle. Presses de l’Université du Québec. (265-277)
Décret donnant des instructions au CRTC (cadre réglementaire durable et équitable pour la radiodiffusion). (2023, 10 juin) La Gazette du Canada. Partie I. 157(23).
Esquenazi, J.-P. (2002). Politique des auteurs et théorie du cinéma. L’Harmattan.
Fonds des médias du Canada. (2016). Découvrabilité. Vers un cadre de référence commun. Volet 1. [Rapport].
Foucault, M. [1979]. (2004). Naissance de la biopolitique : cours au Collège de France (1978-1979). Gallimard.
Gauvreau, C. (2022, 16 décembre). Destiny Tchehouali, avocat de la diversité culturelle. Actualités UQAM.
Gros, F. (2017). Michel Foucault. Que sais-je? Presses Universitaire de France / Humensis. Cinquième édition.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage publications.
Krief, N. et Zardet, V. (2013). Analyse de données qualitatives et recherche-intervention. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion, 95(2), 211-237.
Lacroix, J.-G. et Lévesque, B. (1986). Les industries culturelles au Québec : un enjeu vital! Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 4(2).
Lemieux, M.-A. (2023, 15 novembre). Netflix s’engage envers Attraction… et le Québec. La Presse.
Lobato, R. (2019). Netflix nations: the geography of digital distribution. New York University Press.
Lotz, A. (2022). Netflix and streaming video: the business of subscriber-funded video on demand. Polity Press.
Lotz, A. et Lobato, R. (2023). Streaming Video Storytelling Across Borders. New York University Press.
Machin, D. et Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: a multimodal introduction. Sage.
McRobbie, A. (2016). Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. Polity.
Miège, B. (2017). Les industries culturelles et créatives face à l’ordre de l’information et de la communication. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Ministère de la Culture et des Communications. (2024). Encadre législatif sur la découvrabilité des contenus culturels francophones : Consultation publique. Gouvernement du Québec.
Ministère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec et le ministère de la Culture de France. (2020). Mission Franco-Québécoise sur la découvrabilité en ligne des contenus culturels francophones. [Rapport].
Pacouret, J. (2019). Qu'est-ce qu'un (auteur de) film? Biens Symboliques / Symbolic Goods.
Patrimoine Canadien. (2017). Le cadre stratégique du Canada créatif. Gouvernement du Canada.
Radio-Canada. (2023, 28 avril). C-11: le milieu culturel se réjouit, mais gardera l’oeil sur sa mise en application. Info.
Rioux, M. (2021). L’urgence d’agir contre la monopolisation d’Internet et ses impacts dévastateurs sur les industries culturelles. Revues Interventions économique.
Rioux, M. (2004). Mythes et limites de la gouvernance globale des télécommunications [Myths and Limits of the Global Governance of Telecommunication]. A contrario, 2(2), 116-136.
Rioux, M. et Tchéhouali, D. (2016). La Convention sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture face aux enjeux et défis du numérique. Revue québécoise du droit international (Hors-série), 185-204.
Saulnier, A. (2022). Les barbares numériques : résister à l’invasion des GAFAM. Écosociété. SODEC. (2020). Programme d’aide à la production 2020-2021.
UNESCO. (2005). Convention sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles. [Convention].
- Date modified: