Where the Truth Lies : A 15 million Ararat wasn't enough, now it's a 30 million Egoyan Flop

Damn, just reading the synopsis of this film and imagining Egoyan's handling of it, keeping in mind the disaster of FELICIA'S JOURNEY, makes the blood boil in anger. Wasn't it enough that we, the Canadian Taxpayer, weren't slammed hard enough by ARARAT, now we're punished by 30 million dollar Egoyan films staring washed up American stars like Kevin Bacon. How much of that was paid for by the Canadian Taxpayer, Mr. Lantos? What does anybody think the chances are that this film will make the 60 plus million gross it's going to need to break even? I'll tell you what the chances are: ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

But Mr. Lantos and Atom buddy don't care: they still get their big fat fees right off the top of the budget. That's the way this game works.

give this movie a chance. it may be better than you think.

HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED IN CANADA or WHERE THE TRUTH LIES

Actually, MEN WITH BROOMS and the strategy behind it is a perfect example of how the game is played.

How many times have we seen this touted as a "success story" in Canada? It's completely ridiculous. It failed miserably. It failed to return its investment in Canadian theatres no matter how much hype was put into it. Trying to sell it as a Leslie Neilson movie wasn't enough once people got a load of what a dud it was. It failed to make sales anywhere else either, as nobody would pick it up for distribution anywhere. Nobody would take it outside of Canada! Video sales were a flop.

In hard numbers:

Budget: 7.5 million.
Advertising: 1.1 million
Total: 8.6 million Canadian put into this film.

Box Office return: 4.3 million Canadian

There are many places across the net you can verify these numbers. Here's just one of dozens with regard to budget and marketing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/film/1867280.stm

Now keep in mind that as a rule of thumb, we divide the gross in half to get some sort of idea of what the net is on a film. So for MEN WITH BROOMS, the actual take is 2.15 Canadian coming back from the film.

So, doing the simplest of math while being removed by the smokescreen of hype and using the facts, we see that the "successful" "hit" Canadian comedy (and I use that comedy term lightly) actually LOST approximately let me repeat that LOST

$ 6.45 MILLION DOLLARS.

Now the you have a little better perspective on that, let's talk about the REWARD that Mr. Lantos and his friends get for making a money losing disaster like that because the logic of business DOES NOT APPLY in our game of Telefilm funding. In the US he'd be jacked. He'd have one hell of a time getting money to make another film that can't even return a third of its production budget! Especially considering his history of this performance which is overwhelming.

You know what he gets instead? A Telefilm Envelope which he spend in any way he wishes to use as a stake to make more money losing disasters with his friend Mr. Egoyan. Because if you read Telefilm's guidelines, and research this stuff at their site, you will see that they hand out multi-million dollar envelopes based on domestic box office. As we've got a hopeless English film industry dominated by the Canadian Film Mafia, we end up with MEN WITH BROOMS at the top of the English Canada heap for its year as it has pretty much no competition! It doesn't matter at all with regards to profitability or viability of the product.

See, the concept being used is NOT about making a profitable film and paying back the investment from the Canadian Taxpayer. Not even remotely. If it WERE about making a profitable film, then it would be more likely that the makers of these films would be inclined to avoid Telefilm funding with its restrictions and cuts in eventual profitability. People like Egoyan and Lantos would follow a path more like that of the makers of the GINGER SNAPS sequels. That film actually being a film that made money and meant that the production company was free to make a choice and did the right thing moved toward self-sufficiency and self-supporting filmmaking.

But the name of this game is securing Telefilm funds so that more investment capital can be raised and large producer fees can be collected. It's all about big whopping producer and director fees right off the top of the budget. In my opinion, this is what Egoyan's executive producer involvement in bigger budget Canadian disasters like FOOLPROOF and SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD is all about. He contacted the director of FOOLPROOF to congratulate him on the dud TREED MURRAY because he had a handle on Alliance Atlantis's interest in making FOOLPROOF and wanted a piece of the pie that was coming up. Which he got right off the top of the budget. Likely his name attracted even more investment capital. The cult of personality and all that silliness

Another even more underhanded variation on this game has happened with the paid for by the Canadian Taxpayer MuchMusic commercial called GOING THE DISTANCE. It's even more despicable, in my opinion, since CityTV/CHUM certainly doesn't need to go in and suck up Telefilm money away from sincere upcoming filmmakers. This fiasco screams for a public inquiry.

This is a crucial element of what's wrong with the system as it exists and why it is such a failure at doing what it should be doing: making economically viable films. And because it's my money, I'll be as critical as I wanna be. It's time for somebody to speak up.

There, a primer on how the game is played. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but it should give you a more realistic perspective on what a "successful" film is in Canada, and what the players are really up to.

your a verry bitter man mr santo. i suggest you consult a shrink now to cure you of your hatred of canadian filmakers.

Sounds to me like he has some pretty good arguments behind him in
the logical side and the movies from Egoyan stink. I saw
Exotica, which I really liked a lot at the time because it was
so different, the music, and the "exotic" feel of it.

Having seen so many other Egoyan movies I cannot even sit through
them. I would not say he is bad, that is a question of taste,
but if he consistantly make movies that have low box office
returns and is being rewarded for that it seems backward.

This movie I will probably see, but I do not expect too much.

The guy is expressing an opinon and can back it up all you
can do is name call and make snide comments.

"See, the concept being used is NOT about making a profitable film and paying back the investment from the Canadian Taxpayer."

Well, exactly. The whole idea of subsidizing art is that they want to produce non-viable films that would be certain financial disasters to an investor. Why else would they need tax money? They could simply find investors.

However, that IS how the system is set up in Canada, so there's little use in dwelling on it. The merits of this movie AS a movie have nothing to do with its backing. I do applaud you for trying to make people aware of this, though, and taking heat from twits who knee-jerk in reaction.


"It doesn't sound as bad in Spanish."

I have to agree. On the Egoyan board I asked if he'd ever made a movie that wasn't a (commercial) failure.

The guy spends millions and millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars, and for every failure, he gets even more the next time around.

You're right, also, about how Lantos and Egoyan don't really care if the movie makes money. That's not the way it works in Canada. *No one* in the Canadian film industry is in it for the backend. You get your money off the top in producer/director fees, fail at the box office, and get more out of Telefilm the next time around. (The formula for why this works is creative genius in itself. Um, for them. For Canadian taxpayers it's a glowing red F-you.)

Yes, that's the way it works in Canada:

EVERYONE COUNTS ON CANADIAN FILMS FAILING SO THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY OFF PRODUCER FEES AND DIRECTOR FEES.

It's horrible. Nobody is concerned with making any money in actual profit. Nobody even thinks that a film could pull a profit at some point, so it doesn't figure into their thinking. With that component missing, we are left with a Welfare Mom Mentality: it's all about having another kid (film, TV show) and getting more wellfare (Telefilm dollars). This goes for film production companies and broadcasters alike.

I think Welfare has its place in society and should continue to exist because there are people who genuinely need it as a temporary safety net. I don't have a problem with seeing a little of my tax money going to the truly down and out who have been put their by forces out of their control. Nor do I have a problem with it kickstarting a promising new filmmaker.

But the problem is, that's not what we get because of the masters who play the system. I think movie Welfare like Telefilm should contiue to exist, but it needs to be hardball. I am damn angry that we have multi-millionaires like Robert Lantos and (likely) Atom Egoyan pulling in all that money for one disaster after another right out of the public coffers. My God, don't I see enough cut off my paycheque already? Why am I being forced to pay for these people?

As I have pointed out before, and will have to point out many more times on here, I guess, the terrific European auteur films from the 1960's that have formed a role model for Canada's failed system, actually made a profit! There was an audience for them or they wouldn't have existed. There is no significant audience for the work of Egoyan, McKellar, McDonald, Rozema, et al. Yet we see Egoyan's budgets go up exponentially with each failure! It is astonishing. 5 million dollar FELICIA'S JOURNEY. 15 million dollar ARARAT. 30 million dollar WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. All because he's buddies with Lantos who is able to tap into amazing amounts of our tax dollars to make films which lose millions each time! Insanity, absolute insanity.

It is important if things are going to change in Canada for our money pit welfare mom film industry, that very visible public dialogue emerges so that our socialist filmmaking model fulfills what socialist institutions should do: serve the society as a whole. At this point we have very little of this, and that is why I've been on imdb the past while. I care about film, my tax dollars, and truth.

It is in that spirit that I am bumping up this thread.

We are getting closer to the time when this $30 million dollar joke will be released on the general public. I called all the shots in my CHILDSTAR analysis here on imdb, now I've called it on WHERE THE TRUTH LIES.

When will it end for Atom Egoyan and Robert Lantos? How many more millions will be sucked vampiric from the Canadian taxpayer making mediocre boring pretentious films that not only Canadians, but the world at large doesn't want to see? When will they be cut off? What is it going to take? $100 million dollar Atom Egoyan films pulling in $0.5 box office grosses? That's where we're headed. This is completely insane. It's like some kind of bizarre conspiracy nut illuminati nightmare come vividly true!

What about the new upcoming people who deserve a break? Instead we see repeated proven 100% certain failures given the world of taxpayer millions on a silver plate? What is Don McKellar's latest self-indulgent self-starring piece of garbage going to be budgeted at? 30 million too???

WHERE THE TRUTH LIES? In all my posts unfortunately.

Mmmm whine.

kevin bacon is hardly a 'washed up' star. he has given some of the best performances of his life in the last 2-3 years. But NC-17 for this is the kiss of death. it will be difficult for Egoyan to bounce back after this.

I don't think it was all Canadian money this was an Anglo-Canadian production with filming in Canada, Los Angeles and London. I agree Kevin Bacon is not a washed-up star. If anyone here has bothered to read the book, Colin and Kevin are perfect for the roles.

Why do you have to travel the low road of blaming SOCIALISM,
besides it is just the thing to do these days. It is a stupid
argument you make. Blame cronyism and corruption, but of which
happen just as often and more in CAPITALISM and affect lots
more people, environment and systems worse.

How does that even make sense? If socialism has nothing to do with the problems of this movie, then capitalism has even less to do with it.

Also, 'cronyism and corruption' are only possible due to socialism. It's the lobbyists in a 'mixed economy' that give rise to these problems, and lobbyists are just professionals at getting socialist programmes to hand them dough.

If you're going to argue about this movie, why not do it based on its merits and faults, rather than on political notions that aren't even relevant?


"It doesn't sound as bad in Spanish."

Buddy, you obviously havent seen the film or you wouldnt be yipping about something that you really have no knowledge about.

You claim that this will be a flop Pony up the bucks before making some kind of statement.. Mabye you hate Egoyan's films, thats fine BUT, give the movie a chance before disuading people on a film that they may otherwise enjoy

It's nice to have an opinion regarding something you havent seen.. But much like the censors in the states you're forcing your views down other person's throats..

"Flop" doesn't mean "bad movie", it means a financial failure.


"It doesn't sound as bad in Spanish."

I can understand why Canadians are upset (or some are) by the subsisdy of their film industry. Someone earlier made a comment about not politicizing a movie. But when a nation's tax dollars go to creating entertainment, it inevitably becomes political. Any decision about how public monies are to be spent is political.

That is something those of us in the US don't understand well. We have no national television or radio. Public funding is used for "art" (however it may be defined at that moment) and not entertainment. The Canadians and British governments fund entertainment. It's dicey.

And in many cases, the production itself is not being funded. The people making the movie / tv show / ect. are being personally funded. That's even trickier! If the American taxpayers were actually funding Gigli they might feel a bit different about the topic. It's one thing if you, personally (and all of your friends and every person you ever heard talk about it) think a movie is really bad. But if it returns on investment, you as a tax paying investor may shake your head, but you've not lost money on the deal. But when a movie doesn't return on investment, investors have every right to question the wisdom of that investment. And you'd think twice about dumping good money after bad into the same people when they have a new project.

Now, I know that Where The Truth Lies was not funded only by Canadian tax dollars. But, still, I understand the frustration and how it can lead to angrier emotions.

OKAY it's coming close to tallying up how horribly right I was YET AGAIN with regards to Canadian film. This is absolutely ridiculous and does not have to be this way.

I'm going to give this latest Egoyan disaster a few more weeks to completely fizzle as the great big nothing boring piece of garbage it was, and then tally up how much this film lost for Canada and the investors at the box office.

And then we'll guesstimate how much Egoyan and Lantos pocketed as producers.

What will the total be? 10 million down the toilet? 20 million? 25 million? It's not like this is going to win an Oscar or anything.

Just fell to the floor laughing and I can't get up. This is hard to type///

I think I figured something out with Egoyan, his movies, and his fans. Whenever anyone talks bad about him it's always with money calculated into the equation. Canadians are mad that he is 'stealing' their publicly funded money, and no one seems to look at his movies for their artistic value, which he has, though more in the 90s than lately. I think he's gone too commercial and I just saw WHERE THE TRUTH LIES, and it was ok.

Anyway, negative arugments are always wrapped up in the money angle. Is there an argument, good or bad, that doesn't compute money into the scenario?

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."The Naked Gun

Wow, was this ever called right by magnificos. A complete financial and critical disaster.

As a Canadian, I am glad to send a few tax dollars to the movie industry, even these movies don't make any money (especially those in English). This movie was good.

By the way, I think Canadian cinema could succeed if the filmakers used a more commercial approach or something, and stories that appeal to the majority of the population. A bit of genre exploitation could be something to try

I mean, nobody is going to care about a psychological drama about the story of a lesbian Chinese woman who immigrated in Canada But add some monsters, some blood and some explosions and it might actually makes money.

Atom Egoyan and David Cronenberg are the ONLY Canadian directors that are respected and known here in Europe, so be grateful and give more money to Egoyan.

who cares