Canadianness vs. other identities

In the chapter 2.1, David Rousseau’s definition of national identity as one’s commitment to the group for fear of potential threat was presented (Rousseau). It is applicable to Canada as well: "rather than weaken or diminish national identity, perceptions of group threat might have the opposite effect, leading to the possibility that Canadians’ national identities have intensified over time, and perhaps resulting in some defining their national identity in exclusionary or restrictive ways" (Raney 10). The threat that many Canadians possibly feel arises mainly from the possible breakdown of their 'unity' which, if so, might be induced by two principal factors – the Francophone part of Canada endeavouring to separate itself, or the culturally dominant neighbour occupying the same continent with Canada, the United States of America. Canada has permanently led a war on two battlefronts – on the one hand it has been the urge to differentiate itself from the US and Britain, and on the other, the omnipresent awareness of the necessity to incorporate its Francophone part. Nevertheless, it has not only been this struggle that has lingered on. There has also appeared the conflict between the Old World, being represented by Britain and the New World, a crucially Canadian concern.

The two upcoming sub-chapters are occupied with the above mentioned relationships of Canada and the US, and Canada and the UK, respectively.
3.1.1 Canadianness vs. Americanness

Canada, in order to mature and differ from Britain, was forced to define itself in terms of the continent it was situated on, consequently being forced into another union - with the US The relationship acquired a continental dimension. Detaching from the rigid prior sense of belonging to its colonizer, Canada became more 'creative' by means of "substituting a politics of authenticity (being) with a politics of creativity (becoming)" (Hier 9). In other words, Canada does not encompass Canadianness within, it creates it with its open-mindedness towards immigration and tolerance of minorities.

Despite the strengthening of Canadian contacts and vis-á-vis interactions with the US, which induces that Canada refrains from dwelling on its past ties so vigorously, there is a "fierce ambivalence, one might almost say a schizophrenia, about the United States [and] Canadians are [still by some, such as Frank Underhill, considered] the world’s oldest continuing anti-Americans" (Axworthy x). It is indeed an ambiguous relationship, since the US both positively and negatively intervenes into Canada’s life, taking a toll that is extensively reflected in culture, more specifically in film production to which the second part of the thesis is devoted. With respect to the Canada/US relationship, be it considered positive or negative interference, it is evident that it alters Canada immensely.

The strong influence inevitably emanating from the US, which is sometimes claimed to slowly oppress the Canadian culture, which then "need[s] special support in its efforts to withstand the American tide", might not always perforce only be rendered a negative impact (Smith 7). It is due to the constant pressure from the US, Canada set up institutions on national scope, such as National Film Board (NFB), and caused that "the state was involved [more eager to express Canadianness than ever before]…. No longer manifesting itself merely at the margins and in principle, it began to play a full, active, and altogether central role" (Smith 99). Consequently the search for a unified identity began, as a concomitant to the intensifying national involvement.

There have been many scholars all over the world emphasizing that "“Canadianness” is based on the opposition to the “Big American Other”" (Pospíšil qtd. in Kyloušek 222). Both the nations conjointly, more or less, experienced histories akin to each other in relation to Europe and immigration, yet, they both associate with their histories, presents and futures in a distinctively different manner. It seems the US is generally conceived of as more confident and more assertive of the two, in comparison to Canada which seems to be preoccupied with resolving the histories of all it members respectively:

In Canada the idea of creating a new being has gained nothing like the currency it has in the United States [the melting pot]. Here the controlling metaphor has been the mosaic, a grand design consisting of many different elements, each of which retains its own character and quality while simultaneously contributing to the realization of the design as a whole… (Smith 129).

Paradoxically, the outcome of this theory is reverse in its essence, since in the US everyone has its own American personal identity – it is supposedly embraced in one, the state injects it into every individual regardless their origins. Compared to this, in Canada there is one common Canadian national identity placed outside every individual, it is shared by everyone and one can reach to it and claim his/her Canadianness whenever required by the circumstances. It is not necessarily part of one’s personal identity, which might be of any other nationality than Canadian.
3.1.2 Canadianness vs. Britishness

It has not been only the preceding opposition to the US that Canada has had to face in the course of its existence. Another relevant one has always kept appearing from beyond the ocean. Though, in this case, it might have more prominent authority and claims on Canada than the US. Britain was for a long time considered an important part of Canadian history. Interestingly enough, likewise, for those who immigrated to Canada from other parts of the world, the British Queen was deemed the authority they recognized: "Canada had never, so far, entirely severed the umbilical cord which bound it to England" (Grove qtd. in Axworthy 129). Concurrently, it is convenient for Canadians to stay attached to Britain, i.e. having one solid core around which other layers are gradually accumulating throughout the years. The problem of identifying seems less perplexing then, if they can concentrate only at the core, rather than attempting to define all the layers around it, which have almost no shared attributes nor common past.

The aforementioned ´theory of threat´ (see chapter 2.1) is applicable here as well. Canadians are afraid of both losing the former bonds as well as of forming new ones. As if they wanted to stay detached, in the middle, exploiting parts of each of its others to its common advantage, which, in fact, becomes Canadian policy nowadays indeed. Canada contains multiple others, and it does exploit them beneficially when convenient. For instance, as the following example depicts:

The story mentioned that the "well-known Canadian cartoonist George Feyer" was also one of the contributors…. Commented George wryly at the time, "If I had raped a girl instead of painting a mural, I am sure I would have been referred to as the 'notorious Hungarian rapist, George Feyer.' I guess "Canadianness" depends on what you do to earn it"… (Firth 7).

The two or sometimes many fold identity is indeed influenced by the contribution one makes to Canadian society. By maintaining the not clearly specified identity, Canada secures its society’s image to a certain degree, extracting the good from the others incorporated within Canada, and at the same time excluding the bad parts of it.

Since multiculturalism policy is pursued in Canada and people are allowed to maintain the connections to their homelands, the government has another mechanism how to reinforce and promote Canadian attachments to Britain. The concept of homeland is incorporated in Canadian policy and concurrently it is often highlighted, and a strong emphasis is put on the fact which country in particular is to be conceived of as homeland. Therefore, Canadians feel the freedom of choice, yet they might be obliquely manoeuvred into what the state policy wants them to pursue. "…the sheer self-assertion and will to power…possesses no moral or political legitimacy whatever. The will to power must therefore conceal itself behind a mask of quasi-historical narratives couched in a specific normative vocabulary" (Madison 106). That is what the Canadian government, and not only Canadian, is actually doing, promoting whatever past connection is convenient to justify its power.

Canada provides its inhabitants with myriad stories about common past and shared history with the UK and, concurrently, convinces itself that the relationship and interactions between the two is thoroughly based on liberal premises. Likewise, Britain attempts to have a liberal attitude towards Canada, by means of which it implicitly sustains the mutual attachment. The ensuing example adverts to that:

When India and the other Asian Dominions, with the exception of Burma, declared in 1949 their intention to remain within the Commonwealth, there was immense satisfaction in Canada. The decision meant that the Commonwealth was not merely a matter of British sentiment, but an association founded on principles universally valid, to which nations of one of the most ancient civilizations of the world, despite two centuries of dependence, thought it important to adhere (Morton 55).

This effort of maintaining a certain level of British involvement with the people in Canada, however, encounters obstacles, especially among young generations: "…the community in which [the young] are raised and live can be highly oppressive. They are especially oppressive when a majority’s desire to preserve cultural traditions creates pressures to conform to "the old ways,"…" (Madison 129). The same, in this case, is also applicable for Quebecois: "…younger voters are more enthusiastic about Quebec independence because they feel more alienated from the older values, including the values of Canadian unity…" (Doran 97). Attitudes change along with the times. Younger generations do not share the principles of the older generations.

Nevertheless, it might not be an easy effort for the younger generations to alter the contemporary state, since the Canadians "must not forget those histories, lest [they] lose the blessings [they] receive from them" (Madison 197). The reason is the fact that "the overall spontaneous order depends upon these treaties [that] represent profound commitments between peoples that enable [the Canadians] to "let go" of conflicts in favour of respectful coexistence" (ibid. 198).

Of the coexisting constituents, there are two that attain rather significant and specific position in Canada and whose "claims to sovereignty…must be reconsidered" (Madison 198). Those are the genuine Canadians, which entails the people who were there as first in the past. "[I]mmigrant cultures have no historical legacy in Canada" in comparison to First Nations and Quebecois (Madison 199). Those two also feel the strongest sense of belonging and most unambiguously conceive of themselves as people of Canada. I intentionally do not employ the term Canadians here, since they do not seek to conform to the unified term, but rather differentiate from it and adhere to Canada by their own means.

In Canada, sometimes, as if the two identities – external and internal – were not able to coexist alongside each other: "Must all talk of belonging, community, and "our" way of life threaten individual autonomy…"? (Madison 91). That is indeed what most of the Quebec separatists perceive - the common and shared Canadianness as a threat to their Quebec individuality. In the past "the milieu from which the document emerged was one in which the two founding (white) cultures, Francophone and Anglophone, had to make room for each other" (Mathews 52). Unfortunately, since then a lot has changed. The Anglophone constituent has substantially grown in size which subsequently entailed acquisition of more power, and also has aroused fear in the Francophone minority, which has aspired to exploit the opportunity and has claimed its minority rights. Some complain that "English dominated capitalism…took over social, intellectual, and economic power from the Quebecois, and rendered Quebec society ''unnatural'" (Mathews 58).
3.2 Technologized Canadianness

What has been considered natural nowadays, however, is

the advent of new media and the Internet [that] provides a fresh opportunity to explore the relationship between Canadian nationhood, as expressed in cultural activities, and the information and communications technologies (ICTs) by which those activities are developed and diffused" (Marco 167).

This has not only been an impetus for a transformation of Canadian society externally, but internally as well. It has had a huge impact on Canadianness as we have known it so far. It has re-established it from its very core. Canadian identity itself indeed is an invention, a wireless mechanism in which nobody feels connected firmly to anything. This technologized identity might not always, however, be conceived of only as something bad and alienating. It has positive traits as well. By means of technology, Canada presents itself to the Other, the outer world, in ample manners. Simultaneously, an aspiration to define itself arises to provide a clear-cut distinction from the Other. On the other hand, the centre of attention might gradually revolve around the new inventions and machinery more and more, while the issues concerned with identity might slowly be pushed to the background.

Nonetheless, the Canadian identity we perceive on TV, hear on the radio, search on the Internet is extensively mediated. Several directors pointed to the fact. After such vast changes caused by technology development, the question has come to the fore again: 'Is there anything like Canadian identity, in the end?' The potential answer might resemble this:

technology had a totalizing influence on all cultures generally, changing the trajectory of human evolution and the physical environment. From this perspective, technology would eventually dissolve any cultural distinctiveness that Canada could claim, leaving a homogenous, technologically driven but morally hollow society in North America and eventually the world…

(Adria 180).

The technology progress makes the distinctiveness less profound indeed; the technologized identities mingle and the boundaries between them slowly blur in order to adapt to the progress. In the forthcoming future, the questions related to various specific identities might not be applicable any more, since only one shared heavily technologized identity might exist.

As it was aforementioned in the chapter 2.2, the landscape also conveys an identity. Canadian landscape used to be associated with descriptive adjectives like wild, free, vast and also dangerous. "Canadian landscape [has played an important role] as an active element in identity formation at all levels - individual, communal, as well as national" (Prajznerová qtd. in Kyloušek 178). People in Canada are aware of the landscape, and conceive of it as part of their identity, as people in Britain, for instance, tend to contemplate about weather in a similar manner. Contrarily, the nowadays attitude towards it has shifted from the former fear to a desire for closer relationship: "Traill belongs into a particular "landscape tradition" consisting of Canadian[s]….who, rather…strive to become at home in Canada by "crafting a complex intimacy with the wild nature around them"" (Hessing, Raglon, and Sandilands qtd. in Prajznerová qtd. in Kyloušek 188).

In conclusion, it should be noted that Canadian identity is an ever-changing and unstable notion. The ever-changing aspect is prominently caused by the immigration and by Canada accepting more and more pieces into its mosaic, which is thus slowly growing out of its borders demarcated in the past by Canada’s colonizers or culturally dominant neighbours - Britain and the United States. As a consequence, Canada needs to set new borders, and new obstacles collaterally appear with those new establishments. Recently, an attempt to obliterate the borders and limits by means of technology has been in progress, although it has appeared to have its liabilities in the shape of distorting the notion of identity to a considerable degree. To answer the question if there is such a thing as Canadian identity might indeed be a most daunting task in the upcoming technologized era.

It has been contemplated over in the foregoing chapters if there at all exists such a notion as Canadianness, while, simultaneously, it has been supported by ample quotations, and specific examples have been provided. Therefore, in conclusion, we might declare there, de facto, might be such a concept. In any case, several directors, screen-writers and people engaging in Canadian cinema have throughout the years attempted to discern it in their work, and recount it in a comprehensible, very often implicit, manner to the audience.

The following chapter is concerned with the general situation of the cinema and film in Canada. It accounts for the influence and the impact on the film industry exercised by the emerging institutions such as the National Film Board of Canada (NFB), the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and similar. According to Albert Kish, NFB filmmaker, those have played an important role in the forming of Canadian identity: "If you remove the CBC and the NFB, there is no Canada" (qtd. in Keller 54). The aforementioned institutions have indeed tried to affect the Canadian film, but they should not be deemed as a cornerstone for Canadianness. The thesis as well presents other features and impetus the filmmakers have been engaged with when making their oeuvre, and to which they attributed a high level of importance regarding formation and influencing both Canadian identity and Canadian film.

Further, I attempt to enunciate general common characteristics of the Canadian film and its Canadian hero, in comparison, for instance, to American Hollywood film and its hero. Another area the chapter pertains to is the subjects the directors are engaging with in their work, and how they reflect the Canadianness in those. I take the different years of production of the analysed films into consideration, and observe how the topics and contents of the films have changed as well as how the centre of attention has shifted throughout the time.

The role of the Canadian film has changed in the course of its existence. "[A]t its origins, Canadian film was propaganda, a tool for giving immigrants a model to emulate, an exemplar for the good, Canadian citizen" (Gittings 415). This assertion makes film an important device in determining what is Canadianness. It is a topic that appeals to a vast majority of inhabitants in Canada, since media indeed accounts for a big part of everybody’s life, especially recently. Recurrently, film keeps appearing to be a relevant area to explore regarding Canadian identity.

On the other hand, the "model to emulate, the exemplar for the good, Canadian citizen" (ibid.) which was supposed to help the citizens to assimilate and hold together, itself consisted of many smaller different components. Hence, the definition lost its essential purpose and continues losing it more rapidly, alongside with contemporary growing immigration in Canada. It is difficult to discern the Canadianness in the films, since it is so all-embracing and many times so hyphenated that sometimes it is easier to observe it separately part by part. Therefore, it might happen that the Canadian aspect dissipates when, for instance, considering Canadian-Indian movie from the point of Indian view first. The Canadian constituent is included, implicitly, yet nobody wants to accentuate it in particular, since it requires an elaborate attempt to venture an unambiguous explanation of what it denotes. A specific example of this is provided in chapter 4.2.2.

In order to help to identify which minority groups’ works are specifically to be maintained Canadian, institutions, such as National Film Board of Canada, were set up, and act as a referee in the realm of film industry. Generally, as already stated, anything good and useful might have a chance to be claimed by the Canadians, since "…Canadian film policy attempts to root trans-national movie-makers, who boast multiple national identities…" and are acclaimed (Keller 4). Reflecting upon this, if the previously mentioned Canadian-Indian film, for instance, is well-received by the audience and critics, it might even first be considered from the Canadian point of view.

What NFB aspires to do is de facto the goal of this thesis. It tries to store the Canadian film and media production at one place, easily accessible to anybody interested. It might appeal to one as chiefly a collecting task, but in fact, the institution as well functions as a director and promoter of the Canadian film. This is particularly applicable to the productions that fit NFB’s definition of Canadian, and is common to all the selected works stored in its archives.

The consequent chapter explores the themes Canadian directors are engaging with, and compares them to those addressed in the American film. A few times they are identical, yet, the receptions of both Canadian and American films differ profusely.

A few themes are recurrently attended to by the directors of the Canadian film. It is particularly the notion of the Other, which reappears in various symbols and shapes, implicitly or explicitly. Sometimes the director places "the monstrous otherness into the inside of our own body and mind", and thereby almost accurately reflects the situation in Canada – the schizophrenic state of mind attached to the mosaic style of assimilation, which inflicts both fear and need of the Other on the Canadian citizens (Keller 150). "The truly Canadian hero figure is one who wishes to maintain his own separate identity within the social complex, however cramping it seems to be…" (Brown qtd. in La Bossiére 25). This is paradoxical indeed, since the true Canadian hero is classified as the one who does not aspire to be Canadian. The true Canadian hero is the Other. On the basis of this statement, we might generally proclaim that most of the heroes in the Canadian film give us the impression of being lost, depressed and suicidal, aspiring to claim their otherness in opposition to the omnipresent concept of Canadianness. Likewise, since Canadian policy is multicultural, the true Canadian hero is influenced by the society’s conventions. He/she is thus multicultural to a certain degree as well, explicitly or implicitly.

Another influential theme emerging in the films is Canadian landscape, which, as it was mentioned before several times, conveys identity on its own as well. Frequently, the plot of a Canadian film is set in winter when there is a lot of snow and low temperatures, yet the genuine Canadian characters do not seem to be afflicted by the freezing weather in a profound manner. "The overwhelming power of the Canadian wilderness has often shaped Canadian artistic productions" (Keller 138). In comparison to Hollywood film set in wild and hostile countryside, where the main protagonists tend to vanquish nature with only slight problems, Canadian hero realizes that he/she cannot defeat it and hence must yield to it. For instance, Careful by Guy Maddin, referred to as a bergfilm, a German expression for a mountain film, is a work in which almost every main protagonist from a small mountain village dies. It is discernible there is the omnipresent terror of nature deeply rooted in Canadian directors, emerging via allusions. It is not specifically Canadian settings in the film. Careful takes place in Alpine village of Tolzbad in Germany. Nevertheless, Maddin depicts the countryside as dangerous and harsh in winter conditions as only a Canadian director can.

To mention a few other topics Canadian directors have been prone to address in their oeuvre, I reflect on Katherine Monk’s suggestions for "typically Canadian themes and motifs in the film. These include anti-heroic protagonists, dysfunctional relationships, an obsession with death, and, of course, strange sexual cravings" (Monk qtd. in Alioff 38). Generally, Canadian film is perceived by many as gloomy, depressing and not happy-ending, compared to Hollywood, at all. Though it is not owing to the subjects the directors examine, even though those previously listed might not provoke very intense feelings reminding one of Hollywood glamour. Nonetheless, it is mainly due to the directors’ attitudes towards the themes they inspect, that those films seem dispiriting. According to Don Shebib: "…even when people fail in American films…their failure has been glamourized, whereas in Canadian films, the characters are usually grubby and more-than-a-little dumb. They just can’t cope, they’re pathetic even when … they rebel and shoot it out with authorities" (Hofsess 77). The attitudes they maintain might impress the audience as too real, they might bear too much resemblance to one’s ordinary life, from which everybody strives to detach themselves for a while when watching the film. Canadians are supposedly claimed to be masters of documentary, and they exploit their mastery quite efficiently, yet sometimes, as if they overused it. Even Mr Skin, a character playing a role of Satan in Bruce McDonald’s Highway 61 looks too real a person.

To elaborate on the opposing reception of American and Canadian film, I further insert a quote by Peter Urquhart who notices the profound difference:

Rather like shooting fish in a barrel, several reporters could not resist making fun of the apparent absurdity of a government-funded yacht hosting champagne and lobster parties with scantily-clad starlets, movie producers, and federal bureaucrats all moored in the Cannes harbour. It all seemed too trashy and America (qtd. in Keller 42).

In the preceding excerpt it is suggested that when Canada devotes itself to copying the US style, the painstakingly copied style is considered trashy, but yet, this almost identical trashy keeps repetitively being thrown into Canada’s face, shown as a glorious and stronger opponent on the common film industry battle field.

It is universally acknowledged that an original often appears to be better than a copy, though Don Shebib has a different answer to the query regarding the negative criticism towards Canadian film:

Critics like to play games in which film-makers are just pawns. Critic X will rush into print a review of a new film, weeks before the others, and praising it to the skies. Along comes the critic Y, who doesn’t want to appear to be marching goosestep to X’s march…so he nitpicks his way through the movie, and says, well, it isn’t as good as you may have heard. Critics write for one another more than the public. (74)

This might be a brief summary of what the situation appears to be based on. Film industry is indeed not thoroughly concerned with film only. There are apparently more factors to pay attention to and to consider. Since the US is generally conceived of and often referred to as a stronger cultural neighbour of Canada, and definitely one with more strongly developed feeling of self-confidence, Canada is logically consequently pushed into the role of the weaker neighbour. It is therefore doomed to try to cope with it at its utmost, which further influences Canadianness and likewise Canadian film.

One last factor which influences both Canadian film and Canadianness is the already mentioned technology development. Technology is widely used by Canadian directors, either as thematic means in the film, for instance, in those by Atom Egoyan. Or in case of Guy Maddin and similar, it is used as a strongly visible means of production of the film. Jennifer Wenshya Lee and Yvonne M. Hubert in their common article implicitly incorporate technology into a definition of Canada. The proposition asserts that "Canada images itself as a community… This community is complicated by struggles over language, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and ecology; by consumption as a constitutive part of identity formation; by the production of images,…" (498). 'Production of images' goes hand in hand with technology. One might object that technology development is an all-over-the-world process, yet, how many countries mention it and pay attention to it while discussing their identities?

Another question is to what degree technology influences us, and to what degree we can influence it? Alongside technology progress, lack of identity distinction has appeared as a side-effect. The boundaries have been distorted and mingled, which is always more beneficial for Them than for Us. If one’s country has problems with defining itself unambiguously, it is easier for Them to come and assimilate with Us than if the country has a strictly delimited identity and does not accept the others as easily.