Northern Getaway: Film, Tourism, and the Canadian Vacation by Dominique Brégent-Heald (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Northern Getaway: Film, Tourism, and the Canadian Vacation by Dominique Brégent-Heald Ronald Stagg Brégent-Heald, Dominique, – Northern Getaway: Film, Tourism, and the Canadian Vacation. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022. 356 p. One has to be of a certain age to remember going to a local Legion hall, a Boy Scouts gathering, a classroom, or some other public venue to watch short films about Canada. It is equally many years ago that movie audiences would be treated to a cartoon, a newsreel, often containing Canadian content, the feature film, and perhaps a short film about Canada. These experiences, once an integral part of Canadian life, are now unknown to many in younger generations. In a very detailed account, Dominique Brégent-Heald reminds us of this aspect of Canadian history. She has chronicled the period from the early days of film to the advent of television, during which Canada produced a large volume of films to lure tourists, principally American, to Canada. In the 1890s and early 1900s, American or British companies made films in Canada, and often featured Niagara Falls or the Canadian Rockies. To give a sense of movement, these films often were shot from moving trains, an exciting technique for audiences unused to moving pictures. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), which wanted settlers for its western lands, and tourists to bring in revenue, was happy to cooperate. This type of film quickly expanded to other parts of Canada, and featured accounts of hunting and fishing expeditions, as well as train travel. Before long, the companies began producing short, story films, using storylines from Longfellow poems, but featuring lots of local scenery. Again, the CPR was a major sponsor of both types of films, working with the American Edison Company. While Indigenous actors were part of these films, Brégent-Heald points out on several occasions that most tourist films portrayed a Canada devoid of Indigenous inhabitants, or used them as local colour, rather than portraying their lives. Increasingly, storylines were used to display the beauty of the Canadian countryside, or later, the modernity of its cities. Following the First World War, the Canadian government realized that film was an excellent medium to promote travel to Canada. In 1918, the government created the Exhibit and Publicity Bureau, renamed the Canadian Government Motion Picture Bureau (CGMPB) in 1923, to promote tourism and to publicize Canada's industry and manufacturing success. This remained the major promoter of Canada until the National Film Board absorbed it in 1941. However, it was joined by other agencies, one of the most active being the Parks Branch, as well as provincial agencies. These provincial agencies appear and disappear throughout the narrative. This is one area where the author could have been more precise regarding their continuing role, though that is perhaps asking too much of a book that already contains a mass of information. [End Page 169] After unsuccessful attempts to create a Canadian film industry, the agencies wisely decided that they could not compete with Hollywood, and, using 16mm film, directed their efforts to non-theatrical distribution. While films were circulated in other countries, the main target was the potential American tourist, from schoolchildren to sportsmen, businessmen to teachers. A sophisticated distribution network was established in the United States, and every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans, or more, were exposed to free films produced in Canada, and devoted to promoting travel, or educating people about Canada. From Union Halls to schools, business conventions to family gatherings, a constant flow of films originating in Canada drove home the allure of the country to the north. As the book explains, after the First World War, in which propaganda was used, the tourist film was produced as an educational tool, as well as to advertise and propagandize tourism. The use of the non-theatrical distribution did not mean that Hollywood was ignored. Despite resentment that American feature films prevented a Canadian feature film industry from developing, the CGMPB recognized the power of Hollywood to affect viewers. There were repeated attempts to lure Hollywood companies to create Canadian feature films and to film in Canada...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".