The Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC) recently announced the appointment of Julian Carrington as its new executive director. He assumed the position on June 9, taking over for Sarah Spring following several years of growth for the organization devoted to advocating on the behalf of Canadian documentary creatives. (DOC founded POV in 1990, but the publication has functioned as an independent entity since 2010.)
Carrington previously worked at DOC by managing its Festival Concierge service, a program offering guidance to DOC members when it comes to navigating the festival system and developing the strategies to maximize the their festival runs.
More recently, he served as the managing director for the Racial Equity Media Collective (REMC), an advocacy group that holds the Canadian sector accountable for equitable representation of and opportunities for Indigenous and racialized creatives. He’s also a veteran player at Hot Docs, having juggled positions on the industry side and film programming side, including serving as an International Programmer for this year’s festival and as the curator for the popular For Viola series at Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema, which offers free screenings of films that showcase BIPOC perspectives—docs that often don’t find space on Toronto screens. He also spent many years programming Planet in Focus Environmental Film Festival.
The appointment arrived at a pivotal moment for DOC’s advocacy and the Canadian screen sector more broadly. The recent CRTC hearings about Bill C-11, the Online Broadcasting Act, saw DOC and other industry bodies argue for the protection of long-form documentary under the category of Programs of National Interest, which is at risk of being weakened or eliminated under the Bill, while definitions of “Canadian content” can potentially limit the stories told by Canadian creatives. But it’s a challenge that Carrington said he’s happy to carry on.
POV spoke with Carrington on his second day on the job to learn more about his background in the documentary sphere and what he hopes to achieve during his tenure at DOC.
MG: Marc Glassman
PM: Pat Mullen
JC: Julian Carrington
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
MG: You are coming to this role with various experiences in the doc sphere, including DOC’s Festival Concierge. Do you think the Concierge job raised your profile?
JC: To an extent, but what it really did was cement my understanding that the documentary community is where I feel at home. Prior to stepping into that role, I had a background in festival programming and film criticism, but not with a focus on documentary. I had been at TIFF prior to that as a programming associate. TIFF is a massive festival and features documentaries, but is primarily oriented towards features and to high profile features at that. That exposed me to a side of the industry that is more commercial, more driven by the promise of fame and fortune, and that can attract a certain ambitious individual. Whereas, once I stepped into that role at DOC and got to know more filmmakers in the documentary community, I felt a sense of belonging in that documentary filmmakers tend to be very values driven, very socially and politically conscious. Those values resonated with me.
In terms of raising my profile within the documentary community, it did do that and it offered me the chance to get to know documentary filmmakers across the country. I had a monthly newsletter and frequent webinars with DOC members. That did get my name and my face out into that community. But as much as anything, it was the recognition that this was a space of shared values and a recognition that I had perhaps insights to offer having been inside the festival world and, frankly, recognizing that it wasn’t always set up to best serve filmmakers.
PM: Coming to DOC after your work at REMC seems like a natural transition because that was more of an advocacy role. What are some things you learned in that role that DOC can help address within the industry?
JC: REMC definitely required me to develop a skillset around advocacy. That was not previously something I had done, certainly professionally. My work at REMC familiarized me with processes like CRTC consultations. Of course, this has been a very consequential period in Canadian broadcasting policy since the passage of the Online Streaming Act. So much of my work at REMC in the last two years involved engaging in that process and filing written interventions, going to Gatineau to appear in front of the commission as a hearing presenter, and navigating the practical questions of formatting and framing: What makes for a persuasive argument in front of this body? What combination of data and anecdote do you need offer to give them a narrative and a human perspective on what can sometimes be an abstract issue?
At REMC, I was advocating on behalf of racialized creators in the Canadian screen industry, and my mandate at DOC is different. But one of the things that did draw me to DOC is that it has an established membership across the country, which is now around 1500 filmmakers. REMC was a much smaller organization. It didn’t necessarily have that same obvious grassroots community, so while we would find ways to partner with entities like BIPOC TV and Film or Reelworld, organizations that have constituencies of grassroots filmmakers, that [community] is built in at DOC. There’s a mechanism where we can directly connect to the membership to inform our advocacy stances. I recognize that as someone who has not spent my career making films myself, I want to ensure that I’m advocating based on the practical lived concerns of filmmakers. But now a significant portion of DOC’s membership is comprised of Indigenous and racialized people, and that’s a product of a membership category that DOC introduced recently where filmmakers who are not previously members and who are from racialized and Indigenous communities can become members for free. That has been recently expanded to a three-year membership offer.
That has really transformed the composition of DOC’s membership, and DOC has undertaken a commitment to center equity in its advocacy work in addition to its broader advocacy on behalf of the documentary community. I’m moving to an organization that could be a further vehicle to advocate for those communities that I was advocating for on behalf of REMC.
MG: Were you involved in [DOC Board Chair] Min Sook Lee’s representation of DOC at the CRTC in the last couple of weeks? Had you been consulted in that?
JC: No, there was a decision made that, until I started, DOC wouldn’t call upon me in that way. And I have to say given that it was Min Sook’s first effort in that context, she did fantastically well. You could see that the commission was rapt and really engaged with what she had to say.
MG: Presumably, you will be following up on what she did, and what Sarah Spring had done before that?
JC: It’s right into the deep end, in a sense. There’s a deadline coming up to file final replies in the matter of the Canadian content hearings and consultations. I will be building on Sarah and Min Sook’s work in that I will be continuing the advocacy positions that they have set forth. The process now is to review the submissions and interventions that were made by other parties and find areas of alignment that we want to accentuate, noting, for instance, that the Directors Guild of Canada, the Indigenous Screen Office, the CMPA, and the NFB were similarly unequivocal that Programming of National Interest is essential to maintain. That was one of DOC’s key advocacy positions. I’m looking for corroboration reinforcement to accentuate to the CRTC on that issue and a few others. Then there’s another hearing coming up in early July, which is about market conditions and is part of this broader effort to modernize the Canadian broadcasting industry. But that’s a new set of issues to me because REMC was not previously involved on that particular question, whereas on the question of Canadian content, REMC had been involved and I participated in the hearings in that context.
MG: Given the intense changes that are happening in the United States with Trump, is there a hope or from DOC and like-minded organizations that there can be a re-invigoration of online film content that would articulate a Canadian position in documentary?
JC: It doesn’t harm our arguments to the CRTC that U.S.-based streamers cannot be relied upon to make the investments in drama and long-form documentary that are necessary to sustain those forms. Those forms are recognized as being risky, expensive forms that benefit from regulatory support because they’re not always best supported via market forces alone, particularly for long-form documentary. When you look to the U.S. and you see that political documentaries, however strong—films like Union or No Other Land, literally the Oscar winner—are not finding homes on those streaming platforms, that speaks to the reticence of those platforms to engage in programming that is perceived as political or polarizing. So, clearly, if the CRTC ever believed that those streamers didn’t need to be regulated to support these kinds of programs, we see that’s very much not the case.
I’m hoping that these proceedings and events south of the border, as troubling as they are, can be a catalyst to underscore the necessity of support for this form of programming. And also recognizing that documentary in Canada has always been partly about nation building and about reinforcing our sense of ourselves as a country and our values. Recognition of non-commercial mandates to support programming that is outspoken, that is reflective of the diversity of the country—that’s crucially important now. That is an unavoidable realization that is dawning here.
PM: From your work as an international programmer, are there things that you’ve seen other countries doing that we could learn from regarding the Canadian content conversation?
JC: Whether from my programming activity or even some of the research that I undertake to understand other national contexts to inform my advocacy, certainly France is the envy of the world in this particular regard. They’ve implemented a 20% levy on streamers that requires them to reinvest 20% of their French revenues, which is far and away the highest such levy that I’m aware of in the world. The French have a long and enviable history of ensuring robust support, whether from theatrical exhibitors or now streamers. That is very much a point of reference and a point of aspiration for us.
I will be going to Sheffield DocFest where I’ll be on a panel about how the documentary industry can leverage policy advocacy and regulations to ensure the continued viability, particularly of that long-form creative documentary that is so risky to produce. It’s been striking to see how in the UK, they’re actually much earlier in the effort to mobilize an advocacy community on behalf of documentary creators. The Documentary Film Council is a relatively new entity that was established within the last few years. That entity is presenting this panel. In the UK, the decision was made by their government not to place a levy on streamers, which is a blow potentially to the industry there and was a decision, as I understand it, premised on the idea that the streamers already invest healthily in production in the UK. But that’s a bit of an illusion. The UK industry is in some ways very enviable and UK screen culture is widely exported, but when you look at the projects that are finding investment over there, long-form documentaries are in crisis. BBC Storyville, as I understand it, is the only remaining broadcast strand that has a specific mandate to support long-form doc and their budgets are ever-shrinking.
So while the big studios and streamers are happy to shoot in the UK and there are enough cultural properties so that British culture doesn’t feel as imperilled as Canadian culture does, it’s still a commercially oriented industry. Especially in the non-fiction space, it’s very factual, infotainment-led, programming as opposed to that creative critical long-form documentary. So that conversation is really about how organizations like DOC, the Documentary Alliance of Europe, the DFC in the UK, and folks like Abby Sun in the States at IDA can figure out how to strategize across borders.
MG: You were involved with Hot Docs for a number of years in various industry events. Where do you see Hot Docs now going forward in terms of their role in all this and their role in the industry?
JC: I am stepping into the role at DOC with a long history at Hot Docs. I was on the industry team for a number of years. I’ve also programmed for the festival. I’ve programmed for the cinema. I know Hot Docs very well, and I still have friends and colleagues who work there. There’s no doubt among doc makers of the importance of Hot Docs as a platform. Everybody wants Hot Docs to thrive and succeed. I see my role at DOC as an opportunity to provide constructive support to Hot Docs. I would love for DOC to be able to continue as a source of constructive accountability to Hot Docs. We’ve seen Hot Docs struggle obviously over the last two years, or particularly last year [previous]. Part of that struggle was perhaps due to governance being less robust than it might’ve been.
From my point of view, there’s a real role for the documentary community to play in contributing to the governance of Hot Docs and ensuring that grassroots perspective is foregrounded. Increasingly, when you look at distribution around documentary, the importance of that grassroots support is so obvious. Docs don’t have the marketing profile of [dramatic] features and don’t get opportunities for reviews, even to the degree that they used to. But in the absence of that media ecosystem, it’s clear that it’s increasingly important to do community outreach and to connect audiences with the docs that they may not even know are there waiting for them. But if you do let people know that those films are there, docs have the advantage. They have a disadvantage in terms of marketing profile, but the advantage of currency, of timeliness, of urgency, of relating to people’s lives in a way that is often very direct and often inspires real passionate engagement.
MG: Do you feel that Hot Docs—the new Hot Docs, if you will—has responded to questions of elitism and racism, real valid criticisms that you had raised in the recent past?
JC: It’s early days, but the signs are promising. Obviously, with the appointment of Diana Sanchez, you have someone who is local and knows the Canadian industry, knows the Toronto industry. She herself is a programmer who knows the importance of curation, of intentional curation, and finds meaning in providing a platform and opportunities to filmmakers. And she herself is of Latin American origin, and so is bringing that perspective to bear as well.
Even in the specific instance of a film like The Encampments, which I screened as part of the For Viola series at the end of May, that film has faced challenges finding exhibition, especially in Toronto. Really, For Viola was the one opportunity that was presented to the distributors where they had received rejections from many other spaces. It wasn’t the first option. They wanted to open this enormously profitable documentary in a standard commercial release, but that was not forthcoming to them. So, the For Viola screening, although it was a free community screening, I presented it to them as a way to create awareness and buzz around the film and engage with the community. Then that could pave the way for further commercial exhibition engagements. Hot Docs initially was not particularly interested in booking the film for further engagements. But after the great success of that screening, which was sold out with over 600 folks, [received] a standing ovation throughout the credits with folks from the Toronto student encampments present, I think it really clicked as to not only how special the film is, but also [showed] that clear community interest in stories of that nature. Hot Docs has subsequently added two screenings, one later this week, one in early July. That, to me, signals clear responsiveness to community.
PM: Are you going to be able to continue series For Viola in this role?
JC: My understanding is that because DOC is in a position of accountability towards Hot Docs, I will not be able to undertake any contract work for Hot Docs. What that means for the future For Viola is something that I have to discuss with them. I would love to find ways to continue to be involved with the series, but what that means is not clear to me at this moment.
MG: Historically, a lot of the financing for DOC came through profits that were negotiated from Hot Docs. [DOC founded Hot Docs in 1993, but separated in 1996 to operate independently.] I’m assuming Hot Docs hasn’t been making any money, and yet DOC is obviously doing well. Can you talk a bit about the financing of DOC now?
JC: We have been fortunate under Sarah Spring to benefit from her savvy skillset in this regard. As a producer, raising funding is certainly something she’s had plenty of experience doing, so we’ve been able to find support from entities like the Inspirit Foundation, from the Canada Council, and my understanding is that we are now coming up on potential eligibility for operational funding from the Canada Council—you need to receive funding on a project basis for a number of years before you can be eligible for consistent operational funding.
Regarding Hot Docs and their licensing fee to DOC, DOC made the decision, given Hot Docs’ sensitive situation last year, to defer that payment. But now that Hot Docs is on stronger footing, that payment will be forthcoming again. That’s a big one. Membership dues are solid and DOC’s membership has grown. A priority will be to make sure that many of those members who joined in recent years as free members find sufficient value in the organization and find that it represents their interests, find that it’s offering them things that they feel are worth continuing to pay for. DOC undertakes regular research reports on the state of the documentary industry, and we can seek financing from the likes of Telefilm, the Canada Media Fund and so forth for those projects. We have a few ways that we’re making sure that we’re on solid ground financially.
PM: I know you’ve only been on the job a day so we won’t hold you to what you say too hard, but what do you see as key goals in the next year for DOC?
JC: The immediate priorities are, again, the ongoing CRTC process. That’s so crucial, such a rare opportunity to influence policy that will potentially oblige big players in our industry to either offer financial supports to documentary or mandate certain forms of data collection that will help us to understand the composition of the industry in more granular detail. Likewise the relationship with Hot Docs is something that we want to continue to solidify. I feel like my prior relationships there are an asset. This is about working constructively and supportively because at the end of the day, the interests of DOC and the interests Hot Docs, surely they are aligned. That’s only to the betterment of Canadian documentary filmmakers.
A priority for DOC is engaging with the NFB. They have recently shared a strategic plan for input, and I’m looking forward to continuing to work closely with the NFB to ensure that the interests of grassroots independent filmmakers across the country are accounted for. That’s another area where we’ve seen some promising strides made. In my prior capacity at REMC, it was notable that the NFB was one of the few entities in Canada to commit to equity targets. For instance, they made the commitment that by 2025, 30% of their programs would be directed by equity deserving filmmakers. Few other entities, despite the progress we’ve seen, have made that kind of firm commitment. The healthier the NFB, the better things are for documentary filmmakers across the country because that ultimately has been such a precious institution for the advancement of documentary in Canada.
MG: Looking at the whole landscape of production in Canada and the documentary community, what would you like to see happen in the next six months?
JC: The CRTC took a preliminary position in the consultation on Canadian content that Programs of National Interest no longer needed to be mandated. Currently, broadcasters have to allocate a certain percentage of their expenditures into Programs of National Interest, including dramas and long-form documentaries. The initial position that that mandate was no longer necessary was very alarming. It felt as though it was not the perspective of a body that is engaging on a daily basis with the market realities of the moment. The rationale that was offered—that the market is addressing these form of programming; that streamers primarily are making dramas and long form documentaries—is a reflection of where the market was a few years ago.
There was a period of time where the streamers, particularly as they were really trying to build their libraries, were acquiring documentaries hand over fist. There was this widely publicized boom, but that time is over and we’re seeing again that the streamers are not acquiring documentaries in anything like the volume that they were, but the ones that they are choosing to make themselves are heavily skewing towards celebrity profiles and true crime. I’m concerned that the commission is looking at numbers and seeing the streamers are investing in this form of content in a robust way. But when you look at the actual types of films that are being made, it’s clear to me that we really still need those mandates to support critical, independent, outspoken programming that is often at odds with commercial imperatives. That is the loud and clear first priority that I hope the CRTC will attend to. I hope that they will receive the message that [their] presumption is not supported by key players in the industry.
Also, as someone who’s come to Canada from another country, who has strong connections to the UK and to Barbados as well as Canada, I have always valued Canada as a country where people can come from far and wide and don’t have to diminish the aspect of their identity that might be rooted in another place. On the issue of Canadian content in particular, I hope the CRTC will arrive at a definition that respects the diaspora identities that many Canadians hold, and also recognizes the economic opportunity there. If we realize that there’s potentially a global audience beyond our borders, empowering Canadian creators to tell stories that will resonate globally is, from my point of view, an ethical or political imperative, but also makes great sense. Those protections for Programming of National Interest and a definition that allows Canadian creators to embrace that multicultural identity would be two key outcomes that I would love to see.
