Is Village Keeper an instant Canadian film classic?
Village Keeper is a new Canadian film that follows a woman named Jean, played by Olunike Adeliyi, as she navigates motherhood and trauma while trying to break an intergenerational cycle of domestic abuse within her family.
It's the feature directorial debut by Canadian filmmaker Karen Chapman, and it was made in only 12 days while Chapman was eight months pregnant. The film is now nominated for seven Canadian Screen Awards, including best motion picture and best original screenplay.
Today on Commotion, film critic Sarah-Tai Black joins host Elamin Abdelmahmoud to discuss the unique ways in which the film addresses its themes.
We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player.
WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube:
Elamin: What should people know about the story being told in this movie?
Sarah-Tai: Village Keeper is a film that really knows that talking about intimate partner violence and talking about abuse outside of some of the more exploitative narratives that we're more used to on-screen can, ironically, sometimes be more uncomfortable than those actual reductive depictions of abuse and harm. And I think that is especially true when it comes to witnessing that happen to women and girls on-screen, and especially when it's Black women and girls.
I think it's also a film about the weight of the past, and the present and the future of not just violence, but intergenerational discord and healing. It's also about the process of feeling at home — not just in your body, not just your spirit, but where you literally live, you know? I think that a lot of narratives that focus on healing, like Village Keeper does, also kind of have this expectation of upward mobility as part of that journey. So to see a film that focuses on healing, specifically on a family that lives in a lower-income, working class neighborhood like Lawrence Heights, without having the narrative imperative of making them leave that place, of having that community be home, of being this interconnected community, is really lovely. It's just a lovely film. Can't recommend it enough.
Elamin: Well, the big conversation I've been hearing has been about the performance of Olunike Adeliyi. People might know her from The Porter, from The Fire Inside, more recently from Morningside. She plays Jean. She's nominated for performance in a leading role [at the Canadian Screen Awards]. How was she in this role?
Sarah-Tai: She's so amazing. I've had the privilege of engaging with this film in different ways a few times since it first came out, even on the festival circuit. And being able to watch her performance several times, she just has such a commanding presence, but also a grace to this role of Jean that is just so emblematic of so many working class, racialized women in Toronto and places like it.
The film opens with this scene of her commuting to work on the TTC, which so many of us do every day, several times a day. And it's this really beautiful, poetic opening scene that takes this incredibly ordinary moment of labour, that labour that's so often invisible, and it takes the time and the care to really find the shapes and the contours and the beauty of that very everyday, super regular-degular working class experience of just getting to your job to kind of get by.
Elamin: Out of the five nominees for performance in a supporting role, three of them are for this film, which is quite an incredible haul. You mentioned this movie is dealing with themes like loss, survival, domestic abuse and intergenerational trauma. Was there a theme that really resonated with you?
Sarah-Tai: Yeah. I think, first of all, pack your tissues. Every time I watch this, I just cry and cry — but in this great release kind of way. Because I think for me, what's most impactful about Village Keeper is experiencing it in relation to this long on-screen history of racialized women, and in this case specifically Black women, being portrayed as caretakers and carers. There is, of course, a truth in that for many of us.
But at the same time, a lot of those representations are really reductive, or even unproductive or harmful, and they've continued to kind of sustain themselves over time. So with Village Keeper, it's just such a humanist film in the way that it witnesses the truth of that reality, while also kind of pushing back against that stereotype or that expectation of Black women giving themselves over wholly at the expense of themselves, you know? This innate demand for Black women to take part in their own disposability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
5 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Published Jun 08, 2025 • 4 minute read Fans are reflected in a Disney+ logo during the Walt Disney D23 Expo in Anaheim, Calif., Sept. 9, 2022. Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP / FILES / Getty Images OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments _ estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association_Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain _ shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Read More Sports Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists World
Global News
7 hours ago
- Global News
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. Story continues below advertisement In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. Story continues below advertisement It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. Story continues below advertisement 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Story continues below advertisement Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system.
Toronto Star
8 hours ago
- Toronto Star
What does it take to portray the beautiful, tragic, complex heroine of ‘Anna Karenina'? It's physically and emotionally demanding for the National Ballet dancers sharing the role
Among Western literature's tragic heroines Anna Karenina surely ranks among the most famous. And, like so many literary heroines, the title character of Leo Tolstoy's 1878 door-stopper novel has been lifted from the page to become the subject of stage dramas, films, operas and, to date, at least seven noted ballet versions. Reputedly there has even been an ice-dance production. The National Ballet of Canada, under Karen's Kain's artistic direction, performed an adaptation by American-born choreographer John Neumeier in 2018. Now Kain's successor, Hope Muir, is introducing Canadian audiences to the work of acclaimed German choreographer Christian Spuck with the North American premiere of his more compact — two- as opposed to almost three-hour — version.
