|
|
|
Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
MartinMtl
New Member
You really don't understand how this work.
Federal money, through subventions or fiscal programs, goes into many economics sectors, including the oil sector in Canada. The film and TV industry in this country relies on a minuscule percentage of that money, to produce not only movies, but also TV programming (and not only through the CBC - even Muchmusic benefits from those programs to generate local content). Without that money, there would be no more film and TV industry in this country, plain and simple. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost instantly in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver alone. And the country would lost its small voice; only american programming would air on our TV and only american movies would be offered in our cineplexes. Even great Canadian directors like David Cronnenberg would have to find work elsewhere. Do we really want a country with no voice like that? Once again, this is both a question of art and economics. Why should we accept that federal money be used to help the oil industry in Alberta (and without having to “morally†justify these advantages) and not our movie an TV industry ?
And now, the question of content. From the moment that you make that money available on the basis on morality, you are killing the creativity and the liberty of the filmmakers and the artists. If depiction of morally offensive content (and whose to judge what is moral or not?) is put in the balance, creators will be inhibited to express their visions of our society, the same way artists are in totalitarian country.
Some says, "let them finance themselves movies with risky subject". This will not happened. Virtually no movies are produced in this country without a little help from the governments. A film like Eastern Promises by David Cronenberg, received government money through Telefilm and fiscal programs. It's a good film, but extremely violent. Under the conservative proposal, it would probably not have been made. And what about a movie like CRAZY, which depicts homosexuality (oh! The sin!)?
Does the oil industry in Alberta has to "morally' justified the money it takes from the government Of course not. But when we talk about movies and TV, we enter the domain of creation, there is a "content", a depiction of values through art. And it is extremely insidious and wrong to want to limit the creative impulsive of Canadian artists. What it means is that our industry will be transformed into a bland, disney-esque voice without any personality.
I, for one, are happy to live in a country when a filmmaker can make a movie depicting in a positive way homosexuality, to take this one example. I think it's a sign of open-mindedness and modernity.
But beyond all the moral implications of all of this, it's the industry itself and it's thousand of jobs who are at stake. Kill the Canadian film and TV industry, and we are left being just a importer of culture from the US.
Oh, and by the way, you can also forgot about "Hollywood North". Americans who come to Canada to shoot Hollywood movies also take advantage of fiscal programs from the Canadian government.
This law project by the Conversatives is censorship, pure and simple. It brings us back in the dark ages.
We have to be grateful for the Senate on this one. Just when you thought this institution was useless, here it comes saving us at the last minute from this.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Excellent post, MartinMtl, but are you so sure that the Senate can save us? I think this policy can just be changed by regulation. The minority parliament is irrelevant.
I don't know... I think they might have let Eastern Promises pass. Anything that bashes Russians should be fine by Harper, who still wishes he could be fighting the Cold War.
I don't know... I think they might have let Eastern Promises pass. Anything that bashes Russians should be fine by Harper, who still wishes he could be fighting the Cold War.
MartinMtl
New Member
My english is not good enough to explain this clearly, but I will try. The project of law C-10 modifies the fiscal law of the federal government. It is a voluminous document that was already adopted by the parliament. Obviously, the opposition didn't do it's home work properly, because it let the project passed by without noticing the new proposed policy that says that "any film or Tv production which receives money through fiscal deductions should not be against the public order". A very vague definition, which opens the door very wide to any 'moral" interpretation left to the discretion of the government in charge. Anything, from violence to depiction of sexuality is on the table, and that might even go as far as to include criticism of the government or any Canadian institutions. In brief, this is like the Soviet Union back in the old days.
The project went from the parliament to the Senate for approval. It's now in its third analysis before final approval. It's a journalist from the Globe and Mail who found the article about the film industry. Now the senate can ask for changes on this particular article before letting the whole law project goes through. In any case, this is causing such a stir in the industry, that it's obvious that the Conservatives won't try to defend it too much, especially since it originates from a religious lobby group. I doubt very much that the Conservatives will find it appropriate to be associated with them before an eventual election.
As for Easter Promises, it's such a violent film that it could have fallen into the category of "gratuitous violence", which I find totally absurd. How can you clearly differentiate gratuitous violence from another type of violence? It's completely subjective. From the perspective of certain people, the Cronenberg film may very well be considered gratuitously violent (look at that bloody fight in the sauna). But from an artistic point of view, it's totally justified, of course. Just like violence is justified in a thriller about serial killer (a film like Zodiac, for example) or war (take your pick).
And what about sexuality? Homosexuality? Or anti-religion messages? Even anti-war movies could be targeted.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Oh thanks for the explanation! I didn't realize it was being done through legislation. In that case, the Senate should delay as much as it can, hopefully until an election is forced!
billonlogan
Active Member
Tax credits and subsidies that are quite common are no different than welfare that is given to private individuals and families. Although there are many people who exist on welfare as a lifestyle choice and those who exist on government handouts because their parents and grandparents were on welfare, the vast majority of those who live on government funds do so temporarily and really want to find a job and become self supporting. This is not true with business in general and the arts community in particular. They look at these tax credits as a permanent entitlement; something that the government has no right to take away.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Do you feel the same way about the oil industry? Do you think its handouts should be cut off since its making billions in profits a year? If so, Harper is hardly the correct person for you to support. Or is welfare for oil companies okay, but wrong for artists trying to create a small Canadian voice in a sea of American media.
Of course, your whole argument is a total red herring. This has nothing to do with cutting off government funding for a sector. It's about taking an action that will prevent art that doesn't agree with a certain world view from being made.
Of course, your whole argument is a total red herring. This has nothing to do with cutting off government funding for a sector. It's about taking an action that will prevent art that doesn't agree with a certain world view from being made.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I don't think anyone should support taking tax credits and funding away from specific films just because one disagrees with it.
The only "fair" thing for the Conservatives to do is cut the tax credits and funding altogether, although damaging your own media and film industry isn't smart or wise. But, it would be fair.
You don't give tax credits and funding to only films to which your social approval is required and stiff everyone else. That's called a dictator, Mr. Harper.
The only "fair" thing for the Conservatives to do is cut the tax credits and funding altogether, although damaging your own media and film industry isn't smart or wise. But, it would be fair.
You don't give tax credits and funding to only films to which your social approval is required and stiff everyone else. That's called a dictator, Mr. Harper.
MisterF
Senior Member
Not just the oil industry, but the automotive industry, aviation, agriculture, resource extraction, aid for small businesses and startups, programs to help industry in small towns...the list goes on and on. On a more local level, what about fee reductions for heritage restorations, or letting commercial shipping and transportation use public highways for free? There are countless industries that benefit from tax breaks, rebates, loans, grants, direct investment, and favourable policy in every country of the world - governments decide their priorities and invest accordingly, and that investment increases the wealth of society as a whole. To say that all businesses should survive on their own merits without any government help is incredibly naive and shortsighted.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Damn bunnies and their eggs.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
But the deifference is that most of those industries use government funding as a start-up, with the goal being eventually to become financially self supporting. Yes, sometimes it doesn't work, and an auto plant or airplane maker will come back and ask for help again. The movie industry on the other hand ALWAYS wants government support, with no goal at all of working toward financial independence from the government.
Earlscourt_Lad
Active Member
If the general public is not interested in paying for it directly than why should it be produced? If people only want American tv and film, so be it, or do you propose that your views are inherently better than the majority's and therefore worth funding?
I think eliminating funding and forcing Canadian film and tv producers to provide a saleable product is a great idea. Perhaps without the safety net of government funding they might produce things that more than 1 in 10 are interested in viewing.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
No, I propose that Canadian views are worth seeing by Canadians.
It's culture! If you want Canadian culture to consist entirely of American culture, that's fine, but I would like to see just a small Canadian voice out there, even if that means a little government support. Once again, though, you're leading us off in other directions. This isn't about cutting subsidies. This is about a Tory-appointed Censor Board picking and choosing where subsidies go.
bjl
New Member
LOL, you call that a life?
I know, I know, you've never even masturbated.
J
jefferiah
Guest
No it isn't. That is a highly flawed comparison. The Soviet Union was a society dominated by public funding. Independent artists were censored and often imprisoned. No one is saying that films with explicit content is banned, but that it is not the governments job to fund them. That actually makes complete sense to me. I am sure that, since education is in the public domain in most western nations, some funding in the USA must also go to educational films as opposed to other genres. Where the USA is not funding the production of most other films, no one would call it censorship. I am sure perhaps there can be funding for cultural ventures like a ballet or something like that (even though I would rather not spend my tax dollars on that). But no one would call it censorship if the USA does not fund the making of the movie Jackass. The government is not deciding what is appropriate to view, but what is appropriate to fund. The same way we can determine what is and what isn't appropriate language in a public funded school. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Nice try with the scaremonegering, MTL, but completely unreasonable.
In response to the person who said he would like a Canadian voice out there---What is and is not Canadian culture can easily be determined by a democratic decision by the consumer on the free market? If more Canadians choose to view CSI than Little Mosque, then CSI is more indicative of Canadian cultural tastes.