News   Nov 28, 2024
 169     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
 588     1 
News   Nov 28, 2024
 599     0 

Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films

jefferiah, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word insidious. It will accomplish the same goal of banning the production of Canadian movies that the Tories don't like by gradually bankrupting their makers.

My question is... who are you? You've never said or done anything on this forum until you appeared suddenly to militantly defent the Tory party line on this issue.
 
Who are you?

I am not too keen on doling out personal info, are you?

But if this answers your question......"No I am not involved in politics". I do enjoy discussing them in a broad general sense however.

I know what you meant by insidious, and personally I think you are paranoid. I don't think it is the government's job to provide subsidy to art at all, but when it must be so, I think it makes more sense for government to provide it to something like an orchestra than Jackass, don't you. Bureacratic things like Telefilm have to make selections anyway, and their own criteria exercises some degree of control. But there is no law saying that one must use Telefilm. If I am not mistaken, Telefilm requires films to be set in Canada, and for the main character to be Canadian etc etc.

When I hear you raising a stink over real breeches of freedoms like the current perversion of the HRCs or the CRTC, then I will take you more seriously.
 
I don't want your name or anything like that, but this is an Urban Toronto forum. Why did you join to start posting exclusively on this issue?

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe you're an apologist for the Harper Tories. I guess we'll never know. At least not until they start clawing back already-disbursed funding and bankrupting Canadian filmmakers.
 
I don't want your name or anything like that, but this is an Urban Toronto forum. Why did you join to start posting exclusively on this issue?

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe you're an apologist for the Harper Tories. I guess we'll never know. At least not until they start clawing back already-disbursed funding and bankrupting Canadian filmmakers.

Lol, yeah thats pretty paranoid. But thats ok. I never even voted Tory in the last election. I've never voted period, except for a Liberal MLA almost 10 years ago. But come the next election I probably will vote Tory.

When you say apologist you must mean like as if its some sort of career. Yeah thats way paranoid. I mean regular people are conservative the same way other regular people hold Liberal (which is actually socialist rather than true classical liberalism) views. And they do argue those points on forums the same way liberal supporters do.

But I did join the forum specifically because of this topic. That is true. After hearing about this the other day, I googled something like "tories cut funding films" and this site came up as a search result. I read some posts, and the arguer in me felt the need to rebutt. So I joined. I am not from Toronto though. I am from the Maritimes.
 
Lol, yeah thats pretty paranoid. But thats ok. I never even voted Tory in the last election. I've never voted period, except for a Liberal MLA almost 10 years ago. But come the next election I probably will vote Tory.

When you say apologist you must mean like as if its some sort of career. Yeah thats way paranoid. I mean regular people are conservative the same way other regular people hold Liberal (which is actually socialist rather than true classical liberalism) views. And they do argue those points on forums the same way liberal supporters do.

But I did join the forum specifically because of this topic. That is true. After hearing about this the other day, I googled something like "tories cut funding films" and this site came up as a search result. I read some posts, and the arguer in me felt the need to rebutt. So I joined. I am not from Toronto though. I am from the Maritimes.

First of all, you have started calling other people paranoid for disagreeing with your position. Secondly, you go into this definition war of what you want to define other people's beliefs as. Then you go onto say that you indeed think funding should be prioritized and spent on what the government considers morally accurate as opposed to something you find tasteless.

To me, that is more paranoid than a disagreement on policy. Paranoia that your culture isn't the funded ideal.

BTW, I don't see how gay films can be compared to Jackass. But isn't that the point of this discussion? Why the government shouldn't be prioritizing funding due to bias, just providing the funding to Canadian media in general?
 
If I am not mistaken, Telefilm requires films to be set in Canada, and for the main character to be Canadian etc etc.

Well, it shows you don't have a clue about this. Just to take one recent exemple... Eastern Promises got lots of money from Telefilm, yet the movie is set in London, with British and Russian caracters. The only Canadian content here is behind the camera.
 
There will be no tax breaks for things like "Young People Fucking". That does not mean its banned or censored. And if you can't tell the difference between something like that and a crime stoppers ad or the news, then you have a problem.

First of all, it would mean that it's being banned or censored or whatever you want to call it, since it would not be made at all. And why wouldn't it be? You think it's porn because of the title? Have you seen the film? Young People Fucking was shown at the Toronto Film Festival and here are some reviews of this movie that seems to upset you so much.

From the National Post:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...-the-toronto-international-film-festival.aspx

Young People Fucking
RATING 3/4
Canada, directed by Martin Gero
STARRING* Carly Pope, Callum Blue, Diora Baird, Aaron Abrams, Sonja Bennett
The best friends do it. The roommates do it. The exes do it. The couple obviously does it, and the young co-workers on their first date do it, too. As this locally brewed romantic comedy demonstrates, pretty much everyone has sex - but why we all do it and how can be completely different (some prefer elaborate toys, for example, while others would rather sit back and watch with a bottle of wine and a stick of cookie dough). Director Martin Gero successfully gives this clich-ridden genre a much-needed kick in the pleather chaps with smart, fast dialogue and embarrassingly keen observations. V.F.

From The Torontoist

http://torontoist.com/2007/09/tiff_2007_previ_1.php
Young People Fucking
BY ASHLEY CARTER

Produced by Toronto-based Copperheart Entertainment and directed by Vancouver’s Martin Gero (a former student of Ryerson’s radio and television production course), Young People Fucking heads this year’s Canada First! lineup. With a budget of $1.5 million, it takes place entirely in the respective bedrooms of five prototypical, 20-something-ish couples—one long-term relationship, a first date, wannabe fuck buddies, exes, and a threesome. It’s formatted to follow each through the stages of a single sexual encounter, from “Foreplay†to “Afterglow.†What arrives is a hilarious and thoughtful psychosexual study and one of the smarter, dialogue-driven sex comedies to hit the screen in a long time. 4/5

From Exclaim

http://www.exclaim.ca/motionreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=808&fid1=27959

Young People Fucking
Directed by Martin Gero
By Ashley Carter

Produced by Toronto-based Copperheart Entertainment, Young People Fucking headed this year’s Canada First! line-up at the Toronto International Film Festival. Though no movie could possibly live up to the hype that this title knowingly creates, first-time director Martin Gero manages a solid and insightful sex comedy that at least doesn’t make you feel duped.

With a small-ish budget of $1.5 million, the film takes place entirely in the respective bedrooms of five prototypical 20-something-ish couples: one long-term relationship, a first date, exes, wannabe fuck buddies (including Aaron Abrams, who co-wrote the script alongside Gero) and a proposed threesome. It’s formatted to follow each through the stages of a single sexual encounter, from “foreplay†to “afterglow.†Though the subject matter is obviously pretty blue, visually it’s not all that racy, mostly because it doesn’t really need to be, so don’t expect any Shortbus-esque human pile-ups. The couples’ narrative paths never even cross, though it’s easy to find emotional parallels in each situation despite the drastic differences in circumstance.

What entails is a thoughtfully hilarious psychosexual study and one of the smarter dialogue-driven sex comedies to hit the screen in a while. And though the whole thing admittedly loses some steam towards the end by not quite hitting any major revelations, the performances are unstoppable across the board.

Already being re-branded YPF by industry types who dare not speak its name, there’s a reason this small-budget film landed pre-fest distribution in Canada and the U.S. in spite of its title. Hopefully it doesn’t undergo any major edits before its proper release. (Christal)

From Firstshowing.net

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/09/11/tiff-review-young-people-fucking/

TIFF Review: Young People Fucking

September 11, 2007
by Alex Billington
US Release Date: Toronto Film Festival 2007 - TBA
Genre: Comedy
Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed by: Martin Gero
9/10
Young People Fucking is the first feature film from two young filmmakers from Canada – director Martin Gero and writer Aaron Abrams. It's a delightful (undoubtedly) exploration into the comedy of sex through five different relationships: the couple, the exes, the roommates, the friends, and the first date. It goes through the progression prior, during, and after sex in each, with occurrences that wouldn't be funny in-person but certainly are on-screen. The result is a genuinely laugh-out-loud funny film that hits perfectly on so many notes, whether you've personally experienced one of the situations or not. Each one is as quirky and odd as the last, with two characters (or in one case a third) delivering spot-on performances.

The film presents a much more tasteful look at sex than its rather poignant title makes it seem. In comparison, Ang Lee's Lust, Caution has much more graphic sex scenes that warrant an NC-17 rating than Young People Fucking does – making this much more accessible and one you'll hopefully see in theaters along with your date or your closest friends. While it isn't as well-crafted as a Judd Apatow comedy, it delivers with at least the same amount of humor – certainly rare for a first time feature film.

And from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/FilmFestival/article/252379

YOUNG PEOPLE F---ING

Yes, the title is deliberately provocative, but it's also possibly the most honest one of the festival. Martin Gero's impressive debut is a romantic comedy about four 20-something Canuck couples (and one threesome) who are slightly off about getting it on. None can quite figure out what they should be doing, even in a matter as basic as inserting part "A" into part "B." What starts as an R-rated Love, Actually turns into something smarter and funnier. (Sept. 6, 7:45 p.m., Varsity; Sept. 8, 9:15 a.m., Scotiabank.) PH
 
Young People Fucking was shown at the Toronto Film Festival and here are some reviews of this movie that seems to upset you so much.


:)

Lol, that is hilarious. You obviously have no comprehension of anything I've said up until this point. Nowhere did I say that this movie has upset me so much. So as a previous poster has said you should try speaking for yourself. What I did say is that it's not the job of the government to endorse it. The same way I might enjoy shows like South Park or something. The fact that I would think it ridiculous if this show were to receive public assistance does not mean it upsets me.

As for this fellow who claims I have called people paranoid for disagreeing with me, I ask that he take the time to read the comments made by Unimaginative who, unlike his name, certainly has some sort of imagination. He was insinuating that I am posting here on behalf of the Tories. That is paranoid. And he is the one I was addressing. The allegation of paranoia had nothing to do with his opinions on the issue but his allegations about me. :)
 
First of all, it would mean that it's being banned or censored or whatever you want to call it, since it would not be made at all. =


No. That is completely ridiculous. The fact that someone cannot afford to make a film is not a breech of their rights. It is not the goverments responsibility to help them. Not helping someone is not censorship.

If I write a book that does not sell well, the fact that it does not sell is not censorship, and the fact that the government or some other entity might not endorse me is not censorship.
 
Well, it shows you don't have a clue about this. Just to take one recent exemple... Eastern Promises got lots of money from Telefilm, yet the movie is set in London, with British and Russian caracters. The only Canadian content here is behind the camera.

Sorry sir, that is my mistake. If you will read back to my initial post on the matter I think I said "if I am not mistaken", so even then I was not totally sure. In that instance I should have double checked. I was referencing, from memory, a post about Telefilm on another forum.
 
jefferiah, do you think if someone tried to make a movie about the life of jesus, they should be rejected the government tax credit/subsidy because it contains graphic/violent material?
 
jefferiah, do you think if someone tried to make a movie about the life of jesus, they should be rejected the government tax credit/subsidy because it contains graphic/violent material?

Well personally I don't think movies should be subsidized at all. Does that answer your question? And I don't think religious content would be eligible for the subsidy even before this decision. Unless it were some sort of artsy Jesus film.

So, if the film were violent, like the Mel's Passion or something, it would indeed not fit the General criteria. By the same token I don't think the material should be banned content. But the tax payers do not have to subsidize it. Other than that, I trhink you can understand the vital difference between things like film and the "news and crime stoppers". Although, I actually do lean in favour of non-subsidized news as well. And I would support cuts to the CBC.
 
jefferiah, do you think if someone tried to make a movie about the life of jesus, they should be rejected the government tax credit/subsidy because it contains graphic/violent material?

lol, you're the last guy i'd have thought to bring up more subsidies for some religious funk. I'd like to see an artsy gay Jesus film made in Canada though, just to see the reaction from religious people .
 
Well personally I don't think movies should be subsidized at all. Does that answer your question? And I don't think religious content would be eligible for the subsidy even before this decision. Unless it were some sort of artsy Jesus film.

no, it doesn't answer the question. i don't care if it's eligible, i just want to know your personal opinion. say it could get funding/credits, would you be against it?



and why are you against one particular industry being subsidized? are you against all subsidies for all industries?
 

Back
Top