trippenbach
tanith6227
rustedangel
Pale Horsequote: “In my mind, sir, and in the minds of many of my colleagues and many, many Canadians who will be watching today, the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society, films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country. I haven’t seen this film.“
Blink and you’ll miss this one, but there’s a lobby out there trying to regulate the award of Canadian Government grants to films that they consider outside of the scope of “judeo-christian values.” Admittedly, the film cited as an example has a very provocative title, but the core issue remains; is it a good idea to let a conservative government (or any government, for that matter) go straight over the heads of Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund to deny tax credits to films already approved for production (or already produced!) by those bodies? A bill has already passed parliament, and is now before the senate, that proposes to do just that.
See also:
the film
the Hollywood Reporter’s version
The Canadian Family Action Coalition, whose stated goal is to”mobilize, train and activate Canadians in defending and promoting Judeo-Christian principles”
WordPress discussion, courtesy of Malocite
I’m not sure how likely C-10 is to make it through the senate, but it is far from impossible for the bill to serve as the thin end of a very disturbing wedge. I welcome assenting and dissenting perspectives.
UPDATE: The bill has been sent back to comitee, and heritage minister Josée Verner has finally weighed in. For perspective, here is an example of serious censorship, fresh from the news.
Filed under: politics | Tagged: c-10, cbc, canadian film, canadian family action coalition, censorship, young people fucking
Thanks for the link
You know, there’s a lot fo art out there that I just don’t understand. No, check that - there’s a lot of “art” out there that is total, unadultered bullshit, created by people looking to cash in on the pretentiousness of those with no taste.
But that doesn’t mean that the government should be taking it upon itself to reulate art, and I think that’s exactly what C-10 does. To create art requires money, and if the government is going to say, “we will only provide funding or tax credits to projects that promote values A, B and C” then they will de facto be altering what kind of art is produced, by making certain projects more or less feasible.
I don’t see why it is impossible for Telefilm and the Canadian TV Fund to facilitate family fare while also promoting less mainstream Canadian productions, to give voice to Canadian filmmakers and to provide a place for people with different stories to tell.
Shame on this and any other government that tries to muzzle creativity in the name of family values.
Agreed. I do believe that Telefilm needs to be selective; their support is de facto approval by the Canadian Government, but this group seems to be going much to far.
Telefilm and the CTVF should certainly not fund art that is contrary to the core values of all Canadian governments; a film promoting eugenics, for example, should need to find it’s own funding. The CFAC, however, seems to want to deny funding to anything that doesn’t fit into a very narrow moral code.
Most of us (occasionally) venture outside of that code, and an enormous quantity of relevant art does as well. Had it existed between ‘97 and now, the kind of censorship the CFAC is talking about could theoretically have denied us films like Bon Cop, Bad, Cop; Rage de L’ange; Hard Core Logo; and Ararat.
I’m not arguing that everything Telefilm funds turns out to be good, but these films need to get made both to support Canadian movie-making culture in general, as well as to create the volume of film required to turn out the occasional classic.
Aren’t we a plural society? Shouldn’t our films reflect a diversity of moral approaches? These assholes are basically asking us to give up on thinking about challenging films.
tanith,
It sounds like you’re buying into the guy’s assumption that mainstream = G-rated. It doesn’t. Lots of mainstream films are not intended for children. They are mainstream because they appeal to a broad audience.
rusted angel,
The provocative title is actually a good, and possibly necessary, thing.
I discussed these things in this post:
Actually, Paul, I was responding directly to the claim that “the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society, films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families”, ie ‘family fare’.
My point was simply that I can see no reason why it should be impossible for Canadian film and television productions to cover a wide variety of ground.
In fact, given the uber-diversity of Canadian society, the category of “films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families” is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. Let’s take Le fabuleux destin d’Amelie Poulain as an example. This is a French movie that made quite a splash in Canada. It’s got some brief sex in it. For a Canadian of French background, this could be entirely acceptable family fare. For a Canadian whose background is Somalian, this could be seen as grossly indecent and not acceptable for children (or indeed, adults for that matter).
But both of these hypothetical viewers are Canadians.
So, who are these ‘Canadian’ families that you want to fund films for?
In other news: Rusty, why is there a link to CFAC in your post? I’ve read the G&M article and I can’t see the connection.
oh, sorry. The quote at the top of the article is from a CFAC spokesperson. They’re among the most vocal proponents of c-10.
See another good blog summary here.
Tanith - That’s what I meant. The quote equates mainstream with family rated films. But the assumption is not true. Nudity, sex scenes, and violence are common in mainstream movies.
I agree that non-family rated films should be funded. It might even help build a commercially viable Canadian industry. The main criteria should be quality, rather than political ideas.
Agreed, Paul. C-10 is bad news. With any luck it gets no further and dies swiftly.
Paul,
That’s certainly true, and your point about the film’s title is as well. The issue here is that a movie like Hard Core Logo, which features both drug use and a distinctly non-judeo-christian morality, could get torpedoed before it got off the ground.
According to your criteria - quality - the film passes easily. I hope the senate sees it your way.
also: thanks for stopping by and posting!