Movie Directed by: Stephen Harper
The government thought police may now determine which movies and television shows are morally worthy of government tax credits if the current regime has its way. If they object to the content, no money. It appears to be that simple. Is there anyone else who thinks the last thing this country needs is another Orwellian bureaucracy determining what kind of productions are “acceptable” and which are not on the basis of their so-called moral content? This is an affront to free speech and the separation of church and state, although I doubt the shrill “freespeechers” will see it that way.
If you get in the game of giving money for the production of films you inevitably have this problem unless you decide to fund all films.
What I found interesting was this:
It would have been nice if the journalist had mentioned what the existing criteria for rejection are. It seems possible that we already have an “Orwellian bureaucracy determining what kind of productions are ‘acceptable’”.
There are lots of films I don’t support. It’s unlikely that I would pay the $15 at a theatre to see Young People Fucking — and no, that’s not because other versions are free on the internet. While I respect and advocate for the film makers right to produce it I don’t think they have a right to state funding in order enable the economics of producing it. Nor do I think that people should be put in a position where they are forced to support something — even symbolically through tax credits — that they hold strong negative beliefs about.
The natural conclusion for me is that the state has no essential interest in funding the film industry in the first place. Simply stop all funding.
“The natural conclusion for me is that the state has no essential interest in funding the film industry in the first place. Simply stop all funding.”
If it were to come down to an either or scenario then I could support that.
In the case of what is being proposed, I don’t agree that the government should be in the business of determining what content is acceptable for its citizen’s eyes from a religious or morality background. The CPC does not have that mandate.
“Nor do I think that people should be put in a position where they are forced to support something — even symbolically through tax credits — that they hold strong negative beliefs about.”
Unfortunately that’s sort of what living in a parliamentary democracy means, isn’t it? I’m put in the position of having to support many things, including a war in Afghanistan, that I hold strong negative beliefs about. I’m also in the position of watching my government fail to support many things that I hold strong positive beliefs about.
Canada funds the arts. The idea is ideologically repugnant to those to who believe in minimizing the role of government wherever possible. That’s cool; that’s a perspective on the continuum that needs to be voiced, debated, and…once its impact on the reality of film and television production in Canada is honestly assessed…dismissed.
I don’t disagree Balb. Too few people will agree with me that funding should be withdrawn to effect a change in policy.
However, unless all projects a funded equally or perhaps representatively, then “censorship” decisions will take place. It’s unavoidable.
There are no frictionless solutions. Like most things, it is a balance. You feel that censorship is the lesser evil compared to renovating the Canadian film and television industry.
I merely propose a general solution that reduces the number of times people need to live with the natural friction produced in a democracy.
Certainly decapitation is a relatively economical, efficient and simple solution to the problem of facial acne. It may in some quarters, however, be viewed as excessive.
Nothing so drastic sir. I merely propose that the smooth balm of the idividual is superior to the bitter medicine dispensed by the mob.
As Kevin points out we are left to guess as to the extent of the changes to the existing restrictions. This may be a tempest in a teapot.
Artists are always beholden to their patrons unless the artist has independent means. It is not any different just because the patron is the government, unless we expect our tax dollars to be handed over with no strings attached.
In my opinion the government shouldn’t be funding the arts at all outside of specific commissions. Not because I object to my tax dollars being spent on work that I don’t value but because this funding power gives the government control over what is deemed to be art. But then I am just a cretin according to the few artists that I know.
[...] making the blog rounds, and nobody bothers to dig beyond the partisan political implications (“a secret [...]
I disagree. Canada Council grants, for example, are currently juried by non bureaucrats – in other words, people who can’t be coerced by a supervisor; that’s a qualitative difference in the process.
Sure. But some patrons give the artist carte blanche, and some commission portraits of their children, and some forbid the use of the colour red. In this case, I am the patron (and so are you), and I don’t choose to dictate subject matter to the artist.
Naw. There are still artists who fund their own work, foundations that provide grants, or employment available. Art will never be defined by government (those that have tried have simply forced their artists to move elsewhere, or produced wretched art – I can’t think of too many masterpieces in any medium from the eras of Hitler or Mao). But government funding means more opportunities for both established and new artists.
[...] Either call for a killing of all funding to the arts by the government, or admit that his half measure is not about removing government from dictating the arts. It’s about shaping it. If Louise would rather have the government determining what art you see, instead of the artists, let’s ask her how she’d feel about Stephane Dion deciding what films get funding? If you’re not comfortable with any other schmoe making those calls, then Bill C-10 is a flop. [...]