Echoing Damian's comments, I'm pissed off that filmakers think that they have a RIGHT to taxpayer funding, but let's be rational here, making a movie is a VERY expensive and risky proposition...making a collage or piece of 'performance art' isn't.
If we want a viable movie industry here we're going to have to nurture it and if that means that some Crown Corp. gets its hands dirty and does some financing, so be it. Like any investor, the guy handing out the movie making moolah gets to call the shots (no pun intended...well maybe).
Just because it's Government doesn't mean it has to be any the less hardnosed about where it's throwing the money than any other variety of financier. If it's a crap script than tell the applicants to take a hike, no apologies necessary.
The first time I saw Mr. McVety on TV, my wife and I both said "Gee, Beau Bridges has really let himself go..."
Seriously, the poor guy is trying to set himself up as a sort of Jerry Falwell, "Moral Majority" type.
As much as a hate dumb government funding of dubious artistic merit, I hate these religious dweebs more.
As the poet Charles Simic once said, quoting Myrna Loy: "No man with a satisfied sex life could ever be a moral censor". Or something, I'm too lazy to look it up.
Bottom line: a government not funding something isn't censorship. Ever.
The real issue here is that the entire process has been usurped by left wing whack jobs intent on using "art" as a medium to sow their seeds of anarchy & sexual deviance while openly crapping on traditional values. And this discription applies to everyone involved in the so-called "arts", from the quasi-bureaucrats who dish out the money to the self-absorbed dandies and dandiettes who scarf it down and then evacuate something resembling diarrhea from their artistic anuses.
I'm tired of having these talentless and unappreciative frauds and phoneys living off my tax dollars while serving no useful function in society whatsoever. It'll be amusing to see them flipping burgers at McDs for a living - something more in line with their intellectual capabilities.
It's not just films that get funding. Disciples II, a PC game by Strategy First, HQ in Montreal, had in its liner notes that it received a grant from some Canadian Film board. I was struck that the Canadian government was subsidizing a computer game in the name of culture.
Posted at 2008-02-29 10:17:22 [PermaLink]"I don't think the federal government is (or should be) telling anyone what kind of art they're allowed to make - simply what kind of art the government will fund with taxpayers' money. There's a difference."
EXACTLY. There is no entitlement to public money.
Uh Damian, since you cited the religious issue
Have you ever seen (in the last 25 years) a government funded film, television show or video game that was pro-religion, pro-religious group or directly advocated religious sensibilities?
Now, have you read the requirements and limitations of the CRTC regarding religious speech, advoacy and the licencing thereof?
On the other hand, how many times have religious groups been villainized on CBC, CTF funded fare and humiliated on comedy netork shows proudly displaying the Canada logo at the end.
The fact of the matter is that the government, over time, has taken sides.
Without domestic proof, the elite spoke: "We believe that removing the requirement for balance in discretionary religious broadcasting will promote religious, cultural and racial intolerance in Canada and will lead to a weakening of the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada."
How about this: remove ALL government funding of content, remove the restriction on religious broadcasting speech and get the government out of the business of playing ideological favorites.
I find the idea that the intent is really to sabotage the entire funding system very convincing. This is going to have a huge chilling effect on the industry. Public money does not make up all of the funding in any movie, but private investors are not going to be interested in partnering with someone who reserves the right to pull out at any time and leave them with the bill. The whole retroactive review seems designed to make it even harder to make a movie than simply reducing the funding available would.
I am also concerned that this is a lever that can be used to shape our culture. The amount of money available isn't being reduced, it's being redirected. Some films won't be made, and instead others will be. If the government is going to fund culture, I don't want it to be exercising this sort of editorial privilege. We've had this debate as a nation many times, and as Cronenberg mentions, it's usually in the context of a movie that turns out to greatly contribute to our culture.
"I am also concerned that this is a lever that can be used to shape our culture."
Exactly as it is now, 300baud. You don't object to the lever, but to whose hand is on it.
If you're going to tell me what I think, could you elaborate? Why do I think that? Though I hate to contradict you, I'm not aware that I am aware of any editorial or political standards being applied to certification until now.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but what C-10 means to withhold or revoke is certification of "Canadian-ness". AFAIK, until now, criteria for certification did not depend on the content but rather how it was produced. I'd appreciate it if you can correct me.
If Cronenberg's movies are so proudly "low budget" why does he need my money to make them?
Roger Corman did ok without it. Oh right, he's an American, and even as a liberal he still hasn't got that sense of entitlement a Canadian has...
Damian maybe you don't get Showcase and other Canadian cable channels, so you don't know what you're money is funding.
I wouldn't mind a show like Kink if the participants weren't so butt ugly. But most stuff is "Growing Pot Makes You Cool", "Sleep With Everyone You Meet", "Hookers are Hip" etc.
"the director of Young People Fucking (which opens in theatres in Canada in April), could also get a once-over from the panel."
No kidding. This nicely sums up their sense of entitlement:
"It seems ill-conceived from beginning to end, and is less about censorship than destroying the economic foundation of our entire industry," said Mr. Gero, who shot his debut feature film for $1.5-million with support from Telefilm and other government agencies. "It's old people fucking with the Canadian film industry."
Roger Corman 1) is not dead 2) is still making movies 3) uses tax credits to help get his movies made. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good childish rant.
Posted at 2008-02-29 15:34:53 [PermaLink]I'd like to apologize for using the word "childish". It was both petty and hypocritical of me.
Posted at 2008-02-29 15:54:34 [PermaLink]The issue here isn't funding, it's tax credits. And the government isn't saying we'll withhold at the beginning if we don't like it (which they already do, through Telefilm), they're saying they can opt out retroactively, and stick the investors with the bill.
So it's like if you got a small business loan on a 5 year term, and then the bank calls up a year into it and says "Um, pay us back with interest -- tomorrow." How many people would take a loan with that hanging over them?
It's not a sense of entitlement you're hearing, it's a sense of fair play, and a sense of how business gets done. Something I expected a Conservative government to be better at dealing with than this idea suggests.
If the movies are any good they ought to pay for themselves.Why waste a bunch of money on movies or anything else that 99.9 per cent of Canadians will never be able to name , let alone watch in a theater.
Posted at 2008-02-29 16:26:44 [PermaLink]I might be the only one here who has gone through a Canadian media school (Sheridan College) and had to deal with tax-sheltered movies first hand. A large number of them: my screenwriting prof was Jim Henshaw. Just head to IMDB if you'd like.
He would show us film after film after film (mostly his). This was the 70s and he said that every dentist and doctor in the province would try to get in on the production of movies (sometimes a 2 for 1 tax credit). He once saw a briefcase full of cash. Read into that what you will..
Good comments, but after checking out this one at Dr Dawg's, I can't help but feel both sides are ducking the real issue here:
Father: "Honey, what is the matter?"
Mother: "I'm so upset. Jamie and her friends have gone to the Cineplex to see "Young people F--king!"
Father: "Not to worry, my dear. None of our tax dollars were used to make that movie."
I really hate people living off me. If they indeed had talent or merit then money would come easily to them.
When CBC thought that the Laugh-In concept was poor the producer went to the states and had it produced in the USA and it was a hit for years on TV. The same goes for Saturday Night Live. Refused by the CBC they had no problem finding money in a larger market. The CBC did not censor the project. It just didn’t fund these projects because they did not meet its standards.
It's not about censorship. Because someone refuses to fund your project doesn't mean he's trying to censor your project. They're not trying to stop you from executing the project. Are investors who don’t invest in your project also deemed as censoring your work?
All "artists" think they have talent. The marketplace is the best place to determine if they do, not the public trough.
Ultra High Interesting! [External Link]
Posted at 2008-03-01 04:44:28 [PermaLink]Ok, so till now the requirement for tax credits (not funding - I know it's confusing, please do keep up) were basically that they were made in Canada, benefited Canadian workers etc etc (hey, so far this sounds like something that the right would love - jobs for Canadians, not our-sourced etc). That was it.
Now to get the tax credits you have to pass some kind of content filter? IE someone in government is going to look over your film's content and approve it for something?
And right wing people are happy?
Right... that seems a bit umm.. odd.
What hasn't been discussed here is whether Telefilm Canada and any other Government agencies funding films are actually getting a return on their investment, cause if they aren't....
Posted at 2008-03-01 18:23:48 [PermaLink]@DaninVan: Telefilm and the tax credits are two different things.
I don't think Telefilm is set up to make a return at all, though I could be wrong.
As for the tax credits, one number I've seen is that per $1 of credit Canada's economy gets back 3 - 5.