Thursday, March 06, 2008
Devil's Advocate: Bill C-10
With apologies to my foreign readers, there's a couple things I wanted to get off my chest about the Bill C-10 controversy.
For those near and far who haven't been following it, the Tory federal government in Canada has brought in a bill to give the Heritage Minister discretion to refuse federal arts funding to film projects that involve excessive violence or sex.
So now of course the left is in full dudgeon screaming "censorship" this and "Christian right" that.
Well, enough already, I say.
For starters, before anyone suggests otherwise, I still consider myself a progressive conservative (even though we no longer capitalize those letters on the federal level). I don't like the Christian right any more than anyone else does and I usually look askance at any legislation that involves the government intruding on morality issues.
But this is different, and here's why:
1. It's Not Censorship, Dammit - since when did not giving someone a grant mean the same as censorship? If my kid applied for a government scholarship and didn't get it, could I justifiably claim "the government banned my kid from college!" There's a huge difference between banning something and not actively supporting it. But, of course, Canadian artists have grown so out of touch with the Canadian public and so completely dependent on the public teat that, apparently, they aren't capable of making that distinction.
2. On the Sex Side, Nothing Much Has Changed - arts funding legislation already contains clauses stating funding cannot go to pornography. So, already there is somebody somewhere sitting in an office making judgment calls about how much sex is too much to get a government grant. Now, instead of that person being a bureaucrat, it's an elected representative of the people responsible for the prudent spending of tax dollars. Sorry, I just don't see why that's such a bad thing. Besides, the power will obviously never be used in an active way (the minister isn't going to take the time to review all films applying for funding) but only if and when there's some public outcry.
3. On the Violence Side, Good Riddance - Since Trudeau first introduced significant grant and tax incentive funding for films, producers of slasher horror movies have shamelessly exploited the system. These movies belong in the same cultural waste-bin as porn and should be judged the same way, yet thanks to the Liberals' no-strings-attached funding policies, Canadian taxpayers have forked over millions to help produce Prom Night and other such glorious tributes to Canadian culture.
4. Give the Dog a Bone - hysterical types have claimed Bill C-10 is proof that the Tory party has been "taken over by the Christian right". Considering that there are as many gay Tory ministers as there are fundamentalist Christian Tory ministers, I really kinda doubt that. But the Tory party, like all moderate, broad-based brokerage parties, has to appeal to its various factions from time to time. The Christian right in Canada has lost every battle, internal and external, on big issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If once in a blue moon they succeed in getting public funding pulled from a movie with a lot of screwing in it, well, that's not such a big give if you ask me.
5. Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword - it's quite laughable that the members of Canada's inbred artistic community (why look, there's Gordon Pinsent in another movie) are now trying to portray themselves as these poor innocent independent-minded waifs who don't know nuthin' 'bout all this politics stuff. They are outrageously, shamelessly partisan, always have been. Roughly half the people in this country have right-of-centre outlooks, yet you would never know this by watching the CBC aka the Trudeau Documentary Channel. It is, of course, their right to trash the Tories all they like, but can they then really expect the Tories to smile about it? "Excuse me sir, could you please give me a billion dollars so I can continue to tell people what an asshole you are?" Yeah, there's a smooth sales pitch.
6. A Bit of Self-Censorship Might Be Good For 'Em - the big hew and cry on the left is that C-10 will cause artists to self-censor the kinds of projects they submit for funding. Well, maybe it's about time. Those grants were put in place to try to build a thriving film industry in Canada, like the film industries in, say, Britain or France. Instead, the grants have ended up funding the lifestyles of a bunch of hippies and champagne socialists who crank out a zillion and one movies about lesbians, feminism, drug addicts and other such heart warming subjects. All this talk about "it's the duty of the artist to challenge the public" is nonsense, because no one outside of an inbred little cluster of people actually watches these films. This legislation will only last a few years, because sooner or later the Liberals will get back in and overturn it. So a few years of the Canadian film community maybe thinking about making films Canadians might actually watch - that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
In conclusion, for the benefit of any of you out there who might have doubted whether I am really a conservative, permit me to say: Goddammit, why don't you get off the public teat and go out and get yourselves some real jobs, you frickin' deadbeat hippies!
posted by Mentok @ 1:25 p.m.,
7 Comments:
-
At 4:22 p.m.,
adam said...
-
If Britain has a thriving film industry (and I would question that, to a degree at least) it's because state funded or supported or otherwise non-commercially tv channels (particularly the BBC and C4) have run film production etc companies making films about, well, lesbians, feminism and drug taking, to use the shorthand. It's a generalisation, but Britain's film industry could be divided into geezer movies (lock stock et al) heritage movies (keira knightly et all) and the dodgy political/social stuff. Works well here. I think regardless of what legislation and regulation says, you never know what's going to happen with these things until you've got a bit of practical experience of the rules in effect. It will be interesting to see.
-
At 5:09 p.m.,
Mentok said...
-
crash - wow, I am just extremely pleased to know you're still reading my stuff and amazed that you put up with this rant without unleashing a can of lefty whoopass on me. Thanks on both counts, really.
I'm not arguing against public funding of film. In the face of the Hollywood juggernaut, smaller countries like Canada and Britain have to do it if they are going to hope to preserve any sort of self-expression.
I'm not even suggesting there shouldn't be any lesbian/feminist/druggie films; of course, those are important for the creative mix.
But the CDN film community has become so inward-looking, so disdainful of the notion of building an audience, that the "dodgy political/social stuff" is practically all that gets produced.
They seem to go to extremes: either they are handing out money to fringe films no one will ever watch or they are subsidizing big-name directors who are already commercially successful. Either way, the "seed money", venture capital component of the funding has become almost completely lost.
We can only dream of the kind of film success the British industry has.
But, as you say, one has to wait and see how the practical experience of the regulations plays out. In the unlikely event that political interference under this law becomes common, I'd be the first to say the law has to go. Film money has already been exploited by political agendas far too much in this country, I think. -
At 6:15 p.m.,
said...
-
http://the-legion-of-decency.blogspot.com/
-Les -
At 6:25 p.m.,
said...
-
Forgot to mention that this is the blog of a Canadian writer/director/producer/actor in film and television. I knew him personally many years ago, and thought you might enjoy reading some of his thoughts on this subject.
Les -
At 10:02 a.m.,
Mentok said...
-
I found this post from your friend a little perplexing because I'm not sure what his point is, other than that he doesn't like Rev. McVety, which puts him in good company since everything I've read suggests the Heritage Minister doesn't like him either. Your friend accurately reports that McVety was lying about his lobbying efforts, but then carries on to slag the Tories as though those lobbying efforts actually happened.
-
At 4:23 p.m.,
said...
-
Sorry about that. I didn't realise that Jim had put up another post. I wanted you to read the one before that (It's just a movie).
Les -
At 5:11 p.m.,
Mentok said...
-
Yes, I read that one too. Not that I'm one to talk, but that post seemed kind rambly too. On the one hand, he decries censorship while admitting the bill isn't really censorship. On the other hand, he suggests it's an attack on the Canadian TV and film industry while at the same time admitting that it will have no effect on what Canadians actually see on TV or in theatres.
After multiple readings, I think his ultimate point is that the bill really does nothing and that the Christian Right has been duped by it. If that's what he's saying, I totally agree c.f. "Give the dog a bone".
