Censoring Canada

sean90291 said:
Problem is the Canadian film industry has to be funded in part by the government. There are too many lengthy reasons why this is true to fit in one post, so you'll have to trust us on this one. And so, if films ARE going to be funded (along with other arts), then someone has to decide WHO gets funded. And probably the best people to decide who gets funded are artists and producers and networks and distributors.
Click to expand...

I still just don't get it I guess. To me, the LAST people who should decide what gets funded are those who are getting the funding. That just runs contrary to my logic, but since I'm not a Canadian, I can't really be in your shoes or have any real frame of reference to your position.

It seems to be at best a double standard, and more like gross hypocricy for people to complain about the government (which I think like America is still really the people) telling them what they can and can not do, when they are getting the money to do what they do from the government.

That's a concept so far out there for me as to be something that makes me just kind of blink twice and stare off into space. I'de actuallly like or wish someone who is in the Canadian film industry or knows about it to write up something, even if it a page long to explain the differences between Hollywood films and Canadian ones.

I'm sorry, I really and truly just don't understand the situation. I'de like to though, it sounds very interesting.
 
You're right, Matt. It is a different way of thinking. It's a different country.

I doubt posts will make you change your mind, because you live in a different culture and haven't lived in Canada. Essentially, it comes down to this proven fact: without government support of the film industry, it would not exist in Canada. Ergo, we would hand all of our cultural expression in film/TV over to another bigger, richer country that happens to be right out our back door.

Look at it this way: there is no other country outside the U.S. in the world that doesn't fund it's indigenous film industry with some government support. Again, NO OTHER COUNTRY. You gotta wonder if MAYBE there's a reason why every country is compelled to do this. There has to be good reasons, right? And there are. So: England, Australia, Russia, France, Italy, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, Japan, etc. etc. etc. They all provide funding to their film industry through some source of government funding. And they all realize that if they did not do so, they would have NO industry at all.
 
Actually Matt, almost all Canadian TV shows and movies are made using federal tax credits. I'm not up on all the ratios but all radio and tv stations up here have to have x% of Canadian content. That has been going on for a long time and the underlying reason has to do with preserving our Canadian identity. To ensure that there is any Canadian content to put in as that x%, the Canadian government offers these federal tax credits. All of the Hollywood based films made in Canada also get this tax credit, it's one of the reasons they make so many movies up here.

So that being the system we have to work with, we have to accept the fact that that is how movies get made in Canada. Not that I don't agree with you about spending tax dollars on things we didn't necessarily want. But the fact remains, bill or no bill, that this money exists and will continue to exist for the purpose of making movies in Canada.

I agree that truly obscene and or illegal material should not be subsidized, or even exist at all for that matter, but my government should not be the ones that tell me what is and is not in the public interest to view or what is considered obscene. There are outside bodies that deal with those issues and deal with them very effectively.

Lastly this was not a situation of the majority of the people wishing to impose"x" value system. This is a case of a government trying to sneak a new law in by hiding it in I believe I heard one sentence of a 500+ page document. It was a hidden law that nobody noticed until it was almost too late. Doing away with tax credits for making movies altogether and finding a new way to fund them is a completely separate issue from what essentially amounts to government censorship.
 
Last edited:
Well Matt, to each their own. I agree with Sean though. Without it, there would be no industry. I wish we were a rich enough country that we could fund ourselves, build large studios, etc...

A big reason for stimulating the film industry is to give us work, from both foreign and local films. So you can also see it as using tax money to help stimulate employment.
 
By the way, there are Canadians who would agree with Matt too.

I think they've failed to realize something that most governments have realized: films are critically important to culture. Films are the most powerful vehicle for ideas in human history. That's why people and governments care about them so much. That's why Nazi Germany ensured that THEIR filmmakers made movies.

So there's more at stake than just an "industry." There are also the "hearts and minds" of the population, so to speak. I agree that you can say, "well, sorry, if you can't find the money to make anymore hoola-hoops, too bad, the government shouldn't bail you out--you have to make it or die." We don't need hoola-hoops. But we can't afford to let film culture die. Film culture, like it or not, IS culture.
 
sean90291 said:
I doubt posts will make you change your mind, because you live in a different culture and haven't lived in Canada.
Click to expand...

You'd be suprised. I'm very open minded, and am also very empathetic. But thanks to you and Atwinator for taking the time to explain as much as you can.

One thing I really get I think is that it must be frustrating to have to rely on the governement. Or is it? Has it just been that way for so long that is is now just an accepted standard?

And yes, the sneaking in a bill always pisses me off. If this is something people would want to weigh in on, it should be made as public as possible and let the people decide.

I would be very frustrated as an artist if I felt I had little control or less control because of where the money is coming from. Is that the way the film makers up there feel? Or are they just happy to have funding? Or, do they simply expect the funding, because otherwise they never get a chance to really do anything?

Hmm. Definatly something to think about.


Thanks for helping me to understand a little more.
 
It's very frustrating Matt. You're right. We'd all like to have a "real industry." It's just not a reality that will probably come to pass yet. Maybe some day though! Believe me, Canadian film culture suffers for being tied to government bureaucracy. Hey, I live in hope we might really see a self-sustaining industry in Canada. But it will be very, very difficult.
 
I have never applied for a tax credit to make a movie, actually I've never made a full on movie. The kind of work I do is sports video for the local university, one national commercial, and providing footage for a weekly TV sports show. I worked on a local movie doing behind the scenes and "making of" type stuff and I know that you can't claim a credit for your first movie. You have to have had one movie entered in a film festival first.

As far as feeling frustrated to have to rely on the government for the tax credit, I would have to say no. The guy who made the movie I spoke of is eager to get it on his next project. The thing is our taxes are actually very high here and because of this I don't see it as being like a handout. I would be more than happy to accept what I deserve someday, and this comes from somebody who has thankfully never had the misfortune of being in an unemployment or welfare line.

I don't think the artists currently feel they have little or less control because of where the money comes from but that would almost certainly change if the bill should pass.
 
sean90291 said:
...
Look at it this way: there is no other country outside the U.S. in the world that doesn't fund it's indigenous film industry with some government support. Again, NO OTHER COUNTRY. You gotta wonder if MAYBE there's a reason why every country is compelled to do this. There has to be good reasons, right? And there are. So: England, Australia, Russia, France, Italy, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, Japan, etc. etc. etc. They all provide funding to their film industry through some source of government funding. And they all realize that if they did not do so, they would have NO industry at all.
Click to expand...

Not to be offensive, I'm just giving my opinion here, I could be wrong and I don't want to shut down the thread, but isn't America the Cinema capitol of the world? Maybe America is just the blockbuster capitol of the world and all the real films need government support to get made. I don't know.
As a musician I know that musicians are more respected and supported in Europe but again, other then ABBA and Celine, American music dominates the world music culture too.

Honestly I hope you guys get it worked out for everyone's benefit, it's not my country and it's none of my business....
 
ddp said:
Not to be offensive, I'm just giving my opinion here, I could be wrong and I don't want to shut down the thread, but isn't America the Cinema capitol of the world? Maybe America is just the blockbuster capitol of the world and all the real films need government support to get made. I don't know.
As a musician I know that musicians are more respected and supported in Europe but again, other then ABBA and Celine, American music dominates the world music culture too.

Honestly I hope you guys get it worked out for everyone's benefit, it's not my country and it's none of my business....
Click to expand...

Why would you be offensive? Yes, America is the cinema capital of the world. This is another reason why we need government funding, to just be able to compete with our neighbors just south of us.

I rarely see Canadian films in the Cinema. The only one that really made it huge here in Quebec (was supposed to in the rest of Canada, but I heard it didn't do too well), was Bon Cop Bad Cop. Great film BTW. It made number one in Quebec for weeks I think. Everyone loved it. However it's one of the few that really broke through the box office (especially English box office). We mainly see American films, and we'd be lucky to see any Canadian films in the same theater.
 
But yes, unfortunately that 'nutcase' is the prime ministers friend and advises him. Forgot to add. the Bill passed through the house of commons undetected because it was a single line in a 500 page bill
Click to expand...

And I thought our government were the only ones who did that (over and over and over).

As to the debate, it's hard for me to comprehend the funding in Canada as I'm not Canadian, but I tend to see Matt's point of view - as pertaining to the USA. Our system is already so horrifically rife with misuse of tax dollars already...

Can someone make a list of Canadian films over the last decade that this funding would have (likely) affected had the bill been enacted then? I'm curious.
 
It seems to me that the person (or entity) putting up the money generally has the final say in what it going to be made. That's certainly true here in the states. There are ALWAYS compromises to be made. In the end, you want to make it your way, you're probably going to have to put up your own money unless you've got a rich uncle. Even then, if he's at all savvy, he's not going to let you make something he doesn't agree with.
 
snowleopard said:
As to the debate, it's hard for me to comprehend the funding in Canada as I'm not Canadian, but I tend to see Matt's point of view - as pertaining to the USA. Our system is already so horrifically rife with misuse of tax dollars already...

Can someone make a list of Canadian films over the last decade that this funding would have (likely) affected had the bill been enacted then? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to say exactly, maybe someone else can make a list. Generally most Canadian Films, and foreign films rely on this tax credit. Maybe someone else can make a list, but I'm sure it would be a large one. To quote an article from the CBC website:

"The Canadian industry has given rise to controversial works such as The Boys of St. Vincent and The Valour and the Horror and violent yet critically acclaimed films such as David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises. Enforcing a steady diet of innocuous family-friendly productions would result in a less vibrant industry and force Canadian talent to go elsewhere, says actor and director Sarah Polley. Polley said her own film, Away from Her, could not have found funding under the proposed new rules."

Other films have been mentioned, such as Young People F-ing, which is a new film that has been critically acclaimed.

I worked on set of a film that lost it's funding. Not due to these laws as they weren't in affect, but just because. The film got made thanks to sponsors, sure, but no one got paid. It's not just about the film getting finished. We're still hoping to make money at the Box office. However Canadian films always have trouble in the box office.

If you want a list of films being funded, check out this site (I think they only mention recent films in Quebec only):

http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/03/311.asp?fond_id=1

Blaine, of course, but what some people are failing to understand is that this funding is some of the main and only funding that features can get in Canada, as is around the world. There's already someone deciding what will and what won't be funded. It's not about the restriction, but it's about the standards used for those restrictions.

The problem is that it's not some rich uncle, it's the tax payers. However, despite this, our fears are that the government (or more likely the nutcase in the video) is the one deciding what the tax payers want made.

It's not like these tax credits are just handed out to whomever is willing. The debate isn't the restrictions. There are restrictions, there are people that make those decisions already. It's the fact that they want to add in restrictions that won't allow "offensive" films that is the major issue of debate here.
 
Last edited:
Well, to me anyway, I guess what it comes down to is:

Do Canadians wish to fund films with tax dollars? If they do, then it's not an issue.
Except:

If you're going to screen what is and isn't funded, who is going to determine that? And what objective criteria is going to be used? Apparently Charles McVety thinks a commission should be given anti-nudity anti-profanity and anti-violence guidelines. And from the sound of it, most Canadians don't agree with him? (Of course, C-10 would be debated on it's own, instead of stuffed into another unrelated bill, American Style).
 
Again, I have to impress upon you that tax dollars have always funded Canadian film and TV, and will for the foreseable future. But also note that the cheques have never been written by the Prime Minister's office itself. That's not how it has worked, and for good reason.

So if the Prime Minister isn't figuring out who gets the cheque, then who is? Well, in Canada there still has to be broadcasters and/or distributors on board before money flows from these government sources. And that is where "the market" (or as close as we get) determines what should get funded. Which is, in theory, much better than some family values nut and his buddies in Parliament deciding.

In Canada, it's unfortunately not applicable to say "if you want to make it your way, then come up with your own money." The closest analogy I can make to your country (America) is this: it wouldn't make sense to have a law that gives some congressman the power to call up Dreamworks and say, uh, we hate the idea of your film, so I'm sorry, we're pulling the plug.

Now, you're going to say it's Dreamworks' money, not the congressman's. But the effect is the same. The effect is that some guy in government with his own religious or political agendas tells producers and distributors what they should make. The difference between the U.S. and Canada is really important here--and you have to just realize that we ARE different in some respects--we don't have Dreamworks. Or Universal. Or anything else like it. For all intents and purposes, we ONLY have companies that rely on government money. That's the way it is here. That's the way it is in every country outside of the U.S. that makes films within its own industry. And so we would ONLY have an industry run by politicians and not distributors and producers if we allowed something like Bill C-10 to go forward. Let's call it the thin edge of the wedge. To remove the ability of producers and distributors and broadcasters to decide what to make (yes, even with government money) is to effectively erase the entire industry of media content makers. All you'd have left are people with the right political connections making the "right" movies (remind anyone of Nazi Germany? Check out Triumph of the Will. Or many other dictatorships that have used films as a way of enforcing a value system).

It seems that the guys in this discussion from the U.S. aren't realizing that the economics, the culture, the politics, the art itself, are just DIFFERENT than the U.S. Many Canadians, including me, wish there were more similarities between our industries. Right now, there just aren't.

Given that most readers on dvxuser are probably American, I understand these concepts might seem weird. We could just refer you to the reams and reams of papers and reports and studies over 40 years that have tried to figure out how to have an indigenous industry in Canada. Or I'll just try to sum up what is ultimately a POLICY DEBATE and not a debate about BUSINESS (because there really is no "film business" in Canada):

a) We simply have no industry without government dollars.
b) To give government officials control over what gets funded means that people with no expertise or interest decide what gets funded, rather than broadcasters and distributors and producers (or gawd forbid, artists).
c) To remove government funding altogether is to simply erase the entire Canadian film industry and decide to let America determine what we watch (and as a matter of course, decide how we think and what ideas we're exposed to).
d) As a matter of policy, we cannot give government officials control over the creative content, above and beyond the basic policies that are behind the investments (i.e., the money has always been for the support of a FILM INDUSTRY--not a government propaganda industry--and the support of Canadian culture through art).

I hope I'm helping you see the difference between the free market economy of American films and the Canadian market that only exists with government support. I would love to see the Canadian market change. And digital technologies will help it do so. But until then, we're stuck.
 
Last edited:
Sean - I actually do realize that there is a difference, certainly. Just trying to grasp how your system works. It really isn't my place to judge, at all, how Canada and their citizens like to run their country. It's just a fascinating difference.

I do have a question though. I'm still not realizing just who determines who gets funding for projects? I understand you don't want McVety and his cronies to determine that, and for obvious reasons. But who currently makes the determination as to who gets money? Is there a specific board of broadcasters? An arts branch of each province that one applies to for funding? Run by whom? And how does one get on the determining committee?

Again, not trying to criticize or "fix" your system with American solutions. Just curious as to how it works. In all honesty I love Canada, I like to tease Canadians (like all of us Yanks do!) but I absolutely love your country, very friendly people, and very clean cities, with beautiful landscape (the Yukon is like heaven on Earth). In many ways I wish our country were like yours and I envy how some aspects of your country operates.
 
And in so many ways, I wish our film industry was like yours! As does every other country in the world! ;-)

But to answer your question, this is how it goes in ours:

For TV there are broadcasters. Just like...welll. SORT OF like your NBC or HBO. Those broadcasters licence Canadian dramas, documentaries and comedies. Those programmes get produced with tax dollars. But the tax dollars don't start flowing without the broadcaster's broadcast order. So the broadcaster says, yes, we really think our audiences would love a comedy about a gas station in the middle of the Prairies. And then the weirdness starts...or at least just gets weirder. So the broadcaster now has to go to the "studio" (i.e., Telefilm Canada) which holds the cheque books. And Telefilm ultimately decides how the limited moneys will be spent. They try to be fair. They try to keep creative considerations in mind. They try to accommodate other policy agendas (like multiculturalism). And in the end it's sort of a bureaucratic nightmare, but at least it's our nightmare I guess. And that's how a show gets made. The cheque gets written, the broadcaster pays their share, and we make a show.

The same process goes for movies, except instead of a broadcaster, a distrubutor and producer walk into Telefilm and say this is the movie we want to make. And Telefilm goes thorugh all their bureaucratic B.S. to decide who gets a cheque.

At least Telefilm is run pretty responsibly, in terms of being unbiased (uh...maybe not) and free of political agendas (uh...probably not that either). They do have artists and film industry professionals on staff who don't say that some specific value system must be upheld. I think they would like to make good movies, even if they don't do it very often. Hey, Telefilm invested in "Young People F***king" and they know full well that Bill C-10 is death.
 
Last edited:
snowleopard said:
If you're going to screen what is and isn't funded, who is going to determine that? And what objective criteria is going to be used? Apparently Charles McVety thinks a commission should be given anti-nudity anti-profanity and anti-violence guidelines. And from the sound of it, most Canadians don't agree with him? (Of course, C-10 would be debated on it's own, instead of stuffed into another unrelated bill, American Style).
Click to expand...

Snowleoperd, you're on the right track. That's pretty much what it comes down to.

Lol, it is american style. It was a single line stuffed into a 500 page bill about how to use the tax money in general. I supposed it is related though.

As Sean mentioned, it is decided by telefilm. Probably along the lines of what Canadians want to see in the box office, what they think has potential, what they feel can help drive the Canadian industry, etc...

Now perhaps McVety's proposal of getting a wide range of people to decide who should have funding (which makes sense, but I personally feel these people should know something about the film/television industry), is a good idea, however the problem is that McVety is stating that they would not fund anything "grossly offensive". Now again, it's understandable to place this law to help prevent hate films and pornography from receiving funding, however, the examples McVety uses (as stated in the videos) to many Canadians wouldn't be considered offensive. Some find it offensive, but some don't. However he has gone out saying "these films should not get any funding because they are grossly offensive".

So the problem comes down to the fact that the Heritage Minister and McVety will set up these guidelines for the board to follow.

The issue is so vague right now, but it seems as though it is a bit of an extreme at the moment. Because to what we consider non-offensive, or slightly offensive, McVety finds grossly offensive.

Bah, I'll stop rambling.
 
And problem is, according to McVety all these films probably would never have been made if they were made in the Canadian system under his control:

Brokeback Mountain (gay sex)
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (sex, blasphemy, profanity)
Pulp Fiction (sex, violence, profanity, blasphemy)
Sex, Lies and Videotape (sex)
Jaws (violence, gore)
etc., etc.

Yeah, I really think McVety should be involved in deciding what films get made or not!

Of course, it's easy to say AFTER the films named above become hits, "oh they're not 'smut' because they're really good." But based on the pitch or the script, the policies that McVety would like to have enacted would prevent the financing of such films by Canadian filmmakers.

And as if McVety wasn't bad enough, there are Canadians LIKE THIS ONE who would argue that no films in Canada should be funded with government money (just as others have suggested in this thread). So I'm in the camp that says some people don't get it, including many Canadians.
 
I tend to agree with you Sean. It's not about piggybacking on the government to get movies made with taxpayer money. It's about making jobs, and supporting the industry. I feel, just as you do, that without support from the government, there simply won't be a Canadian film industry at all. At least not one that has any chance of competing with the American industry right at our doorstep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top