Leafless Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Liberal senators will amend the controversial film-financing sections of the government's omnibus tax bill, despite the fact the House of Commons passed the legislation as a confidence measure. Senator Francis Fox said the Senate will send the bill back to the Commons after deleting sections that would allow the minister of Canadian Heritage to deny tax credits to films that don't meet public policy standards. "What we are proposing are amendments that will protect this vital industry as well as the principle of artistic freedom." http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...RpNNl_dDKI7qAAw Does this mean more unfit Canadian movie productions will continue to hit the screen at taxpayers expense. Who needs Hollywood when we got the federal government. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Does this mean more unfit Canadian movie productions will continue to hit the screen at taxpayers expense. "Unfit" for you, yes. For the rest of us, no. P.S. - The proper punctuation with which to end a question is a question mark; they look like this: ?. Quote
Argus Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Liberal senators will amend the controversial film-financing sections of the government's omnibus tax bill, despite the fact the House of Commons passed the legislation as a confidence measure. Senator Francis Fox said the Senate will send the bill back to the Commons after deleting sections that would allow the minister of Canadian Heritage to deny tax credits to films that don't meet public policy standards. "What we are proposing are amendments that will protect this vital industry as well as the principle of artistic freedom." http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...RpNNl_dDKI7qAAw Does this mean more unfit Canadian movie productions will continue to hit the screen at taxpayers expense. Who needs Hollywood when we got the federal government. Using the term "artistic" in connection with Canadian films is laugh out loud silly, of course. These are welfare "artists" who could never get anyone to produce their crappy films if it weren't for the welfare money they extort from the unwilling taxpayers (who never go to see their "art" anyway). It's typical of the Liberals, though, to want to protect welfare for their wine and cheese set friends. In this connection "artistic freedom" means they get to churn out whatever garbage that inspires them and I get to pay for it, like it or not. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Leafless Posted June 19, 2008 Author Report Posted June 19, 2008 "Unfit" for you, yes. For the rest of us, no. Why the personal slur? Kindly back up your assertions with proof outside of the many Canadian movie producers who obviously cannot and are incapable of obtaining private financial support, to finance their third rate movie productions. It was not I who introduced Bill C-10 but was the Conservatives for the purpose of weeding out offensive movie productions. Do you understand that? Quote
Fortunata Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 It was not I who introduced Bill C-10 but was the Conservatives for the purpose of weeding out offensive movie productions. Canadian productions may be "offensive" but they aren't mind-numbingly cookie cutter. Regardless it should not be up to the government of the day to pick and choose - that's called censorship. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Canadian productions may be "offensive" but they aren't mind-numbingly cookie cutter. Regardless it should not be up to the government of the day to pick and choose - that's called censorship. I agree. The gov't with the exception of the NFB should cease funding all together. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
noahbody Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Canadian productions may be "offensive" but they aren't mind-numbingly cookie cutter. Regardless it should not be up to the government of the day to pick and choose - that's called censorship. It has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with sponsorship and common sense. There are some things the government shouldn't put their name on like a film how the Holocaust was a lie. What would that do to Canada's reputation abroad? How would you feel about your country supporting such a film? Quote
g_bambino Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Why the personal slur? Well, though hardly a "slur," it was rather in response to the haughty tone you adopted in your derision of all Canadian film, as though your opinion of what is and what is not "fit" Canadian movie production was the pan-human absolute. Kindly back up your assertions with proof outside of the many Canadian movie producers who obviously cannot and are incapable of obtaining private financial support, to finance their third rate movie productions. Er, are you asking me to prove what is and isn't offensive, drawing evidence only from non-cinematic sources? Your question is unclear. It was not I who introduced Bill C-10 but was the Conservatives for the purpose of weeding out offensive movie productions.Do you understand that? It doesn't appear that I ever said you introduced Bill C-10. You did, however, express what seemed to be personal support for the bill and its provisions regarding the funding of Canadian film production. I was going to ask why you felt it right that an individual should decree, on behalf of all of us, what constitutes offensive material, beyond what is already laid out in the codes as criminal; but then I remembered your initial statement. Quote
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 I agree. The gov't with the exception of the NFB should cease funding all together. I dont. We should move towards reducing funding ('cept NFB) but not cease altogether. We have excellent crews in this country and it is why the film industry will rebound. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Funny how the very vocal opponents of C-10 howl about the lack of free expression and freedom of speech supposedly entrenched in the bill,, yet are nowhere to be seen or heard when Mark Steyn is in front of kangaroo courts HRCs for much the same issue. Quote The government should do something.
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Funny how the very vocal opponents of C-10 howl about the lack of free expression and freedom of speech supposedly entrenched in the bill,, yet are nowhere to be seen or heard when Mark Steyn is in front of kangaroo courts HRCs for much the same issue. Except for the fact that Mark Steyn isnt, nor ever has been in front of HRC's. Quote
Fortunata Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 It has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with sponsorship and common sense. There are some things the government shouldn't put their name on like a film how the Holocaust was a lie. What would that do to Canada's reputation abroad? How would you feel about your country supporting such a film? If ground rules are set out first, then productions like this wouldn't qualify and the producers would know that from the get go. It's the "after" that gripes me. "We'll first see the film then decide" bs. So, in that regard, yes, it is censorship. Quote
segnosaur Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Funny how the very vocal opponents of C-10 howl about the lack of free expression and freedom of speech supposedly entrenched in the bill,, yet are nowhere to be seen or heard when Mark Steyn is in front of kangaroo courts HRCs for much the same issue. Except for the fact that Mark Steyn isnt, nor ever has been in front of HRC's. Ummm... From http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...080606/20080606 The tribunal is wrapping up a case brought by a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress...against Maclean's magazine. They claim a book excerpt by Steyn republished in the national news magazine in October 2006 promoted hate against Muslims. Not sure what exactly you're arguing. Granted, the issue involves the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (rather than HRC), and it is focused more on McCleans magazine itself rather than Steyn. However, those are minor details, and the point is clear: some "human rights" organization has been brought a case which restricts free expression in a way that is more serious than simply not funding certain movies. (For the record... I'm against censorship. Frankly, I'd like to see government involvement in movie making eliminated.) Quote
segnosaur Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 If ground rules are set out first, then productions like this wouldn't qualify and the producers would know that from the get go. It's the "after" that gripes me. "We'll first see the film then decide" bs. So, in that regard, yes, it is censorship. Ummm... just out of curiosity, how exactly would you go about establishing such rules? Isn't even the imposition of such rules a form of censorship? After all, even if its done before the production, you still are deciding what's appropriate for the movie and what isn't. And how exactly would you go about enforcing it? What if someone claims to be making a World war 2 documentary, but only afterwards is it discovered to be something on Holocaust denial? Do people have to submit their scripts first? What if their initial 'proposal' deviates from the finished product? What then? Quote
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Not sure what exactly you're arguing. Steyn never was in front of an HRC or BCHRC. No more no less. (For the record... I'm against censorship. Frankly, I'd like to see government involvement in movie making eliminated.) And so am I. But that is exactly what will happen. Here is some money, bring me a film...and then, we dont like it, give us our money back. The govt makes the money back from what I understand. It is the individual investor who has his neck out. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 The govt makes the money back from what I understand. It is the individual investor who has his neck out. Only if the film is profitable, but, the way the grants are given they go out of their way to fund productions that will never see any payback. It's a catch 22 for aspiring commercial diorectors....if the concept is commercial, you don't need funding...but without funding how do you make a commeical film? Notable exceptions are most of the films made in Quebce, which by reason of language get produced, distributed and seen....think of a critically accliamed hit Canadian movie and chances are it was a Quebec production: off the top of my head....Jesus of Montreal, Zoo en Nuit, Leolo, Deline of the Americna Empire, Bon Cop Bad Cop*....all got funding and paid back....on the otherhand think of a hit English Canadian movie and you are liable to strain a muscle... *while not critically acclaimed, it was a hit. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Er, are you asking me to prove what is and isn't offensive, drawing evidence only from non-cinematic sources? Your question is unclear. Arthritic grasp of english Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Only if the film is profitable, but, the way the grants are given they go out of their way to fund productions that will never see any payback. It's a catch 22 for aspiring commercial diorectors....if the concept is commercial, you don't need funding...but without funding how do you make a commeical film? I cannot argue that the system is screwy on getting funds. There seems to be so many loopholes and I would want those closed but at the same time your egg/chicken applies. Notable exceptions are most of the films made in Quebce, which by reason of language get produced, distributed and seen....think of a critically accliamed hit Canadian movie and chances are it was a Quebec production: off the top of my head....Jesus of Montreal, Zoo en Nuit, Leolo, Deline of the Americna Empire, Bon Cop Bad Cop*....all got funding and paid back....on the otherhand think of a hit English Canadian movie and you are liable to strain a muscle...*while not critically acclaimed, it was a hit. Que films do remarkably well in that province. The box office proves that. But off the top of my head and no googling, I come up with Porky's (although that may be a joint effort) The Sweet Hereafter , Sarah Polley's latest about ALS (forget the name) I've Heard the Mermaids Singing, Goin' Down the Road (bad flick but back then ???) Men With Brooms. I would rate the Que films higher than the English films, Mon Oncle Antoine being one of the best. But it is safe to say, through funding we have produced numerous A list directors and stars. Cronenberg, James Cameron (highest grosser ever), Jewison, Polley, Figgis (or is it Haggis?) Jutra , Carrey , Myers..... Quote
g_bambino Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 If ground rules are set out first, then productions like this wouldn't qualify and the producers would know that from the get go. The ground rules are set out already; hate speech is illegal. Thus, a film that attempted to put forward to the public arguments in support of the non-occurance of the holocaust would, I imagine, be deemed a promotion of hate speech, and thus disallowed. I'm sure that the scripts must be reviewed before government funding is approved; at least, I hope that's the case. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 But off the top of my head and no googling, I come up with Porky's (although that may be a joint effort) The Sweet Hereafter , Sarah Polley's latest about ALS (forget the name) I've Heard the Mermaids Singing, Goin' Down the Road (bad flick but back then ???) Men With Brooms.I would rate the Que films higher than the English films, Mon Oncle Antoine being one of the best. But it is safe to say, through funding we have produced numerous A list directors and stars. Cronenberg, James Cameron (highest grosser ever), Jewison, Polley, Figgis (or is it Haggis?) Jutra , Carrey , Myers..... I don't think Porky's qaulified as Canadian and I doubt the rest made any money. I don't think Jewison ever made a "Canadian" movie.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Canadian productions may be "offensive" but they aren't mind-numbingly cookie cutter. Regardless it should not be up to the government of the day to pick and choose - that's called censorship. No. Sorry. Clearly you have no idea what censorship means. Censorship is forbidding someone to make a film. Refusing to pay for them to do it is not censorship. You can write whatever crap you want. I don't care and I won't forbid you to do it. But if you ask me to pay you to write it and I say no that hardly constitutes censorship. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 I don't think Porky's qaulified as Canadian and I doubt the rest made any money. I don't think Jewison ever made a "Canadian" movie.... As a producer he has (Dance me Outside) ,but not as a director. Maybe Agnes of God comes close , but I doubt it is considered Canadian. He set his rep as a producer for the CBC , but his breakthrough was in TV in New York. Quote
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Censorship is forbidding someone to make a film. Refusing to pay for them to do it is not censorship. Not even when A movie gets the money, B movie gets the money yet C movie doesnt because they dont like it? The gov is saying, no we dont like that movie and wont give the funding. Abitrary and censoring. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Not even when A movie gets the money, B movie gets the money yet C movie doesnt because they dont like it?The gov is saying, no we dont like that movie and wont give the funding. Abitrary and censoring. I think I agree with Argus. It isn't censorship, it's discrimination. Mind you, are standards a bad thing? Should porn get funding? Or just art house porn? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
guyser Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) I think I agree with Argus. It isn't censorship, it's discrimination. Mind you, are standards a bad thing? Should porn get funding? Or just art house porn? Fair enough w discrimination over censorship.They can still show the movie (not censored from doing so) but wont get funding because of Y (which is discriminatory) Standards are a good thing. But the arbiters of the standards are not movie people nor artists. And (If I understand correctly) it is done after the film is made, not before. That is the real crux of the situation. Of course porn should be funded , it does make a lot of money, far more than Hollywood does.Porn wont get the money since the budgets are sufficiently low enough and the investors are out there ready to pay. Not to mention the perception of the whole porn thing, Hell, TimeWarner would be broke without revenues from porn. Edited June 19, 2008 by guyser Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.