Revival of CENSORSHIP in Canadian Film Industry

Go read these articles to get the background info on this issue, then read my response below. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228.wheritage28/BNStory/Entertainment/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wcomment0303new/BNStory/Front/home

___________________________________ FILM STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (FSAC) PRESIDENT:  Dear Honourable Prime Minister Harper, and Honourable Minister Verner, I write with extreme concern about the proposed Bill C-10, and the ways that it would enable de facto government censorship of film and television. According to a story in the Globe and Mail: “Bill C-10, currently at third reading in the Senate, contains an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deny eligibility to tax credits of productions determined to be contrary to public policy,” Charles Drouin, spokesman for Canadian Heritage said in a statement. “... Upon royal assent of C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage plans to update the eligibility requirements for the [Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit] program.” As an educator and researcher of artists film and video, I know that artistic freedom and the free play of ideas--including those deemed "contrary to public policy"--are vital to a vibrant democracy. Although the balance between free expression and the public good is, and has been, a point of contention in all democracies, experience has shown that attempts at "content control" by governments rarely work--or they create the unacceptable conditions we are familiar with in dictatorships. On one level, Bill C-10 is not overt censorship as it merely proposes to add another set of criteria to judge applications for public funding. However, as a scholar of film history, I can see a very clear precedent in the proposed mechanism for this policy. The review by a panel set up by CAVCO, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, seems very similar to how the notorious Production Code Administration was run in the United States from the late 1920s until it was overturned in the late 1950s. The PCA was set up by Hollywood to avoid overt state censorship, but had the effect of stifling creative expression in Hollywood and dumbing down filmmaking in name of controlling "content". The PCA rightly earned the ridicule of both the film industry and the public, and this provision in Bill C-10 deserves the same shame. Finally, if the subsequent report in the Globe and Mail that lobbying by an evangelical minister was a factor in this provision in the Bill, the parallel with the PCA is complete, as it was sparked by pressure from the National Legion of Decency in the 1920s. Narrow religious dogma has no place in state policy. That such a provision should be introduced when Canadian feature film production has achieved international recognition--in part because of relatively strong arms-length government funding--is puzzling. I thought that conservative governments preferred not to interfere in the organic functioning of industries. But this Bill, and the negative publicity that it is generating, will embarrass Canadian film in the eyes of international filmmakers, and put a chill on both filmic expression and international investment. I must also say that, as a voter, this legislation does nothing to contradict the popular perception that this Tory administration is a top-down government that is attempting to legislate public morality and interfere unnecessarily with people's freedoms. I look forward to your response. Michael Zryd
FSAC President ___________________________________ JACK LAYTON: > From: "Layton, Jack - M.P." <Layton.J@parl.gc.ca>
> Date: March 4, 2008 5:14:48 PM EST (CA)
> To: "Layton, Jack - M.P." <Layton.J@parl.gc.ca>
> Subject: The NDP on Bill C-10 and Censorship
>
>
> Thank you for contacting me about Bill C-10 and the Harper 
> government's
> plans to censor film in Canada that it finds "offensive". I agree that
> expanding the criteria used for denying tax credits to artists amounts
> to censorship and will have devastating consequences for the film and
> television industry.
>
> New Democrats are standing up in Parliament to protect freedom of
> artistic expression in Canada. NDP House Leader Libby Davies was the
> first to raise the issue in Question Period and NDP Industry Critic
> Peggy Nash has made a formal statement in the House of Commons. NDP
> Culture and Heritage Critic Bill Siksay pushed this matter at the
> Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and in related media 
> interviews.
> I invite you to support our petition to rescind any provisions of Bill
> C-10 which allow the government to censor film and video production.
> Please find below copies of our House interventions and the petition.
>
> We believe that to be successful in its goal of encouraging Canadian
> film and video production, the tax credit system must be 
> transparent and
> objective. We strongly object to having either the Minister of 
> Canadian
> Heritage or nameless bureaucrats as the arbiters of what stories 
> should
> be told or how they should be portrayed. Calls for subjective
> decision-making amount to censorship and have no place in a free and
> democratic society. I am sure you will agree that we must never 
> confuse
> controversy for inappropriateness in a diverse country like Canada.
>
> Again, I appreciate your efforts to protect artistic expression in
> Canada. I encourage you to pass along my response to all who may be
> interested. All the best.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
> Leader, Canada's New Democrats ___________________________________ ___________________________________ MY RESPONSE:

Limiting public funding for film and television production in Canada is tantamount to gutting the Canadian film/tv industry. The Hollywood industry (more ignorantly violent and sexually sensationalistic than most, if not any other, global film industry/-ies) is an economic behemoth with a strangle-hold on the contemporary North American market. Canadian productions are therefore dependent on public funding, particularly if those productions are incapable of securing a blockbuster-sized audience.

For the conservative mouthpiece (CM), whom CBC recently interviewed on their CBC Sunday program (who bleated his unselfconscious and uncritical vitriol on air), to suggest that a Canadian production will be able to make films without public funding is a sign of his complete ignorance of the ruthless economic nature of the film industry within which Canadian filmmakers find themselves. Canadian filmmakers are marginalized filmmakers within their own nation. They have to fight Hollywood productions for screen-time within their own nation. The popularity of Canadian films is less a result of the films' intrinsic merit, than it is a result of the bloated advertising sector of the Hollywood industry. The Hollywood industry puts more money into the promotion of its products than the products themselves. This is what Canadian filmmakers are up against: the economic and advertising monopoly of Hollywood.

Independent Canadian filmmakers are NOT Hollywood producers.
Independent Canadian productions are SELDOM Hollywood-sized blockbusters, nor should they necessarily aim to be.

It is ignorant to suggest that the value of an artwork resides exclusively in its economic success within the context of the Hollywood market.

Art is NOT the equivalent of box-office success.

Art is NOT comfortable.
Art is NOT profit.
Art is NOT a duplication of current social values.
Art IS a challenge to contemporary values.
Art IS oftentimes unpopular.
Art IS uncomfortable.

Discomfort IS necessary.

The discomfort associated with "offensive" artworks PROMPTS self-reflection, self-consciousness, and self-criticism. Such discomfort MUST be allowed to continue in Canadian filmmaking, so that such introspection can continue in Canadian society. If funding to "offensive" artwork is in any way limited, particularly by people ignorant of their own prejudices, we will create a society replete with self-righteous CMs: CMs who are ignorant of the value of such discomfort, CMs who in suggesting that films be valued purely on the basis of economic success and general public approval are ironically paving the way for an even more robust porn industry.

Yes, that would be an amazing achievement: instead of producing films that attempt to critically engage violence and sexuality, we could create films that ignorantly indulge in the problematic nature of contemporary North American violence and sexuality.

Hey, CM: go back to your living room. Go back to your kids and hot chocolate and your Disney movies. Watch the pretty colours. Don't think too much. That's what film is all about, right? That's what art is all about, right? Feeling cozy.