[LordMandeep]

Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown

Christian crusader says he pressured cabinet ministers and PMO officials to deny tax credits to productions deemed too offensive
BILL CURRY AND GAYLE MACDONALD

From Friday's Globe and Mail

February 29, 2008 at 4:00 AM EST

OTTAWA, TORONTO — A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

"There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes," he said.

Mr. Day and Mr. Nicholson said through officials yesterday they did not recall discussing the issue with Mr. McVety.

Canadian Heritage officials confirmed yesterday they will be "expanding slightly" the criteria used for denying tax credits to include grounds such as gratuitous violence, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group. More details are promised next week.

Arts groups say they will fight the change. Director David Cronenberg and other big industry names warned that the edgy, low-budget films that have garnered Canadians international acclaim will be at risk.

Conservatives deny that the changes are driven by politics or Mr. McVety, noting the previous Liberal government pledged to review the guidelines as far back as 2003.

Conservative MP Dave Batters recently urged the new president of Telefilm Canada, Michel Roy, to block federal funding for objectionable films, listing Young People Fucking as a recent example.

"In my mind, sir, and in the minds of many of my colleagues and many, many Canadians," said Mr. Batters during a Jan. 31 meeting of the Canadian Heritage committee, "the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society - films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country."

In addition to the tax credits for labour costs, Telefilm is a second source of revenue for Canadian film producers. Mr. Roy pledged to raise the issue with the Telefilm board, but a spokesman said yesterday that no policy changes have been made.

Mr. Batters said yesterday he does not support censorship, but offensive films should be made with private money.

"If there's a market for that, let people pay the $11," he said.

Draft guidelines would give the Heritage Minister the clout to deny tax credits to projects deemed "offensive" by an independent committee that includes members of the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office and the Department of Justice.

Several powerful arts groups say the changes violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yesterday, novelist Susan Swan, chair of the Writers' Union of Canada, pledged to lead her 1,600-strong membership in a protest.

"We're not going to sit back and accept this," vowed Ms. Swan, author of books such as The Wives of Bath and The Biggest Modern Woman in the World. "We don't like being told what kind of art we can make by the federal government."

Mr. Cronenberg, whose most recent film was the Oscar-nominated Russian mob thriller Eastern Promises, called the move an assault on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The irony is that it is the Canadian films that have given us an international reputation [that] would be most at risk because they are the edgy, relatively low-budget films made by people like me and others that will be targeted by this panel," he said.

"The platform they're suggesting is akin to a Communist Chinese panel of unknown people, who, behind closed doors, will make a second ruling after bodies like Telefilm Canada have already invested."

CONTROVERSIAL FILMS COULD BE THE LOSERS

Films with controversial subject matter, such as Lynne Stopkewich's acclaimed necrophilia film Kissed and Atom Egoyan's Where The Truth Lies (which got an NC-17 rating in the United States for a scene involving a threesome) could lose the right to tax credits under new public policy guidelines.

Works by Martin Gero, the director of Young People Fucking (which opens in theatres in Canada in April), could also get a once-over from the panel.

"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."

Staff
Reply With Quote


Well really, I do not care about the films.

It the lobbying that freaks me out and really shows his party still is socially conservative. It also suggests if he ever gets a majority, we will see a hard shit to right on social issues.

Well I agree with Harper's fiscal policy (which really is not that different from the Chretien Liberals).

[Rico Rommheim]

It the lobbying that freaks me out and really shows his party still is socially conservative. It also suggests if he ever gets a majority, we will see a hard shit to right on social issues.



I don't see why this freaks you out, lobbying is and has for a long time always been part of our political culture. Still socially conservative? Well they certainly weren't elected as the liberals, they were elected as the conservatives...

Well really, I do not care about the films.

Then there's no issue here then.


This is still reaks though, censorship should be the last thing on a fee western state's agenda.

[LordMandeep]

I don't see why this freaks you out, lobbying is and has for a long time always been part of our political culture. Still socially conservative? Well they certainly weren't elected as the liberals, they were elected as the conservatives...


you can be conservative and socially progressive.

AKA Brian Mulroney....

about Lobbying sure its not wrong or illegal. However I think Harper should be smarter then to associate himself with such people.

[Rico Rommheim]

But everyone was warning about electing a rigid socially conservative government which is what we got, just without the extremist bullshit that one would expect to come out of Stockwell Day or Bush's ass. Besides, many conservatives are calling out on Harper for being too "liberal", but doesn't canada have a history of brokerage politics? But I agree with you to acertain degree when you say that a majority government will bring in a hard shift to the right, but not enough to lose the Quebec and Ontario votes.

[LordMandeep]

it all matters in what ways he goes.

[Cambridgite]

While I'm not a fan of religion being brought into government, this is more of a moral issue than even agnostics like myself can agree on. They're not banning such content from being shown, they're just cutting off government funding. If someone wants to watch that kind of content in the privacy of their own home, they can just buy it at an adult video store.

[Rico Rommheim]

^What do you mean, they're cutting funding for what "they" believe is "offensive", there's no mention of porn here. Under this, Titanic would NOT be funded because its "too offensive" to see Kate Winslet's goods and last time I checked Atom Egoyan doesn't direct pornography but his films are certainly not for the tea party club.

[Nutterbug]

I don't see why this freaks you out, lobbying is and has for a long time always been part of our political culture. Still socially conservative? Well they certainly weren't elected as the liberals, they were elected as the conservatives...

They were elected as the alternative to the long running corrupt Liberals.

[Nutterbug]

While I'm not a fan of religion being brought into government, this is more of a moral issue than even agnostics like myself can agree on. They're not banning such content from being shown, they're just cutting off government funding. If someone wants to watch that kind of content in the privacy of their own home, they can just buy it at an adult video store.

Then it should apply to all films, regardless of controversial content.

[Cambridgite]

^What do you mean, they're cutting funding for what "they" believe is "offensive", there's no mention of porn here. Under this, Titanic would NOT be funded because its "too offensive" to see Kate Winslet's goods and last time I checked Atom Egoyan doesn't direct pornography but his films are certainly not for the tea party club.

True...there's a lot of grey area as to what's acceptable and what isn't.

"Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign."

LOL. This is one thing I find hilarious about the evangelical fear-mongerers. How exactly do you "promote" homosexuality as if it's a choice? Well, I saw an ad today that said being gay is cool and straightness is lame, soooo...I'm gonna be gay now. Believe me, if being gay was a choice, I would have done it by now. Women make no freaking sense. Men are easy.

As for promoting graphic sex and violence, I agree that it shouldn't be government-funded in mainstream TV unless it has educational value (ie. SEX TV or wars on the history channel). Once again, it's a toughie because where do you draw the line?

[Nutterbug]

True...there's a lot of grey area as to what's acceptable and what isn't.

"Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign."

LOL. This is one thing I find hilarious about the evangelical fear-mongerers. How exactly do you "promote" homosexuality as if it's a choice? Well, I saw an ad today that said being gay is cool and straightness is lame, soooo...I'm gonna be gay now. Believe me, if being gay was a choice, I would have done it by now. Women make no freaking sense. Men are easy.

Whoever said religion was about being scientific?

[Cambridgite]

Whoever said religion was about being scientific?

Exactly.

[vid]

Well, I don't think films promoting religion should receive tax dollars. But I'm not going to make a film to try and push that point of view because freedom of expression is protect in the charter of rights.

[Rusty van Reddick]

"Promoting homosexuality." Haven't seen that one in years, really takes me back.

[Nouvellecosse]

As for promoting graphic sex and violence, I agree that it shouldn't be government-funded in mainstream TV unless it has educational value (ie. SEX TV or wars on the history channel). Once again, it's a toughie because where do you draw the line?
But government subsidies and tax credits aren't actually about promoting the film's content or message, they're about promoting the creation of Canadian film in general - both for the sake of the economic aspect, and to ensure that Canadians are exposed to other Canadian voices and perspectives rather than just foreign ones. If the government limits their support soley to films they like, all they're doing is operating a program unfairly and giving an advantage to film makers based not on whether their films are actually good or liked, but only on what the subject matter/content is (which some would agure is irrelevant to the film's value or artistic merrit).

[Nutterbug]

But government subsidies and tax credits aren't actually about promoting the film's content or message, they're about promoting the creation of Canadian film in general - both for the sake of the economic aspect, and to ensure that Canadians are exposed to other Canadian voices and perspectives rather than just foreign ones. If the government limits their support soley to films they like, all they're doing is operating a program unfairly and giving an advantage to film makers based not on whether their films are actually good or liked, but only on what the subject matter/content is (which some would agure is irrelevant to the film's value or artistic merrit).

So then art that promotes the right-wing Christian viewpoint should be just as eligible for funding.

[vid]

"Promoting homosexuality." Haven't seen that one in years, really takes me back.

You're right. They can't seem to tell the difference between promotion and informing. I guess saying "the sky is blue" is an advertisement for sunny days? :rolleyes:

[Rusty van Reddick]

You're right. They can't seem to tell the difference between promotion and informing. I guess saying "the sky is blue" is an advertisement for sunny days? :rolleyes:

Saying "the sky is blue" is clearly promoting skin cancer!

[Nouvellecosse]

So then art that promotes the right-wing Christian viewpoint should be just as eligible for funding.
If it's an actual film and not just a promotion, of course it should. I would never advocate denying someone funding that everyone else was entitled to just because I didn't like or agree with them.

[Nutterbug]

I would prefer everybody paid for their own "art", since it's not exactly a vital necessity.

[giallo]

While I'm not a fan of religion being brought into government, this is more of a moral issue than even agnostics like myself can agree on. They're not banning such content from being shown, they're just cutting off government funding. If someone wants to watch that kind of content in the privacy of their own home, they can just buy it at an adult video store.

The Canadian government has never given any tax credit or funding to the Canadian porn industry. I'm not sure why you thought they had.

Canadian films for the most part are pretty lackluster. Most Canadians with talent will head south where the greater opportunities are. What really irks me about this article is that it's showing the conservatives true colours. I'm sure they'd like to take all 'questionable' material off the air in Canada if they could. It reeks like the first stage of censorship.

[Nouvellecosse]

I would prefer everybody paid for their own "art", since it's not exactly a vital necessity.
Fine, but Americans will be the only ones we'll be paying. Unless of course you count pseudo-Canadians living stateside.

[vid]

I would prefer everybody paid for their own "art", since it's not exactly a vital necessity.

Without art, there is no culture.

Life would be pretty fucking boring without art.

"I don't consider religion a vital necessity either, and yet we give them tax breaks! What bullshit is that??" - example of something an idiot (perhaps myself?) might say.

[softee]

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Wrong! Only 36.3% of the votes were won by the Conservatives!

[vid]

Exactly. About 30% supported the Liberals, and about 30% support the even more socially liberal NDP, BQ and Greens!! More people voted for left wing parties than right wing ones.

[Nutterbug]

Wrong! Only 36.3% of the votes were won by the Conservatives!

And even out of those, many were reluctantly out of protest against the corrupt Liberals.

[vid]

So they don't even like conservative values, per se, they just didn't want the Liberals in charge. Brilliant! Even less than 36% of Canadians are conservative. :)

[LordMandeep]

NO way do they win a majority.

People may be comfortable with a minority, but not a majority.


And even out of those, many were reluctantly out of protest against the corrupt Liberals.


my dad came very close to voting Tory, now it would be impossibile.


Harpers support peaked right after the last election imo.

[kool maudit]

the subsidization of art by the government is sort of a necessary evil in a democratic/capitalist culture, as we have no tradition of people paying to be told things they don't want to hear.

in other times, patrons were more educated about the whole thing (if you were lucky.)

[Spocket]

Didn't any of you actually read the article ?

The ministers in question don't even remember having talked to this religious guy. Apart from that, they aren't introducing any new guidelines to promote any particular lifestyle or put the boots to one either. They're tinkering with the idea that maybe a film called "Young People Fucking" shouldn't be getting our tax dollars. If you honestly think that any film with a title like that is going to move the Canadian population to protest against supposed censorship, I submit to you that perhaps it's not the Tories who should be having their agenda questioned.

For years people have been questioning why certain "artists" have been able to feed on the public's money while producing some of the vilest , pointless, and sometimes just plain disgusting "art". The majority of the population can accept that they don't have to like something for it to still be considered art but they draw the line at pubic hair bracelets and dead rabbits being turned inside out and strung up in somebody's back yard. It's not that they are necessarily against this 'art' it's that they don't want to pay for it. And why should they have to ? It seems that what the Tories are proposing is a response to public opinion and not executing the agenda of some religious fundamentalist.

If you want to watch a movie called "Yound People Fucking" go right ahead. You pay for it and you can watch it. In the meantime, it's not mine or anybody else's obligation to pay for the production of such crap. The contents of the film could prove the title to be very misleading but then, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is with the title in the first place. I'm sick of people getting a hold of my tax dollars to produce this sort of crap and fortunately, the vast majority of the Canadian population is as well.

[kool maudit]

you shake that fist.

[Xelebes]

The problem with pornography is not that it is so vile and horrid, rather that it is so profitable with minimal distribution costs.

[someone123]

The purpose of art is to provoke thought and emotion. The popular idea of "good" art being exclusively pleasing and adherent to current social norms is narrow-minded and quickly falls apart when placed in any kind of historical context. Many examples of art that are considered innovative and appealing today were hated by the public when they were first created. Similarly, some future generation is going to look back on 2008 as we look back on the Victorian era today.

I can understand the reasoning behind getting rid of all of these subsidies, although it pretty much guarantees that certain kinds of Canadian artists will fall (even farther?) behind those of other countries who will continue to receive subsidies.

[SpongeG]

pretty much all of showcases' "own" shows gets the credit - you can see it at the end of credits

on shows like kink, queer as folk, kenny vs spenny etc.

its getting pretty scarey when groups can push their agenda - whats next ??

[Spocket]

you shake that fist.

Lol...okay, touche. My response was aimed mainly at those who didn't actually bother to read the article though.

I can understand the reasoning behind getting rid of all of these subsidies, although it pretty much guarantees that certain kinds of Canadian artists will fall (even farther?) behind those of other countries who will continue to receive subsidies.

I don't think that that's true at all. The problem with what passes for the most acceptable form of 'boundary-pushing' art these days is that its intention is to shock and therefore produce some introspection or something. Of course, this only works if you do it occasionally. For the past twenty or thirty years it has been the norm. How many times are people going to be surprised by Jesus getting a blowjob or whatever ? If anything, this might actually induce the modern artist to rediscover creativity instead of recycling the same old thing. Shock isn't necessarily a bad thing especially in the art world but perhaps the mistake of many modern artists is that they're assuming revulsion is the same thing as shock.

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Perhaps I can provide some context...

As a registered lobbyist and having an inside the Queensway perspective on who in this town has true access and influence, let me be clear that Charles McVety has zero influence on the policy outcomes of this government.

The Harper Conservatives are traditionally shy of subsidies for, or incentives that only benefit one industry or sector of the economy. The fact that the Arts community are not traditionally Conservative supporters is not really relevant here, since the consistant approach, across to the board of Conservatives is to shun "government hand-outs" period. I'm sure Conservatives grit their teeth every time they subsidize anything, so it's reasonable to assume that if they can do something to complicate the process for acquring artistc subsidies, you can bet they'll do it. Outside the arts community take a look at the SR&ED program, the now cancelled EcoAUTO program, or SADI and ask their users how easy these programs have been to access.

Harper Conservatives believe the role of the government is to create the economic (tax policy) and physical infrastructure pre-conditions to allow business, including the arts community to attract customers. Their faith in the marketplace being the final arbitor of success or failure and their adherance to the "invisible hand" governs their decisions.

This has been spun into a discussion about censorship, but I think that any attempts to do so are done with a calculated partisan purpose to paint the Conservatives in a unfavourable light. Furthermore, these allegations of state-sponsored censorship are made while selectively ignoring how the Conservatives have dealt with other stakeholders who've asked for hand-outs to support enterprises where the opportunity for a return on the initial investment is questionable.

[ungodlycrosscheck]

McVety claims to have "lobbied" (his words) the Public Safety and Justice Ministers as well as key officials in PMO is also questionable. Most senior public office holders in Ottawa particularly those on the political side of decision making, including Ministers and their staff will not give a lobbyist the time of day without first confirming with that the person whom they are formally meeting is listed on the public registry of lobbyists.

McVety is not listed, and if in fact he has lobbied key officials (lobbying defined as pre-arranged communications so as to affect the outcome of a government decision) he is in contravention of the law and subject to fine and potentially imprisonment.

[harls]

The purpose of art is to provoke thought and emotion. The popular idea of "good" art being exclusively pleasing and adherent to current social norms is narrow-minded and quickly falls apart when placed in any kind of historical context.

Even Pussycat Dolls Present - Girlicious?

[Bassic Lab]

Perhaps I can provide some context...

As a registered lobbyist and having an inside the Queensway perspective on who in this town has true access and influence, let me be clear that Charles McVety has zero influence on the policy outcomes of this government.

The Harper Conservatives are traditionally shy of subsidies for, or incentives that only benefit one industry or sector of the economy. The fact that the Arts community are not traditionally Conservative supporters is not really relevant here, since the consistant approach, across to the board of Conservatives is to shun "government hand-outs" period. I'm sure Conservatives grit their teeth every time they subsidize anything, so it's reasonable to assume that if they can do something to complicate the process for acquring artistc subsidies, you can bet they'll do it. Outside the arts community take a look at the SR&ED program, the now cancelled EcoAUTO program, or SADI and ask their users how easy these programs have been to access.

Harper Conservatives believe the role of the government is to create the economic (tax policy) and physical infrastructure pre-conditions to allow business, including the arts community to attract customers. Their faith in the marketplace being the final arbitor of success or failure and their adherance to the "invisible hand" governs their decisions.

This has been spun into a discussion about censorship, but I think that any attempts to do so are done with a calculated partisan purpose to paint the Conservatives in a unfavourable light. Furthermore, these allegations of state-sponsored censorship are made while selectively ignoring how the Conservatives have dealt with other stakeholders who've asked for hand-outs to support enterprises where the opportunity for a return on the initial investment is questionable.

And there isn't a single Tory MP in Parliament that has an axe to grind over what they see as the perverted nature of much of what gains funding in this country? Cause I'm sure Stockwell Day loves the idea that films like C.R.A.Z.Y. and Crash are gaining the same funding as, um some Canadian movie that doesn't center on growing up gay or the arousal achieved through violent acts.

The idea might be to cut subsidies, but the idea of taxes is to raise revenue, which doesn't preclude them from punishing certain activities like smoking. So while this might be meant to cut subsidies, the implementation punishes what someone deems to be immoral.

[Spocket]

And there isn't a single Tory MP in Parliament that has an axe to grind over what they see as the perverted nature of much of what gains funding in this country? Cause I'm sure Stockwell Day loves the idea that films like C.R.A.Z.Y. and Crash are gaining the same funding as, um some Canadian movie that doesn't center on growing up gay or the arousal achieved through violent acts.

The idea might be to cut subsidies, but the idea of taxes is to raise revenue, which doesn't preclude them from punishing certain activities like smoking. So while this might be meant to cut subsidies, the implementation punishes what someone deems to be immoral.

The flaw in that logic is that the government has a responsibility or rather, an obligation to give so-called artists money when in fact, it is essentially a privilege. An artist who defecates in a jar as part of his/her 'piece' has no more entitlement to a grant than you or I do.

It's really not a matter of ethics or morality at all. Andy Warhol's genius wasn't in his art per se but rather in the juxtaposition of his art against contemporary society. If an artist could explain how smearing a shoe with semen was art then people would likely be far more inclined to see the merit in what he was doing. People would be able to understand why something was art when at first glance it certainly didn't appear to be. Basically the problem with modern artists in many cases is that they assume it's up to the general public to prove that what they make isn't art when in fact, it's up to the artist him/herself to prove why something is art should the matter become an issue.

[Bassic Lab]

The flaw in that logic is that the government has a responsibility or rather, an obligation to give so-called artists money when in fact, it is essentially a privilege. An artist who defecates in a jar as part of his/her 'piece' has no more entitlement to a grant than you or I do.

It's really not a matter of ethics or morality at all. Andy Warhol's genius wasn't in his art per se but rather in the juxtaposition of his art against contemporary society. If an artist could explain how smearing a shoe with semen was art then people would likely be far more inclined to see the merit in what he was doing. People would be able to understand why something was art when at first glance it certainly didn't appear to be. Basically the problem with modern artists in many cases is that they assume it's up to the general public to prove that what they make isn't art when in fact, it's up to the artist him/herself to prove why something is art should the matter become an issue.

What? Telefilm doesn't pay people to defecate in jars, the provide grants to allow Canadian film productions to be made. This has nothing to do with what some people in this thread are bitching about. There are programs to provide grants to other artists, but Telefilm really isn't it. What people are afraid of is the fact that while the films of Denys Arcand may not offend the majority of Canadians, they might very well offend some Tory stooge.

[Spocket]

You mean you think a film with a title like "Young People Fucking" is only offensive to Tory stooges ?

[Bassic Lab]

You mean you think a film with a title like "Young People Fucking" is only offensive to Tory stooges ?

I have no idea, I have not seen the film in question, I assume you haven't either. I do think it is safe to say that it is not the equivalent of what you have been saying.

[Spocket]

You're absolutely right that I haven't seen it. That's actually beside the point though.

I have no qualms with a film of any type as long as it doesn't violate any laws at all with it's production or content. Where I and most people draw a line in the sand is when we're asked to contribute to a production that violates common decency.

Let me put it differently to illustrate the point. If for some strange reason the government decided one day to allow gladiatorial duels to the death, would you be comfortable with government money being spent to support the contests ? It wouldn't be illegal anymore after all and as a form of legal entertainment, one could argue that it would be entitled to a certain level of funding from the government. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant because it's legal. Most people would absolutely be appalled to learn that their money was being used to facilitate an event such as this. So while they may not be able to stop it entirely, they should have the right to refuse to fund it. Since it violates the common mores of society , let those who enjoy it pay for it rather than expecting everybody to.

Now, in the above example, it seems extreme but the principle is the same. If somebody wants to make a film entitled "Young People Fucking" then fine, let him. Those that want to go and see it can support this film maker. If the majority of people are opposed to their money being used to offend their sensibilities then they also have the right control who receives cash in the first place. It's not the government's money after all. The government is in charge of distributing it but they do so as the general public dictates. In this case, the majority of the general public has been asking for a review of arts grants. Therefore, they public is exercising its right to control the distribution of its own cash.

Blame the Tories if you like but they're only bowing to public pressure. The Liberals before them were planning to do the same thing after all.

[vid]

I have no qualms with a film of any type as long as it doesn't violate any laws at all with it's production or content. Where I and most people draw a line in the sand is when we're asked to contribute to a production that violates common decency.

Your first statement contradicts the last. You have no qualms as long as it doesn't violate any laws, and yet you draw the line at common decency? Young People Fucking hasn't violated any laws that I know of so you should have no qualms with it.

[Spocket]

Your first statement contradicts the last. You have no qualms as long as it doesn't violate any laws, and yet you draw the line at common decency? Young People Fucking hasn't violated any laws that I know of so you should have no qualms with it.

I have no problem with the content of the film at all as long as it doesn't violate any laws. I DO have a problem with it when it violates common decency which this film does with its title. If nothing else in the film is particularly vulgar then the film maker need only retitle the work. Is this really so much to ask for us to grant funding ? After all, if the film isn't actually about sexual relations between young people then why not retitle it ? He could call the film anything he wants but he chose this above all. What for ?

From here on in it's all semantics and rhetorical questions about why the title is offensive or vulgar but ultimately the problem still remains. The problem , in this case , is that with a title like that , who exactly is it that will be able to watch this film ? No parent is going to sit down with their kids and a bucket of popcorn on this one. Generally speaking, the title is going to be found offensive by the vast majority of Canadians. Some may still watch the film anyway but most people will eschew a viewing of the film based on the title alone. So, does that constitute responsible use of public money ? Not really. People are asked to contribute towards something that they will not view on principle alone. Like if we demanded that all Canadians pay for the upkeep of an electric chair even though the vast majority were opposed to the death penalty.

We could argue of course that the government contributes to many things that the public doesn't approve of. This is true but the difference is that none of these other things are fleeting forms of entertainment. If the vulgarity serves a purpose then perhaps the film should be funded but what I'm saying (and this is the point I've been driving at from the outset of this dialogue) is that it's not up to the government to explain why the title of this film (to use the obvious example) is vulgar but for the artist to explain why it's necessary and his film should still receive public funding. This strikes me as a small concession by the arts community for access to our money.

[Bassic Lab]

I have no problem with the content of the film at all as long as it doesn't violate any laws. I DO have a problem with it when it violates common decency which this film does with its title. If nothing else in the film is particularly vulgar then the film maker need only retitle the work. Is this really so much to ask for us to grant funding ? After all, if the film isn't actually about sexual relations between young people then why not retitle it ? He could call the film anything he wants but he chose this above all. What for ?

From here on in it's all semantics and rhetorical questions about why the title is offensive or vulgar but ultimately the problem still remains. The problem , in this case , is that with a title like that , who exactly is it that will be able to watch this film ? No parent is going to sit down with their kids and a bucket of popcorn on this one. Generally speaking, the title is going to be found offensive by the vast majority of Canadians. Some may still watch the film anyway but most people will eschew a viewing of the film based on the title alone. So, does that constitute responsible use of public money ? Not really. People are asked to contribute towards something that they will not view on principle alone. Like if we demanded that all Canadians pay for the upkeep of an electric chair even though the vast majority were opposed to the death penalty.

We could argue of course that the government contributes to many things that the public doesn't approve of. This is true but the difference is that none of these other things are fleeting forms of entertainment. If the vulgarity serves a purpose then perhaps the film should be funded but what I'm saying (and this is the point I've been driving at from the outset of this dialogue) is that it's not up to the government to explain why the title of this film (to use the obvious example) is vulgar but for the artist to explain why it's necessary and his film should still receive public funding. This strikes me as a small concession by the arts community for access to our money.

Because so many Canadian films are made so that families can sit together and watch them. Just because it isn't a family film doesn't mean that it has nothing to say about Canadian culture.

American Pie could have been called Young People Fucking. Doesn't mean that its existence will offend the majority of people. So what if the word fucking is used, did it ruin Fucking Amal?

[vid]

"No parent is going to sit down with their kids and a bucket of popcorn on this one."

How often does that happen anyway? Parents don't sit down with their kids and a bucket of popcorn to watch The Ring, either.

The amount of money is miniscule anyway. The raise MPs gave themselves recently could fund a major motion picture.

[Spocket]

Because so many Canadian films are made so that families can sit together and watch them. Just because it isn't a family film doesn't mean that it has nothing to say about Canadian culture.

American Pie could have been called Young People Fucking. Doesn't mean that its existence will offend the majority of people. So what if the word fucking is used, did it ruin Fucking Amal?

He can title it anything he wants to. We should have the right (and actually, we do) to decide if he can have a dime of our money too.

Look, the reality whether artists like it or not is that if the public is supposed to support their projects they're going to have to show a little respect for their benefactors. Otherwise they can find the cash themselves. Some artists want to make films about pedophilia by depicting children having sex with adults. Some artists want to take dead animals and hang them from trees in their backyards. What people want to know is why they should have to pay for this crap. Is it art ? People don't really care once a certain threshold has been crossed. If an artist can justify their project then so be it, maybe it does deserve funding. It's not up to us to say that something isn't art, it's up to the artist to prove that it IS art if they want our cash.

[SlickFranky]

We could argue over arts funding for the next 500 posts. It's easy, it goes like this...
"You support porn!"
"You support censorship!"
...boring.

The real point of this article was that McVety is a douche. I would love to see a heated debate over this point.

[vid]

The real point of this article was that McVety is a douche. I would love to see a heated debate over this point.

There is no debate. We've agreed on that. :\

[93JC]

Bump!

I saw the trailer for Young People Fucking earlier today. From what I can glean from it, this film most certainly deserved funding. It looks hilarious. :D

That is all.