You can bet that the liberal media, the bloggers, the filmmakers, and ACTRA and the DGC all have their knickers in a serious twist. 9 out of 10 journalists are decrying this amendment as (gasp!) censorship. What we aren't seeing in the papers is an explanation of what the amendment does, how it affects Canadian filmmakers, and what the tax credits actually do. This is probably because no one outside of the political arena can actually make heads or tails of the bill, which is available online for all to see - you can slog through it here, and good luck to ya.
First, let's talk about tax credits. A tax credit is an amount deducted directly from income tax otherwise payable, ie., it's the stuff you don't receive a refund for because you were automatically refunded it by way of never having to pay it. The way this affects Canadian filmmakers is in their ability to secure loans to complete their projects: for example, a when a producer applies for a bank loan, the bank regards the tax credit they will in theory receive as affecting the borrower's ability to repay. The "in theory" part is what's so important here: filmmakers can only apply for tax credits after the project is complete and has been submitted to the government to ensure its qualification for the credit.
So far as I can tell, all the fuss is hidden away deep in Part 2, and reads as follows:
'Canadian film or video production certificate' means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that[...]
| ||||
This seems pretty straightforward, except for the part about "public policy" and what the heck that entails. More on that later.
In response to the media spouting such doomsday pronouncements as "Bill c-10 Could Spell the End of the Canadian Film Industry" - thanks, CityTV News, for that levelheaded, balanced, informative reporting! - the Honourable Josee Verner, minister of (amongst other things) Canadian Heritage and thus directly responsible for Canadian media guidelines released a statement saying that this is meant to close the existing loophole that allows filmmakers producing content "that may be subject to prosecution" to be technically eligible for tax credits under the Income Tax Act. Minister Verner also notes that, in 2002, this same amendment was introduced under the Martin Liberal government. In fact, that 2002-2003 amendment reads almost completely analgously to the current Conservative amendment - observe paragraph 3(b), and yet somehow no one made a fuss when the Liberals pushed for the exact same restrictions. I can only assume that parliament was either dishonest with its disclosure of information at the time - unlikely, as it's dangerously illegal - or that no one complained simply because of the erroneous idea that "liberal" equals always standing up for what's best for the people. In the end, all the Conservative government's really done is succeed in passing an amendment the previous Liberal government failed to pass - maybe they're just jealous.
It must also be noted that this amendment was passed with the support of all parties. The most shameful backpedaling in the face of the media's excoriation of this amendment comes courtesy of NDP heritage critic Bill Siksay, who claims that he didn't know about the amendment when he voted in favour of the bill, and told CBC news that "to hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise." Trying to make himself look like a good guy by telling the voting public that you don't bother reading or listening to the bill you're voting for? And the journalistic media supports him for announcing that he votes irresponsibly in the House of Commons? Shame, shame, shame. I can't stomach the pols who try to disassociate themselves from policy that proves unpopular.
Now, back to "public policy". Minister Verner stated in her address that this amendment would only apply to excessive or gratuitous violence, not "mainstream films like Eastern Promises." Now, I haven't seen Promises, but I'm familiar with director David Cronenberg's work and I think we can all agree that if the government has pledged to continue giving tax credits to the sort of violence in Cronenberg's work, then the industry really has nothing to fear. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) defines gratuitous violence as being irrelevant to the development of character, or to the advancement of the theme or plot - this gives filmmakers an immense amount of leeway! Still using Cronenberg as an example, his 2005 film A History of Violence included a dream sequence in which Viggo Mortensen's character blew away Ed Harris' character with a shotgun, after which the Harris character continued to speak while lying on the floor with a bloody, visceral mess where his chest used to be. Was it extremely violent? Oh yeah. Was it relevant to character development? For Mortensen's character, absolutely.
So...where does this fit in to "public policy"? Well, A History of Violence is somewhat of a sloppy, weak film, but it serves its purpose to expose violence for the horrific, destructive thing that it is. This seems to fit well with federal legislation regarding the prosecution of violent acts, which by extension denounces them as bad and wrong, and also stands in agreement with the CBSC policy that a production shall not glorify or glamourize violent acts. At the same time, it must be said that it is always awkward to claim "public policy", as 20 people can live on the same street and have nothing in common - in other words, it's hard to speak for a populace that has such an extreme diversity of moral and political standards. However, "public policy" is the government's democratically given right and responsibility. Every nation has a broad moral operating code that is upheld by its government's decisions.
Now, the Big Deal: Is C-10 censorship?
I say, no.
Censorship, again thanks to Merriam and Webster, involves forbidding public distribution of media deemed offensive or objectionable - the key word here being forbidding. No changes have been made to Canadian legislation regarding the distribution of film and television material, or regarding what can or can't be legally depicted on screen. In my opinion, reserving the right to deny tax credits is similar to a parent allowing their child to go see a movie with their friends, but refusing the child's request for spending money. The parent isn't forbidding their child to see the movie, they're simply making them come up with the money on their own. And I should point out that the tax credit only applies to productions that cost more than $500,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that most of the soppy Canadian dramas being produced have a good excuse to cost more than that - the Academy Award-winning Irish production Once cost around $150,000 CDN to make and is twelve to fifteen times better in its writing, directing, acting, and editing than any Canadian-produced drama I've watched to date.
In response to the media spouting such doomsday pronouncements as "Bill c-10 Could Spell the End of the Canadian Film Industry" - thanks, CityTV News, for that levelheaded, balanced, informative reporting! - the Honourable Josee Verner, minister of (amongst other things) Canadian Heritage and thus directly responsible for Canadian media guidelines released a statement saying that this is meant to close the existing loophole that allows filmmakers producing content "that may be subject to prosecution" to be technically eligible for tax credits under the Income Tax Act. Minister Verner also notes that, in 2002, this same amendment was introduced under the Martin Liberal government. In fact, that 2002-2003 amendment reads almost completely analgously to the current Conservative amendment - observe paragraph 3(b), and yet somehow no one made a fuss when the Liberals pushed for the exact same restrictions. I can only assume that parliament was either dishonest with its disclosure of information at the time - unlikely, as it's dangerously illegal - or that no one complained simply because of the erroneous idea that "liberal" equals always standing up for what's best for the people. In the end, all the Conservative government's really done is succeed in passing an amendment the previous Liberal government failed to pass - maybe they're just jealous.
It must also be noted that this amendment was passed with the support of all parties. The most shameful backpedaling in the face of the media's excoriation of this amendment comes courtesy of NDP heritage critic Bill Siksay, who claims that he didn't know about the amendment when he voted in favour of the bill, and told CBC news that "to hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise." Trying to make himself look like a good guy by telling the voting public that you don't bother reading or listening to the bill you're voting for? And the journalistic media supports him for announcing that he votes irresponsibly in the House of Commons? Shame, shame, shame. I can't stomach the pols who try to disassociate themselves from policy that proves unpopular.
Now, back to "public policy". Minister Verner stated in her address that this amendment would only apply to excessive or gratuitous violence, not "mainstream films like Eastern Promises." Now, I haven't seen Promises, but I'm familiar with director David Cronenberg's work and I think we can all agree that if the government has pledged to continue giving tax credits to the sort of violence in Cronenberg's work, then the industry really has nothing to fear. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) defines gratuitous violence as being irrelevant to the development of character, or to the advancement of the theme or plot - this gives filmmakers an immense amount of leeway! Still using Cronenberg as an example, his 2005 film A History of Violence included a dream sequence in which Viggo Mortensen's character blew away Ed Harris' character with a shotgun, after which the Harris character continued to speak while lying on the floor with a bloody, visceral mess where his chest used to be. Was it extremely violent? Oh yeah. Was it relevant to character development? For Mortensen's character, absolutely.
So...where does this fit in to "public policy"? Well, A History of Violence is somewhat of a sloppy, weak film, but it serves its purpose to expose violence for the horrific, destructive thing that it is. This seems to fit well with federal legislation regarding the prosecution of violent acts, which by extension denounces them as bad and wrong, and also stands in agreement with the CBSC policy that a production shall not glorify or glamourize violent acts. At the same time, it must be said that it is always awkward to claim "public policy", as 20 people can live on the same street and have nothing in common - in other words, it's hard to speak for a populace that has such an extreme diversity of moral and political standards. However, "public policy" is the government's democratically given right and responsibility. Every nation has a broad moral operating code that is upheld by its government's decisions.
Now, the Big Deal: Is C-10 censorship?
I say, no.
Censorship, again thanks to Merriam and Webster, involves forbidding public distribution of media deemed offensive or objectionable - the key word here being forbidding. No changes have been made to Canadian legislation regarding the distribution of film and television material, or regarding what can or can't be legally depicted on screen. In my opinion, reserving the right to deny tax credits is similar to a parent allowing their child to go see a movie with their friends, but refusing the child's request for spending money. The parent isn't forbidding their child to see the movie, they're simply making them come up with the money on their own. And I should point out that the tax credit only applies to productions that cost more than $500,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that most of the soppy Canadian dramas being produced have a good excuse to cost more than that - the Academy Award-winning Irish production Once cost around $150,000 CDN to make and is twelve to fifteen times better in its writing, directing, acting, and editing than any Canadian-produced drama I've watched to date.
Maybe telling filmmakers they have to rely more on their own wallets will lead to better Canadian movies. In college, I've seen a curious correlation between who pays for tuition and how hard a student works: that is, typically, the students who are financing their tuition through work, or loans they'll be responsible for repaying, put more effort and integrity into their studies than students who are cruising on Mum and Dad's dollar, because they have an intimate understanding of the value of their money, and want to get the most out of it. I don't think it would hurt the lackluster Canadian film industry to be forced to work the same way. At the end of the day, the Canadian government and the taxpaying public are not responsible for film production or distribution or fulfilling someone's artistic vision. But they help anyway, and, under the new legislation, they will continue to help.
The fact is, this legislation is nothing new. My opinion is, its also not the doomsday death of the industry being predicted. Let the thoughts and comments begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment