I was goofing off on Facebook when I should have been doing some editing, and I ran across a new Facebook "group."
Groups are what happens on Facebook when a few people get their pants in twist about something, and before you know it some guy from New Zealand is one of 25, 987 people "Pledging to Stop Violence Against Rabbits in Manitoba," or whatever.
Anyway, the latest buzz in the Canadian film scene is Bill C-10. It's full of taxation mumbo jumbo, and somewhere in there is a provision stating that the government won't give tax credits to films and TV shows that it finds offensive, or not in the public interest.
Horrors! Every actor, writer, director and other frequent Starbucks regular instantly went nuclear. As usual, they went ballistic over the whole free speech deal, and are crying about censorship from Big Brother.
Yeah, right. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, writers both, were up on charges in front of Canadian Human Rights commissions for expressing their views. Where were the film grads then?
As if Canada were in the business of closing the mouths of whacked-out filmmakers. Every night on Canadian TV I see a new acid trip come over the airwaves. Poorly written, poorly shot, and delivered with a healthy dose of sanctimony: "We don't shoot our stuff like Americans. That would be so...American." In other words, Canadian filmmakers airing stuff in Canada make it look like crap on purpose. Who needs production value when you have a maple leaf on your backpack?
For the record, if the government were to end tax credits for garbage films, it is not censorship. Censorship is when the government sends a squad of thugs to your house and throws you in jail for making a film. When a government merely cuts the money supply on people that want to play Spielberg all day while showing Ed Wood ticket sales, it's called good business.
Earlier this year, I had my eye on a couple of grants and thought about applying for them. I wanted to make an independent film and thought that my corporate video background would give me a leg up: completed projects, money made, happy customers, so forth. I had the script set, actors ready, my own equipment. Just a little extra dough for some locations and better lighting gear would give me a green light.
Not a chance. The government has been "censoring" mainstream storytellers for decades. When I talked to the guy in Ottawa about my project, he told me my project "was not very viable," whatever that means. If I had a First Nations angle, or a multicultural story, or something "that is not mainstream, but can only be told through government assistance," then I'd be all right. "Genre films," were out. Also, a film school background would help, especially if the film was "experimental" in nature.
In other words, make something no one wants to see, and that doesn't have a hope in hell of making money.
So it was no go. Did I cry and moan and create a group on Facebook? Nah. I put the phone down and said to myself, "All right. Another four months and I'll be able to finance the lights on my own, then try and draw an investor, and make the damn movie. Maybe next year, if I have to."
Today's storytellers in Canada make me ill. I don't want to talk to a filmmaker that can't make his film without begging from the Feds. You want to make a movie? Then make the damn movie. You spend all your life whining and protesting to the government about every little gripe, and then get surprised when they ask you to put up the goods?
I also don't want to hear from anybody about "experimental filmmakers" needing assistance. No. They do not. They need to get a job, and get a life. Earn some money. Buy a camera, rent some gear, get costumes at Zellers, find some investors, go to Home Hardware and make your own dolly gear. Filmmaking equipment is so relatively cheap and good now, that there is no excuse for not doing it on your own when you have to. Twenty years ago, producing your own film would have been a hell of a task. Now, teenagers are doing it.
Need assistance? Hear you go: a dolly can be made with 1-inch plywood. Make it a 40" x 30" piece (sorry, don't know the metric on that). Take eight rollerblade wheels and bolt them into pairs. Place the four pairs on each corner of the birch board (birch is best). Bolt a stool to the board, and leave space for your tripod. Bolt a handle to the board, so a buddy can push it. Next, lay down two long stretches of 3/4" PVC pipe. Place your new dolly on the PVC pipe. Push.
That dolly just cost you $95.
What's the matter, chumps? Afraid you can't put up? Make your little movie so we all can see it, rather than have the taxpayers blow three hundred grand on a piece of junk that I won't see unless I stay up until 3am watching the Bravo network.
Last week I heard a morning DJ fawning over "I Met the Walrus," a short film about some Canadian guy who met John Lennon back in the day.
The short was up for an Oscar. A six-minute animated flick about a singer who died over thirty years ago.
This is the best Canada can show at the Academy Awards? I wonder why.
12 comments:
My MBA thesis was a consultancy for the largest film project in Scandinavia and we learned that they received extra funding from the gov't that 'showcased minorities (women, visable); highlighted the local area; touched upon social issues'.
The same goes for the UK -- so take solace in the fact that this sort of thing is rife around the world.
I do object to the 'experimental film' subsidy. Literally some one can put shite up on screen and it receives additional funding vs that of a well written thriller/comedy/romcom. Really is a sorry state of affairs as Canadian film and TV is really really bad.
Buddy, you need a National Column. Seriously good stuff.
Actually, the best we could show at the Oscars was the film Juno, which was not allowed into the Genies, because the Canadian producers, cast, and Canadian location didn't outweigh the fact the Canadians here had got off their butts and got American funding.
The lesson: Make a film that people actually go see, and get real industry funding for it instead of tax grabs, you're not part of our culture anymore.
Agreed. Yet isn't it funny how a Canadian director with two Canadian leads will still be hailed as "Canadian born" every time they're interviewed for a piece? They could live in LA for the next sixty years, and still get the label when they show up for a film festival.
Canadian born, but not Canadian wanted.
PJ in Vancouver
Damn , I've become one of those picky fact nerds.
John Lennon was shot Dec. 8, 1980. Not 'over 30 years ago.'
Excellent post otherwise!
Sean, you make some really valid points. However, profit and "tons of bums in the seats" should not be the prime motivator for cultural expression. There's plenty of mainstream entertainment out there generating massive amounts of profit. Which is great if you like that sort of thing. But I've heard that Van Gogh didn't make a dime from his work, does that make it any less valuable? Just because something doesn't appeal to the masses doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. You're right if you want to make a movie so bad, save you money and get it done. However, the real point here is that grants are available. Should a select few individuals who may not represent you or me or buddy down the street be allowed to say what is offensive and in the public interest? Should they get to decide where my taxes go? The fact is, I'm not sick or in hospital right now, but my taxes support people who are. I don't have children but I pay taxes so that other people's kids can go to school. You may not like the films that Canada makes but some people do. I thought "I met the Walrus" was amazing.
Thanks for the tip on building a dolly!
Carolin
Niagara
You know, right after I hit 'send' on the piece, I thought, "Was Lennon killed in '78, or 80? Whatever."
I will now go to the box and feel shame.
" You may not like the films that Canada makes but some people do."
Yea, "some" people do, but not many.
Actually, "bums in the seats" and money maker means a LOT of people like them.
Daryl Saskatoon (Anonymous)
I would think one of the reasons you didn’t get your grant is that you had a poor business plan. I say this because you as a person wanting to be a film maker do not have a clue about financing. My first question would be who would want to lend you any financial support when you just throw money away. As a film maker don’t you want as much financial stability as possible? Don’t you want to make money for your investors?
Film Companies have to finance those tax credits they payout the money and somewhere down the road if they have followed the criteria are refunded by the government. Now unless you are very rich and can dig that money out of your pocket you have borrow that money from a financial institution. What bank is going to lend money to any film if Bill C-10 goes through? Banks like certainty, and objectivity, and when the rules are subjective I doubt they will finance anyone. Bill C-10 effectively kills the Canadian film industry.
As for the quality of the Canadian Film and TV, it is getting better; it may be because we have writers, videographers, and photographers like you, real professionals in the field. Thankfully we also we also have other creative professionals who can see the project through.
One last thing when you apply for a grant and the guy who sees hundred and maybe thousands of applications says the project is not very viable, take a second, and ask what he means. Believe it or not you can learn from other people.
Maybe the better way for the government to go is to eliminate the tax in the first place, But I sure they have reasons their reasons.
Personal attacks aside about my finances and lousy business sense (news to me, but dinner is on you from now on), you sound like just another lazy wannabe.
My whole point was to raise money from investors, put together a solid production, make some cash by drawing an audience, and not rip off the taxpayers by begging from the Feds.
Poor, brave independents. Making avant-garde and daring projects, but begging from The Man in order to do it.
Sean, Your blog seems a little shallow, I can see why you want Bill C-10 to pass. To justify the censorship of your own blog.
"Sean, Your blog seems a little shallow, I can see why you want Bill C-10 to pass. To justify the censorship of your own blog."
Um...I don't get it. What does Bill C-10 have to do with blogs? Besides, say, censoring yourself by not putting a name on such a witty take.
Nice try, though.
Post a Comment