The ensuing debate has become more strident and ugly as members of the Christian Right and those who don't want to subsidize the Arts in the first place have either taken credit for percipitating this change or championed it as a step toward protecting the nation from the improper influences of its artists.
As an artist who's been a victim of censorship and marginalized for doing work that some consider, if not contrary to Public Policy, certainly contrary to how the people in power would like things to be, I'm fully opposed to C-10.
If you're in favor of it, however, I hope you'll take a moment to read the rest of this post. Because I'm here to tell you that it isn't good for you either. It won't improve one thing in your life and those in Ottawa who are supporting it do not really have your best interests at heart.
They're using you, the same way they're using us.
First of all, I want you to know that I'm a lot like you. I was born into a very Christian household. My mom was a Sunday school teacher. And both my parents spent a great deal of time teaching me right from wrong and to be self-reliant and independent.
The artists I work with might come from a variety of backgrounds, but you probably couldn't single any of us out on the street, at a party, or while watching our kids play your kids at a hockey arena on a Saturday morning.
I've been making Canadian films and television for more than 35 years. Apparently, I'm good enough at what I do that I've had many offers to leave and work somewhere else and accepted quite a few of them. Came back more than once. Maybe it's that Socratic, "Every man is born where he belongs" thing. Maybe the work here matters in ways that it doesn't in other lands. Maybe I just want to live in a place where a love of hockey isn't considered "troubling". All I know is, I'm here.
During my time in the biz, I've broken most of the Commandments, but I think I can honestly say I never intentionally hurt anybody.
I did nude scenes as an actor, tons of sex scenes, lots of movies where blood and guts sprayed all over the place. I played characters who espoused anarchy, brutality, cruelty or genocide and harmed small children and puppies. I also played Saints and martyrs and men of the cloth along with heroes who did "what a man's gotta do".
Some of those characters might have repulsed you, or frightened you or given you inspiration and courage. But they weren't real. They were only movies.
The first film I ever made was called "The Last Detail" and starred Jack Nicholson as a sailor who cursed a blue streak from the opening credits to the final frame. My mom, the Sunday school teacher, went to see it with her bowling team. The theatre manager tried to stop them from buying tickets, worried they'd be scandalized and complain. They weren't. They laughed and hooted and stood up to cheer every time I got a close-up.
None of those women left their husbands or turned to a life of depravity because of the salacious activities they witnessed that afternoon. They had a couple of hours of fun. It was only a movie.
As a writer I wrote more sex and violence. I crafted speeches for men who wanted to commit horrific crimes and overthrow governments, who hated people because of their religion and the color of their skin. I made some people say the most insulting and outrageous things. But they weren't real. They were only movies.
Tabloids used to link episodes of "Friday the 13th" I wrote to copycat murders, often in places where the show had never been seen. The Reverend Donald Wildmon once accused me of replicating a Satanic Mass word for word. But I'd studied Latin because I wanted to go to medical school and those horrible men in black robes about to conduct a human sacrifice in a dark forest were actually chanting a chorus of "The Teddy Bears Picnic" (If you go down in the woods today, you're in for a big surprise...). It wasn't real. It was only a movie.
My producing career has followed the same path. And much as my job is to make you think it's real -- it's not. The blood is food coloring and corn syrup. The gun is rubber. The leading lady's cleavage isn't all her. I'm just making a buck and the stuff I make is still only a movie.
I hope that what I do sometimes does more than entertain; that I might make some in the audience think about things more clearly or more deeply because of what they witness from my hand. But I honestly don't believe I do any more than put people in touch with what they are already capable of seeing or feeling or becoming.
I light a path. They take their road through their own choosing.
The implication in Bill C-10 is that by controlling art we make society better -- and that's a lie.
What the good people who populate your Government don't tell you is that there are already laws against violent pornography and preaching hatred. If my movies include that stuff, I've got bigger things than lost tax credits to worry about.
So -- why are they doing this C-10 thing? Well, it might be that they're edging away from funding the arts. But I'm convinced it's really to make people like you think they're actually doing something.
But they're not -- and unfortunately, this part is not a movie.
And a lot of artists will get hurt and lose their livelihoods because banks won't fund films and television lacking cost certainty; just so our Government can make you think they're getting at the porn and violent hip-hop videos you don't like and maybe wrestling society in general back to traditional family values.
But Bill C-10 will not stop any of the things you see on television or down at the Cineplex that already upset you. Read the text of the legislation. We have to do something that is "contrary to Public policy" before we're muzzled.
Didn't like those two cowpokes getting it on in "Brokeback Mountain"? Sorry, Canadian cowboys can do that. Hell, they can get a marriage license to go along with such shenanigans if they want. Or they can forego the license and the Stetsons and just get it on atop a float on a downtown street during Pride Week.
None of that is contrary to public policy.
Didn't think it was right that "Juno" girl made teen pregnancy look fun? Well, nothing in Public policy says teens can't have sex -- or get pregnant -- or imply that it's fun. That kid stays in her picture.
Hate it when those Muslims on "Little Mosque" make cracks about Christians? Well, chances are that's going to keep happening -- and maybe even get funnier. Nothing in public policy says we can't goof with each other.
And just so we're clear, I don't think things will change much from an artistic perspective either. Robert Lantos can refer to you guys as "Barbarians" but only because he'd really like people to believe he isn't one. And Atom Egoyan can bluster about maintaining his artistic freedom, but that only means he wants to continue to be boring.
No, as usual, this is about politicians using us to make you look one way while they're busy somewhere else.
Let's talk about Pornography first.
That nice man from the cable company, Jim Shaw, makes a shitload of money from selling porn. So does grandfatherly old Ted Rogers. Even those people at the staid and respectable Globe and Mail are in company with Bell Expressvu where a big chunk of the profits come from selling porn.
They call it Pay-per-View or Movies on Demand and most of what they sell through those services is the raunchy stuff. Personnally, I could care less. Canadians seem to like watching people "do it" and I'm completely in favor of giving an audience what they want.
I know it makes you feel "icky" but the point here is that all of those porn peddling companies are licensed by the Government. Not only licensed but paying through the nose so they can have exclusive territories in which to ply their trade.
So, if your elected representatives really wanted to do something about "smut", they'd go after Jim and Ted and somebody at Bell. But they don't.
In fact, if you check the donations made to all those politicians making sure no tax money goes toward producing pornography, you'll find they've all received significant contributions from Jim and Ted and that guy at Bell -- money that comes from the very "art" your MP says he doesn't want to support.
Let's turn to violence and offending a particular group, the other things the secret panel empowered by C-10 will review.
It's been my experience that few Canadian films opt for "the good old ultra-violence" or go out of their way to imply, for example, that all Arabs are terrorists. That's the kind of thing you tend to find in American films. Movies like "Hostel", "The Kingdom", "John Rambo" and the like, trade fairly equally in copious blood and racial or ethnic stereotypes.
Last year, somewhere around 3% of movie admissions in Canada were paid to see a Canadian movie. So even with Bill C-10. 97% of what's bothering you now is going to be bothering you in the future.
Last year, only 4% of Canadian prime time programming on our major networks was Canadian. Which always makes me wonder why "Anonymous" gets so exercised over how much those crappy Canadian shows are ruining his viewing experience.
Maybe he doesn't nap through most shows like the rest of us -- or he's permanently lost the remote between the couch cushions and is stuck watching "Designer Guys" repeats. The fact is, it doesn't take much effort to get through a couple of weeks without seeing anything more Canadian than the cellphone rodents.
According to stats that came out yesterday, Canadian networks as a whole spent 12 and a half times more on foreign product than the home grown stuff. ($462 Million compared to $36.5 Million) And all of those networks were at the CRTC last month, pushing hard to spend even more on the foreign (and more violent and stereotypical) stuff and less on Canadian production -- so not much of what you're offended by or you feel is adversely influencing your kids is going to change either.
You C-10 supporters are being played.
Beyond putting an economic stranglehold on an industry already choking for a lack financial oxygen, virtually nothing you see on TV or in a movie theatre will be any different.
And what's more, nothing's going to alter on all those reality shows you're offended by with the Paris Hiltons of the world or the magazine shows that follow around those same Paris Hiltons when they're not doing reality shows -- because neither genre qualifies for tax credits in the first place.
"The Trailer Park Boys" may disappear, but Ben Mulroney will live forever!
So maybe this really is only about getting rid of film subsidies.
And frankly, I'm not shedding any tears over that eventuality either. Applying for tax credits already takes up more of my time and energy than they're worth, along with killing a small forest to produce the paperwork. Trust me, the only people making money from the current government subsidy system are Grand & Toy.
Look, I don't begrudge you wanting to see your tax money being spent somewhere else. I see a lot of mine go for public schools I don't use and unemployment insurance I can't collect. I'd love to have other sources of money so I didn't feel like I was going on welfare every time I put a project into development.
All it would take is for the Government to allow some investment incentives so the industry could support itself. But that would mean they'd have no more control over what the artists in this country have to say -- or be able to weasel guest shots on "Corner Gas" -- so I'm not sure that'll work for them.
Anonymous and friends -- I'm afraid we're stuck with each other for the time being. And I'll be interested in your reaction when this Government decides to apply the system they're imposing on us on you.
Churches now have tax free status. But imagine if the tax advantages that have been granted to your place of worship had to undergo a performance review by an unnamed panel at the Department of Justice. It could require your church to forego those tax benefits if a member of your clergy had molested children, not reported a confessed crime or maybe just couldn't prove they had actually gotten anybody into Heaven.
After all, abusing children, failure to co-operate with law enforcement and fraud are all "contrary to public policy".
And how would you feel if your church wasn't allowed to be "contrary to public policy" in its day to day operations?
There would be a lot of things in your holy books you wouldn't be allowed to say in public because they constitute hate speech and those gay cowboys would be within their rights to show up and threaten to sue if you didn't perform a marriage ceremony for them.
The shoe would be on the other foot then, wouldn't it?
Or maybe that's the shoe that drops next...
Keep telling yourself it could only happen in a movie.
But you'd be wrong.
