[Archivist]

Hipster, your post is delightfully witty, and I thought it was hilarious and appropriate. Thank you for making my morning. It captures perfectly the inanity of these ranking, which seem to proliferate weekly.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Do you want the Conservatives telling you what Canadian stories you'll be allowed to see?

42

Unfortunately you've ocompletely missed the point. Censorship is stating that you cannot do or say "x". Not providing funding for "x" may or may not achieve a similar result, but you can still make or say "x". If you can still legally produce "x" it is not censorship.

You are not entitled to government money just because you think your "x" should be shared with the world.

 

[Archivist]

earlscourt, I think you have a very naive idea of what censorship is and how it is done. Very few countries actually say "no you can't say that", even Russia does not, they simply make it very hard to tell certain stories with a variety of impediments.

Yes, it is censorship, and it shows the worst side of the Harper gov't. Please save us from a majority, ever.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

You expect me to take you seriously when you compare Canada with Russia?

It's not the Conservatives that worry me, it's people like you.

 

[Archivist]

worry, baby, worry.

 

[interchange42]

Unfortunately you've ocompletely missed the point. Censorship is stating that you cannot do or say "x". Not providing funding for "x" may or may not achieve a similar result, but you can still make or say "x". If you can still legally produce "x" it is not censorship.

You are not entitled to government money just because you think your "x" should be shared with the world.

You really didn't understand what I wrote.

42

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

You really didn't understand what I wrote.

42

I believe you meant that the government will end up with a de facto say in the film. Am I wrong?

However, the difference between that and censorship is that regardless of what the gov't thinks, you can still make your film. Censorship would be them making it illegal to make a film that has a certain subject matter or depictions.

 

[CDL.TO]

If the government passed a law stating that "You're free to criticize the government. But doing so will cause your tax bill to be automatically increased by $1000", would that be considered censorship in your opinion?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Earlscourt Lad:

However, the difference between that and censorship is that regardless of what the gov't thinks, you can still make your film. Censorship would be them making it illegal to make a film that has a certain subject matter or depictions.

If you take the very narrow view of censorship being governments making viewpoints illegal - then yeah, you're right - they aren't make anything illegal. However, if less obtuse instruments (such as removal of tax breaks) that affects the means of someone being able to express themselves are used, the end result are often no less different. Why ban something (and having to deal with the negative backlash) when you can use alternate processes that can achieve the same ends, without having to open the Pandora's Box of the legality of censorship?

So my question to you is this - 1. Do you agree that removal of the tax credits for certain productions on the basis ministerial disgression will result in certain viewpoints being expressed less, if at all and 2. Do you agree that it will produce an effect similar to censorship, on the basis of the change in viewpoint exposure?

AoD

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

That isn't a very apt comparison at all.

Look at it this way, I want to make a film and I determine it will cost x dollars when all is said and done. Now I look for ways to offset that amount, or ways that I can finance it. All the government has done is removed themselves from that situation. Therefore your cost remains x dollars, not an additional punitive amount, which is what you've offered up.

 

[CDL.TO]

That isn't a very apt comparison at all.

Look at it this way, I want to make a film and I determine it will cost x dollars when all is said and done. Now I look for ways to offset that amount, or ways that I can finance it. All the government has done is removed themselves from that situation. Therefore your cost remains x dollars, not an additional punitive amount, which is what you've offered up.

How is it any different from "You're free to make a movie that doesn't please the government. But doing so will cause your tax bill to be automatically increased by $10000"?

They haven't removed themselves from the situation. That would only be true if they repealed ALL film tax credits. The sheer fact that there is a multi-thousand price difference means that it is punitive.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Earlscourt Lad:

You haven't answered this question, so I will ask again - what do you think the end result is with this change in tax policy? Does it make presentation of certain viewpoints less financially appetizing regardless of artistic merit? AND are certain viewpoints less likely to be presented because of such?

AoD

 

[Towered]

Earlscourt Lad obviously thinks it's beneficial for the current government to meddle with our society's morals in despicably conniving and underhanded ways. Yes, let's fund only inoffensive, wholesome films that the whole family can enjoy. To hell with all those liberal, free-spirited, lefty directors who want to poison the minds of our children! Quick, close the gates to the community!

The Riff-Raff Is Coming!
The Riff-Raff Is Coming!

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Towered: nice attempt at satire, one day you'll get it so just keep at it.

AoD:

I understand you point of view quite well: you believe that because it is no longer as fiscally advantageous to make something it is now being censored (if not in name, in practice). I get that.

So yes, I suspect making things less financially "appetizing" provides some manner of discouragement for certain productions. However, here's something for you to consider: if sex sells (and it indisputably does), why can't these films get financed elsewhere? I assert it's becuase the affected films are not very good, or very specialized/niche films. In which case, if a significant number of Canadians aren't going to see them due to quality or interest, why is the government involved at all? Why is the government involved in funding commercial ventures at all is another question for another day.

I still think calling it censorship is wrong. Censorship is a ban or a prohibition, full stop. Nothing has been banned or prohibited. I find it curious, that you assume I support the government's position.

CDL.TO:

It isn't punitive becuse your cost of making the film stays the same. If I buy a hosue and it cost 100k, and my father promises me 25k for a down payment, but then walks away, does the cost of the house increase?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Earlscourt Lad obviously thinks it's beneficial for the current government to meddle with our society's morals in despicably conniving and underhanded ways. Yes, let's fund only inoffensive, wholesome films that the whole family can enjoy. To hell with all those liberal, free-spirited, lefty directors who want to poison the minds of our children! Quick, close the gates to the community!

Since when do Canadians *ever* make wholesome family fun flicks? Every single Canadian film ever made contains incest, decapitations, or both.