1. Wait...what? Sarah Polley is Canadian, right? So isn't she telling them how her tax dollars should be spent? Isn't that what people do in a democracy? Did they miss the memo that she was canadian or were they trying to insinuate that actors don't work hard? I've never been in a movie, but I've done my fair share of community theatre in my day and it's most definitely hard work. I imagine it's even more exhausting filming a movie where you have to do twenty takes of everything. Can anyone explain the logic behind that quote?

Posted at 1:48AM on Apr 13th 2008 by ZooeyGlass

2. Sorry, but it is an abuse of language to describe this as "censorship". Censorship would be banning films of this nature - not refusing them tax breaks.

This is just complaining from a bunch of rent seekers. The actors in the linked article accidentally show how ridiculous the argument is:

"Fellow actress Wendy Crewson told the news conference that artists in every country - except India and the United States - rely on public money."

Those countries are home to Hollywood and Bollywood - i.e. very successful industries - what a coincidence.

Posted at 3:17AM on Apr 13th 2008 by attila

3. Good point, Attila.
It isn't "censorship." It is giving ONE government minister complete power to decide what films will or will not be approved for funding (and hence be produced in Canada under our present lack of other funding options).
This bill is move devious than censorship because there would only be guidelines for selection which are subject to change at the whim of the government and its official with no provision for appeal or discussion. Censorship would at least be open, honest and transparent.
As a taxpayer, I TOTALLY support the use of my tax money to support and encourage any and all artistic endeavors (which do not break the Canadian laws currently in place). Let the consumer chose whether or not to attend cutting edge films (whose content is legal)- surely that is the democratic way to gauge public opinion of what is acceptable on a personal basis.
No one is forced to view a movie. If it is lacking in merit people will not attend it.
Hiding the bill in the Income Tax Act makes me wonder about hidden agenda.
Sarah Polley is the PERFECT person to speak on this issue - Canadian, knowledgeable and successful in the movie industry. I am shocked at some of the view points of individuals supporting this bill and their lack of factual information.

Posted at 10:47AM on Apr 13th 2008 by Charles Shirriff

4. Sorry but if I want my money to fund a Sarah Polly movie then I should be the one to decide, not forced to with my taxpaying money. I watch lots of movies with violence and nudity, but I'm the one who chooses to pay for it. No one is saying people can't make these movies, only that they won't be able to get their money back when they do. Touch luck, go door to door or wonder of wonders find funding from private enterprise eg the US! Don't call it censor ship because you won't get money back for your efforts. No one expects to get rewarded for lousy work,why should filmmakers?

Posted at 11:43AM on Apr 13th 2008 by rtms

5. Actually, the change is that producers who apply for a tax credit certificate meeting the Canada Revenue Agency criteria, which is all up front as to what content is eligible for a tax certificate, produce a film that does not meet the application criteria can have their certificated revoked.

The only change is a provision to enforce the criteria clear at the outset. Actors and responsible producers are being duped into going to bat for the few who want to produce "cutting edge" and "raunchy" films they cannot finance without a tax incentive. It is another case of a couple of rotten apples tainting the barrel.

The tax incentive program has helped to ensure production of numerous quality, thought provoking films we might not have otherwise seen. That does not mean we should not deal with the few who work in the murky waters of trying to pass off soft porn and worse as works eligible for tax benefits. If it walks like a duck . . . . . .

Posted at 3:34PM on Apr 13th 2008 by WestViking

6. canadian guv has always been idiots. this is just another stupid decision in a long line of them.

Posted at 4:53PM on Apr 13th 2008 by Riley Freeman

7. This is NOT censorship. I wish people who knew how to read a dictionary would stop labeling it as such.

The government is not telling them they can't make their movies. The government is not telling them what they can or can't put in their movies. Film makers are totally free to make any movie they want.

These artists are just looking for handouts from the government, and like any other body, the government has the right to decide who it does or does not give a handout to.

If someone can to me asking for funding for a Sci-Fi flick, and I personally said "no" because I don't want to give my money to a sci-fi project... would you say I was "censoring" them? NO! They can still make their movie however they want, they'll just have to find another source of funding JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

Why does Canada allow the film industry to be a Welfare system instead of forcing it to become self-sufficient like just about every other industry?

Posted at 3:16AM on Apr 14th 2008 by john

8. Why does Canada allow the film industry to be a Welfare system instead of forcing it to become self-sufficient like just about every other industry?

That would be a Welfare system like the hundred of millions of dollars in tax breaks given to productions like Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, the upcoming Incredible Hulk movie, the X-Files and, potentially, the Justice League movie so that they will film in Canada?

Welfare like that?

This bill isn't about stopping tax-breaks for films shot in Canada, it is about giving a government minister the sole right to decide which films will qualify based on illusory and nebulous criteria that will be more likely to exclude home-grown Canadian films over Hollywood imports.

As to why Canada's film-industry isn't self-sufficient? Because we tolerate a market-place that is flooded with cheap US imports that take up exhibition space and undercut the market for Canadian productions. I hate to break it to you but if 65 million Britons can't support an indigenous English-language film industry without a heavy influx of both government funding and US investment, 33 million Canadians sitting right on top of the US have what chance of succeeding? Oh, right, that would be none.

Posted at 5:55PM on Apr 14th 2008 by K8ie

9. It's the Internet. ANYTHING a government does regarding the arts that someone disagrees with is ultimately "Censorship."

In this case, crap, it's not even CLOSE... they can still make their damn movie, they just don't get tax breaks. Sheesh.

More to the topic. I believe that, ultimately, this will drive many movies away from Canada, and due to loss of revenue, said tax credit will suddenly come back in spades.

-Pie

Posted at 4:48AM on Apr 14th 2008 by EatingPie

10. My MP told me that the aim was to prevent child pornography from getting funded. That was what he cited. I was unaware any studios were itching to get homegrown child porn into Canadian theatres, but apparently that's what's at stake here. And people wonder why I don't vote...

This debate is now striking me as horribly misguided. Canadian films, regardless of funding, are simply nowhere to be found. I live in Burlington, which has five or six theatres. I have only seen two Canadian films in the last ten years, because nothing shows here. Even Canadian films that are produced in the area are impossible to find (Saint Ralph, for example). The problem isn't production, it's distribution. Canadian films are hardly ever advertised, save tiny ads in newspapers. I have to drive to Toronto to see them (which is an hour each way), should I catch wind of them at all.

The villain here isn't the conservative party (as much as I disagree with their policies). It's Canadian theatres. They're not supporting Canadian talent at all, and because of it, the passing of bill c-10 could cripple the Canadian film industry.

Posted at 4:32PM on Apr 14th 2008 by Assume a Virtue

11. I think some of the people posting on this forum have no idea how a tax break works. The producers do not receive a single penny of "our money". They are simply taxed at a lower rate because they are employing thousands of skilled workers and spending millions of dollars in our fine country.

Under Bill C-10, any production deemed "offensive" by a secret committee will be taxed at a higher rate than other less-offensive movies.

When you think of it that way - a fine for offending the government - it certainly starts to sound like censorship.

Posted at 5:43PM on Apr 14th 2008 by Derek