Bill C-10 is to be a confidence issue, and sure as sunshine leftie film industry pressure will not be sufficient to grow the right attributes on Stephane Dion that'd make him vote the bill down. But C-10 doesn't go far enough.
I've seen my fair share of great classics and utter crap films. If you've watched Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" you know what I mean by boring crap. Non-boring but utterly useless crap is epitomized in the latest "Rambo". But let's remain on topic.
The argument that Canadian film-making is mostly independent and thus dependent (oops) on government funding may well be correct. Comparing Bill C-10 to censorship is, however, wrong. Independent creative expression frequently has the task of provoking, challenging, questioning current lines of thought and current boundaries, including decency boundaries. How is a government supposed to discern between what's acceptable and what's not? Why, furthermore, should the government use its coffers to subsidize what's plainly not in its mandate? If the people wanted provocation and challenges they'd elect anyone BUT an incrementalist Tory.
Perks for film-making should be scrapped altogether. The evolution of thought and perception have no place in a Government's portfolio; its course should be left for the people themselves to decide. Whatever you're filming, if it's good someone will see the opportunity and finance it. This would further encourage independent directors to explore topics that actually appeal to the public or are likely to generate elevated interest. With a private source of finance the director will find not only a moneybag but also a fervent promoter of the movie (he will want to make money!). Where's the trouble?
Independent film-makers should cherish bill C-10 because it cuts into the interests of the great production industries, who have for too long relied on cheap and superficial effects and contents to provide us with dumb movies good only for pizza-and-beer communal procrastination.
1 comment:
I disagree, in that I think commercial culture thrives not when it appeals to the audience, but when it appeals to advertisers and investors. The audience can be damned, they'll watch what we tell them to watch if we tell them to watch it often enough. Investors would rather fund one summer blockbuster featuring farts than spend the same amount to fund ten documentaries. Which is in the public's greater interest?
Of course, it's not an either/or situation. In both cases (with or without breaks), they pay taxes, and in both cases they nearly always still need to rely upon private investment. We're really talking about setting the effective tax level for movie makers. I am not an economist, and finding the optimal tax rate is not an argument I can enter into.
However, I am a software developer, and I have experience spotting badly written rules. It is not that tax breaks are being reduced that bothers me. It is the arbitrary and destabilizing method that has been proposed. If C-10 proposed to change the rate movies were taxed at, that's fine. But what it proposes is that the tax rate will be concealed from the movie maker until after the movie has been completed. That is amazingly bad policy! Who is going to invest in a movie with a built-in self destruct clause?
Post a Comment