The Canadian film community is in a tizzy these days over a proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act (Bill C-10) allowing the Heritage Minister, or a government committee, to deny tax credits to film-makers who want to produce movies that are “contrary to public policy.” Award-winning Canadian director Sarah Polley calls herself “terrified” and condemns the amendment as contrary to a “civilized nation.” Director David Cronenberg said it was a “direct attack on the Charter.” Producer Robert Lantos labelled those who favour the bill “barbarians.”
Such an overreaction, while predictable, is still ridiculous. The cries of “censorship” are entirely disconnected from reality, since the proposed amendment censors absolutely nothing. All it does is ask those who want to make films containing gratuitous violence, sex, or hatred to do so with their own money. This is hardly unreasonable, and is in keeping with the public interest.
The film industry will cry that such an amendment curtails freedom of expression. It does no such thing. People with an idea for a film have no inherent right to receive public funding for their artistic expression—it is a privilege meant to encourage Canadian film production. If the film meets the requirements (spelled out in considerable detail), then it qualifies for public support, since it is arguably in the public’s interest that Canadian artists be aided in their efforts to produce legitimately Canadian content.
But not every self-styled artist with an idea and a camera has a claim to public support. Sarah Polley commented that “Sex and violence are part of the world we live in. It’s the job of an artist to talk about the world we live in.” True enough, Ms. Polley, but this does not imply that every artist who wants to talk about it deserves a tax credit to do so, especially if the film itself is so bad that the only money it will make is due to said credit.
Further, it is patently obvious that some of the farces that go by the name of art (say, Young People Fucking) indulge the less salutary side of human emotion rather than engage in a worthwhile and actually Canadian fashion, with the real and challenging issues of sex, violence, and so on. The best art in the world deals with these issues but never descends to crude sensationalism or deliberately disgusting caricatures passed off as “freedom of expression.”
This discussion does not concern “freedom of expression,” or theories of art, or even censorship. It’s about what the Canadian government will and will not actively support. Canadian films that truly engage with Canadian concerns will always be of interest to the Canadian public. Fringe, borderline criminal or pornographic material is not “censored” —the government is simply saying that it has better things to support.
So, Ms. Polley, Mr. Cronenberg, and company, if you would like to see a movie that is blatantly offensive to others, why not dig into your own substantial pockets and finance them yourselves? Don’t ask the Canadian taxpayer to support any Jack or Jill who considers themselves an “artist.”
