Boot In The Pants: frogs

Yup, we're the frogs. I love Cronenberg. I love what he said. Frogs. Here's what David Cronenberg said to the Senate Banking Committee (excerpt stolen directly from McGrath)

I went to Telefilm Canada 40 years ago, when it was the Canadian Film Development Corporation initiated by Judy Lamarche, I believe, to see about obtaining funds for an underground film I was making.

In the 40 years since then, there has never been a pornographic film made with government money. There has never been a criminal film made with government money. There has never been a hate film made with government money. Therefore, why is this happening now? I do not understand it.

The mechanisms that were always there in the Criminal Code and in the mandate of bodies like Telefilm are in place now as they were then. They work. They filter out all of those possibilities.

Those bodies are not allowed to fund projects that contravene the Criminal Code. Therefore, what is this really all about? I do not get it. I do not think we need it and I do not understand it.

Having said that, if it did not do anything negative or cause any problems, then you might say okay, let it go through. Let it become law. It will not change anything. Unfortunately, it has significant repercussions that perhaps the original framers of this clause were not aware of and that we are now all aware of. I am on the advisory committee of PEN Canada. PEN is an international organization that protects writers and journalists, et cetera. They are very upset and disturbed by the implications of this clause. It is not a bunch of hysterical, overly sensitive artists who are running around overreacting.

It is a real issue and it matters not only in terms of the theory of democracy and freedom of expression, but also in dollars and cents. Those of us who work in the film industry have to be tough. We have to have our feet on the ground because it is a business as well as an art form. A lot of money is involved in movie making. Youhave to balance your artistic aspirations with the realities of international finance, distribution, artistic awareness, et cetera.

The people who are being upset by this are telling you something that is real. It is not a hypothetical thing that does not matter. It is something quite substantial. I will assume these implications were not properly understood by the original framers of this clause. That is the way I prefer to think about it.

Having said how tough and down-to-earth artists are, I also like to think of us as the frogs of the ecosystem. Biologists are always looking at frogs because they breathe through their skin. They are the first to absorb any toxic elements that exist in the environment and they react by becoming quite deformed and die.

Artists are like that. That is our job. We have these antenna and we have this thin skin. Therefore, in certain circumstances, we are the first to become aware of dangerous toxic elements in the environment that other people may not be aware of as quickly.

I have read letters to editors saying these artists go to the government for handouts and now they are complaining that the handouts they should not get anyway will be cut off.

The film industry is a business. I have had the experience of being censored, first by the Ontario Censor Board. That was at a time when you could go to jail for five years for putting the pieces of your film that the censor board had cut back in your film and showing it. The projectionist could lose his licence and also be put in jail. One of the implications of this clause is that it is not easy to censor in a democracy. It is not easy at all. The mechanism of censorship is quite complex and difficult because, basically, you want to filter out the subjective. You want to filter out the idea that one person or three people in a closed room will look at your film and say, “I just don’t like it. So let’s suppress it.”

That is antidemocratic. It is not anything that I think anyone really wants.

However, it is what would result from this clause coming into law.

The issue is this: The government investment in most films is the foundation. All filmmaking in Canada is independent filmmaking. I do not mean student filmmaking; I mean independent filmmaking. By that I mean you do not have major Hollywood or Canadian studios that have their own source of financing. All Canadian films are independent films and government funding is the platform; it is the solid, security platform upon which all of those productions are built. I cannot think of one that was not built that way.

This clause would make that platform very earthquake prone. It would take away the solidity of it. That is why the bank has said that it could not accept that. They have loaned money to you based on the tax credit that they expect. Knowing that it could be pulled after the fact, why should they take that risk? As I said, there are no guidelines that can make that risk reasonable enough that a bank would take it. The film business is risky enough as it is. It is like a house of cards with the tax credit as the basis. You pull that out and the whole thing falls apart.

Therefore, this makes it very difficult for any producer. The whole structure that has been in place and has worked, as I said, for at least the 40 years that I have known and benefited from it will be destroyed. In essence, this clause negates the existence of Telefilm and the existence of the Canadian Television Fund. They might as well not exist. There will be nothing for them to invest in because everything will be seen as too risky.

A lot of money is involved. Once again, you have heard from producers of all kinds: Television and movie producers. This is not a hypothetical thing. This is much more real than the threat that I think is quite imaginary. The imaginary threat is that there will be the embarrassment of government funds somehow put into a film that is pornographic and contravenes the Criminal Code. That is a threat that has not existed for 40 years. However, the threat I am talking about is very real.