BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY PART II

[Guest]

Richard,

 

I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of taxpayer-funded filmmaking with you, because it will get us both nowhere. I am, however, curious about why you feel that a film has to be about the country and people who produced it, in order to qualify for public funding. From what I can tell, this is a good film, and it's nominations for some serious awards seem to corroborate that. How can that hurt Canada?

 

I also don't understand your premise that the taxpayers of Canada are suckers. My experience with average Canadians is that they are very aware of what takes place within their government. You vote your party leader into power. As Prime Minister in a centralized system of government, he is less likely able to be influenced by big money. Parliament members see to that. That, in my opinion, is the beauty of your system. You don't run the higher risk of having corrupt Senators and Representatives sliding earmarks into law under your noses. My point is that when you vote in a party leader, you get, for the most part, what you voted for. Consequently, if you don't like the outcome, you only have yourselves to blame for it.

 

Yes we need to argue the pros and cons of tax payer funded filmmaking, and it will get us some where. As Readers Digest points out in their "That's Outrageous" sections, making public the stupidity of gov't systems is the first step to correcting the problem.

 

So to point 1: Can you name for me a single Canadian film without doing a Google search? Guess what you can't, and neither can 99% of the Canadian population. When the Genies air on the CBC each year, no Canadian has even seen any of the so called "best" Canadian movies.

 

So yes a film should be about Canada in order to qualify for government funding. The reason is that Canada has not been able to develop a clear and unique cultural presence on screen the way the USA, England, and Australia, have. Until that happens we can't afford to blow money down the toilet on films that have nothing to do with Canada. First we'll use Canadian tax money to promote our own identity and culture in film, then we'll consider funding films that are about foreign countries.

 

Maybe I should move to India and demand gov't funding for my film about the Battle Of Vimmy Ridge? Hey, I'll be you and all other Americans here have never heard of Vimmy Ridge? Gee I wonder why, today by the way is the 90th anniversary of the battle. Where are the great Canadian feature films about Vimmy Ridge? After all it was the day, "Canada became a nation." We are too busy funding films like "Water" in the name of political correctness, to celebrate our own history.

 

And yes Canadian tax payers are suckers. 90% of them have no clue how much of their tax money gets flushed away on garbage films every year. If they did they'd be mad as hell.

 

To Point 2: The current Conservative gov't, which I support, would love to sell off the CBC and close down Telefilm Canada. They would do it in two seconds. But since Telefilm primarily funds films being created by women and minorities they are loathed to touch it because they know how much screaming there would be.

Every one would start calling them "racist" etc etc etc, blah blah blah.

 

So both of these organizations survive in Canada for now. However, if the Conservatives win a huge majority gov't, and I hope they do, it will be time for them to put Telefilm and the CBC in front of the firing squad. I dream of that day.

 

R.

[Phil Rhodes]

The last Casino was on TV here recently.

 

Because Canadian actors seem to have to cultivate American accents, eh, it was quite a while before I figured out they weren't in the US.

 

Phil

[Guest]

Phil,

 

I love this guys review of the film on IMDB:

 

"Usually, Canada is known for it's movies with heart and feeling,..."

 

Translation: "Usually, Canada is known for its movies that have no commercial appeal of any kind."

 

R,

[Ken Cangi]

Film funding should relate to filmmaking, which is about the makers and making of films - not the subject matter as it does or doesn't pertain to the country that made it. As I said, this film won high praise in the industry, and it came from Canada. That is good for your reputation. The special effects for 300 came from Canada. That is also very good for your growing reputation as a film community. How can you not recognize that?

 

And yes Canadian tax payers are suckers. 90% of them have no clue how much of their tax money gets flushed away on garbage films every year.

Again, that was not my observation of Canadian voters. Where did you come up with that percentage, because it sounds like a wild guess to me?

 

If you really want a film made about your country's heritage, then do what the rest of us indie makers do - go sell yourself and your project to independent backers who believe in your project enough to back it. In the meantime, why pick on the publicly-funded projects that are creating credibility for your local talent?

[Guest]

Film funding should relate to filmmaking, which is about the makers and making of films - not the subject matter as it does or doesn't pertain to the country that made it. As I said, this film won high praise in the industry, and it came from Canada. That is good for your reputation. The special effects for 300 came from Canada. That is also very good for your growing reputation as a film community. How can you not recognize that?

Again, that was not my observation of Canadian voters. Where did you come up with that percentage, because it sounds like a wild guess to me?

 

If you really want a film made about your country's heritage, then do what the rest of us indie makers do - go sell yourself and your project to independent backers who believe in your project enough to back it. In the meantime, why pick on the publicly-funded projects that are creating credibility for your local talent?

 

Well we agree to disagree, that's fine of course. Subject matter should definitely be tied to tax supported film funds. Logically films about the country that supply the funds are the ones that should get made. But that is just me.

 

The special effects for 300 where funded by a US studio so that's fine. No public money was used, so who cares if the film was about the ancient greeks.

 

As for the percentage of Canadian voters that have no idea how much of their tax money is flushed away by Telefilm Canada, that's easy, just walk down the street of any Canadian city and randomly ask people. I was being generous with 90%, 98%, is probably more accurate.

 

In a nation that pours millions into the film business, films about Canada's history and culture should be the top priority. We can make films about other nations and cultures once Canada has developed a unique Canadian identity of it's own. And since that will easily take 200 years, there should not be any films like "Water" funded for a long time to come.

 

Your comment: "If you really want a film made about your country's heritage, then do what the rest of us indie makers do - go sell yourself and your project to independent backers who believe in your project enough to back it"

 

Only makes sense in a nation that has no state funding for film. Why on earth should a movie like Water that has nothing to do with Canada get state funding from Canadian tax payers, while films about Canada's history must go begging to the private sector? It makes no sense at all. I'm fine with films about Canadian history getting private funding in order to be made, so long as ALL state funding for film is eliminated in Canada. Then we are on a level playing field. It's an outrage that films like Water get funding and real Canadian films are shunted aside.

 

As I said earlier, we stand at the border ready to welcome you and your Canadian wife back to Canada. The Canadian tax man will be ready to greet you as well, have you set a target date for your move to Canada yet? :D

 

R,

[Jaan Shenberger]

richard, the nfb is notorious for being partial to granting funds to projects that are canada-specific. just look through their catalog.

 

also, i love how any project that isn't some slave-trader/apartheid/xenophobe apologist story featuring only white protagonists has somehow become unilaterally classified as "politically correct" by those of your ilk... "hey, there's a brown person in this with more than four lines who isn't a villian! what is this social welfare politically correct garbage?!"

[Guest]

richard, the nfb is notorious for being partial to granting funds to projects that are canada-specific. just look through their catalog.

 

also, i love how any project that isn't some slave-trader/apartheid/xenophobe apologist story featuring only white protagonists has somehow become unilaterally classified as "politically correct" by those of your ilk... "hey, there's a brown person in this with more than four lines who isn't a villian! what is this social welfare politically correct garbage?!"

 

Those of your ILK are welcome to move to Canada any time so you can get your head out of your ass and your facts straight.

 

R,

[Jaan Shenberger]

Those of your ILK are welcome to move to Canada any time so you can get your head out of your ass and your facts straight.

 

R,

 

isn't there a minimum amount of assets one must have before being welcomed to canada? i'm not rich like you, so i may not qualify.

 

and not to flame, but you should really look through the nfb catalog... maybe the other two organizations aren't the same, but the "canadian experience" is clearly there. best of luck.

[Jaan Shenberger]

richard, sorry for clumping you into that remark via the "of your ilk" thing. it's heinous of me to try and associate you with such an extreme ideology... though it was intended to be exaggerative for humor's sake. again, best of luck, and my sincere apologies.

[Guest]

"isn't there a minimum amount of assets one must have before being welcomed to canada? i'm not rich like you, so i may not qualify."

 

Just to educate you on Canada's laughable immigration polices, Canada accepts tens of thousands of so called "refugees" every year. These people are certainly not rich by any standard, and immediately become a burden on the state by collecting social benefits and access to health care. None of which they've paid for.

 

The hilarity gets better, many of these "refugees" are found to have criminal records in their countries of origin. When the gov't moves to deport them they are defended by an army of lawyers who's fees are all paid for by the Canadian tax payer. I'm not making this up!

 

If you want to come, it will be easy for you. Although you won't qualify as a refugee coming from the USA.

 

Further to the NFB. I actually don't have much of an issue with them. The NFB was never designed to be a for profit organization, that was always understood. The CBC on the other hand competes with the private sector for ad dollars, that's an issue, especially when they get 1 billion a year from the feds. I will also face competition for distribution of my privately funded movie from people who used tax dollars to make theirs, that is also a major issue. And obviously not fair.

 

The NFB can continue to do what ever it is they do. Which is mainly support Quebecois filmmakers.

 

R,

[Ken Cangi]

Richard,

 

I think agreeing to disagree is where we are at. You sound jaded by your system. If sink or swim is your flavor of choice, you could always relocate to L.A. It's a pretty sure bet that questionable films won't get funded there.

 

While we're pulling numbers out of thin air, I would venture to assume that 70% of the US congress has little or no idea where our tax dollars are actually being spent.

[Guest]

"It's a pretty sure bet that questionable films won't get funded there."

 

Sarcasm?

 

R,

[Ken Cangi]

"It's a pretty sure bet that questionable films won't get funded there."

 

Sarcasm?

 

R,

Maybe a little. I can't help it. It's that New England humor. You can take the boy out of Boston, but you can't take Boston out of the boy.

 

I enjoyed the conversation. It's always good to get a perspective from the natives, especially when one is considering a move as big as ours. I'm curious. Is Toronto as big a film town as Montreal, and, if not, have you considered relocating there?

[Guest]

Toronto is the biggest film town in Canada, much more production than Montreal or Vancouver.

 

Where I live would not make any difference to me as I don't work for other people. I do only my own projects.

 

R,

[Ken Cangi]

Toronto is the biggest film town in Canada, much more production than Montreal or Vancouver.

 

Where I live would not make any difference to me as I don't work for other people. I do only my own projects.

 

R,

It's the same for me. I work independently, so the place doesn't matter too much in that regard. My location criteria revolve more around being in close proximity to the mountains and that lifestyle. Toronto is a beautiful city, but it is too far away from the mountains for my taste.

[Mark Duckworth]

It's the same for me. I work independently, so the place doesn't matter too much in that regard. My location criteria revolve more around being in close proximity to the mountains and that lifestyle. Toronto is a beautiful city, but it is too far away from the mountains for my taste.

 

Here are some PDFs about the productions in Vancouver, Toronto and the Montreal Film Commission site.

 

http://www.mediaroom.gov.bc.ca/Download.axd?objectId=402

http://www.toronto.ca/tfto/pdf/2006stats.pdf

http://www.montrealfilm.com/anglais/index.htm

 

Toronto has more overall production (TV mostly) but Vancouver does do more films and TV shows you may actually have heard of (in the states). I haven't been able to find the stats for Montreal recently but in 2002 the MFC lists direct spending at around 750 million CAD on productions. For 2006 Toronto reported $705 million CAD spent on production and Vancouver had 1.2 billion spent on production.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

It's the same for me. I work independently, so the place doesn't matter too much in that regard. My location criteria revolve more around being in close proximity to the mountains and that lifestyle. Toronto is a beautiful city, but it is too far away from the mountains for my taste.

 

I live on a ski resort, these are not mountains?

 

http://www.horseshoeresort.com/home.asp

 

Almost as big as the Wasatch.

 

R,

[Ken Cangi]

Almost as big as the Wasatch.

More like the size of Big Emma, maybe. I guess time has dulled your sense of the scale of these mountains, or maybe it's just wishful thinking. I was just up in LCC an hour ago. The weather is perfect for bouldering right now.

 

Do you have a condo on the resort?

Edited April 7, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Leo Anthony Vale]

It's the latter, although everyone says "circuses". This may be the first time that those three years of Latin way back in HS have paid off ;-)

 

The plural of opus is...?

 

 

So to point 1: Can you name for me a single Canadian film without doing a Google search? Guess what you can't, and neither can 99% of the Canadian population. When the Genies air on the CBC each year, no Canadian has even seen any of the so called "best" Canadian movies.

 

'Cannibal Girls', 'Scanners', 'Black Christmas' which reminded me of 'Black Robe'.

Maybe too arty with an australian director.

 

& how 'bout that stalwart of public television, 'the Red Green Show'?

[Guest]

More like the size of Big Emma, maybe. I guess time has dulled your sense of the scale of these mountains, or maybe it's just wishful thinking. I was just up in LCC an hour ago. The weather is perfect for bouldering right now.

 

Do you have a condo on the resort?

 

5,000 square foot home.

 

 

The plural of opus is...?

'Cannibal Girls', 'Scanners', 'Black Christmas' which reminded me of 'Black Robe'.

Maybe too arty with an australian director.

 

& how 'bout that stalwart of public television, 'the Red Green Show'?

 

Oh geez what a list, The Red Green Show? The second lowest production values in Canadian history. Train 48 is number one. That's hardly a list any one can be proud of considering the number of top Canadian talent working in LA. NZ, with 1/10th Canada's population, has a much more impressive resume.

 

R,

[Leo Anthony Vale]

That's hardly a list any one can be proud of considering the number of top Canadian talent working in LA. NZ, with 1/10th Canada's population, has a much more impressive resume.

 

There's your problem, the top talent's working in LA.

 

& Some used to work in London. though it looks like Sid Fury might be back in Canada.

[K Borowski]

The plural of opus is...?

 

That may be in plural form already, not that I'm sure that's even Latin, not Greek. It gets tricky because singular neuter nominative Latin words (i.e. plumbum, Latin for the element "lead") actually end in -es or -s in their plural nominative and accusative forms, so some Latin words you see that end in s are actually plural neuter words.

 

So opum is either the plural of opum or the singular of opi. If you really want to know, I can check my Latin dictionary upstairs covered in dust somewhere ;-)

[Leo Anthony Vale]

That may be in plural form already, not that I'm sure that's even Latin, not Greek. It gets tricky because singular neuter nominative Latin words (i.e. plumbum, Latin for the element "lead") actually end in -es or -s in their plural nominative and accusative forms, so some Latin words you see that end in s are actually plural neuter words.

 

So opum is either the plural of opum or the singular of opi. If you really want to know, I can check my Latin dictionary upstairs covered in dust somewhere ;-)

 

Sort of a trick question.

 

The plural is opera. It's neuter and belongs to the same group as genus, genera & onus, onera.

I think bonus is related too.

'Will we be getting Christmas bonera this year?'

 

The sad thing is the proper plural of opus is unusable in english.

 

& the proper term for inhabitants of Venus is Venerians. Also problematic in English.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

[K Borowski]

Sort of a trick question.

 

The plural is opera. It's neuter and belongs to the same group as genus, genera & onus, onera.

I think bonus is related too.

'Will we be getting Christmas bonera this year?'

 

The sad thing is the proper plural of opus is unusable in english.

 

& the proper term for inhabitants of Venus is Venerians. Also problematic in English.

 

Touche. That's no fair giving me an irregular neuter noun, especially when I didn't bother to elaborate into them first! :P Well, if you use the proper Latin irregular forms, there's "Venerial orbit" for an orbit around Venus (let's just say there were some less refined characters back in HS that always had their jollies at the expense of this particular irregularity, and the teacher's patience; see also "facio" and it's derivations, or the Latin translation of "he knows the faith" fidem scit FEED-EM SH-IT), and the "Jovian system" also for the Jupiter system, not sure how Jove came from Jupiter. Sometimes using the proper Latin forms will also totally confuse the hell out of the people you're talking to as well. So I say, like a fine wine, BEST USED ONLY IN MODERATION!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

...and the "Jovian system" also for the Jupiter system, not sure how Jove came from Jupiter. Sometimes using the proper Latin forms will also totally confuse the hell out of the people you're talking to as well. So I say, like a fine wine, BEST USED ONLY IN MODERATION!

 

But folks often debate what the plural of opus is.

 

I think Jupiter is an abbreviated form of Jove Ipiter. V and U being identical on carved inscriptions.