It’s just wild ramblings trying to vaguely connect the Liberal party leadership handover to a criminal influence-peddling scheme.

Never mind the addled writing style. It’s just plain smear, no real substance, just an excuse to wander through sentences that connect Dion, Ignatieff, Rae, and the Liberals to this new crime by a governor in another country.

It is the Conservative party that has the whiff of election hijinx about them; they were the ones who got raided by the Election feds – like Governor Dead Meat.

But even that would be a vague connection at best. Please don’t write stuff if you have nothing to say.

-Flick Harrison

I thought it was high time we all remembered the crazy old days when Stephen Harper was baiting the public service, muzzling his subordinates and generally NOT wearing warm fuzzy sweaters. The new ad in which he talks about cracking down on crime in a soft, throaty voice reminded me of the Godfather, but that’s another cartoon entirely.

CLICK HERE to see the cartoon…

And make your comments below.

Bill C-10, an amendment to the income tax act which runs hundreds of pages long, has 13 words in it that give the government the right to cancel tax credits for film productions unless

“(b) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy.”

In a Conservative majority situation, this could cut out films that depict violence, homosexuality, underage drinking, etc. Are the Conservatives really more interested in protecting Canadian morality than Canadian jobs?

The phrase itself recalls Hays-code puritanism; i.e. if a gay character gets married – fictionally! – that might be “contrary to public policy.” If a teenage drinker doesn’t die or go to jail before the end credits roll, perhaps this is contrary to public policy. Maybe even a bank heist would be “contrary to public policy?” (Here’s the parliamentary web page for the bill, with status updates and full text).

The man taking credit for the new rule is a Christian evangelical who also led a charge against gay marriage when that issue was on the table. Is this the guy writing legislation for Harper? Is this the kind of news Harper needs to secure his coveted majority?

You’ll notice the bill received ZERO (!) days of debate in the house of commons. Talk about sneaking one past us! What are the opposition parties for, again?

In the Senate, Conservative senator Marjorie Lebreton somewhat deviously announced the bill in the following ho-hum manner: “This bill proposes measures regarding the taxation of non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities. It also implements certain amendments to the Income Tax Act that are technical in nature and, for the most part, serve to accomplish a number of housekeeping objectives. Rather than getting into the technical details of Bill C-10, I would like to make a few general remarks about tax fairness…”

Insert Conservative rhetoric here.

The censorship of bill C-10 happens after the film has finished shooting – in other words, after the money has been spent, the producers could find themselves millions of dollars in debt, based on a political reading of their films by a closed-door panel of bureaucratic, Conservative appointees. Obviously, no investor would fund a film under such uncertain conditions. Producers’ only alternative would be to vet scripts politically at each stage of production – before shooting, during the edit, and then before release.

Let me squash the first argument that conservatives will throw up: “Your freedom of speech does NOT extend to the right to receive a cheque from the government.” This is wrong-headed for many reasons. First of all, if the government is handing out cheques, they CANNOT discriminate as to WHO gets money based on the prohibited categories in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I.e. religion, gender, race, ethnicity etc. So, if “promoting homosexuality” is a criteria to refuse tax credits, then of course, that WOULD be a Charter issue, and the government would get their arse handed to them in court.

Think of it this way: imagine if a documentary producer was counting on Tax Credits to repay their production loan! Then, when the film is finished, some conservative flunky decides he doesn’t like their final product. Let’s say Nettie Wilde’s documentary Fix: The Story of an Addicted City, which promoted the debate about a safe-injection site, was considered “contrary to public policy.” What a great tool for the Conservatives to quash hot topics! And this isn’t a free-speech issue? Give me a break.

And to be absolutely clear – the rules apply ONLY, it seems, so Canadian productions. Foreign productions can be as immoral and debaucherous as they want – their tax credits will still flow like sweet wine.

Secondly, this is an industrial issue, as much as a censorship issue. Having some wonky priests declaring certain films immoral behind closed doors is not exactly a solid economic policy. Tax credits are rebates on Canadian labour used in the making of the film. It results in a net gain for the Canadian economy. Get it? It’s NOT a free cheque from the government. It’s a tax credit that stimulates local jobs.

So Conservatives want to RAISE taxes on film production? I thought they hated taxes! Especially corporate taxes!

If you want to pull the rug from under Canadian production companies, then by all means support this legislation.

Moreover, the proposed rules seem MUCH stricter than ratings board criteria; the reason is that ratings boards rate content scene by scene, whereas the new rules seem to be more theme-based, i.e. the film as a whole is judged and so slight edits after rating might not be enough to alter the outcome. For example, Atom Egoyan’s new film Where The Truth Lies has a threesome scene which earned him a killer nc-17 rating. If he wished, he could have removed the scene to lose the rating. But a film like Exotica might be unsalvagable, because the main character is a stripper dressed like a schoolgirl. Certainly schoolgirl strippers are “contrary to public policy!”

The little provision in C-10 was only discovered by the public on 2nd reading in the senate (and we wonder why Harper insists on ramming bills, like the Violent Crime Bill, through the senate without deliberation or committee work).

Hidden Harper agenda?

There’s a facebook group opposing the bill which got 12,000 members in the first weekend.

Man’s lack of co-operation necessitated force

I wrote him this email in response:

Mr MacPherson,

Your definition of resisting arrest is novel. Walking away = violent.

Once in a while, people behave irrationally. Should we all carry tasers so that we can zap anyone who makes a false move?

That old lady who shoves into you on the crowded bus, then refuses to back off, because she doesn’t understand your english? Taser her! Immediately! She might have a pocket full of hep-C aids needles! Shoving is violent – at least, more violent than walking away.

The Taser is meant to be an alternative to deadly force. NOT an alternative to NON-DEADLY force, i.e. dealing with a cranky but otherwise innocent person. It wasn’t a bank holdup or hostage situation. It was an angry guy at the airport. Your suggestion that he might have had a weapon borders on immoral fantasy. A weapon! In the secure international arrivals area after clearing customs!

Four police officers with guns and tasers are a very formidable force. This so-called violent person showed some rationality by NOT confronting them. The pro-police argument, constantly used, that police feel endangered and threatened by harmless individuals is really quite sickening.

Sure they felt threatened. And teeny little George Bush couldn’t sleep because he was so scared of big bad Saddam Hussein.

As a filmmaker, I’ve worked with footage of the VPD harrassing people, publicly strip-searching women – yes, publicly strip-searching women on busy street corners, and you guessed it, these were drug-addicted street prostitutes with no way to defend their bodies or their rights – and personally witnessed cops beating a handcuffed man’s head against the hood of their car. Not all police officers are corrupt brutes, but unlike you I don’t defy rational interpretation of clear events because of some automatic trust in police motives and behaviour.

Co-operating with police, by the way, is difficult if you have no idea what they’re saying.

Flick Harrison.
Vancouver

That’s all, I haven’t blogged in a while ‘cos I’m too busy.

I’m calling it: The Bloc pulls the ripcord (rejects the budget) within 24 hours either way of the Quebec Election. I.e. before the vote to throw the race and take a free news-cycle on No-campaiging-allowed final day, OR, after the race to destabilize the Quebec Parliament and keep the PQ in permanent war mode – provincial vote, federal vote, second provincial vote, referendum.

I discuss the Big New Vancouver International Film Centre (VIFC) and its lack of Canadian programming.

This article was sparked (I believe) by an anonymous email that included me in the CC line. Apparently I am the go-to guy for independent cinema rabble-rousing in this town, which isn’t a bad thing. Pieta Wooley refused to interview the mystery person anonymously by email, but here’s what she got out of me, on the record:

It’s an interesting issue, this is the first time my attention’s been drawn to it. I’m interested to know why this Sam Sam entity chose me as the kaka-disturber… But I’ll take the bait!

Since the Blinding Light disappeared, it’s a bit of a given that Vancouver screenings are few and far between for underground film folks like me. The Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) has limited space and tastes, being only one venue, and happens only once a year. The VIFC is a year-round extension of that, but it comes from the exact same place: large-budget, corporate- (or giant non-profit-) sponsored Big Art.

I think Jen Cressey plugged my upcoming screening to you, Marie Tyrell; it’s a film I finished over a year ago, won the Best narrative Film award at NWFVF, but hasn’t screened in Vancouver yet (of course). It’s finally showing as a Cineworks Cinematic Salon, I’d love it if you came and saw it:

http://www.cineworks.ca MARCH 1 – 7pm.

I waited so long to show Marie Tyrell because B.Y.O.Venue, fun as it is, means being a promoter, venue manager, liquor control board officer, and everything else all at once. Making films is hard enough; if you have to build a venue every time you finish a film, it’s exhausting, not to mention the fact that one-off venues have none of the built-in audience nor half the credibility (in terms of grants, building of artistic momentum, etc).

Then again, I haven’t approached VIFC myself – I guess it never occurred to me that such an institution, created by VIFF which hasn’t particularly dug my work, would be interested in what I’m doing. There’s nothing on VIFC website about submitting work to screen there, though there’s plenty of rate tables for the expensive rentals. It’s a vicious cycle; build a giant venue on prime real estate, you gotta pay the bills. Even the for-profit Hollywood cinemas downtown have collapsed under such pressure.

Walking into Vancity Cinema, it smacks of big-art / corporate sheen (it kind of feels like a Vancity branch, in fact); it’s a great place to watch films, comfy and so on, good sound and projection. But I haven’t encountered anyone from the programming committee beating the bushes for local filmmakers to screen there, that’s for sure. And on the day it opened, no one bothered to spray paint ‘The Avant-Garde spits in the face of institutional art’ as happened on opening day of the Pacific Cinematheque.

It’s different times now, there’s so much film being made in such spread-out conditions, the one thing we desperately need are solid venues with some kind of legitimacy; short of theatrical release, the only venue in town that qualifies a filmmaker for future telefilm funding is VIFF. I’m not sure if VIFC would count as part of that; if so, that would add pressure to their mandate, if you ask me, to show local stuff.

The Planet theatre was an interesting project, but its not incredibly active, from a look at their website.

I can see the dilemma of the VIFC programmers; the world is filled with crap cinema, even mainstream cinema is getting worse; the Ridge just faded out for god’s sake. I’m sure they’re doing Vancouver a favour by programming the things they choose. But I can’t see their slate is really non-competitive with the Cinematheque as it stands; that was one of the pledges Alan Franey made, I believe, on launching the VIFC project. Surely, anything on that calendar could show down the block at 1131 Howe street.

You see they’ve finally put a Canadian film into their schedule, Whole New Thing. But the director is Amnon Buchbinder, who is, wait for it, a former Programming Director at the VIFF itself! There’s nothing wrong with showing his film, which has two great local actors in it (Rebecca Jenkins and Callum Keith Rennie), even though it was produced elsewhere. The question is, how widely are they casting the net, if the only Canadian film they show is made by someone who previously held their job of deciding which films to show?!?

If you look at part 3 of their Program Mission, the VIFC’s support for Vancouver film isn’t really organized around screening local work; it’s about subsidizing those who have enough money to rent the space (a worthy goal but cutting out those starving artists who are flat broke after post-production). For $300 an indie filmmaker can get a weekday daytime screening with projectionist – great for schmoozing but not an audience-grabber. Not sure whether one also needs insurance, after reading their website. (The cinematheque is available anytime it’s free for $375 which includes projection, staff, and concession)

Part one of their P.M. says,

“To encourage understanding of other nations through the art of cinema, to foster the art of cinema, to facilitate the meeting in British Columbia of cinema professionals from around the world, and to stimulate the motion picture industry in British Columbia and Canada.”

Not “understanding Canada through the art of cinema” or “stimulate the art of cinema in British Columbia and Canada.”

I notice there’s a survey on the VIFC site.

Everyone reading this should go and check “independent Canadian film.”