Saturday, March 1, 2008

CFAC Doesn’t Speak For Me!

I can’t possibly add anything to this fulsome diatribe other than to agree that the government has no place making moralistic determinations vis-à-vis its cultural funding decisions in accordance with some imagined “family friendly” standards that will undoubtedly wind up being arbitrary, non-transparent, unaccountable and thoroughly Kafkaesque in nature.

For example, one of the so-called “crackdowns” its sponsor is so delighted with includes “significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose.” Huh? Since when did sex in films need to have an “educational purpose” and by what metric is “significant content” going to be determined? Any self-respecting conservative should find this prudish, sort of state-sponsored “nannyism” to be offensive in the extreme. Under this proposed new regime, a film such as David Cronenberg’s “Crash” (produced with funding in part from Téléfilm Canada) most certainly wouldn’t have qualified for backing due to its controversial subject matter and “significant” sexual content.

To get an idea of the absurd direction where this type of censorship leads, please go watch an earlier post called “This film is not yet rated” that investigates the MPAA rating system. It’s bad enough that the movie industry in America already feels so pressured by the religious Right to voluntarily repress itself in this way without having to formalize and legitimize such censorship through government controls.

Oh, and if you think that the crusading wingnuts at the Canada Family Action Coalition are going to stop at films when it comes to imposing their so-called “conservative values” on government funding for the arts community… well, think again. Thin edge of the wedge, my friends…