The National Film Board has long been known as a staple in Canadian film but the once stuffy identity has been trying to shed its old suit for some hip new attire and doing a good job of it too. Over the last few years they’ve been investing in projects one wouldn’t immediately think of as “NFB Material” and along the way, they’ve also been making their website a hub of information; a hub that’s about to get that much better.
Though the official announcement won’t take place until tomorrow, the NFB has let it be known that on Wednesday, January 21st, they will be officially launching their “Online Screening Room” which will feature full length feature and short films added every week. The Online Screening Room will highlight and include an assortment of new and classic NFB selections and they’re certainly starting off with a bang offering up Alanis Obomsawin’s classic Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance and one of my favourite films of last year, Murray Siple’s Carts of Darkness (our review).
Lucky for you, you don’t have to hold your breath until tomorrow as the Screening Room is already in operation (though a little spotty at the moment). Head on over to the NFB for all the goodness. I can’t wait to see what else they’ll be offering up as they have an extensive library featuring some films that can’t be found anywhere else.
This discussion currently has 73 responses.
No, I certainly I agree there are similarities between Shimura’s...
January 20, 2009
The are also releasing my cinecast DVD pick of the week: TRIAGE.
January 20, 2009
Government sponsored art is a bad idea. If Canada’s socialized film industry is working so well why is your film industy at such a nadir?
January 20, 2009
umm. maybe because the majority of the talented Canadian filmmakers (and actors for that matter) go to Hollywood.
January 20, 2009
Cross Border Brain-drain has always been a problem. But there are a lot of local talents that really do shine within the Canadian System:
Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg, Guy Maddin, Vincenzo Natali, Bruce Greenwood, Bruce MacDonald, Sarah Polley, Lynne Stopkewich, Molly Parker, Tom McCamus, Don McKellar, Stephen McHattie, Julian Richings, Hugh Dillon, Callum Keith Rennie, Gary Burns, Gordon Pinsent, Aaron Woodley, John Fawcett, Charles Martin Smith, Brett Sullivan, Thom Fitzgerald, Sandra Oh, Paul Fox and Rob Stefanuik.
And the French Canadian Cinema is completely self-sufficient fluctuating from art (Denis Arcand, Robert LePage) to populist (Bon Cop, Bad Cop).
January 20, 2009
Australia’s film industry is government financed as well I believe, and they certainly have their fair share of great films.
January 20, 2009
Murphy, you’re argument that talent is fleeing the gov subsidized ghetto of canada in favor of hollywood’s privatized free market is an admission that the system is flawed.
But Kurt’s right. There certaintly are talented canadians in film (is Callum Keith Rennie on Battlestar Galactica. If he is the guy I’m thinking of he’s awesome). A few of them even still work in Canada. But unless you’re someone like Maddin or Bruce Conner toiling away on small commercially hopeless esoteria (or a mainstream film maker content to stick to comedies about bilingual hockey players) then I don’t think the canadian system is very nurturing.
Of course it’s difficult to defend Hollywood as a channel of artistic accomplishment. Most of it is completely dismissible. The majority of really great interesting stuff goes unseen. But they still do produce work of ambitious scope and artistic merrit that manages to connect with audiences. Stuff like Brokeback Mountain, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Wrestler…
It’s true that these films are getting harder and harder to produce and (especially) distribute. But it’s still true that the free market works better at distributing art than the socialist alternative while completely avoiding the more disturbing implications of gov regulated speech.
Bon Cop, Bad Cop was subsidized by the Canadian Gov by the way.
January 20, 2009
Gamble, who are these Aussie autuers I’ve missed out on?
I don’t mean that to sound sarcastic, I’m actually interested to know.
January 21, 2009
“you’re argument that talent is fleeing the gov subsidized ghetto of canada in favor of hollywood’s privatized free market is an admission that the system is flawed.”
Or that human beings are flawed, ie. greedy.
Utopia is only achievable through the government. Why chase Utopia? What else should we chase?
The free market works better at nothing except cater to what is lowest in us, our inner monkeys. That’s why it has been so succesful.
January 21, 2009
Yes, he is a Cylon that pops in every now and again on BSG. Go look at Callum Keith Rennie’s C.V. on Imdb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0719678/). But the actor has a real rogues gallery of characters, rapists, deviants, killers, and of course, Dodd in Chris Nolan’s Memento where he spends most of his screentime with duct tape over his face. A great character actor who should get more starring roles, as he is a pretty good lookin’ fellah.
On Aussie Auteurs: Peter Weir, Philip Noyce, Baz Lurhman, George Miller, Nicholas Roeg, actor Richard Roxburgh had a commercially successful debut film with Romulus My Father (a film I didn’t overly like, but it looked gorgeous and was well directed). And then there is the always fun Rolf De Heer, Australia’s equivalent of Bruce MacDonald. (oh and the John Carpenter pseudo-equivalent: Brian Trenchard-Smith) Australia definitely suffers from Hollywood Brain drain just like the states, ditto New Zealand, lots of great NZ directors moved quickly over to LaLaLand after success at home.
January 21, 2009
@Henrik, “The free market works better at nothing except cater to what is lowest in us, our inner monkeys. That’s why it has been so succesful.”
Wow. We absolutely agree on something.
January 21, 2009
Icelandic film making is also government sponsored. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a film industry. But we also have to get grants from European funds. It’s just too damn expensive over here to make a movie.
This results in though that commercially viable films usually don’t get grants because the committee that grants you money usually leans towards the arthouse and totally ignoring the fact that commercial films have been making the most money at the box office. But it looks like it’s changing since the old “masters” that hogged these grants for years have come to accept the fact that people aren’t interested in their work anymore.
January 21, 2009
Good call on Keith Rennie, he’s one of my fave local actors.
And swarez brings up a good point. I’ve been to a many a filmmaker discussion and spoken to reps of both the NFB and Telefilm and the general consensus is that their approach is changing. Scripts that had once been overlooked because of their commercialism are now much more likely to get funding. It’s a struggle and the system doesn’t always work (depending on who you ask) but I, for one, am happy we have it in place otherwise we really wouldn’t have a Canadian voice in film.
January 21, 2009
Isn’t the UK film industry also heavily government sponsored? Seems like most of the major UK releases I see are supported by the BBC and The UK Lottery Fund.
January 21, 2009
The government sponsors the artforms that have the toughest time surviving in the free market, ie. classical music and introspective films about the death of a child. These things have no chance against the panage, zing-zing-badaboom-FUNNYBUNNY! style of entertainment that is so prevalent in our culture, but they are worth keeping anyway. Free market is “let fall what can’t stand on it’s own”, which is a horrible thought. I want my classical music, and I will support a government that takes money out of the pockets of all its citizens in order to ensure their citizens possibility to be exposed to all sorts of different artistic endeavors, not just cater to whomever have the biggest marketing budget.
January 21, 2009
If government funding wasn’t in place the only films you would see would be commercial crap that would sell the most tickets. There are very few European companies that produce films on their own, most are funded by grants or the government.
January 21, 2009
A couple other Aussie directors that Kurt missed, Andrew Dominik, Richard Franklin, Andrew Upton, Russell Mulcahy, John Hillcoat and Alex Proyas. Then you have Australians that didn’t start directing until they hit the States like Mel Gibson, Craig Gillespie and James McTiegue.
Australia certainly has issues with the exportation of their talent, but they also seem to do a pretty good job of getting Hollywood films and Australian talent to still make films there.
If government funding wasn’t in place the only films you would see would be commercial crap that would sell the most tickets.
I don’t think this is entirely true. Their would certainly be an increase in commercially marketable films, but that doesn’t mean you would see the elimination of artistic fare.
January 21, 2009
Matt: Gregor Jordan and Paul Cox should also be added to our growing list of Aussie talents.
Furthermore on Artistic investment, South Korea had a ‘film quota’ system that kept American and Japanese films off of a certain % of Korean screens to allow natural talent a chance to grow. The result of this ’screen-quota’ was South Korean film blossoming from 1999-2006. Screen Quota removed in early 2007, and South Korean film quality went into the shitter. Yes, development of talent by goverment funds can be very successful and the Korean Cinema was an interesting mix of arthouse (Kim Ki-Duk, Lee Myung-Se, Hong Sang-Soo) and commercial (Bong Joon-Ho, Kim Ji-Woon, Park Chan-Wook). And come to think about it, most of the wildly commercially successful films in S.Korea would be considered art house films in America (things like A Tale of Two Sisters, The King and The Clown, and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance were far more high-brow than much of Commercially successful American productions). Plus, we got some truely weird films coming out of S.Korea that is unlike that they would have been made in a fully-commercial environment: Save the Green Planet, The Host, The Duelist, and Daespo Naughty Girls.
January 21, 2009
Plus, we got some truely weird films coming out of S.Korea that is unlike that they would have been made in a fully-commercial environment
Like say, Death Bed: The Bed that Eats?
I really think the idea that a commercial film enterprise would mean the death of artistic films is an overstatement. I might even argue that commercial film making is intrinsic for artistic fare to evolve and flourish. As much to inspire people to do better as it is a means of financial solvency. Take a look at the history of the US musical industry as an example. Commercialism has fueled every artistic movement since the 50’s. Every time a commercially driven style comes around the inevitable artistic backlash results, furthering the industry artistically and commercially.
These aren’t mutually exclusive animals but symbiotic.
January 21, 2009
Fair enough. But you darn well need both, and Government Sponsorship helps the arts side a fair bit.
January 21, 2009
Oh I agree. I value Public Television, Public Radio and Government grants here in the US as much as anyone. And for most countries commercially financed films simply isn’t realistic. The US is relatively spoiled when it comes to all the different ways you can fund a film and the types of films that allows. Henrik can rip on Hollywood all he wants, but the diversity in US film making is tough to beat.
January 21, 2009
The diversity of filmmaking in hollywood is tough to beat? Why don’t give we somebody a chance and see if it holds up shall we?
January 21, 2009
A few dollars going to support some art I can get behind. When my tax dollars go to something to help feed the media, this is where I draw the line. I don’t like my tax dollars and ultimately the government helping to fund the media (i.e. NPR).
Don’t get me wrong, I love NPR, but when gov’t has a hand in supporting them, I think that’s a dangerous precedent.
January 22, 2009
What about the BBC? It is government owned and they produce some of the best TV material out there. All European countries have a TV and Radio station owned by the government and these are usually those who produce the most relevant material.
I think it says more about your government if you are worried about them putting money in to media.
January 22, 2009
“Don’t get me wrong, I love NPR, but when gov’t has a hand in supporting them, I think that’s a dangerous precedent.” -Uh, like Rupert Murdoch’s Fair and Balanced un-interfering news-station? I think that Government funding into the arts is supposed to remove this sort of soap-boxing and interference in the name of corporate interests (I’ll admit this probably doesn’t work all that great in practice, but heck, it is the best we got at the moment).
I happened to like NPR, it’s better than our CBC radio by a fair bit.
Oh, and what Swarez said. I think many Americans (including Andrew) are blinded by the old American “Free Market” bullshit (see: Health Care) that thinks greedy corporate interests can run things more ‘efficiently’ than ‘corrupt-but-changing every few years’ goverment. I’ll take the latter, if only because there is a hair slightly more accountability, and they ‘cycle’ every few years to minimize the loss. Again, not perfect, but the best we got.
January 22, 2009
“when gov’t has a hand in supporting them, I think that’s a dangerous precedent.”
Well, the BBC and CBC have been accused of bias from time to time, but they are certainly not sensationalist infotainment news programs, they cover more than sexy nationalistic events. I am actually quite glad there are national networks to compete with the cable news outfits. It gives us a proper comparison to actual journalism that hopefully keeps the more entertaining news from going completely off the tracks.
January 22, 2009
“I think it says more about your government if you are worried about them putting money in to media.”
Too many americans are afraid of their government rather than vice versa. Maybe thats the cost of having such a large country that puts so much money in the military?
if americans can accept that the president almost always talks through the press secretary and rarely takes care of their own conferences, vs. in most parliamentary systems where they have to be out there justifying themselves in detail EVERY DAY, then I can actually put the blame on a lot of the people for not demanding better government.
I think americans often think the solution to bad government is less government, rather than better government. but since better government requires actual work from the people, its easy to see how that may not fly.
January 22, 2009
NPR actually receives the majority of its funds from donations, not the government. MPR here in the Twin Cities is a veritable juggernaut and is the most solvent brand around and has the most political pull as well due to its vast amount of listeners and financial contributers. As an added bonus they also have the best radio station in town, 89.3 The Current, which actually plays new and original music instead of going off a standard playlist that is used across the country.
if americans can accept that the president almost always talks through the press secretary and rarely takes care of their own conferences
This actually never occurred until Bush II. Every other president stood in front of the press corp and fielded questions, and Clinton was considered a master of it and so was Reagan. Bush didn’t do it because he was awful at it (as was his father) and because his administration was rather dickish in how it treated the media.
January 22, 2009
^^^ edited for correct radio frequency.
January 22, 2009
“This actually never occurred until Bush II. ”
Exactly. The supposed ‘liberal media’ and the american people had 8 years to start demanding more, and they didn’t do shit.
Look at Sarah Palin. Had less than half a dozen real interviews, never had one press conference, and then complains that the media was out to get her. At one point the McCain camp admitted she wasnt ready for interviews. Well fuck off, if you’re going to hide from the media and wont/cant even answer questions when you do face them, i dont want to hear any bullshit about bias or assumptions later.
Palin’s 3 months of hiding was actually probably worse than 8 years of Bush’s hiding.
January 22, 2009
Wow, this thread blew up.
Gamble, I’d forgotten about Hillcoat. I loved The Proposition.
Kurt makes a good point about S. Korea. Actually, my mind followed a similar train of thought and I’d been doing some reading about their film industry. I don’t agree with the philosophy behind gov screen quotas but I can’t argue with the result. Their film industry florished as a result.
Still, a lot of the pro-socialist arguments put forward seem ill thought out and poorly supported by the evidence. It’s just not true that free markets don’t produce artistic quality. Hollywood produces more art films / films of quality than most (if not all) other film industries around the world. And their films are successful in finding audiences rather than just being propped up at gun point because social retards like Henrik think it serves some “greater good”.
MInute for minute I doubt there is a production studio that produces more quality that HBO. Completely free market.
Even NPR is a poor argument in favor of socialist media because it recieves very little of it’s budget from the gov (I believe it’s as low as 1%, not going to look it up). I certaintly don’t agree with Andrew’s saber rattling faux new love. But he’s right about gov sponsored news. One of the necessary features of a democracy is an independent press.
I don’t automatically disregard all forms of socialism. I’m not necessarily against socialist medicine. But socialist art/media is ill advised. Gov funding is a always a form of regulation.
January 22, 2009
@ Utopia is only achievable through the government.
and I can’t believe anyone would write or agree with this drivel. I was under the impression that every single person in the universe knew that the path to a better society is individual enlightenment and each citizen taking personal responsibility for impoving things. Not the gov making people act right. Good lord, maybe you should look into the track record for that strategy.
January 22, 2009
“One of the necessary features of a democracy is an independent press.”
Did anyone suggest ONLY having a government press?
Have you lived in Britain or Canada, or at least have regular exposure to their news for comparison?
I’m telling you, if you had something like the CBC or BBC, you would make fun of all their original programming, and respect the news. The supposed “government” news is somehow far more independent and a proper voice of the people than the corporate media here. The closest thing the US has to it is PBS. We have a PBS/TV Ontario/public funding thing going on too. We have a full variety, and sorry, when it comes to the actual news, the CBC is a hell of a lot more reliable and less sensationalistic for the sake of entertainment than anything else I have EVER come across.
January 22, 2009
Goon, that’s all true and I think the reason for that is a lack of integrity from reporters/journalists of today. I’m generalizing of course, but I think many of them are willing to sacrifice reliability and responsibility in order to become more “sensationalisitic.” Dan Rather and Newsweek spring to mind.
January 22, 2009
“Good lord, maybe you should look into the track record for that strategy.”
I said Utopia, not real life sweety.
These are my politics: “Communism does not work on humans, but the world would be a better place if it did.”
January 22, 2009
If we lived in a utopia why would we need a government? Anyways if you read your exact quote you said that utopia is achievable and that gov is the way to achieve it. It’s not my fault if that’s not what you meant to say.
If I were to wish for a perfect society it wouldn’t be one where communism works, it would be where laws and regulation are unnecessary.
January 23, 2009
I actually agree with Henrik on this one. The only way to come near a “utopian” society would be through government because we all know left on our own to do what we want would mean mass chaos. Communism is a good concept that works on paper but it is always the human factor that fucks it up because greed and power hunger is inherent in us. Laws and regulations are needed to keep us in check.
January 23, 2009
The best form of government is laid out in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, some one hundred pages of perfectly reasoned boundaries for how to fit a government to human nature and human need.
As Aristotle figured out long ago, the best system is a mix of oligarchy and democracy.
January 23, 2009
communism has nothing to do with human nature, how can that be utopic, to exist in a way contrary to our nature?
January 23, 2009
Row Three keeps censoring me!
Fascists!
January 23, 2009
@ Communism is a good concept that works on paper but it is always the human factor that fucks it up
You know what else works except for the “human factor”; every other system of gov ever concieved by man. The purpose of gov is to mitigate for human nature. It’s absurd to talk about a gov whose only flaw is that it’s incompatible with human nature. You may as well talk about a plane whose only flaw is that it doesn’t fly under our current laws of physics.
Every governement law is a restriction of freedom. Every gov handout is a form of regulation.
I’m not a doctrinaire libertarian, I don’t necessarily believe in the benevolent god of the free-market. And I’m definitly not a free market anarchist. There may be times when gov intervention is appropriate but I don’t think it should be our default solution. Free markets promote innovation whereas gov’s foster the status quo and they do so at the barrel of a gun. It seems to be an article of faith for many of you that private financing won’t produce worthwhile art but I don’t see the evidence backing up that claim. Even American hating Henrik (who recently claimed that hollywood films are “ruining his life”) is rarely heard raving about contemperary european cinema. It’s usually TMNT and M. Night (to be fair he also likes Bergman, but his output over the past two decades or so has been minimal. When it comes to film makers working right now I can’t think of a single European director I’ve ever heard Henrik praise.)
Hollywood gets a lot of crap for their pandering franchise films (most of which are terrible) but it’s not a bad thing for the arts to have to appeal to actual audiences rather than gov overseers and beaurocrats.
Kurt was recently praising S. Korea for imposing domestic quotas on their theaters. And I admit it definitely turned their film culture around. But how many of you would want to live in a system that imposed such quotas (No Wrestler, we already imported Iron Man)? Hollywood finances great artists (like PT Anderson, Tarrantino, Coens, Aaronofsky, Van Sant, Lynch as well as diverse voices from abroad like John Hillcoat and Andrew Dominic, Michel Gondry, Herzog, Ang Lee etc etc) without forcing quotas on screens. And without demand funding from the gov.
And Swarez, we certaintly don’t improve society by getting gov to force people to act right. In fact it works exactly the other way around. Individuals with integrity demand just government.
January 23, 2009
@ Row Three keeps censoring me!
now there’s a form of regulation I can get behind.
January 23, 2009
“Henrik (who recently claimed that hollywood films are “ruining his life”)”
Unfair. I think if people read the comment where this could be derived from, it would be clear that I was being facetious and more than anything making a joke about my own supposed hyperbolic nature.
Cinema in general is not much to rave about, it’s just that the american movies cost so much more money, that it’s more frustrating to see when they suck than the european ones. Basically cinema in a nutshell boils down to: Kubrick, Bergman.
January 24, 2009
@ Unfair. I think if people read the comment where this could be derived from, it would be clear that I was being facetious
unlike every other “joke” you’ve ever made that no one seems to get.
And here’s the money quote:
@ “Cinema in general is not much to rave about”
January 24, 2009
@ Basically cinema in a nutshell boils down to: Kubrick, Bergman.
And Im actually legitimately curious about this remark. Please elaborate.
January 24, 2009
Those two people are the ones that validate the medium. Their movies seem to me at least, to be so much beyond what anybody else has done. Bergman is the zenith of cinema, but even I have to acknowledge that there are some things he didn’t do, and nobody did those things better than Kubrick. So it boils down to these two men, making cinema worthwhile, with the occasional popup of a fantastic movie from somewhere else, but these seem very inconsistent, and at times, nonexistent which is very disheartening.
January 24, 2009
“here’s the money quote:
@ “Cinema in general is not much to rave about””
I don’t get it. Is this some sort of smoking gun? I think it would be obvious from my comments that I think alot of cinema is shite and a waste of time. Just like with most art, you can’t like everything, and even in the areas that interest you, only the good stuff is worthwhile, the rest doesn’t matter.
January 24, 2009
@ “Cinema in general is not much to rave about””
in retrospect I dont’ get it either.
January 24, 2009
Rusty, you lack the backbone and the insight to really be challenging. Or the effort, which is fine, I can relate.
January 25, 2009
And as for danish auteurs beating the shit out of america, eat this cocksucker:
http://www.luebeck.de/filmtage/02/press/fotos/images/at%20kende%20sandheden%203.jpg
January 25, 2009
I kinda agree with Henrik, I think we both have these unique standards for what we want from cinema, and maybe 10% of what I see in a year actually fulfills that standard. I like the drug analogy so I will keep using it, its like our senses have been dulled from overuse and we are in need of that higher high, and it takes something out of norm to get at it, Bergman, Kubrick, sure, Malick, Herzog, Fellini, it requires someone who has mastered the art of filmmaking, married with a novel and profound story to tell, and when this occurs it is magical, and rare, almost against the laws of the industry… like Kaufmann’s Synecdoche New York, it seems inconceivable it could made but somehow it got through, it made it into that 10% of revelatory experiences.
January 25, 2009
Mike Rot, if you’re agreeing with Henrik then I’m afraid I don’t understand the argument. What does any of that have to do with socialism vs free market as a viable means of financing art?
Henrik, anyone can link to articles others have written raving about danish cinema (or in this case a lone jpg of a guy sitting in a chair who is allegedly a great director) but my point was that for a guy so offended by the trash that is American cinema most of the time when you’re raving about a movie it’s American. In fact the only outside hollywood filmmaker I’ve ever heard you speak positively about is Bergman.
Think about that for a second. Your go to example for the artistic merrit of the danish film industry is a guy you’ve never mentioned before. Does anyone watch his films other than film critics? The idea that it’s the gov’s job to “promote” (“enforce” would be a more accurate term) the sort art people should be patronizing is enherently authoritarian.
January 25, 2009
“Does anyone watch his films other than film critics?”
Yes.
This is not my website. I comment on the stuff that is written on it. Nobody else has brought up Malmros, but I recently saw the poster for his new film and he has been on my mind lately, so thought I’d throw him out there in the off chance that anybody would know of him.
January 25, 2009
Rot, you could condense a list of movies you think are great as small as you like and say that any movies that don’t live up to those standards aren’t worth watching. I agree that everyone has some sort of filter as to what cinema is valuable to them and what isn’t. I also think, however, that the most important thing about watching film is learning what works and what doesn’t work. For example, when I saw the preview for ‘Gran Torino’, I knew immediately that I would be able to walk away from that movie and take something away from it. I watched the movie, loved Eastwood’s character, but couldn’t stand the supporting cast. That movie doesn’t even begin to sniff anywhere near my top five or top ten movies. Hell, it’s not even one of my top ten Clint Eastwood movies. However, I was able to look at the film and identify Eastwood’s solid performance, regardless of the things that didn’t work in the film.
Whether it’s ten per cent or twenty per cent of the films you see in a year, how many of those are actually great films? I like to use ‘The Dark Knight’ as a recent example. It’s a solid film. Great acting. Great story. Excellent cinematography. It’s about a man in a rubber suit who flies around a city. If you can suspend your disbelief enough, though, it’s a great piece of work. Overall, can it hold a candle to some of the greater films like ‘The Godfather’ or ‘Psycho’? I don’t think so. But I still took a lot away from TDK.
January 25, 2009
@ This is not my website.
yes Henrik, that’s my point. If you’d care to link to you comments I’d be happy to read ‘em.
By the way, according to wikipedia many of Nils Malmros films have been privately financed.
January 25, 2009
My point is it seems unfair to scold me for not bringing Malmros up before, since he has never been mentioned in any posts on the website. I’m sure there could have an instance where it would have been appropriate and I just didn’t think of it or didn’t care since nobody here would know him.
I highly recommend you check out “Drenge” and “Kundskabens træ” though, if you’re interested.
January 25, 2009
well said, Andy.
January 25, 2009
@ I’m sure there could have an instance where it would have been appropriate
Somewhere around here there’s a thread where I directly ask you to name some danish film makers you like and you declined to name any.
Niles Malmros sound interesting. I like that he made a film where he performs onscreen surgery.
I think you’re overlooking the fact that the point I was making was not about american vs danish films. But rather privately financed art vs socialist art. Earlier in this thread you claim that gov funding is what makes art films possible. But Malmros disproves this by working within the danish system but self financing. The socialist system was an impediment to his work.
I still find it ironic that you never mention the guy until it comes time to defend your love of communism. I thought the objective was to defend film with communism not the other way around.
January 25, 2009
Well I was drunk and high on Malmros scenes I watched last night so that’s why the argumentation got muddled Rusty.
January 25, 2009
By the way, as for my love of communism, I don’t love it in practice. I love the ideal. I don’t care about trying to wrap my head around practical politics, it’s fucking boring. Its the ideas and the pie-in-the-sky notion of these great things that I defend my right to think of, but I know how inpractical and nonsense-laden they are if faced with actual reality.
January 25, 2009
@ I don’t care about trying to wrap my head around practical politics, it’s fucking boring.
Then I take it I made my point. Regardless of your personal fondness for communism, free markets are superior at financing artistic vision.
For someone so opposed to childishness you’re awfully fond of impractical fantasizing.
January 25, 2009
i don’t love monarchy in practice. but i love the ideal.
January 25, 2009
^^^^^ exactly
January 25, 2009
Denmark is only a monarchy on paper. The royal family, like every royal family in Europe is window dressing. They don’t actually have any say in anything or hold any political power.
January 25, 2009
^^^^^^^ dude, any country that can’t get off it’s ass and kick out it’s monarchy, on paper or any where else, is a total anachronistic fuck up of a nation.
January 25, 2009
If its between national healthcare with a monarchy, or no health care without a monarchy, I’ll live with the monarchy.
“free markets are superior at financing artistic vision.”
I don’t think so.
January 25, 2009
Amen on the Healthcare. The US scares the shit out of me in that respect. One of the primary reasons why I would never make that country my home. That being said, the auto insurance industry up here sucks ass.
I’m also not a fan of the ‘free market’ – Hmm, just read THE SHOCK DOCTRINE and you’ll see capitalism at its absolute worst. Speaking of that, the Winterbottom/Klein production of that film promises to be a good one.
January 25, 2009
Kurt, havent’ read the book but N. Klein is a light weight. I’d like to get around to it.
Secondly, I’ve been defending privatized arts, I’m not necessarily opposed to socialized medicine. The weakness of the US system is that it allows the uninsured to go without treatment, possibly dying of otherwise treatable illness. This is not only inhuman it doesn’t makes sense from a pragmatic stand point. Dead people leave behind orphaned children and other problems. No first world country should let people go without basic medical access.
But socialism is never a free ride. While it supplies superior coverage it doesn’t foster medical inovation as well. There’s a reason why rich Europeans come to the US for treatment but poor Americans go to Thailand.
Even libertarian economists (No less a libertarian authority than Ron Paul agrees, and he’s a medical doctor to boot.) agree that privatized health insurence completely defeats the purpose of a free market. It’s essentially a “voluntary” form of socialism combining the worst of both worlds. Prices are inflated and poor people go without coverage.
In first world countries if you’re starving we feed you. It’s equally about both compassion and pragmatism. There should be a balance. Similar to the US’s balance of public and privately financed schools. Of course that system is fucked as well, and I’d like to see a lot of improvements made.
January 25, 2009
Klein’s books (No Logo & The Shock Doctrine) are easy to read and thorough primers on their respective subjects. I wouldn’t call that light-weight. No Logo is pretty much the canonical text on the problems of branding and privatizing public space. But to each their own, I guess. I like Noam Chomsky too, but most folks would agree that he is a bit trickier to read while relaxing on the couch on a Sunday evening.
January 25, 2009
Everyone here has been pretty unyielding in insisting upon the benefits of the socialist state but I no one’s even attempted to address any of the points I’ve made.
The two largest film markets in the world, Mumbia and Hollywood are both free markets. They both produce vibrant and ambitious films that are broadly popular all over the world. Most of what I know of “bollywood” is from watching clips on line so I’m hardly an authority but from what I’ve seen I’ll gladly take their vibrant dance numbers over stifling conservative and politically compromised (but critically popular) socialist financed films of Iran.
I agree that S. Korea turned it’s film around and launched a (short lived) renessiance. But they did so by imposing restrictive and draconian quotas on their theaters. I doubt many of us would be eager to accept similar restrictions on what is allowed to be imported.
I think Kurt made my point for me, when I asked for examples of Australian auters (in response to gamble; and his assertain that their socialist financed system is working well) he replied with a list of very good australian directors most of which choose to work here in the US rather than Australia.
@kurt “Government Sponsorship helps the arts side a fair bit.”
I don’t see any evidence of that. Especially when you compare canada’s flacid socialst film industry to their healthy and (mostly) privately financed music industry.
January 26, 2009
Why would they need to kick out the monarchy? It’s good for the country’s image. They act as ambassadors basically, gathering good will from other nations. Are you seriously saying that Denmark, Sweden, Norway and England are fucked up nations living where you live? Please.
January 26, 2009
I think Kurt made my point for me, when I asked for examples of Australian auters (in response to gamble; and his assertain that their socialist financed system is working well)
Not sure if you think I am defending socialist arts (I’m not though I do think it can help in areas where free market can not) but I do think Australia’s version is by far the most successful both financially and stylistically. They aren’t fully subsidized by the government, and while the vast number of their directors and actors do go work in the US, they also do a very good job of pulling Hollywood productions to Australia as well. It’s not quite quid pro quo, but there is a semblance of balance instead of it all being from Australia to the US.
And to be fair, free market funding of the arts is not without its issues as well, political and otherwise. The US had all sorts of problems in the 20’s and 30’s with private companies trying to dictate the arts and stiffle anything creative that they didn’t approve of. Granted, in the long run it didn’t work, but free market funding is not without its own restrictions and pecadillos.
That all being said, using both in conjunction is the way I would go, with it skewered toward free market and private funding.
January 26, 2009
@ Not sure if you think I am defending socialist arts
No, I wasn’t under that impression. I considered all of your posts to be neutral.
@ The US had all sorts of problems in the 20’s and 30’s with private companies trying to dictate the arts and stiffle anything creative that they didn’t approve of.
I think even today there exists a privatized form of censorship in the US. I think often times the MPAA is able to exploit loop holes in the law that allow them to limit what’s available in theaters.
It’s possible to defend and criticize a system at once. I still think the US system is preferable to the overt form of censorship that happen in Canada and Britain. Where there are stringent hate speech laws that allow the gov to limit speech.
Socialism by its nature blurs the line between public and private interest. In some areas, like medical treatment, that might make sense. But in art and media I think it’s bad. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that socialist countries have embraced hate speech laws where as the more free market friendly US has resisted them. After all if it’s within the gov interest to finance “good” speech then it’s logically within the gov interest to sanction “bad” speech.
March 5, 2009
Nice:
“The National Film Board of Canada has commissioned idiosyncratic auteur Guy Maddin to create a short film to commemorate the NFB’s 70th anniversary.”