“The National Film Board of Canada has commissioned idiosyncratic auteur Guy Maddin to create a short film to commemorate the NFB’s 70th anniversary.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“free markets are superior at financing artistic vision.”

I don’t think so.

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.

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.

I highly recommend you check out “Drenge” and “Kundskabens træ” though, if you’re interested.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.luebeck.de/filmtage/02/press/fotos/images/at%20kende%20sandheden%203.jpg