Since the history of cinema, there have been filmmakers who come by and push films with subject matter or themes that certain parties in our society find unacceptable. For the most part it is government imposed film regulation boards that decide what their citizenry would consider offensive. Some films slip past these regulatory systems and find a market, at which point it's a matter of taste, and some people simply refuse to watch a movie based on the content. Let me stress on content, as they often do not see the context of said content. Which is sad, because these films are excellent, yet people refuse to see them or government ban them because they cannot bare to have their cages rattled a bit by seeing something that makes them uncomfortable. What's amazing is their utter lack of ability to understand why these images are in the film, it's never about why it's there, it's always the fact that it's there at all that gets them all worked up.

 

Best example I can bring up is this: A woman breast feeding a baby. You and I can see this scene and see that logically speaking this is a natural body function, it has a purpose and that is to feed the young parasite that has come to feed off the host organism. Some people who do not share my absolute loathing of babies will probably bore you with how beautiful it all is, fine if you want to look at it that way, you are at least agreeing with my stand point, if only in a different direction. These other people would just see a pair of exposed breasts and that is apparently perverted regardless of what the purpose of said exposure is for.

 

Granted, when it comes to filmmaking a lot of filmmakers use many things (especially nudity) for the purpose of gratuity, but there are other reasons why a particular image or theme is chosen. It's one's ability to rationalize how said content is relevant to the plot. While it may not be acceptable in a societal context, dramatizing (or in some cases really doing it on camera) serves a purpose to the film. While they may have been able to convey the same message by far subtler means, doing so may not have given the audience a true sense of what's going on. Not pushing these buttons could make or break an audiences ability to understand a characters motivations, or see their development, and most importantly of all: understand where they are coming from. Rhonda tells me both Baise-Moi and Irreversible are like this, too. I'll take her at her word.

 

Misconception is another problem that faces filmmakers when it comes to their work, and no surprise that the ones who usually misconceive what a movie is about it's usually some asshole in government. The most recent example of this happened in the 2006. In Canada we have what is called Telefilm Canada, it's a government organization that grants money (generated via the all powerful tax dollar) to help fund Canadian television and film projects for the purpose of boosting home grown entertainment, and culture. 2006 featured the debut of a film entitled Young People Fucking a film by Martin Gero and Aaron Abramas.

 

When this film started making the film festival circuit a lot of "family values" groups flipped the fuck out. Without having seen the movie, or knowing what it was about, were outraged that a movie called Young People Fucking received tax credits through the Telefilm program on tax payer money. The Judeo-Christian fuck-wads were outraged their tax dollars were going on this "porno graphic filth" and began pressuring the government to do something about it. Leading this pack of dogma spewing was a mother fucker named Charles McVety, who is the leader of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, and the most well known Canadian evangelican. Like down south, this turd eating pontifying piece of shit tries to dictate what you and I should do based on "family values", or in other words a thinly veiled spin to try and get everyone to subscribe to his incredibly flawed Christian world view where everyone lives nicely, praising God, and don't fuck. This same Jesus comptroller was also one of the strongest opponents of gay marriage in Canada. You ask me, this asshole is not any better than that toilet-licker Fred Phelps and his Westborough Baptist Church lunatics. He may as well be carrying a "God Hates Fags" sign along with the rest of the God fearing fuckers that we, rational, educated people, have to suffer.

 

Ahem, I got off topic, getting back to the point I'm getting at: We now enter the media circus, this film generated some buzz, as films should do. The ruling government of the time, which was the Conservative Party of Canada (Think the Republican Party, but on a shorter leash) agreed with McVety and his ilk and decided to try and do something about it.

 

They went to work, and decided to try and pass Bill C-10, Bill C-10 was a proposed amendment to the section of the Income Tax Act (Canada's tax law) that dealt with granting tax credits to Canadian film and television products. The change included a clause that would allow the ruling Heritage Minister to strip tax credits given to movies that were considered "offensive or not in the public interest" - something they were doing with zeal. It caused outrage across the entertainment industry, crying that the government was trying to impose censorship on the industry based on arbitrary issues that are a matter of taste. David Cronenberg would go to say that Bill C-10 was the type of thing they do in Beijing.

 

But here's the thwart: Young People Fucking, despite what people thought it was about, had not a single scene that would be considered pornographic by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the film was a romantic comedy that lampooned and poked fun at modern day relationships and sexuality. In response to the outrage, Martin Gero decided to have a free private screening to every member of Parliament who wanted to see the movie. On the night of the big event, of all the 40 odd people who showed up not a single member of the Conservative Party of Canada showed up to the screening.

 

So can I pause and ask a big question that has been bugging me about this:

 

How the FUCK do you pass a law that regulates film content based on something you haven't seen and won't even go and watch?

Quite frankly, the fact that -- as of this writing -- the Conservative Party is still in power mind boggles me. I thought this sort of asinine government lunacy happens in the United States. But no, when it comes to making stupid fucking decisions in the voting booth, my fellow Canadians can be just as fucking retarded when it comes to electing representatives to run this country.

 

Now, because of all the furor this film was causing in the press, it attracted a lot of attention. A Lot. It was getting rave reviews from film critics and they blew away people at the Toronto International Film Festival. After four weeks in the box office the film grossed $420,206. Which isn't too bad for a Canadian production.

 

So what happened to Bill C-10? In October of 2008, the Conservative Government decided to back down and repeal the provision in Bill C-10. This was met with great fanfare from the entertainment industry. McVety manages to pull his head out of his ass long enough to tell the press he was disappointed with the decision, "Unfortunately I think the prime minister is pandering to some vocal people and in turn abandoning his conservative base,"

 

Pandering to some Vocal People? Can you fucking believe that? Hey McVety, the whole reason this all came up is because like YOU raised such a stink about it and they were pandering to you to begin with! The difference is, they listened to you without thinking and made themselves look really fucking stupid. If you have anyone to blame for this movie's popularity, it's organizations like yours that made such a big deal about it. You gave them so much free publicity you only ended up shooting yourselves in the foot. The film probably would have still gotten the rave reviews, but it's your outrage that got the people in the movie theater seats and generated that $420,206 at the box office.

 

But that's Canada for you, other countries have it either better or worse than us. Movies can be banned with little more than a whimper of opposition (if any), such as North Korea, China and parts of the Middle East.

 

Anyone who wants to have a movie play on the silver screen in America has to deal with the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA is a regulatory board that determines those wonderful film ratings you see adorning every movie that has a major release in North America. Of all the arguments against the MPAA, is their obviously bias towards certain kinds of productions. Ask Lloyd Kaufman, president of Troma Entertainment, he can probably fill your ear with horror stories about dealing with the MPAA (or failing that, read his books All I Need to Know about Filmmaking I Learned from the Toxic Avenger, and Make Your Own Damn Movie!: Secrets of a Renegade Director to hear some of the tales.)

 

Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated also paints a picture about the MPAA that will also leave a bad taste in your mouth: That it is an organization operating in the best interest of the major motion picture companies, and social/religious/ethic groups and against independent productions. Further, they are an organization that seems to favor violence over sexual content (showing an exceeding bias towards homosexual content.)

 

Unless you want to have your movie playing in theaters, the digital age has made it much easier for filmmakers to get their films out and be seen by people. However there is one last obstacle in the way: the court of public opinion, which is an entirely different beast all together. We are all so fundamentally different, and our tastes varied, the hardest target to sell to is the individual person. All it takes is one small issue with your film and that's it, you've alienated at least one potential viewer. If you're looking for a specific audience, this shouldn't bother you, however in terms of mass market appeal, well let's just say that you're going to have a hard time selling a movie about cock-fighting to PETA members -- and let's not forget the religious groups that will want your movie banned because of the title having the word "cock" in it, and think it's pornography.