The CAVCO rules state a "Canadian citizen" not resident. So they are perfectly within their rights to court any Canadian who lives anywhere in the world.
Get the CAVCO rule changed if you want to stop this practice.
I'm more concerned about the practice of Americans being deemed as Canadian so they can front a show here. And the practice of camouflaging an American series as a coproduction so it receives full 10/10 status and tax credits.
I would also like to see changes to the definitions that gets rid of the parochial nature of creating drama here - as in a Canadian setting, speaks to Canadians. Really, I think if the networks want to be part of productions like the Borgias and Camelot, we should be allowed to pitch such projects, too. After all, what is British or American about the Borgias? Yet those two nations can see the value in a drama about that family.
First of all, I never claimed that CBC doesn't have the right to look for talent where they want, merely that they are seeking green pastures while doing a not-very-good job of tending the garden they already have here. The thrust was the "if you're in L.A. you're A-list" mentality.
Secondly, CAVCO is a tax credit scheme. I think it would probably be difficult to impose residency requirements. And there are certainly beneficial effects with having service productions able to access tax credits.
But let's move onto Deb's central point, because it's one that I've heard a lot of people make over the last few months.
The idea that shows must be "primarily set in Canada" and "reflect Canadian themes" has been contentious for a long time. It's one of the reasons, in fact, that Canadian Sci-Fi was so hard to do. The WGC got an exemption to this for Sci-fi awhile back.
But a lot of people seem not to know is that the hated guidelines have also changed, with the transition from CTF to CMF. I turned to WGC Director of Policy Kelly Lynne Ashton for help with this one. The new guidelines read:
The project speaks to Canadians and is primarily intended for a Canadian audience.
(Emphasis added by me.) As you can see, the stipulation about setting and themes is gone, and is replaced by the much broader "primarily intended for." So The Borgias might still be a tough sell for 10/10, but a Canadian WWI or WWII movie that takes place entirely in Europe, or a movie about two Canadian guys around L.A. a la Passenger Side, or even my own ministeries Across The River To Motor City, becomes a lot more doable.
And the old knock about having to throw in a few moose and beaver, thankfully is no more, too.
The WGC kept on the CMF all through the consultation process to make sure that this looser definition wasn't further watered down by allowing less than a 10/10 production, so light industrial shows that don't use any above-the-line Canadian talent couldn't qualify. And the "primarily intended for" is a valve so that, say, CBS couldn't partially finance a cop show set in Chicago but shot here. But it's a way better definition, especially paired with continued 10/10 protection.
As for the "deeming Canadian" practice, the WGC continues to monitor projects & keep an eye on it. They're aware of the problem and have managed to walk back a number of these attempts.
I look forward to hearing from Deb about how none of this is enough, and how working for these things has actually made us weaker.
13 comments:
Just a couple of question about the new guidelines...
Who determines the "primary intent" of the content? And...
What exactly does that mean?
If something is "primarily intended" for Canadians, it implies that Canadians have definably different tastes/needs in programming from other audiences.
Y'know, like you see labels on medicine that say "intended for Veterinary use"...
So, what is that?
RE: The thrust was the "if you're in L.A. you're A-list" mentality.
Is that like the "if you're in Toronto you're A-list" mentality? :-)
Seriously, I have to delete Moose and Beaver? Okay, but my "Cucumber" spec is gonna seem a little flimsy now.
I'd also note that a fair number of Canadian creators currently living in LA would love to return to Canada, bringing back their experience and financing contacts, and work in Canada without giving up their primary residence.
In some cases, "primarily intended for Canadian audiendces," is obvious - if it's a cop show the laws that get broken are Canadian laws, the laws used to catch the criminals are Canadian and the criminals get prosecuted under Canadian law.
Of course, if we can't get that right, then yes, all the rest of that, "primarily intended," just becomes meaningles talk and we might actually need guidelines like, "set in Canada."
Canada is a diverse place and we spend a lot of time talking about how different the regions are so it is tough to find some common values. It's even harder if we spend most of our time trying to find reasons why we shouldn't have to.
Jim, the example I gave of the Chicago set cop show -- and which John expanded upon, is your answer.
The guidelines must say something. These are better.
And who decides -- as before it's the CMF staff.
Perfect, no. But better. Except that you think it would be better to blow up the system entirely, and there's where you and I part ways.
I'm just curious, when do these new guidelines come into effect?
I wasn't going to bother to respond, but heck, I've been juggling a project between LA and the UK all day today, so this is actually a fun part of my day.
The guidelines:
Under Essential Requirements -
Numbers 1 and 4.
1. "speaks to Canadians" - whatever that means. Would love to see a definition.
4. "shot and set primarily in Canada" It's pretty clear to me what that means.
I'm actually not trying to piss in your corn flakes, DMc. Think of my approach as "enlightened self-interest"...
I take both your points and the ones John added. But if this is a stated pre-requisite of CMF funding then, is it related to content or distribution or both?
On the distribution side --- If a series is "primarily intended" for Canadian audiences does that mean "Flashpoint", which attracts far more viewers elsewhere, shouldn't qualify?
Or does it mean that a series like "Little Mosque" with anemic domestic ratings shouldn't qualify?
If the criteria is content, how does a series like "The Bridge" which espouses police state facism qualify? Or is that a significant element of Canadian society that has somehow eluded me up to now?
And why are "The Tudors" or "The Borgias" or "Camelot" validated as Cancon if the rules don't let Canadian writers create similar material?
What is gained when a writer like George F. Walker has anything set in a fleabag Canadian motel produced, while the works which established him as one of foremost playwrights in the English language, "Bagdad Saloon", "Beyond Mozambique" and "Zastrotzi" will never be seen by a Canadian TV audience because they're not set in Canada or ostensibly are not about Canadians?
Perfect isn't possible. But any system where the censorship of writers is condoned is not "better". Nor is one in which creative decisions are made by government employees.
"Primarily intended" is the kind of bureaucratic babble that gives a bureaucrat job security, makes politicians feel warm and fuzzy while disguising the fact that the CMF as currently administered is neither reflecting Canadian culture nor successfully building a domestic industry.
It further disguises its real purpose which is to control what gets written by eliminating or marginalizing specific genres and keeping as much of the rest of what gets made in the hands of those creating product Canadians "primarily intend" to avoid.
Secondly, CAVCO is a tax credit scheme. I think it would probably be difficult to impose residency requirements.
Not at all. All producer category personnel have to be Canadian resident for CAVCO CPTC qualification, and Ontario and BC provincial tax credits require eligible labour be resident in the respective province to qualify for their higher (non-service) credit (and most other provinces require some significant degree of residency in qualifying labour as well).
This would be trivial to require for the CPTC.
Whether or not that's a good idea is up for debate. Which way I lean honestly varies between "what I think would be best for the entire industry in the long term", and "what is most benificial to me as a singular individual producer".
@John McFetridge,
They already took effect... late March I beleive - although there's a lot of uncertainty about them still (and likely will be for at least a couple of years as some of the departures from the old CTF policy get hammered out).
Hey, Jim, everything you said. As usual.
Also, I don't think the "Experimental" stream is as stringent in its "essential requirements". As in - a game can be set anywhere and be intended for anyone.
So, again, only Canadian creators are penalized by the parochial criteria.
And I wonder if on this argument the broadcasters would side with the writers? Would certainly free them to make "Spartacus" themselves.
Post a Comment