We have struggled to articulate an argument for Canadian content to be, well, more Canadian. The audience may appreciate things that are Canadian if they knew what they were. Canadian audiences, English Canadians specifically, might not be as appreciative. The more they know, the more they may be surprised that they like.
Bill C-11, aka the Online Streaming Act, ideally is supposed to improve the definition of Canadian content. Richard Stursberg, executive vice president of CBC/Radio Canada from 2004 to 2010, has an idea for determining Canadian content based on a cultural test, similar to what they do in the United Kingdom.
In a world where Brooklyn and The Nest are Canadian films while Women Talking and Turning Red are not Canadian films, we need a different standard. Currently, producers or Telefilm Canada funding determine a lot as to whether a film is a Canadian film.
Canadian television is rather easy to define, though Big Brother Canada and Amazing Race Canada feel closer to their U.S. counterparts.
Stursberg cites Schitt's Creek, and Flashpoint as Canadian TV shows that don't seem Canadian as if they could be anywhere on the planet. I thought the raw milk episode in Schitt's Creek was as close as the show came to saying "Canada" in that raw milk is illegal in Canada. I am one of the less than 1% who follow such things.
Family Law (Global) does make references that note the show is in Vancouver. Wild Cards (CBC) takes place in Vancouver yet never acknowledges the uniqueness of its setting. Both shows air on the CW in the United States, though CW co-produces Wild Cards.
"The Danish, the French, the Israelis, and the British do not disguise their origins. They have all created recognizable national brands that are attractive to both viewers and buyers. But if nobody knows that our films and shows are Canadian, it is impossible to build a category brand around them, no matter how good they are."
My love of Canadian film stemmed from decades of watching films from around the world. Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Mexico, South Korea, France, Japan, even Irish vs. British. We have seen enough wonderful Canadian films to know there is a voice, an approach distinct among people on the planet Earth.
Changing Canadian content definition should help deserving Canadian films
Turning Red shows the beauty of Toronto thanks to Domee Shi
Stursberg offers his solution to the conundrum of Canadian content.
But there is an alternative way of looking at the definition of Canadian content. In the U.K., for example, they have a system for defining British content that is completely different from the Canadian one. Instead of a 10-point system based on employment, it has a 35-point one based on cultural considerations. It is, in fact, called the Cultural Test.
Of the 35 points, the first 18 concern whether the characters are identifiably British, whether the program is clearly set in Britain, whether the subject matter is British, and whether it is made in English. A further four points are added if the show is an interpretation of British culture and its history of diversity. Only eight of the 35 points are based on employment.
The U.K. system pretty much guarantees that when a TV program or film is made with British taxpayers’ money, it looks, feels, and smells like Britain.
There is no evidence that the U.K. Cultural Test has disadvantaged British talent. The country’s writers, directors, and actors are in demand throughout the world.
Canada has a secondary film system of American productions that come to Canada for tax credits. We don't consider those to be Canadian films and productions but they do employ Canadians who also work on Canadian films.
Women Talking and All My Puny Sorrows are adaptations of Miriam Toews novels. Toews is Canadian. The Nest is a film written and directed by a Canadian yet otherwise doesn't seem Canadian in any form on screen. There should be ways to give that separation more meaning to filmgoers and TV watchers.
The British insistence that their taxpayers’ money be spent on productions that are culturally British is paralleled in other countries. Similar rules apply, for example, in Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
It is important to change the definition of Canadian content to a cultural one not just for reasons of national pride or to keep the streamers in line, but also because it is what the Canadian public wants. In the most recent survey done by the Canadian Media Fund, Canadians said that their number one priority for the redefinition of Canadian content was to make people proud of being Canadian and to contribute to nationhood and national cohesion. That will be impossible if the production industry continues to make ersatz U.S. shows. How can Canadians be proud if they don’t even know that the productions they are paying for are Canadian?
CanadianCrossing.com Canadian TV coverage
CanadianCrossing.com television coverage
CanadianCrossing.com film coverage
The United States and Canada are more multicultural countries than the UK, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. Canada shows more of its immigrants in stories than the United States does in their films. Rewarding Canadian films that spend time in Canada instead of their previous countries and getting points toward, hopefully, more Canadian film and television funding.
photo credits: Turning Red; All My Puny Sorrows
Comments