Censorship in Canada takes varies forms through different mass media to standardize the freedom of expression in public. The government control and regulation are deep-rooted in film industry since movies have been shown in theatres since early 1990s. Film censorship often examines the issues of obscenity and sexuality on the stand of Canada’s Criminal code. It also reflects government’s policy on protecting public interest and maintaining community standards (Quinn, 2009). Film censorship that assigned to provincial film boards promote regional distinctions and coexistence of national pride.
The shift from an outright censorship that banned movies and demanded cuts to a mode of classification reflects the idea of Neoliberalism. The legislation of classification system and the funding incentives enacted by Bill-C 10 allow Canadian government to control the film industry from production to distribution. Film censorship in Canada is distributed to provincial level by the federal government. Each province has its own legislation regarding censorship, censor board and supervisory (Motion Picture Association).
Such power not only allows the government to reach the audiences more efficiently, it also reflects the idea of community standard. In “Research on community standards,” Lee points out the fact that Canada has a small population that spread across in a large continent often result in different cultural values and beliefs (Lee, 2003). The community standard in each region is determined by its own history and culture which is not necessarily synonymous with the development of other parts of the country.
In term of movie content, what may consider suitable for certain groups of audiences in Quebec may be very different in Alberta. The distribution of power in film censorship allows for regional distinctions to coexist with a communal feeling of strong national pride (Lee, 2003). Over the 20th century, the execution of film censorship has shifted from an outright restriction that takes forms of banning movies and demanding cuts to a mode of classification via rating system.
In the early years, provincial boards had almost unchallenged control over the fate of films and dictated what can be seen on screen. In the early 1930s Quebec, the film board would order cuts to be made to films that ran counter to church teaching and morality due to the pressure from Catholic church. The church even compelled the Quebec government to rewrite the Motion Pictures Act in the province to prohibit all children under the age of sixteen attending movie theatres to ensure that movies were not corrupting the minds of young (Hebert et al, 2006).
Not only the provincial film boards, the federal government also attempted to control the distribution of films for political reasons. In 1924, W. J. Egan, minister of the Department of Immigration and Colonization attempted to ban films that showed an undesirable side about Canada. The purpose was to protect national image and its favorable impression among audiences to attract more immigrants settling in Canada (Gasher, 2002). In 1960s, there was a prevalent voice in public that suggesting viewers should have the right to choose the content they could see.
As the rising opinions and controversy on provincial board banning a series of films that were released uncut and were popular in other countries gaining more attentions, provincial boards started making change on their original role as censors. They began focusing on their role of classification and rating films rather than censoring or banning films outright (Quinn, 2009). The introducing of classification system allows the provincial film boards to rate a film’s suitability for certain audiences based on its content.
The ratings systems outside Quebec derived from the Canadian Home Video rating system are divided into six categories including G- General audience, PG-Parental Guidance, 14A- 14 Accompaniment, 18A-18 Accompaniment, R-Restricted and A-Adult (Classification Categories). Such system not only helps to normalize certain contents like violence ad sex on screen, but also shift the power from the government to the individual. This change in film censorship reflects the idea of neo-liberalism in media policy. One of the most visible features of the transformation is the deregulation in government intervention.
The desire to reduce the role of provincial film boards from regulating films and to allow market forces to take over the position. The ideas of using classification as a guideline for viewers and allowing the audiences to decide what to see in theatre also reflect individual rights and personal choice in neo-liberal perspective (Freedman, 2008). Although film classification has brought a change for audience to make choice on the films they can see, some scholars suggest that in practice the approach works almost equally well in keeping undesirable films out of the marketplace.
The legislative classification system often brings negative sanctions on restricted films. Unlike MPAA in the US or BBFC in Britain that film classification is often a voluntary process that sets up to serve as consumer guidelines, the classification system in Canada is mandated by the provincial law (Quinn, 2009). While in the US there is nothing barring a minor from viewing an Rrated film in the cinema, the rating system given out by Quebec provincial boards are law: When a film that is rated “13 and over,” children under age 13 cannot be admitted unless accompanied by adults.
For film rated “16 and over,” a person must show proof of age to be admitted whether or not he or she is accompanied by an adult (Gouvernement due Quebec, 2014). In order to rise revenues for the theatre companies, they often incline to play the movies that could possibly attract largest amount of audiences. Because restricted films are exclusive to certain groups of audiences, theatre companies often put restricted film on undesirable time periods and limit their number of exhibitions. This results in the restricted films receiving little attention from the audiences and their loss on box-office (Quinn, 2009).
Moreover, the restricted films are marginalized in public view due to the fact they are treated differently than other types of films. As what it says under the B. C. Motion Picture Act of 1996, restricted films are categorized as “adult films” and must “be physically and visually segregated from minors who may be permitted on the premises of the retailer” (BC Motion Picture Act, 1996). While restricted films are classified as movies that are different from pornography, they are are still classified by their rating but not their story.
This often results in films that are rated Rare titled with negative impressions of sexuality and obscenity rather than their actual genres or contents. In Vancouver, local video stores often display restricted films in adult section rather than categorizing them by their actual genres. Consumers would often ignore the restricted films by the fact that they are isolated from majority films (Quinn, 2009). Thus the restricted films are being stigmatized or financially penalized by the legislative classification system in Canada.
As it has been showed that systems of classification in some aspects influence the distribution of films, the case of Bill-C 10 furthermore demonstrates that the Canadian government are trying to control the production of film through economic means. Bill C-10 that introduced in 2006 gives the government the power to dictate which Canadian films are eligible for federal tax credits based on their content. If the government deems the content that are “contrary to public policy,” they have the power to deny taxation benefits for films made in Canada (Quinn, 2009).
The bill generates a large consideration in national film industry. One of the major concerns is that the bill is seen as equivalent to censorship due to the fact that most Canadian films need government assistance to be produced. The bill is perceived as a way of impinging on freedom of expression because Canadian film producers often need to go through self-censorship in order to have their film to be funded.
At the center of the controversy was the film Young People Fucking by Martin Gero and Araon Abrams which the film received tax credits as well as other overnment funding. Many argue that it was at the cause of the Canadian federal government enacted Bill-C 10. As the director of the film Gero stated: the government attacked the film because it could be easily targeted by its title, by the fact that the film has little popularity allowed people to associate the content with pornography so that government could gain support from people (Worboy, 2008). Thus, the enforcement of Bill-C 10 allows the government to have further control in Canadian film industry.
Providing funding for movies in Canada can be seen as a pluralist approach in media policy. The government not only can assist Canadian films industry in the mould of Hollywood, they can also easily influence the production of film industry by not funding certain films that are deemed to be “inappropriate. ” By limiting representations of violence, especially sexuality from reaching certain groups of audiences, government could foster a responsible media climate in which citizen are protected from harm (Freedman, 2008).
However, the shift from protecting the community from perceived social degradation to a more decentralized form can be seen as a form of state support to restrict public expression of political and ideological opponents (Quinn, 2009). Overall, Film censorship that distributed to provincial film boards reflects the idea of community standards among different regions and allow the coexistence of national pride. The shift from an outright censorship that banned movies and demanded cuts to a mode of classification reflects the idea of Neo-liberalism.
The legislative form of classification and the introduction of Bill-C 10 shows a strong aspect of government control on the field of production and distribution of cinema. Film as an important cultural industry plays an important role on influencing our understanding and knowledge of the world. Limiting the content of violence, obscenity and representation of sexuality indeed could protect audiences from harm, but there is also a need to concern how the federal government seek to control content or messages of films for its political reasons and to restrict public opinions.
