Parks Canada Denies Film Permit

[Locke]

Sounds Brilliant. I cant wait to see it.

You dont see enough Snow Plow drivers exact a terrible vengeance on the population at large.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So it's Mr. Plow meets Taken?

That was the pitch line for sure.

[polak]

Canada is in no position to turn down movies for petty reasons like this. The Entertainment business should be high on the list of industries we should be targeting in order to diversify our economy. Recession proof, lots of well paying low skill labor, minimal environmental impact, minimal infrastructure, safe, massive money maker, international market.

Also, isn't this going against Freedom of speech? Should I not be able to tell a story and use whatever race or ethnicity in whatever role I choose? Films use whites, blacks, asians, indians and aliens as the bad guy all of the time. Aboriginal people are off limits for some reason? Stupid.

I guess I forgot how no aboriginal person has ever done anything bad in the history of time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure Parks Canada should have standards based on content, provided that the content isn't illegal or something... That being said, I'm inclined to think, "well if it was a movie about how the KKK is fantastic, I would be pretty understanding about them shooting that down". Given that intuition, I'm not sure how this should work... but I just can't imagine who at Parks Canada is qualified to be the arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable movie content. It can't be "what anyone anywhere might find offensive", obviously.

Obviously, and I doubt the driving factor is "we don't want to offend anyone" which is what it's sort of being made out to be.

I assume it's as simple as: if you make a movie in a National Park, it should follow our standards of good taste. That sounds subjective, but if Parks Canada has a set standard (that we aren't aware of and applies to all films made in our parks, which is possible) then it's fine.

Given the government's own long history with rocky aboriginal relations, I assume content that plays with negatively characterizing aboriginals doesn't interest them.

Originally Posted by polak

Also, isn't this going against Freedom of speech? Should I not be able to tell a story and use whatever race or ethnicity in whatever role I choose? Films use whites, blacks, asians, indians and aliens as the bad guy all of the time. Aboriginal people are off limits for some reason? Stupid.

I guess I forgot how no aboriginal person has ever done anything bad in the history of time.

I guess you forgot that free speech doesn't have anything to do with making whatever film you want in a Canadian Park. As with anything, you have to follow the rules set out by the controlling organization.

You honestly can't find any other examples where certain places/organizations have limits as to what you can and can't say? No code of conduct? Not at work? Not on a message board perhaps?

[polak]

So if I want to host a play in Banff where the antagonist is first nations, are they going to say I can't do that either?

In terms of social commentary on it's grounds, Parks Canada should only be bound by the law. If I'm at work or on a message board, I'm representing a larger entity to varying extents. This movie is not representing Parks Canada. Most likely it won't even have a mention of Parks Canada or anything related to it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

We can bash this all we want, but there is no denying that if the film had been green lit to film in a national park the media would be running the exact opposite story and aboriginal rights groups would be up in arms that our national parks service, and by association both the federal and provincial governments, are complicit yet again in propagating the stereotype that all aboriginals are criminals.

There would have to be an inquiry, a lot of hand wringing, tv appearances by band leaders etc.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm on the fence about this one. If this is a big budget movie (Liam Neeson is in it) and it will villify aboriginals in some type of criminal outfit, I can see why. Hollywood portrayals often have far-reaching and dramatic effects on how people think about cultures, races, religons, etc. Parks Canada is an extension of the federal government, and I can see them no wanting to put aboriginals in that sort of portrayal (Canadian aboriginals to be specific).

But are aboriginals routinely depicted in modern movies as villains? I can't think of a single role that matches that characterisation. They're almost always portrayed as stoic and noble. A gang leader depiction would actually be a break from the stereotype.

Is it more progressive to depict minorities only in positive roles, or to depict them in the same range of roles that the majority are depicted in?

[Ozy_Flame]

I do find it kind of comically ironic that the Revenant is an Academy Award-winning film that portrayed Aboriginals as dangerous and was shot in multiple provincial parks. They were even allowed to execute controlled avalanches for filming.

[Huntingwhale]

The film is probably going to suck anyways and then we'll all be grateful that such a horrible movie doesn't use our lovely parks as the backdrop.

Blessing in disguise people.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

The film is probably going to suck anyways and then we'll all be grateful that such a horrible movie doesn't use our lovely parks as the backdrop.

Blessing in disguise people.

Actually Taken 4: Banff Under Seige has a ring to it

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by polak

So if I want to host a play in Banff where the antagonist is first nations, are they going to say I can't do that either?

In terms of social commentary on it's grounds, Parks Canada should only be bound by the law. If I'm at work or on a message board, I'm representing a larger entity to varying extents. This movie is not representing Parks Canada. Most likely it won't even have a mention of Parks Canada or anything related to it.

That's exactly what it's doing, and that's why they aren't allowing it.

Watch the credits of any movie filmed in a National Park. Go ahead.

I just think you're not actually looking at this from a basic, logical perspective and have immediately jumped to some outrage over a perceived social justice stance. Who are you representing by posting here? CP? Why? Because they simply gave you permission to post here? That's different than Parks Canada giving permission for a film to be made in a national park? Why?

If Parks Canada views your play as the sad attempt at proving a point, without any actual cultural substance or relevance that it definitely would be coming from polak, then yeah... they should definitely throw the "No" stamp on that bad boy. Sorry Shakespeare.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its not like they're going to film this movie with Tom Jackson running around in full head dress with war makeup on doing a dance to the Drug Gods, before mounting his horse and riding into town to terrorize the town folk and woman folk by firing flaming arrows through windows.

At this point, its bizarre that people can't seperate a Liam N film from reality. Of course the villains going to be an over the top cackling maniac who at some point kidnaps one of this kids and gets thrown off the mountain by the hero using his specific skills. But nobody is dumb enough to look at that Villain and curse under their name that these damn documentaries about Indians are so right.

this is political correctness gone stupid to me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Actually Taken 4: Banff Under Seige has a ring to it

Especially if Americans are saying it.

"Ban-iff Under Seige"

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

We can bash this all we want, but there is no denying that if the film had been green lit to film in a national park the media would be running the exact opposite story and aboriginal rights groups would be up in arms that our national parks service, and by association both the federal and provincial governments, are complicit yet again in propagating the stereotype that all aboriginals are criminals.

There would have to be an inquiry, a lot of hand wringing, tv appearances by band leaders etc.

I'm not sure about that. It's just art, and isn't intended as a social commentary indicating the aboriginal are bad people and do bad things. If Parks Canada is cautious about doing vice roles due to risking being offensive, I think they're being over sensitive, which patronizing to aboriginals.

Let's say this movie had a black guy as the gang leader instead; if they denied filming because of that, we would be saying that it's ridiculous, since there's been a billion films where that's been the case, and there hasn't been blacklash about it. Because it's not giving the message that all black people are drug dealers. (Although some people may think that, but that's a different discussion...)

If a film is going to have a villain, it's likely the character may be in a role that portrays negative traits. Parks Canada shouldn't think the optics of an aboriginal doing such role looks bad, when they wouldn't have an issue with any other race doing it.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I do find it kind of comically ironic that the Revenant is an Academy Award-winning film that portrayed Aboriginals as dangerous and was shot in multiple provincial parks. They were even allowed to execute controlled avalanches for filming.

So aboriginals being dangerous is good, but them being gangsters is bad. It's a slippery slope when one is good, but the other is not.

[Patek23]

Aboriginals gangs is a big problem in many areas. Not sure how they can deny it as a slight against them when it's a major issue. Muzzling how minorities are seen in films into only a positive light doesn't help anyone. I could see them denying it if the gang leader was being glorified. However seeing as it's obviously going to end with Neeson killing him and a strong "gangs are bad" message you think they'd be happy with the message.

[polak]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's exactly what it's doing, and that's why they aren't allowing it.

Watch the credits of any movie filmed in a National Park. Go ahead.

Damn, you must have a long list of places you can't go because films that portrayed insensitive stereotyping were shot there.

Cause in your view, simply allowing a production to take place some where equals an endorsement of the views of some of the FICTIONAL characters in this FICTIONAL story?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just think you're not actually looking at this from a basic, logical perspective and have immediately jumped to some outrage over a perceived social justice stance. Who are you representing by posting here? CP? Why? Because they simply gave you permission to post here? That's different than Parks Canada giving permission for a film to be made in a national park? Why?

Yes because if I start posting a bunch of hateful things on CP all of the sudden that starts to change how the CONTENT of this board appears to advertisers and other visitors and can hurt this boards reputation.

Do you think any person in the world will decide to not go to Banff because they let a movie portray an aboriginal person as a criminal? It has nothing to do with Banff, it doesn't change anything about Banff, it doesn't impact anything that happens in Banf and 99% of the people watching the movie won't even know it was shot in Canada. Despite it being mentioned in the movie equivalent of fine print.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If Parks Canada views your play as the sad attempt at proving a point, without any actual cultural substance or relevance that it definitely would be coming from polak, then yeah... they should definitely throw the "No" stamp on that bad boy. Sorry Shakespeare.

I'm the best writer in the world. People tell me all of the time, "you're the best writer". All of the time.

[Jacks]

It would be helpful if Parks Canada would provide a list to the film industry stating which ethnic groups are allowed to play which roles.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Obviously, and I doubt the driving factor is "we don't want to offend anyone" which is what it's sort of being made out to be.

I assume it's as simple as: if you make a movie in a National Park, it should follow our standards of good taste. That sounds subjective, but if Parks Canada has a set standard (that we aren't aware of and applies to all films made in our parks, which is possible) then it's fine.

If their standards of "good taste" are "no aboriginal person should be a villain in any fictional tale", then I think there are serious questions to be asked about whether that is in itself ludicrously patronizing. But I don't even want to deal with the merits (that is, what should their standards of good taste be), so much as whether they should have those standards at all. That's what I'm saying. Locke's right, this isn't what their mandate is, and it isn't what they're supposed to be good at. Parks Canada, as far as I know, does not employ ethicists or art scholars or aesthetic philosophers or anything of the sort.

I guess you forgot that free speech doesn't have anything to do with making whatever film you want in a Canadian Park. As with anything, you have to follow the rules set out by the controlling organization.

Of course it does. Film is a form of expression. Any restriction on that expression based on its content engages freedom of expression concerns. This should be obvious. Given that it's a government branch that's imposing those restrictions, it's also a Charter issue, and in my opinion just off the top of my head, it fails s.2(b). The argument would be almost entirely on s.1 grounds, constitutionally. Obviously it's never going in front of the SCC but I think it'd be a pretty interesting argument as to what the limits would be on Parks Canada's ability to exercise its discretion to allow or disallow Parks use for this sort of thing.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You would think that the First Nations actor, musician and Order of Canada member who is playing the role they are concerned about (Tom Jackson) would raise concerns he would have with how he was portrayed?

No kidding. The story actually looks quite interesting.

[TheAlpineOracle]

If the nemesis in this movie was some white guy running a gang whose family owned the local mill, there would be zero opposition to this movie and they already be up here picking out shooting locations. Is Parks Canada trying to say only white people are capable of participating in crime, and such things as gangs and drug dealing not exist in the Native Community? Ridiculous. I have no problems with Parks Canada rejecting a movie if they think it's going to disturb the Nature or they don't think they are getting a fare price for the location, but getting into political PC discussions is ridiculous and it's not it's mandate.