Quotulatiousness

October 7, 2020

Canada’s new documentary monoculture – many now “skew the truth by reinforcing the viewpoint du jour

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In The Line, Christina Clark explains why she’s no longer in the business of making documentaries in Canada:

Many of the stories now told through documentary skew the truth by reinforcing the viewpoint du jour. Interviews and scenes that break with the chosen narrative, that offer something other than a black-and-white approach to society and the complexities of humanity, happen off camera or end up on the editing room floor. This is all in an effort to promote diverse voices and the political opinions that allegedly support them. But when we lay claim to a singular viewpoint or dismiss a perspective because the creator’s or the subject’s skin tone or gender does not fit the narrative of inclusion, we are actually removing diversity from the storytelling equation. And what we’re left with are one-sided storylines that reinforce an echo chamber of virtue signalling.

I can no longer deny the dysfunctional approach to telling half-truths and undermining alternate viewpoints in my industry in the name of securing public funding for programming that fails to resonate with the public that is paying for it. Over the last year, I’ve been turning down contracts and finding an exit strategy. I’m pre-emptively cancelling myself.

Documentary was once considered Canada’s national art form. Part of our country’s success with the medium can be attributed to the creation of our National Film Board (NFB), established to “make and distribute films designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts.” The NFB was founded to provide public funding to storytellers to show us who we are, as a country, as citizens.

To secure public funding for a documentary film or program in Canada, producers typically need to have a broadcaster already signed on to the project. Then, they can apply to funds like the Canada Media Fund, Telefilm or Rogers. Without a broadcaster licence, you cannot apply for public funding. The criteria for licencing a film or television series has narrowed in recent years — not unlike the audiences these programs are targeting.

Take, for example, the Creative Relief Fund that the CBC put together during the early months of COVID to award $2 million in development and production funding for new projects, ranging from fiction and non-fiction television to documentary shorts to plays and podcasts. This was an enticing invitation for creators in lockdown. During this time, friends and colleagues of mine in the industry were messaging each other back and forth, offering feedback on each other’s ideas, as we were all intending to apply. These are some questions we all wondered aloud, in the safety of our private chats: “Do you think this story is diverse enough?” “This story might be too white …” “I don’t think the language is woke enough, do you think they’ll see the bigger story here?” That’s because many broadcasters have “Inclusion and Diversity Plans” that you have to fill out for your project, that track the racial and gender makeup of your crew and your interviewees. While it is not explicitly mandatory to accommodate broadcasters’ criteria for diversity, a lot of filmmakers already know before they even pitch an idea that their chances of getting greenlit are greater if they do.

3 Comments

  1. More proof that government should not fund anything to do with the arts. First off, it makes the artist a lazy grant chaser. If they don’t get the grant, no film. Secondly, the government gets to stack the board, and the board decides who gets funding. If they don’t like your subject, no money for you. It is YouTube or Facebook like censorship before the film even gets made.

    Comment by Dwayne — October 7, 2020 @ 22:42

  2. It’ll be damned difficult to wean politicians off the “we must fund the arts!” wank-fest … they get to spend our money on things that make them look good, they get to go to “high-brow” cultural events and be treated like the important people they think they are, the press coverage is all great for their re-election efforts, and it costs them nothing at all. From their point of view, there’s no reason not to continue and even to increase arts funding.

    Comment by Nicholas — October 8, 2020 @ 11:15

  3. Sadly you are correct. The only way to make this unpalatable is to have the media do so. And that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Comment by Dwayne — October 10, 2020 @ 17:44

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress