Canada -   

1
Charles McVety Steve Hoban Doira Baird in 'Young people F*ucking'

Racy film stirs controversy on Parliament Hill

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Graham Richardson on the controversy
The screening of a film with a contoversial title is causing a stir on Parliament Hill.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (20)Add Comments Facebook   

Date: Thu. May. 29 2008 10:58 PM ET

A controversial new film has become the talk of Parliament Hill.

Critics of the movie -- entitled "Young People F---ing" -- say the film is as racy as its title suggests and highlights everything that's wrong with public funding of Canadian films.

The website for the film -- which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival last year -- promotes "YPF" as "a scathingly honest and hilarious portrayal of four couples, one threesome and a crazy night of sex."

A special screening of the film for MPs, senators, and staffers Thursday evening has created quite a stir. The film's distributor set up the screening so that politicians could judge the controversy over the film for themselves.

Some Conservative MPs say they won't attend an event featuring such a risque movie. The "YPF" controversy has already cost a young Tory staffer her job. She had apparently ordered a ticket for the film under her boss' name.

When her boss, Conservative MP Gary Goodyear's name popped up on a screening list for the movie, the staffer -- Victoria Van Eyk -- was let go.

She says she would not have been fired had she booked tickets for a less controversial film.

"The Conservative government doesn't support films like this," Van Eyk told CTV News.

While the Tory MPs stayed away, other politicians said it was important to see the movie before rushing to judgment.

"I am going to see the film. I think it's important that members of Parliament do. This has become the centre of a debate of what's appropriate to fund -- and what's not," said Liberal MP Mark Holland.

The controversy over the film has set off a larger national debate about government support for Canada's film industry.

Charles McVety, the president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live the film is nothing more than pornography and he's outraged such films receive federal tax credits. McVety didn't say whether he has seen the entire movie, but noted that he had "seen enough of the film" and that it was not "about growing tulips in the spring."

McVety said the film is precisely the reason he supports a section of Bill C-10 which would restrict federal funding for productions deemed "contrary to public policy."

Critics in Canada and in the international film community say the bill could kill the Canadian film industry. Oscar winning director Ang Lee, who filmed "Brokeback Mountain" in Alberta, has said the bill is "almost like censorship."

"YPF" producer Steve Hoban said on Mike Duffy Live the film is not pornographic and that critics such as McVety are trying to impose their own tastes and values on the Canadian public.

"What you're saying," Hoban told McVety, "is you don't want the government tax credit to go into films you don't approve of."

Defending his film against McVety's repeated charges of pornography, Hoban said the larger issue is the importance of the tax credit to Canadian artists -- and all workers in the film industry.

If the tax credit is taken away "the entire Canadian film industry will suffer to the point where banks will no longer provide loans," Hoban said.

"(They) will not bank against the tax credit if it becomes a conditional thing that can't be determined until the film is finished."

Hoban said the tax credit is a minor investment which provides huge revenue returns to communities across the country.

As for "YPF," the recent controversy may help boost ticket sales. Not missing an opportunity for free publicity, Hoban managed to get the last word in to end his contentious debate with McVety. He noted the film will hit theatres on June 13.

With a report by CTV's Graham Richardson

1

Add New Comment ( )

SN
said
0 0

If these movies are as good, as worthy and as commercially viable as those making them would have us believe, then let the free market prevail and let them make money the same way other people do with something to sell: either it's good enough that people will pay money for it, or it's not.

They need to put their (own) money where their mouths are and stop leaning on the taxpayer to help them make a living.

I'm not against pornography or risque movies, but I am against supporting them with my tax dollars. If they're as good as they say, they shouldn't my tax dollars anyway. Let me support it at the box office, not at the tax department.







John
said
0 0

This has nothing to do with legislating morality or censorship. We DO NOT have to fund pornography. We DO NOT have to fund anything. Censorship is when you ban something, not when you refuse to force taxpayers to fund something.


Brad B
said
0 0

It's not about legislating morality, or censoring. Censoring implies that they legally cannot make the movie...blatantly false. What they ARE trying to do is not waste tax dollars funding trash. Steve, did "No Country..." receive tax credits? What does that have to do with the issue? DD, the government is not telling you that you can't see the movie, only that they won't fund it. If it's that good of a movie, it'll get funded and made.


DPat
said
0 0

The cost of funding films is relatively minor, compared to the tax loss suffered through the corporate profits of religious groups, many of which many people find objectionable, being treated as non-taxable by all levels of government.


get a grip
said
0 0

The day the world is less afraid of a pair of breasts or a bare bum than someone getting their head blow off, we'll be much better off...


Woot woot
said
0 0

Young people and their activities. What do clerics and conservatives know about either?


Mike Webster
said
0 0

Get a grip people....this is NOT censorship. Even after this bill is passed, which is virtually identical to a Liberal bill that died on the order paper, nobody will be prevented from making whatever kinds of movies they want. What this bill does is ensure that the rest of us don't have to pay to make offensive garbage that nobody will ever pay to go see anyway. If a movie cannot succeed on its own and earn enough to pay for itself, why should it even get made? What exactly is the point in making offensive "art films" that nobody will ever want to watch? If people want to make such movies let them but don't expect me to pay for it. That's the purpose behind C-10.


close minded
said
0 0

"Akeem:
C-10 should be supported - why should we taxpayers fund this trash?"

Why should laws only support one point of view?

Free speech. Look it up.



joe
said
0 0

Typical Conservatives.... refuse to listen to another person's opinion, or view work that is obviously not pornographic in nature. Judging a book by its cover it seems is this government's mandate when it comes to things like this. These are the same people who would see the creationist principals replace the sound teachings of science when it comes to teaching our kids. We need to dump these people ASAP!


Dave
said
0 0

I don't care if they make the movie - JUST NOT WITH MY TAX MONEY !! What part of this don't they get. They keep saying it's censorship but it's not. censorship would be to not allow them to make the movie at all. How come such a small minority of the Canadian population can have so much say. Canadians do not want to financially support these films. End of story. Put your own money into them - But of course you won't do that because nobody pays to see them.


Bryan
said
0 0

Steve and DD: As a taxpayer, I should have every right to influence how my money is spent, and so should Mr. McVety. You speak about morality... where would any society be without a certain sense of morality??? How would our justice system function? If I break into someone's garage and steal their lawnmower, kiss their wife on the way by, and take their mail, would you be outraged? Why impose your morality on me?


BOHICA
said
0 0

I love how Canadian film makers love to scream from their soapbox about censorship in the film industry.

Let me paraphrase this bit of film making advice from none other than Norman Jewison given to a masters class at the Banff Television Festival..."if you wanna make a film where no one is gonna wanna watch it, and you're making it so that only you appreciate it and masturbate on how good you are...then finance it yourself. No one cares to watch artsy film making, tell better stories"

Okay, not a direct quote , but that was the jest of his message about Canadian films.

If you're a Canadian filmmaker be thankful you have a pool of financing funds you can go to to try and make films. If you don't like our system...go to the States and try your luck in their competitive marketplace.







Akeem
said
0 0

C-10 should be supported - why should we taxpayers fund this trash?


Graham Henderson
said
0 0

Its absolutely clear that Harper and his Tory government have every intention of censoring artistic expression, freedoms, and liberties. Harper is steadfast on imposing his ideological and evangelical beliefs on the majority of society, when only a minority of society buys into his dominance ways, such as limiting his MPs from speaking their true opinions.

Hasn't this already been voted on?
said
0 0

Oscar winning director Ang Lee has said the bill is "almost like censorship." (almost would imply that it is in fact not censorship) Film makers can still make what ever they choose, the final product however may not be eligable for tax credits. The prEmise that the film industry in Canada will be destroyed or fail with the passage of this bill demonstrates what these artists think of the quality of their own work. The idea that government tax credits or subsidies are what is keeping the artistic community alive in Canada should be taken as an insult to its members.


FreakAlert
said
0 0

Reminds me of Marlon Brando, in Apocalypse Now, as Col. Kurtz, in the scene where he speaks into his recorder, "they won't let us write, F&$k, on the side of our airplanes". Point is, is that artistic expression can be too absurd when dropping bombs.


JDP
said
0 0

I agree that tax credits should not fund pornography in any way. Is this really what Canadian "culture" is all about? But the problem is that someday, the Liberals could get into power, and they could use their 'progressive' values to take tax credits away from things like faith-based movies, or movies documenting things like Ad-Scam. This law creates too much uncertainty and could be used against decent film-makers in the future. If it's a value judgment, then the values would be determined by the people in power - and I don't give Liberal "values" too much credit.

But seriously, are we so debased as a country that we need to portray our 'cultural identity' in a movie called "Young People F--king?" Sadly, most Canadian films seem to be going this route, as if to try and seem sanctimoniously superior to our friends down south.

Pathetic, really.


Steve
said
0 0

This film, if the title means anything, shows people having sex; a natural act. The movie No Country For Old Men is a bloodbath where murder is a casual pastime and the body count is beyond comprehension. We're a very backwards society when one gets censored while the other receives accolades.

To top it off, the story contains an interview with Charles McVety, a right-wing evangelist and head of a lobby group that opposes gay marriage. He may be outraged by the film (that's a surprise), but as Canadians we should be outraged that this guy actually holds influence over our Con MPs.


Rick
said
0 0

Who cares if the money is taken away and the film industry disappears as well. Why should I support this crap with my money. So some deviate can make useless movies. If it is worth while people will support things of their own accord, but don't impose it on me vie taxes.


DD
said
0 0

Another example of this government trying to legislate morality. If someone doesn't like the movie, don't see it. Simple. If there wasn't an audience out there, the film wouldn't be made and tax credits wouldn't be necessary...but some WANT to see it and it's not the government's right to tell us we can't.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Canada Stories

Abby Maryk, Dominic Maryk

Missing Winnipeg siblings found in Mexico

More  1 Video(s) 1

Residents survey the damage caused by a force one tornado in Saint Benoit, Que., Saturday, May 26, 2012. (Ryan Remiorz / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Tornadoes cause millions in damage in Quebec

More  1 Video(s) 1

Vincent Massey Park, Ottawa, Ontario, lightning

Ottawa man struck by lightning dies in hospital

More

Most Talked about Stories

I fail to see just what a minister could learn by an on site visit that he couldn't get from people who are actual experts in the various fields of work involved. It is doubtful that he is any sort of nuclear engineer or expert in construction. Just another photo op...

Pugfire

Environment minister visits stricken Fukushima plant