REMEMBERING MASSEY or FILMS NOT BOMBS
The findings of Canada’s Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (or “the Massey Report”, if you prefer) states that:
If modern nations were marshalled in the order of the importance which they assign to those things with which this inquiry is concerned, Canada would be found far from the vanguard; she would even be near the end of the procession.
That was 1951. I wonder what a Massey-like commission would find today? Like then, we are now in a situation where all levels of government seem willing to fund anything but the arts. When it comes to the arts we hear about this being “hard economic times” and how “there just isn’t money for anything right now.” Simultaneously with this the Prime Minister announces $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts and another $30 billion for new F35 fighter jets.
Sure, I hear it when he says this will help bring three decades of economic stability to industry, providing 15,000 essential jobs on our coasts. And I know it’s said this spending is for the “safety and sovereignty of our nation and its people.” But do a few jets and boats accomplish any of this? This doesn’t sound like tonnes of jobs and it also doesn’t seem to me that any amount of battleships, jets, bombs or guns could even defend a single province from a serious threat of any kind – never mind a full-blown invasion by any major nation. So what exactly is the point of all this?
In fact (if you’re into that sort of thing), arts and culture do at least as much to assert our self-determination, our territorial integrity, and our rights as a nation as any war craft. No? I would say the arts go even further than that by displaying our cultural identity and uniqueness, both to ourselves and abroad, while enriching our present lived experience and ensuring our cultural legacy long into the future.
When I say this I’m thinking specifically of Vietnam, Tuva, or the dozens of Indigenous nations here in Canada. Vietnam was overtaken by the Chinese for roughly a thousand years and yet, despite their significant military inferiority, they maintained their identity through distinct cultural expression. This meant that they were never truly assimilated into China and were even able to regain sovereignty, even over an extraordinary period of occupation and domination. Similarly, the once independent nation of Tuva (currently sitting as a federal subject of Russia) would be totally unknown to me, and likely most non-Tuvans, if it weren’t for their strong cultural heritage, particularly their unique musical tradition of throat-singing. And, of course, any of our local cultures here in British Columbia (first decimated by disease and then, more or less, overwhelmed by waves of migrants) have remained resilient so long as they've been able to maintain important parts of their unique communities. Having their hands on the right weapons two hundred years ago, or stockpiling them today, changes little – while maintaining languages, traditions, arts, and crafts makes all the difference and can be seen as key factors for the endurance of a civilization.
I think these are powerful examples that should give us pause when talking about what’s good for the country and its people, especially when we’re talking in such large sums. I mean, really, what do you seek to defend? Ask yourself. Surely it’s not the Toyota dealership or the Wal-Mart, the roads or the railways, or even our public institutions or government. And it cannot be the lands or waters either. Why? Because not only will they be here long after we are all gone and the idea of Canada has vanished but – having clear-cut, mined, and trawled every possible, and virtually impossible, inch – we hasten to ensure their corruption ourselves. (Which, incidentally, is exactly why the federal government is keen to spend billions to create a handful of jobs on either coast: because those resource extraction jobs that built and sustained whole communities are gone.) So what is left to defend? Well, it’s our collective heritage, our arts and culture, we would wish preserved above all.
So, with all of this in mind, I wonder what $60 billion could do for the arts? For something tangible and specific, let’s look at the film industry. Given that the most expensive Hollywood movies cost between ten and one hundred million dollars to produce, that same $60 billion bucks translates to at least one Hollywood-style blockbuster every month for fifty years. And, on the cheap side, we could commission five big-name productions per month for a century! What could that do for our national identity or our voice on the international stage? Even on the surface this would be a far more effective national security policy than procuring jets.
If creating jobs and employing Canadians are what matter to you then the arts is most certainly where to invest. We know that the bulk of the billions put into jets ends up in the pockets of the bosses at Lockheed Martin down in Texas. Therefore, any number of other purchases or investments would better benefit Canadians, and easily so. If this money went to supporting the film industry alone it would employ far more people than the proposed battleships, and would not be limited to benefiting a few people in a ship-building community on either coast. Now 15,000 jobs over 30 years may sound grand but it’s almost nothing. According to the B.C. Film Commission, 35,000 British Columbians are directly employed in the film industry. So just in B.C. alone these films would employ more than twice the number of people as our entire national ship-building industry. And, significantly, film production commonly requires people from all backgrounds and with very diverse skill-sets: there are film crews, actors, writers, editors, musicians, foley artists, set and costume designers, carpenters, plumbers, welders, electricians, lighting specialist, animators, graphic designers, post-production teams, marketing people, catering crews and more... And that’s just the start!
Films are a far better investment too. Unlike the inevitable financial sinkhole that boats and aircraft always are (with their lifetime upkeep costing as much or more than their initial purchase price, never mind the cost over-runs that are inevitable), films have the potential of making money. They can also be accompanied by DVD releases, soundtracks, action figures, trading cards, costume sets and more – adding further to their impact and profitability. Of course, profitability is not even an option with weapons platforms. These are systems that on their best day result in destruction and death. Further still, artistic expressions also have a habit of inspiring other works and can lead to an almost endless list of spin-offs. A film might inspire a sequel, a play or television series, a podcast or novel series, graphic novels and comic strips, video games and apps, entire conventions and much much more.
Given that governments are primarily concerned with economics, funding the arts in a very serious way (with the kind of commitment we normally reserve for war) seems like a no-brainer. Either the profitability angle or the employment piece alone should cause governments to take the arts seriously and invest accordingly; that both a government initiated employment boom and the real potential for a return investment together fail to impel them elicits crazy-making levels of consternation on my end.
Коментарі