I often google publicacts to get into it, not really sure why, however I noticed this post had been up in the search engine, that usually means there has been some activity on the post. So I checked it out. To my surprise I found a comment posted about a week after I posted the blog. To save you the time here is the comment.
I would like to clarify somethings for this poster if they manage their way back to the acts.
As a member of the Saskatchewan Filmpool, I invite you to consider joining the organization. The Filmpool's mandate is to promote independent filmmaking, and not a particular ideological viewpoint. If you wish to make a film or video that provides a counter-argument to these particular films, chances are good that the Filmpool would support it.
Otherwise, if you know of any existing films that provide such a counter-argument, you could write a letter to the Filmpool suggesting that they screen them. I'm guessing that another organization partnered with the Filmpool to put on this particular screening; perhaps you could find an organization willing to co-host a pro-cattle industry screening.
1. At the time I was a member, that's how I knew of the event. I was also curious to see what the shows had to offer, I felt that maybe I was missing something and watched them on the internet.
2. Since this incident I am doubtful that I will ever join the film pool again, your mandate should be about more than just promoting independent productions, if a show is stupid and offensive to people it is about I think that is mandate enough to not show it. The other thing is when something is misleading and will likely be shown to a group of individuals with no prior knowledge of what the show is about, you can really do some damage to the reputations of others to those viewers. Its malicious, and defamatory which there are laws against. These shows are every bit as bad as a racial comment. This makes me question the morality of the film pool and the media. The CBC has a mandate to promote the Canadian viewpoint why can't the film pool promote Saskatchewan's stance?
3.I have a show I want to do but not to counter the argument b/c I am above the "George Bush is a big dumb idiot/Micheal Moore is a big dumb idiot" argument bullshit. There is no point in fighting over idiocy. However I do have ideas to promote farming as it is a dieing way of life that Saskatchewan is founded on. To show that farmers are caring hardworking individuals who are doing a task that with out them the rest of us don't get many of the pleasures we have come to know in daily life. The fact that making a living off farming is almost impossible and the fact that these people are a special breed because in an industry that should make you go insane they prevail and somehow raise a family.
The last part of your comment is the one that really got me. At that time another existing film on farming was well within your reach. It was a film about the loss of a family farm and how it affect those in the family. It was called "Over Land" and was done with the film pool by a local known as Steve Suderman(I hope I spelled that remotely close steve). I also sent the film pool 3 emails concerning this.
The first letter was about 3 weeks before the screening and I asked that they do not show these films in respect for the Saskatchewan way of life. I did not offer the examples I originally posted only to say that the films are wrong and if you have questions I'd gladly explain how. I also offered for them to keep the farm theme and show Steve's film instead which is a more realistic view of farming. I got no response.
The second letter I sent about a week before the screening. Offering that I know it is likely to late to change the shows however there should be a warning before each show. I even offered how the warning should go ie. "The Meatrix is american it in no way reflects that of the Canadian beef industry and the meat in our grocery stores." There was no warning at the screening.
The third letter I wrote after the screening when all my anger at the film pool for not listening was build up. I said how disgusted I was with them for promoting such garbage and how those in the part that night should feel duped.
It was at this point I also decided to write this blog. I was furious and hoped that those who had attended the screen would read my post and realize the bullshit they just sat through. I felt all those that slandered the way of life in this province should feel that same wrath. I eventually felt bad for being slanderous towards the film pool but didn't want to get into everything again. I guess my point is that I think the film pool has a long way to go, you can't just have a mandate to promote anything. I didn't see a film that night on why child pornography and woman abuse is a good thing. My point is you have a mandate, a film like I just mentioned is stupid and I like to think the film pool would have the sense not to play something like this. Your mandate also needs to be concerned with the Saskatchewan model as well as film models like a documentary should aim to find truth.
As far as finding an organization I am sure a simple google will find you plenty, if that doesn't maybe take a walk in two of Canada's largest agricultural shows that are hosted in Regina every year, Agribition or the Western Canadian Farm Progress Show. Its pretty easy to find, just like Saskfilm, SCN or the Saskatchewan Film Pool. And as always the government has answers, I am sure the minister of agriculture would be all for and very helpful in setting up screenings for farm promotion across Canada. They could tell you when and where is a good time. After all it is the Governments job to help you out. However if you pay well enough I can do it for you.
2 Return Mail:
Hello M, thank you for responding to my comment. I do not read your blog very often, and only recently came across your follow-up posting: I also took some time to consider my response, therefore my delayed reply.
To be clear, I do not speak on behalf of the Saskatchewan Filmpool, nor am I privy to the process that led to the screening you find questionable. I am however a long-time member.
First, to me it is disrespectful when an organization does not acknowledge receipt of communication from one of its members. I don’t know the full circumstances – or the tone – of your correspondence to the Filmpool, but I plan to inquire with its staff as to why there was no reply to your concerns.
I reread your original post, watched episodes of “The Meatrix” online, and Googled and read responses to “The Meatrix” both positive and negative (due to time constraints, I did not do so for “Frankensteer”). My purpose for doing so was not to make an argument for or against the content of the films, or their qualities: my efforts were to better understand your point of view, and your obvious passion for this subject. I will say that I didn’t find “The Meatrix” offensive. But nor did it change my meat purchasing habits.
In your previous post you detail what you find objectionable in the content for “The Meatrix” and “Frankensteer”, but as to how its screening might fail to adhere to a moral standard, I don’t think you’ve made a case. Appealing to a moral standard is difficult, as there will always be different yardsticks to consider; it is best to make arguments strictly based on the material presented rather than how it might be perceived by a myriad of viewpoints.
If you feel that there is material in these films that contravenes Canadian law, the federal Human Rights Act or the provincial Human Rights Code, there are mechanisms in place to pursue a formal complaint and you should do so. I don’t mean this as a goad. If I saw a film I believed was in serious contravention of a law, statute or code, then I would take appropriate action. (Disclaimers before films or television programmes are typically incorporated following legal advisement, so to get an organization to do such is thing is typically quite difficult and usually under threat of some kind of legal injunction.)
If you feel that there should be laws or codes to disallow such screenings, engage your local and federal political representatives and be as clear and reasoned as possible in your correspondence and arguments. (Using a pejorative such as “stupid” in an argument is read as being emotive, rather than disciplined, and proving that something is “stupid” in this context is therefore difficult.)
Steve Suderman’s “Over Land” is a film directly supported by the Filmpool, through grants and equipment. Another Filmpool-supported film that deals with rural issues is Lea Nakonechny’s “Two Museums”. In my opinion, both of these films are of a high caliber and deal with some of the issues you raise vis-à-vis the family farm. These films have indeed been presented and screened by the Filmpool (does the Filmpool’s involvement in these films then constitute a “moral” act, as opposed to the “questionable morality” of screening “The Meatrix”? I hope you see how this might be a difficult argument to frame under the guise of “morality”, as per my previous point.)
(cont. next post)
There is a difference between “argument” and “argumentative”: I speak of the classical idea of presenting an argument as being a clear and substantiated point of view, which does not have to result in a Michael Moore-style, argumentative, film. With many of the statistics you’ve cited in your original post – plus your enthusiasm for this subject – I think you could incorporate a complimentary point of view into your planned family farm/agriculture documentary with little difficulty. For example, as per your argument if there wasn’t industrialized livestock farming, there would likely be a major impact on the price and availability of meat. In my opinion, this is a strong point that would serve as one counter-argument worth incorporating.
I am certain that the producers of “The Meatrix” are making their films because they feel they are searching for a truth. Their truth may not be your truth, and your “garbage” may not be their “garbage” or my “garbage”. However I don’t think any documentary actually purports to find “the truth”; in this case, a documentary makes an argument and attempts to substantiate its point of view through relevant citations (and not successfully, in your estimation.) But I do not see how the screening of “The Meatrix” is outside of the Filmpool’s mandate, or why it entails its review. The mandate is not “to promote anything”; as clearly stated on its web site:
The Saskatchewan Filmpool Cooperative is a non-profit artist-run centre which supports encourages and assists independent visionary filmmaking in Saskatchewan. The Filmpool is committed to developing an awareness and appreciation of independent film which reflects the individual and collective cultural expression of Saskatchewan people.“The Meatrix” is an independent film; it is produced outside of Saskatchewan, but since its inception the Filmpool has presented or co-presented hundreds of films produced outside Saskatchewan. You may feel that your view of a “Saskatchewan stance” is de facto “the collective cultural expression of Saskatchewan people”, but as you haven’t defined what you mean by a “Saskatchewan stance” it would be presumptuous for me to draw such a conclusion.
It is unfortunate you chose to forego your membership, for if you strongly feel that the mandate of the Filmpool should be changed to not participate in the exhibition of particular films you could make a case at a board, or general meeting (however I do concede that this many not be appealing to you if the organization did not do you the courtesy of acknowledging your emails. The adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try try again,” may offer little comfort, but it is often applicable when “fighting city hall”, as it were.)
I conclude with a point for you to consider:
At the top of your website you display a banner: “I exercise my Freedom of Speech through this site.” Now I do realize there is a particular story behind its creation, but I find it a contradiction that you are a proponent of freedom of speech in the context of your blog yet seemingly fails to be a consideration in your arguing against what films an organization chooses to screen. Freedom of speech is not limited to the individual being able to say what he/she likes; it’s also a tacit acknowledgement that others with differing, or countering opinions, may also do so. And again, if there’s something that you feel goes too far and contravenes any laws, then pursue further action through appropriate channels.
Quite frankly, if there was an argument to be made supporting child pornography, or the abuse of women – and let me be perfectly clear here, an argument to be made that did not contravene relevant laws or codes while doing so – then the people making them should be free to do so. I would not necessarily desire to sit through the resulting films, but to quote Voltaire, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
I wish you best of luck with your film.
Respectfully,
Brett Bell
Post a Comment