There are Canadians in our midst. And they've got something to say about the fools we Americans are making of ourselves with our complaints about violence in films and runaway production. Our neighbor to the north Kalgash starts off today's Civilian Voices...

Maybe we should just call the War Against Hollywood the 'War Against Entertainment'. Although I am a Canadian and not subject to your laws, I am affected by your Presidential candidates and their holy war against any sort of adult (meaning complex, and or graphic in nature) entertainment. The United States produces most of the entertainment content that I enjoy. Sure more and more of it is produced in Canada but for now I must rely on companies and people that are soon to be under the authority of a government headed by induhviduals with no sense about such things. Heaven forbid I want to see a decently complex film, have some fun on the Internet or play a video game that may involve sex and/or violence and/or dissenting opinion. Sure for now it is "all about the children". Really, that is nothing more than wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Your potential leaders wallow in trite cliche and unsubstantiated fear mongering, all while more of your entertainment productions run away to the north. Eventually it won't be for monetary reasons. -- Kalgash

The entertainment industry is quite a mess these days. The Screen Actors Guild has shown that it is more than willing to put up a fight if its members aren't paid handsomely for their work. The Writers Guild has Hollywood by the...nose, threatening to strike in the spring when their Minimum Basic Agreement with the studios expires. Productions are high-tailing it out of Los Angeles to keep budgets from skyrocketing. Once again, a Canadian roughcut.com reader puts things in perpesctive. Corbin S. responds to David Poland's Hot Button comments about a recent government fund created to promote the film industry in Canada...

 

I don't think you quite get it regarding the film industry up here in Canada. You say that my government has created a fund that will create an industry? Well, the reason why your government doesn't need to do that is simple: YOU'VE ALREADY GOT AN INDUSTRY. You guys may complain about all the American productions crossing the border, but at least you're producing stuff. We Canadians should only be so lucky. You've got a country of about 270 million people; I've got one with about 30 million people. What does this mean? Well, take, for example, a film that cost two million dollars to make (a huge budget up here). For this film to barely break even, roughly 10 per cent of our population would have to see it. That's huge. In the U.S., only 1 per cent would have to turn up, and, of course, this doesn't even take into consideration your built in foreign market. But this is only one of many problems. Are you aware that 98 percent of screen time in Canada is filled with foreign (ie, American) product? That means that on the off chance someone actually gets a feature made in Canada it's damn near impossible to show it to anybody. Basically, the best way to get a Canadian film distributed in Canada is to have an American distributor. Bottom line: The reason my government needs to support the Canadian film industry is because without such support it could not exist. Admittedly, though, it doesn't help that most Canadian films are terrible. -- Corbin S. Vancouver, British Columbia (ie. Hollywood North)

See. Things could be worse here in the U.S. of A. We could not have a film industry at all. Unfortunately, we may find out what that feels like come next Spring when actors and writers stop showing up for work. Don't forget about the Directors Guild. They're contracts will be expiring soon as well.

On a completely different note, what about that Charlie's Angels? Funny action chick-flick or expensive waste of celluloid? At least one of you has an inkling of hope. Bradshaw gives his two cents...

Just wondering something, is the buzz on Charlie's Angels that bad? I know about the script problems and all the on set problems, but I don't think it looks all that bad in the trailers, but not all that great either. I always thought Murray could save any movie. If all the stuff in the previews comes off as interesting (my opinion) in the actual movie it might not be that bad. I know I'm gonna hate it, just trying to convince myself to fork over four bucks. (Yeah, like I'd pay for an evening show.) -- bradshaw

What are your thoughts on the Charlie's Angels trailers? Does it seem like there may be one too many slo-mo shots in this film? Was tongue firmly planted in cheek when this film was made or will it take itself too seriously? Can Bill Murray save the day if the trio of female starlets can't? Let me know what you think and I'll post your responses here in Civilian Voices. Or, if you'd like to respond to any of the feature articles or reviews you've read on the new and improved roughcut.com, feel free to do so. Civilian Voices can't exist without, well, civilian voices. I'm counting on you. And so are your fellow readers.

 

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.