Government and the Arts.

In today's newspaper, actress Kim Cattrall, (Samantha from Sex and the City) had some comments to make about the provincial government's cutbacks to arts programs. You can read the story here.

I completely disagree with her, and, on this one the Premier is right. Government should NOT be funding the arts. Period. Government exists solely to protect our rights and should not be funding the arts (or any business) in any way shape or form. I'm sure all those artists are hard-working, but that's not the point. The point is that if people want to support the arts, they will. They will go to plays, the movies, the symphony, art galleries, etc. It should not be looted from taxpayers at the point of a gun and demanded that it go to them.

This also goes for the CBC. It should be privatized. Let it fall or fly. Government should not be in broadcasting. This also goes for the CRTC. Believe me, the CRTC does it's best to strangle the arts and successful artists (but that's another post).

Obviously Cattrall she has had some success. As a successful artist, she can set up a foundation to help those that are just starting out. Perhaps she has. Hugh Jackman has done it. It was reported that when he was in Vancouver filming one of the X-Men movies that he donated a considerable sum to a fund for young actors. It was a classy gesture on his part and it was nice to hear that about someone in an industry of huge egos giving back. That's the way it should be: voluntary. Those that are successful in Hollywood should not be forced to support those that are struggling, but if they feel passionate about it, let them do it. After all, some of them had to struggle very hard to be where they are. Some have lived out of their cars (like Madonna and Hillary Swank). Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have "Project Green Light" that helps young filmmakers get their films made. They know what that's like; they shopped their script for "Good Will Hunting" around Hollywood, so they know how hard that is. Good for them. Should they be forced to? Absolutely not. There may be some that don't wish to support their fellow artists because they have other causes they wish to support; it's their money. They've worked hard for it and can do what they like.

In this economic climate, people won't be going to to the symphony or plays like they may have in the past. People will have to cut back on such discretionary items. It's a fact of life. No one forced these people to choose such a difficult career. They chose that, knowing the risks - and they have to accept that. If it doesn't work out, then they need to find other means of employment. Hey, we'd all like to be successul movie stars. Who hasn't dreamed of seeing their name up in lights, or winning an Oscar? The reality is, the chances of making that kind of success are very rare. But some people have made a decent living, if they aren't marquee names.

Do these people that are upset at the lack of government funds for the arts stop to consider that's because we handing over so much of our paycheques to the government in the form of taxes that that is part of the reason why people can't afford to go to such events? If the amount that was given to the arts was returned to the taxpayer to do with as they wished, perhaps more people would support the arts. It is rather sad when a well-made Canadian movie like "Passchendaele" which cost over $20,000,000.00 to make is considered a success when it only brought in $4,000,000.0 at the box office. The same goes for "Young People F#$#ing. It cost $1,500,000.00 (which is darned cheap) and brought in $14,459 worldwide. Damn shame.

Email or get on the phone to your MLA, MP, Prime Minister's Office, the Federal or your provincial Finance Minister - whomever. Tell them that these artists need to stand on their own, or find other employment and that the government needs to get out of funding the arts.