This is what I'm talking about.
I couldn't possibly get behind a lot of what Kai Nagata has to say, or else I'd be ready to take my hat and go, too. But I understand. He's even younger than me, but to him the state of TV news is untenable, and in quitting with this very public dispatch, he's articulated what many of us might feel in our most cynical moments. Cynicism in this industry is peculiar because, as Nagata demonstrates, it runs hand in hand with a kind of idealism for what it could be.
A lot of good can come when someone with promise tips out the door so early, and so loudly, reminding us that the status quo is not mandatory. I hope a lot of people with pay grades higher than mine take his criticisms and at least ponder them a while.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Review: Transformers - Dark of the Moon
Strike three, Harry Knowles.
His perspective on film being entirely dependent on the screening's circumstances, Knowles winds up with some weird conclusions about the movies sometimes. Last year, I read in disbelief as he tried to pass off the credibility of a negative review of Inception with the caveat that he hadn't slept the night before and was barely mentally present during the screening. Still, that was last year, so 2011 was a clean slate. Briefly.
This year, he gave a glowing pass to X-Men First Class, which was not a bad movie, but also not a great movie, and not even the best of the X-Men films (for me, that title still belongs to X2). Prior to that, a review that came down favourably on what I thought would be the worst movie I'd see this year - Sucker Punch. But it's still 2011, and I'm now hard pressed to say which Harry Knowles-approved film was worse - Sucker Punch or Transformers 3.
It's subtitled 'Dark of the Moon', which ties into the plot, but I think some better names might have been 'the third, longer, one' or 'Frances McDormand needs a new summerhouse'. Michael Bay has a way of getting good actors into terrible films - I can't believe that Ewan MacGregor is at once the actor who starred in The Island in 2005 and also the one who starred in Beginners this year. I know Bay also casts bad actors - or models, when actors point out how bad his movies are and have to be cut loose.
Transformers 3 takes a problem I experienced with X-Men First Class and amplifies it considerably. Lurking within the over 2.5 hour chore of this movie is some good entertainment. Not great, but certainly the entertainment I had hoped to find once again, it having been missing from this series since the first film in '07. The original managed to be way more fun than either sequel, possibly because the first level of exposition in this universe is way less convoluted than the plotting developed since. But here, even worse than in the previous sequel, whatever good fun was to be had is utterly buried. There is about an hour of this movie that could have been left on the cutting room floor. An HOUR. That means that you could have taken, say, $70 million of this movie's near $200 million budget and just made another, big budget film.
All that is to say that by the time this movie made it to the setpiece destruction/occupation of Chicago, I was already checked out. As one friend pointed out to me, this is going to give a number of people exactly what they want from a trip to the big robot show - there are robots, and they're big, and it's all very showy. In a very un-Michael-Bay style, a great number of the shots in this film's action sequences are longer, to allow the eye time for the much-insisted upon 3D effect (someone must be insisting on it, but it's not me, and it's not anyone I know). The result is that you have many more opportunities to stare at the lavish, almost impossible to conceive effects.
Along that point, my last point, I guess I should thank Michael Bay - he has completely quenched my appetite for mindless effects pictures. I haven't walked out of a movie feeling this exhausted in - ever. In the whole run time of Transformers 3, there was not one second where I cared about any character, ever. That has become completely required for me to enjoy this kind of thing on any level. Not that long ago, I caught Super 8, and that movie was full of spectacle - but it also had a ton of character in it, and was magical in that way that requires you to have a sense of wonder, to share it with someone on screen. Maybe that's what's so tiring about Transformers now - in the past two movies, no one's ever stopped to go 'wow! - huge talking robots!' - it's all been there, done that.
His perspective on film being entirely dependent on the screening's circumstances, Knowles winds up with some weird conclusions about the movies sometimes. Last year, I read in disbelief as he tried to pass off the credibility of a negative review of Inception with the caveat that he hadn't slept the night before and was barely mentally present during the screening. Still, that was last year, so 2011 was a clean slate. Briefly.
This year, he gave a glowing pass to X-Men First Class, which was not a bad movie, but also not a great movie, and not even the best of the X-Men films (for me, that title still belongs to X2). Prior to that, a review that came down favourably on what I thought would be the worst movie I'd see this year - Sucker Punch. But it's still 2011, and I'm now hard pressed to say which Harry Knowles-approved film was worse - Sucker Punch or Transformers 3.
It's subtitled 'Dark of the Moon', which ties into the plot, but I think some better names might have been 'the third, longer, one' or 'Frances McDormand needs a new summerhouse'. Michael Bay has a way of getting good actors into terrible films - I can't believe that Ewan MacGregor is at once the actor who starred in The Island in 2005 and also the one who starred in Beginners this year. I know Bay also casts bad actors - or models, when actors point out how bad his movies are and have to be cut loose.
Transformers 3 takes a problem I experienced with X-Men First Class and amplifies it considerably. Lurking within the over 2.5 hour chore of this movie is some good entertainment. Not great, but certainly the entertainment I had hoped to find once again, it having been missing from this series since the first film in '07. The original managed to be way more fun than either sequel, possibly because the first level of exposition in this universe is way less convoluted than the plotting developed since. But here, even worse than in the previous sequel, whatever good fun was to be had is utterly buried. There is about an hour of this movie that could have been left on the cutting room floor. An HOUR. That means that you could have taken, say, $70 million of this movie's near $200 million budget and just made another, big budget film.
All that is to say that by the time this movie made it to the setpiece destruction/occupation of Chicago, I was already checked out. As one friend pointed out to me, this is going to give a number of people exactly what they want from a trip to the big robot show - there are robots, and they're big, and it's all very showy. In a very un-Michael-Bay style, a great number of the shots in this film's action sequences are longer, to allow the eye time for the much-insisted upon 3D effect (someone must be insisting on it, but it's not me, and it's not anyone I know). The result is that you have many more opportunities to stare at the lavish, almost impossible to conceive effects.
Along that point, my last point, I guess I should thank Michael Bay - he has completely quenched my appetite for mindless effects pictures. I haven't walked out of a movie feeling this exhausted in - ever. In the whole run time of Transformers 3, there was not one second where I cared about any character, ever. That has become completely required for me to enjoy this kind of thing on any level. Not that long ago, I caught Super 8, and that movie was full of spectacle - but it also had a ton of character in it, and was magical in that way that requires you to have a sense of wonder, to share it with someone on screen. Maybe that's what's so tiring about Transformers now - in the past two movies, no one's ever stopped to go 'wow! - huge talking robots!' - it's all been there, done that.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Break the Cycle
I promise this will be a short hop on the soapbox.
Canada has found itself in a federal election this spring. It will be the fourth since 2004. That fact alone paints a very divisive picture of our country. So it's no surprise that a lot of people are tuned out. The reasons I hear are common and, in a way, not unreasonable; none of the major party leaders resonate, unfamiliarity with the issues, a sense that heir vote is unimportant (because after all, the big parties aren't THAT different - the last government led by the Liberal Party fell due largely in part to the sponsorship scandal, and this Conservative government has been found in contempt of parliament).
I wouldn't throw my endorsement behind anyone at this stage, for many reasons. But I would like to make a recommendation, especially if you've found yourself deeply unmotivated by this election.
As important as it is to get familiar with the platforms of each federal party, for the people who aren't finding much to get excited about there, I implore you to visit the websites of, or otherwise learn about, the candidates running in your riding. Learn as much as you can, and give your vote to the person - the MP - who you believe will best represent you in Ottawa.
Many people simply vote for a party when it comes to these things - meaning they don't pay much attention to their local representation, just the big debates and issues of the party leaders. But that's not how a robust democracy should work. More emphasis needs to be placed on the person who represents you - because it is their job to convey what you want out of your government to their party leader.
I've spouted a lot of the criticisms that I hear coming from most people these days - especially younger voters who sense a lot of disconnection in the major party leaders. Party politics will figure into your decisions, but please try and factor in your local MP. I may be an idealist - but I strongly believe that if more voters did this, and did so honestly, then the make-up of our parliament wold change drastically. And that would be a very good thing, no matter what party you favour.
(Every major news outlet will have their election coverage running at full throttle now - so just pick your flavour, really. If you have the time, read or watch more than one source of news, since every outlet is biased, in one way or another)
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tron: Legacy
Quick notes about Tron: Legacy, in case you're looking for the speedy version:
1. It's worth checking out.
2. If you decide to shell out your hard-earned dollars, IMAX 3D is the way to do it (if you're already spending $12, why not another $5) - not only is the sound superior, but like The Dark Knight, sections of this film were actually shot in the IMAX format, which means they fill up that entire, insanely large screen.
3. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the light-cycle battles, music, and general ooh-ah factor. Over-thinking this one left me in a pile of trouble.
I think I'll begin every review like this from now on! Especially on the blockbuster types, which to me are getting to a point where they're only worth it if they offer something at least a little unique. This one does, without a doubt. Still, it's far from perfect, so let's have a look.
About 20 years ago, as the story goes, Kevin Flynn disappeared from his role as the big boss at a world-renowned software company, called Encom. He also disappeared off the face of the earth - leaving his son Sam an orphan, and his company in the hands of greedy, evil board-member types (the only good one asks, "what is different about our product this year?" "This time we put a 12 on the box", is the reply). That one good guy is Kevin's old pal, who tells Sam he's gotten word from his absent father - go to the arcade and check it out. We get to watch Sam do the 1-minute reversal from his flat-out no to a reluctant yes, and soon enough he's at the arcade getting beamed up, or in, or however it works, and WHAM. He's in Narnia on a circuit board. Here's where Dad's been hanging out all this time.
Tron: Legacy is much like a fairy tale, but rather than being set in a fantastic world of lush, otherworldly beauty, it's set inside a computer. Never mind that most people have no romantic sentiment whatsoever for technology - the film works hard enough to depict the real world as more appealing than 'the grid', the specific system where this story takes place. The grid is beautiful in its own way - it has a cool, clean, neon sheen, and we're mostly supposed to find it dazzling, not cozy.
The actors, too, are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing - the ones who aren't strictly speaking human do a good job of acting that way - Olivia Wilde in particular has a great knack for behaving just outside of normalcy - I wonder if the direction given to her was 'act like you're 8 years old, and have never seen another real person before'. The relatively new Garrett Hedlund is a good leading man for us to follow through it all, and Jeff Bridges is fun to watch as both a deeply patient Kevin Flynn and am evil program bent on taking over the world. Yes. Yes, that's what it was...
That lands us at the part of this whole thing that didn't work for me. I found myself thinking back to The Matrix, wishing for a little clarity as far how this world is supposed to work, what the rules are, etc. Technically, The Matrix had an advantage, in that it was a world within a computer designed and programmed to be indistinguishable from reality. People may not have thought about it, but MAN does that cut down on time. Characters in that film and its sequels only ever had to slow down to explain that rules can be bent or broken, but by and large, as the audience watches, most of the questions they have are answered - why is there gravity, sunlight, why can people die, and how. The Matrix got complex enough to allow for the distinction between people and programs, and we understood that clearly enough.
Tron: Legacy kept me at arm's length, because I always had questions. And I am normally a film goer who is eager to suspend my disbelief, but for some reason, this one just asked too much of me. That is not to say there weren't large stretches of this film that I enjoyed a lot - as I pointed out above, light-cycle battles, the whole aesthetic, daft punk's score, and all the performers had me going, but - well. There's a point in the middle of this picture at which Jeff Bridges has to deliver a lot of exposition about what has happened to keep him trapped in this world all this time. He speaks long enough to bring up something called 'isomorphic algorithms' and then stopped before he explained what they were. Sam's reactions informed me that they are special, and it's inferred that they are alive (they better be, or else the ending makes even less sense). Still, when characters have to get out some necessary exposition, you should be less confused than when they started talking, not more.
Those characters also have to work pretty hard to step through some of the clunky scripting while still appearing to have much life in them, and there were a few missed opportunities. For one thing, it's suggested that time moves more quickly in the grid, relative to the real word - and while they gave a solid figure somewhere, the real revelation that they blew past, and that Sam never seemed to register, was that the 20 years he experienced without his dad may have seemed like hundreds or thousands to Kevin. I would have greatly enjoyed a moment or two on that point, rather then more talk of isomorphic so-and-so's.
The film's knack for being obtuse aside, I'm still glad I saw it. There is a tradition being carried forwards here that I may be reading in to a little too deeply - but it strikes me that somewhere at its core, Tron films are about the reverence for all the good things that technology can do. There are lines about the potential to change just about every aspect of human life in here, and I only wish this film's reach equaled its rhetoric. Oh well, enjoy a fresh ride on the light-cycle.
Black Swan
It's taken me a little while to digest the experience of watching Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. Fortunately, I write things like this to satisfy my own desire to sketch out my thoughts, rather than meet deadlines, because of course I'm a little late to the party here.
To rewind a little before getting into Black Swan, I should note that Aronofsky has always been able to craft work that I want to return to, again and again. This has even been true of Requiem for a Dream, which I can easily rank as one of the best films I've ever seen, and also one of the most heart-wrenching. There is a piece of trivia from Requiem about Matthew Libatique, the film's DP, letting the camera drift on Ellen Burstyn's beautiful and crushing monologue - because he was crying. This has always stood as a great representation of that film to me - it is about relatively pedestrian characters and problems, told with operatic intensity.
That is one of Aronofsky's gifts, I think - the ability to place us so close to his characters that we have the opportunity to feel what they do, to care for them even when they make choices we don't agree with. It's the sort of care one normally spares for family - those you love despite all the flaws.
So, we arrive at Black Swan, in which we will follow Natalie Portman as Nina. She is a quiet, fragile dancer, a completely adequate member of a New York ballet company. She is pursuing the role of the Swan Queen in their upcoming production of Swan Lake, and her director has flatly told her that while he believes she can represent the clean goodness, the tidy chaste beauty of the White Swan, she doesn't have it in her to play the seductive nature of the Black Swan.
There is more plot than that, of course, but that is enough to inform everything that happens in the film. A supporting cast that includes Nina's past-her-prime ex-dancer of a mother (Barbara Hershey), the lecherous company director (Vincent Cassel) and last but not least, Lily - a girl who embodies everything Nina needs to become the Black Swan.
Lily is played by Mila Kunis, who I had already believed to be very capable. She turns in a performance that makes me giddy to contemplate the career she may have ahead of her. Kunis pairs remarkably well with Portman, whose looks are enough to let me consistently underestimate her. I should know better. This might be the best of her career to date - and I say that not having forgotten about Closer. Portman is in full, remarkable control of her craft here, steering a performance between the extremes of silent shyness and deafening madness and uncertainty. It takes a grand performer to perfectly compose the appearance of losing your grip.
As I said, there is more plot to Black Swan that I've mentioned, but the real delight is in watching the realization of this world - which is half the real world of Manhattan ballet and half Nina's mind. This was another stroke that reminded me strongly of Requiem, which was situated with great attention to detail and texture in Brooklyn. Here, Aronofsky leads us in to the world of ballet - and not that of the glitzy performances, but instead of the back stage, the relentless practice, the harsh criticism, the punishments on the body, and overall, the sacrifices made not only to become a part of it, but to become the best.
In the broad strokes, that's what Black Swan is about - what you lose in growing, and so I suppose that makes it a loss of innocence story. It's magnified to epic volume here, since Nina changes in nearly every way from where she starts the story off. We have the pleasure of living in her heads as events unfold, which means we're never given a grasp on reality. What happens in the film could be called a descent into madness, but a better term might be a revelation of madness. Factors and forces push Nina into an eruption of energy she didn't even know she had, bursting from her as though it had been percolating for years. Maybe it had.
It's strongly recommended viewing - and please, go see this with an audience, don't just wait for the DVD. If you're the kind of person that can feel the energy in the room, it'll help the whole experience as the tension builds and things get more and more extreme. This will easily rank amongst my favourites from 2010.
To rewind a little before getting into Black Swan, I should note that Aronofsky has always been able to craft work that I want to return to, again and again. This has even been true of Requiem for a Dream, which I can easily rank as one of the best films I've ever seen, and also one of the most heart-wrenching. There is a piece of trivia from Requiem about Matthew Libatique, the film's DP, letting the camera drift on Ellen Burstyn's beautiful and crushing monologue - because he was crying. This has always stood as a great representation of that film to me - it is about relatively pedestrian characters and problems, told with operatic intensity.
That is one of Aronofsky's gifts, I think - the ability to place us so close to his characters that we have the opportunity to feel what they do, to care for them even when they make choices we don't agree with. It's the sort of care one normally spares for family - those you love despite all the flaws.
So, we arrive at Black Swan, in which we will follow Natalie Portman as Nina. She is a quiet, fragile dancer, a completely adequate member of a New York ballet company. She is pursuing the role of the Swan Queen in their upcoming production of Swan Lake, and her director has flatly told her that while he believes she can represent the clean goodness, the tidy chaste beauty of the White Swan, she doesn't have it in her to play the seductive nature of the Black Swan.
There is more plot than that, of course, but that is enough to inform everything that happens in the film. A supporting cast that includes Nina's past-her-prime ex-dancer of a mother (Barbara Hershey), the lecherous company director (Vincent Cassel) and last but not least, Lily - a girl who embodies everything Nina needs to become the Black Swan.
Lily is played by Mila Kunis, who I had already believed to be very capable. She turns in a performance that makes me giddy to contemplate the career she may have ahead of her. Kunis pairs remarkably well with Portman, whose looks are enough to let me consistently underestimate her. I should know better. This might be the best of her career to date - and I say that not having forgotten about Closer. Portman is in full, remarkable control of her craft here, steering a performance between the extremes of silent shyness and deafening madness and uncertainty. It takes a grand performer to perfectly compose the appearance of losing your grip.
As I said, there is more plot to Black Swan that I've mentioned, but the real delight is in watching the realization of this world - which is half the real world of Manhattan ballet and half Nina's mind. This was another stroke that reminded me strongly of Requiem, which was situated with great attention to detail and texture in Brooklyn. Here, Aronofsky leads us in to the world of ballet - and not that of the glitzy performances, but instead of the back stage, the relentless practice, the harsh criticism, the punishments on the body, and overall, the sacrifices made not only to become a part of it, but to become the best.
In the broad strokes, that's what Black Swan is about - what you lose in growing, and so I suppose that makes it a loss of innocence story. It's magnified to epic volume here, since Nina changes in nearly every way from where she starts the story off. We have the pleasure of living in her heads as events unfold, which means we're never given a grasp on reality. What happens in the film could be called a descent into madness, but a better term might be a revelation of madness. Factors and forces push Nina into an eruption of energy she didn't even know she had, bursting from her as though it had been percolating for years. Maybe it had.
It's strongly recommended viewing - and please, go see this with an audience, don't just wait for the DVD. If you're the kind of person that can feel the energy in the room, it'll help the whole experience as the tension builds and things get more and more extreme. This will easily rank amongst my favourites from 2010.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Review: Easy A
Haven't teenagers got anything better to do? Gossip is a central preoccupation for the entire student body in Easy A, a new comedy / satire / social tut-tut film that works very well, despite its adherance to high school movie cliches. The 'teens' are all certainly in their 20s, the dialogue is impossibly too convenient, and everything wraps up very tidily. But that's ok, because the film operates at a high level within those confines, like Mean Girls did a few years ago (it even bests the Tina Fey-scripted film by omitting the 'let's show the audience all the subcultural divides by panning around the cafeteria').
Emma Stone plays Olive, who will discover by accident the film's main idea: don't have sex, but say you did. It's a simple lie, at first told to get her best friend off her back, but then later for a more compassionate reason. Olive lies a lot in this film - there is a healthy dose of both absolute lies and lies of omission, but as mentioned, we are quickly given a reason to get on her side. This is a big role for Stone, who has delivered before, really every time I can think of having seen her - this time she gets the spotlight to herself and squeezes all the juice out of it she can. There are times when Olive makes choices that we have trouble with, but Stone beckons us along and makes us care. Her performance leverages all the right stuff at all the right moments - and she gets vulnerability and strength across as not being mutually exclusive.
Everyone else here is pitch-perfect - well-cast and performing well, too. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci are Olive's parents, who are loving, supportive, funny, and make it all the more believable that their daughter could be so clever. They are the kind of parents the real world should have more of. Thomas Haden Church and Lisa Kudrow are here to lend plausible evidence that teachers are people, too (something most high school kids seem to forget).
Easy A clips along nicely through its plot, aided greatly by consistent and well-devised wit. Though the beats are mostly predictable (escalation of the lie works out for a while, until it doesn't, then watch out), we enjoy seeing it all unravel because the script is witty and because the film is clear about its subject - this movie is not about sex, but more about how teenagers swirl around it, around the scandal and intrigue they believe it carries. I must not have a clue what California high schools are like, because I found myself surprised by the level of shock people have at a 17-year-old losing her virginity.
In keeping its message clear, the film avoids making too many implied comments about actual teenaged sexual escapades, and has a go at the judgmental nature of the high school crowd instead. John Hughes is very deliberately invoked, more than once, to great effect - Olive is sad that her life is not going the way of Pretty in Pink or Ferris Bueller's Day Off, except that then it kind of does. This movie and those are of course fiction - but their points are real - large groups of (young) people have a habit of isolating those different from them and ostrasizing them. That's not likely to change, ever, so the references to not only Hughes' films but also Nathaniel Hawthorne will stand the test of time.
The subtle message also carried through is that despite all the trouble it causes, sex isn't bad, but that it is a kind of connection between two people, and those (connections) can be all kinds of wonderful or terrible, so make your choices wisely. There is, I won't say an anti-religious message, but an indictment of the sort of people who use God to excuse their own opinions and judgments - that's always ok by me, especially in this case in which the character who mostly embodies that is given a chance for some depth along the way.
So, the trappings of high school films aside, if you can buy the permise that as the film opens, Emma Stone's character is unremarkable, then I highly recommend this.
Emma Stone plays Olive, who will discover by accident the film's main idea: don't have sex, but say you did. It's a simple lie, at first told to get her best friend off her back, but then later for a more compassionate reason. Olive lies a lot in this film - there is a healthy dose of both absolute lies and lies of omission, but as mentioned, we are quickly given a reason to get on her side. This is a big role for Stone, who has delivered before, really every time I can think of having seen her - this time she gets the spotlight to herself and squeezes all the juice out of it she can. There are times when Olive makes choices that we have trouble with, but Stone beckons us along and makes us care. Her performance leverages all the right stuff at all the right moments - and she gets vulnerability and strength across as not being mutually exclusive.
Everyone else here is pitch-perfect - well-cast and performing well, too. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci are Olive's parents, who are loving, supportive, funny, and make it all the more believable that their daughter could be so clever. They are the kind of parents the real world should have more of. Thomas Haden Church and Lisa Kudrow are here to lend plausible evidence that teachers are people, too (something most high school kids seem to forget).
Easy A clips along nicely through its plot, aided greatly by consistent and well-devised wit. Though the beats are mostly predictable (escalation of the lie works out for a while, until it doesn't, then watch out), we enjoy seeing it all unravel because the script is witty and because the film is clear about its subject - this movie is not about sex, but more about how teenagers swirl around it, around the scandal and intrigue they believe it carries. I must not have a clue what California high schools are like, because I found myself surprised by the level of shock people have at a 17-year-old losing her virginity.
In keeping its message clear, the film avoids making too many implied comments about actual teenaged sexual escapades, and has a go at the judgmental nature of the high school crowd instead. John Hughes is very deliberately invoked, more than once, to great effect - Olive is sad that her life is not going the way of Pretty in Pink or Ferris Bueller's Day Off, except that then it kind of does. This movie and those are of course fiction - but their points are real - large groups of (young) people have a habit of isolating those different from them and ostrasizing them. That's not likely to change, ever, so the references to not only Hughes' films but also Nathaniel Hawthorne will stand the test of time.
The subtle message also carried through is that despite all the trouble it causes, sex isn't bad, but that it is a kind of connection between two people, and those (connections) can be all kinds of wonderful or terrible, so make your choices wisely. There is, I won't say an anti-religious message, but an indictment of the sort of people who use God to excuse their own opinions and judgments - that's always ok by me, especially in this case in which the character who mostly embodies that is given a chance for some depth along the way.
So, the trappings of high school films aside, if you can buy the permise that as the film opens, Emma Stone's character is unremarkable, then I highly recommend this.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Are you kidding? Just fill it out.
If you aren't familiar with what's going on, check out this or this or this (The last is, I believe, a very well-balanced editorial).
There are a couple things going on here that really bother me. The first is that the Conservative government is making a very important policy decision while ignoring those whose professional opinions are directly relevant, and ignoring overwhelming opposition. They are doing this as a minority government, meaning the opposition actually represents the majority of represented Canadians. In terms of the professional opposition, the now-former head of Statistics Canada has resigned as a direct result of this decision.
The issue has revolved around the essential differences between the reliability of data gathered from a voluntary census versus a mandatory one, and the excessive nature of the penalty for not filling out the mandatory census. I'll admit, I had no idea that you could go to jail for failing to fill out the census. But that might be because no one ever has. All the same, the notion of removing that penalty is one I'd support. One official also pointed out that in the past 20 years, only 50 complaints about the census have been received. An average of a little more than two per year, in a country of over 30 million.
That being said, the census isn't something everyone has to do, and it's a very infrequent inconvenience. That brings to mind one of my largest concerns about this entire issue. The notion that all people are willing to do for their country is pay their taxes is quite frankly offensive to me (and 'willing' is a generous term in that sentence as it is). This country has its problems, but we're sure as hell not going to solve any of them by complaining about providing policy makers with accurate information. Or by refusing to fill out a form once in a while. There is an issue of privacy that has been attached to this debate but in listening to the questions given as examples, I cannot imagine why anyone would have a problem giving up that information.
Still, few people were complaining at all. The sitting government is pushing through a reform that few constituents, if any, wanted, needed or care about. And they are wasting everyone's time by doing so. They have caused, perhaps indirectly, one dedicated public servant to abandon his post, because he could not in good conscience to his profession carry on.
I'll echo the Globe in one respect - do away with the threat of jail time and leave the rest as is. I would like to hear some citizens first-hand who would find it so unbearable in that state.
There are a couple things going on here that really bother me. The first is that the Conservative government is making a very important policy decision while ignoring those whose professional opinions are directly relevant, and ignoring overwhelming opposition. They are doing this as a minority government, meaning the opposition actually represents the majority of represented Canadians. In terms of the professional opposition, the now-former head of Statistics Canada has resigned as a direct result of this decision.
The issue has revolved around the essential differences between the reliability of data gathered from a voluntary census versus a mandatory one, and the excessive nature of the penalty for not filling out the mandatory census. I'll admit, I had no idea that you could go to jail for failing to fill out the census. But that might be because no one ever has. All the same, the notion of removing that penalty is one I'd support. One official also pointed out that in the past 20 years, only 50 complaints about the census have been received. An average of a little more than two per year, in a country of over 30 million.
That being said, the census isn't something everyone has to do, and it's a very infrequent inconvenience. That brings to mind one of my largest concerns about this entire issue. The notion that all people are willing to do for their country is pay their taxes is quite frankly offensive to me (and 'willing' is a generous term in that sentence as it is). This country has its problems, but we're sure as hell not going to solve any of them by complaining about providing policy makers with accurate information. Or by refusing to fill out a form once in a while. There is an issue of privacy that has been attached to this debate but in listening to the questions given as examples, I cannot imagine why anyone would have a problem giving up that information.
Still, few people were complaining at all. The sitting government is pushing through a reform that few constituents, if any, wanted, needed or care about. And they are wasting everyone's time by doing so. They have caused, perhaps indirectly, one dedicated public servant to abandon his post, because he could not in good conscience to his profession carry on.
I'll echo the Globe in one respect - do away with the threat of jail time and leave the rest as is. I would like to hear some citizens first-hand who would find it so unbearable in that state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
