Invisible Darkness turns Deadly

O.K., so the title is misleading: Deadly (2005), the film about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka’s psychological dance with death and depravity isn't based on the Stephen Williams' book Invisible Darkness; in fact, despite buying the rights to the book in 1994, Director Peter Simpson abandoned the project in the face of public outcry, especially from St. Catherines.

According to the Toronto Star, Deadly "was written through court transcripts and other evidence in the public domain... [and writer Manette Rosen's interviews] with police involved in the [Bernardo and Homolka] case at headquarters, as well as a crown attorney..."

I recently received a copy of the 2001 petition to stop Simpson's Bernardo film. (Whether it had anything to do with Simpson dropping the movie, I don't know.) Of the 70 or so names attached, over half were from St. Catherines, and all but a few were Ontarians. One signatory - at least I assume they signed it... as much as you can sign an electronic document without using a digital signature - included the comment:

Some things are just too important NOT to pass on - I hope you agree.

Of course I agree that some things are important enough to speak out about - some things are important enough to fight for, in my opinion - but I don't agree that the making of this movie qualifies.

Why? Because the story is out of my hands; it's out of everyone's hands. It happened, at least two books tell the story, and people will continue to talk about it, despite the heroic efforts - in scale only; the deliberate destruction of records is despicable and barbaric! - of Danson to wipe what really happened from the face of the earth: again, from The Star:

[Tim] Danson [lawyer for the families of victims Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy] even won an order to have the Ontario attorney-general's office burn the Bernardo-Homolka videos, as well as autopsy photos and other evidence, in a precedent-setting move.

Burn, no less! The bile rises in my throat just thinking about it. Fahrenheit 451 made real! Whatever his motives, that was just wrong! And that gets back to the petition: I'm sure all those people from St. Catherines hoped they were helping the families of Bernardo and Homolka's victims in some small way by signing that petition - heck, maybe some of them even know one of the families - but you know what? It doesn't matter. Period.

The only thing that matters is how those families live each day: if they look to the world to forget what happened to their daughters, sisters, etc. - even for some period of time, because how long is enough? Who can say? - they will continue to be disappointed and hurt; and, no less importantly, they'll be killing those women again, and all they did with their lives. If, however, they look within themselves and to each other for support, nothing, not books, movies, not even tourists (think Jack the Ripper and you know they'll come), will be able to steal more moments of their lives.

Time does not heal all wounds.

On kids and the Web...

HaloScan's basic account restricts comments on the owner's site to 1000 characters. Who knew I'd have so much to say on this post by Deirdre?

Brian captured my thoughts on the first point; security through obscurity shouldn't be your only line of defense.

On the second point, I'll bite. From the MacCentral article on the ruling:

If the law hadn't been challenged, a workable solution would now be in place... Parents wouldn't be afraid to leave their kids alone in the room with the computer on.

I disagree. If I were a parent - and I'm not, so, yes, take that into account - I wouldn't be relying on legislation or technology to assuage my fears about what's going on behind closed doors.

Depending on the age and maturity of the child, I would rely on either supervised Web time only, or my child's judgment and our open relationship. Gone are the days of unsupervised research with the children's encyclopedia or Britannica. If my kid needed to do research on tadpoles, filtering software (even the ICRA functionality in Internet Explorer seems to work well, although it requires some work on the Web site author's part) plus my supervision would be the only way to go. As they got older, some unsupervised time could be introduced... It comes down to being my responsibility.

Having the government determine what the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find obscene scares me, to be honest. We're talking about getting rid of the artistic merit defense up here in Canada too, and I just keep thinking that, yes, it sounds reasonable in many, even most, scenarios that proponents bring up. But what about the cases at the extremes of the spectrum? What about the filmmaker who shies away from the story that needs to be told for fear of going to jail?

Tread lightly, people. We have to live with these decisions.

The responsibility of artists

Today, the Independent Filmmakers Cooperative of Ottawa (IFCO) denied Ken Takahashi's grant application for his film Last Night with Jesse. The grounds for this verdict - fear of the film's running afoul of proposed law Bill C-12 and its lack of an artistic merit defence - while troubling, are not the subject of this entry.

What concerns me is City Councillor Jan Harder's position on the matter. Her self-proclaimed threat to pull the city's contribution to arts funding (about one third of the total amount) was particularly distasteful, and unprofessional. (Unfortunately, I heard the sound bite on CBC Radio One, and haven't been able to find it in print.)

Takahashi's position echoes my thoughts on the role of artists:

I think it's important for artists to push the envelope, to challenge the status quo. And the city council getting involved and dictating what forms of art should be concentrated on - I think that's a bad thing to do and a dangerous precedent. If art is going to be dictated by the government, then we've lost an important voice, and I'm very concerned about that.

I feel strongly that challenging the status quo - with or without taxpayer dollars - is key to preserving the liberties that make this country great, in much the same way as Sherman Kent urged intelligence analysts to avoid analytic or cognitive biases:

[Kent] urged special caution when a whole team of ana­lysts immediately agrees on an interpretation of yester­day’s devel­opment or a prediction about tomorrow’s. Especially regarding Viet­nam, he also cautioned against a “been-to” bias; field exposure can be valuable, but a quick trip doesn’t necessarily provide revealed truths. One path he recom­mended for coping with cognitive bias was to make working assump­tions explicit and to challenge them vigorously.

Just the fact that there's such an outcry against this film should give us pause. Will it send the message that aberrant sexual behaviour against children is acceptable as Ottawa resident A. Charles King suggests? The film is in pre-production, folks! It isn't saying anything yet!

In forcing us to reconsider our knee-jerk reactions, artists have a big responsibility. By acknowledging the importance of this role - in the form of arts funding - citizens are really "electing" artists and their approving bodies, trusting in their judgment. By insisting that city council have a say in how arts funding is granted, Jan Harder is implying that she too is an artist who knows how the status quo must be challenged (and how it must not, in this case). I don't know about you, but the films that really challenged what I thought I knew often horrified me, certainly coming out of left field. Would you trust the average joe on the street to judge the merits of that sort of art as it sits in the mind of an artist, an unrealized vision?

It reminds me of Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's thoughts on democracy:

Nor do I believe that elected representatives should abdicate their responsibility by being nothing but the mouthpieces for their constituencies. In its extreme form this ceases to be representative democracy and becomes direct democracy. Though it may look more democratic, it's really tantamount to saying that policies and laws must be decided by the people themselves... It's a misunderstanding of parliamentary democracy, and it cannot be made to work in large societies, because small groups meeting to deal with very important problems from their regional or local point of view cannot have in mind the legalistic, administrative, constitutional functions of government that are the fabric society must have to function in an orderly way.

Similarly, I feel that Jan Harder's, or any other city councillor's, point of view inappropriately biases her judgment of how the status quo should be challenged. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about the IFCO, which is why I'm glad that their denial was based on legal grounds. (Whether that law is right and just is another, equally important, matter.) This responsibility rests with the artists, in my mind, and it is the grandeur of their calling.