Bear with me; today's blog is not brief. But censorship has been a hot topic lately, at least it’s been burning a hole in my forehead.
A group of accredited media are right now gathered in a Montreal cinema to screen Polytechnique, a film by Denis Villeneuve (Maelstrom) about the Montreal Massacre, the murder of 14 young women in Montreal on December 6, 1989. The women died in what remains the worst mass shooting in Canada’s history. The film, shepherded by actor-producer Karine Vanasse, explores the events leading up to the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique, an affiliate of l’Université de Montréal. The women were killed by a 25-year old man who left behind a suicide note blaming "feminists" for “ruining” his life. By the time the killer took his own life, he had shot 27 people, 23 females and four males. He targeted young men who had helped their female friends.
Polytechnique premieres this Friday (February 6), in Quebec in both English and French, and will eventually be released across Canada. Detractors argue that it’s beyond unseemly to profit from a feature based on such tragic events. Supporters suggest it will spark discussion about how far Canadian society has – or hasn’t - come since those events.
My first instinct is to support the free speech argument. Shouldn't we create, view and review material that probes whether the structure of our society was in any way culpable for the events that transpired?
The usual arguments don't really apply. There’s no reason to censor Villeneuve or restrict screening of the film; but I question the decision to publicly finance it. If you really want to consider the important questions still posed by the Montreal Massacre, you're probably better off looking elsewhere for answers.
It seems unlikely that a 76-minute long movie, which according to media reports doesn’t mention the killer’s name, will shed new light on the tragedy. For the record, the killer’s name was Marc Lepine, a handle he took as a teenager. His name at birth was was Gamil Gharbi, but he changed it legally to distance himself from an abusive father.
It’s impossible to understate the horror of Lepine's actions. I was working nights at the Ottawa Citizen as the tragedy unfolded. I recall being shocked by the photos that came across the wire and news desk. One such image, taken by a Montreal Gazette photographer, showed a murdered girl slumped in a cafeteria chair. The photo became a symbol of the events and their stark horror.
As more was learned about Lepine, the more pronounced was the tragedy. His family upbringing was very violent. He had failed at most everything he had tried, including gaining acceptance to study at Polytechnique. He left behind a “hit list” of prominent women he wanted to kill, including TV journalist Francine Pelletier.
He began his rampage by entering a classroom and ordering the male students, about 50 of them, to leave while he focused on the women, nine female students. He shot them, then moved on, firing at more women. One of the dead, Maryse Leclair, was found by her police officer dad. She’d been stabbed as well as shot.
In the days that followed, I recall thinking that the dead girls had much in common with my peers. They were young, most in their early 20s, studious, ambitious and hoping to make a go of it in a profession that didn’t always welcome women.
Coverage of the story became full of rancour and often divided along gender lines. Journalists argued - and still do - about whether or not Lepine’s actions reflected sexism in Canadian society.
If so much raw emotion remains, doesn't that signal the need to foster a more balanced dialogue?
And shouldn't we look more closely at what it means to Canadian families?
Lepine's problems began with family violence. And as a rule, our society still fails to deal appropriately with cases of extreme family violence by failing to distinguish between non-lethal violence, which is committed in equal numbers by women and men, and lethal violence, which is more rare, but mostly committed by males.
Will Polytechnique do justice to the complexity of its subject matter? Doubtful. But rather than advocate its censorship, I plan to vote with my feet and my wallet.
Sometimes common sense is all that’s required. Sometimes it's best to just say no, whether it’s being smart enough, like Don Cherry, to not use the word pansification to emasculate non-violent hockey players, or brave enough, like the CTV execs who this past weekend refused to run an ad for an adulterous dating service. No edicts required, just move on.
The most powerful analysis I’ve heard of the tragedy came in an interview years ago between (Francine) Pelletier and survivor Nathalie Provost.
"What does Marc Lepine mean to you?" asked Pelletier.
"A poor guy," said Provost.
"That's all?" asked Pelletier.
"Yes," nodded Provost.
Enough said.
So it’s a big week for Idol fans. More Hollywood Week drama will unfold tonight and then tomorrow the Top 36 singers will be revealed in a special two-hour episode (Fox, CTV, 8 pm).
