Citation :
« As the debate around [Bubbles Galore] continues, no one taking a stand—neither [Sheila] Copps, who is shifting blame to the Mulroney government, nor Reform finance critic Monte Solberg, who calls it 'basically a porno'—has actually seen it. It could be more than titillating, an art film, as the filmmakers, the Canada Council and various film festivals maintain. Or it could be no more than titillating. Financing film isn't an exact science. Sometimes those blessed by governmental agencies turn out to be dogs. Sometimes they're complex, disturbing critical successes that many people never see, because that's not why they go to the theatre. Sometimes they're commercial entertainments. They might be about Bill 101, or about rubber dolls on a killing spree, or about aging porn stars calling their own X-rated shots. You don't have to like them all to endorse their right to exist and to receive public support. The only thing that's really offensive in this equation is the idea that Canadian films should be about some things and not others, and that the audience is so completely one-dimensional that it can't make room for a film like Bubbles Galore. »
-- Alison Vale

Source :
VALE, Alison. « Bubbles, meet Chucky: Taxpayer trash; Why scream about subsidized sex film Bubbles Galore? Canadian film agencies have never lived by art alone », Globe and Mail, 17 mai 1999. [en anglais]