Argentine Cinema Subsidies

[ElQueso]

I was browsing the home page of the forum, looking at the Daily URL list a bit ago. I saw this link:

http://blog.panampost.com/belen-marty/2014/12/11/the-curious-case-of-argentinas-cinema-subsidies/

from last week and took a look.

The article reminded me of something I'd realized but never really commented on and hadn't heard anyone else comment on.

When I first came here in 2006, it was almost all non-Argentine movies (mostly Hollywood). An occasional Argentine movie. There was most often something I wanted to see at the cinema and we like to go as a family as much as twice a month. Dinner and a movie family-style.

At some point, I don't exactly remember when but at least a couple of years ago, suddenly the number of non-Argentine movies was cut in half or so. Hollywood seemed to take the biggest cut and the number of other nationality films seemed to grow. Now some of the movies the girls wanted to see, I remember, were not coming here.

To fill the gap of foreign films, the number of Argentine movies being offered seemed to jump drastically. We were hesitant to go see them because most of the trailers we'd seen didn't look very interesting. In fact, I don't remember which movies were involved but I remembered thinking that I couldn't believe this Argentine movie came out and the movie we wanted to see wasn't showing in Argentina.

I figured there must be some governmental involvement that caused this sudden change.

And I was right, although I didn't guess the half of it. The article I linked to is mostly related to the subsidies that Argentina gives to selected Argentine movies and at least some wasteful disasters that it creates. It also mentions briefly that the government has something to do with the movies that are allowed to play, including taxing foreign films and other measures.

Of course, the article doesn't mention Relatos Salvajes, a movie that I did see and loved and was quite a success. To tell the truth though, I can't believe that it is still showing...a very long run. I wonder if anyone is still going to see it. I wonder if the government is requiring that it still be shown.

The article mentions that a lot of money is given to Kirchnerist-supporting film companies, though I don't think it mentions how much specifically (and many of the films either don't get made, or like one have a premier of 13 people for a price of $4 million USD that only ran its premier). The total amount of the subsidy went from $3.6 million USD in 2008 to 10.15 million USD in 2013.

I would think that Relatos Salvajes and other Argentine movies of decent quality would still have been made, premiered and played nationally here without government involvement (and I have no idea if the government gave any subsidies to any of the better Argentine films like Relatos, or if it was given primarily to those with K ties).

As the writer says (this is from the translated article):

"But even aside from the issue of how much public money is going to private individuals, the topic begs a wider question: who is the National Institute for Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (INCAA) to arbitrarily decide which works deserve subsidies and which don’t?"

 

[Brunette36]

I went to see Relatos Salvajes only 3 weeks ago. I absolutely loved it. I hate the way so much of our money is wasted on film productions that will never see the light, though. They should be using all that money to improve education.

 

[Ries]

EVERY movie is a potential wasteful disaster- its pretty impossible to predict in advance which films will be good or bad.

But your basic question is addressed to every arts funding agency around the world-
and the answer is- all arts funding decisions are arbitrary.
All taste is subjective- so any given jury will decide on some art projects, be they films, or public sculptures, or concerts, that I, personally, dont like.
And they will also pick some I do like.

I dont know the exact procedures at INCAA.
I have worked with similar agencies in the USA quite a bit, both as an applicant, and as a juror.
I can tell you that somebody is always complaining about conspiracy theories, but they seldom exist.

Here in Argentina, its common for an older, white male, to run things. Especially since academic salaries are so low, professors tend to seize what they can, which is a small amount of power, as a consolation. So its quite possible that there are a couple of long term film people here who do indeed fund friends- but everybody the fund is still a filmmaker- the crews, the cinematographers, the sound guys, the gaffers- they all get paid to work on these films, that money trickles down.
Nobody ever gets rich from the subsidy on an indie film.

So- is there favoritism- sure, some, most likely.
Is there massive corruption, greed, and private plane rides to Miami? not likely.

Personally, I think its a good thing.
NO, every film will not be good.
But far more money is skimmed in most other parts of the economy.

If you read their website, the vast majority of their subsidies are peanuts- http://ant.incaa.gob.ar/castellano/index.php
the recepients may not be making films that the writer of your link likes- but they are hardly all buying gold chains.
I think she just has political disagreements with the choices- she is, after all, a self declared "freedom fighter".

I have been involved in the arts for 40 years.
I have heard similar gripes about who gets awards, prizes, grants, subsidies, and similar government money every single one of those 40 years.
The arts economy, including film here, is tiny, highly competitive, and full of backbiting.

 

[EdRooney]

They should be using all that money to improve education.

INCAA is an economically self-sustaining body. Its subsidies are funded independently without funds from the general budget. When you buy a ticket to see a film in Argentina, the ticket price includes a 10% tax that is used as the operating budget for INCAA. So there is no issue of money being taken away from schools to fund Cine Argentino

One forum member, MontaukProject, is a producer/director here and will hopefully comment on this topic.

 

[La Fleur]

EVERY movie is a potential wasteful disaster- its pretty impossible to predict in advance which films will be good or bad.

But your basic question is addressed to every arts funding agency around the world - and the answer is - all arts funding decisions are arbitrary. All taste is subjective- so any given jury will decide on some art projects, be they films, or public sculptures, or concerts, that I, personally, dont like. And they will also pick some I do like.

When Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, King Kong, etc) was making his first feature movie Bad Taste, the NZ Film Commission came up with funds that enabled that movie to be finished. This funding of a 'splatter' movie was highly controversial, even among NZ Film Commission people, and might have led nowhere. That is a risk of providing such funding.

And indeed such grants do not often lead to such famous film careers, and to so such a successful body of work. But every now and then they do - that is one of the aims of funding home grown arts in the face of the massive (and colonising) power of the Hollywood film industry. In Jackson's case a relatively small investment led to the establishment of serious film-making infrastructure in a tiny country in the South Pacific, which now leads the world in special effects software and is a location of choice for the making of many movies. Jackson could have taken the production of Lord of the Rings trilogy anywhere, but he chose to take it home to his own country where he had received support on his way to fame.

He also took it to NZ because he could negotiate good tax breaks for producing the film there (due to employment created, publicity related to tourism, etc) - tax breaks being another major source of funding for successful filmmakers. Most countries in the world (or counties, cities) offer this kind of funding to attract film production.

These tax breaks (or subsidies) are obviously not available to filmmakers just starting out. Nor is that other, sneaky form of commercial funding - payment for product placement. This causes us to see those toxic twins Macdonalds and CocaCola consumed prominently in almost every US film - another form of colonisation that might be avoided with other sources of funds.

On a separate note, I also saw Relatos Salvajes a few weeks ago and laughed through most of it (when I wasn't closing my eyes to avoid the violence). It is a great film and says much that I can relate to about Argentine culture.

And the 3rd Semana del Cine Documental Argentino is closing tonight at the Gaumont. I would have liked to go to many of those, but did get to see El Mercado (about the Abasto building over time, and its relation to the Abasto neighbourhood) which was excellent. Do go if you get a chance to see it somewhere else.

 

[Ries]

Another New Zealand film commission beneficiary was Bill Condon, who made his first film there, Strange Behavior, before going on to make Gods and Monsters, Kinsey, and Dreamgirls, among others.

But the whole idea of arts grants is to take a risk.
And lots of times that risk doesnt pan out.
But sometimes it does.

Which, really, is the same principle Hollywood operates under- throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, and see what sticks.

 

[Johnny]

I don't know the ends and outs of this, but after just returning to BsAs after two years there are clearly less Hollywood films being shown. Good and bad with that I suppose, but there are many decent movies not being shown here as a result, and also what Hollywood movies are being shown are the big money makers. The theatres have to recoup their losses somehow. Not a "happy ending".

 

[ElQueso]

EVERY movie is a potential wasteful disaster- its pretty impossible to predict in advance which films will be good or bad.

But your basic question is addressed to every arts funding agency around the world-
and the answer is- all arts funding decisions are arbitrary.
All taste is subjective- so any given jury will decide on some art projects, be they films, or public sculptures, or concerts, that I, personally, dont like.
And they will also pick some I do like.

I dont know the exact procedures at INCAA.
I have worked with similar agencies in the USA quite a bit, both as an applicant, and as a juror.
I can tell you that somebody is always complaining about conspiracy theories, but they seldom exist.

Here in Argentina, its common for an older, white male, to run things. Especially since academic salaries are so low, professors tend to seize what they can, which is a small amount of power, as a consolation. So its quite possible that there are a couple of long term film people here who do indeed fund friends- but everybody the fund is still a filmmaker- the crews, the cinematographers, the sound guys, the gaffers- they all get paid to work on these films, that money trickles down.
Nobody ever gets rich from the subsidy on an indie film.

So- is there favoritism- sure, some, most likely.
Is there massive corruption, greed, and private plane rides to Miami? not likely.

Personally, I think its a good thing.
NO, every film will not be good.
But far more money is skimmed in most other parts of the economy.

If you read their website, the vast majority of their subsidies are peanuts- http://ant.incaa.gob...llano/index.php
the recepients may not be making films that the writer of your link likes- but they are hardly all buying gold chains.
I think she just has political disagreements with the choices- she is, after all, a self declared "freedom fighter".

I have been involved in the arts for 40 years.
I have heard similar gripes about who gets awards, prizes, grants, subsidies, and similar government money every single one of those 40 years.
The arts economy, including film here, is tiny, highly competitive, and full of backbiting.

Perhaps you missed the part about:

"Forcing cinemas to meet quotas for local offerings, and slapping duties on foreign works, are just some of the mechanisms that the state uses to promote Argentinean movies."

So, what you have, as I was mentioning, is not only a governmental organization that helps to "promote" films via subsidies, but also an organization that is helping Argentina (rather, her government), to decide what movies will even be played here.

My point was that even in cinema, Argentina has decided to push Producto Argentina, often to the detriment of the consumer. Part of it is INCAA giving subsidies to whom they choose (and gee, I'm sure they're very fair-handed as to who gets the money), but they have affected the choices of what shows here by limiting external movies as well.

While the movie-making might be part of a tiny, highly competitive, backbiting industry, leave it to Argentina to choose for its people what will actually make it to the screen, including movies that Argentina has decided will get subsidies and not be worth a crap.

That's no way to compete against Hollywood.

 

[jp]

Supporting the local cinema industry indirectly supports audio-visual production and commercial advertising. It helps develop and maintain talent, and supports the infrastructure required to function as a international hub for cinematic and commercial production. Argentina excels in creative industries. Supporting local cinema is strategically valuable.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Perhaps you missed the part about:

"Forcing cinemas to meet quotas for local offerings, and slapping duties on foreign works, are just some of the mechanisms that the state uses to promote Argentinean movies."

So, what you have, as I was mentioning, is not only a governmental organization that helps to "promote" films via subsidies, but also an organization that is helping Argentina (rather, her government), to decide what movies will even be played here.

My point was that even in cinema, Argentina has decided to push Producto Argentina, often to the detriment of the consumer. Part of it is INCAA giving subsidies to whom they choose (and gee, I'm sure they're very fair-handed as to who gets the money), but they have affected the choices of what shows here by limiting external movies as well.

While the movie-making might be part of a tiny, highly competitive, backbiting industry, leave it to Argentina to choose for its people what will actually make it to the screen, including movies that Argentina has decided will get subsidies and not be worth a crap.

That's no way to compete against Hollywood.

What "external" movies are limited here?

You can pretty much see what you want, unless a local release supported by the numbers in other countries. Only internal movies stand or fall by state funding, but to be fair I don't think we are being subjected to endless reems of state propaganda? Not in the movies I have watched.

I think you're inventing a problem here? Can you give us a real example of a foreign movie that the govt or it's agencies banned you from seeing here?

In Europe my experience is that state funding for movies is generally accepted as a good thing, I think it's a great way to spend government money. I defenitely support the govt having a role to play as a supporter of local arts via funding so long as the money is not spent on propaganda or pro govt messages. I don't see that in the INCAA supported movies I have watched, nor on their tv channel. Not particularly.

TVP yes, but that's another story.