Protest Against Milei’s Move to Scrap Film Institute, INCAA

[Reply Guy]

Every $1 increase in the demand for arts and culture generates $1.69 in total output;

The multiplier effect of putting $1 in an impoverished persons hands is 2.5x I rather give that dollar to a poor person than Adrian Suar plus the multiplier effect is greater.

 

[SinPulgas]

No brainer. Ask yourself: why in the depression 1930s did the film industries of the US, Germany etc. produce so many fluffy romantic comedies? Because audiences, as cash-strapped as they were, wanted to be entertained and their minds taken off the unhappiness of the day. Ever see “Sullivan’s Travels”? (Paramount, 1941).

Which Argentine films are cash-strapped Argentinos flocking to in large numbers these days? In the last 10, 20 years? Which of those films are taking their minds off of the unhappiness of the day? Facts and figures?

Seems on the surface to be an extremely bad argument. Which calls into question the entire post. The only statistics you post are from an arts-friendly (and so possibly biased) organization in the United States, which has nothing to do with Argentina and how things work here.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But you're very far from making a convincing argument.

And yes, I've seen Sullivan's Travels.

 

[SinPulgas]

The profit from film production is not the point. It’s just icing.

Tell that to the people in Hollywood.

 

[toast]

What is the audience for INCAA supported films? The 15 people that attend Cine Gaumont paying 500 pesos to enter? One could argue that any government money has a multiplier effect. Why does the US defense budget keep growing? Because congressmen want the employment, wages, and taxes that defense contractors bring to their districts, and the significant multiplier that the suppliers, and all the services entailed, provide. Not to neglect the multiplier effect of budgeting for prisons, or the race to the bottom in the US of building sports stadiums with most of the tab picked up by the taxpayer. I, for one, do not care for futbol para todos. Subsidies, which politicians are eager to announce, are tough to remove, particularly fuel subsidies.
It seems to me in 2024 far more are entranced with content on their phones, and are not very interested in theatrical cine releases.

 

[malandro]

Which Argentine films are cash-strapped Argentinos flocking to in large numbers these days? In the last 10, 20 years? Which of those films are taking their minds off of the unhappiness of the day? Facts and figures?

Seems on the surface to be an extremely bad argument. Which calls into question the entire post. The only statistics you post are from an arts-friendly (and so possibly biased) organization in the United States, which has nothing to do with Argentina and how things work here.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But you're very far from making a convincing argument.

And yes, I've seen Sullivan's Travels.

 

[malandro]

Tell that to the people in Hollywood.

I'd be speaking to myself, after 50 or so years in the business.
You're right. There's no hard psychological data that people have had their minds take off of unhappiness by watching a movie. But it does seem intuitive. But hard data that seeing "Barbie" makes you happy? Would be pretty anecdotal yes? I mean, I wasn't particular taken but my daughter loved it. Asking for facts and figures is a bit reductionist isn't it? But it's made 1.5 billion USD. Let's just say that the fact of the survival of the industry over the past 150 years is a pretty good indication that in hard times and not so hard times lots of people everywhere like seeing movies.
Your argument about the multiplier effect is specious. Of course I'm citing research from an "art-friendly" organization. Art-friendly organizations by definition would be the people doing research into art habits. It does not follow that an organization doing research on the area in which it exists is de facto prejudiced. You can find precisely the same data in a number of related fields such as urban planning and design.
Equally specious is the argument that somehow things work differently here in Argentina. Argentina is a modern primarily capitalist economy which functions more or less like similar economies around the world. There is no exceptionalism. There are local conditions of course. Corruption. Incompetence. Other than that, no difference.
I'm not making an argument one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out the facts of economic and cultural life. Y'all are making the arguments.
Preston Sturges was not a philosopher. His point in the film, as expressed by the would-be 'auteur' Sullivan, is that sometimes as an artist you make "Ants in Your Pants" and not "War and Peace" because sometimes hard-pressed people in difficult times just want to get out of their lives and see a show.

 

[malandro]

What is the audience for INCAA supported films? The 15 people that attend Cine Gaumont paying 500 pesos to enter? One could argue that any government money has a multiplier effect. Why does the US defense budget keep growing? Because congressmen want the employment, wages, and taxes that defense contractors bring to their districts, and the significant multiplier that the suppliers, and all the services entailed, provide. Not to neglect the multiplier effect of budgeting for prisons, or the race to the bottom in the US of building sports stadiums with most of the tab picked up by the taxpayer. I, for one, do not care for futbol para todos. Subsidies, which politicians are eager to announce, are tough to remove, particularly fuel subsidies.
It seems to me in 2024 far more are entranced with content on their phones, and are not very interested in theatrical cine releases.

You misunderstand how "multiplier effect" is used in economics. It has nothing to do with what you describe. "The multiplier effect is an economic term, referring to the proportional amount of increase, or decrease, in final income that results from an injection, or withdrawal, of capital. In effect, Multipliers effects measure the impact that a change in economic activity—like investment or spending—will have on the total economic output of something. This amplified effect is known as the multiplier."

 

[lunar]

What is the audience for INCAA supported films? The 15 people that attend Cine Gaumont paying 500 pesos to enter?

I think 'Relatos Salvajes' was funded by INCAA (at least partially) and was selected to compete for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. How is that for an audience?

 

[SinPulgas]

I'd be speaking to myself, after 50 or so years in the business.

That doesn't mean that your argument is logical.

You're right. There's no hard psychological data that people have had their minds take off of unhappiness by watching a movie. But it does seem intuitive. But hard data that seeing "Barbie" makes you happy? Would be pretty anecdotal yes? I mean, I wasn't particular taken but my daughter loved it.

I'll ask again. Which Argentine films are cash-strapped Argentinos flocking to in large numbers these days? In the last 10, 20 years? Which of those films are taking their minds off of the unhappiness of the day?

Asking for facts and figures is a bit reductionist isn't it?

No, I'm sorry. When you're trying to make the case you're making, it's not reductionist at all.

But it's made 1.5 billion USD. Let's just say that the fact of the survival of the industry over the past 150 years is a pretty good indication that in hard times and not so hard times lots of people everywhere like seeing movies.

First, you're talking about a hollywood movie, not an Argentine movie. Second, I think we all know that most people like seeing movies. So what?

Your argument about the multiplier effect is specious. Of course I'm citing research from an "art-friendly" organization. Art-friendly organizations by definition would be the people doing research into art habits. It does not follow that an organization doing research on the area in which it exists is de facto prejudiced. You can find precisely the same data in a number of related fields such as urban planning and design.

I didn't say it was de facto prejudiced. I said it's possibly biased, and it's the only data you provide.

Equally specious is the argument that somehow things work differently here in Argentina. Argentina is a modern primarily capitalist economy which functions more or less like similar economies around the world. There is no exceptionalism. There are local conditions of course. Corruption. Incompetence. Other than that, no difference.

Now that's just hilarious.

I'm not making an argument one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out the facts of economic and cultural life.

I'm not sure that you've pointed out any facts for certain, other than people like movies.

Y'all are making the arguments.
Preston Sturges was not a philosopher. His point in the film, as expressed by the would-be 'auteur' Sullivan, is that sometimes as an artist you make "Ants in Your Pants" and not "War and Peace" because sometimes hard-pressed people in difficult times just want to get out of their lives and see a show.

I didn't say anything about Preston Sturges. I only said that I saw the film. Did Preston Sturges say somewhere that this was his point in the film? Or is that your interpretation? Because I didn't particularly see it that way.

Anyway, if you want to write another long rebuttal, go ahead, but I've said all I have to say on the subject. Each person will decide for himself or herself whether you've made a compelling argument or not.

I will agree with you that most people like movies.

 

[Reply Guy]

I wouldn't have expected INCAA to turn a profit because I wouldn't have thought that was its purpose. It provides seed money that returns to the economy in many ways, multiplied many times. For example the UK equivalent - 25% tax break for films made in Britain stimulated over US$30billion in receipts from British films in one recent year; the National Theatre in London receives direct subsidy each year of about GB£16 million which brings in hundreds of millions in tourist dollars from people who wouldn't visit Britain if the National Theatre was not there.

If you're making a Keynesian argument about the economy being stimulated by government spending then it would make more sense to use that money to provide direct cash transfers to the poor. This provides some of the highest stimulation to the economy because they are most likely to spend it all and spend it on domestic products.

The multiplier effect is the whole basis of Keynesian economics and why economists like Stiglitz advocates for government spending over austerity.

Same guy who has been advising the Ks for the past 2 decades.