4.14.2006
6.2. Current models of Colombian Film Production: Two Creatives to Watch
c) The modern breed of international co-productions that have links to more developed markets like Spain, the US, Mexico or France and where Colombian talent and money shares vary. This group represents a new breed of movies heavily influenced by Colombian themes. They use Colombian books and stories as source material, they are shot in Colombia with Colombian actors and production services, but their director and their strategic production decisions and main resources come from abroad. Between 1996 and 2005 three of such movies were produced, all of them heavy into the subject of drug trafficking. The “foreign” projects mixed top directing talent and resources:
· Barbet Schroeder directed Our lady of the assassins. Made in 2000 and based on Fernándo Vallejo’s novel, about teenage killers in Medellín, it got 390,000 viewers.
· In 2004 HBO produced Maria Full of Grace, about Colombian women trafficking heroin in their stomachs, it made 340,000 viewers.
· A completely multinational production team and co-production money from Mexico, Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia produced Rosario Tijeras, the top grossing film of 2005. About a girl assassin in the Medellín of the late 80’s when drug-trafficker Pablo Escobar ruled the city. It made 1,000,000 spectators.
These mixed “foreign” products are made for international distribution but they rely on success in the Colombian market. They bring in resources and knowledge to the local production services companies and workers. These three films got 24% of theatrical audience share for the period 1996-2005 and are stronger players in video and TV distribution than any other national production.
National films Box Office revenues are divided as follows: 60% for the Exhibitor (sometimes reaching 70%, when there is no distributor involved); 10% for the distributor, and 30% for the Producer (Zuleta et al. 2000, p. 67); [M. Pritchett, phone interview, September 16 2005]. Once a film is released on theaters, the main and usually only exhibition window for Colombian movies, it makes in average 170,000 spectators or US$508,000, with a large standard deviation. The producers might get US$152,000 in average, but production budgets are around US$700,000 [V. Gaviria, telephone interview, 14 September 2005].
Any sound film policy has to cover these production dimensions: what can be learned from the successful producers to pull new productions and talent? How to bring in more international co-productions to generate additional resources and learning for the local production sector? How to fuel the independent attempts with more financial support and stability and with better professionals and practices? How to integrate national film production into diversified windows marketing? Any support and expansion policy for a National film industry has to include measures to link national production with national and international sales of video and Television if it expects to achieve any kind of success, that is, to maximize the taxpayers’ investment in National films and generate a bigger and more stable production sector.
Colombian Cinema also obeys the De Vany & Walls (1999) model of High Risk-Small Sample. Out of 40 films with mostly national production made between 1996 and 2005 only 8 (20%) got more than 250,000 spectators at the box office. That is actually a good average, but success was concentrated in four filmmakers of which only two managed to produced more than two films. Concentrated success within an atomized production environment triggers individual careers, frustrates others, without triggering “production companies”, that is organizations able to feed from successes and sustain further production.
Follow to the Next Section
.
¶ 9:10 PM 
.
Within this production context, were struggle is the common denominator for a production to reach the 35mm master copy, two of the most positive examples of consistent, financially sustainable production emerging since the early 1990s are the series of films created by two audiovisual professionals: the films directed by Sergio Cabrera and the ones produced and written by Dario García.
“Dago” García has worked for CARACOL TV for years writing successful soaps. In 1996, he was convinced by Ricardo Coral, an aspiring film director trained in Bulgaria, to produce his script for a low budget film. Dago is one of the most powerful TV creatives in the country, and certainly one of the key pieces in CARACOL’s operation, bringing in prime time rating points and money with his soap-operas. After that first film Dago has managed to produce a film every year for the last 8 years. His approach is very much like the Gustavo Nieto Roa approach of the 1970’s and also resembles the 40’s attempts with radio stars. The films use recognized actors from prime-time soaps and the stories are basically popular comedies. The difference with the late 70’s attempts is the power of the producer within the audiovisual industry and his connection to the top national media conglomerate.
With the first films in 1997 and 1999 Dago managed to convince CARACOL to advance his whole year salary (somewhere around $200,000 dollars) to finance the projects. Additionally, he offered no salary to the actors that played the roles in the films (as he said, as an “off the record” joke, on a talk show during the 2000 Bogotá Film Festival). Instead of a full salary, he offered them more “episodes” in the TV soaps they were acting on, that is, more appearances of their characters. Many of those actors also work for CARACOL prime time soap-operas, which are written by Dago and more “episode appearances” meant more money since TV actors’ salaries are paid by episode. He is used to the fast production pace of TV and the principal photography of his films is also fast paced, a money saving element. His position in CARACOL gives him access to above and below the line talent and to financial resources and commercial networks. He has said that his approach to filmmaking is a Producer’s approach: prepare, rehearse, shoot fast, cheap, on budget.
His first three films, shot between 1996 and 1999 had an average national theatrical audience of 32,000 spectators. The four films he produced between 2001 and 2004 had an average national audience of 370,000 (Proimagenes, 2005d). This is the result of his own filmmaking learning curve and, perhaps more important, of CARACOL’s deeper involvement in his latest projects, that is, as a co-producer, and therefore, as a marketing window for each film. Intertextual marketing is guaranteed with the use of CARACOL TV stars and news and talk-show programs, but as a co-producer the TV channel also delivers TV and Radio advertising, plus several national TV showings after the theatrical release, which can generate up to US$300,000 of additional advertising revenue. The international commercial network of CARACOL will also generate marginal international TV sales. Marginal sales will come from some Video distribution for rental shops.
Dago García, in a sense, is as close to a Producer in the Hollywood sense as there is in Colombia. He has creative success, is well connected to the audiovisual industry (that is, TV), and is able to compose and control a filmmaking package, including the production money, in order to keep a yearly production flow going. His main weakness is the thematic locality of his films, making it difficult to move them in international markets. All this platform gives Dago, along with Gustavo Nieto Roa, the position as the most consistent Colombian film producer ever. He has said in several occasions that his dream is “one million spectators”. If he meant the Box Office, that goal is certainly not far away. But along with TV his movies have already reached that figure.
The singularity of Dago García’s approach to film production in Colombia makes evident one of the biggest deficiencies of Colombian Cinema: the absence of film Producers. Sergio Cabrera, the most successful Colombian film director, nationally and internationally, quotes Italian producer Carlo Ponti when referring to the need of good producers for good filmmaking, and their evident absence in Colombian films: Development of good producers requires a learning process that is difficult to create in a country without a relevant cinema. Usually, the directors have to get involved in production, a complex task that harms the creativity of the project. A good producer provides the preparation and the vision of the project, a long-term vision beyond making the film. The producer must be able to enrich the project in a creative way along with the director, guiding casting, screenplay, and shooting decisions; restricting creative decisions according to budget and shooting schedules; protecting the film from the dangers of lack of resources and time; the producer provides a creative and proper context for a project to flow, the necessary resources, the salaries of the crew, the quality of the talent, the completion of the project, the plan for distribution, the international contacts. “As a Director, once I agree with the producer on the project we want to make, I'm always interested in his-her opinion about writing or shooting but in the end I have to take the final creative decision. But in terms of budget and finance and schedules it will be the producer’s decision. That's the ideal relationship. The Producer is the Director’s couple. The Director is the Mother of the film. The Producer is the Father” [S. Cabrera, phone interview, September 21, 2005]. In this sense Colombian Cinema, as is the case for many national Cinemas, is an orphan.
Blindly, in Colombia the Box Office remains the filmmakers focus for investment recoupment. But today the movie game is played at home; movies are seen in the living room on DVD and Home Theaters, on Pay and Open TV. The lack of recognition of the new rules of the game is another of the strategic mistakes of Colombian film policy, 30 years after the invention of the VCR. According to this logic, Colombian cinema today is divided into three realms of production according to their performance at the Box Office (see also table 6.2. below):
a) A minority of two (2) successful and consistent producers/directors: Sergio Cabrera and Dago García. Part of their original success is linked to a co-production deal with a media company (CARACOL) and their latest projects have found financial resources through co-production agreements (with CARACOL in the case of Dago García and with Spanish companies in the case of Sergio Cabrera). The credibility gained with their previous hits has been key to keep the production flow going. Between 1996 and mid 2005 Cabrera directed 3 films and Dago produced 6. Dago’s preferred subject is the popular comedy based on ordinary urban stories in a context of sustained class differences. Cabrera also uses comedy as a driver but he is more focused on themes of direct class struggle in a Civil War space. Their average audience was 340,000 spectators and the Colombian films theatrical audience share of these two filmmakers for those ten years was 42%.
b) A majority of independent filmmakers of diverse generations, some new to the trade others with a long background of film attempts. This group takes longer to produce each film going through several “grants” rounds, in an endless effort, which usually ends up in lower quality levels and low audiences. There is a degree of co-production resources in these films but the strategic decisions and production roles are basically Colombian. Out of 31 films made between 1996 and 2005 the average national audience was 80,000 spectators and the audience share of these independent films for the same period was 34%. The key drivers of this group are Victor Gaviria, twice competing for the Palm d’Or at Cannes (with Rodrigo D in 1990 and with The Roses Seller in 1998); Antonio Dorado, a university professor of film and communication who made “The King,” about the rise of drug trafficking in Cali); Felipe Aljure, a key player in the Colombian TV industry on the verge of releasing his second film (Colombian Dream); New York based Harold Trompetero (who was trained in advertising and TV series); young advertising director from Cali, Jorge Navas; journalist-filmmaker Ernesto McCausland (micro-budget features champion and creator of a consistent Caribbean genre); and TV and Theater veteran Jorge Ali Triana. Almost all these independents are focused on thinking and showing different perspectives of the conflicts and realities produced by 50 years of Civil War: lack of state authority, internal and external displacement and the social permeation of drug trafficking.
Within this production context, were struggle is the common denominator for a production to reach the 35mm master copy, two of the most positive examples of consistent, financially sustainable production emerging since the early 1990s are the series of films created by two audiovisual professionals: the films directed by Sergio Cabrera and the ones produced and written by Dario García.
“Dago” García has worked for CARACOL TV for years writing successful soaps. In 1996, he was convinced by Ricardo Coral, an aspiring film director trained in Bulgaria, to produce his script for a low budget film. Dago is one of the most powerful TV creatives in the country, and certainly one of the key pieces in CARACOL’s operation, bringing in prime time rating points and money with his soap-operas. After that first film Dago has managed to produce a film every year for the last 8 years. His approach is very much like the Gustavo Nieto Roa approach of the 1970’s and also resembles the 40’s attempts with radio stars. The films use recognized actors from prime-time soaps and the stories are basically popular comedies. The difference with the late 70’s attempts is the power of the producer within the audiovisual industry and his connection to the top national media conglomerate.
With the first films in 1997 and 1999 Dago managed to convince CARACOL to advance his whole year salary (somewhere around $200,000 dollars) to finance the projects. Additionally, he offered no salary to the actors that played the roles in the films (as he said, as an “off the record” joke, on a talk show during the 2000 Bogotá Film Festival). Instead of a full salary, he offered them more “episodes” in the TV soaps they were acting on, that is, more appearances of their characters. Many of those actors also work for CARACOL prime time soap-operas, which are written by Dago and more “episode appearances” meant more money since TV actors’ salaries are paid by episode. He is used to the fast production pace of TV and the principal photography of his films is also fast paced, a money saving element. His position in CARACOL gives him access to above and below the line talent and to financial resources and commercial networks. He has said that his approach to filmmaking is a Producer’s approach: prepare, rehearse, shoot fast, cheap, on budget.
His first three films, shot between 1996 and 1999 had an average national theatrical audience of 32,000 spectators. The four films he produced between 2001 and 2004 had an average national audience of 370,000 (Proimagenes, 2005d). This is the result of his own filmmaking learning curve and, perhaps more important, of CARACOL’s deeper involvement in his latest projects, that is, as a co-producer, and therefore, as a marketing window for each film. Intertextual marketing is guaranteed with the use of CARACOL TV stars and news and talk-show programs, but as a co-producer the TV channel also delivers TV and Radio advertising, plus several national TV showings after the theatrical release, which can generate up to US$300,000 of additional advertising revenue. The international commercial network of CARACOL will also generate marginal international TV sales. Marginal sales will come from some Video distribution for rental shops.
Dago García, in a sense, is as close to a Producer in the Hollywood sense as there is in Colombia. He has creative success, is well connected to the audiovisual industry (that is, TV), and is able to compose and control a filmmaking package, including the production money, in order to keep a yearly production flow going. His main weakness is the thematic locality of his films, making it difficult to move them in international markets. All this platform gives Dago, along with Gustavo Nieto Roa, the position as the most consistent Colombian film producer ever. He has said in several occasions that his dream is “one million spectators”. If he meant the Box Office, that goal is certainly not far away. But along with TV his movies have already reached that figure.
The singularity of Dago García’s approach to film production in Colombia makes evident one of the biggest deficiencies of Colombian Cinema: the absence of film Producers. Sergio Cabrera, the most successful Colombian film director, nationally and internationally, quotes Italian producer Carlo Ponti when referring to the need of good producers for good filmmaking, and their evident absence in Colombian films: Development of good producers requires a learning process that is difficult to create in a country without a relevant cinema. Usually, the directors have to get involved in production, a complex task that harms the creativity of the project. A good producer provides the preparation and the vision of the project, a long-term vision beyond making the film. The producer must be able to enrich the project in a creative way along with the director, guiding casting, screenplay, and shooting decisions; restricting creative decisions according to budget and shooting schedules; protecting the film from the dangers of lack of resources and time; the producer provides a creative and proper context for a project to flow, the necessary resources, the salaries of the crew, the quality of the talent, the completion of the project, the plan for distribution, the international contacts. “As a Director, once I agree with the producer on the project we want to make, I'm always interested in his-her opinion about writing or shooting but in the end I have to take the final creative decision. But in terms of budget and finance and schedules it will be the producer’s decision. That's the ideal relationship. The Producer is the Director’s couple. The Director is the Mother of the film. The Producer is the Father” [S. Cabrera, phone interview, September 21, 2005]. In this sense Colombian Cinema, as is the case for many national Cinemas, is an orphan.
Blindly, in Colombia the Box Office remains the filmmakers focus for investment recoupment. But today the movie game is played at home; movies are seen in the living room on DVD and Home Theaters, on Pay and Open TV. The lack of recognition of the new rules of the game is another of the strategic mistakes of Colombian film policy, 30 years after the invention of the VCR. According to this logic, Colombian cinema today is divided into three realms of production according to their performance at the Box Office (see also table 6.2. below):
a) A minority of two (2) successful and consistent producers/directors: Sergio Cabrera and Dago García. Part of their original success is linked to a co-production deal with a media company (CARACOL) and their latest projects have found financial resources through co-production agreements (with CARACOL in the case of Dago García and with Spanish companies in the case of Sergio Cabrera). The credibility gained with their previous hits has been key to keep the production flow going. Between 1996 and mid 2005 Cabrera directed 3 films and Dago produced 6. Dago’s preferred subject is the popular comedy based on ordinary urban stories in a context of sustained class differences. Cabrera also uses comedy as a driver but he is more focused on themes of direct class struggle in a Civil War space. Their average audience was 340,000 spectators and the Colombian films theatrical audience share of these two filmmakers for those ten years was 42%.
b) A majority of independent filmmakers of diverse generations, some new to the trade others with a long background of film attempts. This group takes longer to produce each film going through several “grants” rounds, in an endless effort, which usually ends up in lower quality levels and low audiences. There is a degree of co-production resources in these films but the strategic decisions and production roles are basically Colombian. Out of 31 films made between 1996 and 2005 the average national audience was 80,000 spectators and the audience share of these independent films for the same period was 34%. The key drivers of this group are Victor Gaviria, twice competing for the Palm d’Or at Cannes (with Rodrigo D in 1990 and with The Roses Seller in 1998); Antonio Dorado, a university professor of film and communication who made “The King,” about the rise of drug trafficking in Cali); Felipe Aljure, a key player in the Colombian TV industry on the verge of releasing his second film (Colombian Dream); New York based Harold Trompetero (who was trained in advertising and TV series); young advertising director from Cali, Jorge Navas; journalist-filmmaker Ernesto McCausland (micro-budget features champion and creator of a consistent Caribbean genre); and TV and Theater veteran Jorge Ali Triana. Almost all these independents are focused on thinking and showing different perspectives of the conflicts and realities produced by 50 years of Civil War: lack of state authority, internal and external displacement and the social permeation of drug trafficking.
c) The modern breed of international co-productions that have links to more developed markets like Spain, the US, Mexico or France and where Colombian talent and money shares vary. This group represents a new breed of movies heavily influenced by Colombian themes. They use Colombian books and stories as source material, they are shot in Colombia with Colombian actors and production services, but their director and their strategic production decisions and main resources come from abroad. Between 1996 and 2005 three of such movies were produced, all of them heavy into the subject of drug trafficking. The “foreign” projects mixed top directing talent and resources:
· Barbet Schroeder directed Our lady of the assassins. Made in 2000 and based on Fernándo Vallejo’s novel, about teenage killers in Medellín, it got 390,000 viewers.
· In 2004 HBO produced Maria Full of Grace, about Colombian women trafficking heroin in their stomachs, it made 340,000 viewers.
· A completely multinational production team and co-production money from Mexico, Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia produced Rosario Tijeras, the top grossing film of 2005. About a girl assassin in the Medellín of the late 80’s when drug-trafficker Pablo Escobar ruled the city. It made 1,000,000 spectators.
These mixed “foreign” products are made for international distribution but they rely on success in the Colombian market. They bring in resources and knowledge to the local production services companies and workers. These three films got 24% of theatrical audience share for the period 1996-2005 and are stronger players in video and TV distribution than any other national production.
National films Box Office revenues are divided as follows: 60% for the Exhibitor (sometimes reaching 70%, when there is no distributor involved); 10% for the distributor, and 30% for the Producer (Zuleta et al. 2000, p. 67); [M. Pritchett, phone interview, September 16 2005]. Once a film is released on theaters, the main and usually only exhibition window for Colombian movies, it makes in average 170,000 spectators or US$508,000, with a large standard deviation. The producers might get US$152,000 in average, but production budgets are around US$700,000 [V. Gaviria, telephone interview, 14 September 2005].
Any sound film policy has to cover these production dimensions: what can be learned from the successful producers to pull new productions and talent? How to bring in more international co-productions to generate additional resources and learning for the local production sector? How to fuel the independent attempts with more financial support and stability and with better professionals and practices? How to integrate national film production into diversified windows marketing? Any support and expansion policy for a National film industry has to include measures to link national production with national and international sales of video and Television if it expects to achieve any kind of success, that is, to maximize the taxpayers’ investment in National films and generate a bigger and more stable production sector.
Colombian Cinema also obeys the De Vany & Walls (1999) model of High Risk-Small Sample. Out of 40 films with mostly national production made between 1996 and 2005 only 8 (20%) got more than 250,000 spectators at the box office. That is actually a good average, but success was concentrated in four filmmakers of which only two managed to produced more than two films. Concentrated success within an atomized production environment triggers individual careers, frustrates others, without triggering “production companies”, that is organizations able to feed from successes and sustain further production.
Follow to the Next Section
.
