4.14.2006
6.3. The emergence of the current Colombian Film Support System
.
Law 397-1997 created a new entity, the Mixed Fund for Film Promotion: Proimagenes en Movimiento set up by film director Felipe Aljure from the Cinema Direction Office of the Government. It works as a channel of communication between interested parties, including the government. Its mandate is to unite efforts of the public and private sector to encourage and facilitate film production and to protect the national film patrimony. It is in charge of the management of the funds assigned by the state according to yearly budgets and taxes created on film activities to increase public spending in the area. One of its most important tasks was the shaping of a new film Law that was accepted by the senate in 2003 (Mejía, 2003; Proimagenes, 2005, p. 60).
Proimagenes is a mixed fund/entity with public and private participation, where private players can learn about the ideas and problems of the film sector from the state’s perspective and the state can learn about the concerns of the private players [F. García de la Torre, phone interview, September 22 2005]. Its board is composed by government and private actors. It is formed by representatives of the Ministries of Culture, Education and Communication, the National University (the provider of the most important filmmakers training program), Colciencias (the Colombian institute for research and development), and the Customs and Tax Direction (DIAN); and the private sector is represented by KODAK; by Cine Colombia – the dominant exhibitor with 35% of screens and 55% Box Office market share (OEI, 2005); [Pritchet, 2005] who also operates as distributor specially for Warner and Fox; by the Colombian Film Patrimony Foundation; and by the Colombian Association of Distributors of Cinematographic Movies (an Orwellian name since the association includes only the Hollywood majors, with no Colombian distributors represented by it). Additionally, both Producers and Directors count each with a representative (Ministerio de Cultura, 2004, p. 10). If the civil servants participating of this board were able to be completely committed to the public interest, the composition of Proimagenes could potentially fulfill a more democratic structure and a more transparent decision making process.
The new 2003 Film Law clarified the norms for selective subsidies on projects, tax incentives for investors in film productions, rules to set screen quotas, conditions for distribution and exhibition incentives, and the intention to create rules for capitalization of film projects in the Colombian stock exchange. The law also created another organism: a Film Board Council linked to the ministry of Culture, the National Council of Cinema Arts and Culture, also conformed by representatives of the different sectors of the industry: Distributors, Exhibitors, Producers, Government (Minister of Culture and Head of Cinematography), a representative from other Colombian regions, and two external representatives with film industry experience. Again, there is no representation for the audience, nor critics neither audience members, but at the council the balance between oligopolic concerns, government and independent and civil interests is more balanced than at its executive arm board. The board defines policies and selects the projects that receive support for development, production, distribution or professional formation through assigned selection sub-committees. (Ministerio de Cultura, 2004, p. 9). After the council was created Proimagenes became its executive arm.
The mixed composition of the board gives the selection process a more democratic structure and a more transparent performance in relation to funds management and policymaking (especially when compared to the FOCINE times), but the absence of critics and audience members from the council and from Proimagenes board is a major exclusion that takes away from the plural objective of the process. The major presence on the board of oligopolic interests (the Majors, the Exhibitor and the Supplier: Hollywood, Cine Colombia, Kodak), and, unfortunately, the government’s traditional track record in failing to protect the public interest mandate in favor of private interests means that, although the boards are more representative now, professional organizations and interest groups have to provide additional and stronger lobbying, supervision and influence in policy design and policy implementation.
The creation of Proimagenes meant that new public financing through “selective subsidies” or “production aid” would be available as of 1998. Between 1998 and 2002 production was reanimated and 22 films were released. But the production process in general is still precarious. Filmmakers usually go through several rounds of grants and funds competitions to finance every stage of the process. The Colombian funds of Proimagenes, the Ibermedia funds from Spain/Latin-America, the Hubert Bals Fund from the Netherlands among others, are always approached with crossed fingers to get additional financing. Co-production with companies from other countries (that also apply to their own national funds) is part of the financial structure of some projects but it requires an established international network, which not all filmmakers have. When the films are finished, and the first 35mm copy is ready, the project might face lack of marketing resources, from money to make copies – US$2,000 each – to a relevant advertising budget for the National premiere and distribution.
When Colombian films are finished they usually reach the distribution stage without such support, making their theatrical run even more difficult [C. Triana, phone interview, 13 September 2005]. When the first window is over, then it is usually over for the films. Commercialization abroad is difficult unless the production team has had recognition in other territories in the past or through strong co-production links that allow the movie to travel to the co-producers markets. Video distribution is minimal and pay or open TV sales are rare. Such difficulties to seize the opportunities in the other windows make Colombian films to be extremely vulnerable given their reliance on the National theatrical window. As described earlier, today, 83% of Hollywood film revenues come from other windows than theaters: 44% come from Video/DVD sales; 39% come from Pay and Open TV (Epstein, 2005).
Follow to the Next Section
.
¶ 9:06 PM Law 397-1997 created a new entity, the Mixed Fund for Film Promotion: Proimagenes en Movimiento set up by film director Felipe Aljure from the Cinema Direction Office of the Government. It works as a channel of communication between interested parties, including the government. Its mandate is to unite efforts of the public and private sector to encourage and facilitate film production and to protect the national film patrimony. It is in charge of the management of the funds assigned by the state according to yearly budgets and taxes created on film activities to increase public spending in the area. One of its most important tasks was the shaping of a new film Law that was accepted by the senate in 2003 (Mejía, 2003; Proimagenes, 2005, p. 60).
Proimagenes is a mixed fund/entity with public and private participation, where private players can learn about the ideas and problems of the film sector from the state’s perspective and the state can learn about the concerns of the private players [F. García de la Torre, phone interview, September 22 2005]. Its board is composed by government and private actors. It is formed by representatives of the Ministries of Culture, Education and Communication, the National University (the provider of the most important filmmakers training program), Colciencias (the Colombian institute for research and development), and the Customs and Tax Direction (DIAN); and the private sector is represented by KODAK; by Cine Colombia – the dominant exhibitor with 35% of screens and 55% Box Office market share (OEI, 2005); [Pritchet, 2005] who also operates as distributor specially for Warner and Fox; by the Colombian Film Patrimony Foundation; and by the Colombian Association of Distributors of Cinematographic Movies (an Orwellian name since the association includes only the Hollywood majors, with no Colombian distributors represented by it). Additionally, both Producers and Directors count each with a representative (Ministerio de Cultura, 2004, p. 10). If the civil servants participating of this board were able to be completely committed to the public interest, the composition of Proimagenes could potentially fulfill a more democratic structure and a more transparent decision making process.
The new 2003 Film Law clarified the norms for selective subsidies on projects, tax incentives for investors in film productions, rules to set screen quotas, conditions for distribution and exhibition incentives, and the intention to create rules for capitalization of film projects in the Colombian stock exchange. The law also created another organism: a Film Board Council linked to the ministry of Culture, the National Council of Cinema Arts and Culture, also conformed by representatives of the different sectors of the industry: Distributors, Exhibitors, Producers, Government (Minister of Culture and Head of Cinematography), a representative from other Colombian regions, and two external representatives with film industry experience. Again, there is no representation for the audience, nor critics neither audience members, but at the council the balance between oligopolic concerns, government and independent and civil interests is more balanced than at its executive arm board. The board defines policies and selects the projects that receive support for development, production, distribution or professional formation through assigned selection sub-committees. (Ministerio de Cultura, 2004, p. 9). After the council was created Proimagenes became its executive arm.
The mixed composition of the board gives the selection process a more democratic structure and a more transparent performance in relation to funds management and policymaking (especially when compared to the FOCINE times), but the absence of critics and audience members from the council and from Proimagenes board is a major exclusion that takes away from the plural objective of the process. The major presence on the board of oligopolic interests (the Majors, the Exhibitor and the Supplier: Hollywood, Cine Colombia, Kodak), and, unfortunately, the government’s traditional track record in failing to protect the public interest mandate in favor of private interests means that, although the boards are more representative now, professional organizations and interest groups have to provide additional and stronger lobbying, supervision and influence in policy design and policy implementation.
The creation of Proimagenes meant that new public financing through “selective subsidies” or “production aid” would be available as of 1998. Between 1998 and 2002 production was reanimated and 22 films were released. But the production process in general is still precarious. Filmmakers usually go through several rounds of grants and funds competitions to finance every stage of the process. The Colombian funds of Proimagenes, the Ibermedia funds from Spain/Latin-America, the Hubert Bals Fund from the Netherlands among others, are always approached with crossed fingers to get additional financing. Co-production with companies from other countries (that also apply to their own national funds) is part of the financial structure of some projects but it requires an established international network, which not all filmmakers have. When the films are finished, and the first 35mm copy is ready, the project might face lack of marketing resources, from money to make copies – US$2,000 each – to a relevant advertising budget for the National premiere and distribution.
When Colombian films are finished they usually reach the distribution stage without such support, making their theatrical run even more difficult [C. Triana, phone interview, 13 September 2005]. When the first window is over, then it is usually over for the films. Commercialization abroad is difficult unless the production team has had recognition in other territories in the past or through strong co-production links that allow the movie to travel to the co-producers markets. Video distribution is minimal and pay or open TV sales are rare. Such difficulties to seize the opportunities in the other windows make Colombian films to be extremely vulnerable given their reliance on the National theatrical window. As described earlier, today, 83% of Hollywood film revenues come from other windows than theaters: 44% come from Video/DVD sales; 39% come from Pay and Open TV (Epstein, 2005).
Follow to the Next Section
.
