.

The Colombian film industry and the necessary production sector to support it are struggling to exist, to emerge at last as an institution. Different perspectives can be found in Colombia about the possibilities of development of film professionals and audiences, and with them, of a national film industry able to make its products more international and sustainable. The following sections cover the key perspectives of Colombian professionals working today in the audiovisual industry. These points of view should work as an indicator of the type of future evolution the industry might have in Colombia, of the directions and tensions that different forces in the market are facing, and of the alignment of such forces in relation to the international trends of the sector and to the required conditions for a film market to exist.

All the information presented below is mainly based on telephone interviews in which the professionals expressed their opinion about the film industry in Colombia. Generally their answers are quoted directly and referenced with the last name of the agent and the year of the interview, as with normal references.



6.5.1. The market for Colombian films

The following opinions from the diverse sectors of the industry express preferences for different types of markets for Colombian film products.

a) Producers / Directors

Felipe Aljure sees Colombian Films as products for social representation, that is, products for the indigenous (or perhaps regional) markets of commercial and art films: “Societies want to represent themselves through their available technologies. More complex societies generate more complex representations with more complex technologies and Film is one of those technologies. Film is a medium of expression that owes too many stories and themes to the Colombian society. It's false to say that subjects like drugs and conflict are already covered. No subject has been completely squeezed out through Colombian films” [F. Aljure, phone interview, 20 September 2005].

Pedro Sosnitzky sees the functional division, that is, a market division, in the economic and cultural divide of the film product, and is pessimistic of the attempts to produce art films in general: “Cinema is an artistic expression and an industrial production at the same time. The function of film that has had a proven economic viability and profitability is that of Entertainment: a powerful industry, commercially developed and with profit in mind. Entertainment films also have cultural effects but those are not its objective, although it is intimately related to the transmission of values anyway. But, reflective cinema, cinema that tries to understand and analyze reality, a cinema that promotes knowledge and not so much entertainment, is basically in decay, as many other social values are” [P. Sosnitzky, phone interview, 27 September 2005].

Sergio Cabrera sees such functions connected to the European model which is recognized for creating products for the “Multinational Art Chronicles” market. He prefers the market for Art Chronicles, indigenous or multinational: “Latin-American cinema should be a more reflective cinema, a more intellectually interesting cinema, a cinema that besides entertaining generates reflection. Like European cinema does. We know the majority of Hollywood films, not all of them, are intentionally made not to motivate reflection, not to be polemic, not to be political or social, but just to be entertaining, and I don't think that's the path for LATAM cinema, it should be the contrary” [Cabrera, 2005].


b) Distributors / Exhibitors

At the big exhibition and distribution players’ side, Entertainment as the way to penetrate the “Multinational Commercial Fictions” market which is the biggest one, where the majority of consumers’ demand is concentrated.

Carlos Llano, head of distribution for Cine Colombia, expresses the idea as follows: “The basic function of Film is ENTERTAINMENT. It is an industry to make money, recoup the investment, and get a profit, I don't think it has such a social end” [C. Llano, telephone interview, 5 October 2005].

Fernán García, on behalf of the Majors, expresses it on a fundamentalist tone, to the point where he forgets that there are also other markets that can be exploited: “I participate of an entertainment model. Films, art, literature, are ENTERTAINMENT. For Human beings today, independently of how many options of distraction they have, the secret is entertainment. People want to have fun and they pay for that” [García de la Torre, 2005].

Maitland Pritchett from UIP Colombia sees as necessary to produce more commercial fictions, that is, more “action and family films with less sex and violence”. But he recognizes the drive and interest Colombian filmmakers have for expressing the problems of the country, that is, their affinity to produce Indigenous Art Chronicles: “They want to think about the problems of the country, because they want peace but the war won’t stop for some more time because it has gone for so many years, with a lot of corruption in the government, involved with pay-offs and the guerrillas and all that” [Pritchett, 2005].

Independent Distributor Federico Mejía, sees the thematic division in terms of marketing potential, and points at product diversification of a National Film Industry as part of its evolution or development into more films and themes covering every social space or market: “Traditionally, Colombian cinema shows Colombian idiosyncrasies using the language of TV, more than a film language. That’s a good formula for the Box Office. Realism, like Victor Gaviria’s films, is not the most representative at the Box Office, but it’s stronger in Festivals. Dago García’s model is more commercial. Gaviria’s films are more interesting as film language. National cinemas are about showing their own realities, but Colombian cinema has not been able to drift into new subjects, all those other stories available that have to be discovered” [F. Mejía, telephone interview, 29 September 2005].


c) Government

The Ministry of Culture and Proimágenes explain why Colombian filmmakers do not always pursue the entertainment-commercial market, but the indigenous art chronicles segment. At the same time they show that state support will start to be directed to other market segments too.

David Melo from the Ministry of Culture summarizes the vision of many Colombian filmmakers: “Colombian filmmakers have it very clear. It is not just ENTERTAINMENT. They’re committed to a creative expression of the events that are happening and of the experiences lived by people in the country. But it’s true that Colombian filmmakers are too much focused on auteur cinema. Projects have to become more accessible for the audience ” [D. Melo, telephone interview, 11 October 2005].

Claudia Triana from Proimágenes en Movimiento: “Projects want to touch the hard subjects of Colombia: a society permeated by drug trafficking, internal displacement, corruption, violence, the civil war we live in. They want to express those issues at least as a background. Because it's not easy to make a film, the producers know that the “only film” they might make in their lifetimes has to be a strong statement. But the Grants Jury of the Mixed Fund is beginning to support other types of subjects now” [Triana, 2005].

d) Summary:

Opinions from producers and government tend towards a resistance strategy as they see potential or emphasis in Colombian films for art or commercial films with strong indigenous representation. However they see potential in a differentiation strategy through the production of multinational art films. In spite of resent cases of collaboration like Maria Full of Grace and Rosario Tijeras, producers and government don’t really show intentions or ideas regarding such possibility.

Distributors and exhibitors point at the entertainment market of commercial fictions. They might be aware that a competition strategy is not possible, therefore, their recommendation is toward Indigenous commercial chronicles and fictions.

Colombian filmmakers have to diversify into new subjects (and markets), but this requires an evolution of the industry. If filmmakers had more chances to produce films, they would evolve from the corner of indigenous art chronicles market and get closer to the “regional” commercial fictions or commercial chronicles. This simple change, however, requires two basic conditions, which will be explored further below: more money for more productions and access to more markets, that is to more national and international windows of exhibition.


6.5.2. Colombian Audiences for Colombian Films

This section explores the views of Film Industry professionals regarding the challenges of marketing Colombian films to Colombian audiences through national windows.

a) Producers/Directors

According to Felipe Aljure “there's no difficulty to attract Colombian audiences to Colombian films. In the last 10-12 years the average Colombian film got 228,875 spectators while Hollywood films got 100,000. That’s 2.3 times more. But Hollywood brings 160-190 titles and there are only 2-3 Colombian films. The power of foreign-Hollywood movies is the volume of production and the difficulty for Colombian films to be sold internationally” [Aljure, 2005].

Sergio Cabrera points at continuity in production: “If audiences knew that every week there are Latin-American films they would prefer them, as they prefer their music, their TV, their newspapers, and their food” [Cabrera, 2005].

Colombian films do not only compete against more production volume from Hollywood – at 85% market share in 2005 and 62% of all 175 films released in 2003 [Llano, 2005], (Innovarum, 2004, p. 97) – but against Hollywood marketing. Advertising Director Pedro Sosnitsky sees marketing as a subtle form of consumer behavior regulation: “Consumers and audiences are formed. If we educate people to wear Lee, Nike or Gap, they will. That's the essence of the advertising-branding educational labor, to educate people, and that does not mean that they freely choose. Advertising development has always been oriented to this objective in the interests of those that have financed the development and received the benefits of such social orientation. People is permanently told to consume Hollywood films, and that’s what they do” [Sosnitsky, 2005].


b) Distributors/Exhibitors

The Majors’ representatives, Fernán García and Maitland Pritchett, are pragmatic and driven by a marketing approach: “To sell a film you need a good story, then capital, then a commercial infrastructure. The main audience of film today is the 12 – 34 year olds. Films have to be made for them, for young people” [García de la Torre, 2005]. “The audience is pulled through publicity, advertising, saturated theaters with lots of prints, good timing for the release, when there’s no thematic competition, saturation of holiday season screens, and tie-ins with media promotional partners”. [Pritchett, 2005].

Exhibitor Carlos Llano points at a mixed element of lack of active appropriation by national audiences of their own cinema, and active agency to go to see their own cinema: “people go to see the films only if they become an advertising event only when they have big advertising investments”. He also points that, given the marketing strength of Hollywood, the answer for a more constant and better national film industry lies beyond support for isolated productions. “There's a huge difference between Hollywood structure and other producers. Logistics, money, infrastructure. The chain for all of LATAM is set, they know where to make the copies, subtitles for all countries, ads, TV channels where they promote their products. Independent products lack of all this infrastructure” [Llano, 2005].

Distributor Federico Mejía sees a strategic role for the media in terms of audience formation through legitimate film opinion leaders: “It is a real need to have Colombian film opinion leaders that can push a film in the Country, before someone says it is a good film abroad. In Colombia, every film requires to have international recognition in Festivals, or as Maria Full of Grace, in the Oscars, so inside the country the media will finally say it is good, it will become a media event. Colombian media is unable to talk about films, they talk about them when there is celebrity or gossip involved. It's a problem of formation of opinion leaders, who can trigger key audiences by themselves, without having to link the films to news about their foreign recognition or to red carpet fashion. Additionally, Colombian media prefers the recognition that comes from the United States more than from Europe” [Mejía, 2005].

c) Government

Claudia Triana, from Proimágenes, and David Melo, from the Ministry of Culture also see problems in marketing spending and audience formation: “Audiences do not even hear about the films, releases are too poor and, as in the past, filmmakers never think about the importance of the Prints and Ads budget” [Triana, 2005]. “Audiences have to be in permanent contact with certain type of art to generate a consumption habit, but the permanent contact with Hollywood aesthetics pulls audiences away from National Cinemas” [Melo, 2005].

Claudia Bautista, filmmaker and advisor for public TV at the Ministry of culture shares this view: “There is a tendency to rate Colombian films with the Hollywood standards. They are completely different, both have good and bad examples, and there is no reason to use the same imaginary to compare them” [C. Bautista, telephone interview, 9 September, 2005].

d) Summary

The way audiences are pulled into consumption shows the reality of Colombian cinema. There is no capital to sustain more production nor national and international marketing campaigns or commercial infrastructures. Although some films might be successful in the internal market they fail to bring new money from abroad due to the lack of distribution potential. Even if the majors were interested in picking up movies and distribute them in other countries, Colombian films and their production standards are too far from the kind of product that a Hollywood Major would support with marketing strength.

The issues of “audience formation” and the inability of national media to create relevant news and analysis about the Colombian filmmaking experiences emerge clearly. On the other hand, the media play the Hollywood publicity roll to perfection, playing and re-playing the weekly publicity videos of the Top 5 Hollywood Box Office and the gossip stories about its celebrities. Colombian films have to go abroad and come back with an award to be attended by their own media.

Audience formation is definitely missing. Colombians don’t know about their own cinema, its history or its language, there is no interest in appropriate it or support it. The media is equally ignorant of Colombian Cinema and unable to create a news event out of key new films. The quality of some productions, the precarious conditions in which they are made, and many of the shorts that cinemagoers are obliged to see, do not help to form and attract the national audience.


6.5.3. National and International theatrical distribution

Defining a market strategy to seize the opportunities offered by different audiovisual windows and geographies requires the spotting those opportunities inside and outside the country. The following are the views of Colombian professionals regarding issues of national and international windows.


a) Producers/Directors

Director Victor Gaviria sees an underdeveloped exhibition market and understands the situation as a problem of social exclusion: “Film became a luxury. Too much people has left film as the option for collective out-of-home pleasure. Multiplex pricing made the film experience a luxury. To pay between 3 to 5 US dollars for a film is not possible for the majority of people below the mid income line. Films are not a priority, survival is their priority” [Gaviria, 2005]. The problem pointed by Gaviria is also geographical: 79% of screens are concentrated in the top 8 cities, 63% in the top 3. Only 66 screens (21% of the total) are left for 1000 towns, many of them with more than 100,000 inhabitants (Zuleta, 2000, p. 75).

Director Pedro Sosnitzky supports the view that market expansion has to include the internal market, with actions to reach more excluded audiences: “A problem of national film industries, and of Colombian cinema in particular, is that national movies are made thinking in reaching international audiences, amortization, and festivals, not in reaching the internal market, although the producers expect success at home. Distribution is not national. So national cinema goes outwards not inwards” [Sosnitzky, 2005].

On the video front, Director Felipe Aljure is pessimist in relation to the video window due to piracy, “I prefer to be pessimist and I give the Colombian video window a value of 0” [Aljure, 2005]. Sales of pirate DVDs – through small video rental stores, through colleagues in offices, or in traffic jams – generate losses of up to US$24 Million per year and a market share of 90% of all video sales (Camargo, 2004).

In 2003 independent Director Luis Ospina released the first Colombian Digital Video feature to be exhibited in a Colombian theater as part of the commercial offer. The documentary, about controversial writer Fernándo Vallejo shot on mini-DV was projected directly from a video beam and a DVD player. It is a product of top quality content that can be located in the Art Chronicles market, and public television. Ospina’s documentary would recoup its investment with the right sales strategy. From this experience, and from previous experimentation with video, it is clear for Ospina that “new technologies, low budgets for video production, and different modes of exhibition, even in traditional Cinemas, will open the doors to a new audiovisual landscape” [Ospina, 2005], (Ospina, 2003).

When thinking in theatrical window exports Director Sergio Cabrera proposes a differentiation strategy that gets mixed with political resistance: “There's a temptation in big media conglomerates to produce films based in the Hollywood scheme. I think those films don't have industrial nor commercial interest. Because by making them we would just become assemblers of Hollywood films. And that is not culturally interesting. Colombian cinema will exist only if it is independent and does not follow the models of industrial cinema. Industrial cinema will always be better produced by the North-Americans, always better made by Hollywood. What we have to do is WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO” [Cabrera, 2005].

Cabrera recognizes, from his resistance position, that “the Latin-American production market (as well as production from other regions) have been spotted by the “independent” distribution arms of the Majors. “Hollywood have discovered that there are interesting ideas and talent in Latin-America. Companies like Miramax have noticed that and started distributing those films, but always with a spirit of exploitation. Miramax is not a company interested in the CULTURE of these regions, but in making money and have the films made under the model they're interested in” [Cabrera, 2005].

But films are unpredictable products. La Estrategia del Caracol (The Strategy of the Snail) is a very local film, crowded with local references, and not precisely about the issues intimate art films cover. On the other hand, it does have common references for Latin-Americans. But in the end, it is a good movie, evaluated as such by both, audience and critics. Good films are the key to other markets and their trajectories can be followed. As Sergio Cabrera explains: “After The Strategy everything became easier cause it was a successful movie in many countries, and got many awards. From that moment it has facilitated the path, it gave me contacts with produces and distributors and film companies, and generally, the countries where I have shown my other films are the territories where The Strategy was shown” [Cabrera, 2005].


b) Distributors/Exhibitors

Distributors feel that the strategic points to achieve international distribution are the themes of the products, the realist-tragic tendency already mentioned, and required commercial infrastructure and knowledge of international markets.

Fernán García, the Majors representative, explains: “The problem is script and stories. We have good talent. Even the leftists like Cabrera, or Lisandro Duque, the old guard. All of them are very good. But they should take the bricks off their shoulders and become business people… with the types of movies produced in Colombia today I don’t see a future in the international markets. On the other hand, to set up commercial infrastructure is too expensive. It requires alliances with international companies. The Majors are more open now, they are going out looking for opportunities abroad. But producers have to generate an expansion of the internal Market, to middle cities, people is avid for films, especially young people” [García de la Torre, 2005].

One of the weaknesses of Colombian films is their marketing package, a weakness linked to the Prints & Ads budget. At its simplest, the marketing package is the set of trailer and poster of the film [Llano, 2005]. In a more complex sense it involves all marketing materials, from posters for the movie theaters and press kits for media editorials to web sites, TV advertising, a set of different trailers and press conferences from cast and crew in major cities. The posters project the new film brand and have to be made out of powerful images and design; the trailers, as happens with many Hollywood films, have to be even better than the movie. If the trailer and poster are not compelling the audience will not go to see the film. Colombian trailers (as well as other National films) lack the intensity and appeal that can be found even in trailers of Hollywood flops.

Exhibitor Carlos Llano and independent distributor Federico Mejía also point at the intensity of the national references in Colombian productions, the fact that they are always targeting the Indigenous Art Chronicles market: “Colombian films are too Colombian, too local, with small international chances” [Llano, 2005]; “Films are too local and the big problems are too repetitive. More personal stories would have more potential abroad. Things the rest of the world doesn’t know about Colombia. There has to be thematic innovation” [Mejía, 2005].

Colombian exhibitors on the other hand are also open to Colombian films and they recognize them as part of the Art cinema market or as a niche with economic potential. Oscar Mayungo explains Procinal’s approach to Colombian Cinema: “We are a commercial enterprise but we support Art cinema, and also national cinema, because we like it and we feel it, and our screens are available for distributors and producers to exhibit their product. Maybe in the future we will sponsor national films too” [O. Mayungo, telephone interview, 4 October 2005]. Carlos Llano, who handles Warner and Fox products at Cine Colombia, is open but pragmatic: “the reality is that 85% of films showed in Colombia are from Hollywood. Our commitment is with good movies and with the audience. Multiplexes, with all their screens, 8 to10, give space to all good movies. There should be no exclusion” [Llano, 2005].

Theatrical exhibitors have started to relocate the screens across dispersed population nodes. In the top 3 cities, Cine Colombia and Procinal compete targeting different economic segments. Cineco has more central and upper-class locations, while Procinal screens are focused on more popular urban areas, with mid and mid-low segments and going back to the concept of neighborhood theaters that were successful up to the early 80’s [Mayungo, 2005].

In the field of Distributors-Exhibitors relations, an off-the-record source related to Latin American film production talks about block booking: “The problem for the Latin-American, independent, niche films, in practice, is the mob-like commitment between Exhibitors and Distributors. Distributors offer block packages including ‘good movies and garbage films’. Exhibitors have to sign documents to buy and exhibit the block. Independents face saturated screens when they want to exhibit their movies in any Latin-American country. Exhibitors won’t be interested because they're committed to the majors. Additionally, independent films are not preceded by the international marketing and ads that support majors’ movies. Even when an exhibitor is interested in independent product, the exhibitor can be punished by the majors, for showing independent content, by retiring key titles from future packages. Latin-American distribution does not exist. Only if a movie is picked up by a Major, usually films from recognized authors/stars, it might be distributed with a relevant amount of advertising noise”.

The distributors-exhibitors cartel practices mentioned have been widely explored by many analysts and scholars and they are part of the Cinema institution. However, at the micro level distribution and exhibition operate in a less black and white area. Maitland Prittchet, from UIP Colombia, explains what he looks for when analyzing an offer from a Colombian producer. When “meeting a producer to see if we pick up a movie or not, we study the film to see its potential, along with our marketing and sales manager, how much rentals will it get, how many copies should we distribute, how much publicity can we invest in” [Prittchet, 2005].

Pritchett’s views on the Colombian market also show that relationships between distributors and exhibitors are not black and white either. “UIP wants to distribute Colombian films but there’s a little problem with the major exhibitor, Cine Colombia, who controls around 55% of the country’s box-office. They approach the local producers and offer them national distribution without asking for a commission, while we have to ask for an 8 – 10% commission to handle sales, distribution, accounting, publicity. The trick is that Cineco does not charge a commission to the producer when showing the films in its own theaters… but they only offer them a 35% share of rentals, while we can get them up to 50% in the first two weeks of exhibition” [Pritchet, 2005]. UIP’s position is weak vis-à-vis Cine Colombia, since the exhibitor is the direct distributor of Warner and Fox, UIP’s competitors.


c) Government

In the view of critic Mauricio Laurens and government officers David Melo and Claudia Triana, the relationships with other markets have been volatile and they have to be rebuilt again. Traditional international markets where Colombian producers still have contacts from the past or where new contacts are on development are Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, and Latin-USA. The big problem is the lack of knowledge of the Latin-American markets. There is no common market in Latin-America. There is more Cultural integration with Madrid than with Caracas. Links with Mexico, Havana, and Spain have not grown but come and go in an inconsistent rhythm hurting growth possibilities for new generations of filmmakers and films. Florida, Los Angeles and New York are important markets with “Latino” film festivals, and immigrant talent already working there. A strong co-production strategy and a focus on key markets are necessary to open doors in the region, to make the products more international and of better quality, and to expand the industrial networks. All these factors will give better chances to each film [Laurens, 2005; Triana, 2005; Melo, 2005; Llano, 2005].

Claudia Triana from Proimágenes points at the basic need of money for the whole process, from product to sales: “Investment is the base for product quality and targeted commercialization. To launch a film in Mexico, for example, costs at least US$300,000. To convince a distributor to pick up a film and invest that kind of money has to be on the basis of solid films (with or without the advantage of stars) and a clear idea of where will it be sold, and “where” means specific segments of consumers in many countries, a task that requires money again” [Triana, 2005].


d) Summary

The barriers of entry imposed to independent/national film industries by the traditional movie business of exhibitors and distributors, points at the key disadvantages of National Film Industries: lack of resources for marketing, small production volume, lack of proprietary distribution and exhibition channels, and atomization (National films have to negotiate individually). Producers struggle to enter the spaces and practices of two sectors that would be better off if there were no annoying and angered independent filmmakers trying to take a slice of their market. The Majors’ local offices in each country are there to distribute the products of Hollywood and, when facing the annoyance of independent production, to pick up a couple of films that might make some money in certain territories and that fit the majors’ taste, that is, “more mainstream movies, less violence and sex, more and better action films” [Prittchet, 2005].

Exhibitors, on the other hand, could also live without National films. They just have to push Hollywood product, or any other with profitable demand, through their screens without bothering in assigning seats to small films that nobody knows. These are powerful economic reasons for not even bothering about the independents. The Colombian film industry does not have the resources, or the Hollywood production values, or the clout to negotiate in blocks to be economically interesting, for exhibitors and distributors, with a similar problematic occurring on TV, where packages of films are even more important as negotiations take place yearly.

The value US distributors see in independent film products is mainly economic, but they have learned that there are markets with demand for those products, especially the multinational art cinema circuit. And they capitalize on that opportunity, not only by catering products to audiences in that market, by taking advantage of the atomization of producers to get even better deals, and, in the absence of national and regional distribution companies, appropriating (for Hollywood) the yields of the creative labor of independent and national producers.

National exhibitors see the development of the multiplex as a way to offer options to every one, not as a saturated space. They do not see as their task to promote and market the films they show. If the audience does not respond to a film, it will be taken out of the screens. And as it has been explained, audience response is linked to marketing investment and product quality and product quality is linked to national film professionals (who juggle between TV, advertising, and film dreams), audiovisual habits (driven by Hollywood), and long-term audience formation (driven by an inexistent policy).

New tactics could go beyond. Mobile public cinemas powered with big LED screens and a collection of DVDs of local and international films, could offer to other sectors of the public. Such tactics offer space for progressive policies and for new business models, in both, urban and rural Colombia, for new and classic films. Additionally, as with the case of lower-income segments, the traffic jam could be a distribution channel of restored and cheap versions of Colombian and regional films, and serve as an audience formation channel.

The Majors are interested in exploring new products, but it has to be of good quality, competing with the majors’ bias towards Hollywood production values, and going through a selection process that inevitably obeys the tastes and logic of a series of individuals that are embedded in the Majors’ context. Although there are distribution opportunities for national producers, their different film language, the sometimes-poor quality of the films, atomization of business offers and lack of distribution channels more aligned to the national or regional taste, tend to make the release of a national film as difficult as the production itself.


6.5.4. Regional and international windows

When talking to Colombian film industry people about the economic issues of the sector, it is interesting, and perhaps unfortunate, to notice that almost everyone is focused on the theatrical window when discussing. Excepting theatrical exhibitors, whose main business is theatrical exhibition, producers/directors and distributors are mainly focused on issues surrounding money recoupment and marketing investments for theatrical distribution. The government is a little more aware of the need of integration of the industry to other windows but as shown in the policy section above, the policies implemented so far tell another story. Of course, there are some exceptions.


a) Producers/Directors

Young director Ciro Guerra is one of the few pointing at the need to integrate other windows of exhibition: “The problem is the size of the market. Films are expensive and it is difficult to recoup the money in Colombia, so we need to open the market and go abroad and exploit other windows like TV and Home-Video. It's complex, but goals have to be established and then reached” [C. Guerra, telephone interview, 22 October 2005].

Director Felipe Aljure has a clear picture of how the market is working and agrees in the need and the marketing difficulties to go abroad and recoup film investments. At the same time he is optimist about the new market opportunities that Latin-American networks and Hispanic channels in the United States offer to the production sector in the continent: “There are 18 pan-American TV channels, via satellite or cable, which use News, Soaps, Sports and Films as their main audience attractors. They will need hundreds of new movies per year. There is a real and present need for Latin product (which has to have good quality and a stable production supply). They see a market of 450 million people sharing religion, language, ethnicity, and geography. And all that with one satellite. The Latin-American audiovisual market amounts to 90 million TVs – only 10 Million with cable. Satellite companies need to expand the cable market, with two limitations: a thematic limitation, that is, the need to offer some share of ‘regional content’, that is, national TV channels and local productions; and a market limitation, only 10 million subscribers so far. They need to generate economies of scale to make the signals cheaper and maximize their infrastructure. They will have to get closer to the price ranges of the region, and expand the audiences to get more advertising dollars and subscriber revenue” [Aljure, 2005].

Aljure continues: “In the Open TV market the strategic players are US based Hispanic channels like Tele-Mundo and Univision. Both are competing to get the Latin-American advertising expenditure from all the big multinationals that own 70% of advertising investment (Coca Cola, Kellogs, et al.). The networks want to broadcast ads across the continent saving millions of dollars for the multinationals in economies of scale, cutting down their local advertising efforts and local spots production costs. And again, they need good common products to get audiences. Telenovelas and News might be the top options, but they will also need films. These Open, Cable, and Satellite technologies will open space and audiences for national cinemas and will be key in the labor of audience formation. As Latin-American audiences start to see their own films they will start to go to the cinemas to see more regional films. [Aljure, 2005].

Electronic windows also offer the chance to get into the United States given the high ratings that Latin channels are already scoring on TV, sometimes higher than the traditional US Networks. In the opinion of Felipe Aljure “language once made us pariahs in the US, it is now the ticket to get in with our cultural products. The United States, the very country that invaded our screens is now providing the technology to transmit our own stories to the region” [Aljure, 2005].

Sergio Cabrera warns about a potential negative side of this situation: “Traditional Majors have created their departments of Latin-Hispanic cinema, cause they see the potential, and have started to organize the Latin-American market FOR THEMSELVES. They already started producing, so far, very bad movies, but they are in a colonization process to keep exploiting the audience potential for their own benefit” [Cabrera, 2005].


b) Distributors/Exhibitors

Federico Mejía and his independent distribution company are part of the process of increased complexity and increased competition faced by the international audiovisual sector today. He describes it as a wake up call for the traditional players: “Colombia is waking up from a long period in which the film business was too simple, with traditional players operating in a simple way, placing an ad on the press, running the film in a couple of screens, and that was it. The films would sell. In the last years competition has increased. Competition in the film and leisure markets, DVDs, Ipods, Internet downloading, cable, satellite, all represent competition in the world of entertainment. Exhibitors are struggling to get people back to the theaters: advertising, pricing, family discount cards, loyalty cards, motivations for people to go back to a theater” [Mejía, 2005].


c) Government

According to David Melo from the Ministry of Culture, “more advanced legislations include TV quotas. In Colombia the subject has not been touched but that's the future” [Melo, 2005].


d) Summary

It is true that the trends seem appropriate the find and capitalize on markets that were not available before. But Hollywood is not standing still in relation to this opportunity. Latin products are already being developed in Los Angeles and Miami targeting the US Hispanic market and logically, Latin America.

Obviously Hollywood will not take its eyes off the Latin Market. Products like Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayek, Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz have been appropriated by Hollywood in order to attack the Ibero-American markets. Such complex process is not entirely negative if the captured talent returns value or knowledge to their regions, if not, the “colonization” operation, as Cabrera describes it, will be a basic creative “brain drain”, with the potential for Hollywood to finally understand the Latin codes and definitely capitalize on them. At the same time it is true that those representations would carry an identity value, but precisely because the Latin market is the opportunity the increase production in Latin-America, Hollywood must not be allowed to completely appropriate those codes. Better Latin films have to be made and offered from the region, and the networks of Latin talent already living in the US have to be integrated to audiovisual policies to develop a collaborative dimension, learning from Hollywood and participating from its Hispanic strategy.

Non-traditional exhibition methods have to be considered to distribute this type of products showing them in schools and in every mid-small size town in the country, using the local “culture house” or the local school.



6.5.5. Professional Associations and Professional Opportunities

Within the civil war context of Colombia, union leaders and representatives have been targeted for extermination by different irregular armies, especially the right-wing paramilitary groups. Today, one or two union representatives are murdered every week in the country. Only 4% of the Colombian work force has some kind of union membership (Coca-Cola, 2006).


a) Directors/Producers

Felipe Aljure summarizes well the nature of the sector: “It is a wide spectrum of idiosyncrasies and ages and psychologies. From people that started decades ago working in the 35mm format, without Video Assist, to the young generation that does not know about 35mm and contemplates Mini DV technologies as a real possibility to make films” [Aljure, 2005].

Always optimist, Felipe Aljure thinks the new law will help to generate a new reality “as opposed to the intermittent reality of Colombian films today, which require, whenever there is a project, to bring people from advertising or TV because those are industries of permanent production. There will be more chances for people to develop a permanent careers in film” [Aljure, 2005].

For Sergio Cabrera (now working on Spanish Television), only some filmmakers working in Hollywood can work exclusively in films. He sees the Ibero-American audiovisual workers as multi-tasking professionals, diversifying their knowledge and experience across Movies, TV and Advertising [Cabrera, 2005].

Almost all the creative and technical talent comes from TV and Advertising. Colombia is leader in Latin-America in production, film and post-production equipment and infrastructure for advertising and TV. A key absence is a laboratory for film processing (commercials are usually treated in Miami or other countries like Chile). People from the advertising world are really willing to help in film productions “because in one way or another all of them dream with cinema” [Sosnitsky, 2005].


b) Distribution

For Fernán García, who represents the Majors interests in Colombia, stronger professional associations are key for a better sector, and he also sees a generational turn happening: “While in the United States, also in the audiovisual industry, you don’t move a screw without authorization of the union, in Colombia the collective action is too narrow. Stronger collectivism is missing in the sector. That’s why the stage for dialogue that the Mixed Fund – Proimágenes offers is a positive development in that direction, to get people to think on who's going to represent them, and what are they going to push for at the industry meetings. I think the younger generation might give a surprise with a new kind of association” [García de la Torre, 2005].

Stronger associations work at the level of Exhibitors and Distributors. This is the result of the high levels of concentration found in these markets, making it easier for both sectors to seat together and establish cartel type deals year after year. The eight Hollywood distributors own 85% of the distribution market [Llano, 2005] and just one Exhibitor owns 55% of the theatrical exhibition market (Pritchett, 2005). Exhibitors’ association is called COCINE, they decide on national prices and define other joint actions for certain films or market issues [Mejía, 2005].

According to Federico Mejía, the three or four independent distributors will form their own association at some point. Right now they are represented at the National Film Council by the ACDPC from which the independents receive regular reports of the meetings. Still, the National Film Council and Proimágenes are positive stages for dialogue, and it is important to guard that the representatives do a good job [Mejía, 2005].


c) Government

Claudia Bautista, from the Ministry of Culture, sees the absence of trade associations as one of the key problems of the production sector: “There should be an open and solid association. Support has been traditionally focused on the mature generation of filmmakers, while the younger generations, somehow more connected to the new languages of film, to create products that travel easier, find it more difficult to break through [Bautista, 2005].

According to Claudia Triana from Proimágenes “part of the government policy is to encourage formalization of the associations, some representing ‘producers’, others representing ‘directors’, and there are regional councils around the Ministry of Culture that give voice to the regions. At least now professionals can talk to the leaders of those small groups and get their ideas or problems to bigger groups and to the government. An improvement from previous times, since 1997 when Proimágenes was created, is that the representatives of these agents can get together and discuss industry issues at the table of Proimágenes, where the core elements of the new law were discussed and designed” [Triana, 2005].

For Critic Mauricio Laurens organizations are atomized and based on different generations. Regional groups are always dependent of decisions taken in the capital due to centralism, where the ‘infrastructure’ is [Laurens, 2005].


d) Summary

Professional associations in the audiovisual industry endure these weaknesses or are inexistent. They don’t know how to operate efficiently because there is no tradition of workers association. They are atomized in small groups of old and new filmmakers, in weak groups of actors and technicians, a divide between advertising professionals and those of TV. Such divisions would make sense in an industry were film production is strong enough to provide energy to each group. But in a country where production barely exists and the films that are made are completely dependant on advertising and TV industries resources and knowledge, what should exist is one strong association that works and lobbies and influences industry players and policymakers to expand its market and the industrial potential for jobs and capital creation.

The Majors are organized in the already mentioned “Colombian” Association of Distributors of Cinematographic Films (ACDPC). Their offices in Colombia are basically there to provide the product for Exhibitors and in the case of companies like Disney’s Buenavista also to manage mass copyrights licensing with all kinds of manufacturers (from nose tissues to school notebooks to children’s clothes).


6.5.6. Perceptions on the New Policy and Sector Challenges


Since Focine (the former "National Film Center") disappeared in 1991, the Colombian film projects developed by TV and Advertising professionals were left without any support to get their ideas off the ground. This situation lasted until 1998 when the new cinematography office was created at the ministry of Culture, offering grants the first years and developing the new film law that became operational as of 2003. The new law reflects in many ways the policy situation of the 1970's: grants and loans to develop pre-production and early stages of production and incentives to show short Colombian films in theaters. Perhaps the main difference today is that the new law is felt as a primary stage of a new policy that has to evolve into a more complex long term framework that really links the production of films to all national exhibition windows and to international markets.

In general the perception of the new policy, especially the content of Law 814, 2003, is positive among different agents in the sector. That is understandable since there was nothing solid for filmmakers between 1991 and 2003.


a) Producers/Directors

Victor Gaviria, the independent and realist filmmaker sees Colombian Cinema as the key expression of Colombian Culture: “Film is the most visible expression of our culture. In Colombia, Colombian cinema is the most popular art” [Gaviria, 2005].

Director Felipe Aljure justifies the need for a film policy, by pointing at the need for communication diversity and to the fact that the development towards a more consistent Colombian film industry is occurring in an environment where TV has already developed for decades: “A nation cannot become a Digestive apparatus of foreign representations, that cannot be its role in a planetary society. It is important to see the other's point of views available but the space has to be SHARED. Colombian politicians have not understood the importance of film and think that its function can be replaced with TV or with foreign Cinema. That's a mistake” [Aljure, 2005].

Aljure continues: "Now, there are projects going and some interesting films released every year. There is a permanent buzz among people in the sector. The sector has to appropriate the law to itself and start shaping it through decrees or corrections that respond to real problems. The law is not finalized, the sector has to accompany it, to give feedback to the government and shape it with real actions, not with rhetoric, and take advantage that the government is listening and willing to help" [Aljure, 2005].

Director Pedro Sosnitzky sees the current policy as positive but still short of the necessary mechanisms to nurture the industry: “Film policies that look to protect the identity of Colombia as a country are excellent, but, if distribution is not covered by the policies, there won't be a solution. Channels of distribution have to be part of the regulation, to distribute what is produced. Film is about teamwork, not about individual talents, professional formation has to be directed in that way, and producers, distributors and exhibitors have to be part of the team” [Sosnitzky, 2005].

Director Luis Ospina sees the link between the electronic window and film production as the big absence in the policy and the most necessary regulation to implement: “Open TV and satellite and cable companies should contribute to cinema development, that is the key connection in any film policy of the developed world” [Ospina, 2005].

Young Director, Ciro Guerra, is critical of the classical selective system or jury cinema, applied as support mechanism. “The way film support is granted is an obsolete method, there’s too much subjectivity in each "jury", juries that always change, that's a fair. What we need is a long-term policy, and objectives to reach and ideas to follow and a vision beyond the immediate, beyond the short term. On the other hand, an automatic subsidy system like the one applied in Europe would be more efficient, leaving the selective system for First Works” [Guerra, 2005].


b) Distributors/Exhibitors

The Majors’ representative in Colombia, Fernán García, the “Bad Guy” of the industry – as he sarcastically calls himself [García de la Torre, 2005] – agrees with Director Victor Gaviria, on the big impact that cinema has on public opinion and of the support that it receives from the government, in contrast with other cultural industries: “Film is the most visible cultural industry in the country. The state is not present in other cultural industries but in film there's a lot to show and a lot of intervention” [García de la Torre, 2005].

Carlos Llano, from Cine Colombia, sees the policy as a good platform but with relevant voids left: “The private sector has to get involved into production and the tax incentives of the Film Law might help on that. But, beyond the incentives, there's a gap between producers and investors. Projects have to be pitched as sustainable products in order to be funded" [Llano, 2005].

Fernán García sees the state intervention as a necessary evil: “In Colombia we still carry the weight of FOCINE, of that pachydermic state cinema, that is not cinema, cinema is something completely free. And state models are dangerous for creativity and entertainment. I believe in the free enterprise and free creativity generates successful models, which might lead to cannibalistic capitalism (few successful winners and a lot unsuccessful losers). But that’s the trade off. On the other hand, without the base provided by the Law it will be too difficult to get more development in the sector [García de la Torre, 2005].

He also agrees that TV is strategic for the future of Colombian cinema, but he, as the Majors representative, is not sympathetic with “screen quotas”: “TV is the key to create habits in the audience. It is a big influence in generating public taste for different types of films. TV should be one of he big distribution channels for features, and there’s big delay, big mistake not to have involvement from TV. Quotas are on the law for the TV Commission to legalize. But we don’t want quotas, we want positive approaches, creation, convince the channels to invest, make money out of product placements and understand the films are also a good product to exploit in TV. On the other hand I don’t see a film industrial cluster developing, no capital investment, no new technology or real profesionalization to develop that cluster and its infrastructure, without it it’s not possible to increase the probability of sustained investment flows” [García, 2005].

For independent distributor Federico Mejía, and given the novelty of the new government support for film production, it will take some years to evaluate the results and to see a new generation of key talents able to produce films that travel [Mejía, 2003].


c) Government

The government is conscious that there is more to do but positive that the right steps have been taken. In spite of the mistakes of the past, Focine allowed a generation of filmmakers to work on their projects and left a collection of interesting films. As opposed to Focine, now there’s more young people participating and getting the film grants, a new generation that might be better situated to make Colombian films “travel”. There’s better work from the ministry, better channels of communication and news about issues related to the industry, everyone is updated about developments in policy or projects. Technicians are working constantly in diverse projects, at least in the capital city. The new Law gives the sector the best tools of that past, but no mistakes, no direct involvement in production, and a policy that supports the filmmakers but also leaves a space for risk and a space for the market, which are essential in the nature of filmmaking. More diffusion about the norms and possibilities for private investors, and more, permanent points of encounter between the agents are necessary. More professionalization and more national and international contacts should create access to new financing sources abroad [Triana, 2005; Melo, 2005; Bautista, 2005].

For Claudia Triana from Proimágenes "the lack of knowledge about which markets – geographic and thematic – to attack and how, sends the wrong signal to investors. The sector is still thinking exclusively in production but no plans on promotion and marketing, which today can cost as much as half the film budget" [Triana, 2005].

David Melo also confirms that under current negotiations of a free trade treaty (TLC) with the US the Colombian government has established exceptions for measures of current regulation, which are against the TLC principles. “We have designed a ‘cultural reserve’ for the state to legislate to support culture if it’s necessary. The cultural sector through the Ministry of Culture, and the civil society and private sectors have discussed the needs for exceptions according to the UNESCO convention for cultural diversity, and there is an a agreement on a CULTURAL EXCEPTION for the film sector in the scenarios of free trade” [Melo, 2005].

So far, the normal excuse for not using quotas is the lack of national production, but the lack of quotas stops the formation of consumption habits in the audience. Critic Mauricio Laurens does not see the neo-liberal regime as an easy context to implement quotas. He remembers how in the mid 1980s, before liberalization policies began spreading in Latin-America, a film quota policy attempt from the Colombian government was easily scrapped after the United States “warned” about stopping US imports of Colombian flowers if such initiative was carried. Today, Laurens thinks that given the low production flow of the Colombian film industry, if by any chance quotas were to be implemented, the measure should not be only about Colombian Cinema but “screen quotas of some weeks per year for Colombian and Latin-American films together” [M. Laurens, 2005]. From his point of view support for production will be just a marginal influence without guaranteed integration of the distribution windows.

d) Summary

There is no doubt that individual initiative from audiovisual firms to invest part of their resources in film production and commercialization would be the ideal situation, firms taking the decision to compete in the film market not only because there are viable niches but also competitive advantages like a common language (against subtitled films), like a gap to be filled in terms of culturally closer products in the 70+ minutes format, like opportunities to create new ways of exhibition and distribution. But because the market leaders (Hollywood firms) are perceived to be so strong and they are indeed so professional and specialized in their craft, no private investor would think there is an opportunity to compete in such a very risky market. In the end, investors, even players related to the audiovisual market, would prefer to invest in safer options or the things they are good at: Telenovelas or Local Advertising Commercials.

That new generation will be working in an international context, mixed with talents and production teams from other countries and regions of the world. Some of those talents will feed the Hollywood digital machine with thematic and formal innovation to exploit the entertainment dimension, and exceptionally, to produce some social reflections softened by the cultural dissonance of international celebrities trying hard to look like real people.



Follow to the Next Section
.