MOVIE BUSINESS IS VERY HEALTHY; DON’T KNOCK IT!-by Chandran Rutnam

MOVIE

Huge billboard in Colombo featuring running films_ a sight hard to be seen now

“In most instances the director drunk with applause and adulation has disconnected with the producer who gave him the opportunity. The Content must generate money so that the producer or the production company could continue to produce the next package of Content.”

The film business is a very lucrative business in all the countries of the world with the exception of Sri Lanka. WHY?
The film industry is not a high-risk business that many perceive it to be, if it is treated and respected as an ‘Industry.’ The stigma that it is dangerous for investors and banks because the chances are that they will not see their money back is not really true. If you choose the right concept, the right budget and the right talent there is very little chance that you would lose money.

The main issue in Sri Lanka is that some directors ‘fleece’ the producers. By fleece I don’t mean that they rob them. Some directors are primarily interested in winning awards and creating a reputation for themselves. The participants and audience at these Film Festivals are usually invitees. They do not pay to use the product that this industry creates. It is a well known fact that it is often not the best picture or the best director that wins the award. As stated previously, there are various actions, influences and manipulations that take place within the award process.

Quite often, the award goes to a thought provoking, controversial exposure, revealing negative subjects like poverty, sex abuse and wars and sometimes to the satisfaction of NGO’s who wish to make their point. These may be important subjects, but must be categorized to a different section of the industry.
Yes, awards will certainly help in the promotion of the movie but to what extent? The local films that have been produced in Sri Lanka, garnering a multitude of awards, have very rarely created a ‘true profit’ to the investor but may brought some glory to Sri Lanka in some instances. That is good but not enough. It is not the answer. It does not help the local cinema owners being forced to exhibit an award winning ‘dud’ when they have an action packed guaranteed audience-pleaser on hand.

The return of investment which is of interest to the producer must be addressed so that there would be a continuity in the process of his film producing enterprise. Selfishly embracing awards and basking in the glory of publicity with no concern whatsoever for the producer, is unacceptable.
In most instances the director drunk with applause and adulation has disconnected with the producer who gave him the opportunity. The Content must generate money so that the producer or the production company could continue to produce the next package of Content. The independent film financing process begins when a producer puts together a package of talents including the director, writer, actors and the technical team.

The entertainment business, especially films, is very healthy. Demand for it worldwide is bigger than ever and will never diminish.
Of course, a project could go wrong even with a good screenplay and good director. It might go over schedule or over budget. That is why a Completion Bond Insurance Plan must be in place, which guarantees and protects the producer against such unexpected negative issues that may arise.
If a good script with a good cast is budgeted and executed in a professional manner with guarantees and insurance cover (as they do in the other countries) there is no reason to fail.

FILM INDUSTRY and THE CULTURAL CINEMA

To create a successful, thriving “Film Industry”” and a successful, thriving “Cultural Cinema” THE key step has to be taken….. SEPARATE THEM!! The inadvertent mixture of the two has created an embarrassing record of the failure of the Sri Lankan Cinema industry. Divide the exhibition of films. Two separate Ministries: The Ministry of Industries and the Ministry of Culture. They can use each other’s facilities and domain when it is beneficial to each other.

The CINEMA OWNER : comes under the Ministry of industries. Its purpose is to provide ENTERTAINMENT to the public and make a profit while doing so.
CULTURAL CINEMA comes under the Ministry of Culture providing a platform for films that may have an aesthetic, cultural or spiritual value that may interest a smaller niche audience and may not make any profit.

THE NATIONAL FILM CORPORATION : under the Ministry of Culture should function as a Regulatory body, which handles, Permits, Censors, Awards, Pensions, Insurance, Archives, Studio, Museum, Directory, Standardisation and General Oversight of the affairs of the Industry, including a Home for Film Seniors and Scholarships.
The film industry: An industry that anyone could enter. Owners of Cinemas that sells the product (Content) and Producers who create the product (Content).
The cinema owner: The Content is offered to various cinema owners .

If they approve of the Content, they will agree to exhibit it in their circuit or their group of circuits and run it for as long as it is lucrative and then exhibit the next film that they had selected from the available Content. The cinema owner must not be dictated to or influenced to accept a film that they do not feel would be accepted by their anticipated potential audience. The selectivity of the Content whether local or foreign is explicitly decided by the owner of the cinema. If the content selected does not draw the audience, it is the Cinema owners right to remove it and screen a fresh one.

The right to select the content to place in their cinemas is theirs. No one has the right to dictate, influence or interfere. It is solely the cinema owners’ business decision.
The NFC should monitor the process and validate the standard of the cinemas.
Definitions and confusions: A true understanding of certain important words that are grossly misrepresented or misused which is the crux of the misunderstandings that have confused and misled the Sri Lankan Film industry. Without clarification and understanding of the following three definitions it would be difficult to create a workable plan that is beneficial to the industry.

“COMMERCIAL” is an activity intended for exchange in the market to earn economic profit. “ENTERTAINMENT” is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience. “ART” is an act of applying ones creative skill in expressing thoughts, feelings, observations and imagination in a visual form such as painting, sculpture and other forms (films) to be appreciated primarily for their beauty and emotional power.

The creation of ‘art’ also applies to ‘commercial entertainment’. The word ‘art’ is not only applicable to a product that is viewed by a niche audience and not marketable.
In the convoluted misuse of these words, “commercial” applies to a film with songs and dances which is enjoyed by a large audience. A film with a serious subject of usually negative themes that are only appreciated by a small niche audience is called “an art film.”
Filmmaking, being the most collaborative art form, must produce artistic entertainment with commercial value and uplift our lagging film industry.

THE CULTURAL CINEMA

The Ministry of Culture could have its own circuit of several mini-cinemas.
There will always be film Content that we feel is of cultural and / or spiritual / aesthetic value but may not be made in a manner that would appeal to the mass audience. It should still be offered to the cinema owners. If the cinema owner feels that it is worthy of exhibiting in their cinema, it is their decision. If the Content is not accepted by the cinema owners and the film is held worthy by the Ministry of Culture and must have exposure, then it is up to the Ministry of Culture to determine the schedule and duration of that Content ON THEIR CIRCUIT, where they could make a profit or take a loss.
This way the cinema owner does not take the burden of a loss and the Ministry of Culture has achieved its purpose. He/she must be allowed to make a profit or loss as a result of their own business decisions and not forced to do otherwise.

GOVT’s ASSISTANCE TO THE INDUSTRY

All existing cinema owners should have a tax exemption for three years to enable them to upgrade their cinemas. Qualifying film producers must be assisted by the banks with special low interest rates. Tax exemption for all film making and cinema screening equipment. If the cinema owner thrives the film industry thrives. If the shop closes down there will be no shelves to sell our product from.

PROTECTIONISM

Protectionism is the practice of following protectionist trade policies. A protectionist trade policy allows the government of a country to promote domestic producers, and thereby boost the domestic production of goods and services by imposing tariffs or otherwise limiting foreign goods and services in the marketplace. This is not applicable to the film industry. Protectionism does not and never will work in the local film industry if we wish to upgrade the industry into a profit oriented quality entertainment industry. Let us compete with the world. This is one area with which we could match or surpass any competition with knowledge and talent.

If we regulate the cinemas to accept the local films for exhibition, by imposing a quota system forcing the cinema owners to show a locally made Sinhala or Tamil film whether it has marketable appeal or not, two matters will affect the industry.
1) The eventual obliteration of the local cinema industry.

2) The lack of driving forced to create films of a better quality that are marketable to continue the sustenance and betterment of the industry. The local product must compete with all other films and win its rightful place with the audience. The audience must want it. We cannot force it on them.
If one wishes to wallow in ‘the so called art film…award winning film…the sex for profit film…or the NGO sustained poverty / tragedy film’ that is loss making and does nothing to bring in the audience, which certain sectors embrace and condone, then a different mode of exhibition has to be created by the government or a philanthropic donor who could bear the loss.