Cinema seats. BRU-NO / CC0 License
At the French cinema awards handed out last March, the Cesars (the equivalent of the Goya awards in France), Goodbye idiots from Albert Dupontel, he received the César des Lycéens award, presented by high school students. Specifically, by students in the last year of high school. Students thus have the possibility of becoming academics. Your vote has an influence on the film industry. His criteria is represented.
It is easy to interpret that such a measure seeks fostering links between French cinematography and audiences of the future. On the one hand, French cinema assumes that it is not only made up of those who promote it and those who create it, but also by those who consume it and those who will consume it. And that consumption requires a habit that does not arrive by art of chance in maturity, but must be cultivated from an early age.
On the other hand, the students of the institute give their opinion about what the industry offers them. And the result is very direct: the most valued film will be the one that students of that age like the most, who will be the adult audience for decades to come. How to interpret this data? How much relevance should it be given? I suppose these are reflections that French industry will attend to with care.
One of the most widespread diagnoses within the Spanish film industry is that which announces that audiovisual education is lacking, as well as the belief that the average Spanish does not have enough tools to perform an adequate reading of audiovisual texts. The absence of training accompanies us, generalizing a lot, to the university or film schools where those who have chosen the discipline that concerns us will be able, it is assumed, to acquire said tools, said audiovisual ‘education’.
It is known that the digital age has proposed a change in the model of life and consumption. Photography and video enter the lives of the little ones at an increasingly early age. It does not seem that the educational system is giving the logical importance to this paradigm shift. That denounced, for example, Enrique Urbizu. In an interview conducted by The voice of Galicia, the director and former vice president of the Film Academy indicated that “audiovisual, which is what our young people consume the most, is left by the hand of God. And on the other hand, we neither know who Berlanga is, nor who Buñuel is … That is, that traditional turn your back on culture that our leaders have always had ”. And, of course, the comparison with the neighboring country appeared in the reflection: “In France they have been with audiovisuals in school for many decades, with which the kids know read complex texts. And they have a much more respectful public towards their patrimony; that is education ”.
It is lawful to demand that the audiovisual have a presence (or greater presence, depending on the case) in the educational system. However, is the focus also being placed on what are the maneuvers, plans or strategies that the film industry could carry out to get closer to the youngest? It seems fundamental fight so that the audiovisual is taught with greater intensity in schools and institutes, But it could also be thought that it is the same war in which almost all sectors of culture feel or that it is a way of holding politics exclusively responsible. Perhaps it is also a way of saying that others are to blame.
We have already assumed that a greater involvement of primary and secondary education brings very positive results in the future of Spanish audiovisuals. But if a large part of the audiovisual is publicly financed and part of the production and broadcasting capacity falls to public media (RTVE and regional channels), we should also assume that change, improvement and innovation are in the hands of the industry itself and in the link between said industry and public institutions intended for audiovisual. Have we thought in depth about what actions can be carried out from the Spanish audiovisual?
Cinema: cultural hegemony
Cinema has had a direct influence on processes of national construction and especially on everything that concerns the desire to achieve and preserve cultural hegemony (in this sense, the most obvious case seems to be the American one). In Spain the comparison with France has historically been painful. In addition, as the teachers indicate Nancy Berthier and Jean-Clause Seguin, “In Spain, the problem arises in a more complex way than in many other countries since it almost constantly overlaps the regional or autonomous nationality and the nation or nations. The film thus becomes an unstable territory and difficult to perceive, assuming interferences that discredit any ignorant analysis of the diversity of contexts ”.
From my point of view, here lies the importance of the issue, a complex issue because it refers in a multidirectional way to the industry, the public, political power, primary, secondary and university education, and that cannot omit the role of the chains television and private platforms, responsible for a large part of the annual state production.
Even more so at a time when platforms amplify consumption and, therefore, increase the impact of the message. You just have to watch the news that Netflix offers from time to time and the million viewers of Spanish films What The hole, Crazy about her, below zero O Black Beach. And if these data show that there is Spanish fiction that is being consumed, then what do we demand? Do we demand that cinema be seen or that a type of cinema be seen? What is consumed in a movie theater? Or do we think that what is seen most is of a lower level of demand? I would dare to say that this debate is so delicate because what is at the bottom is also a question of national consciousness and cultural hegemony.
If we want to value the cinema financed by televisions and public institutions that have evaluation commissions that study and decide among the projects presented, it must be said that these public or regional televisions can do little to equalize the impact achieved by the large platforms. In global terms, it is an unequal struggle and it is unfair to demand that a chain or platform at the regional or state level reach the results of international or transnational platforms. But the tricky thing is that if one confines oneself to the audience harvested on one’s own ground, one discovers that audiovisuals financed by RTVE, for example, have more and more difficulties to look at the products of private companies and new platforms as equals (It is in fact these platforms that have the capacity to promote the diffusion of a film financed by RTVE, as may be the case of the aforementioned Black Beach).
Should it be an objective that the fiction financed by RTVE or by the autonomic ones reaches the number of spectators of the private ones? Well surely not. But is it beneficial that the audiovisual that reaches a greater impact among the public is produced, almost exclusively, by private chains and platforms? I would say neither and that, if we accept that it has consequences in the construction of national consciences, it can be very harmful. Does the change in trend depend exclusively on the maneuvers that can be made from the political power to generate new audiences thanks to a greater presence of audiovisual in the classrooms? I would say that it wouldn’t be enough either.
I think that one of the issues to be dealt with in greater depth has to do with the networks that allow the generation of a much more forceful and articulated audiovisual community. It is a reality that RTVE is infrared So what she is forced to distribute little among many, but it is also true that there is no effective coordination between ICAA, RTVE and the different educational spaces and public auditoriums (another of the great problems). A quick example: a film financed by ICAA does not involve the participation of RTVE and vice versa. Nor does it facilitate its being screened (there is no network of cinemas or public auditoriums that ensures the viewing of publicly financed cinema), nor is there an established relationship with educational systems (but no longer with schools and institutes, nor with the Faculties of Audiovisual Communication public universities), nor do I believe that the connection with the Cervantes institutes network (although in this sense great steps are being taken) …
The case of the César prize awarded by the French institutes could serve as an example of a measure to generate this bidirectional link. Studying Film History at school will certainly be beneficial, but it is compulsory. I think that battle to make audiovisual a strong penetration into educational systems should be accompanied by conscientious work on the part of the industry in search for the proactive participation of citizens (and that includes the little ones). For example, when I see the programming of festivals that I frequent, such as San Sebastián or Gijón, I find sessions for children. I wonder the difference that can exist between those who are fortunate enough to go every year to see other types of cinema for several days and those who are not lucky enough that there is a film event in their environment.
How many deficit films have (and do we have) those of us who have come from the rural world and have not had festivals, film clubs or spaces for the promotion of audiovisuals in our municipality? Is there a way to determine if there are differences between the type of consumption in cities with historical links to film events and those municipalities in which there is a poorer supply? Do we know if the children who had a greater attendance at a specialized cinema are nowadays more demanding spectators? Can we measure whether those who have studied in institutes with subjects and time dedicated to the study of audiovisuals are more educated? Who and how is the ideal of what should be viewed by the citizenship established? I believe that the request that the educational system dedicate more time to audiovisuals should require us to reflect on this type of question.
By way of conclusion, I think the film industry (thus in general), must exert pressure on the political power of the day in order to achieve the improvements it considers, especially when public institutions are not independent and are subject to the directives of the party in power (although this is another highly complex issue). But I also consider that a large part of the improvement that the film scene could experience has to do with one’s own initiative, with the degree of seduction and involving the public, both using the tools available to the industry and looking for new ways and involving new groups, associations, institutions and sectors with which synergies can be established.
David Pérez Sañudo is a director and screenwriter. In 2020 it won the Goya award for best screenplay adapted by Ane.
–
