Open Channel Editorial Team | The government’s attack on culture does not stop. And in recent days it has returned to the charge with one of its favorite hobbyhorses: INCAA’s film promotion policies.
Last week, it was published in the Official Gazette an amendment to the Film Law that eliminates the screen quota. This was a floor in which each room had to dedicate at least one week per quarter to a national production.
This provision was reintroduced in the 1994 law, but it existed before Juan Domingo Perón introduced the rule through a decree in 1947. In the almost half century that separates this fact from the sanction of Law No. 11,741, different governments passed: democratic, dictatorial and of different political signs. None of them changed this.
It is fair to say, Nor did anyone tear their clothes or do what was necessary to guarantee its full compliance.This is how we saw that national films that did not have a renowned actor or actress or the approval of major advertising campaigns were assigned a marginal time slot, close to midday in a theater where the rest of the showings were destined for the big Hollywood blockbusters.
When the sector was assimilating this first blow, Manuel Adorni appeared. “During 2023, INCAA has financed more than 100 films that had less than 1,000 spectators: there were 12 films that had less than 100 spectators, one that had 5 spectators and another that was only seen by 4 people. It has been decided to end this madness,” the presidential spokesman said through his X account.
Asked at his usual meeting with the press, he expanded on the concept and announced that “As of decree 662/24, the national government changed the requirements for access to INCAA subsidies, to stop financing films that are commercial failures. From now on, national productions must cover half of the production with their own funds.”.
“The Government will no longer subsidize films without spectators“Adorni said in another passage, without clarifying how the method will be to know how many spectators a work will have before it is filmed.
This announcement does not imply a great saving for the development fund, but it does imply a greater effort for the producers. It is that, far from what is spread on the networks, The subsidies never covered the entire production cost of the films, but at most, 70%.
In dialogue with Open ChannelDOCA documentary filmmaker Mario Verón He stated that “before this announcement, the Development Fund was under-executing“He also stressed that “tickets continue to be cut.” That is to say, the Promotion Fund, which is made up of the retention of 10% of the ticket price that anyone pays when going to see a national or foreign film, continues to be fed. But those funds are not being executed either.. Much less the funds that were already there. The excuse is this question of a supposed audit.”
And he pointed against INCAA President Carlos Pirovano: “it is managed from a place of autocracydoes not recognize the Federal Assembly, which represents the highest democratic body. It is as if it were Congress. This body rejected its measures, not by one third, but by two thirds. There are 15 provinces that rejected the previous measures. Nor did the Advisory Council, which is also a control body, call itself.
“I think what we should be discussing is that This is an act of censorship In principle, independent films. In addition, it is made without certain data or citing sources“It’s all very flimsy,” the director added.
On the other hand, Verón pointed out that “Argentine films usually premiere at the Gaumont cinema, where They give us poor schedules. Because who can go see an Argentine movie at 12 noon on a Tuesday? And 98% of private cinema programming shows films that are not national, thus failing to comply with the screen quota”.
“So, it is also very difficult to count in numbers as they propose. Because Argentine films have other circuits: festivals, television, platforms. And they travel through various places, such as cultural centers or intermediary institutions.“, he explained
“Argentine cinema is not just a commodity, It is a cultural asset and that is its importanceWhat happens is that this government’s view is totally different and What we have here is a struggle of meanings. This is a cultural battle, let’s put our terms where they attack Argentine cinema because there is no way.
For its part, Florencia Calcagno, from the production company Zoetropo said to Open Channel “This is a situation that already seems to me to have a circus tone. It seems that there is a clear intention to provoke. For some reason, too They choose the audiovisual sector as an adversary in this anti-culture crusade that they are carrying out. It seems to me that everything is going a little in that direction.”
“The latest statements we heard from the Government, that there were a lot of films that had 10 viewers, It is clearly something that simplifies and does not show reality.It’s weird having to explain it, but A film is not limited to the number of viewers it has in the same year it is finished.“, he added.
He explained that “there are films that received subsidies last year and the number of viewers they had last year is being calculated, you are directly seeing how many people were in the theaters in the year of their release.”
Calcagno stressed that “in order to obtain this financing You must already have a career in the audiovisual world.. So, you already had to put money out of your own pocket, sell things to be able to make your film, and then be able to enter this circuit where you do receive some kind of subsidy.”
“And apart from that, one also has to prove a significant contribution that until last year was 30% and today is 50%. This makes it almost impossible for any small producer to access these subsidies. Importantly, of course, it is not that they pay you the entire film, you have to make something clear, no subsidy has ever paid you the entire film,” concluded the filmmaker.
