Opinion Sur Joven

14 out of the 18 movies showcased in a cineplex at the beginnings of February were produced in the US; almost 80% of the movies are American. The remaining 20% is divided into Argentine, Hungarian, German and Chilean films.

Why are there so many American films billed? A first answer could be “because people like American movies”. A further answer to this would be: How couldn’t they like it, if they take 80% of the screens?

Therefore, is this over-abundance of American films due to the fact that people prefer them, or to the fact that people choose them because of their over-abundance? What’s first: over-focalized demand or oligopoly? Was it the chicken or the egg?

We all wanna see the latest Yankee blockbuster. We’re no longer interested in the plot, the story and let alone the deepness of the play, but we surrender to the succession of images like children fascinated with fireworks. American blockbusters are a spectacular game including it all: great stars, great scenarios, great effects, great advertising signs, great polemics and great popcorn.

Now, is there anything wrong about this? Apparently, no. Each person is free to choose what they wanna see, what they wanna enjoy with or whether to put milk or sugar in their coffee. But the problem is the way the blockbuster distribution is negotiated.

Big Brother and little brothers

Let’s suppose that an American film studio produces a blockbuster starred by a giant ape (any resemblance to reality is pure coincidence). Let’s suppose that, to make it, they spend an amount of money similar to Angola’s GDP. Let’s suppose too that the distributors –largely familiar with the business- bring other little films along, many of which are released directly on DVD in the US. Let’s suppose that when it comes to negotiating the blockbuster’s premiere –including an ape- they invent a clause under which they allow the blockbuster showcasing if –only if- the cinemas commit to showcase all those iffy movies. They’re intelligent enough to know that no one would miss the chance of showing the blockbuster. That’s why they carry out a well-known strategy: Big Brother protects the little ones.

In this way, along with the selling of the blockbuster, they include a package of between two and six minor films they demand to be displayed. So, supposing that two blockbusters are showcased every quarter, we’ll have eight iffy movies, which amount to 10 movies from the same country; this represents 70% of the billboard. Is that oligopoly or what? Blockbuster examples would be “Troy” by Wolfgang Petersen. That movie could have been stuck in the same package with “The Holiday” by Nancy Meyers, or “Legally Blonde” by Robert Luketic.

If one day I find myself walking across the desert during terribly hot days, and suddenly a man appears offering me to choose between oil and tar to drink… Do I have a free choice?

A lot of popcorn and some fallacies

People usually say American movies and their excessive and aggressive imposition within the business prevent local movies from becoming box office hits. This is not entirely true. Although American blockbusters do oppress and leave aside the rest, it is also true that some films –given their bold topics and their precarious production systems- could never reach the top of the charts.

That is, it’s very unlikely that the latest avant-garde movie earns more money than King Kong. But what can be done to at least have it showcased within a market that allows it to fairly compete with the other productions?

More than 50 movies a year are produced in Argentina. Most of them have a hard time with the box office. This is due both to the lack of interest by the audience and to unfair competition with a much larger and capable movie industry.

In times of accepted inequality and cancellations in favor of competition and oligopoly, winning at all costs doesn’t seem to be wrong. But I’m in favor of the real competition that rejects oligopoly and encourages true diversity.

In order to achieve that, regulating the films showcase would be a good thing, especially having in mind that they’re not just consumer goods but artistic expressions.

It’s not all bad news

Luckily, there are several international organizations (most of them in Europe) working to support young film-makers. Institutions such as Huber Bals (Netherlands) and Berlinale (Germany) give grants to film-makers for them to develop scripts, aesthetic projects or direction structures. Of course they keep some rights over the finished work afterwards, but most of the times it’s convenient for the film’s publicity. Some of the directors who received this type of support are the Argentine film-makers Rodrigo Moreno (“El Custodio”) and Pablo Trapero (“Nacido y Criado”).

Here in Argentina we have Ibermedia, the great patron of the new Argentine cinema. This organization constantly receives projects and twice a year selects the recipients of the financial support. It provides up to the 50% of the total budget for grants.

Regarding the showcase of independent films, there’s good news too: there are more and more attendees to independent film festivals in the world every time. In the case of the BAFICI (Buenos Aires International Festival of Independent Film), the amount of attendees in 2006 was twice the amount of 2005. The problem with these festivals is that, sometimes in a subtle way and sometimes pretty obviously, they slowly turn into political spaces which have nothing to do with their original purpose. SUNDANCE is a clear example.

Perhaps that’s what independent films are about: maybe they’re a start in order to later approach the coasts of institutionalism or solemnity. Or perhaps otherwise: maybe they’re a winding, imperfect and sometimes underestimated road where the cinematographic poetry makes its way.