Subsidies of a special regime

State - money, spectators - legs

In 2010, the state allocated the amount of a hitherto unprecedented - 4.907 billion rubles to finance film production. It also introduced a new distribution scheme for these funds between producer studios: through a specially created Federal Fund for Social and Economic Support of Russian Cinematography. Eight companies will receive 250 million rubles for production and rental of new films. However, it is already obvious to experts: these innovations will greatly improve the lives of individuals close to the “feeder”, but the industry as a whole will not help in any way
Almost 5 billion rubles were distributed very specifically. Not a penny of them will go to what the film business really needs.

The tricks of the distribution are firstly, the filmmakers unanimously say: so that cinema can develop, serious measures are required to combat piracy, including at the legislative level. Subordinate the state of the pirate market of the DVD to the legal rules of trade - the profit of Russian copyright holders would have grown by $ 1.5–2 billion. A billions of taxpayers not donated by the authorities, but their honestly earned. The authorities have at the disposal of piracy both technologies for such a struggle and specialists, but there is no clear program even at the level of statements.

Secondly, domestic cinema to form a system of full-fledged film distribution and obtaining a profit that allows surviving cinemas. Now there are 700 of them in the country (2000 screens). By all world standards, 3-4 times more are needed. First of all, in small cities where the vast majority of the country's population lives. The Executive Director of the Film Support Fund Sergey Tolstikov said that “there are specific projects for increasing the number of screens to 4-5 thousand”, however, in what terms and where they will be carried out is unclear.

Part of the money - 1.4 billion rubles - will go to the Ministry of Culture, and it is officially stated that they are intended to support the author, documentary, children's cinema and on debuts. The Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture United Russia Grigory Ivliyev assures: “In the field of arthouse cinema, the Ministry of Culture announced a competition under which 30 applications were submitted, and applications were accepted both from filmmakers of eight selected companies and from free artists. The debut, copyright cinema is also sponsored, and these projects will receive state assistance this summer. ” However, the New Times attempt to obtain confirmation from officials in the ministry caused alertness to questions sent by e -mail, the answers did not come, and they simply stopped taking the phone.

Part of the money stands out for very strange needs such as "promoting Russian cinema abroad." We have little shame with the Russian house at the Olympics, now, apparently, the same “Russian Shapito”, along with gypsies, bears, children and household officials for the money of taxpayers, will be naughty from the film festival for the film festival. Those who advised the government somehow forgot to explain that if there is a good film, it will be noticed in the world and without 112 million rubles for “promotion abroad”. And if it is not, then no matter how much you spend, this will not help the case.

The lion's share of money, 2.86 billion rubles, is intended for the Federal Fund for Social and Economic Support of Russian Cinematography. The fund was created at the end of 2009 following a meeting of the Government Council for the Development of Russian Cinematography, chaired by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The main task of the Fund was the distribution of these same billions between the "leaders of the industry."

In March of this year, according to the results of a certain selection announced by “objective”, 8 film companies were selected: “STV” by Sergei Selvanov, “Cinema Directorate” Anatoly Maksimov, “Trith” Nikita Mikhalkov, “Central Partners” of Ruben Dishdishyg, “Profit” Igor Tolstunov, ART Pictures Fedor Bondarchuk and Alexander Rodnyansky, “Basel” Timur Bekmambetov and “Rekun-Sinem” Valery Todorovsky. Each of them should receive almost free of charge of 250 million rubles and release at least 3 paintings (in the budget of which the share of state money should not exceed 70%).

If all this is translated from the bureaucratic language to public, it will turn out the following: 8 producers (really successful, talented and respected) lobbled the creation of the fund and received a lot of state money for themselves. Putting other successful and respected producers in extremely unprofitable competitive conditions and spitting on the actual needs of the film industry.

"Love in the big city-2"	"Inhabited island"

Trouble with payback
Here is a completely typical arithmetic for the average Russian film. Suppose production cost $ 4 million. $ 1 million was spent on advertising. The film was released. 50% of the box office took cinemas, another 15%-a distributor. Therefore, in order to “fight back to zero”, the film must earn $ 8.25 million at the box office (and this is also without taxes). Are many domestic "masterpieces" to many on the shoulder?
Of all our films that were released in 2009, there were only three in the box office. “Love-Carrons 2” (production of Real-Dakota Renata Davletyarova): budget-$ 3 million, 931 Copies, fees-$ 17, 85 million; “Love in the big city” (“Leopolis” by Sergey Livnev): budget - $ 3.5 million, 673 copies, fees - $ 9.12 million; “Holidays of the Strict Development” (“Cinema Directorate” Anatoly Maksimov): budget - $ 5 million, 1041 copy, fees - $ 17.6 million.
If the profitability was the criterion for the selection of “leadership” companies, I would have to give money to the “Real-Dakota” of Davletyarov or “Leopolis” Livnev. And to doubt Rodnyansky with Bondarchuk: $ 36 million was spent on both of their “inhabited islands”, they earned $ 27.9 million in the box office (for two). Not to mention Mikhalkov with his budget for a “upcoming” almost $ 55 million, which will not be bought out before the carrot stuck. But all these facts were behind the “objective selection” carried out by Movie Research.

"Holidays of a maximum regime"	"Love in a big city"

Doubtful selection
What then served as the basis for choosing? The following criteria were included in the principles of selection: assessment of the audience of cinemas and viewers; participation in the largest film festivals and prizes received on them; Duration of market activities and current activity. None of these criteria gives an unambiguous advantage to elected companies over all the others.
At the same time, no one asked the main question: do the production companies have projects that they are ready to launch? Because a good script is a rarity. A good director who liked this scenario and he is ready to shoot a film on it is doubly rare. Indeed, not because of Leni Igor Tolstunov (“Profit”), for example, over the past three years, has released only two full-length paintings, and because there are no projects. In each major film company, about 2000 scenarios are read by editors per year - but there is nothing to shoot.
Even Goskino, when the deed of budget money was his prerogative, retained the appearance of democracy: in order to get funding, it was necessary to put forward a real project to the competition - with a script, director, preliminary budget and so on. The Fund for Support for Cinematography decided, apparently, to do without such nonsense.
Meanwhile, there are few serious players in film production - no more than 20 companies. What prevented them from distributing money between them, in a couple of years to evaluate the results and, as a result, really objectively and really transparently choose the “industry leaders”? Then all this could be called the Fund for Support for Cinematography. And now it looks like a corruption conspiracy of several cunning producers.

Fee for victory
Today, the "eight" of the producers seems that they grabbed God by the beard. After all, they will not have to return the money spent money in any case. Sergey Tolstikov about the repayment of money says Vitievato: “The companies will send money back to the fund, depending on their results, according to the established coefficient on the share of state money in a particular project. Based on these indicators, the fund will decide on further financing: those who returned more (or, in other words, earned more) and will receive more in the future. And those companies whose products will not bring profit at all will not receive state support in the future. ” However, many people from the world of cinema, with whom I had to talk on this topic, are sure that you will have to pay differently: ideologically. The logic of the authorities is clear: if everyone gives money, it turns out that no one owes anything to anyone. And if you give one, but there is no other, then those who were given become debtors. With Rodnyansky or Bondarchuk, let's say there are no problems. But to make Selvanov, Todorovsky or Tolstunov remove something ideological-go go. And then such happiness fell: these producers themselves asked for a bribe - and they were given them. The state can sleep calmly. True, there was expensive, but you can’t do anything here.
So far, as a result of the deed of 4.907 billion rubles, we got the following result: we had one Mikhalkov, and now eight. Not that Mikhalkov, who “took off the unfinished play ...” - he was one in the past. And those who want to live on everything ready, like the current Mikhalkov, not very distracted by the quality of the manufactured product and the profitability of production. There are now eight of them - and they are all in the present.

Anna Rozhdestvenskaya
It works in the field of film business. She was engaged in marketing and rental of films. She collaborated with a number of production companies.

--- How Russian cinema survived

In the first half of the 1990s, Russian cinema was quietly dying. Many cinemas were closed, film production has practically stopped. Only cheap comedies were shot with the names "Babnik", "impotent", "We did it!" And others.
The revival of full-length cinema began in 1997, when a law was adopted, exhibiting the amounts of income from income tax that businessmen invested in the cinema. It was beneficial to businessmen: you make an estimate for 100 rubles, you shoot a movie for 2 rubles, you return the rest to yourself, “washed” from taxes. Young domestic businessmen scoured in search of directors. A lot of moviegoers were produced during this time, but they got the opportunity to work by profession and talented directors, successful producers appeared.
In 2002, tax bars were canceled. But by this time a new “gold bottom” was opened: the profit of filmmakers began to grow due to television sales and sales of the rights to issue video cassettes and DVD. With relatively small ones then for production costs (the actors have not yet asked for frantic fees, the viewer had not yet asked for special effects, the cost of advertising and release of the picture was practically not due to the lack of cinemas) only due to the sales of the rights to TV scuses and the release of video cassettes (subsequently DVD) could not only be “discouraged” the costs of the picture, but also to make good money.
The first manufacturing companies (now they are called the proud word “meajora”) at that time created libraries of films (which they have rights to), they allowed to survive later. These films bring annual and very tangible income, because the right to the TV scope of the film must be bought every time. Then, in 2000-2001, the number of cinemas began to grow. But the era of prosperity did not last long. First, the demand for sales of TV scuses fell. But the cost of production sharply increased. If in the early 2000s it was easy to meet $ 1 million per picture, now the average budget of the film has become $ 3 million, the average advertising budget is $ 1 million. By 2008, the number of cinemas ceased to grow. Even in the millionaire city, the cinema pays off for a period of 2 to 7 years. And in small cities he has no chance to pay off at least someday. With the beginning of the global financial crisis on TV, the concepts of “rights to the first -third show” and “rights to the second or fourth show” died. The rights to the DVD publication fell by 50% in Russia. The libraries almost stopped selling: if individual films still brought income, then the concept of “package sale” disappeared altogether.