« Maximalism | Main | Pimp my Vespa »
August 12, 2005
Management of Culture Industries
Two articles yesterday relate to the administration of culture industries in China and Vietnam, extending into art, cinema and publishing. The first article found on Danwei:
Chinese news Xinhua published a report on the "State Council's several Decisions on guiding non-public capital into the cultural industry."
1. Encourage and support private funds entering the following areas: Performing arts troupes, performance venues, museums and exhibition halls, Internet service venues, art education and training, art and cultural exchanges, travel cultural services, cultural entertainment, art object management, cartoons and Internet games, advertising, production and distribution of films and TV programs, broadcast technology development, movie theaters and movie theater cables (i.e. digital delivery of movies to cinemas), film screenings in rural areas, retail and distribution of books and periodicals, retail and distribution of audio and video products, printing of packaging and decorative printed items.
However,
9. Private funds are not allowed to invest in, establish or operate news agencies, newspapers, publishing companies, radio stations or channels, TV stations or channels, broadcast relay stations, broadcast satellites, satellite ground stations, transfer stations, microwave stations, monitoring stations, cable TV network backbones etc.; they are not allowed to use information networks to develop audio-visual programming services and news websites; they are not allowed to operate editorial sections of newspapers, TV broadcast frequencies and programs, operate books and newspaper publishing, movies and TV, audio-visual productions and such cultural product import operations; they are not allowed to operate state-owned museums.
In short, there appears to be an encouragement/relaxing of rules regarding production with a tightening of rules regarding distribution. It is a win-win situation for the State meanwhile everything remains as ambiguous as ever with those responsible for the creation of the work. The state ultimately has the power to not broadcast, distribute, publish, inform the public about the works it has encouraged its creative communities to create.
Vietnamese Thanh Nien News selects as its English-language editorial Privatising cinema: Is it the right time?. Vietnamese cinema remains a state enterprise. The Vietnamese goverment has recently raised the development of its national cinema to one of its highest priorities among other cultural forms. There have been numerous articles of Vietnamese directors going overseas to observe foreign production techniques, film and video equipment expositions featuring the latest technologies, and information on overseas Vietnamese and Chinese film. However, the focus has been on the development of the technical aspects of film production at the cost of the creative. As a result, Vietnamese films have been riddled with stereotype, poor acting, techical blemishes, problematic narratives and editing continuity, and passionless writing. A problem can be found in the following quote from Le Cong Hung, Deputy Director of Vietnam’s Film Import-Export and Distribution Corporation (Fafilm):
"After privatisation, companies will have to balance their own finances, meaning they will be faced by the prospect of personal financial ruin. State-owned studios would then be challenged by private enterprises determined to succeed."
If there's no risk in making art, it follows there's no incentive to make quality work. If the studios continue to rely on budgets and authoring from the State without the prospect of failing, then the films will not improve. If the State is the primary financier, with control over the writing to the final distribution (as in the China article), then there is also no incentive to make challenging and engaging films. Privatization of cinema will ensure that each studio works to produce its best films at the risk of the demise of their studio, not from intervention, but from a lack of creativity and ability to connect with their audience.
However, I do agree with Mr. Le on the point:
"What the film authorities are most concerned about is that with privatisation, film producers will focus on sensational topics like this, abandoning the historic and artistic ones that state-owned studios focus on."
There exists a very real possibility that the privatization the entire film industry would come at the cost of films that address social concerns. Documentaries, for example, would be severely affected.
“Our biggest problem is that we do not have professional film producers, which has left our film industry far behind the rest of the world. But with that background and the challenges we currently face, is now the right time for us to privatise the national film industry?” Mr Hung pondered.
My opinion is that Vietnam should move toward the privatization of cinema as it moves ahead with the privatization of other industries. The movement should be towards privatization with the implementation of initial safeguards to sustain and support specific crafts most likely to be severely affected, as in the non-commercial sectors in art, cinema and literature. The privatization of Vietnamese cinema will attract those professional film producers that the industry laments not having.
Further Reading
• Danwei. Media regulation in China: Closed open closed open for business
• Thanh Nien News. Privatising cinema: Is it the right time?
• China News. Private fund OK'ed for culture industry
Posted by rst at August 12, 2005 02:53 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.diacritic.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/88