Criticizing the government for its relationship with the SGAE is a national sport to practice and enjoy. It is the clearest example of lobbying Spain (along, perhaps, with the church) and certainly one of the most successful to lobby internationally. However, often disagree with many of the arguments used to criticize the consequences of that relationship, and lately I have heard criticism towards the English film I seem to range from the simple demagoguery based on stereotypes, even the most absurd nonsense .
I have here a couple of posts that seem representative of others I have read (as well as Tweets and comments that arise). An interesting fact of these posts is that they rely on each other, but one argues from the standpoint of neo-liberal and the other remains interventionist.
The first post can be summarized in these two paragraphs:
[...] try to help our government to identify public expenditures can be reduced or eliminated and thus central government spending on what is truly necessary.
I leave my contribution:
Crop subsidies English cinema, in 2001 these amounted to 31.08 million euros in 2008 totaled 67.7 million euros, and by 2010 it appears that the executive wants to raise them to 111 million euros (+40% increase).
Some data to justify the cut:
The number of spectators English film in 2001, reached 26.2 million. In 2008 the figure stood at 14.4 million. The box office has gone from the 110 million in 2001 to 81 million euros in 2008. In 2010, surely the amount of the subsidies exceed the income earned at the box office. Apparently
English cinema should receive less subsidies because fewer viewers have come to him. Following this brilliant approach, TVE should subsidize and make Punset Ana Rosa Quintana which is a public service that more people support, Torrente 2 gives two kicks as a film to The Sea Inside, and Spiderman 3 was one of the best films in cinema history. The case Torrente is always funny, because many use it as an example of the poor quality of English cinema when it comes to one of the highest grossing films in the history of English cinema (in fact, the first if you count only those that have been shot in English).
assess the quality of English cinema (and thus the interest to preserve it) by the number of viewers, it gives me a very poor image of the culture of issuing such opinion. I malentendáis, I also enjoy seeing Megan Fox in Transformers, but certainly not the box office used to measure the quality of his films.
Is it bad English movies?
obviously there is everything, as in all countries. There are bad movies blockbuster, blockbuster movies and movies good little bad little box office. The artistic production of a sector is always going to include movies in the whole spectrum. However, to measure the overall quality of the movies I propose as a criterion to see that opinion deserves English cinema out of our country: This is the
ranking of the top 20 countries by number of Oscars and nominations for best foreign film :
| Country Awards Nominations | Note | ||
| Italy | 10 | 27 | + 3 Special Awards |
| France | 9 | 34 | + 3 Special Awards |
| Spain | 4 | 19 | |
| Japan | 4 | 11 | + 3 Special Awards |
| Germany | 3 | 15 | |
| Sweden | 3 | 14 | |
| Russia | 3 | 10 | |
| Netherlands | 3 | 7 | |
| Denmark | 2 | 7 | |
| Czech Republic | 2 | 6 | |
| Switzerland | 2 | 5 | |
| Hungary | 1 | 8 | |
| Argentina | 1 | 5 | |
| Algeria Canada | 1 | 4 | |
| Austria Czech Republic Russia Taiwan | 1 | 3 | |
| 1 South Africa 2 |
ensure that English cinema is of poor quality and therefore should not be funded is to generalize and take advantage of a damaging stereotypes in society English. In Spain there are bad movies, and movies are very good, but overall, despite having spent 40 years in a repressive dictatorship, we are the third country in the world ranking over most of Europe.
However, there is an underlying part of the post in which yes I agree, and to establish mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of subsidies public at the time to produce better movies and make best actors, directors, writers and members of film production.
Has the English cinema?
I agree that it takes better quality controls in production, but, apparently, disagree with the majority that the number of viewers should be the criterion. Based on the criterion of international criticism, I wish people would realize the following:
sure I agree with the majority that we must continue to improve the quality of subsidized productions, and has to be more scrutiny, but hardly can convince me that subsidies have failed to train talented professionals and also create good films.
Interventions and Subsidies
As I mentioned before, the second post , makes a similar argument to the first but from the neoliberal view: Government should not subsidize because the intervention takes freedom to the consumer.
"Imagine now that the Government, instead of letting the market penalize those who do evil in the sense that the producer that offers a good that consumers demand, and removal from the market, believes that consumer sovereignty is a dangerous and suspicious item and it's much better "forcing" to sue the employer's product loses market share. "
not know enough to Bote Valentin, to know whether it is consistent with its reasoning in all other markets, but variations of the argument, simplified phrases like "The government gives me my ..." I have heard is people across the political spectrum.
First things first, bad that it hurts the neoliberal government Is an economic factor involved in many markets because most people require it. Not a single party that dares to stand announcing the cancellation of public services because most of society is in favor of these continue. The government intervenes when it provides services such as education, health and safety, and citizens freely vote for such intervention, so that you can hardly argue that this "stealing" freedoms to citizens.
"the government spoke only basic services? No, it does so in all sectors considered vital to the economy, from all transport infrastructure to energy, through telecommunications. All these sectors are regulated, if not directly owned by the government. Not only that, whenever a sector has reached a specific weight in the economy such that the health of this sector has depended on the welfare of many citizens, the government has intervened to ensure compliance. So it is with the automotive industry, tourism and construction also. Also involved in sectors considered strategic to the defense and technological development, as with the military industry, aerospace, and research centers from different sciences. Overall, how difficult is to find an industry that does not receive any direct or indirect subsidies.
Trying to believe that cinema is an exception, it is simply misleading.
Culture Industry vs
Regardless of whether it is a fallacy to argue that the government does not subsidize industries in general, I think it is also the role of government preserve cultural artifacts and activities that add value to society regardless of that the market does not reflect.
The English monuments and national parks would not survive if they lived charged entries. I do not see many suggesting the government save deleting the program money to support sports Olympic, although looking at the medal table and comparing it to the Oscars is providing us with much lower returns. The culture is preserved, regardless of which can not compete in the market.
Thus we come to the big question, does the film industry or culture is? The response of each person tends to change depending on the topic and context of the discussion. However, there is something I do see clear, is that if the movies are included within the right to private copying English is because when it was written, it was felt that it was important that people have access to the cinema as part of cultural production in the country.
The right to private copying is applied to cultural products rather than industrial. Thus, the copy of such software is illegal, regardless of no profit. In other industries, the protection is much higher due to the patent system, in that once someone has an idea, you lose the right to use and enjoy the same but get there independently or you had no intention profit.
For this reason, it bothers me when those in the film industry, which is clearly considered subsidized cultural production, criticize the right to private copying established to disseminate culture. The same Thus, it seems inconsistent to see criticism of the subsidies between those who defend this right. I realize that people are downloading movies more American than English, which is the typical argument when someone points out this inconsistency, but argue that those who say and ignore (consciously or unconsciously) that no grant are to offset the P2P (for that is the compensation for private copying which I will discuss shortly), but to protect and promote cultural production.
Compensation for private copying and the private copying levy
I'ma big critic of the private copying levy . It seems to me absurd system, a joke result of a drunken night Ramoncín Loquillo listening to singer-songwriter, who lost his grace when it became law in 1987 because of the enormous power of the lobby of the SGAE. Since then, it seems that the SGAE has managed to have enough power so that no one dares to touch it. The fee is unacceptable because: Da
However, many critics of the disposal fee equal to the elimination of compensation for the right to private copying. First of all, this is impossible, the rights of cultural producers to receive "fair compensation" in countries with right to private copying, is set by European legislation. But also, I personally would oppose the elimination of the compensation. The authors are taken off the right to exclusive use of his creation in favor of creating value for society and therefore society must compensate authors. As I mentioned earlier, cultural production is the only case of intellectual creation in which the operator does not retain the rights to exploit their work, and I think that this competitive disadvantage should be compensated.
The difference is that I believe that compensation should come from direct taxes, that the amounts should be related to cultural outreach objective criteria to choose governments as representatives of citizens, and that the distribution should also be performed by the government.
And finally, I leave you with some words of John Hennessy on the importance of art:
0 comments:
Post a Comment