2024-04-14 03:01:00
As expected, the Resolution 27/2024 (Res.27), published last Wednesday with the signature of the current president of the National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (Incaa), Carlos Pirovano, generated a great impact and a lot worry in the field of the film industry. In its first article, the cited norm orders “suspend the receipt of all types of projects that are carried out through the Continuous Window system, for a period of 90 days.” The decision, unilateral and without consultation, represents the absolute paralysis of cinematographic activity in the country and caused the unanimous rejection of all the sectors that are part of the development of cinema in Argentina.
The producer Gema Juarez Allen, member of the collective Union of Audiovisual Producers, believes that Resolution 27 comes to “formalize a situation that the Argentine film industry has been experiencing for 4 months: its grinding halt”. Along these lines, the filmmaker and producer Martin Oesterheld considers that, “as happens in all areas of a government that does not manage, the only thing that the current president of Incaa seems to be doing is stretching deadlines and empty the organism”. Director of films like The crowd (2013) and grandson of the remembered creator of The EternautOesterheld confirms that “the promotion is completely stopped, there is no management horizon or guidelines for the sector and all these decisions have been made unilaterally, because it is not known either What status is the appointment of the Advisory Council, which is the body with which Pirovano should be working.”
In the same sense, a source very close to Incaa, who knows perfectly how it works but preferred to keep his identity confidential – the Government was very successful in the application of a system based on terror, from the implementation of massive layoffs -, when consulted by Page 12 It coincided with the views of the producer and the filmmaker. “The issue is that Res.27 not only suspends” the possibility of presenting new projects, but “it is clear that it is the end of that system.” “Because in the facts also return the projects that were already in process and that implies a paradigm shift” in the way the Institute works. The source recalls that some of the previous directors, “such as Alejandro Cacetta, and at times Ralph Haiek and Luis Puenzo, also did this thing of ‘announcing’ that a ‘new promotion regime’ was coming and, meanwhile, in reality , frizz everything.” In Pirovano’s management, however, everything “is more explicit, because until now “No one had dared to put it in writing,” points out.
For Juárez Allen, producer of highly respected filmmakers locally and internationally, such as Andrés Di Tella, Lola Arias, Santiago Loza, Manuel Abramovich, Leandro Listorti or the Russian Victor Kossakovsky, Res.27 marks a disastrous course for the industry. “Presenting projects to the Institute requires a lot of preparation time and is key in the planning of a company.” Among other things, because “having the approval of Incaa allows the international financing cycle of films to begin and is “the first step of a very long process”, he indicates. That is why he maintains that this decision, added to the inactivity that the sector has had since December, “means that probably many companies close, professionals emigrate and the industry continues to be paralyzed for a long period of time.”
For its part, the source close to Incaa considers that Res.27 implies the end of the Continuous Window system, whose persistence “had to do with the inadequacy of the average cost, the very low aid and the times that dragged on forever,” and that in its place “will come a system more annual contests and quotas.” In any case, it also clarifies that this analysis arises from what the resolution implies, because in practice the measure only “suspends the system and returns what was presented.” However, before the brutality shown by Pirovano’s management as President Milei’s amanuensis, it does not seem inappropriate to evaluate the most radical options, so that the worst scenarios do not take the sector by surprise.
That is why it is not out of place to ask what the eventual consequences that Argentine cinema should face if these projections come true, both in the immediate and long term. “The effects of the blow that this resolution represents are immeasurable. The suspension of the reception of projects is added to the lack of subsidy payments and other legitimate resources that the Incaa owe to producers, to dismissal of employees of the Institute, the closure of entire areas without an obvious logical criterion, the absence of promotion and exhibition policies, or the lack of support for festivals,” explains Juárez Allen.
“Having postponed over time a serious discussion about where resources come from and how to use them, finds us today facing a government that sees the Film Institute as a deficit problem”, reflects Oesterheld. “An Incaa that does not have the ability to read the current scenarios, which were transforming and which require a knowledgeable view of the sector that can work on its growth. The constant negative of do not tax platforms streaming It leads us to a stagnation of production and a de facto emptying out,” he concludes.
“This whole situation adds up to a breach of social pacts and a speech promoted by the national government, which denigrates and ignores those of us who dedicate ourselves to education, science, culture and cinema,” adds Juárez Allen. “Our industry is vilified and the producers are accused of the economic crisis and even the hunger of the children of Chaco, in order to detracting value from the production of cultural and symbolic goods”, completes the production company.
“Cinema will follow. “I don’t think there is any other option,” says the source consulted regarding the future. “I also do not politically share this saying that if X happens everything is over. That ditty strengthens this management (we are the perfect enemy; the only real power they have is to be against the past). I think a way will be found, even if it will be more difficult for a while. “They can’t do too much nonsense with the Constitution we have,” he maintains, relying on the democratic logic that It is impossible to go against the institutions by overriding the law.
Knowing how the Incaa works, the source consulted does not avoid the self-criticism, a necessary instance to understand how this situation came to be. “The system has been wrong for a long time and we, the interested party, We are not in charge of making the change. Now it is more difficult, because it is done by those who have zero interest in culture,” he reasons.
Juárez Allen agrees with that view. “All institutions have deficiencies and problems in their functioning and “Incaa is no exception,” it states. “But completely stopping an activity when the institution’s purpose is to promote it seems to me to be an absolute mistake and a great irresponsibility“, go on. ”It is necessary to rethink, correct imbalances, restructure what grew irregularly, especially in such a changing context and in such a dynamic industry like audiovisual. But Why stop an activity that had been working well? giving work, bringing in foreign currency, generating international recognition? Are there needs and problems? Yes. Do they justify stopping the activity? Clearly not,” concludes the producer.
Despite the discouraging outlook that Res.27 opens, the source consulted by Page 12 choose to look forward with hope. “I trust the antibodies and what we have learned in democracy. Everything done is too important and too good for a little guy with a promotion plan to liquidate everything. The way is to continue working, explaining and disseminating.”
“Total paralysis is immediately evident,” confirms Oesterheld. “But on the other hand, I see all sectors of culture very mobilized, with an increasingly cohesive community, proud of its work, which confronts with great strength this anti-national and anti-creative government. A brutalized government that fights against all the productive forces of the country. Art complicates them because it serves to break lines. They are afraid of culture because they know that it is from where dissidence emerges and that is why they need to dismantle it, inventing a battle that only exists in their heads.”
What movies can
By Andrea Testa *
I had a teacher who wrote poetry and always left us feeling and thinking. He taught me that a film had to start strong, sowing the birth of a tree what the story was going to be. With him I also learned that art in contexts of confinement frees people. And it is not a question of having talent, but of the possibility we have of opening that meeting with others. He wrote: “What did you do with love while the other person suffered?” (Vicente Zito Lema).
His voice resonates in my memory, his question insists. What are we doing with love in the face of so much destruction, to so much damage that circulates in us and that is gradually drowning our loved ones, the people we met in each film in which we participate. What are we doing with the pain that those people who were part of the stories are suffering?
Once, from the INCAA program Cinema in Prisons I participated in a virtual conversation with young people deprived of their liberty. With an edge that I admired, one of the boys spoke up and angrily began to list all the things they were needing. I didn’t know how to intervene. I remember the feeling of impotence and keep quiet to let the lawsuit move forward. When I closed the computer I was thinking What could a movie do there? although ultimately they were being able to talk beyond the wall.
Another time, I had to go to a women’s prison within the framework of the Tandil Film Festival. They set up the screen thanks to the Institute’s Mobile Cinema and the performance began. The girls shared the mate and chatted, every now and then one of them would laugh or laugh. When the screening ended we made a round and the word began to emerge: the abortions they suffered, the children they missed, the violence, the blood. We cried a lot that time. I remember two girls hugging and kissing each other: one of them said that they loved each other and were going to get married. Before we say goodbye They asked us for more movies, but they wanted to choose what to see. I was shocked, the bars closed behind me, further and further away from them.
Our Cinema Law dictates that A National Cinematography must be promoted in its cultural, artistic, technical and industrial value. We are not just talking about film production, but about everything that cinema and audiovisuals can circulate in society. Cinematography are the films that my grandmother watched when she was little and that we are losing, despite the commitment of INCAA workers who try to preserve each can of recovered film, because We lack a National Cinematheque. Cinematography is every debate in every film school, it is the students and all generations. The National Cinematography is put together every day with each ticket that is sold or each play that is squeezed onto the screens, because films end when someone sees them at home, in a school, in movie theaters around the world, in indigenous communities, in prisons.
Whoever is in charge of INCAA today despises National Cinematography and is leading it to its ruin. Allied to a Government that censors the plurality of stories and that with its aggressiveness and hatred pushes us to the darkest places that the history of our country has ever reached, I wonder what we do with our pain in the face of its incompetence to promote a culture of love
* Filmmaker, director of kid squirt (2016), Girl mom (2019) y The long night of Francisco Sanctis (2017), co-directed with Francisco Márquez, which competed at Cannes. He is a member of the Collective of Filmmakers group.