2024-07-25 03:33:39
During the public debates on the Omnibus Law, the following was mentioned many times: screen share as a virtuous tool that allowed the National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (INCAA) guarantee an exhibition space for the premiere of national films in commercial theaters in the countryThis measure was implemented through Law 17,741 (to 2001 and its amendments): to comply with the so-called screen quota, it was necessary to project One national film per theatre, in all its screenings and at least one week for each quarter of the year. If that movie surpassed the continuity average (the number of spectators set by the norm for that period of time), then it had to continue showing in that room for at least one more week. Decree 662/2024 published yesterday in the Official Gazette and signed by the President of the Nation Javier Milei, the Foreign Minister Diana Mondino and the Minister of Human Capital Sandra Pettovello, it ends with a measure highly valued in the sector.
The second article of the decree establishes that “INCAA will be the Enforcement Authority of the Law for the Promotion of National Cinematographic Activity No. 17,741, and is empowered to dictate the necessary explanatory and complementary norms for the implementation of the Regulations approved by this decree” and the annex details how this norm will be regulated: Chapter III entitled “Screen Quota” establishes through article 9 that “The President of INCAA will set the screen quota for national feature and short films that theaters must comply with and other exhibition venues in the country, being able to segment the quota based on the characteristics of the theatres reached.”
These paragraphs come into contradiction with the recitals of the same decree that intends “to make the operation of the aforementioned Agency more efficient and to optimize its administrative processes, as well as to rationalize its resourcesfor the best ordering and fulfillment of its purposes.” One of these items states that “the setting of the screen quota must be segmented according to the technical characteristics, business structure and location of the exhibition halls.” However, the following paragraph clarifies that “the INCAA, as the Enforcement Authority of the Law for the Promotion of National Cinematographic Activity, is the body that is qualified to determine the screen quotas and their segmentation.” At this point, then, it is worth asking: Will there be intervention by the State or not? Does the market regulate itself or will the State come to help it? What kind of coherence can exist in a film policy that contradicts itself in the text of the same legal norm?
The decree signed by Milei also contains several observations about the sector that make clear what place it has for the current government. On the one hand, it is noted that in 2000, INCAA had a staff of approximately 90 workers, while at the time of the current administration’s assumption of office, that number rose to more than 900 under different forms of contracting. This clarification – made in a single line, almost in passing – is one of the main axes of discussion within state agencies, a debate that unions often bring up: the job insecurity with outsourced contracts and a legion of self-employed workers in the StateBut nothing is said about how to solve these issues.
On the other hand, there is also an emphasis on something that officials of the libertarian government often point out in relation to any state sphere, especially when it comes to the cultural field. The decree warns that “the disproportionate increase in staff led to 42% of income being allocated to salaries in the previous year, which directly harms the main objective of INCAA, that is, the promotion of film activity.” However, Nor is there any light on what form the promotion of the activity will take during the management of the current president of the Institute, Carlos Pirovano..
The decree states that “over the years, tasks that have no relation to its missions and functions have been delegated to the Institute” – although it is not clear which ones – and that both the increase in these “unrelated tasks” and the “exponential increase in the number of employees” led to the need for “extraordinary contributions from the National Treasury of approximately $1,900,000,000 in 2023 to cover operating expenses, including the implementation of the Mar del Plata International Film Festival and Ventana Sur“, two policies that are at risk under the current administration (Ventana Sur, in fact, has already moved to Uruguay for the 2024 edition).
Also There is talk of a debt with suppliers for the sum of $700,000,000 and an execution deficit for the 2023 fiscal year of $2,600,000,000. The numbers abound but, once again, nothing is said about the Hiring a law firm outside the Institute, an act that the Internal Board of ATE INCAA described as “irregular, fraudulent and costly”“: INCAA has its own Legal Affairs Department, but on May 15, lawyer Jorge Gustavo Neme presented Pirovano with his “professional services for legal advice and action, both judicial and extrajudicial” for fees of $9,000,000 minimum. The tasks requested included the termination of contracted employees, structuring and implementing a voluntary retirement program, transfer to availability, daily labor advice and advice on judicial and extrajudicial actions initiated against INCAA. policy of layoffs and dismantling It also has a high cost and this was not communicated with much transparency to society.
The decree It includes many figures, but when it comes to establishing what character its development policy will have, It leaks and is quite ambiguous. It is said that the INCAA subsidy system is “obsolete and far from the successful models existing in other countries” and, therefore, must be “modified, modernized and made more efficient.” It also determines that the promotion of the industry must be prioritized taking into account “the quality and possibilities of exhibition, audience and recovery of the funds granted, above ideological preferences” (perhaps one of the most controversial points) and, along those lines, establishes that the promotion of national cinema should be addressed by promoting “quality productions that are successful at the box office and well received by the general public, and do not impose exhibition obligations on the part of the theaters”. Those lines are something like the death certificate of the spirit who had the screen quota when it comes to establishing a balance between national and international productions (with all the exhibition spaces at their disposal) and local productions that often have trouble finding their audience in theaters.
Finally, the decree also provides for a “profound restructuring at the operational, structural and personnel levelswhich will require a one-year process to achieve a limit on expenditure that is not for the promotion of cinema” and maintains that “it is necessary to implement a system that guarantees that six representatives of the film organizations that make up the Advisory Board of the aforementioned Institute faithfully represent those who have an active role in the aforementioned subject.” Therefore, it is possible that more modifications will come with the same criteria: giving free rein to the market and to large productions, and increasingly limiting the space for medium and small films where the most distinctive voices are often found, an author’s stamp, plots that are outside the most standardized stories, valuable stories that strengthen the audiovisual sovereignty of the country and consolidate our cultural identity.