.jpg "09072019 1")
.jpg "09072019 2")
.jpg "09072019 3")
.jpg "09072019 4")
.jpg "09072019 5")
.jpg "09072019 6")
.jpg "09072019 7")
.jpg "09072019 8")
.jpg "09072019 9")
.jpg "09072019 10")
.jpg "09072019 11")
.jpg "09072019 12")
.jpg "09072019 13")
.jpg "09072019 14")
.jpg "09072019 15")
.jpg "09072019 16")
.jpg "09072019 17")
.jpg "09072019 18")
.jpg "09072019 19")
.jpg "09072019 20")
.jpg "09072019 21")
In part I of this II-part series, I touched upon what the public sector can do to help fuel Kurdistan's homegrown cinema. The other key players – the private sector, the public, and filmmakers – equally share the burden. However theirs can only be achieved with genuine help from the government.
I also touched upon the distribution and exhibition end, calling for government support and incentives for cinema halls and TV stations to showcase domestic films and dramas.
One additional step the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) can take is to encourage the private sector to jump on this bandwagon through attractive tax incentives for investors and matching funds for producers.
The private sector is yet to take the stage in this regard. From the business perspective, would-be investors, be they tradesmen, mega corporations, or wealthy individuals, have not yet found confidence in this sector. No investor in their right mind would throw money down the drain. But a business-minded person might be lured by incentives.
Investment tax credits, also known as tax shelters, to those who support and/or invest in film production are a proven method the world over. For instance, Poland has a 50 percent tax incentive, Fiji 47 percent, Belgium 40-45 percent, China and Columbia 40 percent, The Netherlands 35 percent, and France and the United Arab Emirates 30 percent each, to name but a few.
To further encourage investors and producers, a governmental matching fund can be allocated in the form of a grant. The difference between an investment and a grant is that the grant-giver does not share in the profits and the grant does not need to be reimbursed. The investor on the other hand, in addition to tax break benefits, becomes a full partner with the producer and is entitled to 50 percent of the profit after recouping their initial investment.
The matching fund initiative is active in many European countries, most notably the EU's Eurimage (European Cinema Support Fund).
The KRG's Ministry of Culture and Youth has long allocated an annual budget for film production, though regretfully the money has often been wasted on the wrong bad apples – well connected Smithees, often the Ministry's own staff, who have been turning out lemons destined to collect dust and grow mushrooms in some damp corner.
This is due to the lack of a cohesive system and wholehearted initiatives to aid the arts - a none-system tightly preserved in the corridors of the bureaucracy by unenlightened paper-pushers and gate-keepers, not to mention the pseudo-experts (I call them nexperts) posing as advisors. Cinema is in trouble indeed.
Another embarrassing downside of the Ministry's involvement is how it lays claim to the films it supports by taking a 75 percent share while the filmmaker keeps just 25 percent, despite often failing to fulfil the budgetary needs of production or invest in the marketing of the films, which is the most significant act for creating a sustainable industry.
When the Ministry claims majority ownership without finishing the films, it does not leave any incentive for private investors to pitch in for their completion or distribution costs. The support should either come in the form of a grant to help the arts or as a business investment. The latter would/should entitle the Ministry to share just 50 percent of the profit with other investors. The other 50 percent belongs to the producers. This is the standard film investment procedure in all corners of the globe minus a couple of communist nations.
As for the public, like audiences around the world, Kurdish viewers root for mainstream Hollywood entertainment. This is in conflict with the nature of Kurdish films which are often prepped for festivals, are message-oriented, and lack the blockbuster intrigue and buoyancy.
However, the public will have to be acclimatised to support local cinema in the same manner they should root for domestically produced foods and material goods. The KRG can help influence such an atmosphere by fulfilling a portion of cinemas' operational expenses, enabling owners to lower admission fees, making it more affordable to the public.
Likewise, filmmakers need to adapt a workable/marketable stance and make films that cater to mainstream crowds. They do not need to utilise Hollywood pyrotechnics but rather produce simple human stories with good natured humour and romantic tales similar to those turned out in India, Nigeria, and Egypt.
Nigeria's Nollywood is the second largest employer in the country after agriculture. The industry produces an average of 1,000 films annually with budgets ranging from $7,000 to $13,000 per film. That is $10,000 on average.
The budget allocated to a single film in Kurdistan (by the Ministry of Culture) for world festivals and distribution is sufficient to make 20 such films for the domestic market. But, considering the standard of living here in comparison with Nigeria, I would suggest doubling the budget. This would give the public almost one new film per month.
With the right management and planning we could be packing our movie houses and television screens with films of every genre and subject matter. This will give Kurdish cinema its due visibility and employ a good segment of the youth, laying the groundwork for them to express their artistic capacities while making a living at it. In short, we could be baking our own cake and eating it too.
Here too, aside from some poorly made series often hashed together by Ministry employees, the dozens of television channels, half of which cater to foreign films and dramas (the other half are redundant news outlets), have not shown the slightest interest in homegrown films, notwithstanding the great many of the films are recipients of prestigious international awards, and there are enough homegrown short films to fill TV schedules for the next many years.
Nor are the TV channels interested in promoting Kurdish filmmakers. They go out of their way to promote Hollywood hits free of charge. They advertise the blockbusters in the name of entertainment, often listing box office figures which they are helping bolster by the very mention of them. My advice to these channels: Hollywood studios funnel millions into advertising their films. You could be earning a good fortune by promoting them, yet you are doing so as charity.
The neglect of domestic films on our televisions can be rectified in two manners: responsible programming by an enlightened staff or advisors, and government-imposed broadcasting regulations, which I pointed out in the previous segment.
However, without one certain ingredient, all that is written here is simply words on a screen. This one ingredient will make it work. Without it, any industry, establishment, even an entire country, will break. It is more important than all the initiatives combined, without which there will never be a real cinema nor a Kollywood but rather follies lost in the woods.
That magic ingredient that tops my list is, again, reform. Reform across the board.
Reform is the first and only way forward to realise our place in the sun or on that bright silver screen where we can tango down the happy lane. To this end I remain optimistic.
I also touched upon the distribution and exhibition end, calling for government support and incentives for cinema halls and TV stations to showcase domestic films and dramas.
One additional step the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) can take is to encourage the private sector to jump on this bandwagon through attractive tax incentives for investors and matching funds for producers.
The private sector is yet to take the stage in this regard. From the business perspective, would-be investors, be they tradesmen, mega corporations, or wealthy individuals, have not yet found confidence in this sector. No investor in their right mind would throw money down the drain. But a business-minded person might be lured by incentives.
Investment tax credits, also known as tax shelters, to those who support and/or invest in film production are a proven method the world over. For instance, Poland has a 50 percent tax incentive, Fiji 47 percent, Belgium 40-45 percent, China and Columbia 40 percent, The Netherlands 35 percent, and France and the United Arab Emirates 30 percent each, to name but a few.
To further encourage investors and producers, a governmental matching fund can be allocated in the form of a grant. The difference between an investment and a grant is that the grant-giver does not share in the profits and the grant does not need to be reimbursed. The investor on the other hand, in addition to tax break benefits, becomes a full partner with the producer and is entitled to 50 percent of the profit after recouping their initial investment.
The matching fund initiative is active in many European countries, most notably the EU's Eurimage (European Cinema Support Fund).
The KRG's Ministry of Culture and Youth has long allocated an annual budget for film production, though regretfully the money has often been wasted on the wrong bad apples – well connected Smithees, often the Ministry's own staff, who have been turning out lemons destined to collect dust and grow mushrooms in some damp corner.
This is due to the lack of a cohesive system and wholehearted initiatives to aid the arts - a none-system tightly preserved in the corridors of the bureaucracy by unenlightened paper-pushers and gate-keepers, not to mention the pseudo-experts (I call them nexperts) posing as advisors. Cinema is in trouble indeed.
Another embarrassing downside of the Ministry's involvement is how it lays claim to the films it supports by taking a 75 percent share while the filmmaker keeps just 25 percent, despite often failing to fulfil the budgetary needs of production or invest in the marketing of the films, which is the most significant act for creating a sustainable industry.
When the Ministry claims majority ownership without finishing the films, it does not leave any incentive for private investors to pitch in for their completion or distribution costs. The support should either come in the form of a grant to help the arts or as a business investment. The latter would/should entitle the Ministry to share just 50 percent of the profit with other investors. The other 50 percent belongs to the producers. This is the standard film investment procedure in all corners of the globe minus a couple of communist nations.
As for the public, like audiences around the world, Kurdish viewers root for mainstream Hollywood entertainment. This is in conflict with the nature of Kurdish films which are often prepped for festivals, are message-oriented, and lack the blockbuster intrigue and buoyancy.
However, the public will have to be acclimatised to support local cinema in the same manner they should root for domestically produced foods and material goods. The KRG can help influence such an atmosphere by fulfilling a portion of cinemas' operational expenses, enabling owners to lower admission fees, making it more affordable to the public.
Likewise, filmmakers need to adapt a workable/marketable stance and make films that cater to mainstream crowds. They do not need to utilise Hollywood pyrotechnics but rather produce simple human stories with good natured humour and romantic tales similar to those turned out in India, Nigeria, and Egypt.
Nigeria's Nollywood is the second largest employer in the country after agriculture. The industry produces an average of 1,000 films annually with budgets ranging from $7,000 to $13,000 per film. That is $10,000 on average.
The budget allocated to a single film in Kurdistan (by the Ministry of Culture) for world festivals and distribution is sufficient to make 20 such films for the domestic market. But, considering the standard of living here in comparison with Nigeria, I would suggest doubling the budget. This would give the public almost one new film per month.
With the right management and planning we could be packing our movie houses and television screens with films of every genre and subject matter. This will give Kurdish cinema its due visibility and employ a good segment of the youth, laying the groundwork for them to express their artistic capacities while making a living at it. In short, we could be baking our own cake and eating it too.
Here too, aside from some poorly made series often hashed together by Ministry employees, the dozens of television channels, half of which cater to foreign films and dramas (the other half are redundant news outlets), have not shown the slightest interest in homegrown films, notwithstanding the great many of the films are recipients of prestigious international awards, and there are enough homegrown short films to fill TV schedules for the next many years.
Nor are the TV channels interested in promoting Kurdish filmmakers. They go out of their way to promote Hollywood hits free of charge. They advertise the blockbusters in the name of entertainment, often listing box office figures which they are helping bolster by the very mention of them. My advice to these channels: Hollywood studios funnel millions into advertising their films. You could be earning a good fortune by promoting them, yet you are doing so as charity.
The neglect of domestic films on our televisions can be rectified in two manners: responsible programming by an enlightened staff or advisors, and government-imposed broadcasting regulations, which I pointed out in the previous segment.
However, without one certain ingredient, all that is written here is simply words on a screen. This one ingredient will make it work. Without it, any industry, establishment, even an entire country, will break. It is more important than all the initiatives combined, without which there will never be a real cinema nor a Kollywood but rather follies lost in the woods.
That magic ingredient that tops my list is, again, reform. Reform across the board.
Reform is the first and only way forward to realise our place in the sun or on that bright silver screen where we can tango down the happy lane. To this end I remain optimistic.
Jano Rosebiani is an American-Kurdish scriptwriter, director, producer, and editor associated with Kurdish New Wave cinema. This is the first part of a two-part series on promoting Kurdish cinema.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment