The cinema is capable of traveling

01/09/2007 Nune HAKHVERDYAN

The French movie production has the most durable and flexible system in the world. Cinema was created in France and in the beginning of the 20th century when movie hasn’t reached the American continent yet France was producing 90% of the world cinematography. Because of the US movie production pressure the French movie production yielded its position. France immediately responded to that by solving the economic issues. We have started our conversation about the French movie production support with Joelle Shaprone, officer of movie selection of Cannes movie festival, deputy-director of Unitrans occupied by the dissemination of European and CIS movies worldwide.

– In France a special tax is levied from each movie ticket that is sold, which in fact is quite a large amount – 10-11%. It really matter in what country the movie is filmed. All the movie theaters, disc sellers pay this tax. And this entire amount is spent on producing French movies. It turns out that the American and foreign movies support the production of French movies. The Americans were in the beginning complaining about this system but they later coped with it because that is the legislation of our country. This system has existed for a long time. That is the reason why the state is able to support the national movie production. Thus the Hollywood movies support the French filmmaking. Our cinema studio is very satisfied because it annually produces about 200 movies. Moreover, we pay special attention to début movies.

– How do you explain the success of Korean and Chinese movies worldwide?

– The Chinese invested a lot of money to appear in festivals and have immediately filmed a few quality commerce movies.

– Can the Armenian movie production develop that way?

– The movies must first of all be interesting for the country population. Only then they my have success in festivals. No matter how much we praise the Asian movies people in French villages like to watch movies filmed in their country, which directly relates to their lives. Every second spectator watches national movies, which is positive. In our country the national movies make 40% of movies (this is the highest index in Europe). The American movies make 45%. This means that the production of movies of other countries only make 5% in France. In this regard the movie makers of other countries are not very good at commerce interest increase in France. I think every film must first of all be showed in the country it was produced as the movie is a part of the national culture. During our functioning we very often rely on the internal demand to decide the further fate of the movies. The contemporary Armenian movie is not well-known abroad and I think your movies are not that often showed in your country. But we re sure that each masterpiece that is accepted nationally will be accepted cheerfully abroad. The cinema unlike theater travels worldwide. And it’s good that it travels.

– Can we state that there are authors, who are independent from major studios and are able to have success?

– Indeed, there are completely independent authors, who can also successfully cast in film both commercial and “art house” movies. Every author is free to do whatever he/she wishes with the image. That is the basic difference between the European and American movies, which mostly tends to focus capacities.

– It’s understandable that movie production hasn’t emerged accidentally. In your opinion what the first steps of Armenia must be to improve movie production?
 
– Let me bring Romania’s example, which I think can be very useful for Armenia. What currently happens in the Romanian movie making is quite unexpected for many of us. Even the best optimists wouldn’t presume that during this short period of time the Romanians would be able to shoot such quality movies. And those are not only one or two movies but simultaneously five to six good ones. Now many experts are trying to find explanation for the Romanian movie production success. I think that the movie production in Romania flourished because in Romania a great number of foreign movies are being made. Filmmaking in that country is comparably cheap and the Romanians spend all their time in the shooting areas. They don’t film the national movie but constantly emphasize in the cinema process. This year during the Cannes festival, Christian Mondu before creating his own movie has taken part in the shooting of dozens of American movies. He has been the assistant to French and American moviemakers. He was watching, learning… And this is not only connected with the work of filmmakers because everybody was learning – painters, operators, sound makers and all the specialists engaged in movies. I think Armenia may develop based on the Romanian model. I know that very few movies are being shot in your country but same is happening in Romania, where there are only a few national movies but instead cinematography is developed. Germans, Americans are coming to Romania, film soap operas. Cinema and architecture are the most expensive arts as the construction of a building is more expensive than book writing for example. The movie cannot exist without advertisement.

– In fact the post Soviet states need certain time for their movie production development.

– This is a good way of development. Ukraine is also trying to develop based on that model. However the former Soviet Union countries have quite many issues as the cinema is closed linked with economy and politics. We shouldn’t forget that it’s always difficult to work in countries where there is a visa system. Visa is a political issue, which often hinders the process. You know that filmmakers constantly travel from place to place and bureaucratic mechanisms slow down the cinema process. Filmmakers don’t wish to be deepened in bureaucratic issues. There is also one more issue. At present about twenty to thirty airplane flights are daily made from Bucharest, Prague or Warsaw to the capital cities of other European states. But the flights from Yerevan, Kiev or Tbilisi are incomparably fewer. And this is a hindering fact.

– It turns out that movie making is more like politics.

– Not only. The movie becomes politics when the state interferes with the process. The state must at some point realize that the cinema will help to raise the image of the country worldwide. France has become famous mostly because of its movies, which show the lifestyles of the French people, towns, villages, beaches, etc. The movie creates an image for the country and due to that we receive a great number of tourists to our country. When visiting our country the tourists know where they coming because they have watched films.

– The shooting scenes of “Amelie” movie have even become spots for tourists to visit.

– When the country has an image the cinema making develops by all means and vice versa, if movies raise the image of the country.

– Perhaps we still need some time o accept that.

– Sometimes movie production development requires work of dozens of years. But this time period can also be essentially shortened. If the country has a wise Prime Minister or a President he will definitely realize this and do his best to improve the cinema production. I want to bring one more example – the example of Bulgaria. There is almost no movie in that country despite the fact that Bulgaria is an EU member and the level of its economy equals the one of Romania. However the politicians of Bulgaria don’t even think to spend money to develop movie production in Bulgaria and raise the country’s image worldwide. Cinema and television are the faces of the country because scenes are able to travel. Don’t ignore this fact.