A HIT THAT WILL NOT SINK OR HOW TO GET LOADS OF MONEY
The old good rule says if an idea sold well, it is worth making use of it once again. The cover of a July “Film” is the best example of it: we see a little derisive smile of Johnny Depp, who – as a captain Jack Sparrow, will plunder the audience’s wallets for a second time this summer, because Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, a sequel of a three-year-old hit – is breaking the records of attendance right now. The first part was the example of how one character can save a film which should be a flop. And that there is not a better character to refresh a romantic comedy as a handsome gay (Rupert Everest in My Best Friend's Wedding), so a hero differing from a screen images of a pirate can bring back to life a corsair film. I have never been an enthusiast of this kind: Errol Flynn as a captain Blood seemed to me too much noble, during “the Pirates” by Polański I was bored and when watching Crimson Pirate I was wondering, why the sixth sense let Visconti see in Burt Lancaster worn in striped breeches, the future prince Salina. It is the fact that I have outgrown films, which the main feature are the scenes of boarding and duels but the film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is worth seeing just for captain Sparrow; supposedly supporting character but he steals every scene in which he appears. Depp changed a classic pirate stager into a little bit metrosexual version (some people from the Disney’s film company even feared he plays a gay): dreadlocks, gold teeth, waddling gait and a French stress, in brief – a sea wolf a bit out of this world. Two characters were the exemplars for the actor: the guitarist of Rolling Stones Keith Richards and a cartoon character, the skunk called Pepe Le Pew, who has – just like Sparrow – a faint contact with the reality. Anyway, the producers of the second part decided to make use of it and entrusted the rockman a role of a father captain but they didn’t manage to fit in the date – maybe Richards will appear in the third part, as far as he will not fall down from a palm tree again. Elżbieta Ciapara writes about the backstage of the film’s production in Jack is Back!
Pirates of the Caribbean earned over a million dollar, paying off the production’s costs with interest, what doesn’t happen in case of Polish cinema. I am curious to know if a director sought for a co-producer and he turned towards the Polish Film Institute – suppose this mad hypothesis is possible – for a subsidy, who would get it? Peter Greeanaway managed to do so, although his film Night Watch (the hero of this film is Rembrandt who works on his title work of art) won’t achieve such a financial success like the corsair histories. It has been a year in June since the bill to cinematography was passed, which was recognised by the readers of the magazine “The Film”, as the Event of the Year worth The Golden Duck (it is the prize, given by the magazine “The Film” once a year – the translator’s note) . As we remember, the debate was fairly stormy, the filmmakers accused the politicians that they destroy our national culture and next those – but not all of them, accused their opponents that instead of seeking sponsors, they reach into taxpayers’ pockets (forgetting who sponsor them). However the bill was managed to be pressed and the result of it is acting for nearly a year, the Polish Film Institute. That is why it is worth watching its accomplishments so far what Anita Zuchora does in her article Jak ugryźć sto milionów (How to get one hundred dollar).
Those one hundred dollar are the budget of the Polish Film Institute, composed of fees from cinemas’ owners, distribution companies, TV stations . They transfer 1,5% of their revenue. Who and for who transfers those money? Agnieszka Odorowicz heads this institution but there is also an eleven-member council with tree-year tenure which has some of the entitlements of supervisory board and programming policy. People connected with the film trade – distributors, producers, directors are included in this institution. There is a lack of representatives of critics. The scientific environment is represented by prof. Wiesław Godzic who takes notice of mistakes in the bill which are dubious about the clarity of the Polish Film Institution’s work. As it occurs that members of the council, people professionally active, try to get subsidies too and they receive it. In such a situation one can’t escape – regardless of the merits of these artists, from accusations nad suspiciousness of personal decisions. Legitimate doubts of text’s author appear because of the number of experts – 206 people, whereas in Denmark there are only three. The aim of this multitude of people assessing the projects is to avoid the accusations of partiality, problems with the choice of several decision-makers, proposing in exchange the participation of a wide team of the environment representatives. But such a collective responsibility means in practice that no-one is responsible for the decisions personally. The experts to the committee are chosen by random once a year and it brings about that not only the responsibility gets distracted but also there is a lack of the criterions of assessment. Especially as the expert’sheet contains not only the content-related opinion but also the business one of the project what is dubious because a film critic or an academic experts on the cinema are not to be knowledgeable about constructing the budget. Even Mrs Odorowicz admits that some experts aren’t fit for this what might let us presume that the next step should be to bring a new institution which would verify the experts’ assessment, into existence.
What follows for the viewer? What kind of films can we expect? According to Zuchora, no-one knows what the aim of the Polish Film Institution is: to aid the development of the Polish cinema or to save the domestic film industry? The commercial cinema or the artistic one? It is common knowledge that there are not so much money for all the projects. The manager talks about good films for an audience but it is rather an unclear term for me. Probably it means the commercial cinema but an arguments “they will pay off” (and in accordance with the bill they will give back the subsidy) – one may turn it over and ask if there is any point in subsidizing them by national money. For the clarity – I am not an enthusiast of the so-called artistic cinema, made only by directors for them and the groups of advocates but those productions are a margin. Meanwhile the films really noteworthing cannot find a distributor – I feared that this bad fortune would be shared by a film Parę osób, mały czas (Few people, a little time) by Andrzej Barański (prizewinning recently in Karlove Vary) but it is to be released in autumn supposedly. If not, it will be on TV at some vampire time after all those music quiz shows and M jak Miłość (L like Love – one of the most popular series in Poland – the translator’s note) which we are to survive. In the context of this the postulate of prof. Grodzic seems to be correct. It says that the Polish Film Industry – as a public institution, having a mission to meet, should involve into propagating of culture and film education. From my point of view, when having a limited budget, it is yet more sensible than building the prestige by, for example subsidizing Greenaway’s film, especially as he would do his film anyway, without having any difficulty in getting money from another European cinematography. But Pasikowski and Niewolski whose projects are to wait to the next session – would not. Maybe we ought to find other ways of getting money – it is a pity we do not have pirates in abundance like the Rembrandt’s paintings.
Katarzyna Wajda
Translated by Marta Choińska
Discussed journals: Film