Читать книгу Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 2 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 2 (2023) - Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения» - Страница 6

Large amounts of grants and subsidies, refundable and non-refundable, are being directed towards film production in Russia. Funding for the Russian cinema from both public and private sources is steadily increasing, data on the winners and the amounts, coverage and box office receipts is made publicly available, transparency and reporting requirements are increasing, and open pitching of scripts has become a common practice. However, at the same time in the same information field, the experts are starting to voice the idea that efficiency is not always about numbers. What is it about, then?

Tatiana Pechegina

Journalist

IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS

An extra 5.5 billion rubles a year have been earmarked in the 2023–2025 state budget for the development of filmmaking in Russia, bringing the annual support volumes to about 12 billion rubles[14]. The authorities are expanding their support system for regional filmmakers, in the form of a tax rebate program that allows partial reimbursement of filming costs for films and series from the regional budget. For example, the St. Petersburg government has allocated 200 million rubles in subsidies to production of films in the city territory in 2023[15]. According to the Russian Cinema Fund, as of the end of 2022 domestic films have for the first time in history accounted for more than half of box office revenue[16]. Admittedly, the global situation in 2020–2022 has been anything but trivial, and the departure of big Hollywood distribution businesses from Russia in 2023 sent box office figures plummeting. Nevertheless, the Russian state is trying hard to reverse the situation, at least bringing it back to the pre-pandemic level.

The increase in state funding for domestic film production and the gradual increase in box office receipts for Russian films are certainly impressive.

But being interested in making profit only is invariably associated with artificial preservation of demand and often a drop in quality for the sake of entertaining the public. From this point of view, a film is a commodity, which prevents us from considering its sociocultural significance. British film sociologist Anthony Tudor asked a rhetorical question back in the 1970s: can you really expect viewers to be discriminate if they have never received a better product than what they are being offered? (Zhabsky & Tarasov, 2012)

“THE GLOBAL CINEMA”

Film distributors rarely venture beyond attendance statistics and box office receipts in their study of audience – which means the viewers’ needs are basically ignored. The outcome is either a blatant blockbuster product without any social value whatsoever, or a boring movie that is a complete financial loss for the distributors.

It is gratifying that more and more people, including those who set the trends in the film market, are now beginning to understand that cinema is actually the most convenient channel for working with society. Namely, promoting new meanings, articulating problems and their solutions, interpreting the reality, defining behavior patterns. The film is the most comprehensive way to move the viewers, engage them emotionally through empathy or associating oneself with the characters. This has a tremendous impact on shaping or changing each individual’s behaviors and value systems.

Cinematography is a conductor of a certain ideology (in the broadest sense of the word, as per Sergei Eisenstein’s view); that is, a system of worldviews, a convoluted combination of experience, knowledge, customs, traditions, morals, norms, ideals, morality, corresponding to a particular society. Cinematography is largely responsible for the value orientations ensuring the preservation of society, its structure and forms of life (Mikhailova, 2018). This industry has long been a factor in the transformation of society and the socialization of its members. Modern society, as aptly noted in one study of the social role of cinema in this very society, is a “global cinema” (Kurtov, 2011).

Many recognize the cinema’s social role, but the success of films is still measured in the traditional way, by the budget vs. box office receipts. Few think of how the situation can be monitored further. What lessons does the average viewer take home? Did they have to think hard over what they had seen? Did it affect their life – at least in the short run? What about the lives and behaviors of those who were watching the film next to them?

The questions are many, the answers are few.

SPECIFICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN THE RUSSIAN FILM INDUSTRY

It is becoming less and less appropriate to limit the evaluation of the effectiveness of contemporary domestic cinematography to economic and investment terms alone, or to argue that supporting filmmaking is a basic and traditional responsibility of the state. The expert community is increasingly talking about the overdue need to introduce a system of substantive, qualitative assessments of films shot in the country, to study the social effects, the strength of the potential and actual social impact – which is often more revealing than the amount of box office receipts or the number of viewers who saw the picture. Moreover, the talk today is not so much about the immediate social effects (for example, significant changes in the life of a particular target audience), but about the impact in general – that is, the global social impact on the society in terms of changes in the public perceptions, attitudes, and behavior.

With the growing awareness of the importance of impact assessment in the film industry, the examples of positioning with a focus on social impact are becoming increasingly common – the Lampa Impact Film Festival, special nominations at professional festivals, competitions and awards, such as Media Brand and Advertising of the Future, and numerous studies and articles devoted to this issue. For example, the 2022 Social Effects of Cinema study[17] conducted by The Center for Social Projects “Platforma” together with the National Media Group (NMG). So far, unfortunately, the study only captures a snapshot of the situation, but does not tell what exactly needs to be done to implement the assessment; however, the authors have already announced its planned expansion, continuing to research the social impact of cinematography and updating the assessment methodology of social effects. According to the information available to us, the updated study will be presented to the expert community at the next St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June and at Russian Creative Week in Moscow in July.

The relevance of “measuring” the viewers’ perception of the information being broadcast is also discussed by opinion leaders. For example, Artem Metelev, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Youth Policy and Chairman of the Association of Volunteer Centers, suggested that the Internet Development Institute (IDI) include qualitative attributes, namely social impact assessment, in the project evaluation criteria. “After all, the most important thing in films or TV series, especially those funded by the state, is the impact on a person’s worldview, beliefs and further life. <…> The main thing should be the meanings,” Artem Metelev writes in his Telegram channel. As a result of this initiative, a new indicator, “Social Effect of Project Implementation,” with a weight of 15 %, was added to the IDI tender evaluation system in 2023.

Moreover, the concern about expanding the film production evaluation system has been raised at the highest level. In 2021, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, following a meeting of the Government Council for the Development of National Cinematography, instructed the Ministry of Culture, together with the Cinema Fund and the professional community to finalize the National Cinematography Development Concept until 2030, including the need to establish indicators of its effectiveness[18].

“The government, of course, will be ready to provide financial, administrative and legal support. But as soon as the state subsidy has been received, the producer works in a market environment. <…> And the result should be not in how much money was used, but in the box office and an assessment of the impact the film had on the society. <…> Let’s have a rating for this, let’s see. Because I’m sure there are movies that won’t bring any dividends or revenue, but can have such a great impact on people that we will all heartily support it. And the state will support it,” Mishustin said.

During the meeting, Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova emphasized that “the Ministry’s task is to develop the art of cinema. The Cinema Fund, on the other hand, is focused on supporting big-budget entertainment projects. In this regard, the department is interested in debut films, auteur cinema, social impact films, children’s cinema, documentary and popular science films and auteur animation.”

The need to develop qualitative assessment methods to evaluate the content created, the fact that the film industry is not only about numbers and money, but also about producing behavioral experience and value systems, was emphasized at the meeting by Fedor Sosnov, the Russian Cinema Fund’s Executive Director, Leonid Vereshchagin, General Director of Nikita Mikhalkov’s TriTe Studio, and Konstantin Ernst, General Director of Channel One Russia[19].

IMPACT FACTOR TODAY

The relevance of social impact of a film as its success criteria is receiving more and more attention, and everyone seems to be coming to realization that social impact is just as important as the quantitative indicators. There is a clear understanding that this assessment format is becoming a trend to focus on.

We talked to key experts in film production about the prospects for the development of impact assessment in the domestic film market.

Olga Zhukova, Executive Director of the Association of Film and Television Producers (APKiT), believes it is difficult to predict at the script stage, what the impact of a film project on the audience will be like. Likewise, you can predict your box office receipts, but this forecast will not necessarily be close to the actual performance in the theaters. “I’m all for impact assessment,” Olga Zhukova agrees, “but the right tools must be chosen for it. In my opinion, it is not enough to take the entire target audience of a film project and assume that 20 % of these people will definitely be affected, in terms of change of attitudes or change of behavior patterns.” In her opinion, assessment will only be objective if there is a baseline measurement of audience with the right sampling. Moreover, it is important to perform social impact assessment in specific groups – a qualitative study with a baseline measurement, a display of some content, and then a discussion and a follow-up measurement – perhaps not right away, but after some time.

The expert explains: “This can be done by mixed-method research (qualitative and quantitative): determine which pictures are considered to be socially significant by the experts, take a sampling of the target audience and show them the film. This will give a good understanding the effect produced. The Russian film market certainly looks promising, and the need for impact assessment is certainly there, so it is important to measure the baseline attitudes in the society towards certain social phenomena.”

“The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, in addition to the traditional areas, has also launched a competition to support social impact films quite some time ago. At the same time, you cannot find a definition of this type of films in any legal documents, and having a clear understanding of the terms is vital, given the situation,” says Galina Sytsko, producer, head of the Social Programs Department of the Roscongress Foundation, lecturer at Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography (VGIK), and former Deputy Director of the Department of Cinema and Digital Development of the Ministry of Culture.

Currently the state support is segmented – there are areas of support for entertainment films made for commercial distribution; auteur cinema – the so-called art of cinema, where the skill level prevails over the commercial potential; documentary film; animation. Social impact films can fall under any of these categories, so allocating them under a separate segment, as done by the Ministry of culture, is, according to the expert, more of a PR move, focusing on the fact that the films receiving state support must produce a certain impact on the society.

“I think the most obvious assessment property of social impact cinema is the audience size. We are not concerned about revenue generated, or awards given – the key is that as many people as possible watch the film, and, more often than not, it’s about a specific target audience. And unlike entertainment and auteur films, the success of which is determined in the first weeks and months of its life, the influence of social impact films can be assessed after a very long time. Probably the best example is the film “Doctor Lisa” – it gathered a huge audience, and the “Fair Help” foundation has confirmed that hundreds of people joined them as volunteers after seeing the picture,” Galina Sytsko says.

The President and the Government of the Russian Federation regularly give orders for systemic support of films dedicated to socially impactful topics, and for development of the National Cinematography Development Concept. The drafts of the Concept focus heavily on the issues of support and assessment of socially important content, but because all the KPIs have become unpredictable since February 2022, Galina Sytsko believes we should not expect the Concept to be adopted any time soon. Moreover, the thesis about increasing state support for cinematography is quite debatable, because while formally the funds allocated by the state are indeed increasing, these efforts are in fact aimed not at making more films, but rather at preventing a drop in their numbers. “There’s always inflation, rising production costs, catastrophic losses of the film industry in the years of the pandemic and a further drop last year, the problems of attracting extra-budgetary funding, equipment, supplies, software and unpredictable currency exchange rates,” the expert explains.

We can definitely be confident about the feasibility of assessing the impact of children’s cinema, because in this case, we could and should use the tools from pedagogy and child psychology. In addition, this year there will be a significant change in the system – the maximum public funding limit of children’s films will be raised from 70 % to 100 %. Accordingly, producers will no longer have to be concerned about economic performance, so we are hoping there will be more high quality films aimed specifically at children. But since the film production cycle is 2–3 years, the effect of this law will not become clear until 2026.

Galina Sytsko also believes that the production of films popularizing the professions of teachers, engineers, doctors, etc. will gain momentum in the near future. The effect of such films can be measured by comparing the percentage of school graduates entering specialized universities, or by comparing the age profile of those who work in a particular profession now and some years later.

Maria Mokina, journalist, producer, member of the Coordinating Council on Social Advertising and Social Communications at the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Public Council at the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, noted that the modern media market has evolved from an emotional joy of someone finally integrating a social theme into the media product, to a conscious introduction of social context to develop new positive social habits, change lifestyles, and create comfortable spaces around oneself. The result of this evolution has been the total incorporation of a social idea into the body of the media product. This has become a mandatory “burden” on the part of customers and creators.

Today, society is entering the next stage of development, when it is necessary not only to rejoice in the casual effect, but to form an effective social impact entertainment industry[20], which will produce products aimed at solving specific social and humanitarian problems.

“There is virtually no qualitative research on this topic in the media production market today; only quantitative studies are available. The assessment market is still in its infancy. The key players in this area are the Positive Changes Factory, the Higher School of Economics, and the National Media Group,” says Maria Mokina.

The state has created an extensive system of grant, financial, and infrastructural support for the film industry; but when the experts are deciding on whether to provide this support, they are focused on the traditional set of criteria such as increasing audience coverage or popularizing a certain issue. The introduction of an end-to-end assessment system at all stages of the creation and production of an audiovisual work will make it possible to multiply its qualitative impact, to see how effectively the money was invested, not only through the emotional impact, but by expanding the impact from Call-to-Action[21], which is mainly used in advertising today, to the introduction of social decision and behavior models that contribute to the sustainable development of society.

As part of the activities of the Coordinating Council on Social Advertising and Social Communications at the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, social advertising currently undergoes assessment based on the criteria described in the “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Advertising” methodological manual from 2018, the only scientific publication to date that takes into account anything other than the economic result (Gladkikh & Vainer, 2018). Regular expert examination and evaluation also takes place within the framework of IDI and Yandex competitions on social advertising for NGOs[22].

“I can highlight several cases in the domestic industry. First of all, it is the #thiscannotbecured #cancercanbecured advertising campaign by Konstantin Khabensky Charitable Foundation, aimed at fighting fear of cancer[23]. The Foundation’s creative team conducted baseline research before launching the campaign and summarized its results, which made it possible to develop a strategy for the Foundation’s activities in the future. Some of the more recent cases are “Teenagers” and “Aunt Martha” projects made by NMG,” Maria Mokina continues. “In addition to integrating social messages into the series, they were surrounded by support services for the target audience, which were based on the studies of viewing statistics and viewer feedback on the media product. However, it is too early to say that a systematic assessment of qualitative results at the level of content impact is present in the media industry. This new, deliberate approach has yet to be created, tested, and implemented.”

Ksenia Leontieva, associate professor of production management at the St. Petersburg State Institute of Film and Television (SPbGIKiT), believes that impact assessment must be closely linked closely tied to the authors and investors’ goals. Because goals can be very individual, evaluation criteria cannot be universal. For example, the impact of films designed to increase the number of volunteers can be measured either by surveying viewers, or by measuring the number of volunteers nationwide before and after the show. In the case of videos about domestic violence or AIDS posted on bloggers’ channels with large audiences, one can measure the expansion of knowledge about the issue (by counting the number of views, likes, reposts, etc.); or, one can also look at the long-term change in disease rate, or support for passing a law. But this is much more complicated, because the society can be influenced by multiple factors at once, and the effect of a single audiovisual work on social indicators cannot be directly extrapolated.