Cinemarket, or the Russian Film Industry in 'Mission Possible'

Beumers, Birgit

doi:10.1080/09668139998750

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…What sets Russian film policies apart from other supporting schemes is their close proximity to the building of a Russian national identity. Russian national cinema reached rock bottom in the mid--1990s, with film output resembling war--time production levels (Beumers 1999); by the turn of the millennium, Russian cinema had become associated with nation building and with 'an explicit national agenda' (van Gorp 2011: 254). State authorities sought to promote a film industry that serviced the continuation of state policies, and to be eligible for support from the state, films had to meet certain 'social' criteria, one of which was the ability to enrich the spiritual life of Russian society (van Gorp 2011: 253).…”

Section: Russian Cinema and Neoliberalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Svetlana Baskova’s response to Russian national neoliberalism in For Marx …

Kristensen¹

2017

Contemporary Cinema and Neoliberal Ideology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Russian Cinema and Neoliberalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Svetlana Baskova’s response to Russian national neoliberalism in For Marx …

Kristensen¹

2017

Contemporary Cinema and Neoliberal Ideology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Russian film industry works in market environment for more than twenty-five years now, but it still has not reached the stage of sustainable and balanced development (Beumers 1999;Graham 2000;or Faraday 2010). State support is currently playing a key role in commercial films production and distribution in Russia (Van Gorp 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvements in the methodology of identifying the leading cinematography companies

Иванова¹,

Rtisheva²

2019

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference On Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership (ICSEAL 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State support is currently playing a key role in the production and distribution of commercial films in Russian Federation. Consequently, this support creates certain economic dependence of film production on the state and this dependence keeps growing. The protectionist model of state support that had emerged lately is already constraining growth of the domestic cinematography, not allowing it to develop independently, according to the market rules. At the same time, government not only does not derive revenue of film distribution (even being, in fact, the major movie producer), but often does not even return its investment. One of the mechanisms of state support in Russia is the subsidizing (refundable and non-refundable) for the leading cinematography companies by the Cinema Fund which represents the economic agent of the Ministry of Culture. Selection criteria for leading companies include attendance, television rating level, awards received by company's films, period of operation of a company, and the quantity of released films (amount of copies that is taken into account). Our paper analyses the methodology that the Cinema Fund uses to compile this rating of the leading cinematography companies in terms of selection criteria and features of assessing. Our results demonstrate that the current methodology does not enable the actual leaders of the cinema market to be identified. In addition, the priorities in weighting assigned to criteria are unfounded. Moreover, present methodology does not allow considering the data for modern channels of distribution the audiovisual products. In addition, the methodology is also discriminatory against new companies. The paper provides some recommendations for changing the methodology and clarifies the selection criteria.

show abstract

“…Yet, Russian film policy has thus far attracted scholarly attention in just a limited number of studies on the country's film industry. In Beumers's (1999a) pioneering work on the Russian film industry, the structures for film production and distribution of the 1990s, and their implications and dangers, are outlined. Her focus is on the organization of the film industry rather than the ideological rationale of the government.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverting film policy: film as nation builder in post-Soviet Russia, 1991-2005

Gorp

2011

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collapse of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a search for a national identity in Russia. This article investigates whether the Russian State recognized cinema as a cultural good for nation-building purposes. On the basis of qualitative and quantitative methods, it is demonstrated that after 1994, films with a national claim became more likely than other films to obtain state support. This was not the result of a deliberate policy, but rather an expression of a prevailing common sense whereby filmmakers and other stakeholders were preoccupied with a national identity. From 2000 onwards, stimulating the construction of a national identity became one of the primary policy goals. Paradoxically, the communication of such policy goal provided no guarantee for an increased output of national films. The case of the post-Soviet Russian film policy shows that the creation of a common sense often has a greater impact than policy measures.

show abstract

Cinemarket, or the Russian Film Industry in 'Mission Possible'

Cited by 17 publications

References 1 publication

Svetlana Baskova’s response to Russian national neoliberalism in For Marx …

Svetlana Baskova’s response to Russian national neoliberalism in For Marx …

Improvements in the methodology of identifying the leading cinematography companies

Inverting film policy: film as nation builder in post-Soviet Russia, 1991-2005

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About