Probably the Britons can no longer stand losing their cultural supremacy against their ex-colony. As Prime Minister Hugh Grant1 once said:
We may be a small country but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that.And his Chancellor of the Exchequer (a.k.a: Minister of Finance in case you are not familiar with this term) Gordon Brown --no, he's the real Tony Blair's Chancellor—announced in September, 2004:
I shall hereby declare that small budget films entitled tax relief 20 percent of production cost, and 16 percent for films costing more than £20m.2And the result, as claimed by UK Film Council, is --for the money spent for film-making:
Statistics from the UK Film Council reveal that £840m was spent last year, up by 48% from the £569m spent in 2005. Studios are also coming to Britain in greater numbers - inward investment increased by 83% to £570m.3Yeah, right. So much for the free market idea.
Now move to Indonesia. We want to have strong film industry, producing not only money-making but also good quality films. The ala UK tax break proposal seems attractive. But how can we be sure that taxpayers money going to the film makers, instead of building the schools or rice subsidy to the poor, would produce the industry boom like in UK –and, I would like to add, not the likes of crappy local films we often find in cinema nowadays? If we insist for the plan, we’d be better sure that, first, the economic benefit (multiplier effect on income and employment) coming from the plan exceeds the cost for tax break (or subsidy). Second, the produced films are competitive vis-à-vis Hollywood ones, which usually come from the quality of the product. And third, the mechanism to prevent discrimination in selecting the recipient is in place and well enforced.
A tall order indeed.
---
1 In Love Actually.
2 Well, not precisely, but see official guidance for UK film makers on tax-relief.
3 From The Guardian
film | industrial policy
On balance lower taxes on anything is a good thing (Excluding externalties etc).
ReplyDeleteIreland had zero taxes for all artists until last year, not a bad idea imo...
Hollywood is in financial trouble too.
ReplyDeleteBig names are loosing jobs now: tom cruise, jim carrey, peter jackson.
.. but David Beckham and wife are coming to Hollywood, aren't they...?
ReplyDeleteI think tax breaks can be easily abused, ie. how can we ensure the quality of the movies? It does, however, work if the objective is to increase the number of movie productions.
ReplyDeleteIf the goal is to increase the number of good-quality movies, post-production financial incentive might work better. Let the producers take the risk, and financially reward them later for good quality movie. Perhaps through Festival Film Indonesia, or something like that.
movie industry is for people who avoid work and are "being on the doll", unemployed, who like spending their time watching movies. or, going to the cinema on the day they receive their dollar. or, buying pirated dvds.
ReplyDeletethere might be, or is, a positive correlation between unemployment level and movie industry stocks.
Bleu,what about the Singaporean way: co-production with foreign (big) filmmaker, with one condition: employing local workers?
ReplyDeleteAnymatter, as matter of fact, I've just been told by my friend, who's familiar with art and filmmaking, that the first Hollywood boom happened during the Great Depression. So did the other form of art, including photography. I guess there's certain truth in your statement.