Last Saturday, I was talking to a friend of mine about the local film industry. He mentioned that films such as ‘Maynila... Sa mga kuko ng liwanag’ and other stuff that we would consider too ‘artsy’ to make money were relative successes back in the 1970s. This is in contrast to the films presented in the annual Cinemalaya, which are said to not profit and are never expected to profit.
My friend mentioned how these films used to make money because during the Marcos era, imported movies had to undergo heavier duties, thereby ‘leveling the playing field.’ When these restrictions were removed, foreign films became more competitive and trounced the local competition.
PROTECTIONISM PENALIZES CONSUMERS
Based on the above, it seems that the solution to our struggling local film industry is to implement the same protectionist measures. To me, however, this would only serve to penalize filmgoers themselves, who otherwise would have preferred foreign fare and are thus deprived when tariffs discourage the entry of foreign movies. And when additional resources are channeled into protected local cinema, this constitutes wastage and an opportunity cost, as these resources would have otherwise served people better in other sectors.
(We can set aside for now the reality that in the event of additional restrictions on Hollywood movies, unlicensed ‘pirated’ products will flourish all the more).
REMOVE TAXES, REGULATIONS
One thing that can be done to promote Philippine-flavored cinema is to cut all the taxes and regulations associated with filmmaking, from movie production to exhibition of these (at present, the amusement tax on theaters is 30%, as seen in the Local Government Code, Section 140).
I should note though that I’m not talking about making Philippine movies profitable just because they’re Filipino-made; what matters is that consumer tastes are allowed to manifest.
AESTHETICS AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME PREFERENCE
The ‘artsying’ of any form of entertainment will not come about by sheer will of policymakers and do-gooders in the industry. The aesthetic tastes of consumers also have to do with time preference, that is, individuals’ capacity to exercise foresight. Lower socioeconomic conditions mean less nuances when it comes to the basic things in life such as food, much less movies. It can be expected that simple-minded, clichéd, instant-gratification flicks will be the order of the day.
With better living conditions, a person at least has wider options when deciding what to eat, or what movies to watch. One is more capable of sitting back and pondering over cinematic details that would otherwise go over the head of an aesthetic ignoramus.
Also significant is aesthetic training, which itself is further facilitated when the ‘lower pyramid’ in the hierarchy of needs is met.
CONCLUSION
As we can see, the raising of people’s aesthetic quotient is not a simple matter of imposing government regulations; it is a slow process that is tied to economic prosperity, which in turn is directly related to individual freedom. We should be suspicious of shortcuts that involve thwarting consumer sovereignty via coercion.
Related articles:
0 comments:
Post a Comment