Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 2 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 2 (2023) - страница 22

2. Михайлова, Я. Д. (2018). Социальные функции кинематографа. Молодой ученый, (16), 272–274.

3. Куртов, М. А. (2011). Кино как социальный опыт. Studia Culturae, (13), 257–280.

4. Гладких, Н. Ю., & Вайнер, В. Л. (2018). Оценка эффективности социальной рекламы, методическое пособие. М.: Издательство Олега Пахмутова.

5. Троцук, И. В., & Субботина, М. В. (2018). Оценка влияния кинематографа на социальные представления о героизме: апробация одного подхода. Коммуникология, 6(4), 140–158.

6. Кроливецкий, Э. Н., Костин, К. Б., & Смирнов, К. Б. (2019). Анализ форм и видов государственной поддержки кинопроизводства. Петербургский экономический журнал, (3), 24–31.

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

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)

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.