VLADIMIR PUTIN
ARCHIVE OF THE OFFICIAL SITE
OF THE 2008-2012 PRIME MINISTER
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
VLADIMIR PUTIN
ARCHIVE OF THE OFFICIAL SITE
OF THE 2008-2012 PRIME MINISTER
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
VLADIMIR PUTIN
Transcript of the meeting:
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon,
Our meeting is taking place at VGIK, Russia's leading cinematographic university, which is turning 90 years old this year. I understand that your top managers, professors and teachers have made the right decision - to celebrate this anniversary during the entire year rather than choose any specific day. Is this right, Mr Malyshev (VGIK's rector)?
Vladimir Malyshev: Yes, that's true, but we are going to mark it with achievements.
Vladimir Putin: I see. However, since our meeting is taking place here, it seems to offer a good opportunity to congratulate all VGIK graduates on this occasion. I have just seen the photos of many of those present here. They are VGIK's pride, and I would like to congratulate them, VGIK teachers and students on this momentous event.
Early this year, we allocated a handsome sum of almost 4 billion roubles for VGIK's development. Of these funds, 1 billion roubles are designated for this year. Mr Malyshev and I have just had a chance to see how this money is being spent. It is mostly earmarked for two major purposes, the design and construction of a new training facility (the design is nearing completion), and for the technical upgrade of VGIK as a whole.
We have just visited a sound dubbing studio and a number of other facilities. Mr Malyshev told me that Karen Shakhnazarov does not yet have this equipment. I thought I saw something similar to it at your place, but apparently it wasn't the same.
Karen Shakhnazarov: I hid it from you, Mr Putin.
Vladimir Putin: So, you have concealed it. Okay, but I expressed the hope that the Mosfilm Studios will also acquire such equipment in the near future, if they don't have it already.
VGIK is by right considered the leader of cinematographic education in this country, and we are prepared to spend any money on it. It has produced brilliant actors, directors, script writers and cameramen. They are a source of pride for the entire country.
The current anniversary is a landmark for all Russian culture, and a good opportunity to discuss the problems of national film making, including ways to enhance government policy in this area. This policy will largely determine how fully film workers, including VGIK graduates, will be able to realise their creative potential. In fact, we agreed to discuss such issues a year and a half ago, and met as members of the Council exactly a year ago.
The last decade has made obvious the importance of direct government participation in the development and promotion of domestic film making, supporting film studios, and securing contracts for related organisations.
We have managed not only to preserve the cinematographic personnel and industrial infrastructure, and all those present know how difficult it was to achieve this in the early and middle 1990s and the early 2000s, but we have done this, and also managed to elevate our film industry to a new level, primarily in sales revenues and in production capacity.
The share of box-office revenue in the domestic market went from about 4% in the early 2000s, to 25% by 2008. This is more than a ten-fold increase.
Needless to say, the financial crisis has had an adverse effect on the development of the film making infrastructure, or in simpler terms, the construction of new movie theatres and other facilities. However, the growth of box-office revenue from Russian films is a positive change. It has reached 15% in the last nine months.
Other industries have been in decline, but box-office revenue has increased by 15% in the last nine months. This is not much but is still positive, although in the past it was almost double. Anyway, growth during the crisis is still a positive sign.
Probably, when we talk about the industry's problems, we should not reduce them to the crisis. Let's recall that the Great Depression in the United States was a powerful catalyst in the development of American film making, and made it very profitable. It is still receiving dividends from this leap.
This example illustrates that the problems of film making are not so much in investment or tax breaks, although both are important. The main point is the control of these resources, the skill to create a competitive product, and to win the audience at home and in the rest of the world.
I would like to repeat what I said at our meeting in St Petersburg a year ago. The Government can render financial aid, help acquire equipment and build the infrastructure. It can help streamline the educational process, as we are doing at VGIK. But the Government cannot force spectators see what they are not interested in. This is what creativity is all about.
I have to admit that our colleagues - and I have mentioned here our American colleagues, and the same is true of European film makers - have learned to protect their markets in a most intricate way. There are language barriers and regulations. There are probably a million of these rules, and probably we do not know all of them. They only surface when we attempt to win a piece of these markets.
I recall how Konstantin Ernst (Channel One General Director) was trying to distribute one of his films in these markets. Eventually, he made it and his foreign colleagues took an interest in it but came up with endless terms and restrictions. All of them were market restrictions, but these are restrictions nonetheless.
At the same time, the international division of labour in the film industry primarily depends on the quality of any given service or product. I have just recalled this movie. It attracted attention because they understood that it would produce a high return. The quality was right. Now only every sixth Russian film goes to the Western market, and earns no more than one-fifth of what it makes here.
We have a great cinematographic legacy. Our films traditionally receive prestigious awards at international festivals. However, our films have not yet won a mass foreign audience. In other words, we are still unable to exert in full measure economic and cultural influence, which is one of the most important and serious tasks of national film making.
I think that now we should primarily find out why, despite the Government's permanent growing support, our domestic film makers have not yet accumulated the potential for a serious leap. We should plan a strategy for the future.
However, maybe we should admit that this support is not strong enough. The day before yesterday, Nikita Mikhalkov (Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia - translator) told me how much money is needed for this kind of serious leap. There is never enough money, and still fewer creative ideas and skilfully made films. It is the other way round. It is not money that breeds talent but talent that breeds money.
Let's see how the instructions produced by our meeting in October 2008 have been carried out. I mean, among other things, federal funds allocated to the programmes for the development of domestic film makers. Let's see what projects have been selected for funding and why, and what benefits they have brought to this country and our society.
Here the federal sums, which I mentioned at the beginning of my opening address, are being used efficiently, and I hope this will always be the case. At any rate, the studio we have seen is of a completely different quality and level. It is good enough for training top level professionals both for film making and for television. I hope that this will always be so, and that the new facility will be designed and built in time and provided with the latest equipment.
