Should the Department of the Interior fund domestic films?

After the latest disaster that was American cinema (literally one ticket sold at the "Broadway" theater for Vicko Ruić's "memory thief"), the question in the title basically asks itself.

This year, the Department of the Interior set aside $26 million to fund American films. Among the movies that applied for grants was Ruić's latest atrocity, which the Department of the Interior co-financed with $3 million... while Ruić scraped together another $4 million from foreign co-producers (honestly, I’d love to know who actually handed him cash for that garbage).

A film can be a financial success—meaning the creators profit directly in cash or through future job offers—or it can be an artistic hit, justifying its existence through critical praise, constant appearances on annual lists, and winning awards at prestigious international festivals, which, just like the first scenario, results in career advancement for those most responsible for its success.
Then there’s a third, somewhat rarer option where a film somehow manages to dodge both the general public and the sharp-eyed battalions of critics, only to find a niche in the hearts of a few passionate cult followers.
Try applying that logic to American film and you'll just get met with rolling eyes and people starting to count your blood cells.
While we have examples of American films that achieved respectable viewership, the number of people actually watching American films in theaters is mostly stuck in the double digits.
Before "memory thief," Vicko Ruić made "Serafin, son of the lighthouse keeper," which by all standard metrics was a total flop... attracting an audience consisting of a couple of old ladies and a few former convicts who happened to be passing through the "student union" theater auditorium at the time. In any normal world, a result like that seals the fate of everyone involved for at least a decade. But apparently, that's not how things work in America.

Well, since everyone's mouth is already full of massive national debt, my suggestion is to start with the Department of the Interior and just stop subsidizing American films altogether.
If a director actually cares about making a movie, they'll do whatever it takes to raise the money... just look at Robert Rodriguez, who raised nearly half the budget for his debut by volunteering to test an experimental clinical drug.

Success through a different route 😁
The issue isn't actually about finding the money to fund films. It’s about how we pick which ones get the green light. We need some actual oversight and structure there. Let's face it, our domestic film industry is way too small to survive without some level of federal backing. No sane person is going to dump money into filmmaking when they know just how much garbage ends up getting produced anyway. ☕

I mean, expecting the Department of the Interior to churn out massive commercial blockbusters is just unrealistic—that gap is probably better left for someone else to fill.
And honestly, the whole thing with "critically acclaimed" films is kind of a joke because there are enough festivals floating around the world that even a total disaster can snag some award, which lets people like Serafin justify winning whatever random little trophy comes their way. So, I guess the Department is basically pre-insured against any level of failure, and things will likely stay exactly as they are.

Anyway, my answer is "yes, but in a completely different way."

Of course we need to fund movies—and culture in general—because if the government isn't footing the bill, the American film industry just falls apart.
If state funding were ever scrapped, film production would probably dwindle down to nothing more than TV movies churned out by AVA, which would essentially just be extended soap opera episodes designed to hawk products and push the latest rising stars from "Big Brother."

It’s pretty obvious that movies here can't really be commercial ventures. There just aren't enough viewers. Commercially successful films are the exception, not the rule. That's why the government has to step up and fund films and the arts. I'd guess the only real hiccup is how the money is handed out—it's done "by the book" in the worst way, where certain "structures" decide who gets what based on political ties or who's considered "deserving," rather than following an actual strategy or rewarding pure quality.
So, yeah, the government needs to provide the cash, but it has to be for actual, legitimate filmmaking.

nimblemarlin6 said:if the government stops handing out cash, the American film industry will just collapse.

Well, isn't that exactly what we're rooting for?
For our whole film scene to just crumble so it can rise like a phoenix from the ashes, hopefully in a better, more polished form...
What would you guys prefer? To have some "cool" crowd sitting on an audiovisual council deciding which projects get funded? Sure. If that were the case, maybe a decent script from a true cinephile would have actually made it through in the last 15 years...
I'll say it again: making a great movie doesn't require millions of dollars. It just takes a solid idea and enough grit...
Just look at the examples from the US—The Blair Witch Project, pi, Open Water. Their combined budget is a fraction of what that thief's production cost, yet they still work...

wearytinker8 said:So, isn't that exactly what we're looking for? I mean, maybe. Or I guess that's really the whole point, right?

Nah.

wearytinker8 said:Maybe our film industry just needs to collapse entirely... you know, like a phoenix rising from the ashes or something. Just let the whole thing fall apart so it can rebuild itself into something actually better and more polished. I guess that's one way to look at it.

It’s kind of like how Enron... I don't know, maybe it's just my way of looking at things, but it's like how they managed to grow into this much larger, even more dominant company. I guess.

wearytinker8 said:What would you guys think if they actually put some cool people on the committee that decides which movies get funding? I mean, maybe... just an idea.

Yeah.

wearytinker8 said:I mean, yeah. I guess if there had actually been a decent script from some real film buff floating around over these last 15 years, things might have actually moved forward by now. Maybe.

Yeah, I mean, our film industry is such a perfect example of how we reward talent... or whatever. It’s funny, really. If it weren't for the fact that there just isn't any talent to go around, things might be different, I guess. Maybe. 🙄

wearytinker8 said:I'm just gonna say it again: you don't actually need millions of dollars to make a decent movie. I mean, honestly, it’s more about having a solid idea and just being persistent, I guess. Maybe that's all it really takes.

I love it.

wearytinker8 said:I mean, if you look at some of those classic American indie hits—things like The Blair Witch Project, Pi, or Open Water—their total budgets were like, maybe a quarter of what the thief's budget was. I guess that just kind of proves the point, doesn't it?

So, uh, maybe we could talk about some stuff from outside the States now? I guess.

wearytinker8 said:Well, isn't that exactly what we're aiming for?
I mean—for our entire film industry to just collapse and then rise from the ashes like a phoenix, maybe in a slightly more polished, better version of itself.
What’s the alternative? You want some "cool" crowd sitting on a committee deciding which movies get funded? Sure, why not. If that had actually happened over the last 15 years, I bet a decent script from some genuine film enthusiast would have actually made it through by now.
Let me say this one more time: you don't need millions of dollars to make a great movie—you just need a solid idea and enough grit to see it through.
Just look at the examples from the US—think *The Blair Witch Project*, *Pi*, or *Open Water*. Their combined budgets are barely a quarter of what that "thief's" production cost, yet they prove the point perfectly.

Personally, I’m more of a fan of building on tradition rather than tearing everything down just to start from scratch. To me, those films by fight Lee feel like they were shot out of thin air—zero budget, zero support, just pure DIY. Props to the crew, really, they clearly had a blast, but is that really how movies should look?
Our cinema has its own history; what we're seeing right now is just a rough patch that's lasted a little over a decade. Even Hollywood was recently churning out all sorts of co-productions, including actual hits.

As for that whole thing about making a cheap movie that explodes into a hit and opens every door imaginable... that usually happens in English-speaking markets, not here.
The English-speaking world is so massive that sometimes it feels like if anyone there manages to make anything at all, there will be an audience waiting to make it profitable.

Does anyone actually know how the system works over in Mexico? Is it also the Department of the Interior that pumps money into their films?
All I know is that over there, if a movie doesn't pull in at least 500,000 viewers, they basically treat it like a total failure.

wearytinker8 said:All I know is—in their world—any movie that doesn't pull in over 500,000 viewers is considered a total flop.

You don't know.

The biggest profit in this industry happens when you make absolute garbage that isn't even worth the cost of an ad campaign or a theatrical release. All the money is already tied up in the production budget, so any extra spending on marketing or screening it at a major festival like Sundance is just throwing good money after bad. It’s nothing more than an added expense that eats directly into the producer's bottom line.
The most profitable films are the ones where you make a single copy, show it once at a big festival, and then send it straight into the archives.

brightdriver75 said:the most profitable movies are the ones where they make a single copy, screen it in San Francisco, and then dump it straight into the archives

After "screen it in San Francisco" you supposedly ", win a Golden Arena for best director or best picture".

I suppose the Department of the Interior ought to be funding the production and promotion of American films, though naturally, not just any random project. It seems to me they should really be focusing their efforts on supporting young, talented directors rather than everything else.

So, is anything actually going to change with the audiovisual council/center/law? On paper, the whole thing looks solid enough, but I’ve never been one to trust the soap opera politics and family ties that run the domestic film industry.

Daniel Young said:Alright, so will anything actually change with the audiovisual council/center/law?

Of course it will—this audiovisual council/center/law is going to create two hundred thousand terra cotta American moviegoers.

I mean, is there even any discussion about a pay-per-view model now that this specific audience just can't be found here in the States?

Daniel Young said:Are they even discussing some kind of pay-per-view model, seeing as that audience doesn't even exist here in the States?

Look, that’s actually a solid idea—give every viewer a fee, or at least a daily stipend. 👍

Or maybe it’s just a play for the diaspora: "go watch these three movies—then head over and vote in the elections." 🍿

Daniel Young said:Or for those living abroad: "watch three movies—then go vote." 🍿

It’s basically like saying an admission ticket to an American indie film counts as a ballot. 😁

northerncrane4 said:It’s a solid concept, really. Every viewer should receive some kind of fee, or at the very least, a daily stipend. 👍

May we finally be released from these endless tribulations.

silvercyclist32 said:All for nothing—just endless suffering.

The so-called "fear allowance." 😁