The State’s heavy hand

Actor Guilherme Fontes, through some very good contacts in
the federal government, has assured millions of dollars for a project
to film the life of Brazilian media mogul Assis Chateaubriand.
This too sweet of a deal angered many filmmakers who were on line
to get some federal financing. Here, a filmmaker blows the whistle.

Brazil will spend, in a single movie, public money enough to produce 10
good Brazilian films! Brazilian cinema is not an industry,
a business like in Hollywood, but when actor
Guilherme Fontes’s overbudgeted project which will deal
with TV and newspaper mogul Assis Chateaubriand received official approval,
it reminded me of director Michael Cimino’s disastrous
superproduction Heaven’s Gate and I asked myself: “What are we
getting for so much money? Where are the bad judgment or the irregularities
in this case?”

Irregularity number 1 In 1994, as published
on the Diário Oficial da
Uniăo
, Parliament approved for the year 1995,
a total value dedicated to Brazilian Cultural
Projects enough to produce 80 moving pictures with an
average duration of 1:30h and average cost of $1,200.
In Brazil, actors and technicians don’t demand
Hollywoodian wages. It happens that the Culture
Ministry has given one eighth of the national yearly cake to
one single film project. This when there are nearly
100 movie projects waiting for this chance.

Irregularity number 2 That project was
approved “ad referendum”, which means it has not
been judged by the Film and Video Committee (CNIC-IBAC) as other
film projects have to be.

 

Irregularity number 3 Authorized on
December 11, the Chateaubriand project gave only 20 days
– and this during the Christmas season for the people involved to raise
the budget money from sponsors. It’s known that
even experienced producers as Dona Flor and Her
Two Husbands
‘s Luís Carlos Barreto usually take
more than one year to raise funds for a middle-budgeted film.

Irregularity number 4 That privileged
project had no budget until the beginning of December
95, while there is a pioneer project called Cabeça
de Paraíba
with exactly the same objectives
producing a movie with miniseries version, telling the life
of Assis Chateaubriand, the father of Brazilian TV
being developed together with the Culture
Ministry since 1992. And this miniseries screenplay
has been published and registered since May 11,
1994, before the release on August 4, 1994 of
journalist Fernando de Moraes bestseller Chatô, o Rei
do Brasil
.

Brazil was producing 100 films a year in the
`70s, but his number had fallen to zero 1992 when
President Fernando Collor de Mello closed
Embrafilme. Recently, the national movie industry has
shown signs of life. An important mark of the renaissance
of the Brazilian Cinema was the film Carlota
Joaquina
by Carla Camurati . It cost about $600,000 and it
was a big hit in Brazil, selling more than $4 million
in tickets.Walter Salles’s Terra Estrangeira

(Foreign Land), another successful quality film, cost even
less and was invited to compete in the US Sundance
Film Festival.

The most expensive movie finished in 1995 was
O Quatrilho, produced by Luís Carlos Barreto,
who previously produced Dona Flor and Her Two
Husbands
“. Barreto spent $1.6 million in
O Quatrilho and was able to sell 60% of its shares at the Stock
Exchange. Mr. Barreto produced a first class film which has received
applause from the audience and has even been considered for an Oscar
nomination. The average budget to produce a Brazilian film is about
$1.2 million. That’s not that little. After all, this is close to the
budget of many successful Woody Allen’s films. Quentim Tarantino’s Sex, Lies and Videotape cost less than this, got a prize in Cannes and pleased the public.

That
creative way of producing is appropriate for a country like Brazil.
Moreover, the most successful Brazilian film of all times, Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands made a mere $11 million. And this during a period that spanned more than 10 years. A Dama do Lotaçăo with superstar Sônia Braga sold $ 7 million in tickets. Lucio Flávio $ 6 million.

Now
a minister authorizes $12 million for a single movie. Big money is no
warranty for success. We have many expensive flops in Hollywood to
prove that. In Brazil, I remember for instance a project called Chico Rei,
film and miniseries directed by Walter Lima Jr., an experienced film
maker who failed. And he had plenty of money thanks to a co-production
with some European countries in Europe. The costs soared and the
disaster was so big that the negative film rolls are still in the lab
waiting to be paid.

And even if the
Chateaubriand project becomes a huge hit, I believe that Brazil would
benefit much more if it had ten new movies made instead of only one.
That would also mean jobs for 1,000 film professionals instead of the
100 who will be benefited. Besides that, with this kind of money ten
Brazilian filmmakers, experienced or not, could have an opportunity to
exercise their talent. This way, we would have ten options and we would
multiply by ten the possibilities of producing works of art as well as
money making hits.

We have to start
producing again 50 or 100 films a year. (The United States produces
more than 300). Then, in a large market, yes, one or other movie may
cost a fortune and put at risk its company as it happened in Hollywood
with Orion, Carolco and Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer/UA. What will happen if we
put in jeopardy our embryonic market which has released only five films
in 1995?

The first time actor Guilherme
Fontes announced in December 1994 his intention to produce a film on
Chateaubriand life, he declared he would need no more than $5 million
dollars to make the film. At that time he said to be in negotiations so
Al Pacino would play Chateaubriand. According to Fontes himself, $3
million would go for film production and $2 million for publicity. With
$12 million, what is he going to do with the other $ 7 million?

Several documents about this question can be viewed in the Internet at http://www.ibase.br/~cinemabrazil/forum.html


 

Marcos Manhăes
Marins, graduated from Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, is a
filmmaker and has studied at the British Film Institute. You can
contact him through his E-mail: cinemabrazil@ax.ibase.org.br or phone: 55-21-971-1567. Marins has been directing the project “Chateaubriand – Cabeça de Paraíba”

You May Also Like

Escola de Samba Imperatriz with "Party night on the village"

An Evangelical Mayor Threatens to End Rio’s Carnaval

Rio de Janeiro without Carnaval? Unimaginable! But Rio’s city hall and its revelers are ...

Observer's cartoonist Chris Riddel Gets Inspired by the Amazon

How Does a British Cartoonist See the Political Change in Brazil

Max Bono talks with Chris Riddell at Lucca Comics and Games, in Italy Great ...

Explosive Diary: Teen’s confessions

Nobody has been able to explain the explosive success of a teenager’s diary that ...

It seems the future never arrives in Brazil What Lies Ahead in Brazil? Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country? Europeans, US, developed country, developing country. Bolsonaro, future B. Michael Rubin For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country is one simple way to measure its economic development. Another way to measure a country's progress is the extent of public education, e.g. how many citizens complete high school. A country's health may be measured by the effectiveness of its healthcare system, for example, life expectancy and infant mortality. With these measurement tools, it's easier to gauge the difference between a country like Brazil and one like the U.S. What's not easy to gauge is how these two countries developed so differently when they were both "discovered" at the same time. In 1492 and 1500 respectively, the U.S. and Brazil fell under the spell of white Europeans for the first time. While the British and Portuguese had the same modus operandi, namely, to exploit their discoveries for whatever they had to offer, not to mention extinguishing the native Americans already living there if they got in the way, the end result turned out significantly different in the U.S. than in Brazil. There are several theories on how/why the U.S. developed at a faster pace than Brazil. The theories originate via contrasting perspectives – from psychology to economics to geography. One of the most popular theories suggests the divergence between the two countries is linked to politics, i.e. the U.S. established a democratic government in 1776, while Brazil's democracy it could be said began only in earnest in the 1980s. This theory states that the Portuguese monarchy, as well as the 19th and 20th century oligarchies that followed it, had no motivation to invest in industrial development or education of the masses. Rather, Brazil was prized for its cheap and plentiful labor to mine the rich soil of its vast land. There is another theory based on collective psychology that says the first U.S. colonizers from England were workaholic Puritans, who avoided dancing and music in place of work and religious devotion. They labored six days a week then spent all of Sunday in church. Meanwhile, the white settlers in Brazil were unambitious criminals who had been freed from prison in Portugal in exchange for settling in Brazil. The Marxist interpretation of why Brazil lags behind the U.S. was best summarized by Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan writer, in 1970. Galeano said five hundred years ago the U.S. had the good fortune of bad fortune. What he meant was the natural riches of Brazil – gold, silver, and diamonds – made it ripe for exploitation by western Europe. Whereas in the U.S., lacking such riches, the thirteen colonies were economically insignificant to the British. Instead, U.S. industrialization had official encouragement from England, resulting in early diversification of its exports and rapid development of manufacturing. II Leaving this debate to the historians, let us turn our focus to the future. According to global projections by several economic strategists, what lies ahead for Brazil, the U.S., and the rest of the world is startling. Projections forecast that based on GDP growth, in 2050 the world's largest economy will be China, not the U.S. In third place will be India, and in fourth – Brazil. With the ascendency of three-fourths of the BRIC countries over the next decades, it will be important to reevaluate the terms developed and developing. In thirty years, it may no longer be necessary to accept the label characterized by Nelson Rodrigues's famous phrase "complexo de vira-lata," for Brazil's national inferiority complex. For Brazilians, this future scenario presents glistening hope. A country with stronger economic power would mean the government has greater wealth to expend on infrastructure, crime control, education, healthcare, etc. What many Brazilians are not cognizant of are the pitfalls of economic prosperity. While Brazilians today may be envious of their wealthier northern neighbors, there are some aspects of a developed country's profile that are not worth envying. For example, the U.S. today far exceeds Brazil in the number of suicides, prescription drug overdoses, and mass shootings. GDP growth and economic projections depend on multiple variables, chief among them the global economic situation and worldwide political stability. A war in the Middle East, for example, can affect oil production and have global ramifications. Political stability within a country is also essential to its economic health. Elected presidents play a crucial role in a country's progress, especially as presidents may differ radically in their worldview. The political paths of the U.S. and Brazil are parallel today. In both countries, we've seen a left-wing regime (Obama/PT) followed by a far-right populist one (Trump/Bolsonaro), surprising many outside observers, and in the U.S. contradicting every political pollster, all of whom predicted a Trump loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In Brazil, although Bolsonaro was elected by a clear majority, his triumph has created a powerful emotional polarization in the country similar to what is happening in the U.S. Families, friends, and colleagues have split in a love/hate relationship toward the current presidents in the U.S. and Brazil, leaving broken friendships and family ties. Both presidents face enormous challenges to keep their campaign promises. In Brazil, a sluggish economy just recovering from a recession shows no signs of robust GDP growth for at least the next two years. High unemployment continues to devastate the consumer confidence index in Brazil, and Bolsonaro is suffering under his campaign boasts that his Economy Minister, Paulo Guedes, has all the answers to fix Brazil's slump. Additionally, there is no end to the destruction caused by corruption in Brazil. Some experts believe corruption to be the main reason why Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth inequality gaps. Political corruption robs government coffers of desperately needed funds for education and infrastructure, in addition to creating an atmosphere that encourages everyday citizens to underreport income and engage in the shadow economy, thereby sidestepping tax collectors and regulators. "Why should I be honest about reporting my income when nobody else is? The politicians are only going to steal the tax money anyway," one Brazilian doctor told me. While Bolsonaro has promised a housecleaning of corrupt officials, this is a cry Brazilians have heard from every previous administration. In only the first half-year of his presidency, he has made several missteps, such as nominating one of his sons to be the new ambassador to the U.S., despite the congressman's lack of diplomatic credentials. A June poll found that 51 percent of Brazilians now lack confidence in Bolsonaro's leadership. Just this week, Brazil issued regulations that open a fast-track to deport foreigners who are dangerous or have violated the constitution. The rules published on July 26 by Justice Minister Sérgio Moro define a dangerous person as anyone associated with terrorism or organized crime, in addition to football fans with a violent history. Journalists noted that this new regulation had coincidental timing for an American journalist who has come under fire from Moro for publishing private communications of Moro's. Nevertheless, despite overselling his leadership skills, Bolsonaro has made some economic progress. With the help of congressional leader Rodrigo Maia, a bill is moving forward in congress for the restructuring of Brazil's generous pension system. Most Brazilians recognize the long-term value of such a change, which can save the government billions of dollars over the next decade. At merely the possibility of pension reform, outside investors have responded positively, and the São Paulo stock exchange has performed brilliantly, reaching an all-time high earlier this month. In efforts to boost the economy, Bolsonaro and Paulo Guedes have taken the short-term approach advocated by the Chicago school of economics championed by Milton Friedman, who claimed the key to boosting a slugging economy was to cut government spending. Unfortunately many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, disagree with this approach. They believe the most effective way to revive a slow economy is exactly the opposite, to spend more money not less. They say the government should be investing money in education and infrastructure projects, which can help put people back to work. Bolsonaro/Guedes have also talked about reducing business bureaucracy and revising the absurdly complex Brazilian tax system, which inhibits foreign and domestic business investment. It remains to be seen whether Bolsonaro has the political acumen to tackle this Godzilla-sized issue. Should Bolsonaro find a way to reform the tax system, the pension system, and curb the most egregious villains of political bribery and kickbacks – a tall order – his efforts could indeed show strong economic results in time for the next election in 2022. Meanwhile, some prominent leaders have already lost faith in Bolsonaro's efforts. The veteran of political/economic affairs, Joaquim Levy, has parted company with the president after being appointed head of the government's powerful development bank, BNDES. Levy and Bolsonaro butted heads over an appointment Levy made of a former employee of Lula's. When neither man refused to back down, Levy resigned his position at BNDES. Many observers believe Bolsonaro's biggest misstep has been his short-term approach to fixing the economy by loosening the laws protecting the Amazon rainforest. He and Guedes believe that by opening up more of the Amazon to logging, mining, and farming, we will see immediate economic stimulation. On July 28, the lead article of The New York Times detailed the vastly increased deforestation in the Amazon taking place under Bolsonaro's leadership. Environmental experts argue that the economic benefits of increased logging and mining in the Amazon are microscopic compared to the long-term damage to the environment. After pressure from European leaders at the recent G-20 meeting to do more to protect the world's largest rainforest, Bolsonaro echoed a patriotic response demanding that no one has the right to an opinion about the Amazon except Brazilians. In retaliation to worldwide criticism, Bolsonaro threatened to follow Trump's example and pull out of the Paris climate accord; however, Bolsonaro was persuaded by cooler heads to retract his threat. To prove who was in control of Brazil's Amazon region, he appointed a federal police officer with strong ties to agribusiness as head of FUNAI, the country's indigenous agency. In a further insult to the world's environmental leaders, not to mention common sense, Paulo Guedes held a news conference on July 25 in Manaus, the largest city in the rainforest, where he declared that since the Amazon forest is known for being the "lungs" of the world, Brazil should charge other countries for all the oxygen the forest produces. Bolsonaro/Guedes also have promised to finish paving BR-319, a controversial highway that cuts through the Amazon forest, linking Manaus to the state of Rondônia and the rest of the country. Inaugurated in 1976, BR-319 was abandoned by federal governments in the 1980s and again in the 1990s as far too costly and risky. Environmentalists believe the highway's completion will seal a death knoll on many indigenous populations by vastly facilitating the growth of the logging and mining industries. Several dozen heavily armed miners dressed in military fatigues invaded a Wajãpi village recently in the state of Amapá near the border of French Guiana and fatally stabbed one of the community's leaders. While Brazil's environmental protection policies are desperately lacking these days, not all the news here was bad. On the opening day of the 2019 Pan America Games in Lima, Peru, Brazilian Luisa Baptista, swam, biked, and ran her way to the gold medal in the women's triathlon. The silver medal went to Vittoria Lopes, another Brazilian. B. Michael Rubin is an American writer living in Brazil.

Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country?

For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. ...

Plain João – The Man Who Invented Bossa Nova

He’s been called O Rei da Bossa, O Mito, Il Maestro Supremo, and O ...

2006, the Year MPB Found a Public Beyond the Brazilian Circuit

2006 was a very positive year for Brazilian musicians and the MPB (Brazilian Popular ...

Rio Mural Gets Guinness Nod as World’s Largest Graffiti Art

The Ethnicities mural painted by Brazilian graffiti artist Eduardo Kobra at the Olympic Boulevard, ...

Don’t Call Me Bitch. Italians Move to Change Synonyms to the Word Woman

Public figures from writers to lawmakers have launched a campaign ahead of International Women’s ...

Rodrigues taps into the pain and powerlessness of Brazilians to create her dance pieces

Lia Rodrigues: A Dance to the Wounds and Powerlessness of Brazilians

With contorted faces and twitching bodies, dancers come together, push each other away, and ...