I consult the most recent Portuguese cinema box office releases published by Instituto do Cinema e do Audiovisual (ICA). Weekend October 7-10 007: No Time to Die 59,683 tickets sold; in the same period a portuguese film Metamorphosis of birds 1206 viewers – round accounts: 50 times less than the new James Bond adventure. However, the movie 007, which premiered a week earlier, has already been watched by 246,478 people.
I believe that this data satisfies nothing thinkers who cyclically try to convince us that the dramas of Portuguese cinema can only be viewed on the basis of what the public “wants” to see … I knew this sociology out of my own pocket. decades. There is a poorly disguised indifference to the commercial life of Portuguese films: it will only be a matter of establishing a “fair” match between supply and demand, provided that all responsibilities will always be on the side of those who are looking for it, that is, the audience .. The proposal, in truth, does not exist: films arrive at night accompanied by storks – no one chooses, programs or promotes them.
A mandatory variant of this ideology includes the cynical accusation of “criticism” that is always viewed as a herd (including in certain forms of advertising), hiding the radical heterogeneity of the critical space. One film is said to have been “critically acclaimed,” but “no one” watched it … For such a demagogy, Katarina Vasconcelos’s film makes an excellent guinea pig, not least because it has won several awards on the international festival chain. In other words: he works very well “there”, but in his own country “nobody” is interested in this subject.
The same cynicism will remind you that “critics” think that the market does not work well when “their” chosen films are not successful … In this regard, I can note the sympathy that I have already expressed publicly 007: No Time to Die how to put Metamorphosis of birds… But I know that in doing so, I am shooting myself in the foot: the question is not to think about the public life of films (Portuguese or not) based on the value judgments they can generate, but to remember the need to problematize the circulation of these same films aside from such judgments. My point is that even if I rated these two films completely negatively, the problems I am listing here would be strictly the same.
What then? It starts with the problem of knowledge and perception – sometimes it needs to be acknowledged by approving forms of journalism that only seek “excitement” or “disagreement” – a problem that starts with a systematic ignorance of (other) market figures.
So, for example, for the specified period, how many screens were shown 007: No Time to Die? ICA answer: 165 screens with 1492 sessions. What are the relevant numbers for Metamorphosis of birds? However, with invaluable help from ICA: 19 screens, 84 sessions. Let’s say, for simplicity: even if the average capacity of the room Metamorphosis of birds there were 500 seats (stupidly exaggerated for the current market structure), and even if Katharina Vasconcelos’s film had sold out in all of its sessions, it would still be lower than 007: No Time to Die…
What, then, is the controversial issue? Ideology, which, for my part, I have known professionally since the heroic 70s. Passed down from generation to generation, such an ideology remains unshakable and unshakable, designed to convince us – and I have no doubt to convince my messengers – that Weekend Numbers are the beginning and end of the complexity of the film market.
What then is suppressed? Many vectors that can (and should) lead us to think about, for example, the place of cinema in education (starting with children) or its various configurations of television, while not forgetting the advertising restrictions of small distributors and their difficulty in reaching many. numbers. But let’s focus on the dominant choice in the marketplace and how that choice, in one way or another, plays a critical cultural role in shaping and formatting audiences.
Cultural? But who, then, makes film culture, not artists and, by the way, poor critics? Yes, they will be on a modest scale, but it’s time to dismantle this concept of “culture” as a kind of medicine for souls (by the way, a beautiful metaphor), which sooner or later will be approved by some state. medal. Nothing of the sort: the most influential cultural agents in cinema are in production, distribution and marketing.
We can imagine a surreal experience: place new Marvel or DC Comics superproducts in just 19 rooms like Metamorphosis of birds… And don’t waste the thousands of euros that are usually invested in promoting superhero adventures. After that we made an appointment to get back to talking about numbers … A serious alternative? Some discipline to deal with what Michel Foucault called “the great wrath of facts.”
Journalist