Movie orders do not generate revenue, who will be held responsible?

There are many opinions not only in the press but also on Facebook asking why a large amount of money is spent but not a single ticket is sold.

“21 billion for a historical film is too small. 1 million dollars is nothing, not enough to pay a foreign actor, let alone make a film.” Writer Nguyen Quang Vinh, who has written many scripts and directed many major plays and art programs, gave an overview of the 21 billion story of the film “Living with History”.

Scene from the movie "Living with history".

Regarding the story of the film “Living with History” which cost 21 billion VND but had zero propaganda effect and zero economic efficiency. According to you, who will be responsible for this loss?

- There have been too many opinions not only in the press but also on Facebook asking why such a large amount of money was spent but not sold any tickets? Where is the effectiveness, who is responsible? But I think that question is not correct. First of all, if you want to discuss it, you have to understand what kind of film it is, what is its content? If you do not understand and quickly conclude that the film is a simulation, superficially, it is not correct. With "Living with History", it is necessary to understand that it was not chosen by director Thanh Van but by the Cinema Department. The director is just the one who processes it, and is forced to follow that script like following the law. It cannot be distorted, it cannot be changed. If Thanh Van did not make it because, as he said, he knew from the beginning that the film would have difficulty finding an audience, then immediately there would be many other people willing to make it, it is not possible that they found it bad but no one accepted it. In that "ordering" context, no matter how talented the director is, he cannot completely change the film.

I don't blame the director because when the government spends money, the government has to choose. They need to be right, not as good as the audience needs. Making a film like history is being written is too right, there's nothing new anymore. The film must bring open views for the audience to feel, not force them to only look in one direction.

Every time there is an anniversary, there is a film that cannot go beyond two hours of propaganda. If art is put on the path of propaganda, then art does not belong to the public but to someone else. We have to make the audience like it, not to make the superiors like it. Otherwise, the content of the film will always be rigid and old. I believe that with the ability of Mr. Thanh Van and scriptwriter Doan Minh Tuan, if they were allowed to take the initiative, the film would be much better. I have made a few propaganda films like this so I understand very well, it is extremely difficult.

Writer Nguyen Quang Vinh

Mr. Thanh Van talked about the difficulty of the film, which is that there is no budget for promotion, even making a shirt but regretting spending money on buttons. But spending too little money on PR, in my opinion, is not important, because in fact there are many cases where no money is spent but there is still a spread. Even if there is a sky-high advertisement, just looking at the content, that it is "on the occasion of the anniversary", people will not want to waste time watching it. You think it is for propaganda, but if people do not watch, how can it be promoted? Many readers have reason to speculate about the name "Living with History". There are many names, so why must it be named like that? The name itself is a directive, an imposition. You force the audience to live with history, what if I do not live with it? Is that wrong? I love this country but what if I do not live with it?

- 21 billion for a historical film is too small. 1 million dollars is nothing, not enough to pay a foreign actor, let alone make a film. When making Dien Bien Phu, organizing a big scene at the battle of A1 hill in the film, then you realize, money is nothing. You have to understand it wholeheartedly. Directors make films in this mechanism very hard. That 21 billion is not used to make the film. I remember many years ago, making a film about Dong Loc Intersection, the film was approved for 4.4 billion but was cut back to 700 million to support the salary of the brothers at home. And there are many other "falls" that the artists cannot fully talk about.

Some say that if this 21 billion were put in private hands, the film would be different. What do you think about this opinion?

- I don't believe it. That's just a provocative way of speaking.

For a country that has gone through many wars and has a history of thousands of years, there is not even a single film worthy of that stature. Do you find that a paradox?

- That's right. To be fair, there are few countries whose history is as good as Vietnam's. To answer this question, there are two problems: The artist's perspective and the artist's key to historical works are not correct. That is, we have only illustrated history, but there is no creativity. Even the "illustration" is not objective. When illustrating, we have to follow both light and dark, so why was Bao Ninh's "The Sorrow of War" so good because it has both light and dark. But when talking about historical films, there is only fighting and winning, and the defeats are ignored. That is not objective, not honest.

The second reason is because we are too poor. We are so poor that we cannot do anything properly. Even setting up a fake scene, let alone thinking about anything far-fetched. Historical films have never had a battlefield setting like this. Making war films is difficult because everything requires the highest level. In addition to a good script, we also need a lot of money. At the same time, there is the problem of human resources. It makes the actors feel sorry, but after watching a Vietnamese film for a few minutes, you can see that they are "acting", so why don't the audience get bored? Meanwhile, in foreign films, they act without us knowing. The reason why there is a generation of actors who act so well is because they invest a lot of time. I remember in one film, People's Artist Tra Giang had to spend 6 months learning how to be a farmer, but here, after receiving the script, she becomes a farmer the next day, her skin hasn't even darkened yet. The way she walks and talks is full of urbanism. It must be said that in the past, if there was a movie, even if you had to put a knife to your neck, you would still go see it. Nowadays, many young people joke that, with propaganda movies, even if you had to put a knife to your neck, you would still not go see it. Because there are many other options instead of just going to the cinema to enjoy the movie.

Everyone knows all these things, but no one follows them. People don't change, the management style is still the same, whatever. That's the management's fault, it needs a revolution in thinking. Otherwise, don't do it, hire a foreign director like Zhang Yimou to do it.

Vietnamese cinema is at a very low level, but many people still imagine it. In the film development project from now until 2020, the film industry set the ambition to be number 1 in Asia, which many people find funny. It is said like a play that many people know, life must know who we are. Our cinema is very low, only a little better than Cambodia. And so, for important historical films, the state has to pay to hire directors to leave their mark, and then our directors follow. There is nothing to be proud of. The film "Indochina", and the film about Dien Bien Phu made by the French, are majestic and extremely emotional. But we cannot do it because our strength is limited.

Director Nguyen Thanh Van on set

If not, I think we should learn from Iran's film model, investing very little, like Vietnam. Because they know that money is limited, their strength is weak, so they focus on extremely painful, extremely profound slices of the country. For example, they also made a film about Dien Bien Phu, choosing small human lives to see the pain and emotion. Don't describe the war because we lack everything. I believe that films like this only need 3-4 billion VND to make. But it's "ingrained" in the blood, doing everything only wants to be grand. If we want to change, we need to sit down together and say a simple sentence that we are at a very low level. Only by being frank and fair with each other will we know what to do to combine our strengths. That combination is shown in the subject, acting ability, investment... Instead of writing novels, write short stories, only 100 words but painful.

So, over and over again, it's still the same old saying, blaming the mechanism so that no one has to take responsibility?

- It's a bit difficult to assign responsibility, because if we say that the Cinema Department ordered the director to make the film, then we have to ask the opposite question, the director himself clearly knew that no one would watch the film, but he still didn't care. So where is the responsibility of Vietnam Feature Film Studio and where is the personality of the artist when he just accepts it. But it's a vicious circle.

There is a comparison like this, if a state unit makes a loss or does not make a profit, it will be held responsible. So here, if a state unit produces a movie that no one watches, someone must be responsible and handle it, right?

- But here, the script is chosen by the Cinema Department, so how can I be punished? Whether the audience watches it or not, I don't know. Before the screening, the industry leaders watched it and were delighted that it was very good, so how can I be punished?

According to GD&XH