Cinema in Ukraine: some facts and figures on its status (07/17/05)

Cinema in Ukraine: some facts and figures on its status

by Illya Matthew Labunka

KYIV - The Ukraine-based daily newspaper Den [Day] on April 3, 2004, published the results of a nationwide questionnaire on the preferences of moviegoers. Of the 1,800 respondents (18 years of age or older) polled by the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, an overwhelming majority (64 percent) declared if given a choice, they would choose to view Soviet films. (The survey did not differentiate between Soviet Ukrainian, Soviet Russian, etc., films).

Additionally, 45 percent stated they prefer contemporary Russian films, while Ukrainian films would be chosen by 34 percent of the respondents, followed by American films (22 percent) and ending with a 20 percent preference for European films.

Thus, approximately one-third of those surveyed would prefer to go see contemporary Ukrainian films if given the opportunity. Yet, herein lies the paradox - although the potential exists for a higher viewing audience of Ukrainian films over American and European productions, Ukrainian movie theaters offer a starkly different choice.

Similarly, the percentage of TV viewers who would regularly tune in to a Ukrainian-language broadcast if it could locate one, is in an analogous predicament.

Undoubtedly old habits die hard, particularly the nostalgia for Soviet-era cinema depicting the Red Army's glorious victory over Nazi Germany in World War II - more often than not portrayed as a single-handed triumph over the Third Reich. During the first two weeks of May, in commemoration of the Allied victory in World War II, on average, and virtually round the clock, at least two or three Ukrainian TV stations would simultaneously engage in marathon sessions broadcasting Soviet and/or contemporary productions depicting World War II drama - all in the Russian language. If any feature happened to include Ukrainian subtitles, the viewer needed to arm oneself with binoculars or at least a magnifying glass in order to decipher the virtually illegible text.

* * *

In the early 1980s, Soviet Ukraine produced approximately 30 to 45 feature-length films, less than 20 animation films and a few hundred documentary and educational films annually.

By the early 1990s, film production in Ukraine had declined almost by half, reaching rock bottom by the end of the decade, with literally only a handful of feature films being produced. Documentary and educational films took an even harder blow, while the animation sector of the industry began to rely solely on foreign productions, often lacking appropriate copyright.

Currently, five state-"owned" and state-financed film studios operate in Ukraine under the authority of the Ministry of Culture - the Oleksander Dovzhenko Film Studio (Kyiv), the Odesa Film Studio, the National Cinemateque (formerly Ukrnaukfilm), Ukrkinokhronika (Documentary), Ukranimafilm (Animation), and the joint Ukrainian-Russian venture Yaltynska-Kinostudia in Crimea.

In 1992 the Dovzhenko Film Studio and the Odesa Film Studio produced 20 and 23 feature-length films, respectively. By 1998 the number of released productions had shrunk to 1 and 0, respectively.

According to an interview published in the newspaper Uriadovyj Kurier (August 9, 2003), Mykola Maschenko, the former director of the Dovzhenko Film Studio asserted that the studio is desperately in need of production equipment. "Today we have only three movie cameras, while the standard shooting process often requires the simultaneous use of five, even up to eight [cameras]."

In June 2003, per request of the Ukrainian Philosophical Fund, film scholar and critic Oleksander Rutkovsky and Yevhen Holovakha, associate director of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, supervised a nationwide questionnaire (the first of its kind) on contemporary cinema in Ukraine. Ranging from age 16 to 75, a total of 1,200 respondents in 38 cities, 10 municipalities and 26 villages participated in the survey covering a broad range of film industry-related issues.

Through their research, the scholars revealed that two-thirds of those surveyed think that the state should continue to finance the national film production sector of the industry. Furthermore, the majority (58 percent) believes that the state should not only finance but run the industry as well.

As the question of censorship came up, approximately 46.8 percent of the respondents said they would be in favor of introducing such a policy on a state level. Of those surveyed, 22.2 percent were favorably inclined toward censorship, but only if it were to be regulated by specially appointed civic organizations, while 14.6 percent stated that censorship should be introduced only for children. Only 3 percent declared censorship contrary to democratic principles and 18.4 percent were against it because they believed that each individual should decide for him/herself what to watch. The considerably favorable attitude toward censorship is based not only on "past tendencies" and custom, but also on the fact that Ukraine's bureaucratically plagued movie-ratings system isn't very effective. As a result, pretty much anything goes, particularly material on late-night TV and "pirated" - therefore unrated - video.

When asked how they would rate Ukrainian cinema of the Soviet era, a startling majority (57 percent) of those who replied were convinced that communist ideology and Soviet rule were positive influences on the development of cinematic art in Ukraine. Meanwhile, 23 percent of the respondents rated such an influence negatively, and 19 percent expressed uncertainty about whether the influence was positive or negative. Yet, further analysis suggests that the overwhelming response was not necessarily based on a longing for a particular ideological system, but rather a system that "functioned" overall, and in the process guaranteed a steady flow of film production in Ukraine.

Although several attempts had been taken over the years to denationalize the film industry (a few dozen film theaters throughout Ukraine have recently undergone privatization), the stalwart formula of running Ukraine's film industry remains intact: the Ministry of Culture remains the industry's top client, providing the studios with their core source of finances.

By the mid-1990s, over 20 privately owned film studios existed in Ukraine, a third of which have already ceased operations due to lack of clientele and sustainability. While the state budget is the national film production industry's lifeline, not surprisingly, state funds allocated for film production have not always been disbursed accordingly.

For example, based on official information released by the Ministry of Culture in 2004, for a period of four years in the mid- to late 1990s the actual amount of disbursed funds budgeted for film production dropped by 53.4 percent. Thus, if in 1996, 3.5 million hrv were budgeted, of which 2.37 million hrv (or 67.8 percent of the budgeted amount) were disbursed in support of film production, resulting in 8 feature-length releases for the year, then by 1999, 13 million hrv were budgeted, of which 1.87 million hrv (or 14.4 percent of the budgeted amount) were disbursed to finance the film industry, resulting in seven feature-length releases for the year.

However, although the state budget for cinematic production had increased to 20 million hrv the following year (2000) and 19.2 million hrv (or 95.5 percent of the budgeted amount) had been disbursed (thanks to the admirable effort of then Prime Minister Viktor Yuschenko), only four feature films were released that year. (The ever-increasing cost of production, among other factors, may have also contributed toward the low output). By 2002, according to the latest available statistics, the trend of state-allocated funding seems to have leveled off at approximately 20.5 million hrv, of which 7.8 million hrv (or 38 percent of the budgeted amount) were disbursed, resulting in seven film releases for the year.

Therefore, given the correlation between state financing and film production output over the last couple of years, it is safe to assume that the previous regime's Ministry of Culture anticipated, on average, a paltry five or six releases per annum.

* * *

While cinematic production crawls at a snail's pace, urban movie theaters are experiencing rapid renovations and technical upgrades. By 2003 over 70 big-city screening halls in Ukraine were operating with modernized audio-visual projection equipment, including 42 movie theaters (55 halls) and seven projection venues equipped with Dolby Stereo and Dolby Surround Sound systems. On December 25, 2004, the first multiplex opened for business in Ukraine - Butterfly Ultramarin in Kyiv, housing six screening halls with a total seating capacity of 1,315.

At present, Kyiv and Kharkiv lead the trend in modernized viewing facilities, with nine movie theaters each (20 and 10 halls, respectively), followed by Odesa, with seven movie theaters (10 halls), Sevastopol - four movie theaters, and at least one movie theater in most of the oblast centers.

Approximately 560 urban movie theaters operate throughout the country, but less than 300 of these venues offer cinematic screenings on a regular basis. The situation is even more sobering in the provincial areas. For a country of 28,000 municipalities and villages, less than 5,000 screening premises (usually a room with a projector and a screen situated in the local town hall-type building) remain in Ukraine.

According to data provided by the Ministry of Culture, in 1980 the number of nationwide provincial screening premises was 27,700, including approximately 809 million annual visitations. On average, the regular moviegoer visited the cinema 16 times per year. In 1990 the amount of screening facilities declined slightly to 27,200 and annual visitations now equaled 516 million. The average viewer was going to the movies 11 times per year. By 2001 the number of functioning screening venues in the villages of Ukraine had dropped to 6,500 units - an astonishing disappearance of 20,700 facilities over an 11-year period. The amount of visitations slid to 7.4 million per year, equaling an astounding decrease of 508.6 million visits over the same 11-year period. The appearance of a regular viewer in a movie theater had dwindled to a statistical 0.15 times per year.

However, the following year (2002), although the number of screening premises had declined even further - to a total of 5,100 - the number of annual visitations had actually risen to 9.9 million, an increase of 2.5 million over 2001. Still, the average viewer was going to the movies only 0.2 times per year. By 2003, according to the latest official available data, the number of provincial functioning screening venues in Ukraine was now down to less than 5,000 units.

* * *

The recent upsurge in annual attendance suggests more of a preference for improved audio-visual standards and less of an option for quality, aesthetic cinema - Ukrainian or otherwise. Thus, as the network of provincial movie theaters continues to shrink, the average potential viewer is no longer afforded the opportunity to demonstrate his/her choice and taste for cinema objectively. With little choice for venues, the potential viewer will either decide not to go to the movies at all, or he/she will be compelled to seek out the nearest functioning urban theater.

Currently, urban privately owned movie theaters offer ticket prices for 20 to 50 hrv, but unfortunately the average citizen can't afford such rates. State-run theaters, although considerably more affordable, operate haphazardly, thus often discouraging the potential moviegoer. As a result, the average citizen opts for his/her most accessible source for "movies" - television. In fact, 30.6 percent of those surveyed by Rutkovsky-Holovakha declared high ticket prices as the main deterrent for not going to the movies, while 33.3 percent admitted they do not visit movie theaters regularly because it's more convenient to watch movies on television. In general, 80 percent of Ukraine's population watches TV on a regular basis.

On average, approximately 150 titles are released for theatrical distribution in Ukraine per year. Yet, only 2 to 3 percent of these releases are Ukrainian productions, while the remainder consists of foreign (American, East and Western European and Russian) titles.

What's more, the Russian-owned distribution companies engage in deceptive advertising and marketing by plastering the movie theaters with Ukrainian-language film posters promoting the latest release, while simultaneously projecting the same now Russian-dubbed film inside the theaters. Even the Kyiv-based monthly industry magazine Cinema is published in Russian by the State Committee on Information Policy, Television and Radio of Ukraine.

According to the questionnaire, when asked what language Ukraine-based productions should be released in, 37.4 percent of those surveyed remarked that national productions should be produced and distributed in two versions (Ukrainian and Russian); 29 percent stated that only Ukrainian-language versions should be released; 11.5 percent said that productions should be released only in Russian, while 13.2 percent claimed that this is an issue for the director to decide.

With attendance on the rise over the last five years, revenue is noticeably growing as well. In 2000 the state-run theaters amassed a total of 10.5 million hrv in gross income. By 2002 gross income had reached 12.7 million hrv - the majority of revenues stemming from urban modernized theaters. At the same time, privately owned or rented theaters boasted official revenues of approximately 30 million hrv in 2002, although according to Ministry of Culture officials and independent analysts, the amount was probably higher.

Clearly, in a transitional economy, the film production industry in Ukraine can no longer afford to rely solely on state budgeting. The lack of appropriate government support since independence (both moral and practical) coupled with increasing operating costs is causing delays in film production, sometimes lagging for years. In 2002 not one production was initiated - only those already in progress were completed.

Despite mounds of legislation and presidential decrees devised over the years to revitalize and then resuscitate Ukrainian cinema, virtually all efforts to jump-start the film production industry have proven ineffectual. As a result, when the state distribution monopoly fell apart in the early 1990's, private "regional" distributors - disinterested in promoting quality Ukrainian cinema - quickly nuzzled their way in and have been inundating the national market with inexpensive, low-quality foreign productions.

* * *

The bottom line is that if cinema in Ukraine has a future (and it does), it is nevertheless in dire need of foreign capital from big Western production companies and distributors interested not only in getting a return, but actually willing to stimulate the national industry for long-term benefit.

Thus far, big-name Western film companies have avoided the potentially lucrative market in Ukraine for fear of uncertainty in the ability to accomplish both objectives, i.e. profit and further growth. The reason for the skeptical attitude is two fold: copyright piracy and no tax incentives.

Although commendable strides have been made in the attempt to eradicate film and video piracy, the battle rages on, particularly in the video sector of the industry. According to official data released by the International Intellectual Property Association, copyright holders accrued losses of $40 million dollars from film and video piracy in Ukraine in 2001. The actual level of copyright piracy in the film-video sector of the industry in Ukraine reached a devastating 80 percent in 2001 - an actual drop of 19 percent from 2000!

Thus, powerful Western production companies genuinely intent on and capable of providing their expertise and practical assistance, sit on the sidelines. In their stead, Russian companies continue to distribute cheap, foreign movies for TV (usually the worst of the lot that Europe and America have to offer) dubbed into Russian that virtually no Western viewer has ever seen or even heard of. In addition, approximately 50 percent of these earnings flow right back to Russia.

Until the government creates a favorable and "predictable" climate for the national film production industry to flourish (based on Western capital and domestic incentives), it would be naive for anyone in the industry to anticipate any considerable improvement, let alone an influx of investments of any significant size.

One possible way to stimulate Western commercial interest is to introduce certain tax breaks on those portions of the revenue that the foreign production company would allocate toward the production or distribution of national releases, as well as toward technical support. In other words, instead of direct foreign investment in one particular studio or production, the idea would be to create such a conducive environment in which all types of studios (state and private) would benefit for the sake of national production.

On the brighter side, the regular appearance of academic and popular publications featuring Ukrainian cinema (including two Ukrainian-language periodicals), national film festivals, as well as the recent parliamentary hearings on the state of cinema in Ukraine (February 2005), all manifest that general interest in Ukrainian film that has not waned despite a lack of national production. But this is not enough.

New, cutting-edge Ukrainian cinema will only be as good as the new Ukraine. As a fresh, genuinely pro-Western administration steers Ukraine into the community of nations, Ukrainian cinema, perhaps more than ever before in its centennial history, has a chance to thrive both domestically and internationally as a truly influential, world-class art form. Let's hope the hands of mutual cooperation reach out to bridge the gap between capital and talent.

Illya Matthew Labunka, who lives in Kyiv, studied film theory and film history while working toward his B.A. in communications at La Salle University. He also holds an M.A. in government administration from the University of Pennsylvania. He served as an independent consultant for Oles Yanchuk's film "Holod-33" about the Famine-Genocide, which was released in Ukraine in 1990.

Mr. Labunka worked as a fund-raiser for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and, later, the Ukrainian Studies Program at Columbia University's Harriman Institute. In 1995 he moved to Ukraine, where he worked as a human rights monitor (Kyiv) and academic fund-raiser (Lviv). He is currently studying law at Kyiv University's Graduate School of Law.

| Home Page |