The film community is divided over Bill 8.889/2017, authored by Senator Eduardo Gomes (PL-TO), which replaces PL 2.331 and proposes to regulate Condecine, a federal tax that aims to finance the audiovisual sector and receives contributions from streaming operators.
The large national producers defend the idea that 4% of income is better than nothing and fear that the next legislature of the National Congress will be even more dominated by Bolsonarism, which would imply the absence of regulation, because this extreme right has difficulty understanding that a film or a series is also an economic product, in the same way as a plane or 100,000 tons of soybeans.
The foreign exchange flight due to the fragility of our production is enormous, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This lack of lucidity on the part of these extremists contrasts curiously with the authoritarian national-developmentalism that we had at the time of the military in the Presidency of the Republic, who understood the importance of the audiovisual industry – so much so that we had, for almost ten years, under the leadership of Roberto Farias, a “market share” of 35%.
France benefits from 40% of its market and has negotiated, with streaming, a contribution of 20%. We are faced with a confusing project and, from the combination of the two texts analyzed, something will come out of the Senate that will not bring growth and democratization of production.
Personally, and with the overwhelming majority of small and medium producers and more than 2,000 people in the sector – actresses, actors, technicians and directors who signed an open letter to the President – we are against this timid and controversial regulation.
The issue, in addition to the 4% tax rate, is the fact that 70% of this amount would be managed by the streaming companies themselves. The government is timidly proposing 60%. Entrusting public resources to private entities to decide where they go is understandable, as they are market agents, but it turns large producers into mere service providers, thereby harming diversity and competition in the market.
In recent years, streaming companies have invested in the manufacture of good products, which explains the support of large producers for this timid regulation and this “Frankenstein text”, because they will be the natural recipients of these resources. We also understand that, being large employers, they are concerned about the financial flows of an unstable activity dominated by foreigners and use this argument in their favor. Congratulations to Walter and João Salles, who had the courage to remove their names from the list of producers, without defending the current project, and whose possible corrections will not prevent it from disrupting public power and concentrating it.
We, from independent production, want 12% of Condecine, 20% quota for national production, 30% of the value under the responsibility of the streaming agents (which, with a tax rate of 12%, would largely serve the large producers) and 70% managed by the Audiovisual Sector Fund for independent production (personally, I think that 49% for streaming and 51% for diversified production would already be a good size).
I can understand that the far right is in the middle of the “Olavista cultural war”, but then produces its films and understands the economic dimension of the activity and defends the Brazilian economy, understanding what soy, planes, films and series have in common.
As optimistic as I am, I believe that common sense prevails. I therefore think that it would be better to postpone the vote, which has lasted for almost ten years, and achieve regulations more favorable to Brazilian audiovisual as a whole. Streaming production is welcome, but you only need the rings, not the fingers!
PS. I hope I don’t face retaliation, because I have a great feature film project called “Sorry Anything” being reviewed on Netflix!
TRENDS / DEBATES
Articles published with a byline do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication aims to stimulate debate on Brazilian and global issues and reflect different trends in contemporary thought.
About The Author
