Transformations in the Map. Identities and Culture Industries
NM3224 - Culture Industries (1)
-
Upload
jian-hui-lee -
Category
Documents
-
view
713 -
download
2
Transcript of NM3224 - Culture Industries (1)
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
NM3224: CULTURE INDUSTRIES
TERM PAPER - Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Done By:
Lee Jian Hui (U041540L)
Tham Hui Zhen (U050839R)
Yap Jia Wei Geraldine (U051225E)
Poh Su Hin Eugene Timothy (U050431H)
Luke Cheong Zheng Chang (U050327H)
1
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Abstract
This paper will discuss about Singapore’s film industry growth in the local and
global market. Through analysing the research on the current background of the
Singapore’s film industry, the hypothesis of the paper is, “Singapore’s film industry has
grown locally and it is becoming more and more successful in the global market.” This
paper, in addition, to the hypothesis, will also discuss on how the Singapore film may
survive the “market test” through an authentic local film culture and not a formulaic
universalised one.
The discussion is segmented into different sections: “The State and The Arts: The
Singapore Film Industry’s Dilemma”, “Negotiating Practitioners and State: Hybrdi and
‘Borderless Films’, “ and “Achievements and Issues of Hybridized Films”. In the section
“The State and The Arts: The Singapore Film Industry’s Dilemma”, the paper aims to
discuss about the relationship between box office of local films during the ‘revival
period’ from 1991. In this section of the paper, state’s support will be discussed, on how
Singapore helped in terms of funding for talents that want to make films.
In order to see a clearer picture of the industry, we have used Antonio Gramsci’s
theory of hegemony as the negotiation approach to further discuss the complex web of
relationships between the state, the different filmmakers and the consumers in Singapore.
The paper identifies that through negotiations, alignments and realignments in the
society, Singapore’s film industry is able to grow. It is no longer top-down on what the
government wants but also the wants of the consumers. The market and the consumers
determine the success in the box office. Examples of films like 15 and 881 are used for
comparison.
Besides the above-mentioned, the paper will also deeply analyse the achievements
and issues of the so-called hybridized films, on how the government is a player in the
industry as well and how transnational collaborations break away from hegemony. Upon
all research and analysis, our hypothesis has been proven to a certain extent. The
Singapore’s film industry had grown globally due to exposure; collaboration and awards
and Singapore film is being accepted locally. Singapore films are starting to survive “the
market test” through an authentic local film culture and not a formulaic universalized
one.
2
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................6
Initial Research: Current Background.................................................................................6
Hypothesis and Research Question.....................................................................................8
Methodology........................................................................................................................8
Performance of local films at box office during the ‘revival’ period..............................9
State’s Support...............................................................................................................12
Singapore Film Commission’s Funding Programmes...................................................13
Bureaucratic film industry.............................................................................................15
Negotiating Practitioners and State: Hybrid and ‘Borderless’ Films................................16
Antonia Gramsci’s Hegemony as the negotiation approach..........................................16
Achievements and Issues with regards to Hybridized Films.........................................20
The early stages of our film renaissance........................................................................20
Transnational Collaborations: Antonio’s Gramsci’s theory of hegemony As The
Negoitation Approach In Relation To Co-Production Strategies in Singapore.............21
Searching for a Singaporean film identity.....................................................................23
A look beyond creativity...............................................................................................25
Recent achievements in the Film Industry.....................................................................26
A Film Maker’s Dilemma..............................................................................................26
Conclusion: Embracing the Singapore Film Identity........................................................27
Bibliography......................................................................................................................31
Appendix A: Statistics from Singapore Film Commission...............................................35
Appendix B: Interview Transcript with Eric Khoo...........................................................38
Appendix C: Interview Transcript with Anthony Chen – Filmmaker for Ah Ma, Special
Mention In 60th Cannes Festival........................................................................................40
Appendix D: Interview Transcript with Kristin Saw – Substation – Programme Manager
for Moving Images............................................................................................................46
3
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Introduction
The Singapore film industry is by no means a young one. The film industry had
its rich beginnings since 1950s during the ‘Golden Age’ of filmmaking, with the presence
of Cathay Organisation’s Cathay-Keris Studio and Shaw Organisation’s Malay Films
Production. At that time, Singapore’s Malay films were regionally popular especially for
its Pontianak movies.
In the 1960s, the once popular Malay language films gradually ceased production
when a censorship banning violence, horror and sex in movies was introduced (Aquilla,
2006). The film industry declined further as economic development took precedence after
Singapore’s independence in 1965 (Malepart, 2005). Singapore filmmaking lay virtually
dormant for some 20 years during 1973 and 1991 (Khoo, 2006), as it gave way to the
necessity of nation building.
Initial Research: Current Background
After undergoing a turbulent series of misfortunate events, the Singapore film
industry is experiencing a revival. Since 1991, Singapore has produced a good number of
movies capable of gaining international recognition and boasting local box office success.
Filmmakers like Eric Khoo and Royston Tan made movies such as Mee Pok Man, 12
Storeys, 15 and 881. These movies have brought few box office success and recognition
at international film festivals. For example, Khoo’s film won “Best Feature Film” in the
Hawaii International Film Festival.
The independent production company, Zhao Wei Films, owned by Eric Khoo, has
been one of the most active players during the revival period (Tan, S. et al. 2003).
Raintree Pictures, Singapore’s largest film production company and the filmmaking arm
of the state-run MediaCorp is another key player in today’s so-called ‘renaissance’ film
industry. In line with the government’s identification of film ‘as a service industry and a
potential economic growth area’ (Malepart, 2005), Raintree Pictures has an agenda with
the aim of making ‘truly international and “borderless” movies’ (Khoo, 2006). Having so
many different agendas, Singapore film industry is highly diverse and divided along
production types of local independent productions. Clear and distinct examples would be
like local independently-made films like Be With Me by Eric Khoo and 881 by Royston
4
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Tan, or transnational collaborations like One Last Dance and The Home Song Stories.
With an ‘average of 3 movies produced each year’1, the local film industry is growing
slowly but steadily in the local and global market.
In analysing the nature of the film industry’s growth in the local and global
market, this paper seeks to examine the intrinsic relationship between the economic and
cultural aspect of the industry. Using the state’s classification of film as a creative
industry2, we illustrate the hegemony of the economy, supported by the ideology of
pragmatism and globalization (Kong, 2000). Part of the economic hegemony is the
common perspective that local film producers need to sell their films beyond the
domestic market in order for Singapore filmmaking to have long-term commercial
prospect. In addition, the government’s view of film making as a potential economic
growth area (in enhancing Singapore as a tourism destination and developing Singapore
into a movie production centre and a film hub for international film makers) (Kong,
2000) is also central and critical to examining the economic and social-cultural discourse
of filmmaking in Singapore and in tracking its growth in near future. This entails local
filmmakers to be heavily involved in the production of creative industries.
Analysing growth of the film industry does not simply rest on statistical facts of
box office success and number of films produced in a year. Often, it is the unique
content, style and appreciation of the film by audiences which determines a film’s
performance at the box office and its ability to gain recognition at film festivals. In
combating stereotypes of Singapore being a ‘cultural desert’, films have an important role
in visually constructing the cultural identity of Singapore. A filmmaker’s ability to
express their creative freedom is however often constrained by the need to ‘break even’
and attain commercial success.
The discussion of this paper will begin by illustrating the bureaucratic nature of
Singapore’s film industry, where production of film is often driven by an economic
agenda, ‘the chief aim of which is to nurture the film industry as a potential cash cow for
1 A comment made by Mr. Anthony Chen, filmmaker of Ah Ma, during an interview with him on October 4, 2007.2 According to John Hartley (2005), “the idea of the creative industries seeks to describe the conceptual and practical convergence of the creative arts (individual talent) with cultural industries (mass scale), in the context of new media technologies (ICTs) within a new knowledge economy, for the use of newly interactive citizen-consumers” (5).
5
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
the state and to make films part of the state’s economic base’ (Tan, S. et al, 2003). The
state’s arms (e.g. Raintree Pictures and Singapore Film Commission) on the other hand
are crucial in supporting and financing film makers and relishing the filmmakers’ socio-
cultural agenda. Being in a state where film makers are still trying to grasp their
individual style and attain the level of maturity in their work, it is thus worth
investigating how the state’s ideology of pragmatism would affect the growth of
Singapore films in terms of its identity and style.
In the second part of the paper, we will use Antonio Gramsci’s concept of
hegemony as the negotiation approach to illustrate how independent filmmakers
maneuvers with the state’s language of pragmatism and creation of a hybrid film identity
which is reflective of Singapore’s increasingly cosmopolitan nature and the economic
realities of the film industry. The paper will conclude by evaluating the importance of
local Singaporeans to embrace the local film identity, which is more crucial in sustaining
local film industry, rather than the constant urge to gain international recognition as
reflective of a film’s credibility.
Hypothesis and Research Question
The paper sets out to discuss about the growth of Singapore’s film industry in
both the local and global market. In line with the above background information, initial
research and literature review, we have formulated a hypothesis (from a macro vantage
point).
“Singapore’s film industry has grown locally and it is becoming more successful
in the global market.”
In addition to the above hypothesis, we will also discuss how the Singapore film
industry may survive the ‘market test’ through an authentic local film culture and not a
formulaic universalised one.
Methodology
In order to gain insights into the Singapore film industry, we have utilized both
quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our quantitative analysis comprises of statistical
data on the individual films’ box office records, budget and their respective amount of
6
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
profits attained so as to get a glimpse on the potential of Singapore’s film industry.
Statistics on grants and reimbursement from the Singapore Film Commission will also be
used to illustrate governmental support.
In addition, we have also attempted to qualify the statistical data based on
interviews with short film maker, Anthony Chen, director of Ah Ma and winner of the
60th Cannes International Film Festival (Special Mention); Singapore’s well-established
film makers, Eric Khoo and Royston Tan; as well as Kristin Saw, programme manager of
Moving Images, The Substation. Interviews with the film industry’s practitioners (who
are not part of the state’s filmmaking arm) have given us exclusive insights of how film
practitioners are negotiating with the state’s ideology and their personal socio-cultural
agendas. This will help in illustrating the economic hegemony of Singapore’s film
industry.
The State and The Arts: The Singapore Film Industry’s Dilemma
Performance of local films at box office during the ‘revival’ period
Cinema was officially recognised as an art form by the National Arts Council
(NCA) in 1997 (Malepart, 2005). Prior to that, few local films were produced and
financed by independent film makers and independent production house, such as
Zhaowei Films, owned by Eric Khoo, himself. The films that have been produced were
mostly cultural products that veer towards discussing the Singapore culture.
Clear examples of such films were Eric Khoo’s Mee Pok Man (1995) and Yon
Fan’s Bugis Street (1996). Bugis Street was an experimentary film that portrayed the
city's transvestites and transsexuals in Singapore’s former red-light district, while Eric
Khoo’s Mee Pok Man was a psychological drama, which displayed the dark side of
Singapore and contained themes of necrophilia (Ng, 2002). Considered as the first
Singapore feature in this initial phase of experimentation to show artistic promise (Ng,
2002), Mee Pok Man did well in the local box office and is considered as one of the
pioneer products of Singapore’s renaissance film industry. It took a total of $100,000 to
produce the entire film and hit the local box office at $450,000, about 4.5 times the
money of production cost. However, Bugis Street did not do that well in the box office,
raking in only $1 million when the production cost is $2 million. (Refer to Appendix A)
7
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Two other films that performed extremely well in the local box office during the
‘revival’ period (1991 – 1999) were the sleeper hit Amy Daze (1996) by Ong Keng Sen.
Army Daze was a comedy that featured the lives of male Singaporeans in the army. The
film brought in $1.6 million in the box office with production cost at only $700,000. In
1998, Tay Teck Lock’s Money No Enough brought in a grand total of $5.8 million in four
months. Tay only used a mere $850,000 to produce the film. The use of the film in
dialects and screening of the film during the Asian economic crisis were key elements of
its success. (Ng, 2002)
As the local film industry began producing films with authentic local cultural
elements, another type of film emerged. Glen Goei’s Forever Fever (1998) – an
adaptation of the Hollywood hit Saturday Night Fever - was the first local production to
be screened overseas. According to statistics, it cost about $1.5 million to produce and
was picked up by Miramax Films for $4.5 million.
After the success of Money Not Enough in 1998, Jack Neo has been producing
films that cater to the local market. His films are normally satires of Singapore’s policies
– mainly criticising the government in an underlying manner. His films resonates the
voices of the heartlanders in Singapore. In addition to that, his films are in dialects, which
directly reach to the masses in Singapore. According to the statistics that are provided by
the Singapore Film Commission, the films that involved Jack Neo have always been
doing well in the Box Office.
Table 1A: Films that attained BO>PC equilibrium
Year No of Films Produced
In S’pore
No of Films
Which BO > PC3
Name of Film Director
1999 8 1 Liang Po Po – The Movie4 Teng Bee Leng
2000 5 0 NA NA
2001 6 0 NA NA
2002 6 1 I Not Stupid Jack Neo
2003 8 1 Homerun Jack Neo
2004 7 1 The Best Bet Jack Neo
3 BO refers to Box Office while PC refers to Production Costs4 Note that Jack Neo acted as Liang Po Po, the protagonist of the entire movie.
8
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
2005 8 3 I Do, I Do Jack Neo
The Maid Kelvin Tong
One More Chance Jack Neo
2006 10 1 I Not Stupid 2 Jack Neo
Results inferred from SFC’s Statistics (Appendix A)
In accordance to Table 1A, it is very evident that Jack Neo’s films are very
selling. There are a few reasons why this is so. Firstly, Jack Neo’s production company J-
Team Productions have been working very closely with MediaCorp’s Raintree Pictures.
Films that were co-produced by both Raintree Pictures and J-Team Productions include I
Do I Do that was shown during the Chinese New Year Period in 2001.
MediaCorp, being the monopolistic TV broadcasting organisation has both the
money and the platform to provide the necessary publicity for films that are co-produced
by both organisations. Such films have been publicised via road shows in shopping malls.
Artistes of that particular film are able to go on MediaCorp Radio stations as well as TV
programmes for publicity purposes. The intense penetration of Jack Neo’s publicity
stunts for his movies is through television. Until now, to date, Jack Neo still has his own
television shows. He publicise his films on his own TV programmes like Top Fun, which
is aired during primetime on Monday in Channel 8.
The emergence of such success stories in the film industry, nonetheless, brought
attention to the government and the Singapore Film Commission (SFC) was set up in
April 1998, as the prime source of government funding for all film practitioners in
Singapore (e.g. independent film producers, scriptwriters and arts centres like The
Substation, etc.). The same year, Raintree Pictures, ‘considered the most extensive media
company in Singapore’ (Malepart, 2005) was set up. The development of ‘borderless’
films by Raintree Pictures and how this affects the local film industry in the near future,
will be discussed in the next few parts of the paper: Negotiating Practitioners and State:
Hybrid and ‘Borderless’ Films.
9
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
State’s Support
It takes a lot of courage, money and risk to produce films anywhere in the world.
Encouragement and support from the government and its own local people is extremely
important in determining the survival and growth of the industry.
Ever since the recognition of film as an art form in 1997, the government has
invested a lot in creating an environment favourable towards filmmaking. Examples of
these include the set up of SFC and establishment of relevant educational institutions. In
July 2000, Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s School for Film and Media Studies initiated the two-
year Advanced Diploma in Film Production (ADFP) course (Wee, 2002), which helps to
foster students’ understanding of the art of narrative filmmaking. This serves as an
avenue for local students who are unable to afford an education in film-making overseas,
allowing more home-grown talents to get the education they need as film-makers. There
was also an increase in the amount of grants for filmmakers via the financial scheme by
the SFC in 2005 from $250,000/$500,000 to $1 million (MDA, 2005).
With the increased amount of funding, the SFC collaborated with the Media
Development Authority (MDA) to provide greater opportunities for young aspiring
filmmakers to hone their film-making skills, pushing the Singapore film industry towards
greater recognition in the global film industry.
In 2003, “Singapore’s vision of itself as a ‘Global Media City’ was enshrined in a
government policy entitled ‘Media 21’, which aims to increase the GDP contribution of
Singapore’s media cluster from 1.56% to 3% in ten years” (Khoo, 2006). Such a policy
simply reads culture primarily in economic terms and marked a significant path on the
development of contemporary Singapore’s film industry – film was no longer labelled as
the arts but became part of the creative industry. This was met with criticism from film
maker Anthony Chen: “They don’t call it the arts, they call it the creative industry and
they group it under a sector that involves film, gaming, animation, design …in fact film
in Singapore is not being categorised under the arts …film is under MDA and not under
the NAC. For theatre groups and visual artists, they can get grants and they enjoy
charitable status but films do not because film is treated as a commercial product in
Singapore.”
10
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Singapore Film Commission’s Funding Programmes
Table 1B: Funding programmes for feature films
Name of Grant or Scheme* Grant Quantum*
Script Development Grant Up to $6,000
SFC Co-Investment Scheme
(To support the production of exportable
‘Made-by-Singapore’ feature films and to
facilitate collaboration between Singapore
film producers and producers in Asia and
beyond)
Up to $1,000,000 ($1 million) or 50% of
the production budget, whichever is lower.
SFC Overseas Travel Grants Reimbursement of up to 100% of the 2-
way economy class travel cost to attend
international film festivals or competition.
This is subject to a cap of 4 overseas events
for the same film title.
Project Development Scheme
(To seed the production of quality ‘Made-
by-Singapore’ feature film projects by
Singapore film producers or production
companies)
Up to $40,000 to cover qualifying
expenses**
Table 1C: Funding programmes for short films
Name of Grant or Scheme* Grant Quantum*
Short Film Grant 1) Up to $5,000 for production on any
formats, with budget of $20,000 or less
2) Up to $10,000 for high definition and
film format productions, with budget of
more than $20,000.
SFC Overseas Travel Grants Reimbursement of up to 100% of the 2-
way economy class travel cost to attend
international film festivals or competition.
11
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
This is subject to a cap of 4 overseas events
for the same film title.
*Source: Singapore Film Commission, www.sfc.org.sg . For more information on the criteria, eligibility,
full details of the grant quantum, application and objectives of the individual funding programmes, please
visit the website stated.
**Qualifying expenses includes: scriptwriting expenses, option right’s fees, producers’ fees, business
development expenses, legal fees, research and retainers, location recce and miscellaneous fees.
Despite an increase in funding, the funding scheme of the SFC is problematic and
highly reflective of the state’s discourse and ideology of pragmatism and globalisation.
As shown in the above table, there is a lot of emphasis on the development of ‘Made-by-
Singapore’ content. The CEO of the Media Development Authority (MDA), Lim Hock
Chuan, explains the significance of this term: “We mean content that is made with
Singapore talent, financing, expertise, but not necessarily made in Singapore entirely, or
made for the Singapore audience only. Singapore’s market size is small and we need to
develop ‘Made-by-Singapore’ content that has the potential to travel outside Singapore”
(Tan, 2003). It is believe that Singapore’s film industry lacks the experience to create
films that would be able to attract overseas viewers. As such, the funding scheme opens
opportunities for overseas film makers to develop their talents here as well, believing that
Singapore film makers will be able to learn from them and further expand the industry
here.
Another aspect of the SFC’s funding scheme that is open to criticism is the
government’s actual support for indigenous film makers. As seen in Table 1B, there is a
drastic difference between the funding for the SFC Co-Investment Scheme and the
Project Development Scheme. The SFC Co-Investment Scheme which encourages the
collaboration of local and overseas producers fetches a grant quantum of $60,000 more
than the Project Development Scheme, a scheme that aims to seed support for local
producers only. Such differentiation is once again, highly reflective of the government’s
biasness and support for ‘Made-by-Singapore’ content and their pragmatic approach
towards the development of art in Singapore.
Such an approach is not only tantamount to encourage the development of
transnational production – meaning it will only benefit film organisations such as
12
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Raintree Pictures - it also further dilutes the authenticity of local film identity. Non-
transnational production such as Be With Me and Singapore Dreaming will not receive
maximum funding of $1 million dollars from the SFC. Although it has been noted that it
is usually cost cheaper to produce local films then most Hollywood production, but we
will argue that this is largely due to Hollywood’s ability to produce high quality films
with extensive independent financial support.
Hollywood, with its renowned reputation in the global film industry, has many
investors waiting to invest in various films, in a bid to gain returns through their
investments. Statistics show that the studio business in Hollywood returns around 12 –
13% of profits a year (Galloway, 2006), which is a huge amount of money with its high
investment rates ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As investors are
concerned with looking for profits when investing in films, film studios in Hollywood
inevitably have no problem looking for investors to invest in their films, which in turn
leads to higher film budgets for the Hollywood film-maker. Furthermore, we see many
investors collaborating to invest in Hollywood films, for example Relativity Media
investing in Sony and Universal Pictures), presenting greater opportunities for aspiring
filmmakers to make high-quality films. This in turn leads to greater audienceship in
contrast to local films as movie-goers would rather watch an international film with a
high budget and better visuals than a low-budget local film with poor visual effects.
Independent filmmaker Royston Tan once commented that with such low
budgets, local filmmakers are sometimes forced to scrimp on various areas of the
filmmaking process. He was referring to his experience when filming 4:30 where he had
to save on his tapes. This results in fewer funds available for post-production facilities
such as the dubbing of special effects, subtitles and promotion of their films.
Bureaucratic film industry
As demonstrated from the above examples, the state’s ideology of pragmatism
and globalization in its Media 21 policy and the push for ‘Made-by-Singapore’ content
have been the key driving force behind the expansion of the film’s industry and its
development. We acknowledge the high importance of the state’s support for its growth,
but are nonetheless critical of its approach.
13
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
We are able to identify a bureaucratic capitalist model primarily in the
development of film industry in Singapore. In relation to the government’s various
investments and funding, the film industry may be very much considered as the nation’s
cultural superstructure, where institutions such as the SFC, MDA and Raintree Pictures,
are the state’s arm in the film industry, with the key agenda of using the film industry as a
potential economic source.
Examples of such an agenda may be illustrated by the Singapore Tourism Board’s
(STB) Film in Singapore! Scheme, where it aims to promote Singapore as an attractive
destination for international visitors through the effective medium of movies and
television (SFC, 2007), as well as in the SFC’s ambition to “promote Singapore as a
‘Film Event Centre’ in the mould of the Cannes Film Festival” (Uhde & Uhde, 2000).
With such stringent policies and agendas, films are financed in favours of international
collaboration and are also used as a potential cash cow to generate GDP for the country,
puts the development of independent local films at stake. Film makers on the other hand,
who are highly dependent on the state’s fund, will then have to compromise with their
individuals’ socio-cultural agendas. Instead of producing films for their own sake, they
have to produce films for the country’s sake, hence making the local film industry a
bureaucratic one.
Negotiating Practitioners and State: Hybrid and ‘Borderless’ Films.
Antonia Gramsci’s Hegemony as the negotiation approach
The original Gramscian thesis of hegemony states that power can only be
maintained by those at the top when those at the bottom begin to internalise the interest of
those at the top as being equally good for them as opposed to the concept of ideology
where those at the bottom are likely to be unconscious of their condition and blindly
adheres to the power of the top (Bennett, 1998). Also, Gramsci states that cultural
domination arises from a complex play of negotiations, alignments and realignments
within the society. “… the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the
interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and
that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed” (Gramsci, 1971).
14
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
There is a unique form of complexity in the relationship between the filmmakers
themselves and the relationship between the government and the filmmakers. The next
part of the paper will tie in Gramsci’s hegemony and negotiation approach with the
Singapore film industry.
Take for example, the 3 powerhouses in Singapore, Mr. Jack Neo, Mr. Eric Khoo
and Mr. Royston Tan. The common denominator between the 3 of them is that they are
all successful Singaporean filmmakers. However, all 3 of them produces films that are of
very different genres. As mentioned in the previous part of the paper, Jack Neo produces
films that are very close to the heartlanders; Eric Khoo produces art house films that have
been very successful in the international arena. His films have managed to win awards
overseas. For example, his recent film, Be With Me, won Best Screenplay in the
“Flanders International Film Festival” in 2005 and also Best Film (FIPRESCI Prize) in
the “ Stockholm Film Festival”. Mr. Royston Tan produces films that he believes in and
during a meet up with NUS students, he mentioned that he makes films that are “in his
memories” and reflect the true culture of Singapore.
It is noted that none of these powerhouses are producing films that are similar to
each other and the 3 of them have very different styles. All 3 of them are striving for
cultural domination in their field. They are colleagues in the same field and have the
same agenda, which is to promote growth for the Singapore’s film industry. However, on
the other hand, there is another unique relationship present; they are friends and foes at
the same time, striving for the same agenda but competing against each other for the
small share of pie in the local market.
“In Gramsci's view, there is not in any sense a single dominant class, but, rather, a
shifting and unstable alliance of different social classes. The earlier notion of a dominant
ideology is replaced by the idea of a field of dominant discourses, unstable and
temporary. From this point of view, the media are seen as the place of competition
between competing social forces rather than simply as a channel for the dominant
ideology.” (Gramsci, 1971) Seemingly, these 3 filmmakers represent 3 different types of
competing social forces and Singapore’s film industry is the place for their competition.
All 3 powerhouses need to negotiate with the government in order for them to produce
films that will do well in the industry. Singapore’s government is very paternalistic and
15
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
there is very tight control with regards to the production of any form of cultural and
creative products, thus negotiation is necessary.
The current state of the Singapore film industry may be characterised as a
hegemonic one where it “is undergoing a cultural revolution financed from the top-down,
but driven from the bottom up by a new generation that is better educated and better
travelled,” (Uhde & Uhde, 2000). Financed by the state, film makers dependent on the
state’s funds will nonetheless have to compel with the state’s economic agenda. Given
the high production cost in making a film, it is also necessary for filmmakers to recoup
enough money so as to ‘break even’ and prepare for their next intended film.
In lieu with the discussion of the 3 powerhouses, it is evident that only certain
types of films will be able to garner support from the government. “The Singapore Film
Commission invests in feature films with the expectations of returns, rather than simply
giving grants”. (Tan, 2007). An example of such is the support by the MDA and SFC for
881 that is directed by Royston Tan. The film discussed about Singapore’s boisterous
getai (song stage) scene during the annual Hungry Ghost Festival and the film portrayed
a positive culture of Singapore. Singapore’s Senior Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong said in
an interview with ChannelNewsAsia, “…881 adds colour and diversity of Singapore and
… it would be good if getai could help to preserve Singapore’s street cultural heritage.”
(Hong, 2007)
The government saw a market in this film and indeed they were right in their
projections. The film had raked in both box office sales and local recognition. 881 have
been selected by the SFC to compete in the 80 th Academy Awards, as Singapore’s
nomination for Best Foreign Language film. Clearly, there was a negotiation between 4
entities, a) the market (consumers), b) the government (support from the various
government entities), c) the societal forces (culture heritage of Singapore) and d) the
filmmaker (Royston Tan) to achieve “cultural domination”.
Compared to 881, 15 which was also produced by Royston Tan, the film did not
receive as much support it could get from the government. 15 was funded by the SFC but
the numbers was nowhere comparable to 881. There is a certain downside to co-
production with the government. There is no way filmmakers are able to produce
something controversial or films with content that are contentious. 15 was forced by the
16
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
government to replace or cut 5 minutes of the film, which included scenes where the
protagonists rapped the names of Singaporean gangs (Walsh, 2003). Even though the
movie was screened eventually, Singaporeans got to see the version that was “cut”.
Singapore never screened the original version and in the Internet Movie Database, 15 is
listed as a movie that is banned in Singapore.
That is the problem with the local film industry: - strategies have to change when
filmmakers are contemplating of co-producing a film that is funded by the government.
Filmmakers are not able to exercise their creativity; their market is being confined. They
are being controlled by the government and the film that is co-produced is “not exactly
for the consumers”. Media censorship is very stringent in Singapore and what the
consumers want to see does not equate to what the government wants. As mentioned by
Walsh, 15 was a movie and a “voice for the voiceless”, but instead, the government
decided that some parts of the film are deemed not suitable for the audience (Walsh,
2003), and thus went ahead with the cut.
Comparing both films, 15 and 881, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and
negotiation approach is clearly linked. The government, being the bourgeois class has the
money and the platform in which what type of films are to be produced and screened in
Singapore. It is a case of same producer (Royston Tan), different fates for the 2 films.
“Movie-making maybe fun, but all around the world, it is a high-risk, high-cost
business.” (Tan, 2007). It is almost impossible to produce films that are able to rake in
the box office and to garner the government’s support without the help of entities like
MDA or the SFC.
One of the main issues that lie at hand would be trying to establish a balance
between economic profits and the cultivation of the local identity in our films. As
discussed earlier, the government has categorized the film as a creative industry and
mostly looks at making economic returns. However, many films have failed to reach the
economic success locally as the market is too small.
As such, it is necessary to bring our films overseas. The question would be how to
reach out to the foreign audience, maintain our “Singaporean-ness” and make an
attractive financial return from it. In order to do so, our films cannot be too localized for
the regional and national audience. Hence, the concept of hybridity comes into play.
17
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Hybridization is one aspect of globalization. We can’t ignore it as global encounters and
interactions are producing inventive new cultural forms and repertoires (Du Gay, 1997).
Hybridity in films can mean having a shared and common global cultural reference while
filming in the local context. There has to be a translation of the local narrative into a
universal genre in our films in order to gain market potential (Aquilla, 2006). As such
having truly international and “borderless” films (Khoo, 2006), gives us the flexibility
and adaptability for transnational markets (Hantke S, 2005).
As part of our development, Singapore can (and has been) work closely with the
regional main players; Hong Kong, China, Australia and New Zealand. With more recent
contracts and plans made with the above mentioned countries, further collaboration with
regional actors, producers and directors will help further strengthen our film industry and
help us reach our goal of making hybrid films.
Achievements and Issues with regards to Hybridized Films
The early stages of our film renaissance
As mentioned in the initial part of the paper, one of the first few local films that
were brought to international attention was Forever Fever. It was filmed in the local
context, about a Singaporean man searching for his identity. The main influence and
setting however, was very much influenced by the American culture of disco dancing and
the 70’s classic hit Saturday Night Fever. The context and affinity of Hollywood is what
determines the universal appeal (Low, 1999). This film can be seen as a stepping-stone to
filming more films with universal themes and motifs that can attract the international
audience.
Other popular hits such as Money No Enough and Army Daze were too localized
in its context that Singaporeans could only understand much of its cultural reference. On
the other hand, although independent film productions such as Mee Pok Man and 12
Storeys won awards at international film awards overseas, it did not perform well in the
box offices, which was largely due to the fact that these were art house films and does not
contain elements of commercial, entertainment value for audiences.
As such, the question of whether to make films for the money or the awards or to
win the local audiences heart was at question. In the recent years it became evident that
18
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
the local market was too small and it was not enough to develop the local film industry
yet alone sustain it. With the implementation of the Media 21 policy in 2003, it advocates
the development of ‘Made-by-Singapore’ content. Such policy thus has serious
repercussion on the local film industry’s development and the creation of its products.
Transnational Collaborations: Antonio’s Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony As The
Negoitation Approach In Relation To Co-Production Strategies in Singapore
Singapore film producers have expanded their co-productions (not with the
government but international organisations) and have circulated their products effectively
in Singapore and in the global market. In the recent years, it can be said that MediaCorp’s
Raintree Pictures has been investing in a universally popular film genre to attract
international investments and global audiences (Aquilla, 2006).
A good example would be the film The Maid. By applying universally understood
generic theme to a local story, the filming of this movie was working towards
overcoming national boundaries in to order to reach transnational audiences. This can be
seen as the direction that the government has taken in order to push Singapore’s film
industry to the next level. One way of making international and borderless films is to first
of all start collaborating with international talent. Other examples include One Last
Dance and The Protégé.
“’Hegemony’ in this case means the success of the dominant classes in presenting
their definition of reality, their view of the world, in such a way that other classes accept
it as 'common sense'.” (Gramsci, 1971) It can be noted that consumers in the local market
are accepting transitional collaborations because of the recent achievements it had made
in the global arena; for example, The Home Song Stories garnered 7 nominations from
Golden Horse Awards and 14 nominations in Australia’s AFI Awards.
As mentioned in the previous part of the paper, Gramsci stated that cultural
domination arises from a complex play of negotiations, alignments and realignments
within the society. Basically, the negotiation between the filmmakers and the government
is 2-way dynamic. Transnational collaborations have been doing well in both box office
and international recognition. Thus, the government, being the dominant class realise the
potential of such collaborations. However, in order for such collaborations to take place,
19
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
the government have to give the filmmakers some form of leeway in terms of creativity
while they provide funds for production purposes. Both government and the filmmakers
gain from this and it comes from a complex web of negotiation approaches, with the
government being the “dominant player” while the filmmakers representing the
consumers and societal forces.
Part of the Media 21 policy was also to promote a tripartite financial relationship
between a Singaporean production company, internationally recognized producers, and
the MDA (Aquilla, 2006). This is done so as to generate a more competitive film industry
by actively co-producing and collaborating with regional talents so as to create hybrid
films that can go beyond the Singapore market. Also, to boost and strengthen the film
industry in order to gain economic profits in the long run. 2007 seems to be a growth year
for the local film industry. We have collaborated with many regional film industries and
signed many agreements with other countries to exchange ideas and learn from one
another to make good international films. A number of MediaCorp’s Raintree Pictures
produced films have been made in collaboration with other Asian countries, including
major hit The Eye, The Maid and recently One Last Dance to name a few.
In October, Singapore's film industry received yet another boost with the setting
up of the Raffles China Media Fund by Neo Studios. Founded by Jack Neo, the fund will
support China-Singapore films for distribution in China (Wong, 2007). From here we can
see Singapore’s film main players taking the leap and expanding their horizons beyond
the Singapore market. In September, Singapore and Australia have signed a film and
television co-production pact that encourages collaborations by filmmakers from both
countries (Tay, 2006). The pact will encourage the two countries to share production
resources and help both countries develop their international networks. This may have
followed after MediaCorp’s Raintree Pictures co-production with New Zealand - The
Home Song Stories. Singapore’s first collaboration with Australia, it features
international star Joan Chen and local artist Qi Yu Wu. A Chinese story with a universal
theme, the movie is said to be doing well in the Australian market (Wong, 2007). Besides
doing well in the Australian market, the film has garnered 7 nominations in the upcoming
44th Golden Horse Awards. The film has been nominated for categories like Best Picture
and Best Actress in a leading role.
20
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
“The Gramscian concept of hegemony is mostly used to indicate the cultural
leadership of the dominant classes in the production of generalized meanings, of
'spontaneous' consent to the prevailing arrangement of social relations - a process,
however, that is never finished because hegemony can never be complete.” (Gramsci,
1971). What Gramsci was trying to say is that negotiations have to take place before any
consensus can be reached. With the pushing for transnational collaborations, it can be
noted that the government is slowly losing its power as the dominant class. This can be
clearly illustrated from hybridized filmmaking. The government wants collaborations
between overseas and local film talents to produce hybridized films. However, such
overseas film talents have the power to say and reject the government (who is supposed
to be the dominant class). The government has limited power to dictate Singapore’s film
industry; as mentioned above, there is a need for negotiations between both entities to
come to a consensus on how much funding and most importantly, what type of content to
produce.
Besides the above-mentioned, some local films have tied in with corporate
organisations to expand its reach. One very clear example would be Tan Pin Pin’s
documentary “Singapore GaGa”. The documentary is the first Singapore documentary to
be part of the Singapore airlines inflight entertainment programme and has been sought
by universities and galleries worldwide. (Objectif Films, 2006)
This shift from solely producing local films to creating hybrid films helps work
towards the internationalization of Singaporean films (Aquilla, 2006). It no longer
concentrates on the localized films made just for Singaporeans, but rather to make good
quality films meant for Singaporeans and an international audience. This reflects a
potential growth in our film industry and the government’s goal in relishing the Media 21
policy.
Searching for a Singaporean film identity
However, such borderless collaborations may be diluting the identity of true
Singapore film identity. Many local directors feel that Singapore’s identity in itself is too
mixed and multicultural to find a true blue Singapore film identity. “We don’t have true
film identity yet, we are so diverse. We speak in different languages, dialects and slangs”
21
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
says, film maker Anthony Chen. He also added that Singapore is made to suite a global
culture, making all sorts of films that are cosmopolitan and that our films was never be
truly Singaporean in nature. Kristen Saw, program manager of Moving Images program
at The Substation, feels that Singaporeans have been influenced by other models; “We
are like sponges, Singaporeans have too many influences from overseas”5. As such,
perhaps many local Singaporean films can already be considered hybrid because
Singapore is a hybrid of so many different cultures, people and language and as well as
having western influences weaved into our own culture.
As such, the government’s policies towards the film industry may be a bit too
focused on the transnational level. It could make matters worse as it does not help
Singaporeans find our identity amongst all the international and transnational films. This
top down approach may hinder the true growth of the Singapore industry as we time and
time again look towards profiting and not slowly and truly developing the film industry.
Anthony Chen gave the example of France: “In Singapore, we always think that whatever
we want to do we just put money and it happens but in France they don’t believe in that,
you have to lose money before it happens”. Local independent production can gain
economic returns in due time, directors such as Eric Khoo, Royston Tan and Tan Pin Pin
have directed many local films that tell stories about the different lives of Singaporeans.
From getai singers, to the lonely middle class, the Beng culture and the transvestites, our
culture may be very vast but it is also very rich. These are part of our Singaporean
identity that can be brought to the global audience as there will always be a similar
universal motif in every single culture that other people can relate to.
And this is proven as many of our independently produced films have won the
hearts of the international audience. From Royston Tan’s 15; “Best Director Award -
Buenos Aires VI Intl Film Festival” and Eric Khoo’s Be With Me; “Best Screenplay -
Flander’s International Film Festival.” The similarities that they both share are the stories
about Singaporeans and how this human emotion and experience they face can translate
to an emotional level that is understood universally. “Many of my films are just about the
human emotions. I think the themes are universal and that's what appeals to a wider
5 According to Kristin Saw, programme manager of Moving Images, The Substation, during an interview with her on 4th October 2007.
22
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
audience”, says Eric Khoo6. One example would be his first feature film Mee Pok Man,
one that can be categorized as ‘local’ yet enticingly “foreign”, and therefore exportable
(Khoo, 2006). Telling the stories about different groups of Singaporeans, it highlighted
the problems and difficulties faced by the characters. The universal themes of
“loneliness” and “alienation” can be shared by an international audience despite the fact
that it was filmed in a very local setting (Khoo, 2006). Royston Tan also mentioned that
he loves telling stories about Singaporeans. There is a devotion to the local culture, be it
multi-cultural or singular, it does not matter to them. As long as they have a story to tell
and it’s about one aspect of Singaporeans live, they will tell it and it will be a
Singaporean film.
A look beyond creativity
The film scene in Singapore is such that filmmakers cannot solely rely on their
individual creativity alone to generate box office success. There exists a need for film
makers to be able to inject a universally successful formula to his movie so that it appeals
to audiences locally and internationally. Additionally there is an onus for production
houses to execute a proper marketing campaign in order to generate initial publicity and
popularity for the film.
In the case of Wee Li Lin’s debut film Gone Shopping, it had the ingredients for a
successful home-grown film; an interesting script revolving around three characters in a
shopping mall, as well as a cast of well known local artists in Adrian Pang and Kym Ng.
However the film’s box office gross was a mere S$31,000, compared to its production
budget of S$650,000 (Ong, 2007). One of the reasons for the film’s dismay showing at
the box office was because of its lack of a proper marketing campaign to publicize the
film. On her film-making debut, Wee admitted that the production team had ‘spent so
much time thinking about the film’ that they ‘didn’t spend enough time thinking about
what happens after’ (Ong, 2007). The film’s production company, Kismet Films, is now
suffering from the financial losses and looking to downsize their production capabilities.
6 According to Eric Khoo in an email interview 22nd October 2007.
23
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
A local film now needs more than a good script to be considered a general
success. Gone Shopping’s mistake in not devising a marketing plan contrasts with the
marketing campaign executed by the production team of Royston Tan’s 881. A film’s
timed release date can also be considered as a marketing strategy - 881’s release date
coincided with the Chinese Hungry Ghost Festival, which ensured that the ‘Getai’ theme
of the movie became a very relevant and current topic for Singaporeans to relate to. The
promotional launches of 881 were also marked by flamboyant costumes and ‘Getai’
performances by the cast and even Royston Tan himself (Chang, 2007). Such dramatic
enthusiasm in promoting the film has attracted the attention of many, and also contributed
to the success of the movie. In a guest appearance during a lecture in the National
University of Singapore in October 2007, Royston Tan mentioned that 881 had already
exceeded expectations with a box office gross of about S$3.6 million.
Recent achievements in the Film Industry
The local film industry has been doing well lately in the international awards
scene. Besides the 7 nominations that The Home Song Stories garnered in the 44th Golden
Horse Awards, local actor Gurmit Singh will be going head to head against 2-time “Best
Actor” winner Aaron Kwok, Tony Leung and Zhao Ben Shan for “Best Actor” in the
upcoming Golden Horse Awards. If Gurmit does win, he will be the 2nd Singaporean to
be receiving the Golden Horse Award. In 2003, Megan Zheng, then 8-years-old won
“Best New Performer”, bringing back Singapore’s first ever Golden Horse Award
statuette.
A Film Maker’s Dilemma
The example of Gone Shopping also brings out the common dilemma faced by
film makers in the country; to create a film that is economically feasible and appealing to
the local audiences, or to let all creatively flow and create arts for arts sake? The success
of the film Money No Enough was locally popular which in turn raked in the profits, but
the appeal of the film never moved beyond the Malaysian Peninsular (Khoo, 2006). Films
like Eric Khoo’s Be With Me and Royston Tan’s 4:30 were critically acclaimed and
received international awards. Unfortunately, international accolades did not transfer to
24
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
local box office success. Eric Khoo’s Be With Me brought in S$175,000 compared with
its production budget of S$250,000, whereas Tan’s 4:30 raked in only S$25,000
compared to a production budget of S$350,000 (Ong, 2007). Indeed, local films face a
massive challenge to overhaul their foreign counterparts in the box office. Gone
Shopping had to grapple with summer blockbusters such as Transformers and Harry
Potter and The Order of the Phoenix during the month of July (Mcnary, 2007).
In retrospect local films are not as yet able to compete with foreign films on a
level playing field. Given the choice between a locally produced film and an international
franchised blockbuster at the same ticket prices and in the same theatre, a normal layman
would more often than not choose the latter. In a pragmatic society such as Singapore,
film makers would find it difficult to survive just on international recognition alone.
Aside from the more established companies such as MediaCorp Raintree Pictures
and Zhao Wei Films, a financial disaster at the box office would greatly affect a smaller
film production company’s capacity to continue on, as with the case of Kismet Films.
Hence there is this need for the government to step in and to restructure the way local
film in Singapore is showcased. Funding should go beyond the process of film production
itself and encompass the whole process up to the marketing costs and screening in movie
houses as well.
Conclusion: Embracing the Singapore Film Identity
So far, we have been analyzing the highly interconnected relationship between the
state and the film industry’s practitioners in terms of economic function of the state and
the industry’s practitioners as potential producers of socio-cultural and economic
producers of the creative industry. Given such a situation, two types of films were
produced as a result. One being, independently made films reflective of Singapore’s
cosmopolitan and hybrid culture of several ethnic groups and language; the other being,
products of transnational collaboration between Singapore producers and overseas
companies.
Another key determinant for the growth of Singapore’s film industry would be the
audience, themselves. During our interview, many film makers have expressed concerns
for the importance of local Singaporeans to embrace the local film identity, which is
25
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
more crucial in sustaining local film industry. Singaporeans, on the other hand, have a
peculiar psychic where one would judge the film’s credibility based on its international
recognition and accolades. Apart from this common perception of Singaporeans, there are
other two prime reasons for their inability to embrace local films.
Firstly, as statistics have shown, Singaporeans are less likely to enjoy watching
films belonging to the ‘art house’ genre, i.e. Be With Me and 4:30, despite the fact that
these were highly acclaimed award-winning films. However, films related to the more
parochial subjects - i.e. heartland issues of favourite household character, Liang Po Po;
the getai; stereotypes of Singapore’s society revolving around the iconic HDB flats –
were more well-received. Excellent examples of such films would be Singapore
Dreaming, Liang Po Po: The Movie and 881.
Another concern raised by local filmmakers was the lack of publicity. In relation
to local independently produced films, the maximum grant quantum of $40,000 is
probably only sufficient for them to produce a decently made film. After making the film,
there are hardly much left for publicity purposes, such as renting advertisement spaces
and even booking of halls for public screenings. Short films hardly face the problem of
screenings, because there is already a saturation of screening spaces for short films in
Singapore, i.e. The Substation, National Museum of Singapore, embassies and the
various international short film festivals held in Singapore.
For commercial featured-length films however, distribution is a problem. Major
film distributors in Singapore such as Shaw Organisation and Cathay-Golden Village
distributes local films at the same price as that of international blockbusters (Film
Resource for Singapore, 2006), leaving Singaporean filmmakers tight in budgets while
competing against international films with higher budgets and better visual graphics.
Many of use probably have not heard of films such as Perth, Solos and The High Cost Of
Living. These are just few examples of films which have been distributed and embraced
by overseas audiences but unheard and never seen by most Singaporean due to lack of
publicity and poor distribution. The High Cost Of Living (2006) was screened during the
US ASEAN Film and Photography Festival and even distributed to places like
Kazakhstan (probably the first Singapore film to be distributed there). As such, the
government should perhaps reconsider the maximum grant quantum under the SFC’s
26
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Project Development Scheme and maybe local distributors should consider giving local
film producers a discount. All in all, the only way long-term solution to sustaining the
film industry is for Singaporeans to embrace it.
However, we cannot deny the fact that Singapore’s film industry has grown
locally and becoming more successful in the global market to a certain extent, especially
for this year 2007. Locally, more and more local films are being screened in cinemas as
the popularity and variety is increasing. With the success of 881, we can see
Singaporeans tastes in films are growing out of the Jack Neo syndrome - developing
away from the typical government satire films. With many transnational films on our
plate this year; One Last Dance, The Protégé and The Home Song Stories, we have
certainly grown globally as a result of such collaborations. Not to mention the agreements
and investments made with strong industry players in the region to further develop out
film industry. To date, local actor Gurmit Singh has received a nomination for his role in
Jack Neo’s satire “Just Follow Law” at the 44th Golden Horse Awards, a great reflection
of our success in the global market and a greater exposure level in the region. Also, we
can safely say that the phenomenon that is 881 is not contained only in our shores but
overseas as well. The cast and crew of 881 were well received at the Pusan International
Film Awards as “nearly 1,000 fans who showed up to greet the cast of made-in-
Singapore musical 881 in Busan, South Korea” (Ong 2007). . It's difficult to judge the
criteria of a good film between international awards and good box office performance.
Singapore Films have also proved to survive the “market test” through an
authentic local film culture and not a formulaic universalized one. As mentioned in our
paper, both Eric Khoo and Royston Tan love to make films that reflect the true blue
Singapore Stories that eventually have a universal theme that appeals to an international
audience. There was no plan from the beginning to make a trans-national film that
intentionally wants to draw a universal theme or genre to capture a wider market out of
Singapore. These local films that tell a Singapore Story have been successful and are
steadily developing its own authentic local film culture. Their success and survival can be
reflected though the many awards, nominations and popularity that our local films have
garnered over the last one year. With what has happened so far in 2007, we can definitely
27
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
see a growth in the Singapore film industry as both the players and the government
continues in their efforts to develop the industry.
28
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Bibliography
Aquilla, P. (2006). Westernising Southeast Asian Cinema: Co-productions for
“Transnational” Markets in Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 20 (4), 433-445.
Bennett, Tony. (1998). Popular Culture and the turn to Gramsci. In John Storey (Ed.),
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader (pp 217-224). Essex: Pearson Education
Ltd.
Chang, M.C. (2007). Royston’s More Famous in Korea. The New Paper. Retrieved
October 13, 2007, from Factiva.
Du Gay, P. (1997). Chapter 1: What in the World’s Going On. In The Production of
Cultures/Cultures of Production (pp 11-45). London: Sage Publications.
Du Gay, P. (1997). Introduction. In The Production of Cultures/Cultures of Production
(pp 1-6). London: Sage Publications.
Galloway, S. (2006). Film Finance. Retrieved on October 17, 2007, from
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?
vnu_content_id=1002315007
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from Prison Notebooks (trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell-Smith). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hantke, S. (2005). Japanese horror under Western Eyes: social class and global culture in
Liike Takashi's Audition. In Japanese Horror Cinema (pp 54-65). J. McRoy, Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Hong, L. (2007). "881" movie soundtrack a hit with Singaporeans. Retrieved on October
30, 2007, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainment/view/295669/1/.html
29
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Khoo, O. (2006). Slang Images: on the ‘foreignness’ of contemporary Singapore films in
Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 7 (1), 81-98.
Kong, L. (2000). Cultural policy in Singapore: negotiating economic and socio-cultural
agendas in Geoforum, 31, 409-424.
Low, J.S.H. (1999). Style and ideology in the Singapore film renaissance. Masters
Thesis. National University of Singapore, Department of English Language & Literature.
Malepart, A. (2005). The Feature Film Market in Singapore. In Trade Routes program
(pp. 3 – 11). Department of Canadian Heritage.
Mcnary, D. (2007). Transformers’ International Release Brings in $34.7 Million.
Retrieved on October 12, 2007, from
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967937.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Media Development Authority. (2005). Singapore Film Commission Ups Financing
Scheme Amounts. Retrieved on October 18, 2007, from
http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/thenewsdesk.aspx?sid=672
Ng, Y. (2002). Singapore Cinema: In search of identity. Retrieved on October 14, 2007,
from http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/yvo011.htm
Objectif Films. (2006). Singapore GaGa DVD Launch. Retrieved on October 15, 2007
from http://www.objectifsfilms.com/pdf/200611gagadvdrelease.pdf
Ong, S.F. (2007). Money No Enough. Straits Times, Life!. Retrieved October 15, 2007,
from Factiva.
Ong, S.F (2007). Korea welcomes 881. Straits Times, Life!. Retrieved November 4, 2007,
from Factiva
30
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Singapore Film Commission Board. (2007). SFC Funded Films. Retrieved on October
18, 2007 from http://www.sfc.org.sg./main.html
Singapore Film Resources. (2006). Film Resources In Singapore. Retrieved on October
15, 2007, from http://library.thinkquest.org/21065/singa/singa.htm
Tan, K. (2007). Local No Enough. Retrieved on October 30, 2007, from
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/211353print.asp
Tan, S.K., Hwee, M.L.H. & Aw, A. (2003). Contemporary Singapore Filmmaking:
history, policies and Eric Khoo, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 46.
Retrieved on October 2, 2007, from
http://www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue/12storeys/text.html
Tay, E. (2006). Singapore, Australia ink co-production pact to boost film collaboration.
Straits Time. Retrieved, October 13, 2007 from Factiva.
Uhde, J & Uhde, Y.N. (2000). Latent Images – Films in Singapore. (1st Ed.). Singapore:
Oxford University Press
Walsh, B. (2003). Street Survivors. Retrieved on October 29, 2007, from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,477974,00.html
Wee, B. (2002). Singapore: Crouching Tyrants, Hidden Talents. Retrieved October 15,
2007, from http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/bwee021.htm
Wong, M.W. (2007). MediaCorp Raintree Pictures to collaborate with NZ for next film.
Retrieved October 12, 2007, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/298065/1/.html
31
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Wong, Y.F. (2007). Singapore set to go digital in China in a big way. Retrieved October
12, 2007, from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/305475/1/.html
32
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Appendix A: Statistics from Singapore Film Commission
33
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
34
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
35
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Appendix B: Interview Transcript with Eric Khoo
To begin, how did your affinities with filmmaking came about?
My mother introduced me to the cinema at the age of two and I have wanted to be a
filmmaker since then.
When you first did Mee Pok Man, was there any intention (or was it your main
intention) to revive the Singapore's film industry?
Not really … we all just wanted to make a good film.
"Filmmaking is identified as a service industry and a potential growth area". How
do you think filmmaking would serve a nation, Singapore in particular?
It's a good way exploring and preserving our culture and heritage.
What do you think makes a film truly representative of Singapore? Till date, which
films do you think have truly captured the essence of Singapore?
I think hearing dialects and Singlish in a movie, definitely makes it representative!! So
far, all the local films have managed to capture the essence of Singapore
Is there a specific genre of films which you seek to make? Some critics have labelled
your films (e.g. Mee Pok Man & 12 storey) as 'third world cinema'. What are your
views of it?
I want to make films that have good stories to tell, regardless of genre. And Mee Pok
Man and 12 Storeys are just films about ordinary Singaporeans. I am not sure why they
think its "third world cinema". Unless those critics are silly enough to think that
Singapore is a third world country.
Do you think that the representation of the 'dark side' of Singapore is what makes
your films appealing to international (and local) audiences?
Many of my films are just about the human emotions. I think their themes are universal
and that's what appeals to a wider audience.
36
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Has the MDA, Singapore Film Commission and the Singapore government been
very supportive of all your projects, in terms of grants, permissions, etc. (Please
state a few examples)
Yes, they have been supportive. We have recently worked with the MDA on 881 and the
first two Royston Tan films, which Zhao Wei produced, were in collaboration with the
Singapore Film Commission.
In general, do you think the above mentioned associations have been very
supportive of filmmaking in Singapore?
Yes, I think they have been very supportive.
How do you think we can further develop filmmaking here?
I think we should get to know ourselves better and to be brave, not to follow others in
order to make a greater impact within this medium.
What do you think of the government's visions towards filmmaking? (e.g. film as a
creative industry, promoting films 'made' in Singapore so as to become a production
hub, etc.)
I think that it is very encouraging to know that we have the support of the government.
But only time will tell if their objectives can be reached.
Would you consider collaborating with foreign directors? Who would that be and
why?
We would definitely look forward to working with foreign directors and my favourite is a
Finnish drunk called Aki Kaurismaki who is a genius at storytelling.
Lastly, what are Zhao Wei Films' current or future projects?
We are currently working on a film based on stripper Rose Chan.
37
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Appendix C: Interview Transcript with Anthony Chen – Filmmaker for Ah Ma,
Special Mention In 60 th Cannes Festival
How filmmaking would serve Singapore?Because they can only quantify filmmaking in Singapore based on economic terms, like
how much money it can make, how much jobs it can create. Europeans take it from a
very cultural point where every nation and every society needs a certain cultural
foundation for it to survive. I think no society in the world can survive without culture at
all. I think it’s very important when you look at the Japanese and the Koreans, when you
look at the French, its very very much part of their culture. French – for them they have a
culture agenda …In Singapore we always think that whatever we want to do, we just put
money and it happens but in France they don’t believe in that, you have to lose money
before it happens. The country starts by organising itself from a very long time ago. They
have a lot of festivals, they have a lot of cultural activities and there’s this whole
phenomenon to encourage the public to watch the arts and participate from a very young
age. The preschool kids will go to the art museum … after losing so much money you
realise that films actually makes up a very huge GDP in France because the public has
acquired a taste of going to the arts and watching the arts such that the country can no
longer do without the arts so you see it develops over time. Which is why I feel that films
and arts has its value in the country and a lot of times you cannot quantify it so easily and
you have to remember that a lot of times it snowballs into other areas like e.g. French
film festivals have a lot of people going there so straight away it snowballs into service
industry.
They don’t call it the arts, they call it the creative industry and they group it under a
sector that involves film, gaming, animation, design …in fact film in Singapore is not
being categorised under the arts …film is under MDA and not under the NAC and theatre
groups and visual artists they can get grants and they enjoy charitable status but film do
not cause film is treated as a commercial product in Singapore.
38
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
What is difference between short films and feature films?
I think that a lot of featured films are not determined by the filmmakers. A lot of featured
films are churned out by a company called Raintree pictures. A lot of short films are very
personal you see the personal signature of the director ….whereas features are always
categorised in genres. A lot of times the decision to make short films does not lie with the
director because they require a lot of money $50,000 to 1 million.
On the actors’ fee - Actually it is not a lot of money because people know that short films
are not for profit making…so they understand they don’t charge us a bomb. A lot of
times it’s the rental of the equipments that costs a lot of money … Visibility and attention
do not equate to money making because they are not features, like 881 can make a lot of
money. People don’t really pay money to watch short films …its almost a norm that short
films are free …festivals do not pay screening fees …if its screened commercially
overseas they will pay you a fee of $1000 over a period of 5 years. Ah Ma was sold to
France, the French short film industry picked it up, they bought 9 film screens to be
screened in over 300 cinemas in France over a period of 5 years and they are paying a
few thousands for over 5 years which is very little actually. It is part of the French
cultural policy of letting their people watch overseas films and get in touch with
international cultures. They do these kinds of things to open the minds of their people.
SIFF – heyday (20 days) 12 days and next year it’s 10 days. They have been getting
budget cuts, its not doing as well anymore. Quality of audience is growing, not so much
in size but the cultural literacy or the media literacy of the audience has grown. … I think
TV plays a big part. I dare say that TV is very bad in Singapore. TV has gone downhill
instead of uphill. Quality of mainstream TV isn’t growing in terms of culture ….once
standards are reached and kids are watching that standard or brought up with good valued
stuff, good writing it changes you see.
Are short films receiving enough publicity?
Especially this year it has been receiving a lot of attention. These few years, local short
films are garnering a lot of awards around the world and gong all out and there’s this
39
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
phenomenon going on everyone wants to be a filmmaker. I think our country cannot
sustain with so many filmmakers, there are not many films to be made in a year … I think
it is more important that more people want to watch films than more people want to make
films. We rather have a huge group of people watching films and knowing how to
appreciate good films ….its all about cultural literacy, cultural education I think a lot of
times its about raising standards and setting the level …but if you start to raise the bar
and start creating very deep characters… we don’t stick for perfection sometimes …the
good filmmakers is through watching a lot of films, through reading a lot of books and
observing life , being very sensitive to human nature to human conditions to relationships
Grants from the SFC?
Whatever film that is good and able to put Singapore on the global stage, it’s good for the
country you see. It’s not a company, it supports all individuals in Singapore. It’ll be that
10 filmmakers which they are supporting every year and these filmmakers are known
already …so they will never be encouraging new talents and it wants to encourage that if
not it will be very unfair.
Why do you think Ah Ma managed to win the hearts of the judges at Cannes?
Ah ma happens to be a film that has never been done before in the global scene. Rarely
do you see a short film about death and nothing really happens its just about capturing
that death ... capturing those different moments of how people deal with death. Its very
haunting and not as melodramatic as what has always been shown.
How would you define a Singapore film?
We don’t have true film identity yet, we are so diverse, we speak in different languages,
dialects and slangs. Different section of the population are interested in different things,
we have different races. A lot of times global audience have a problem understanding
Singapore. So Singaporeans what kind of people are you? They are trying to figure pout
what kind of country this is.
40
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
The theme of loneliness, alienation often comes out……..
I think 881 is quite representative but then again its done in a little too fantasy such that
…but I think it captures a side of Singapore that is very real, a culture that is contained
within our waters only …its very hard I don’t see how in the next ten years we will have
a film that …oh this is a Singapore film especially more and more we have companies
that are making so-called Singapore films directed by ang moh directors or there are
Singapore films when you watch it you go like this is not Singapore. I think we have been
so global to start with, we have been so cosmopolitan , we are always trying to learn from
the west, we are trying to change and morph into new ways of doing things… we are
changing all the time even our building … I think there wont be a true blue Singapore
film. Singapore is made to suit a global culture, we will be making all sorts of film that
are cosmopolitan products and I don’t think they will be truly Singaporean in nature
Will you make films that suit the international audience or the local audiences first?
Stories that I want to tell. Some stories are meant to be told in Singapore, some stories are
meant to be told elsewhere and I dare say I still have a lot of stories to be told in
Singapore and I’m always looking at making Asian films. I don’t think in my life chance
I will ever pop over to Hollywood. I respect the Asian sensitivity. I think we have
managed to capture life, emotions and the human conditions in a very subtle way, in a
very human way. Singapore being such a global world, such a cosmopolitan nation, we
are like representative of a global culture … I call Singapore a hotel now where people
check in and check out from time to time even Singaporeans check in and check out of
this place. I think the notion of home has changed; now you can live anyway in the world
and that can be your home. I think in 10 years time, the question of being Singaporean is
no longer whether we are born here or not, it’s no longer about whether we played
chaptek in school, its all about just living here.
How do you think we can further develop short films in Singapore?
I think one of the thing that is important is that we have to believe in our own talent. I am
very against ang moh directors to come in to held feature film projects and call it a
Singapore film. I think if its Steven Spilberg or Tarantino its fine. All these ang moh
41
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
directors are unheard of. They come to Singapore to make films because their own
country don’t want them. Slave-master relationship. Colonization in Singapore hasn’t
need yet. We still think that they do things better. I think we have very good cinema,
Asian cinemas per se, we have gone very far in these 10 years. If we self deny
ourselves….the best way is to collaborate with Hollywood...I think that’s not the way to
go or else we will always have this slave-master relationship going on.
MDA spent a lot of publicity on advertisements in Cannes this year. You know what was
on the advertisements? It was the faces of these ang moh directors of One Last Dance and
Cages and it said “I Made It In Singapore !” and of course its their strategy of making
foreign filmmakers to come and make films in Singapore but then if they are big names
fine…but they are unknowns which even their own countries don’t want them.
I think short films is a very good training ground for filmmakers, a lot of famous
directors all started off with short films.
I think we will never be able to make money out of short films … the values attached to
short films is amateurish, they are still learning, they are not professional… Asian film
archives they did a compilation of Royston’s shorts and they did a compilation of
Singapore short films before. I love to think that people of our generation, when we move
on to our thirties and forties will enjoy watching short films … when the heartland
generation is shaped o be more refined, more cultured group of people... Singapore
having one of the highest literacy and education in the world, doesn’t have a good film
going audience? I don’t believe that I think it just takes time when the heartland
generation has aged and moved, the critical part will move up, our generation move up
and redefine the arts and culture then we will see what the government wants a
renaissance.
It’s a Singaporean psychic, we have this weird psychic like we don’t want to
acknowledge our own people until we hear others acknowledging, we don’t want to pay
42
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
money for our own stuff, we want to pay money for other people’s stuff. I think it will
change with time. We always put others much far beyond our own.
43
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Appendix D: Interview Transcript with Kristin Saw – Substation – Programme
Manager for Moving Images
Bringing films to international film festivals?
Short films shown in Korea e.g. Busan (Solos – featured film) was well received and
there were actually people in the audience and this is important because in Singapore we
do have a lot of festivals being organised but we don’t really have that many people
going to watch unless if its free or unless if its by a more famous filmmaker. The other
difference is during the question and answer session. Like in Singapore classroom, few
people actually raise their views and ask questions or they need a lot of probing before
they speak up. One film maker who just came back from Kazakstan said that after the
film, everybody’s hands were raised and the reason why they had so many questions was
before they wanted to know more about our culture and the kinda questions they asked
weren’t like oh what were you doing before. They actually probe very deeply into the
film and try to see what is reflective of the Singapore culture.
Kazakstan – Victric Thng “The Mole” won the Panasonic MDA
Busan – Jeremy Sng’s “Awoke” (was like a student campus short film fest)
Better to show it to overseas audiences first / local?
In Singapore, they really look at the surface so if your film has travelled overseas and has
won some awards overseas then they will pay make money and make the effort to go and
watch. The local support for short films is getting better but its not readily embraced as
those who has won some awards overseas. There are way too many Hollywood and
award winning movies in the cinemas so the competition is quite tough.
Associate Artist Programme. How does Substation support Anthony?
For him, we try our past to submit his films to overseas festivals. Whenever we get
programmers from overseas doing festivals they will ask us for recommendations and we
will make a point to promote our artists. The very practical way would be that he is
making his next short films now and he will definitely need to raise funds so we write on
behalf to obtain grants from certain institutions that do not recognise individuals so for
44
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
example the LEE foundation, they only give grants to organisations so we recognise
Anthony as part of our organisation and apply for a grant. What helps is that when you
already have a promise figure from this foundation it gives a step ahead and puts you up
higher than other people so they will actually see who’s backing you and the people
making the decision will be more willing to support. ….We just want to maintain a
relationship with him so sometimes when we have forums we invite him to participate
because we feel that he has enough experience to share with the audience. We also give
him free use of the space if he needs to do audition and the use of screen for testing of his
film. Although we can’t give him real monetary support we try to help in terms of his
development.
Where does Substation gets its sponsorship from?
We are an arts institution that is actually independent so we are not affiliated with the
government. About 30% of our operating funds we get from Lee Foundation, NAC and
for moving images it is mainly from SFC. 20% from rental and courses. The remainders
we have to constantly do fundraising and get from donations and corporate sponsorship
Constraints in getting sponsorships and grants?
Yes, but these days it is easier because we have existed long enough for people to know
who we are and we are very sure of our identity which is very different from other
institutions. So whatever that we pitch we remind our sponsors how relevant we are to the
arts scene. In terms of fundraisers we just need to constantly come up with innovative
ways o get people to support.
Ticketing Issues:
Most programmes are provided for free e.g. First Takes. For other programmes, they are
actually $6 and $4 for concession. Hardly go into $10 unless if its like a lecture or a
seminar and we have to pay for the people to come and spend time
45
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
How would films serve Singapore?
To be honest Singapore films hardly ever made any money and if you are talking about
short films, definitely not. The only ones that really have economic value are featured
length films. They are only made after the filmmaker is confident enough to make that
commitment and take the risk. On average the film makers that I know take about 2-3
years to write the scripts and produce the films. They need anything from a 100 – 800 k
to operate and to make the film and a bulk of the cost is to convert whatever film that you
have to a certified mm reel that is then playable at all the cinemas cause right now we still
don’t have so many digital cinemas so we still need 35 mm films ….. from the
filmmakers that I know e.g. Colin Goh who did Singapore Dreaming and Wee Li Lin’s
Gone Shopping…they always struggle to get it to the cinema which don’t give them a
discount because they are commercial entities and don’t give concentration to other
bodies. They need to get people to watch their films in order to earn some money back
and no matter how hard they fight to sell tickets and get people to watch and fundraise
and whatever, it hardly makes up enough to cover the cost. That is to say we don’t even
have any profits to talk about. The problem with films is that there is an expiry date,
anything that is released in the cinemas, within the year you have to get it screened as
much as possible and after that there is practically no interest in catching your film as
people are always out looking for fresh materials. So you have that one year to make as
much money as you can and then after that you either put it into a dvd or you send it for
film festivals. Putting it into dvd you also need to factor in cost, you need a sales
representation to sell your film and to get it to film festivals, you don’t earn any money at
all from the festivals and in fact there’s also cost to ship the thing over. In fact you are not
talking about any input into the economy whatsoever.
How about award winning films like Eric Khoo’s movie?
Eric Khoo is different because he makes artistic films that are meant to be for arts house;
Art house meaning winning awards and participating in festivals but not literally making
a killing at the box office. For Royston Tan its interesting because he has always been a
pure artistic person so for 881 it was like a cross over to the pure entertainment
commercial films and it makes money purely because he knows who his audience is and
46
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
they all came and saw what was expected and with this they hope to send it overseas and
win awards at the golden horse.. for the other features they hardly make money…
Singapore Dreaming only made money because Colin Goh was very good at promoting it
and he also I sort of like a celebrity already. For the other films, even if they do win
awards, ok there’s this film that is called “The high cost of living” It was produced last
year and it was released at The Picture House because The Picture House is relatively
cheaper to rent out and sell tickets too. Not many people came to watch …was quite
poorly attended...by the time the film was made there wasn’t much left for publicity. By
publicity means buying ad space and making commercials that sort of thing which not
many people can afford to. So for the whole year he had nothing much to do but to just
send his films for overseas film festivals and only lately he submit for loans and won a
fight.
New ways of promoting films? E.g. institutions
There has been affords like going to Ngee Ann Poly and getting students to watch and go
online and try to do more internet based marketing and also to get bloggers, Tan Pin Pin’s
Singapore Gaga did very well because they very good publicity. They had many internet
bloggers to watch it and blog it on their sites so they captured that group of audience and
they did very well at the arts house, screening for nearly 6 weeks. The only difference is
that the film itself was not really a feature and therefore it did not have the cost of a
feature film so they can afford to do other things and reach out to wider audiences.
Gone Shopping - had good publicity but still hard to get people to watch. The film was
quite art house and also quite commercial. There are many Singapore films that tend to be
in this middle because they want to earn money so when you want to earn money you
cannot be art house but if you want to earn money you need to know how to play around
with the audience but a lot of them cannot because at heart they are all artistically film
makers. They want to tell different stories, they want to tell different stories and their job
is to educate and create awareness and move people as supposed to entertain. You cannot
get people who watches Resident Evil to come and watch theirs because they are of the
47
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
same ticket price. Many of them get caught in the middle and when that happens you
don’t know how to sell your film.
How about when screening overseas (festivals), is it important to have fixed genres?
Actually it doesn’t matter as much because it also depends on the submission of films.
They tend to look at the variety that they have before they decide what they want but for
screenings in overseas cinemas, it will be very difficult, screening have to be
compartmentalised into strictly commercial or arts house. So overseas they have the
luxury of having a much bigger market than Singapore …overseas, they need to be able
to read your film … again it needs to be really universal in that they can understand what
you are talking about and they need not need to know your country in order to understand
your story or they have to be really local so that people watching it will be able to see
what Singapore is like. Again if you are in the middle, it is really tough spot. Overseas
they have millions film festival also that brings in a lot of award winning independent
films also so competition still exists every where not just in Singapore. After making the
film they are so exhausted that they want to promote their films and then they have to
find a point where they will stop doing this and make their next film…..hopefully they
get a sales agency to pick it up when they go overseas …maybe TV channels or cinemas
overseas.
Screening in local cinemas
As far as I know the arrangement is the same with any other films, that is for every ticket
that is sold, 50 – 60% of it goes to the cinema and the remaining goes back to the
distributor and producer, so there’s no hall rental per se, just that whatever films you
make they take a cut and depending also, for GV they have a distribution arm which
handles public relations so you can actually hire their services but then again this also
depends on the package which they have with the filmmaker. In any case there’s no
charity cause they are still commercial entities, they still treat everybody equal
48
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
Short films making money overseas?
The only possibility is for them to be picked up and screened on airlines or to be screened
on certain cable channels as time fillers or they are packaged together as a 45 min
programme….. I would say that whatever we are doing is based on what others are doing
because we are still quite young, we don’t really know what to do so we just follow
models. Overseas they have stronger representations like for e.g. if the film was produced
by a school the school actually has a very strong distribution department which will then
send the films to overseas festivals and to embassies, for e.g. French embassy is actually
holding a French film festival here which are showing works done by students from their
country. So distribution here is not that fantastic because we don not have that many
distributors ….by distribution I mean selling to channels and getting it out there. E.g.
Objectifs.
It’s very hard to sell film as a product for it to be entertaining and fits into other particular
purpose
I think it comes also with every other cultural class we enter we cannot identify as
Singapore identity. For example when we cannot decide who we are whatever that we do
will show. For e.g. we can’t decide whether to use all pan-asian actors and whether we
should use singlish. If we use singlish then the government will come and say No we
cannot sell this to international audience… the irony is that we are who we are but we
cannot embrace it and we always try to fit in with some other models and we are not
comfortable being ….like the use of dialects is not possible because we want to promote
a standard good English … when people do that they tend to go all out and rebel like for
e.g. talk about the censors and political issues but we can’t do that because its being
banned right. Big force overlooking what we create. We are like sponge, Singaporeans
have too many influences from overseas, we watch a lot of Hollywood so naturally we
pick and choose whatever we like and put them together for whatever reasons. It’s a
problem but I don’t see it as anything wrong. I think Hybridity is inevitable. We should
just stop complaining for e.g. if one film is completely in singlish we shouldn’t come in
and say that his singlish sounds very force or why is it that its in singlish and we still
49
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
need to put singlish subtitles or if you have one or actors starts speaking in slang, then
you will have people start wagging their tongues… What I mean by stop complaining is
to give these films a chance to be what they want to be ….ok they are terrible so let it b
don’t need to dampen the spirit cause once one makes a complain or an argument of the
film the next person who sees this films is always eye-opened to this comments they
either comply with it or just avoid watching it.
A decline in Singapore Short Film festival?
Singapore Short Film festival is organised by us so its just one of our other film festival
whereas for SIFF they exist as a body to just create that one event every year so they are
like the most independent of all independent bodies, they just work from an office to get
that one event going every year. The difficulty that they have is that because their event is
going on just once a year, you don’t have things that go on regularly to maintain hat
regular income. Funding is definitely going there because everyone else is doing a film
festival like for e.g. French embassy and French film festival and the Swedish are doing it
as well. The market is so saturated that people are a bit turned off, if I don’t catch this
one I can always catch others in the future. SIFF unfortunately comes into the picture
because it only happens once every April, the kind of films that are showed are
international films. The only unique selling point is that they try to screen films that have
never been screened in Singapore before. That’s the edge that they want to maintain but
to other mass audience that doesn’t matter, it only matters to people who are aware of the
film scene and these people are already bombarded by all the other events. SIFF – the
person behind the programming, he knows his stuff, when he picks a film he has every
reason why he picks it for the other embassies, its just a chance for them to showcase
their products. With that every other place is also fighting for sponsorship, like getting
hotels to sponsor to house your overseas film guest but already they are probably asked
by every other people who are hosting film festivals. The SFC is our only film
sponsorship body and for them they don’t see a difference with it and other film festivals
and those screened in the cinemas and therefore they don’t see any real tangible benefits
back to society because the aim of SIFF is to educate and boast the industry. They are not
doing anything tangible except for the fact that some of the films actually do win awards.
50
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
It doesn’t see it as anything similar to the other countries. For e.g. the Pusan International
Film Festival, they have a huge film market, they have don’t know how many gala film
screening and networking opportunities. Our SIFF is nowhere near that ….the only main
objective is to just showcase really good films from overseas. That’s all. They want to
scrap all the bells and whistles. The only good thing is the silver screen award which is
given out to works that deserve awards around the world and Singapore. For the
Singapore government they want to see all these bells and whistle to see it as a success. If
it’s just a screening event without any tangible results its very hard for them to justify any
other increment in sponsorship.
How do you think we can further develop film industry here?
Singaporeans just need to embrace local films more. If only we embrace films like we
embrace food right, then we will be so good. … Koreans are very proud of their country
and also because they have their own unique language, it helps them to affirm their
identity whereas in Singapore we don’t have. Just need to be more encouraging. If
audience don’t come and watch we have no figures to show for and when we travel
overseas they also look at figures …an indicator of how successful your film is and the
films will tend to picked up more easily.
In recent years there are so many areas that does screening, so we don’t have a problem
with screening…but the problem is that now we have a saturation and people are
bombarded with so many films so we are spoiling the audience.
What makes a film truly representative of Singapore?
I can’t say that there’s one film. Some people argue that probably 881 cause the whole
getai thingy is truly Singaporean and 80% of it is in Hokkien. But it only shows a
segment of Singapore. Singapore Dreaming which is stereotypical of Singapore and
stereotypes doesn’t mean true.
51
NM3224: CULTURAL INDUSTRIESTERM PAPER – Singapore’s Film Industry Growth In The Local and Global Market
What is the general type of films which Singapore film makers make?
Short Films– tend to be personal, emotional a bit of themselves into the storyline. It’s
meant to move a specific group of audience they wish to reach out to.
Feature Film – tend to use things that are older, like in the 60s / 70s to capture a certain
part of Singapore. The only trend that I catch is in the art direction. They are usually
more colourful. Colourful in the sense that always this shop house here and back alley
there.
52