Reviewing the ratio of performance to tasks of the Farabi Foundation / What are the costs spent?
Fars News Agency, Cinema Group: Last week, Fajr art festivals in 1401 ended, in fact, the enemy’s project to isolate these festivals failed, and now other art streams are slowly returning to their normal and natural routine. In the meantime, it seems like a good opportunity to analyze the current situation and have a detailed pathology of the quality and way of holding festivals so that we can hold them with higher quality next year.
In order to evaluate and measure the performance of government and governing bodies present in Fajar art festivals, we will first go to “Fajr Film Festival” and evaluate the performance of “Farabi Cinema Foundation”. Compared to other art festivals, Fajr Film Festival is older, more prestigious and costs more.
Meanwhile, “Farabi Foundation” has spent the most money in this festival. Due to this issue, in this report, an attempt is made to check the “proportion of output” with “cost contribution” of “Farabi Foundation”. It should be noted that in this report, only Farabi’s performance at Fajr 41 Film Festival will be criticized. In the coming days, the performance of this important cultural institution of the country will be evaluated from other angles in a more detailed manner.
Farabi purchases; High cost and low quality
There are rumors about a figure of around 230 to 400 billion tomans. “Farabi Foundation” should answer how accurate this figure is and provide clear statistics on the cost of buying movies.
Farabi had 9 films in the 41st festival, the films that many critics believe were generally among the weakest works in the festival, most of the films were far from the governing priorities of the Farabi Foundation, and were mostly in the social genre (a topic that is discussed in this cinema). two decades have been saturated), even some films were placed in the genre of tragedy and blackness and they can be classified under black films. However, the common denominator of Farabi’s films is not the common theme, which is high cost and very low quality.
Even though this Farabi tried to make the purchased works appear to be successful purchases through media work, any fair person who has a concern for the treasury and the national interests of the country can analyze what happened in this field and how the cultural mismanagement. It can cause tremendous damage.
* Cultural mismanagement
A few days ago, Farhikhtegan newspaper published a report titled Farabi and Rich Kidzi’s management in cinema” He wrote: In fact, “Farabi Cinema Foundation” is a study example for understanding cultural mismanagement. It seems that it is an example of “bulk management” that, like a rich kid, who is naturally not responsible for the kind of spending of money that he did not work hard for, demands unreasonable expenses from people’s pockets with the “multiplicity” of the product, to increase his management power. “show off” and show off, unaware that the expert audience will see the amateur management behind it from the quality and content of these productions.
Even for the audience who is not familiar with the mechanism of government cultural management, it is obvious that the “multiplicity” of productions in a collection whose principle is based on “outsourcing production” is very easy to get if you have a rich pocket and for any manager with any degree of familiarity with cinema, It is very easy to get. Ironically, the government directors of cinema have always welcomed having a high quantity in the productions due to the fact that with the distribution of more projects, they will naturally be popular with more moviegoers.
In this case, what will show the ability and history of the cultural director is the evaluation of his investment in people, talents, as well as the thematic and intellectual line behind the scripts.
* An analysis of the content of some works of the Farabi Foundation
Supporting a film about the stupidity of public administration
“Metropole” as Farabi’s most important film with the appearance of a holy defense, is a film in the elegies of post-revolutionary cinema. In the heart of a war-torn and besieged city, the reopening of the cinema is supposed to give a new spirit to people’s lives, but the cultural authorities of the government prevent it with delusional looks. Of course, the film is not as attractive as this one line that was said, but the interesting thing is that the money for making a film on “Mockery”, and not criticizing the cultural management of the Islamic Republic, was paid by the symbol of the state cultural management, namely Farabi.
In other words, in the year of cinema boycott by intellectuals, Farabi made a film to show the stupidity of government administration in removing prominent figures of cinema with illusion and narrow-mindedness!
*The collaboration of the director supported by Farabi with the chaos
Farabi’s most expensive film, the most expensive film in Fajr, that is, “Bavaarde Flowers” (this is the same film in which Hamid Farrokhnejad was paid about 2 billion to act in and left the country without returning the money to Bethalmal) is also an interesting case. .
Since its production, the film has been sidelined due to its director’s radical political positions during the riots of the last few months, positions that Farabi’s managers basically did not have the power to control and manage and deal with. At the same time, even the paparazzi media announced that the filmmaker has decided not to bring the film to the festival, so that he has practically boycotted Fajr. Interestingly, almost the same thing happened. After not arriving several times and delaying the broadcast, the film was finally broadcast in the last days of the festival by force at an hour outside the schedule so that many media people could not see it.
The filmmaker also announced in the press conference that this film is a “nonsense” version that was forced by the directors to be broadcast in Fajr, and in this way, it is practically the most expensive film of the festival – which was considered a setback compared to the filmmaker’s previous work “Abadan Eleven Sixty”. It was closed so that the ability to manage the forces in the Farabi Foundation can be fully seen.
“Leather coat” advertising anarchy and chaos
“Leather Coat” another important film by Farabi is also an interesting example. Imagine you are watching a fake version of “Loser Man” (Mohammad Hossein Mahdovian) with three main characters who are symbols of the system. The hero of the film is a welfare officer, the second person is an intelligence officer, and the other is a police officer. It is interesting that these three commit arbitrary murders, kidnappings, document forgery and case making, etc. during the movie. What is basically absent in the film is “law” and the positive characters of the film have no commitment to it. The hero of the film clearly believes that following the law prevents the right from reaching the rightful. Let’s be careful that a government institution has made a film completely promoting anarchy and showing the dead end of the structure.
The point is that neither the filmmakers nor the managers understand that even in Hollywood anti-system films, the hero sometimes acts outside the system, but his act is ultimately to eliminate one person and to stabilize the system and to confirm it, not to promote anarchy.
*Farabi Foundation and the Failure Project
6 other films of Farabi have the same situation. Hamid Zargrenjad’s “Number Ten” is an average Hollywood film that does not even have the slightest hint of the holy defense. Of course, Zargranjad’s technical ability and mental world were clearly evident from his two previous productions, “Payankhemt” and “Mahura”, and the output quality of “Number Ten” is completely predictable considering the filmmaker’s background.
Not only does the film lack the color and smell of holy defense, but in terms of technique and narrative, it does not rise above the level of an average film and ultimately becomes a failed film.
“After leaving” by Reza Nejati is an anti-story film with no audience, which is not known for what reason it was supported by Farabi. Because of the extremely poor quality of the text or its special theme. Pay attention to the story; “Arash (Saber Abar) and his wife have decided to use surrogacy to have a child in the past years. He later falls in love with a girl whose child is in her womb. He secretly marries her. His first wife finds out and is killed in a car accident. His second wife decides to trade and import. Arash gets money with loans and… but the second wife runs away with the money. Now Arash, who has no intention of returning home, lives in the south with his child. The story starts from the place where the second wife has returned after a long absence. Of course, all this happened in the past and nothing new happens during the movie. Even because of the dumb narration of the story, it is unlikely that all the audience will understand this “back story”.
*Lack of important and strategic topics
Now the question is, with what priority has such a script been placed on the agenda of the Farabi Foundation? The clichéd story of a man who cheated on his wife and his property was defrauded by his second wife, even if it is written correctly that the same thing did not happen here, what new and unspoken content does it have that should be taken into consideration by Farabi managers? Does it raise an up-to-date social issue? Has he put his hands on one of the important and strategic issues of the Islamic Republic? Or is it just that a project is going to be done and the number of productions will increase?
* Again supporting the intellectual movement
A few months ago, when the Farabi Foundation chose the film “World War III” to participate in the Oscars, many sympathizers of the regime complained that why should a film confirming the Holocaust be the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the Oscars. At that time, the Farabi Foundation did not pay any attention. The film without general release (they wanted to solve this issue in a theatrical and fraudulent way, but in the end, even though they announced in the advertisements that the film would be released to the general public, but in fact, this game was only a show to deceive the Oscar festival) it went to the Oscars and finally It did not receive much attention, nor did it make it to the final section. In addition, the director of the film “World War III”, who was supported by Farabi, attacked the regime wherever he could and was in the front line of rioters.
This is an example of a detailed study of the approach and status of the Farabi Foundation, in this same festival this support for the works of the Roshankafari movement continued.
Farhikhtegan newspaper also wrote about this: The film “Jangal Orange” is a completely intellectual (intellectual) film in its form and content, and of course it has nothing to do with Farabi’s priorities. Even supporting the first film of this filmmaker, as one of the intellectuals known in the short film, can be a place to seriously question Farabi’s priorities in finding talent; Because, logically, supporting such figures has nothing to do with the claims of the Ministry of Guidance and the current film organization.
“Hook” and “Captain” are telefilms that do not need any explanation. Add to this list one or two other films by Farabi, which, according to many critics and experts, were even weaker than these works and did not make it to Fajr (for information on critics’ votes and scores for Farabi’s films, refer to IRNA’s specialized survey).
Now, we repeat the main question again, what was the achievement of the Farabi State Foundation in the last year, except for the multiplicity of production, which happens to be the result of wasting the public budget?
* When the country’s most important cinema institution lags behind its competitors
The important point is that the art field by investing in Babak Khaje Pasha’s “In the embrace of the tree”, Oj by investing in “Colonel Soraya” by Lili Aaj, and Shahid Foundation by making “Ataqeg Goli” by Mohammad Asgari as talented and promising filmmakers to the revolution cinema. have introduced What has Farabi achieved in investing in talent and identifying promising filmmakers?
* Last words and some important questions
The CEO of Farabi announced recently that he has dissolved Farabi’s councils. Now, the first question is, with the dissolution of these specialized councils, what mechanism has been used to buy films? Has anyone decided which movies to buy? In fact, the main question is, now that you have removed the councils, who were the evaluation councils for selecting and evaluating the prices of festival films?
It seems that the brokers have given everything they could to this foundation. Any average expert could price Farabi’s films at much lower figures. Who were involved in buying these films? How much money was spent on these works? Why are there conflicting statistics? When any average expert can understand that the general public of these films fail at the box office, with what measure and standard did he start buying these works?
Another question is why the failed first film was invested again? A director whose first film was supported by this foundation years ago and his film was a failure, why was he supported again to present a telefilm as a cinematic work? Why should a director take billions of money for a work that will most likely fail at the box office again?
On the other hand, why does one of the members of the first film selection committee of the Farabi Foundation become the producer of one of the first films and receive billions of tomans? It is for a work whose content is not in line with the duties of the Farabi Foundation and can be formulated under the pseudo-intellectual trend.
The last word is that there is no common denominator among the films purchased by the Farabi Foundation, not in terms of theme, form, genre or aesthetics. In fact, Farabi, who should have sought to produce films with themes such as religious cinema, children and family, has neglected his duties and wherever the film production has bought a film he made with a figure much higher than the value of that work, and in the meantime, due to the lack of transparency and Keeping this performance away from the eyes of the mass media, without a doubt, many conflicts can be guessed.
Farabi’s shopping list is completely aware of a bad taste and lack of prioritization in theme, genre, etc., and this issue is only related to the “management” issue. Because, according to experts, the review of films purchased by Farabi shows that Farabi has stayed away from his inherent duties, and in this important and influential cultural institution, we are dealing with a management blunder who has simply outsourced a number of projects to a number of producers. A rich kid who can pay the maximum of his father’s money – the government – and not his ability.”
end of message/