Independent documentaries are lost between, <Our President> and <Okja>
Eunhye Editor
May and June, 2017 will be recorded as a turning-point in the history of the Korean film industry in many ways. <Okja>, the new original Netlix film by Director Joon-ho Bong, was opened in France last May through the 70th Cannes Film Festival. <Our President>(Released on May 25) established a new record of the opening score of Korean documentaries by a overwhelming numerical value of 78,397 persons in Korea. And by June, Total attendance at <Our President> topped 1,000,000 in 10 days (It already reached the break-even point in 3 days). <Okja> suffered from being ignored from audiences, but has met offline audiences through small theaters and independent art movie theaters.
By the way, it was CJ CGV(Hereafter, ‘CGV’), the largest multiplex in Korea that has merged as a key player in this historical respect. CGV’s existence was emphasized in a boycott of <Okja>. CGV expressed concern about the disturbance of the ecosystem in the Cinema Industry of Korea saying that the simultaneous online and offline release of
<Okja> ignores traditional practices of keeping the hold back period. Denunciation of ‘does CGV deserve to talk about the ecosystem?’ has been continued. It’s because CGV is mainly responsible for disturbing the ecosystem as the sample and advance guard of vertical integration that big companies make sport of the entire film industry including production, distribution, and screening.
Then, are discussion on ‘the ecosystem’ that was ignited starting the boycott of <Okja>(2017) limited to commercial feature films? No. CGV again made you check the long existing abuse of the Korean film industry through the wide release of <Our President>(2017). The period that CGV decided to distribute <Our President> is remarkable. (As if CJ E&M served as a trumpet player of Creative Economy in the previous government), the suspicion of keeping pace with the new government was lifted.[1] And it made many people feel bitter as it was compared with the documentary that suffered from the black list upheaval under the previous government (The history of ordeals led to <The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol>, the Busan International Film Festival, and Cinema Dal). However, the ecosystem of the Korean movies that became messy for the honeymoon period of the new government and big companies should be more importantly treated than it. Then, are discussion on ‘the ecosystem’ that was ignited starting the boycott of <Okja>(2017) limited to commercial feature films? No. CGV again made you check the long existing abuse of the Korean film industry through the wide release of <Our President>(2017). The period that CGV decided to distribute <Our President> is remarkable. (As if CJ E&M served as a trumpet player of Creative Economy in the previous government), the suspicion of keeping pace with the new government was lifted. And it made many people feel bitter as it was compared with the documentary that suffered from the black list upheaval under the previous government (The history of ordeals led to <The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol>, the Busan International Film Festival, and Cinema Dal). However, the ecosystem of the Korean movies that became messy for the honeymoon period of the new government and big companies should be more importantly treated than it.
It is natural to increase movie screens in the movies that the audience is growing as long as movies exist as ‘the industry’ and the movie theaters seek profit. However, the limited release that screens gradually increase depending on how movies are popular is quite different from the wide release that start movies by securing screens preemptively. Therefore, it is possible to bring out the question that innovative opening scores like this (577 screens / showing the movies 2,739 times / 78,397 persons watched the movie) can be done without the wide release through the distribution of CGV Art House. And this is not the first time to show CGV’s behavior that reminds you of a predator of the ecosystem. <My Love, Don’t Cross That River>, the biggest box office
success in the history of documentaries before <Our President>, was the work of art distributed by CGV Art House. <Han Gong-ju>(2013), <A Girl at My Door>(2014), and <Socialphobia>(2014) that have been on everyone’s lips as commercial success of low-budget feature films and the discovery of new actors and actresses / directors were also distributed by CGV Art House. [2]
The distribution size and methods have problems but the more serious thing is that <Our President> was classified into and registered as a general movie, not the diversity film (Unlike the above movies). Nevertheless, <Our President> is being shown in Arthouse Momo, one of the Korean representative art movie theater and CGV Art House, the multiplex independent art movie theater. The audience never feels a sense of incompatibility because of the genre appearance of the documentary or because the production company and the distribution company are one company.[3] In the end, the box office success of <Our President> that the distribution is the cinematic masterpiece’s level even though it is the low-budget move was done stepping on the minor movies that eagerly look forward to meeting the audience even through unstable double features in independent art theaters. Therefore, it is obviously illogical to praise this as ‘an independent movie’s potential energy’ or ‘content’s victory’.[4]
CGV expressed its wishes informing people of launching Art House, the art theater and saying, “It will strictly select and show excellent independent and art movies in optimal viewing environment and be that space that makes the audience’s life richer over the simple theater.”[5] However, the strict selection that CGV is confident is actually fossilized in order of low-budget movies produced and distributed by the affiliated companies of CJ, small and medium-sized imported films (e.g. movies with profitability including prize-winning works in famous film festivals, works of art by master directors or actors and actresses, and works of art that appeal to other huge fans), and re-released movies (Its own special exhibitions or customized theater TOD services). So it does not have that many small movies that urgently need the theater to show them. Eventually, CGV’s independent and art movie industry is just the fresh revenue-generating mode that realizes well and can additionally have the effect to improve corporate image and is far from the diversity, coexistence, and win-win effects.
However, this distribution behavior cannot simply be defined as a immoral act and foul play of the big company that becomes obsessed with the pursuit of profits because there is at first any proper rule. The ambiguous concept and application of diversity films is the heart of the question. [6]According to the Korean Film Yearbook of the Korean Film Commission, the selection standard of diversity films is largely divided into (1) the works of art recognized as art movies in the screening of the Korean Film Commission and (2) movies with the value of diversity. Especially, category (2) was designed to judge the value of diversity as not the qualitative aspect such as contents and forms of works of art (Narrative, aesthetics, technology, etc.). the numerical value that can be quantified(“Works of art of the movie forms within 1% of market shares, “works of art of countries within 1% of the national market share”, and “Korean movies released in screens of less than 1% in the applicable year”). As diversity films are later decided and fluid like this, the weird situation that originally general movies were finally classified into diversity films (Vice Versa).[7]
In this situation, diversity films cannot help becoming the imperfect and irresponsible concept that differs with the circumstances. And it is good for the big companies that build vertical integration to abuse them in monopoly for movie screen. As the authority easefully confines all the relatively low-budget movies that big hits are not detected regardless of countries and genres to a plausible fenced enclosure called diversity films, the big companies can easily show the works of art produced and distributed by themselves in the movie theaters operated by themselves without being hindered by anybody by marking them to be diversity films.
The authority’s indifference does not stop there. When <Our President>’s share of the independent art theaters ended, <Okja> appeared. The independent art theaters threw themselves into showing <Okja> thanks to CGV and other multiplexes that resolved to maintain distribution order.[8] General movies’ second attack that succeeded to <Our Present> began. The authority has just looked on with folded arms without any measure or comment in the current conditions. Of course, it is difficult to react quickly to this because it is the first example to try platform innovation of the online streaming release and it was luckily released right after the government had been changed. However, considering what happened in the past, the authority’s silence is more likely to be inertia, not caution. Fortunately, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism expressed its will to prohibit the cross-ownership of distribution and screening, limit the screen share (Preventing certain movies from being shown for some percentage of days and more), and establish the minority quota system (Showing independent and art movies obligatorily for some percentage of days and more) by holding a meeting of ‘the improvement plan for monopoly of the film industry’.[9]
When Director Joon-ho Bong visited ‘Culture Reserved Seat’, JTBC Newsroom having the release of <Okja> ahead, anchor Suk-hee Sohn asked him to say hello to the only three people who watched <A Higher Animal>(2000) in a first run theater hearing the story. Director Bong answered where they are and missed them. Is what we really need ‘movie theaters for 3 viewers’, not the transient slogan like the realization of the top three movie power in the world, the films that recorded over 10 million viewers planned by abusing titles of prize-winning works in famous film festivals or structural imbalance? Movie men, the civil authorities, and viewers should seriously brood on this problem.
[1] Media Today ｢CJ Group changes according to governments?｣
(http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=137128)
[2] Questions about the wide release of diversity movies were raised in earnest in 2015. There are The ACT! Editing Committee’s contribution,｢<My Love, Don’t Cross That River>’s box office success and bitter reality｣(http://www.mediaus.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=48889) and the Serial article of CBS No Cut News, ‘How is Korean movies?’, (http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/4373807)를 들 수 있다 as the representative examples.
[3] <Our President> was produced by ‘Film Company Pool’, the company separately established by Producer Nak-yong Choi, the vice president of Art House Momo who feared the external pressure and was distributed by CGV Art House.
[4] According to the current law, this criticism just brings up a problem of intuitive and moral levels. It’s because theaters can receive support of exclusive movie theaters if they follow the rate of art movies(6) to general commercial movies(4) (Regardless of countries) recognized by the Korean Film Commission and Korean independent art movies are shown for 73 days per year. (Article 38 of the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act) The loose standard that the word of ‘exclusive’ would be put to shame becomes the ‘legal’ favorable factor for big companies like CGV House.
[5] http://www.cgv.co.kr/arthouse/show-art.aspx
[6] As an example, when you seach the definition and standards of diversity films on a portal, it just shows the diversity films that are now shown and the reason why those movies are classified into diversity films cannot be found. There are no any pages linked to authorities including the Korean Film Commission, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, etc. And the second materials such as articles, columns, and theses related to diversity films can just be found. On the contrary, when you search ‘specialized films'(Are similar with diversity films in Korea as the meaning of the movies with special purposes) widely used in U.K., a document of the British Film Institute is first shown. This document simply but clearly describes 6 categories and each basis.
(http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-definition-of-specialised-film-bfi-neighbourhood-cinema-2016-01.pdf)
[7] Eun-ji Song, ｢ Research on Diversity Film Discourse｣, Department of Image, Graduate School of advanced Imaging Science & Film Making, Chung-Ang University 2014, Page 38-41.
[8] Oh My Star ｢The art theater showing only <Okja> all day long, it is not right｣
(http://star.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/OhmyStar/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0002337449)
[9] News N ｢Will the film industry’s unfair practices disappear? The monopoly improvement plan of the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism｣
(http://www.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=201707040749460210)
The matter is how this improvement plan is materialized. In case of the prohibition on the cross-ownership of distribution and screening, vertical integration of the film industry can be cracked when it has legal force. However, the restriction on the screen share and the minority quota system are more likely to be nominal if the concept of diversity films (And independent and art movies) is ambiguous like this. Some people of the film world have voiced opinions about requesting the limit on the screen share in the independent and art movie distribution network.