Cinema Trust Said artist in the newspaper Etemad wrote: A group of emerging cinema investors, generally known as a “doctor” among the industry in the industry, have affected a part of the economic turnover in recent years. It is worth noting that in many cases, not only is they not accurate or not the subject of their academic background.
The title of “doctor” seems to be a kind of social branding tool rather than a scientific order, a title used in formal and media circles to create a kind of false authority and, in some cases, is considered a tool to consolidate the position of investor against the professional body of cinema. The title, which apparently refers to his academic degrees, but in fact has become a symbolic function and has become a kind of prestige, influence and social-social authority in the body of cinema.
Until a few decades ago, investing in Iranian cinema was mainly on the shoulders of producers who came from the body of the cinema and had a different angle of the industry. But the sudden entry of investors called the “doctor”-which has not had a background in the field of culture and art and is out of the professional circuit of cinema-transformed the equations.
These investors, who were often active in the economic, production, development, medical and even urban lands, injecting huge and sometimes unpredictable financial resources, opened new but complicated opportunities against Iranian cinema. The introduction of new capital, at first glance, could promise development and production boom. At a time when Iranian cinema faced financial crisis, reduction of audience and restriction on government support (due to the country’s pseudo -bankruptcy), the presence of this new group could seem to have been an obscurity on old wounds. In healthy cinema, the private sector investor is trying to attract audiences to become a profit; But in the existing model, the benefit is preceded by quality and the audience is a tool to consolidate the social status of the investor.
In fact, we are faced with the phenomenon of “privatization” in its true sense, but with some kind of confiscation of cinema for a particular class; The class that seeks to promote a personal brand, continuing political relations, and cultural influence.
However, the positive achievements and capacities of this presence cannot be ignored. Newly investors-however, with sometimes personal or non-cultural motivations-the mobility contexts were re-produced in the cycle, some of the large, expensive and expensive projects that remained in the past due to the lack of funding, and the opportunity to be achieved by these funds. The presence of these people, even for the mere investment, led to the flow of money in the production system and moved the tired wheels of the cinema. From a technical point of view, the entry of “doctor” investors has also increased the quality of production. Using new technologies, equipping locations to international standards, using advanced post -production facilities, and even the more bold presence of Iranian works in the global markets, in many cases, the widespread financial support of this new spectrum. Also, those investors who have had the management experience in the industrial and executive fields have somehow redefined the model of production in Iranian cinema by creating financial order, accurate scheduling and professional structure in projects. It should not be overlooked that some of these doctors, contrary to public notion, have taken a beyond speculation.
Supporting social films, addressing human issues, paying attention to marginalization, immigration, psychological harm and other neglected issues are evident in the record of some projects produced by their capital. In some cases, this group of investors, avoiding direct intervention in art, have delegated project management to experts and played merely a financial support role, which, if continued, can be a constructive model for interaction between capital and art. The presence of these investors has also made it possible for new faces and talents that were unable to access production resources before. Supporting filmmakers and entering the ignorant genres has provided opportunities that may have been difficult or impossible in the former closed and conservative system. Thus, although criticism of the profit -making and sometimes low -key practices of the group is, ignoring their positive roles is to ignore dynamic currents that can help promote the culture and art of this land if properly guided. Reforming this situation is not by eliminating the investor but by refining the investment system. Cinema needs capital, but a conscious, professional and committed to artistic ethics. You need to think of mechanisms where investors enter the cinema through legal, transparent and specialized channels. Also, investor training, evaluating their cultural competence, and the requirement to comply with the principles of art and art can push the way to the destructive presence of non -specialized elements.