CREATIVE ARTS AND BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS: A MARRIAGE OF QUAL AND QUANT

Gregory Wee Lik Hoo*, Dr. Ernest Cyril De Run** *Cinematography Programme, Faculty of Applied and Creative Arts **Faculty of Economics and Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Research in the creative arts have traditionally been perceived to be more qualitative rather than quantitative as compared to other fields such as business. However, in a case when the arts have to be studied in correlation with funding, involving researchers from two different fields, it raises several interesting questions about how such a research can be carried out, and its data can be shared, analysed and become useful for both parties.

In highlighting this experience, this paper will present an ongoing research on the different perspectives of film funding in Malaysia among different parties involved in the filmmaking industry such as bankers, governmental film bodies and filmmakers.

The research uses Cognition Affect Behavior (CAB) Paradigm as its conceptual model basis. Initial data is obtained via in-depth interviews, which then acts as the basis for a quantitative methodology for further data gathering and analysis. This paper will discuss the initial data gathering procedures and findings.

1.0 Introduction

The number of films being produced in Malaysia is relatively few compared to those of its neighboring countries like Thailand and the Philippines, which produced 84 films (NationMaster.com., 2004) and 50 films (Thai World View, 2004) respectively in 2003. With 16 films in 2003, Malaysia shares similar output figures with Vietnam and Indonesia, despite the differences in the general population size (UNESCO, 2001).

Malaysian films face intense competition from Hollywood and Hong Kong films at the local box-office. In 2003, Malay films raked in a total of RM13,950,933.90 as opposed to RM73,371.565 earned by imported films (FINAS, 2004). This small turnover continues to place the film business as a high-risk investment industry, which lacks the appeal, found in other larger film industries areas such as Bollywood or Hollywood.

Producers and filmmakers in Malaysia have very limited access to film funding as commercial banks do not fund films. In Malaysia, there is only one bank that offers a special package for funding film production – Bank Pembangunan.

The new RM50 million fund initiated by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage, and administered by Bank Pembangunan is one step up for film funding. The previous fund initiated in 1996 has been more for TV production where a contract offer from RTM will guarantee payment back to the bank. Now, the new revolving fund works the same way for film. The collateral is now an agreement from theatrical distributors to screen the film at hand, and from other channels like VCD distribution and television stations. The new fund has extended loans for television production to feature film. It is now still too early to be able to assess the effectiveness of this new package.

On the other hand, the Malaysian government has a different perception of film. It sees film as not only a commercial commodity but also as a cultural product capable of portraying the national identity and culture (Mingguan Malaysia, 2002). It understands that the film industry needs assistance in order to develop. Therefore, the Malaysian government, through its National Film Development Corporation (FINAS), offers several loans and grants through its production assistance schemes (FINAS, 2004).

FINAS functions to help boost the film industry and also to fund less commercially viable films which serve as cultural products. However, the amount allocated by the Malaysian government in general is still limited. For instance, FINAS’ Special Government Production Support of RM12 million was given to only two films, Embun and Paloh in 2002 (Mingguan Malaysia, 2002).

There have always been complaints from the filmmaking community on the lack of funding for films, the financial institutions’ reluctance to assist, and on FINAS’ management of the funds (Suhaimi Baba, 2002). These opinions could have arisen from a different understanding and perception of film funding amongst the financial institutions, FINAS and the local filmmaking community.

Therefore, this study intends to explore, determine and compare the different perspectives on film funding from the financial institutions, government (FINAS) and filmmakers’ viewpoints. This is in order to understand where the problem lies in film funding. This study will use Cognition Affect Behavior (CAB) Paradigm as its conceptual model basis in order to explore and analyze these three perspectives to determine if their perception affects their behavior on film funding in Malaysia.

2.0 Literature Review

Governmental support in terms of funding has always been critical in any country that has a comparatively smaller film industry. Financial support is seen as necessary as the local films cannot compete against the gigantic blockbuster films from Hollywood. Numerous authors have indicated the importance of governmental support to develop a film industry, while upholding national cinema (Hill, 1996; Turner, 1993; O’Regan, 1996).

However, there are opinions that the idea of a film industry and national cinema does not seem to go well hand-in-hand. After decades of public funding in Canada and Australia, their film industries have become ‘dualistic’ in structure (Dorland, 1996). Their national cinema scene remains small, detached and relies heavily on government funding, while their industry counterpart becomes mere ‘junior members of the Anglo-American team, … markets for media exports, … competitive broadcast programming importers, and offshore centers [for Hollywood productions]’(Dorland, 1996:118). The negative aspect of government funding is that it removes certain responsibilities from the film producer/filmmaker who is now less likely to make sure that their films are commercially viable (Finney, 2002). This is detrimental towards the development of a ‘real’ film industry. Therefore, there is a need to find the right balance between culture and industry in film, fusing them together to create an ‘industrial package’ that is commercially viable.

In Malaysia, this dual package has yet to emerge. We have had commercially made films which were box office hits (Sembilu), as well as many commercial films which were flops or marginal, and we have had the more artistically and culturally inclined films (Embun) which were flops. Therefore, the risk factor is still high for all films, whether commercial or cultural. Financial institutions in Malaysia are seen as not assisting the film industry as banks in general require collaterals for funding loans (Suhaimi Baba, 2002). There is help from FINAS (appendix A), who fund less commercially viable films that serve as cultural products. However, the amount allocated by the Malaysian government in general is still limited (Mingguan Malaysia, 2002). This duality in funding is therefore explored in this study by using the CAB Paradigm as its conceptual model to explore, determine and compare the different perspectives on film funding.

The CAB paradigm (e.g. cognition determines affect which determines behavior) (Holbrook, 1986; Holbrook and Batra, 1987), particularly describes the role of normative belief as detailed in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ryan and Bonfield, 1975) and depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 CAB Paradigm with Normative Beliefs

C A B

Nb

Note: C = Cognition, Nb = Normative belief, A = Affect, B = Behavior.

Consumer behavior literature suggests that emotional reaction is an important aspect of behavior. In the case of this research, the cognitive component is the processing of the application details for a loan. The normative belief relates to the contextual issues of film making and the Malaysian context for film making, including beliefs of the expectations of important referent others and motivation to comply with those referents. This, in theory, determines affective responses and then behavior, which can be seen by the reactions of bankers who are unwilling to lend huge sums of money for cultural and normative films that may not make a return. However, actions by the government indicate another affective and behavioral response, which indicate a different viewpoint of the paradigm. Based on the discussion here and the CAB Paradigm, the following 2 x 3 factorial design is offered to be tested in this research.

Figure 2 Conceptual Model of Perspectives on Film Funding in Malaysia Film as Art/cultural commodity Film as Commercial product Perspective of Unprofitable High-risk investment Banks Perspective of Important to the country’s cultural Important as an industry to Government and national identity development contribute towards the country’s economy Perspective of Important to advance creativity Important for survival of Filmmakers and artistry in the film industry filmmakers

The CAB Paradigm basically denotes that one behaves according to how one thinks. The government and the filmmakers have always believed that art is as important and therefore worthwhile to produce, either as a cultural or commercial product. Financiers like banks have different agendas. As capitalists, the bottom dollar is the most important issue. Their perspective on filmmaking is influenced by financial gains as the first priority. This study intends to determine if this Paradigm holds in the context of film funding in Malaysia.

Referring to the 2 by 3 factorial design above, this research defines the following propositions in the context of CAB Paradigm: 1) When film is made as an artistic or cultural product, the banks perceive it to be unprofitable. This results in the banks’ reluctance to finance such films. The government on the other hand may see it as important to the country’s cultural and national identity development and therefore will fund it. Good artistic and cultural films can reflect and represent a country’s identity at the international arena. Therefore, the government encourages the production of such high quality and high-budgeted films with funding assistance. Filmmakers see it as important to advance creativity and artistry in the film industry and may want to pursue it. Filmmakers see this as a way to attract audiences and help expand the film industry so that it doesn’t remain stagnant; 2) When film is made as a commercial product, the banks perceive it to be a high- risk investment. This results in the banks’ requirements for production contracts, collaterals and good production track records. The government on the other hand may see it as important as an industry to contribute towards the country’s economy. Successful commercial films can help develop the film industry. Filmmakers see it as important for survival of the filmmakers. Successful commercial films are needed to help establish a filmmaker’s track record. This allows the filmmaker to gain access to more future funding.

3.0 Methodology The research will employ both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to obtain a coherent picture of the current funding situation within the film industry in Malaysia. Film industry players and their financiers in Malaysia will be the population of the study.

1) Financial Institutions a) Bank Pembangunan b) Other commercial banks

2) Government Ministries a) Ministry of Information b) Ministry of Water, Energy and Communications c) Ministry of Culture

3) Film Related Bodies a) FINAS b) Federation of Film Professional Societies of Malaysia (GAFIM) c) Film Directors Association Malaysia (FDAM) d) Creative Multimedia Cluster, MDC

4) Film Industry a) Film Production Companies • Keris Motion • Metrowealth • Grand Brilliance • Tayangan Unggul • Nizarman • Eurofine

b) Established producers/ filmmakers • Datuk Jins Shamsuddin • Datuk Rahim Razali • Datuk Yusof Haslam • Othman Hafsham • Dr Mahadi J Murad • U-Wei Hj Saari • Julie Dahlan • Habsah Hassan • Aziz M Osman • Erma Fatimah

c) Experienced producers/ filmmakers • Profesor Madya A. Razak Mohaideen • Prof Madya Raja Ahmad Allauddin Shah • Anwardi Jamil Sulong • Teck Tan • Harith Iskandar • Afdlin Shauki • Tiara Jacquelina

d) New producers/ filmmakers • Osman Ali • Yasmin Ahmad • Amir Muhammad • James Lee • Linus Chung

3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Quantitative method used here will use a questionnaire in a survey form and qualitative method will use in-depth interviews via taped interviews. Both methods will use trained enumerators.

3.1.1. In-depth Interview

In order to obtain a better answer to the research question, a qualitative method of data gathering is required. This will provide the answers to the ‘why’ as well as providing a richer data that can be used in understanding the perception of both industry players and financiers towards funding for films in Malaysia.

Trained enumerators will interview respondents comprising of a sample of industry player and financiers. The interviews will include details such as demographics and perceptions of funding of the film industry in Malaysia. Previous research has suggested that the widest accepted range for sample size for in-depth interview to be 4 to 15 (Perry, 1998). This research will use 15 respondents per group (Filmmakers, banks, government). By using enumerators, the objectives of the research can be achieved in a prompt and efficient manner.

The in-depth interview will use an adapted method of the word association technique (Friedmann & Fox, 1989; Szalay & Deese, 1978) where respondents are asked to provide specific words that come to mind in association with the term “film funding in Malaysia.” This method has been shown to be representative of respondents’ actual judgment or opinion and the interview format will allow for further probing of the issue at hand (Weeks & Muehling, 1987).

The data collected would then be transcribed and keyed into SPSS. It will be analyzed by cross tabulation and frequency (Malhotra, 2004).

3.1.2. Questionnaire

Trained enumerators will distribute the questionnaires to respondents comprising of industry player and financiers. The questionnaire will detail issues such as demographics and the findings from the in-depth interview. Respondents will be asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with each of the statements obtained from the in-depth interview, to the extent that the statements provided were indicative of the respondents’ general view of the film industry funding. A seven point Likert scale will be used, with seven representing strong agreement and one representing strong disagreement.

As the amount of respondents required is large, a survey-based method would be the best method to be carried out. By using enumerators, the objectives of the research can be achieved in a prompt and efficient manner. An optimal sample size would be 120 to 150 in order to achieve optimal statistical results (de Vaus, 1996).

The data collected would then be key in and analyzed using SPSS by the research assistant and researchers involved. The data will be examined based on principal component analysis (Factor analysis) where factors will be identified for each group of respondents (industry player and financiers). The numerous variables used in a multi-item scale such as those utilized in the research, can be analyzed to note if those variables could be seen as approximately explaining a single factor (Degroot et al., 1982). This will be done through the identification of eigenvalue of more than one, description of the variance explained, and loading on each factor to be more than 0.5 (positively or negatively) (Malhotra, 2004).

4.0 Findings This research is still in progress. The in-depth interviews have been carried out and some initial findings are now available for the design of questionnaires. The summary of the in- depth interviews are in Appendix B.

The infrastructure for film as a commercial product already exists in the form of the new Bank Pembangunan revolving loan and FINAS’ Film Production Support Scheme. The Short Film Grant offered by FINAS supports film as art/cultural commodity. However, many industry practitioners still perceive the infrastructure as incomplete and having problems with administration, efficiency and transparency in application processing.

There are only two governmental bodies which fund films in Malaysia – FINAS and Bank Pembangunan. Their financial records show that 336 applications (worth RM93 million) were approved since 1996-Aug 2004 by Bank Pembangunan & approximately 200 applications were approved by FINAS since 1983. The following figures (Figure 3) show how typical film funding is structured in Malaysia, based on the research findings.

Figure 3: The Existing Funding Structure

70% private (from TV) & 30% loan (FINAS/Bank Pembangunan). FINAS 30%, TV3 50%, Own fees 15-20% of total production cost. 100% private funding 100% foreign funding/grant Personal loan by company or personal funds. Money rolls from other businesses as funds.

Despite the figures, funding opportunities in Malaysia is continued to be seen as not very accessible, selective, not clear, not transparent, not on level playing field, or simply unheard of. There is a tendency for younger filmmakers (those who have been in the industry for less than 10 years) to shy away from even attempting to apply for funding, for fear of hassle and ‘pain’. However, funding opportunities are being utilised by the more established and experienced filmmakers/producers as partial funding for their productions. This seems to give a picture that the funding infrastructure is skewed towards the more established, serious and committed filmmakers. The young and the new seems to be left out of the picture.

Conclusion

In Malaysia, there are three groups of films and filmmakers; the Metrowealth or Skop Productions archetypes which represent the industry and entertainment for the masses, the experienced and established Malay filmmakers, and finally, the new, young, and maverick filmmakers. From these three groups comes a range of commercial slapstick comedies, serious Malay drama with heavy historical, nationalistic and cultural undertones, and a new cinema told in various styles and influences, with a new content which encompasses different cultures within the multicultural national identity such as Amir Muhammad, James Lee, Ho Yuhang and Yasmin Ahmad’s (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Duality of the Malaysian Film Industry

Film as Film as Commercial Art/Cultural Product Commodity

Skop & Aziz M. Osman, Yasmin Ahmad, Mahadi J. Murad, U-Wei, Amir Metrowealth, Nizarman Teck Tan Erma Fatima, Muhammad, archetypes Saw Tiong Hin James Lee, Ho Yu Hang

The names of directors mentioned in Figure 4 are just examples as they can always shift along the continuum depending if there is a change of direction in their work.

This ‘duality’ of the industry raises several questions regarding funding. The fundamental question concerns where the industry should be heading? An industry with commercial box office hits for the local market, or regionally/internationally acclaimed films that penetrate the film festival circuits? This will then determine where the priorities are and how much funding should be channeled.

Further findings from the research indicate that banks do not find films to be profitable as a whole and are not interested at all in the business. The only exception is Bank Pembangunan who has been in the business for approximately eight years to have a positive perspective on it (Figure 5).

The government perceives film as a cultural product. It has intensified funding for film production through the efforts of the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage. Loans are given through FINAS and Bank Pembangunan. However, there is an implication of efficiency and transparency problems in administrative procedures relating to film funding applications and approvals.

The filmmakers feel that there is a need to expand out to foreign markets to increase the chances of their survival, and the value of their films. The younger filmmakers do not rely on government grants at all, and they do not bother to try or even to think about it.

The problem with the different perceptions towards film funding seems to lie in the different priorities and needs of the different groups. To the banks, film is not a business. To the government, it feels like a half-hearted effort in both directions (either business or culture), and to the younger filmmakers, they are looking elsewhere for help.

Figure 5: Improved Conceptual Model of Perspectives on Film Funding in Malaysia

Film as Art/cultural commodity Film as Commercial product Perspective of Unprofitable. It is unprofitable in High-risk investment. Banks can Banks the financial sense. FULL STOP. learn more about the industry. Collaterals, contracts and track records can reduce risk. Perspective of Important to the country’s cultural Important as an industry to Government and national identity development. contribute towards the country’s Therefore, need to increase grants economy. Maintain revolving and make them easily and quickly soft loan & Production Support accessible. Schemes. Make sure the right people are in the right place. Streamline administrative procedures, efficiency & transparency. Perspective of Important to advance creativity Important for survival of Filmmakers and artistry in the film industry. filmmakers. Can’t survive in Need a national identity (national local market. Need to expand to cinema) to be able to sell in foreign markets. foreign markets.

The findings in this research is implicative in nature and they suggest certain models of perception towards film funding. This helps us to understand the funding situation better. However, the results cannot be generalized at this point. To do so, there must be a quantitative study in the form of questionnaires to collect a wider range of perspectives from the film community.

REFERENCES

Baharom Mahusin and Ku Seman Ku Hussein. Wawancara:Industri Filem Perlu Sokongan Rakyat. (15 September 2002). Mingguan Malaysia, p. 7.

Degroot, M. H., Ferber, R., Frankel, M. R., Seneta, E., Watson, G. S., Kotz, S., et al. (Eds.). (1982). Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. Faa' Di Bruno's Formula to Hypothesis Testing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

De Vaus, D. A. (1996). Surveys in Social Research (4 ed.). London: University College London Press.

Dorland, M. 1996. Policy Rhetorics of an Imaginary Cinema. In Film Policy: International, National and Regional Perspectives (Moran, A., ed.), pp. 114-115, 118. London, Routledge,.

FINAS. (2001).Film Guide Malaysia. National Film Development Corporation. (pp. 76- 77)

Finney, A. 2002. Support Mechanisms Across Europe. In The European Cinema Reader (Fowler, C., ed.), p. 213. London, Routledge.

Friedmann, R., & Fox, R. (1989). On the Internal Organization of Consumers' Cognitive Schemata. Psychological Reports, 65(August), 115 - 126.

Hill, J. 1996. British Film Policy. In Film Policy: International, National and Regional Perspectives (Moran, A., ed.), pp. 111-112. London, Routledge.

Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing Research. An Applied Orientation. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice hall.

O'Regan, Tom. 1996. Australian National Cinema. Routledge, London. p. 65.

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a Case Study Methodology for Postgraduate Research in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 785.

Suhaimi Baba. 2002. Reality of Local Film Producing Scenario. In Malaysian Film Industry Symposium. Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Szalay, L. N., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective Meaning and ulture: An Assessment Through Word Association. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Turner, Graeme. 1993. Film As Social Practice. Routledge, London. Pp. 145-146.

Weeks, W. A., & Muehling, D. D. (1987). Students Perceptions of Personal Selling. Industrial Marketing Management, 16(May), 145 - 151.

FINAS official website http://www.finas.gov.my/

Bank Pembangunan official website http://www.bpimb.com.my/

UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/culture/industries/cinema/html_eng/prod.shtml

ThaiWorldView http://www.thaiworldview.com/tv/cinema2.htm

Appendix A

The main funding assistance schemes available at FINAS are as follows: 1) Special Government Production Support – its aim is to increase the number of feature productions annually. With RM12 million allocated by the Ministry of Information, it assists in the dollowing: a) Purchase/Development of Scripts (RM500,000) b) Production Financing (RM10 million) c) Promotion & Publicity (RM500,000) d) International Film Market & Festival Participation (RM1 million) 2) Production Support Scheme – its aim is to assist film producers with insufficient capital. This easy-payment loan scheme is divided into the following formats: a) Format A - maximum loan amount RM500,000 for: 3) raw material ii) film equipment rental iii) lab processing/bulk print iv) main artistes/craftsmen v) publicity/ promotions vi) distribution 4) Format B - maximum loan amount RM120,000 for: 5) lab processing ii) marketing/publicity 6) Format C – for drama/telemovie/documentary production. Maximum loan amount RM500,000 for: 7) main artistes/craftsmen i. film equipment rental 8) Short Film Production Support Scheme – its aim is to provide grants (maximum of 25% of production cost or RM30,000 whichever is lower) for: a) scriptwriting fee b) directing fee c) equipment costs 4) Entertainment Duties Incentive Aid

Appendix B

No. Category Question 1> How long have you been in this line of work (related to film/TV)? 1 Young Filmmakers 9 years. 5-6 years. 5-6 years. 2 Established 14-15 years Filmmakers/Producers 32 years. 18 years. 20 years. 3 Film Body/ Govt 3-4 years. Bank 18 years. 27 years.

No. Category Question 2> How many films/funding application have you handled/processed/made? If not, do you intend to? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Never before because grant was given. No applying overseas for documentary project. 2. Recently a bit more because been approached by foreign producers (for foreign grants). 3. Not yet because it’s not clear. 2 Established 4. Never applied to government body. Have approached Filmmakers/Producers entrepreneurs to invest. 5. All movies made since 1983 partially funded by FINAS loan (Skim Kemudahan Produksi). 6. Made 5 films (3 films privately funded, others from grants given). 7. Self funded and with FINAS loan (20% of cost). 3 Film Body/ Govt 8 & 9. Approved 336 applications (worth RM93 million) Bank since 1996-Aug 2004. 10. Approved 200 applications since 1983.

No. Category Question 3> Do you deal with filmmakers/producers/govt/banks directly? If not, who deals with them? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Never dealt with government banks. Only dealt with TV producer. 2. Deals with foreign producer. Not with filmmakers (no money). Not with govt banks because no aware. 3. Not dealing with banks. Deals with filmmakers as producer. 2 Established 4. Never dealt with these companies. Filmmakers/Producers 5. Difficult to get funds from banks/ financial institutions. 6. Becomes producer for most of own films. Don’t deal with banks. Now has producer to deal with banks. 7. Don’t deal with commercial banks as they don’t have loans or movie business. 3 Film Body/ Govt 8. Deals with producers and filmmakers. Bank 9. Deals with Filem Negara, Bernama, Bank Pembangunan, Ministry of Culture. Not so much with Ministry of Info & 10. 10. 10. Communication presently. Only deals with banks about loan recoupment processes.

No. Category Question 4> For the other companies/institutions similar to yours, where would their funding usually come from? How much / percentage comes from where? Would your funding be from the same sources? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. 70% private (from TV) & 30% loan (FINAS/Bank Pembangunan). 2. Probably private. Other than that wouldn’t know. 3. - 2 Established 4. Privately done. Filmmakers/Producers 5. Partial fund from committed individuals. TV3/Astro funds projects. They have their own sources. FINAS as the main agency to give loans. FINAS 30%, TV3 50%, Own fees 15-20% of total production cost. 6. 100% funds from abroad. 7. Personal loan by company or personal funds. Money rolls from other businesses as funds. 3 Film Body/ Govt Bank 8 & 9. One-time RM50 million from Ministry of Finance in 1996. 90-95% for TV productions (RTM), 5-10% for features, TV3, Astro productions. Funding for features only a handful since 1996 because risky. 10. Govt gave RM17 million when established in 1981. Since then, funding from internally generated funds. Recent expansion of industry requires extra funding, therefore FINAS may get annual funds.

No. Category Question 5> What do you think of the film industry in Malaysia? Why? OR What is the first thing that comes to mind? Why? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Very happening (joking) because many things not done yet. Exciting because things being tried for first time. M’sian style still does not exist outside Malaysia. Still inventing our own canon, way, identity as we go along. 2. Is there one? Depends on definition of film industry. We have healthy TV commercial industry. Difficult to say if we have thriving film industry or not or if we have at all. 3. Malay films. The film industry is progressing. More films. Box office looks good. Visual and sound technical quality improving. But not content wise. 2 Established 4. Same kind of things are being done – same movies, Filmmakers/Producers comedies, actors, directors. Need change & diversity. Easier said than done. Always same people involved cos others no attracted to this line financially. No innovation because same people involved for past 30-40 years. 5. Major issues: a) Need to produce own branded movies to break into foreign/regional markets. b) Failure of producing true Malaysian movies that caters for all audiences. Failure to establish national culture and extend that to movies. 6. It will be ‘alive’ even without significant individuals. But different kind of ‘alive’. In 70s films were made but not much talent – ‘void’ years. Film will always be attractive medium. 7. Don’t know if can call it industry because not that big. More movies now but quality not improving. Safer, tested genres are done as opposed to riskier serious art movies. First thing that comes to mind – limitation of budget. Which comes first – big budget movies or more audience? Movies to win awards or as business? Try to blend the two. 3 Film Body/ Govt 8. Encouraging. More movies in cinemas. Opportunity is Bank there but must understand audience behaviour. 9. Industry depends on audience. Now thriving with blockbusters. Script is very important. Producers are ‘followers’- following on others’ successes. Industry doing well because there’s long queue for screening. 10. Practitioners have high desire to do good work, are passionate, willing to achieve success. Rate of success will increase further. Moving in right direction. Lack of funding & funds are more biased towards features. Need fund for documentary and animation for world market.. Other bodies/banks can provide this. Brings economic benefit and promote arts.

Category Question 6> What do you think of film as a business industry compared to other types of industries? Why? Young Filmmakers 1. Precarious. Dealing with a set of variables that will shift at any given time. Time between planning & releasing is longer. Public can change taste. Not stable in any country. 2. Can be considered a business industry if some films make money. Usually quite a handful of locally made films can constitute an industry. Not as big as Thailand or Phillipines. 3. Still long way to become part of economy as films can’t be exported yet. Learn from Korea to be major player in exporting films - their bureaucracy, system, how they do it, allowing new filmmakers to share their vision with mainstream cinemas. Here, it’s still very monopolized. Local filmmakers not progressive in promoting films regionally. Either they’re content with M’sian market or their product not as good. Established 4. - Filmmakers/Producers 5. Film business combines all elements – planning, production, marketing, promotion, distribution. Special because product not fully exploited yet. Ready market because guaranteed screening. Need only to plan how to sell product. Can be profitable. TV stations buys every film produced plus there’s other outlets. 6. Very sad because no proper infrastructure. We assume it’s an industry – more like cottage industry. Instant short span commercial industry. Films which stand the test of time remains to be seen. 7. Very high risk. People who do it are those who have been in industry and love it. It’s challenging because you won’t know if you’ll succeed all the time. Film Body/ Govt Bank 8. Confined to only local market and young Malay audience. 9. Film industry can be considered as service sector, not manufacturing, but the product is the film. It offers job opportunities. 10. Complex industry to manage. Only passionate people will stay. Involves economic and artistic factors. Complicated. Challenging. Hard work. Each production is peculiar and has no particular standards which can be measured or benchmarked physically. Glamourous and painful. High potential and high risk. Automative industry can measure materials, manhours, design etc. Rate of consumption based on economy. Car driven by all races. Films have different nuances and cultural symbols – not for everybody (not the same for everybody).

Category Question 7> What do you think financial institutions/banks in general feel about the film industry? Why? Do people in your company feel the same way? Do you feel the same way about it? Why? Young Filmmakers 1. High risk or at least medium risk because most films don’t make money. Banks are not charity. But there are ways they can be responsive to make back the money. But banks don’t take initiative because their job is on the line. 2. Film industry is still about making money. Our films can only sell locally – limitations unlike Korea or Hollywood. Maybe we are not good enough. It’s easier to make money from stock market investments. 3. Extra cautious because a lot of things are not clear cut. There’s a lot of ways to take money irresponsibly from budget. Not a guaranteed investment. It’s an art form with no formulas or statistics. Can’t guarantee a box office hit. Our industry not as matured as Hollywood where film is business. Banks there have special loans and experts. Here, it’s not a business and its not making great profit. Established 4. There are different categories of investment under risks. Filmmakers/Producers Film is at the bottom. Very very risky. Banks stay away from films. Bank philosophy is dealing with other people’s money. Therefore, bank is responsible for investments. 5. Media has been portraying film as not really an industry, and the practitioners are not professional. But a smart businessman will always explore new opportunities. Banks should study and understand the industry, give specialized loans (like housing), with personnel who are specialized in film business. 6. Banks don’t think much about film industry in M’sia because they don’t understand how a film is made. They see it as not viable right away. Company feels the same - film is expensive medium. Nature of film to behave that way – expensive. 7. Banks think that it’s a non-profit business except for a few cases like Datuk Yusof & David Teo. I feel that it’s not exactly non-profit. But a bank loan will put a strain on the company as interest will accumulate while waiting in the queue for screening. This is where government should come in with special loan. Reference to Australian film funds. Film Body/ Govt Bank 8. Banks see it as service. Quite skeptical as the development is slow. Good idea must be backed by track record. There must be assurance of a market, guaranteed repayment, assurance from theatrical exhibition. 9.Other banks won’t do it. Risky business. Can’t predict box office collection. Bank Pembangunan does it because fund from govt. If other banks have enough info on industry, they will go into it. The 1-year loan repayment period (turnover) is faster than other manufacturing contract financing (5-7 years). Interest rates for film funding is lower at 6% cos given by govt. 10. High risk. Difficult to get money back. Natural fear of giving out funds. Lack of knowledge in filmmaking process and promotion. Appears complex to them. Country still young in understanding.

Category Question 8> Is it easy or difficult to get film funding in Malaysia? Why? Young Filmmakers 1. The higher the budget, the more difficult, especially RM1 million or more. 2. Not that easy there. The response to scripts and stories are usually ‘not very commercial’. It’s about making money. It’s because we don’t have national cinema. 3. - Established 4. - Filmmakers/Producers 5. Quite difficult to get film funding in general. Banks not enough knowledge about films. Applicants are ‘loose’, not knowledgeable, not serious (committed). Have to wait 2 generations of film school graduates for both sides to be knowledgeable. 6. Not easy. Can get a little but is it enough? Need real money – a factor in making films. Can make small films for now but need more than that when time comes. Virtually impossible to get money because never met anyone with money who really knows what it takes. They have romantic ideas. 7. So far it has not been easy. Even funding bodies have efficiency problems - funding approved after production completed. High legal fees, security deposits and interest to pay. Need money to borrow money. Only established companies have money to roll from other businesses. Not accessible to new producers with no track record. Funding should be managed by knowledgeable personnel, without interference by those who are less knowledgeable. Funding bodies should be supported by govt so that they can work more for industry instead of focusing too much on how to be self-reliant. Film Body/ Govt Bank 8. At the moment, still difficult to get loan unless have established name and collateral, or co-produce with established company. 9. Other banks think it’s a risky business. But if they know the business, they will go in. 10. Relatively difficult to get funding especially for newcomer with no track record. It’s capital intensive. If film body gives a portion, where would the rest of funding come from?

Category Question 9> What do you think the other financial institutions/film bodies/filmmakers/producers think about film funding in Malaysia? Why do you think that happens? Do other people in your company/institution/community think the same thing? Why? Do you feel the same way? Why? Young Filmmakers 1. Film body gives loans like banks, not really funding. Always waiting for whichever director to come along. Whatever priority of man in charge, they will change their mindsets as well. Best funding scenario – mixture of different funds: Grants (with no financial returns). Returns in form of training/ exposure. Loans for bigger films. Higher chance of getting money back. Funds from foreign film tax 20-30% can be channeled to local films (like in Korea, Australia & Canada). Money for films from films. 2. Seems quite bleak. It’s easier for those who have been really active with track record. For us it is a little different. 3. Don’t know what they think. Other producers have their own source from friends, investors or foreign investors. Established 4. Film body always trying to help. Money given to Filmmakers/Producers established directors, whom they know. Common sense – they have to protect themselves. 5. Film body wants to help. Their performance is based on figures (quantity) – how much has been given out. However, funds should be given with consultancy (or monitored) to make sure recipients can improve their productions. Ministry of Culture may not be the right ministry because film is also business. Should have Ministry of Film & TV with own production advisors, market research etc. 6. Film body behaves like bank. Setup can be improved. Need to know purpose – help to store, make, market or push films? Have not met real producers in M’sia. 7. - Film Body/ Govt Bank 8. Other filmmakers think quite difficult to get funds from other banks and Bank Pembangunan because additional security needed. Unless its low interest/grant from govt. FINAS prefers banks to lend. Banks won’t see it as industry. See it as high risk industry. Cannot gauge mood of audience (behavioral). 9. Other filmmakers think hard to get funds. Bank Pembangunan is selective. Needs track record. Keeps track of box office collection with FINAS. Amount of loan given corresponds with box office performance. Personally feels film industry is good. But have to go deeper into industry to be able to see that – knowing people. Bank Pembangunan been with industry since 1986. 10. Film body believes that industry is strategic, important & can be very profitable, although it has failures. It’s duty is to provide services, help grow and promote industry. Producers will find it difficult to get funds.

No. Category Question 10> What would you suggest to improve the chances of obtaining film funding? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Efficiency, transparency, professionalism. Needs people who are interested, motivated and know their roles. 2. To improve the situation, you just have to do it. ‘Cut and run’ situation. Ask if the film has foreign audience. Can the film be sold overseas? Not just a ‘born here, die here’ situation. We have no vision, we don’t project. 3. To make a commercial film, the best way is still Bank Pembangunan, FINAS and private investors. 2 Established 4. - Filmmakers/Producers 5. Submit complete document with information on potential audience, market sales expectation, supported by track record. 6. Must have money to improve funding. Govt must have fund like Agriculture. Returns on film investments can only be seen in 10 years’ time, not 1-2 years. Must have money, know who can make films and give as needed. 7. Track record. People with knowledge in filmmaking and producers will have better chance. 3 Film Body/ Govt 8. Must have low interest funds/grants from govt. Loans Bank must be disbursed properly according to the purposes. Officers trained to measure script – costings reasonable? 9. Govt/ FINAS can intervene to guarantee payment. Producers must be serious (committed) 10. Collaborate with established companies, producers, stars. Be market oriented.

No. Category Question 11> What do you think will happen if a filmmaker goes to a normal commercial bank to look for funding? How about film body? How about govt bank? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Loans are not that transparent. Only used by few filmmakers who keep applying. 2. For bank, playing field has to be level. But still need to ealuate script. It’s fair. For film body, they have given out loans. Short films get made. Not sure for feature films. For govt bank, proper funding will be available. 3. Never approached film body for funding. Heard bad things. Not encouraging. Hassle. Not efficient. Will only apply when really necessary. 2 Established 4. Filmmaker wasting time going to commercial bank Filmmakers/Producers unless he has pre-sales. Have heard that govt bank will not help fund movies. 5. For normal banks, have to abide by their ruling. Need complete working paper. There are people who get bank loan because they have other businesses but now they go to Bank Pembangunan. 6. Filmmaker will be asked condescending and annoying questions by banks. They know its not viable. Film body gives loan. Govt bank likes him but sees him as not a viable person. 7. Commercial banks won’t give money. Period. 3 Film Body/ Govt 8. Commercial banks will ask for collateral. Bank 9. - 10. Normal commercial banks have inadequate knowledge. Very difficult. High risk. Govt bank – limited to RTM production (like commission job). Feature films need collateral if project is not viable. Film body is the only institution that gives funds without collateral.

No. Category Question 12> Please relate to me an experience of applying for film funding? 1 Young Filmmakers 1. Applying for a grant is easier. They don’t need to know so much about the project. They’re looking for interesting subject to put their logo on. Pitching at industry forum requires info about international audience market, relevance of project outside M’sia and format to be sold. 2. Met foreign producers who helps apply for grants. Haven’t done so in M’sia. Don’t know what to apply. Will apply anywhere is there is one. 3. Applied for RM2000 travel grant but waited 4 months to get rejected. Application to convert films rejected because video quality is bad and no multi-cultural element. 2 Established 4. Has never applied to film body. Have presented to Filmmakers/Producers private corporation with script, pre-sales, crew list, why the genre can sell, market survey. Has written to companies in US, HK & UK. Too many people want money for films. Therefore doors are locked. New filmmakers have to do it themselves. 5. - 6. Never applied for funding but demanded to finish his film. So was given loan. Was offered grant from overseas. They have scout. Knows who to give. Don’t asks how much he spends. Just tell them what you are doing. Spends what needs to be. The project needs its own funding. Last film funded by foreign producers. They see it as business. They understand when films cannot do well. They know how to value/read films unlike local producers who let audience read for them. 7. Hassle. You should have the money first to borrow money which will be paid later. 3 Film Body/ Govt 8. Application came for animated movie asking for RM1 Bank million. Needed back up 1:1 collateral. Didn’t take up loan. Film was not successful. There is market but have to manage properly. 9. Established directors can always pay back even without collection. Distributors will never become co-guarantor. Even if so, they can’t guarantee sales. If distributor buys fulm, their backround (paid up capital, profit & loss audited accounts) will be checked. 10. Cites an application that was beyond him. All applications must be approved by the board. Their decision and reasonings may not be acceptable to applicants.