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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.sfc.org.sg/


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“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


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


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


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


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


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


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


see a growth in the Singapore film industry as both the players and the government

continues in their efforts to develop the industry.

28


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


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


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


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


Appendix A: Statistics from Singapore Film Commission

33


34


35


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

NM3224 - Culture Industries (1)