The director in a debt to fatherlandIn the State Duma intend to check up legality of use budgetary with
the Director in a debt to fatherland
In the State Duma intend to check up legality of use of budgetary funds on film manufacture “ the Siberian barber “. Deputy Vladimir Semago has prepared the project of the corresponding decision for its consideration on Duma council. It is offered to charge check to Audit Chamber. But already today “ “ it is ready to tell about financial stories of a sensational film. The history of the expensive costs.
the Huge budget of a film of Nikita Mikhalkov has amazed first of all cinematographers. Yet shootings have not come to the end, and they have already advanced to the attack on Mikhalkov, reproaching him that the director has taken out all means of State cinema itself, and could and share with colleagues. Mikhalkov depending on mood said that has spent for shootings that 40, 45 all $48 million, from which $10 million Russia has given.
before a premiere in the Kremlin Mikhalkov has thanked were the prime minister - minister Victor Tchernomyrdin, a generous hand allocated money for a film. By Mikhalkov`s bitter words, for all good, made it and Tchernomyrdin for a national cinema, they now “ are compelled to eat that people do not eat “.
Having met the correspondent “ “ Mikhalkov has tried to place points over i in the confused question on how it was financed “ the Barber “ from the Russian side. The director has informed that $3 million, received from State cinema, has not sufficed on originally Russian picture. And then it was necessary to address with the letter to Tchernomyrdin who has satisfied Mikhalkov`s request and has allowed the order to the Ministry of Finance to translate $10 million studio “ TriTe “.
On hand “ “ it has appeared both Mikhalkov Tchernomyrdin`s letter, and prisoners from State cinema contracts, and documents of the Ministry of Finance. The dates standing on them, testify that all was on the contrary: chernomyrdinskih 10 million has not sufficed, and all was necessary - taki to address at State cinema, without which originally the founder “ the Siberian barber “ in general expected to manage. The reason not only that Mikhalkov aspired to ignore State cinema and in a pointed manner to avoid the general turn to a state feeding trough. To address personally to Tchernomyrdin to it it was more convenient as to the party fellow “ Our house - Russia “ and to the most active participant of election campaign.
the Closed decision of the Ministry of Finance of studio “ TriTe “ the State constantly experiencing difficulties with " has been allocated $10 million; live “ money, has translated means in the form of bonds of an internal currency loan of the fourth and fifth series the general face-value $55 million Here these 55 nominal millions have turned to 10 real.
“ gamble round the mythical sum of $55 million revolts us for a long time, - the assistant to the general director of studio " speaks; TriTe “ Alexey Balashov. With in 1996 the Ministry of Finance has estimated these bonds which should be extinguished in 2007, in $10 million “ TriTe “ took the credit on the security of these bonds “.
By estimates of experts “ “ in March, 1996 market cost of these bonds made about $20 million Hence, their mortgage price and could be established in 10 - 12 million More likely all - taki in 10 million According to a source from State cinema, the credit has been received in two steps: at first $2,5 million, then, when they have not sufficed, 7,5 more.
When shootings have demanded the next injections, it was necessary to Mikhalkov, as well as the mere mortal to address for the state support in film committee. On November, 5th, 1996 contract N 01/ 25 - 32 between State cinema and studio " has been concluded; TriTe “ - the first and unique paper for the today, officially making out relations between the state and founders “ the Siberian barber “. In it budget cost of a film - 138 mlrd 615 million roubles ($25,4 million at a course of that time), the size of the state support (14 mlrd roubles), and also a share of participation of French movie company Camera One (72 mlrd 765 million roubles) and the governments of the Russian Federation (51 mlrd 850 million roubles, that is already istrachennye $10 million from Tchernomyrdin) was established. State financing terms have been defined also: In September - October should be allocated 7 mlrd, in November - December - 7 more (in process of receipt of means for a cinema from the state budget).
Money again has not sufficed. On the instructions of the government from July, 17th, 1997 the Ministry of Finance has considered the request of the chairman of the board of studio “ TriTe “ about urgent allocation $900 thousand on the expenses connected with end of shootings “ the Siberian barber “. The state cinema has presented budget expenses on these shootings, and on September, 4th on the film committee currency account in Vneshtorgbanke has arrived $650 thousand which have been transferred this very day into account studios “ TriTe “ in MAKB “ the Renaissance “. On August, 26th, 1997 this additional money has been fixed by the additional agreement on all to the same contract from November, 5th, 1996: “ In connection with the decision of the government on additional financial support of manufacture of a film “ the Siberian barber “ the sum of financial support increases by $650 thousand For a covering of a part of expenses of studio “ TriTe “ on shootings of episodes of a film in Portugal “.
Total: Mikhalkov has received from the state $13 million
the Duma commission to Audit Chamber fairly was late. Check of use of budgetary funds of State cinema for 1996 - is already spent 1997, and “ the Power “ has its results.
claims at chamber a little (see the inquiry p. 42).
First of all, the contract on rendering of the state support of studio “ TriTe “ has been concluded without opinion of a commission of experts of State cinema. Well it, we will put, a trifle: The law on the state support, demanding obligatory passage of a commission of experts, in the middle of 1996 has not come into force yet, and practice of individual signing by the minister of cinema of that time Armen Medvedev of requests for state support was usual. And then, it is difficult to imagine a commission of experts which would refuse to the person with Mikhalkov`s professional reputation.
has raised the doubts of Audit Chamber and that “ the Barber “ has been carried to a category “ a national film “ while under the law on cinema foreign investments into manufacture of a national film should not exceed 30 %. This charge of State cinema parries simply - showing providently included in the law on the state support of a cinema a phrase that can be equal to a national film koproduktsija, that is the film, which manufacture is carried out together with the foreign organisations of cinematography at observance of the conditions defined by the international agreements. To sign corresponding conventions with Frenchmen there went personally Medvedev so and from this party all is lawful: the national film can appear koproduktsija, in which Russian money not 70, and though 20 %.
And all - taki the State Office of Public Prosecutor in which the Audit Chamber has addressed, has confirmed that infringements are. On May, 18th, 1998 it has let out representation N 7/ 3 - 1 - 65 - 98 about measures on elimination of the damage caused to interests of the Russian Federation at financing of a film “ the Siberian barber “. There it is specified that return to the state of the money transferred under instructions of Tchernomyrdin of studio “ TriTe “ it appears, by any documents it is not provided (see the inquiry).
the Ministry of Finance has decided to fill this omission: the letter at State cinema from June, 24th, 1998 to film committee and studio “ TriTe “ it was offered to cancel the former contract from November, 5th, 1996 and to conclude new in which sums really spent for a film and the right of the state to profit on hire would be fixed.
At State cinema do not want to incur responsibility for that money which through them did not pass. Therefore the film committee did not begin to cancel the old contract, and according to its point 19 has concluded with studio “ TriTe “ the agreement on an order and using order a national feature film “ the Siberian barber “. Under agreement 7 - 1 - 23/ 24 - 7/ 25 from January, 21st, 1999 net profit from film hire on all kinds of carriers in territories of republics Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenia, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Moldova completely belongs to film committee. The net profit from hire in other countries shares between committee and studio: State cinema - 10 %, studios - 90 %.
It is told in the agreement and on costs: “ the Parties have agreed to consider that the sums received as the state financial support of manufacture of a film, are not considered in the expenses which are subject to compensation, at definition of the income received by studio “ TriTe “ from use of exclusive property copyrights to a film “.
It is a question of the sums appearing in the contract from November, 5th, 1996 and in addition to it With about 14 mlrd of roubles and $650 thousand (in total about $3 million). $10 million allocated directly with the Ministry of Finance, have hung in mid-air.
meanwhile in the letter from January, 20th, 1996 Mikhalkov wrote to Tchernomyrdin that $10 million “ could be returned even prior to the beginning of sales... A film if to consider them as the credit which has been given out... For the period of manufacture “. Today, three years later, in interview “ “ Mikhalkov any more does not consider this money as the credit. It considers them as the state support which is due to it under the law on cinema and not demanding any compensation. It easily equalises 3 million received from State cinema, and 10 million received from the Ministry of Finance, assuring that it is possible to render state support through film committee, and it is possible “ directly “. Whether
So it? No. In chapter of III law on the state support of cinematography of the Russian Federation it is accurately told that state financing is carried out “ federal enforcement authority in the field of cinematography “. The sums, in contracts with this federal body not reflected, state support in legal sense cannot be considered and concern sphere of personal calculations between N.S.Mikhalkov and that government of the Russian Federation which has transferred to it money. If to remember recent fights round an armchair of the chairman of State cinema in which Mikhalkov so would like to plant the person, the additional motive appears: the new minister of cinema Leonid Vereschagin and the old director of studio “ TriTe “ Leonid Vereschagin could make out and renew backdating “ among themselves “ any contracts, entering in them any sums thereby turning to gratuitous state support.
It turns out, Mikhalkov has borrowed money, and then has simply forgotten about it. And now considers that to anybody should nothing. But it is vain. The Audit Chamber incriminates it drawing to the budget of such enormous damage - $55 million Is bonds were! And Mikhalkov took only 10, well let 13 million
EKATERINA ZAPODINSKY, Lydia MASLOV
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When shootings have demanded the next injections, it was necessary to Mikhalkov, as well as the mere mortal to address for the state support
At State cinema do not want to incur responsibility for that money which through them did not pass
Mikhalkov has borrowed money, and then has simply forgotten about it. And now considers that to anybody should nothing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mikhalkov NIKITA SERGEEVICH,
the film director,
to the chairman of the government of the Russian Federation
g - well to Tchernomyrdin V. S
Dear Victor Stepanovich!
to Pamjatuja our conversation on my new film, I write this letter. As you already know, I have started to work over the new film project under the conditional name “ the Siberian barber “. I in the co-authorship with my constant partner, writer Rustamom Ibragimbekovym, already write the scenario, and in March, 1996 we would like to start a spadework. She is the big romantic film epopee about Russian boys - cadets, the future pride of Russia - the Russian officers, 20 years of the end of the past covering the period and the beginning of our century. The new film assumes revival, unfortunately, today the forgotten genre of a historical film epopee and demands many thousands mass meetings, tailoring of a considerable quantity of historical suits, building of scenery, manufacturing of a historical requisite, and also shootings in Moscow, St.-Petersburg, Siberia, the USA, Germany, Czechia and Finland. As well as in any other film projects of such scale, the international cooperation for participation of movie stars with world names, uses of the western technologies for spets - and video effects is required. Without a thing it it is impossible to fulfil the requirements shown to projects of such scale and level.
our scenario translated into English and French languages, has been given for examination to the largest movie companies, and we have received the highest estimation of experts and specific proposals about readiness of participation in kooproduktsii from the USA and France. In particular, the leading movie company of France Camera One headed g - nom Michel Sejdu, officially informed us on readiness of participation in this film project on the terms of equal in rights kooproduktsii and investments in the project of 50 % of its cost. We already had an experience with g - nom M.Sejdu. So, films “ Urga “ “ Anna: from 6 to 18 “ and “ Tired with the sun “ which as it seems to us, have brought glory to our cinema, are made by our studio together with Camera One, and the merit g - on Sejdu in realisation of these projects is difficult for overestimating.
considering that cost of all package is estimated by our and western film experts approximately in 26 million US dollars, g - n Sejdu has suggested to enclose in a picture of 50 % of this budget. The remained sum if we want that this project was considered in the world Russian, it is necessary to find to us.
Considering all it, dear Victor Stepanovich, I not only address to you with the request for all-round state support of this unique project, but I ask as well financial help at a rate of 10 million US dollars, which could be returned even prior to the beginning of sales of this film if to consider them as the credit which has been given out to us for the period of manufacture.
I understand that budgetary funds are limited today, and consequently I ask you to allow to find them from the debts returned to Russia. I from its part can promise to use the best efforts together with the companions for creation of a film epopee, a worthy history of our Russia.
20. 01. 96
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to itself the director
Here that Mikhalkov to the correspondent " has told; “ (shorthand report):
Under the law on the state support of a cinema and especially significant works of art the state has the right to subsidise, so to say, tselevo those or other products. It is possible to make it through State cinema, and it is possible to make directly. I have made it directly. I have asked for Tchernomyrdin of $10 million that our contribution was more powerful and it would be possible to name a picture Russian. Because, if our contribution would be less, it would be simply foreign picture. Having read the scenario, Tchernomyrdin has told that this picture is really necessary, interesting and etc. And we have really received through the Ministry of Finance, through the authorised bank, $10 million Though there was registered, I do not know... It was any big operation of the Ministry of Finance on return of debts to rupees. I do not know. I do not press in these details. Me $10 million And where has left that has left interested, I do not know. We have received 10 million And here they pass at us on all papers. And these 10 million tselevo have gone on film manufacture, on what there is a full documentation.
this money does not demand return. It not the credit. It under the law target assignment, under the law on support of a national cinema. From this money when the picture will go on the screen, we conclude the contract from State cinema about return. Or we give State cinema from 15 or - I do not know, not I will say lies precisely now - from 10 to 15 or 20 % from gathering, or we give territory State cinema on which it will roll a picture itself and to raise money. I did not press in these details.
here is how Mikhalkov has edited this record for the press:
Within the limits of the law on the state financial support of manufacture of national films we have received $3 million through State cinema. These means it has appeared obviously insufficiently to make Russian picture. And I have addressed to prime minister Victor Stepanovichu Tchernomyrdin. Having read the scenario, Tchernomyrdin has told that this picture is really necessary, interesting and etc. And we have received 10 million from the Ministry of Finance which has translated us them under the special decision of the government. Other means to me managed to be pulled out at the French partner. And I am proud of that basically on the French money it was possible to make truly Russian film.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mikhalkov in letters of contemporaries
Audit Chamber - the State Office of Public Prosecutor
the Audit Chamber has checked up use of budgetary funds of State cinema for 1996 - 1997. It is established that in infringement of law ZO to the state support of cinematography RFI, the order of State cinema from August, 10th, 1992, the decision of board Roskomkino from December, 15th, 1992, without opinion of a commission of experts the committee has concluded the contract from November, 5th, 1996 N 01/ 25 - 32 from Open Company “ Studio “ TriTeT “ on rendering of the state financial support in the sum 14 mlrd roubles on feature film manufacture “ the Siberian barber “. Budget cost of a film makes 138,6 mlrd roubles. A termination date of manufacture of a film - on October, 1st, 1997.
in financing of manufacture of a film, it agree to the above-stated contract, 52,5 %, and the government of the Russian Federation - at a rate of 51,9 mlrd roubles participate also company Camera One (France) which share of financing was provided at a rate of 72,8 mlrd roubles, or.
in infringement of the above-stated law the given film is unreasonably carried to a category of a national film: Foreign investments into manufacture of such film should not exceed 30 % of cost of a film.
the State Office of Public Prosecutor - Audit Chamber
It is established that the Ministry of Finance and State cinema carried out manufacture financing “ the Siberian barber “ expressed in following sums: 65,85 mlrd roubles and $650 thousand Meanwhile have not been stipulated and in the contractual form the share of the state and its right to reception of profit on display and hire of the film ended by manufacture are not fixed. Officials of the Ministry of Finance and State cinema have not executed the duties on maintenance of interests of the state at financing of the specified film owing to what the damage expressed in inadequate registration of treaty obligations has been caused state ownership of the Russian Federation.
with a view of elimination of the damage caused to legitimate interests of the Russian Federation, representations to the Ministry of Finance and State cinema are brought. It is offered to specified officials to conclude the tripartite contract on manufacture financing “ the Siberian barber “ taking into account all sums spent for its manufacture, a recognition of the share property of the Russian Federation on this film, and also receptions of the income of its display and hire. Besides, it is offered to make necessary additions to the contract concluded earlier between studio “ TriTe “ and company Camera One for change of a percentage parity of the share property of participants of a film according to the expenses made by them on film financing and also to make office investigation on the given fact, to establish the officials guilty of default of the functions on protection of financial interests of the state, and to make them answerable.