A New Ecosystem of Czech Documentary Production in the 90s

Introduction – Definition and Methodology

In order to be able to address the genesis of Czech documentary film after the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is necessary to examine what is considered as documentary film in the Czech (and by extension, Slovak) context, and whether or not this consideration is apt. There is no singular definition of the term “documentary film” in the Czech context. According to historian and film publicist Lucie Česálková, “domestic documentary film has a disadvantage, given the historical tradition in which it is usually confused with its subcategory, popular science film […] which was, and still is, the category quantitatively prevailing around the world.” ^[1] Based on Grierson’s understanding of the unsuitability of the term “documentary”, the noteworthy Czech director and script editor Jan Gogola Jr. has claimed, since as far back as his student days, that documentary film does not really exist. ^[2] He emphasizes that it is not possible to view documentary film solely as a recording of reality, thus omitting one of its other characteristic traits, namely its ability to (co-)create and influence reality in various ways. Slovak film historian and theorist Martin Palúch pursues a more up-to-date clarification of the term “auteur documentary” in his book Autorský dokumentárny film na Slovensku po roku 1989 [Auteur Documentary Film in Slovakia after 1989], viewing documentary film through the dichotomy of subjective and objective components, where the former stand for all the directorial and authorial interventions of the entire team, including the social actors, as well as any formally stylistic techniques, while the latter refer to the photomechanical properties of the medium of film. ^[3] It logically follows that a film is increasingly auteur with the increase of the subjective components.

Czech documentary took many forms throughout its history, changing according to the actual trends. In the 30s documentary films leaned towards a city symphony (Aimless Walk by Alexander Hackenschmied); in the 60s towards direct cinema (or cinema verité), visible in films such as Elective Affinities by Karel Vachek; in the 90s the documentary mainly took the form of a TV series, while the most typical form of journalistic Czechoslovak film weekly disappeared.

Nowadays Czech documentary film has many forms, ranging from the so-called factual film (Jan Gogola Jr.) to long term documentary film (Helena Třeštíková), historically established popular science film, TV series, the vaguely defined “auteur” documentary film, mockumentary, observational film, and even experimental film. In recent years, the discussion about whether or not a border exists between fictional film and purely documentary film has also gained strength. A prime example for this dilemma is the loosening of the criteria for film selection in the competition section of the Ji.hlava International Documentary Film Festival: in 2017 films such as Bo Hai and Everything’s Gonna Be Fine, and a year later, Talks with TGM made it to the program, while the directors and producers of these films did not hide that these are fictional, narrative films, albeit based on historical sources or everyday lives. One can also notice blurred lines in the official statistics of the Union of Film Distributors: ^[4] films Ležáky 42 and Tajemství podzemní továrny v Chebu [Secret of the Underground Factory in Cheb] were labelled “narrative documentary” in 2010 and 2012 respectively. ^[5]

HOVORY S TGM, source Czech TV

However, all of these considerations occur merely on the level of completed works or creative methods. For a more complex view of Czech documentary film one must also consider the sphere of production infrastructure and institutional support, as well as individual production agents – not only the companies, but also producers and directors who create documentary films. A key to grasping the subject of this study, documentary film, is to understand that the deciding (though perhaps slightly non-committal) factor in considering a given film a documentary is the way production agents represent their work as documentaries and label them as such.

In studying production conditions of documentary films in the Czech Republic after 1989, I apply the methodology of Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ANT). Thanks to the principle of generalized symmetry, this approach allows for the equalization of both human and non-human actors (thus putting directors, producers, institutions, films themselves, and even laws on the same level) and the interpretation of their mutual relations in certain processes: enrollment, punctualization, and translation. ^[6] This method has already been successfully applied to the study of cinematography by Oli Mould, Markus Spöhrer, and Tereza Bochinová. ^[7] As a supplement to ANT, I will also be using John T. Caldwell’s production analysis methods, ^[8] namely his analysis of semi-structured interviews with key actors, and his analysis of associated paratexts (fully embedded deep texts, semi-embedded texts, and publicly disclosed texts).

The Collapse of the Institutional Infrastructure of Czech Film after 1989

The long-awaited and desired freedom came so quickly after the Velvet Revolution of November 1989, that Czech and, by extension, Czechoslovak society had to relearn how to function, while coping with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the first free elections. It was during this revolutionary period that important actors of documentary film were formed: the State Fund of the Czech Republic for the Support and Development of Czech Cinematography (now simply the Czech Film Fund), the grant commission at the time; the reestablished professional union FITES, ^[9] whose members opposed privatization; Barrandov Studio; new regulations for the film industry, aiming to replace Beneš’s nationalizing decrees and ease the situation in which making films became practically illegal; ^[10] newly emerging private subjects; transformed/privatized film production companies; Czech Television; commercial television; and the boom of new technology, such as videos, modern cameras, disk drives, and the like.

In contrast to the preceding era of state film, with a stable infrastructure of state enterprises, the beginning of the 90s saw the state turn away from cinematography. Through a form of privatization, all nine enterprises of Czechoslovak film and all of their constituent companies ^[11] were transformed into private property, a process which, according to lawyer Petr Ostrouchov, is still shrouded “in a fog of secrecy, especially regarding legal issues.” ^[12] Oftentimes two different privatization projects would oppose each other, neither of them perfectly prepared, as they had been hastily cobbled together within the span of a few days. Questions of authorship and production rights for the assets of a given enterprise or studio were often left unresolved, leading to drawn-out legal battles and attacks on individual acts. Many of these lawsuits were never completely settled, mostly due to the lack of surviving sources, which often remain in private archives, for now inaccessible to the public. The Central Directorate of Czechoslovak Film was completely liquidated, as was Film Industry (its liquidation also led to the loss of the production license for Marker brand ski bindings), and their assets were transferred to a property fund and later sold off. Czechoslovak Filmexport, finding itself in competition with other private distributors, was unable to turn a profit and was condemned to liquidation. ^[13] The Central Film Distributor was privatized and transformed into the joint-stock company Lucernafilm, a.s., ^[14] which was later split into Bontonfilm and Cinemart, ^[15] both of which have remain active in the field of film distribution until today (2021). In addition to distributing American and European films, they also coproduce domestic narrative films.

As a state-funded institution of the Ministry of Culture, in 1993 the Czechoslovak Film Institute was transformed into the National Film Archive, with the main function of administering the archival resources of the Czechoslovak Film Institute. ^[16] Despite objections of representatives of the reestablished union FITES, Barrandov Studio, under the leadership of Václav Marhoul, was privatized into AB Barrandov, a.s. (after the intermediate step of transferring ownership of Barrandov Studio to the joint-stock company CINEPONT ^[17]). Film Studio Gottwaldov and Film Laboratories met a similar fate. ^[18]

Krátký Film, one of the most significant constituents of state film for documentary filmmakers, was dissolved without liquidation by the Central Directorate of Czechoslovak Film and then brought back with the founding of the company KF, a.s., established by the Central Directorate of Czechoslovak Film and the Czech State Insurance Company on the basis of law number 104/1990 Sb. regarding joint-stock companies. ^[19] The proposal for the transfer of property to KF, a.s. was submitted by the former economic undersecretary of Czechoslovak Film, Jan Knoflíček. The proposal itself did not contain much detailed information. Instead, it included a reference stating that the Minister of Culture at that time, Milan Uhde, was already familiar with the details of the proposal. The Ministry spent a single day looking into the proposal for the privatization of Krátký Film. ^[20] The department of art and literature of the Ministry of Culture responded to the problematic areas of Knoflíček’s proposal, describing its greatest weakness in the lack of information regarding capital and the makeup of the board of trustees. The proposal also lacked an inventory of Krátký Film’s total assets, which was later shown to be the most critical area of its privatization into a joint-stock company. The newly founded KF, a.s. subsequently named Jan Knoflíček as its managing director.

BARRANDOV STUDIO, source barrandov.cz

The privatization of KF was completed in 1993, with 54.7% of the shares being sold using the voucher method; 24.7% of the shares went to the newly established State Fund of the Czech Republic for the Support and Development of Cinematography; and 15% went to the Czech Insurance Company ^[21] (which came under control of Petr Kellner’s PPF Group in the mid-nineties). KF was divided into several studios, each with its own dramaturgy and production plan, while their number and form changed over the years. At the beginning of the 90s, KF had nine studios, the most important being the ones associated with documentary film: Studio HaD, led by Karel Dvořák, Studio Hoffilm, led by Martin Hoffmeister, and Studio Prima, led by Zdeňek Kučera, focused primarily on TV programs, while Studio J.A. Komenského, led by Jitka Lášková, produced educational films.

Krátký Film (like the other constituents of Czech cinematography) ^[22] was no longer funded by the state and ran into financial problems. It was forced to seek other sources of revenue. In 1993, the first of these attempts was the closing of a coproduction agreement with British Golden Pictures, Ltd. and Spanish Filmagic, S.L. for the feature sci-fi film Nexus, which was a box-office failure, causing KF to lose other investments, amounting to tens of millions of crowns. In 1995 Knoflíček attempted to establish a festival to compete with the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival. It was entitled Zlatý Golem, and it was to take place yearly in Prague. ^[23] Knoflíček did not hide that the festival was created with clear business intentions. However, he once again met with no success, and the festival went bankrupt after its second year. KF found itself in dire straits. It conducted massive layoffs and was in danger of bankruptcy. However, in 1998, KF was rescued by its co-owner, the Czech Insurance Company, which increased its investment by 160 million crowns, thereby paying off debts that had been incurred. The chief motive was allegedly the discovery that KF could earn money through the administration and sale of copyrights for the materials in its archive, which were primarily news reels, instructional films, animation, and pre-war films.

The privatization process of the most important constituent for documentary production was a key actor in the network of documentary film in the 90s. In the absence of a more stable infrastructure for their work, documentary filmmakers and now former employees of KF (and similarly privatized companies) reacted by starting their own production companies. In an ideal scenario these would produce documentary films for Czech Television, however, the creative power of the broadcaster was, and still is, more or less limited by the politics of their programming.

Private Subjects

According to Filmová ročenka 1992 [The Film Almanac 1992], three years after the Velvet Revolution there were already more than 70 private production companies dedicated to the creation or distribution of audiovisual works. ^[24] These companies were mostly founded by people who were forced to leave privatized state enterprises. One of the first of such companies was Space Films, founded on May 31, 1991 by Jiří Ježek and his colleagues from the film Tank Battalion, ^[25] on which he worked as production manager for Bonton. Another independent production company was formed in March 1992, when Petr Soukup founded HEUREKA Films, primarily for the purpose of making narrative films (the company produced films such as Accumulator 1 and Kamarád do deště II – Příběh z Brooklynu [Partner in Crime II – A Story from Brooklyn]). This pair was complemented by other companies, such as Heureka Production PF, Miro Film, Etamp, Biograf Jan Svěrák, Total Film, Negativ, and others.

All of these newly established production companies, however, met with financial difficulties, as they were forced to raise funds for their productions from various sources themselves. Thus, they focused all of their energy on the sectors of the film industry that promised a certain viewer interest and profitability that is associated with it (for example, commercial production, music videos, narrative films for commercial television, commissioned productions, etc.). The less popular, unprofitable genres of documentary and animated film thus received few resources.

GEN – GALERIE ELIT NÁRODA, source: Czech TV

Among the pioneers of documentary film, we must mention Fero Fenič, a Slovak living in Prague, who founded the company Febio, a.s. in 1992, which was initially intended to function as a stable space for him and his colleagues to work independently. The original idea was that Febio would promote works of independent authorship, free from the superficial models of TV journalism. However, thanks to the popularity of the series OKO – pohled na současnost [EYE – A View of the Present], ^[26] Febio began working closely with Czech Television, supplying it with new episodes and new series, such as GEN – Galerie elity národa [Gallery of the Nation’s Elite]. Thus, from its outset, Czech Television positioned itself as an institution that welcomed external initiatives from authors and producers alike, which it then (as with the products of Febio and other production companies) absorbed as an integral part of itself. ^[27] As a public institution, Czech Television was a large, inflexible colossus that reacted very slowly to change, which is why working with external contractors was in many ways advantageous: due to their size, small, private companies were more flexible in their planning and filming. Producing one episode of OKO or GEN took just a few days, which was not possible within the working mechanisms of Czech Television. Individual episodes were often created just days before they premiered on TV.

Another significant player in the field of “private documentary film” was producer and director Pavel Štingl, who founded the company K2 in 1993. Over its 28 years of activity, the company has produced roughly a hundred documentaries, focusing primarily on foreign subjects (Slzy vítězství Albánie [Albanian Tears of Victory], Země bez hrobů [The Land without Graves], Z domova domů [Home from Home]). It later began producing the TV series Takoví jsme byli [The Way We Were] for Czech Television. ^[28]

The company Film & Sociologie was another important independent producer during the first half of the 1990s. Since 1991, they have produced more than 170 documentaries for Czech Television and released five films into cinema distribution, ^[29] including one of the most successful documentary films since 1989, Občan Havel [Citizen Havel] (Pavel Koutecký, Miroslav Janek), which was seen in cinemas by 163,726 viewers in the year of its release. ^[30]

Having managed to adapt to the atmosphere of the 90s, when contemporary Czech institutional infrastructure was developed, the above mentioned companies still rank among key players today, producing documentaries as well as narrative films, while they also maintain their sideline businesses, such as organizing festivals.

The Czech Film Fund

In the wake of the disappearing state support for cinematography, a new source of funding for emerging private production companies took shape. The first step in the renewal of state support took place in 1991 with the formation of the seven-member grant commission, ^[31] which would determine how much of the roughly 100 million crowns earmarked in the state budget ^[32] would be allocated to which projects. According to producer Pavel Strnad, at that time the commission divided 66.2 million crowns between 12 narrative films, 21 documentaries, and three animated films in the form of grants for future production. ^[33] Given the unclear and chaotic rules by which the funding was allocated, the grant commission was merely a provisory solution. It was dissolved less than a year after its founding, when law number 241/1992 Sb. established the State Fund of the Czech Republic for the Support and Development of Cinematography (SFCRSDC), which falls under the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. The purpose of this fund was to assist, for example, more ambitious projects and to support domestic productions bearing the hallmarks of Czech culture, which could not be realized solely with the support of the Ministry of Culture. The draft law was submitted to the government by Minister of Culture Milan Uhde in 1991. However, SFCRSDC did not begin its activities until a full year ^[34] after the law took effect in July 1992, as the fund only redistributed revenue from its own activities, coming from two sources: on the one hand, licensing fees for the use of films produced by the film studios Barrandov and Gottwaldov in the period of 1965–1990 and, on the other, a one-crown contribution from ticket sales (the average price of which had risen by a factor of 14 by 2019, while SFCRSDC still received just one crown per ticket). ^[35]

The primary function of the SFCRSDC consisted in supporting the creation and production of cinematic works, the distribution of high-quality films, the promotion of Czech cinematography, the technical development and modernization of Czech cinematography and its production, and the distribution and promotion of cinematic works of minority nationalities and ethnic groups living in the Czech Republic. ^[36] In the 90s, all different types of films sought support through the same appeal and were assessed according to the same criteria – not a particularly efficient solution, given the differences between documentary and narrative films in budget, crew size, and standard number of filming days. As a consequence, documentary films very rarely received support from the SFCRSDC.

Stabilizing the SFCRSDC’s revenue stream and its management took more than ten years. In 2012, an amendment to the legislation regarding audiovisual policy established a new form for the fund, which became an autonomous institution for the support of Czech cinematography, with a clearly defined revenue structure and a new name: the Czech Film Fund. It is only since 2012 that the Czech Film Fund has offered open calls specifically for documentary filmmakers, beginning to acknowledge the specific needs of this type of cinematography. Thus, in the 90s, private companies could apply for funding from a state institution as well as support from the Czech Television.

Documentary film on TV and in the Cinema

The vast majority of documentaries in this period, however, appeared only on TV and took the form of short or medium length entries in topical, often journalistic series, such as the aforementioned OKO and GEN – Galerie elity národa as well as Křesťanské umění na Moravě [Christian Art in Moravia], Portréty [Portraits], and Děti a zvířata [Children and Animals]. However, as the major source of funding for documentary film, Czech Television directly dictated the length and subject matter of commissioned projects so that they fit into pre-determined programming windows. The length and topics of these windows changed in the 90s.

According to a study on production culture by Lucie Králová entitled Rozumět televizi. Produkční kultura v České televizi 1993–2017 [Understanding Television: Production Culture in Czech Television 1993–2017], so-called “solitary documentary programs” (meaning those that were not part of a series or set) were very successful inside Czech Television during the period of the production system in the 90s. ^[37] In the following period, the editorial system (2002–2011), documentary film received its own primetime programming window. The current system of creative production groups at Czech Television (from 2011 on) transformed the two previous schemes (the production system and the editorial system) into a single, simpler one, on the basis of the contractor (the production division) vs. the client (the program division). Since 2012, coproduction and the distribution of documentary films has been handled by the newly established Film Center, which also resolves any disagreements between the creative producer and the script editor charged with approving the program. ^[38]

Czech Television has remained the largest and most powerful producer and coproducer of domestic documentary films since the early 90s, regardless of its structural changes.  However, as Králová suggests, critical reflection by experts on the current practices of Czech Television remains insufficient. ^[39] A large portion of documentary films are coproduced by Czech Television; in certain cases documentaries are produced by another broadcaster. In the period between 2015–2020, HBO Europe was the only producer of documentaries apart from Czech Television). Some documentaries become part of TV programming through the prepurchase of broadcasting rights. According to Králová, Czech Television (and most likely other broadcasters as well) prefers to enter into coproduction during the development or production phases in order to secure influence over the final product. ^[40]

Czech Television is still the strongest player in the field of documentary film production today. Of all the other broadcasters, HBO Europe is the only one that comes close to the key role played by Czech Television, with its 5 feature-length documentaries produced per year. This situation may not last, as HBO Europe may change its approach toward original productions. The aforementioned study on “understanding television” also shows that Czech Television, due to its central position as well as the lack of competitors, can exploit its monopoly. ^[41]

The first attempt to significantly change the situation in which documentary films could be viewed only on the screen of their majority producer and distributor, was the establishment of the Ji.Hlava International Documentary Film Festival in 1997 (at that time simply called the Czech Documentary Festival Jihlava). Initially it was founded by a group of students lead by Marek Hovorka, from Jihlava secondary school, for the purpose of watching documentaries on a cinema screen. ^[42] In 2001, the Ji.Hlava IDFF co-founded the Institute of Documentary Film (IDF), which later became an autonomous institution supporting documentary film in Central and Eastern Europe.

At the opening of the first international meeting of producers and documentary filmmakers at the Ji.Hlava IDFF, called the Burza námětů [The Pitching Forum] (held on October 25–28, 2001), two FAMU students, Andrea Prenghyová and Filip Remunda, issued a statement on behalf of students of the Department of Documentary Film, who were not satisfied with the state of documentary film at the time, asserting that “many films get made only thanks to the authors’ strong desire to create, which often overcomes the lack of financial resources.” ^[43]

Conclusion

Although documentary film lost its stable infrastructure in the 90s as a result of privatization and the transition from socialism to a market economy, thanks to inventive filmmakers (who continued to create even though it was illegal, and set up new production companies), enthusiastic students (who founded one of the largest documentary film festivals in Europe), and efforts to open up Czech documentary film to foreign collaboration (The Pitching Forum), solid foundations were laid for a new ecosystem of documentary film. The transformation of the institutional infrastructure and the return of state support took roughly 15 years. The result is a functioning infrastructure in which a documentary film producer has several options for financing their film: a) the Czech Film Fund; b) the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic; c) European funds (MEDEA, EHP, etc.); d) collaboration with the Czech Television or other commercial broadcasters; e) using modern methods for building an audience—crowdfunding; f) sponsorship or commissioned productions.

Following Latour, we can observe the relationships between individual actors in the 90s – SFCRSDC, the Ministry of Culture, production entities, Czech Television – on the levels of enrollment, punctualization, and translation. ^[44] If we consider enrollment as a state in which the entire network is in danger of collapsing with the removal of a single concrete actor, then Czech Television is the only actor we can identify as duly enrolled, because in the early 90s it was the only one to provide both a market and a refuge for documentary film. If Czech Television had not supported private production entities or allowed them to create films for broadcasting purposes, the period of new documentary film would have likely lasted many times longer.

The enrollment of the SFCRSDC into the network of actors was obvious after 2010, when pressure for legislative reform to regulate the film industry was gaining strength. At present, it can be stated that documentary film production is most directly dependent on support from the Czech Film Fund and Czech Television. ^[45]

[The Hungarian version of this article is published in this same thematic issue]

Jegyzetek

1. ^[1] Lucie Česálková, Generace Jihlava (Brno: Větrné mlýny in cooperation with AMU, 2014), 43. ↩
2. ^[2] John Grierson, “První zásady dokumentárního filmu,” in Film je umění: sborník statí, eds. Béla Balázs, Jaroslav Brož, Ljubomír Oliva (Praha: Orbis, 1968). ↩
3. ^[3] Martin Palúch, Autorský dokumentárny film na Slovensku po roku 1989 (Bratislava: Ústav divadelnej a filmovej vedy SAV, 2015), 14. ↩
4. ^[4] Statistical details are provided by film distributors, who receive them from films producers. ↩
5. ^[5] “Statistiky UFD,” Unie filmových distributor, accessed January 29, 2021, http://ufd.cz/prehledy-statistiky/premiery-v-ceskych-kinech. ↩
6. ^[6] Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). ↩
7. ^[7] Oli Mould, “Lights, camera, but where’s the action? Actor-Network-Theory and the production of Robert Connoly’s Three Dollars,” in Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries, eds. Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, John T. Caldwell (London: Routledge, 2009), 203–213.; Markus Spöhrer, “Murphy’s Law in Action: The Formation of the Film Production Netwok of Paul Lazarus‘ Barbarosa (1982) – An Actor-Network-Theaory Case Study,” International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation 5, no. 1 (January–March 2013): 20.; Tereza Bochinová, FABrika Kudlov. Studie působení aktérů na produkční kulturu FA Kudlov mezi lety 1945–1952 (thesis, Masaryk University, 2020). ↩
8. ^[8] John Caldwell, Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television ↩
9. ^[9] Although the union never managed to regain the position and power it had held in the 60s. ↩
10. ^[10] Beneš’s decrees in the era of the state monopoly on the production and distribution of film were only repealed in 1993. Until that time, the private production of film was practically illegal, and new producers had to get around the decrees, for example by claiming to make “audiovisual works” or “videograms” instead of films. Cf. Andrej Halada, Český film devadesátých let, (Praha: Lidové noviny, 1997), 17. ↩
11. ^[11] The Central Directorate of Czechoslovak Film filled the managerial role. Film studios (divided not only geographically but by genre as well) included the following: Studio Barrandov for narrative films and foreign commissions; Krátký Film for short films, animation, documentary films, opinion journalism, and popular science films; and Film Studio Gottwaldov, which was primarily dedicated to animation and children’s films. Domestic distribution of Czechoslovak films was arranged by the Central Film Distributor, and foreign distribution went through Czechoslovak Filmexport. The technical aspects of film production were provided by Barrandov Film Laboratories, Film Industry, and the Czechoslovak Film Institute, each with a clearly defined role. Nationalized cinematography thus had a definite structure and hierarchy, well-defined approval and production mechanisms (regardless of their effectiveness, time demands, or any attempts at censorship), clearly stated procedures for the transition of individual workers from peripheral roles (assistants for camera, direction, and production) to core roles (the main professions in the film crew), and production mapped out for several years in advance. ↩
12. ^[12] Jana Lohrová, Vývoj ochrany autorských práv audiovizuálních děl: autorskoprávní problematika filmových děl (Bc. thesis, Masaryk University, 2007), 21. ↩
13. ^[13] Barbora Poláčková, Propagace českého filmu v zahraničí. Od Filmexportu po České filmové centrum (Bc. thesis, Masaryk University, 2014) ↩
14. ^[14] The new company, Lucernafilm, was divided into three distribution groups (alpha, beta, gamma). In 1994 the company underwent further structural changes. ↩
15. ^[15] Pavel Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie v letech 1989–1999” (Master’s thesis, FAMU, 2000). ↩
16. ^[16] Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie”. ↩
17. ^[17] Barrandov Studio was privatized in several steps. In 1990–1991, under the leadership of a new managing director, there were massive layoffs and changes in the organizational structure. A year later, the privatization project of Cinepont was approved, although the state retained the so-called golden share, and the State Fund for the Support and Development of Czech Cinematography (SFCRSDC) held the copyrights through a supplier agreement. Over time, Cinepont changed into AB Barrandov. In the following years, the company took on different forms, getting into debt with the National Property Fund and the SFCRSDC. After 2000, the original owner, Moravia Steel, became today’s Barrandov Studio. Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie,”153–154. ↩
18. ^[18] Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie”. ↩
19. ^[19] Lohrová, “Vývoj ochrany”, 23. ↩
20. ^[20] Citations from official documents in the film Krátký film (Jiří Havlíček and Pavel Ryška, Czech Republic, 2018). ↩
21. ^[21] Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie”. ↩
22. ^[22] Even during the period of state film, some constituent companies generated profit from sideline businesses. The cosmetics manufacturer Dermacol grew out of Barrandov Studio in the ‘60s, their first product a water-resistant makeup created by film make-up artists and experts from the Institute of Professional Cosmetics. The brand quickly saw success even in Hollywood, which provided Barrandov Studio with a regular revenue stream. The company Film Industry likewise began a sideline business in 1970 when it signed a license agreement for the production of Marker ski bindings, becoming the brand’s Czech producer and distributor and providing the company with another source of revenue. ↩
23. ^[23] Tereza Brdečková, “Vary nebo Praha,” Týdeník Respekt. January 16, 1995, https://www.respekt.cz/tydenik/1995/3/vary-nebo-praha ↩
24. ^[24] Filmová ročenka 1992. Praha: Národní archive, 1993. ↩
25. ^[25] The film Tank Battalion is regarded as the very first privately produced Czech film, made with no contributions whatsoever from state organizations. ↩
26. ^[26] The first 38 episodes were created at KF, but then the next hundred were made for Czech Television. ↩
27. ^[27] Lucie Králová, Rozumět televizi. Produkční kultura v České televizi v oblasti dokumentárního filmu 1993–2017 (PhD diss., FAMU, 2017), 86. ↩
28. ^[28] “O nás,” K2 Films, accessed January 6, 2021, http://www.k2films.cz/cz/o-nas/strucna-filmografie. ↩
29. ^[29] “O nás,” Film & sociologie, accessed April 18, 2021, http://www.filmasociologie.cz. ↩
30. ^[30] “Statistiky UFD.” ↩
31. ^[31] The grant commission consisted of: Jiří Cieslar, Jan Foll, Jana Hádková, Miloslav Jágr, Ester Krumbachová, Andrej Stankovič, and Miloš Votruba. ↩
32. ^[32] Jana Soprová, “Zatím všichni brečí…,” Scéna, October 24, 1991, 3. ↩
33. ^[33] Strnad, “Transformace české kinematografie”, 46. ↩
34. ^[34] As opposed to the approval of privatization projects, which often took just a few days. ↩
35. ^[35] Michaela Letochová, Systém podpory Státního fondu kinematografie na výrobu českých celovečerních hraných filmů (Master’s thesis, Masaryk University, 2017), 28. ↩
36. ^[36] Zákon o Státním fondu České republiky pro podporu a rozvoj české kinematografie 1992 (CZ), 241. ↩
37. ^[37] Lucie Králová, “Rozumět televizi,” 61. ↩
38. ^[38] Lucie Králová, “Rozumět televizi,” 101. ↩
39. ^[39] Lucie Králová, “Rozumět televizi,” 24. ↩
40. ^[40] Lucie Králová, “Rozumět televizi,” 48. ↩
41. ^[41] Lucie Králová, “Rozumět televizi,” 187. ↩
42. ^[42] Jitka Lanšperková, “Ji.hlava chce reflektovat proměnlivost a nezachytitelnost přítomnosti,” Cinema, October 10, 2016, 32. ↩
43. ^[43] Andrea Prenghyová and Filip Remunda, Manuál Burzy 2001 (Praha: Institut dokumentárního filmu, 2001) ↩
44. ^[44] Bruno Latour, “Reassembling the Social” ↩
45. ^[45] Jitka Lanšperková, Produkční strategie dokumentárního filmu v Česku od roku 2012 do roku 2016 (Master’s thesis, Masaryk University, 2018). ↩