@ Baxxter

Yes it would be far better if the funding went in screen rather than the bling.

Films may not guarantee the arrival of many tourists but a well made film can provide indirect marketing the value of which is inquantifiable. Think what Carey Grant and Audrey Hepburn riding on a Vespa did for Rome.

Rome was the backdrop and that film was effectively a full on advert for Rome which it reaps benefits from till t Subtle marketing is much better than full on adverts on the London buses for example, crassly begging people to come to enjoy the sea and sun here (totally ineffective especially when there are better beaches elsewhere). But then we never understood subtle did we.

Where we disagree is where you say he is successful.

My bets are on the Russians. Another important asset sold off

Allan r, this blog needs more of your comments.

I have been involved in the so-called Maltese film industry at the PR event end of things, and words cannot describe the sheer amount of (public) that is thrown on bling for special screenings and gala evenings and so on. Vast delegations flown to far-flung corners of the globe. Gifts for the guests. Posters and adverts and expensive venues.

And all for, as you sublimely put it, execrable films, which never make a dent in the cinematic history.

It might be worth remembering too that just filming some scenes of some films in Malta doesn’t guarantee a barrage of “tyoorist arrivals” and “forinn investment”.

Grigal Films indeed. For years and years all we heard about is the stereotypical bull about what was filmed here by the UK or US majors that indeed turned a profit.

Tell me any Maltese film that has made a dent in the international market. None (with one exception I will get to in a moment).

I can quote a shitload of films here that have always been full of their own self-importance for the local population, and generally appealing to the lowest common denominator. An excellent example was the execreble *Qerq* from some years ago which did indeed top the box office in Malta, and if you have some reservations about its quality the reviews on IMDB are a joy to behold.

The recent box office success of *Simshar* was a two-pronged effort in marketing and good film-making. There was funding because of a good script, sub-titling for foreign (and Maltese) markets, and a name (which caused a bit of controversy due to the fact he was not Maltese, but well known in other countries, thus securing foreign sales hopefully).

I have met Rebecca Cremona (the director) and her passion and enthusiasm for what must have a pet project from inception to completion and beyond shows what can be achieved with a market which, up to that time, was renowned for mediocrity and a wilderness of tat.

Our new local conglomerate of Darryl F. Zanuck and Louis B. Mayer wannabes will no doubt bugger it all up in one foul swoop.

Equally, I am morally convinced that Dr Joseph Muscat allows all this to go on for one simple reason: whether directly or more likely indirectly, he’s got at least one finger in the pie too and in his case it must be a much bigger pie.

That is precisely how he measures the value of an artistic enterprise — money. He said so himself since returning to Malta to join the Lejber bandwagon.

PL plunder will pull us UNDER.

I think the point goes back to the way Daphne usually characterises this – the other Malta or rather the prevailing Maltese culture.

Yes, AE, Azzopardi did a few episodes of Stargate. But that is hardly the point. I stated that the man is successful and has proof of that success in contrast to Phyllis Muscat et al.

The point is that to obtain that success he fled Mintoffian Malta only to come back to support it and to leech from it. The point is also that the man has not learnt anything from the many years of living in a country that allows individual freedoms unlike Mintoffian Malta that quashes individuals.