The theme of restricting artistic values in favour of economic concerns can generally be recognised as common behaviour within the film industry in reacting to unexpected events.
This is epitomised by the aforementioned preparedness and willingness to swiftly rearrange shooting schedules or rewrite given scenes as a common contingency strategy during the pandemic. Although, it was recognised that the structural organisation within the industry is partly responsible for precipitating such actions, it is greatly tied to the concept of commercial viability. More precisely, since the insurance clauses would not cover any additional costs, if damage-reducing remedies were not initiated, it would prove to be immensely costly for production companies. Therefore, it is indicated that the idea of preserving creative aspirations gravely contrasts with the sentiment of always “[keeping] the show running” (PF, 2021) and that trading off creativity with economic considerations is often necessary to guarantee the flexibility and adaptability that characterised the industry’s favourable crisis response.
However, Producer F mentioned that rewrites are not always a viable alternative and that in specific instances creative concerns prevail: “[Rewriting is] not always a possibility. [We will always] consider it, but if it’s possible that really has to do with the script and how many scenes you have shot and what you are missing” (PF, 2021). He further elaborated “you really consider it case by case” and “maybe you say ‘Yes, we can take this character out of this scene, it doesn’t really matter. We can put her back in that scene that we shoot later and then we will have the same information for the audience’ or something like that” (ibid.). The idea that rewrites are not always suitable can also be substantiated by the omnipresent fear during the pandemic that a person, who is either central to the story or the production, catches COVID and has to isolate for a certain time period. Producer C, for example, mentioned that their insurance covered “if somebody fell ill of the main cast, the director, or the DoP2” (PC, 2021) and Producer A stated that “we have tested everyone once per week and the actors as well as the key persons, such as the directors, twice” (PA, 2021). The magnitude of a key member of the project not being available is also recognised by Executive D, who stated that “we’ve had COVID cases, but we haven’t actually had COVID cases that have stopped the production” (ED, 2021). Therefore, it is suggested that if it were actors instead of extras or heads of departments (ibid.), stopping the production for the time being might have been the better alternative. Producer C agreed with such an understanding as he hypothesised that he would have “probably postponed until further
2 DoP = Director of Photography (“responsible for the photographic heart of a production”) (ScreenSkills, n.d.)
notice in the sense that we would have to pull the plug and see if we were able to finish the film in another instance”, were a second lockdown of production to disrupt his time schedule (PC, 2021). Conversely, Producer B and Producer A, who both were actually confronted with a situation where a member of the main cast fell ill, mentioned that other circumstances required them to adapt quickly with impromptu changes rather than to postpone. “At one instance, this actor I talked about, turned up positive and could not be a part of a scene and she was like the primary person in that scene. And because we were wrapping up that location, we were not able to make that scene another day because we were moving to a different place […] the next day” (PB, 2021). Similarly, for Producer A the limited availability of the studio forced them to
“just [change] everything possible [and shoot] completely crazy and stupid things one after the other” due to the absence “of one of the main actors” (PA, 2021). Consequently, by both, Producer A and Producer B, being willing to forgo on their initial artistic vision in favour of finishing the production, it is indicated that the extent to which an individual may compromise his creative aspirations may vary from person to person and according to external circumstances. Furthermore, by highlighting that “we did at some point discuss whether we should cut one episode, but then all the investors had to agree, and they would rather put in some more money” (ED, 2021), Executive D indicated that, at times, investors might even tip the scales in favour of artistic values. Whether this is in anticipation of higher revenues due to a higher production value could not conclusively be determined, especially since these two things are in practice not connected (Caves, 2000; Eliashberg et al., 2006).
Since rewrites greatly impact the creative vision that a writer or producer may have had for the product, they are also innately linked to the issue of quality. More precisely, Producer B clarified when addressing the modifications that “we had to do these stiches and obviously that was not intended, we wanted to make the scene with her present in the scene but as she couldn’t be on set, we had no choice. So, we got the scene but in a different version that was not our preferred version” (PB, 2021). However, when being inquired about the changes’ effect on the series’ quality, she concluded that: “Looking back now, I think maybe it’s because it’s kind of rationalising that we made it. But actually, our feeling is that what we got instead was much better because it was more intimate moments with the actors and with the characters” and that
“the acting was brilliant” (ibid.). While she retrospectively acknowledged that this sentiment may result from rationalising her choices, emphasising the positive things resulting from the changes without dwelling on what was lost, can be linked to the aforementioned notion of
pragmatism that was essential in the crisis response. Therefore, it is not surprising that many other producers and executives stated that the quality was not affected (ED, 2021; PA, 2021;
PD, 2021).
However, regardless of any rationalisations or subjective understandings, Producer D’s and Executive D’s answers suggest that the subject is of a more intricate nature as they reverted it back to achieving ambidexterity. More precisely, Producer D claimed that “I don’t think it influences the quality, it’s just extra expenses” (PD, 2021) and, similarly, Executive D, when asked about whether the quality was affected, responded: “I don’t think so […]. but it has cost us about 3 million Euros more due to Corona” (ED, 2021). Their answers imply that in order to achieve the traditionally high levels of quality, the budget for the productions had to be extended. This is due to the numerous impracticalities caused by following the ever-changing regulations and restrictions that were a precondition for allowing the continuation of film productions during the pandemic. Producer C summarised it as such: “there was the impracticality of shooting under these circumstances, you know, keeping distances and having extras that you needed to test as well […]. There’s a lot of hassle and it takes a lot of time and it’s much more difficult under these circumstances” (PC, 2021). Consequently, complying with such rules required rewrites, as well as a substantial amount of money and time. For Producer C, this was incredibly problematic since “at the end of the day it will take more time because you need to test and need to have these precautions of how many people are in the room, keeping distances and sanitising […]. So yeah, it will affect the product in the very end” (ibid.).
Therewith, he clearly contradicted with the previous understanding of quality. When being confronted with how other producers and executives feel about it, he replied: “I don’t think so.
In my experience, I don’t think that’s right” (PC, 2021). This is because “for me, time and quality are interdependent. So, in the sense that you take 10 or 20 percent of the time, you know doing whatever, it will affect the quality in that sense. So, there’s a direct link between time and quality” (ibid.). He further linked the interdependence of time and quality to economic considerations: “if you agree to the premise that time and quality are already interdependent, time is dependent on […] the financials that you have to do the film. So, lessening the financing […] equals less time, and less time is less quality. So, that’s the mechanics of it” (ibid.).
Therefore, according to Producer C, quality has been negatively impacted by a loss of time and a decrease in available financing “in the sense that you need to bring more money that you cannot put on screen, but you need to put on testing and sanitising and stuff like that” (ibid.).
This is substantiated by Producer D, who theorised that the quality could have been affected if there was a need to save money as a result from a production stop: “if we had to stop in the middle of a production, then you probably would have to save some money and that will damage the quality” (PD, 2021).
Although Producer C fundamentally disagreed with other producers and executives concerning the impact on quality, the analysis has shown that this seemingly is not due to differences in subjective perceptions, but rather to opposing methods of dealing with the extra expenses. More precisely, Producer F elaborated that “we just had to overspend on the production. So, it doesn’t take away [from the quality], it’s not like I say to the director ‘Now you have to save 1.5 million Crowns. But maybe some of the smaller companies would have to do that, I don’t know” (PF, 2021). He further explained that “we geared up on the whole safety apparatus around the crew and the cast and brought in more makeup people, brought in more cars. So, we tried to keep up the pace to give the director the same amount of time that he would have had anyways” (ibid.).
It can be recognised that Producer F’s approach could pose problematic for smaller independent film production companies, since they may not possess the financial stability to simply overspend by such a significant amount. This was substantiated by Producer A, who explained, when talking about the extra expenses arising from COVID regulations, that “you have to pay in advance for a shoot and you don’t have the money. This means that you have a cashflow problem and have to take out loans” (PA, 2021). Furthermore, by acknowledging the lengths Producer F took in order to ensure that the quality was not affected negatively, it can be recognised that, for him, achieving ambidexterity most likely favoured creative considerations:
“I think that the quality hasn’t gone down, but it has taken a lot of money and effort. Because […] the season has changed before they could shoot, so, they were doing Winter in Midsummer.
But again, we have the resources to make the scene so that you will not notice that they have been shot in another place. We built their own set once again and all these things” (PF, 2021).
Overall, the data analysis has indicated that both, creative and quality concerns, may restrict the adaptability and flexibility in the industry in times of adversity.