An extra 5.5 billion rubles a year have been earmarked in the 2023–2025 state budget for the development of filmmaking in Russia, bringing the annual support volumes to about 12 billion rubles[14]. The authorities are expanding their support system for regional filmmakers, in the form of a tax rebate program that allows partial reimbursement of filming costs for films and series from the regional budget. For example, the St. Petersburg government has allocated 200 million rubles in subsidies to production of films in the city territory in 2023[15]. According to the Russian Cinema Fund, as of the end of 2022 domestic films have for the first time in history accounted for more than half of box office revenue[16]. Admittedly, the global situation in 2020–2022 has been anything but trivial, and the departure of big Hollywood distribution businesses from Russia in 2023 sent box office figures plummeting. Nevertheless, the Russian state is trying hard to reverse the situation, at least bringing it back to the pre-pandemic level.

The increase in state funding for domestic film production and the gradual increase in box office receipts for Russian films are certainly impressive.

But being interested in making profit only is invariably associated with artificial preservation of demand and often a drop in quality for the sake of entertaining the public. From this point of view, a film is a commodity, which prevents us from considering its sociocultural significance. British film sociologist Anthony Tudor asked a rhetorical question back in the 1970s: can you really expect viewers to be discriminate if they have never received a better product than what they are being offered? (Zhabsky & Tarasov, 2012)

Film distributors rarely venture beyond attendance statistics and box office receipts in their study of audience – which means the viewers’ needs are basically ignored. The outcome is either a blatant blockbuster product without any social value whatsoever, or a boring movie that is a complete financial loss for the distributors.

It is gratifying that more and more people, including those who set the trends in the film market, are now beginning to understand that cinema is actually the most convenient channel for working with society. Namely, promoting new meanings, articulating problems and their solutions, interpreting the reality, defining behavior patterns. The film is the most comprehensive way to move the viewers, engage them emotionally through empathy or associating oneself with the characters. This has a tremendous impact on shaping or changing each individual’s behaviors and value systems.

Cinematography is a conductor of a certain ideology (in the broadest sense of the word, as per Sergei Eisenstein’s view); that is, a system of worldviews, a convoluted combination of experience, knowledge, customs, traditions, morals, norms, ideals, morality, corresponding to a particular society. Cinematography is largely responsible for the value orientations ensuring the preservation of society, its structure and forms of life (Mikhailova, 2018). This industry has long been a factor in the transformation of society and the socialization of its members. Modern society, as aptly noted in one study of the social role of cinema in this very society, is a “global cinema” (Kurtov, 2011).

Many recognize the cinema’s social role, but the success of films is still measured in the traditional way, by the budget vs. box office receipts. Few think of how the situation can be monitored further. What lessons does the average viewer take home? Did they have to think hard over what they had seen? Did it affect their life – at least in the short run? What about the lives and behaviors of those who were watching the film next to them?

The questions are many, the answers are few.

It is becoming less and less appropriate to limit the evaluation of the effectiveness of contemporary domestic cinematography to economic and investment terms alone, or to argue that supporting filmmaking is a basic and traditional responsibility of the state. The expert community is increasingly talking about the overdue need to introduce a system of substantive, qualitative assessments of films shot in the country, to study the social effects, the strength of the potential and actual social impact – which is often more revealing than the amount of box office receipts or the number of viewers who saw the picture. Moreover, the talk today is not so much about the immediate social effects (for example, significant changes in the life of a particular target audience), but about the impact in general – that is, the global social impact on the society in terms of changes in the public perceptions, attitudes, and behavior.

With the growing awareness of the importance of impact assessment in the film industry, the examples of positioning with a focus on social impact are becoming increasingly common – the Lampa Impact Film Festival, special nominations at professional festivals, competitions and awards, such as Media Brand and Advertising of the Future, and numerous studies and articles devoted to this issue. For example, the 2022 Social Effects of Cinema study[17] conducted by The Center for Social Projects “Platforma” together with the National Media Group (NMG). So far, unfortunately, the study only captures a snapshot of the situation, but does not tell what exactly needs to be done to implement the assessment; however, the authors have already announced its planned expansion, continuing to research the social impact of cinematography and updating the assessment methodology of social effects. According to the information available to us, the updated study will be presented to the expert community at the next St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June and at Russian Creative Week in Moscow in July.

The relevance of “measuring” the viewers’ perception of the information being broadcast is also discussed by opinion leaders. For example, Artem Metelev, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Youth Policy and Chairman of the Association of Volunteer Centers, suggested that the Internet Development Institute (IDI) include qualitative attributes, namely social impact assessment, in the project evaluation criteria. “After all, the most important thing in films or TV series, especially those funded by the state, is the impact on a person’s worldview, beliefs and further life. <…> The main thing should be the meanings,” Artem Metelev writes in his Telegram channel. As a result of this initiative, a new indicator, “Social Effect of Project Implementation,” with a weight of 15 %, was added to the IDI tender evaluation system in 2023.

Moreover, the concern about expanding the film production evaluation system has been raised at the highest level. In 2021, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, following a meeting of the Government Council for the Development of National Cinematography, instructed the Ministry of Culture, together with the Cinema Fund and the professional community to finalize the National Cinematography Development Concept until 2030, including the need to establish indicators of its effectiveness[18].

“The government, of course, will be ready to provide financial, administrative and legal support. But as soon as the state subsidy has been received, the producer works in a market environment. <…> And the result should be not in how much money was used, but in the box office and an assessment of the impact the film had on the society. <…> Let’s have a rating for this, let’s see. Because I’m sure there are movies that won’t bring any dividends or revenue, but can have such a great impact on people that we will all heartily support it. And the state will support it,” Mishustin said.