The Projector's closure: why government aid is not the answer

Business Times

13 hours ago

[SINGAPORE] The Projector's abrupt closure has shaken the arts scene, even prompting calls for a government bail-out. Yet such support would arguably dilute the cinema's raison d'etre – and may not be justified, given market trends.
The indie cinema, a mainstay of the local arts scene for over a decade, announced on Tuesday (Aug 19) that it would wind up due to rising operational costs and falling attendance.
The decision came just weeks after it had said it would 'return to (its) roots' at Golden Mile Tower, following the closure of its Cineleisure branch.
A petition has been started to urge the government to 'rescue' the cinema. Its core argument is that The Projector is a cultural infrastructure asset worth saving.
Indeed, few spaces in Singapore provide a platform for both local and global indie films, or offer a safe venue for eclectic events ranging from spoken word poetry to human rights panels.
The Projector's Golden Mile Tower space has become a hive for creative subcultures and marginalised voices. Its closure leaves a void in Singapore's cultural fabric.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The instinct to save The Projector is thus understandable. But it is arguably still a business rather than an arts institution, and should have to live or die by market forces.
A decade of cultural significance
Founded in 2014, The Projector took over part of the disused Golden Theatre in Golden Mile Tower and transformed it into a retro-style independent cinema.
From its inception, it stood out by screening arthouse films that mainstream multiplexes avoided. Its premises also doubled as an arts venue, hosting book launches, talks, and activist events.
Yet, despite weathering the Covid-19 pandemic and the potential en bloc sale of Golden Mile Tower, the cinema has been unable to escape the logic of the market.
The Projector owes creditors S$1.2 million , including nearly S$90,000 to about 2,300 of its members.
In a statement on social media, The Projector said that the realities of the cinema industry have been 'increasingly unforgiving'.
'Rising operational costs, shifting audience habits and the global decline in cinema attendance have made sustaining an independent model in Singapore especially challenging.'
The Projector's struggles reflect broader industry challenges.
Across the world, cinema attendance is declining as audiences turn to cheaper and more accessible streaming services.
Closer to home, even established mainstream chains have been affected. Cathay Cineplexes, which owes landlords more than S$3 million, is exploring the idea of winding up.
Double-edged sword
The petition's core argument is that The Projector deserves state backing as a cultural institution, similar to arts organisations that already receive funding as they serve the public good.
Yet government support almost always comes with strings attached.
For The Projector, which has built its identity on independent and sometimes unconventional programming, such backing would be a double-edged sword.
Regulatory approvals are already required for screenings and events. But under government patronage, additional key performance indicators, compliance requirements and expectations of programming balance could easily follow.
The risk is that The Projector's independence and flexibility as a cultural space would be compromised, undermining what made it unique in the first place.
Not worth funding
But there is a more fundamental objection: That, as a cinema business, The Projector should indeed be subject to market forces.
Government support for the arts is essential because many art forms would not be viable based on market demand alone.
In theatre, that support rightly extends to venues, since the performance and the space are inseparable.
In contrast, the artform served by cinemas is film itself. This justifies government support for film-making – which is indeed available.
However, cinema halls are not an inherent part of film as an art form in the way that theatres are for plays.
And even though film buffs will swear by the cinema experience, audiences themselves are increasingly turning to streaming.
In addition, The Projector itself is run as a for-profit venture. This puts it in contrast to the Asian Film Archive, for instance, which also holds screenings of non-mainstream films. Founded as a non-profit in 2005, it has since become a subsidiary of the National Library Board.
A different kind of rescue
Government funding would not address the underlying problem: the declining viability of cinema as a business.
To its credit, The Projector found inventive ways such as post-screening discussions and an in-house bar to keep the crowds coming.
But innovation can only do so much in the face of a structural decline.
Subsidies and bailouts can buy time, but they cannot reverse these market realities.
If The Projector is to be sustained, it should be through ground-up efforts.
That might mean support not from the government, but from philanthropists, foundations, or arts patrons who recognise the worth of keeping such a space alive.
It might also mean the community putting its money where its heart is – through memberships, donations, or simply showing up more often to buy tickets and drinks.
The Projector does not need a bailout. It needs our business.