This is a short overview of the audiovisual policy of the European Union. To learn more about the audiovisual policy of the EU you can read this article on my blog. First of all, I would like to mention that this article is fundamentally based on three books which are:
- European film by Anne Jäckel,
- European Cinema. Face to Face with Hollywood by Thomas Elsaesser,
- and a book about film policy of the European Union and the dominance of the United States by Sabine Jarothe.
All three authors agree that Hollywood is dominant in the film sector. After http://www.obs.coe.int in 2009 around 67% of all cinema movies derive from the US and only around 27% are European movies. Philip Schlesinger even argues that today European Cinema is in a crisis with an increasing domination of Hollywood. But what are the main differences between European Cinema and Hollywood?
Elsaesser worked out same main different characteristics:
|art-house or program cinema||multiplex cinema|
|critic as arbiter of taste and quality||advertising and marketing|
|independently produced on a one off basis||serially produced within a studio system|
|financed through government||financed by banks and studios|
|cultural capitals||box office|
|artisanal modes of production||industrial mode of production|
|place-based and context-dependent||a state of mind / understandable for everyone|
|behold to the nation state||part of the American Empire|
|protectionist measures||hegemonic position|
The difficult situation for the European film industry led to a wild discussion. In the United States films are considered as normal tradat is tradable goods, in Europe they are considered as a matter of culture and therefore should be protected. The Comission of the European Communities stated 2001 that films are “(…) an essential element for the good functioning of our democracies (…)”. Nevertheless, films are an important matter for the EU as there are still unresolved questions. Three of them are:
- Should the European Union try to harmonize the European film production or regard the different cultures within Europe?
- Is the film subsidy sufficient, especially sufficient enough to compete with US films?
- Is the distribution system for European films efficient?
In this overview on the audiovisual policy of the European Union I will focus on the so called MEDIA Programmes and Eurimages. Although this paper focuses on the MEDIA Programmes and Eurimages, it shall not be concealed that the biggest part of film subsidies are still national funds of the member states. Accordingly, there is a great variety of subsidy systems within Europe. Finney (20002: p. 214) listed different subsidy mechanisms in Europe:
|Soft, culture orientated subsidy systems||This system is culture-driven
Subsidies are rarely recouped
It is normally used in smaller countries (Nordic territories, Benelux, Portugal, Greece and Germany’s federal source of public funding)
|Regional, economic loans||It is established in the German Länder subsidy system
Film must be produced in the relevant region
Recoupment is 10%
(Rotterdam Film Funds uses this system too)
|The ‘tough’ repayable loan mechanism||Cannot considered as a subsidy loan, rather as an equity investment
Is the commercial approach
Used by British Screen Finance and European Co-Production Fund, Scotland’s regional funds and the Irish Film Board.
|automatic aid||Used in France (and Spain)
Producers get a share of the levy, earned through the gross theatrical receipts on all films. The amount depends on the receipts a film got.
Subsidy is only paid if it goes straight back into film.
|selective aid||Also in France
Grants are given on the basis of a screenplay
|Tax incentives||Ireland and France|