Experts rethink public film funding at the Marché du Film
- CANNES 2025: As audience behaviours evolve, a panel presented by Film i Väst confronted the urgent need for public film agencies to adapt or risk irrelevance
The Marché du Film has hosted a vital discussion under the banner “The Audience Isn’t Waiting – Are We Ready to Change?”, presented by Film i Väst, Scandinavia’s most prominent regional film fund. Framed by the launch of a new analytical report bearing the same name, the panel gathered leading voices from public agencies and independent production to confront one of cinema’s most urgent challenges: what do audiences really want today, and how can institutions adapt fast enough to remain relevant?
The new Film i Väst report was authored by Sigrid Bersmann and Tomas Eskilsson. Framing the issue not simply as one of declining cinema numbers, but also one of structural imbalance and democratic erosion, Bersmann opened with the following statement: “This isn’t just a report about audiences; it’s about us. About how we think, fund and decide. If cinema has cultural value, how do we ensure it remains accessible, relevant and truly connected to those it’s meant for?”
The report draws on interviews with 16 professionals across Europe – taking in producers, exhibitors, funders, distributors and audience designers – and outlines the systemic gap between production-heavy funding structures and the under-supported downstream work of connecting films to viewers. With too many movies competing for limited visibility, stories risk disappearing not owing to lack of merit, but because the system doesn’t help them find their public.
British Film Institute (BFI) executive Vicki Brown acknowledged the scale of the challenge but pushed for immediate, practical action. “Films are still hugely popular – 95% of UK adults saw one in the last year – but if we don’t adapt, we’ll lose audiences and, with that, relevance,” she warned. Drawing on the BFI’s recent “Wider World of Film” report, Brown called for data-informed decisions and a much earlier integration of audience thinking into creative processes. “Projects shouldn’t be developed in isolation,” she said. “We can’t turn filmmakers into distributors, but we can bridge the gap between creative vision and market realities.”
Italian producer Carlo Cresto-Dina, the founder of Tempesta, took the conversation a step further, arguing not just for reform, but for a fundamental reimagining of the system. “Films are no longer meaningful because they descend from above,” he said. “They matter because millions of people make them their own.” He proposed shifting public investment away from individual projects and towards production companies themselves, funding them as creative ecosystems that support innovation, diversity and long-term vision. “We need to stop building plantations; we need to plant forests,” he said. “Biodiversity in storytelling only exists if we empower the independent producer.”
From Denmark, Malene Blenkov, newly appointed head of Fiction at the Danish Film Institute (DFI), reflected on her country’s approach to audience strategy. She spoke of initial resistance from filmmakers, herself included, when Denmark introduced early-stage audience design schemes five years ago. “At the time, I thought it downgraded the art,” she admitted. “But the DFI saw what was coming. Streaming was changing the game, and the audience was already on the couch.” Today, those initiatives are deeply embedded, and Blenkov is now pushing forwards with new strategic systems to evolve alongside the market. “Let’s not fear data; let’s act on them,” she urged. “Art arises from life, but we also need to understand how to preserve that life in cinemas.”
The final segment, moderated by Eskilsson, shifted into more pointed questions. Should agencies fund companies, rather than just projects? Should distribution and exhibition receive a larger slice of the funding pie? Can public funders impose conditionalities that promote diversity and sustainability in return for investment?
Brown supported stronger support for producers, especially in the UK, where public financing is limited, but warned against scaling funding without accountability. “We believe producers are the engine room, but we also need transparency,” she said. Cresto-Dina defended his position, arguing that risk is native to innovation, and that failure, if defined constructively, can still yield long-term industry benefits. Blenkov acknowledged that Danish conditions differ: “We don’t overproduce in Denmark, so our challenge is different. But I agree that we need to continually reassess how we allocate funds and to whom.” She cautioned, however, against shifting entirely to a company-based model, reaffirming that public funds should still prioritise stories over business models.
As the session concluded, Eskilsson left the audience with a final challenge. “The audience is transforming. They’re more fragmented, more fluid and harder to define. But they are still there. What we need now is not nostalgia, but political will. Not passive funding, but shared responsibility. The audience isn’t waiting, and neither should we.”
You can read the full report here.
Did you enjoy reading this article? Please subscribe to our newsletter to receive more stories like this directly in your inbox.
