16/06/2005

What inspires the decision-makers of the European Union when it comes to the politics of support and related issues with regard to the film industry in Europe? The specialist French online magazine "Objectif Cinéma" prepared a most interesting report on the issues relating to the audiovisual business in Europe. Maxime DUDA, who gathered the figures and quoted several sources (Observatoire européen, UNESCO, Office Mondial du Commerce, etc.) ran the rule over sometimes contradictory objectives, interests that are often opposed and the treacherous pitfalls on the road to the current situation. The figures are perhaps well-known but it is always useful to reiterate them!

If the measures taken by the European Union are designed to allow European audiovisual business to profit from the Common Market and to help to fashion them, they are always under immense pressure from internal tension between members states concerning their local market and have to take the flak on the international scene. Above all from lobbyists for American cinema, from the Office for World business, from GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and from AMI (The Multilateral Agreement on Investment), who claim that the audiovisual industry is a product like any other, and, therefore, that they should benefit from protectionist measures in the name of cultural exception is not justified. This notion of cultural exception is not shared by all the European governments. Both the Anglo-Saxon liberal economies and countries from the East have a tendency to reject this “state-control”, the latter recalling their totalitarian pasts. Notwithstanding, through negotiations with UNESCO (in November 2001), France, great champion of the cultural exception, pushed a vote through with ease, confirming the notion of the « defence of cultural diversity » as being a philosophical principal critical to the preservation of the Union and was able to safeguard its cultural exception - with all its implications of tax benefits and direct public finance for the industry – since it could no longer be seen as an optional « measure » left to the initiative of governments. Within the AMI (Business Services), a new project could create problems for the feeble wall that Europe has built to protect author’s rights and ancillary rights and the defence of intellectual property. And so there is caution in the air.

Within the EU 25 there remains a gap between the 5 « cinephile » countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK, Germany) and other countries with a weaker production capacity or who are linguistically constrained. (Greece). Hence the extreme difficulties in getting films circulated in the Common Market, even at a time when there is a slight rise in non-local films in the cinemas (over 10% in 1999 against 8% in 1996). As for broadcast on the European networks, the politics of the Television Directive quota with no borders is attempting to achieve better visibility of European films for the general public. But in certain countries, this leads to an increase in films on TV and affects the numbers in the theatre. However, lowering the threshold for quotas, as some would like, would be a catastrophe in the medium term for the healthy circulation of European cinema. One could suppose that this is simply a « necessary route » since we can see in other countries which are “rich” in networks (notably pay-TV, cables, satellites, etc.) as well as theatres, that audiences in the cinema theatres tend to rise. The explanation for this: the creation of comfortable multiplexes. The main European objectives are to narrow the ditch between these countries, “to enlarge » by training, by renovation and a harmonisation of technologies. The future technological challenge is such that there is justification for a meeting of the departments of Culture and of the Audiovisual with those of New Technologies. The study reveals however the judicious lack of political coherence at the heart of the Commission relating to cultural action based on article 151 of the Treaty (which serves as a legal base for MEDIA Programme Plus measures) and the doubts over the mechanisms for national subsidy (complementary to these measures !) by other bureaucrats on the basis of concurrence called for by other provisions of the Treaty.

Many other figures and interesting facts have been analysed which are too laborious to go into here. Nothing new no doubt but all credit to this team for gathering with clarity a complete view of the actual state of affairs. We recall simply this: the biggest producer of films, France, where the national share of the market is the highest (32%), films made in USA, lobbied for heavily in Europe, continue to win over 57% (62% in Italy, 72% in Spain, 80% in the UK , AND… 89% In Poland !).

It goes without saying that this is why Europe politics has to remain attentive and proactive. But the ball is also in the hands of the industry itself. One of the weak points of European cinema is its extreme fragmentation. with small companies (with often only one or two projects in production!). However, Europeans produce more films (around a hundred more on average). Americans allow for 20% of the film’s budget for development (against 5% in Europe) and invest a great deal in promotion. For the States, the audiovisual industry has become its biggest export, ahead of aeronautics and the chemical industry! When is it Europe’s turn?

(Translated from French)