At Berlinale’s European Film Market, during the inaugural Animation Days, the panel examined the structural challenges facing independent animation. While previous EFM conversations focused on evolving business models, this discussion turned to a deeper imbalance. Despite record-breaking anime imports, European Oscar contenders and enduring studio brands, independent animation remains marginalised within funding systems, festival hierarchies and distribution frameworks.

Moderated by Scott Roxborough, European bureau chief of The Hollywood Reporter, the session brought together Yohann Comte, co-founder and CEO of Charades, who handled sales for Flow [+lire aussi :
critique
bande-annonce
interview : Gints Zilbalodis
interview : Tapis rouge @ European Fil…
fiche film]; Sean Clarke, managing director of Aardman, the studio behind Wallace & Gromit and Shaun the Sheep [+lire aussi :
bande-annonce
making of
fiche film]; Luce Grosjean, CEO of Miyu Distribution; and producer Alba Sotorra, currently financing the hand-painted feature Goya, Cave of Dreams.

Roxborough opened by questioning what he described as a persistent “prestige gap.” Animation, he argued, remains one of the most commercially successful genres worldwide, yet it is routinely relegated when subsidies are structured or festival competitions are assembled.

Comte resisted the narrative of a universal boom. While IP-based anime has expanded significantly, he stressed that original animated features remain extremely difficult to finance and sell. “It has always been hard,” he suggested, noting that scarcity often functions as a form of natural selection. Although theatrical distributors have recently shown greater openness to adult animation, the underlying economics have not fundamentally shifted.

From a production standpoint, Sotorra pointed to the structural mismatch between animation workflows and public funding mechanisms. Most European subsidy systems remain script-driven, whereas animation often develops visually, through storyboards and animatics. This disconnect complicates early-stage applications and elongates development cycles. In Spain, although a 5% quota of public funding is reserved for animation, financing films beyond the €7 million mark remains challenging, pushing producers towards alternative partners such as museums and foundations.

Clarke expanded on the financing pressures. Even for an established studio like Aardman, raising money for original IP has become increasingly difficult. Hollywood’s pivot towards sequels and recognisable brands may create space for European ideas, he argued, but unlocking private capital requires significant education. Investors accustomed to tech or manufacturing models often struggle to assess creative risk, and development timelines in animation rarely align with conventional investment expectations.

Distribution presents a parallel bottleneck. Comte observed that consolidation has reduced the number of independent distributors willing to take risks on non-IP-driven animation. Specialist anime distributors, once a potential bridge toward broader adult animation, have largely been absorbed by larger groups, narrowing the field further. The result, he suggested, is not necessarily a lack of audience interest, but a lack of intermediaries prepared to position and market these films adequately.

Grosjean approached the issue from a visibility angle. Animation filmmakers, she argued, are rarely framed as auteurs in the same way as live-action directors. The diversity of techniques, from stop motion to hand-drawn and mixed-media hybrids, may enrich the form artistically but can complicate market positioning. Greater critical literacy around animation, including among journalists, programmers and funding bodies, could gradually shift perceptions and normalise its presence in mainstream sections rather than in isolated strands.

The discussion then turned to marketing and audience-building. While online platforms offer exposure, their revenue potential remains limited. For Miyu Distribution, festival screenings and limited theatrical runs often generate more meaningful returns than millions of online views. YouTube, the speakers suggested, functions more as a visibility window than as a primary revenue driver, particularly for shorts and formally adventurous features.

Clarke outlined alternative models being tested at Aardman, including brand partnerships, service work that cross-subsidises original projects, and deeper engagement with fan communities. Direct audience participation, whether through early access models or hybrid crowdfunding approaches, may not replace traditional finance but can reduce exposure and build loyalty. Crowdfunding itself, Sotorra noted, operates more effectively as a marketing instrument than as a core financing pillar for high-budget animated features.

Artificial intelligence surfaced briefly but inevitably. Sotorra noted that fully handcrafted projects are currently benefiting from a renewed sense of authenticity. Clarke described AI primarily as an operational tool at this stage, emphasising the need to defend IP while exploring efficiencies in finance and marketing. Creatively, the consensus suggested caution rather than outright rejection, with several speakers indicating that the technology’s long-term impact remains difficult to measure.

As the session closed, Roxborough asked each speaker to name one structural change that could improve the ecosystem. The answers converged on financing reform. From enabling stronger public-private partnerships to increasing broadcaster obligations and strengthening film education, the panel’s proposals underscored a common diagnosis: indie animation’s artistic and commercial credibility is no longer in question.