Mike Downey O.B.E. is an author, filmmaker, activist, and the former Chairman of the European Film Academy. As the ceremony of the 38th European Film Awards approaches (on Saturday 17 January – read about the nominations here and here), Cineuropa sat down with him to look back at his 25-year involvement with the EFA.

Cineuropa: After 25 years as Chair of the European Film Academy, what do you see as the most significant structural change in European cinema since you took office?
Mike Downey: There is no doubt in my mind that the most significant structural change in European cinema in the last 25 years is the disruption of traditional theatrical exhibition and financing models by the rise of global streaming platforms. This seismic shift, which has accelerated rapidly over the past decade, has fundamentally altered how European films are funded, distributed, and consumed, challenging the long-standing "cultural exception" model that sustained independent European cinema. But in addition to that, the pandemic really exacerbated the challenges this massive shift brought, and it is this killer combination that we are still reeling from. Much needs to be done to get us back to pre-pandemic levels. It’s stating the obvious to note that the European film industry faced its most radical change in history with the pandemic – the industry needs to stay focused on how the damage done can be reversed and use that challenge to ensure a sustainable future for our industry. The EFA must continue to play a pivotal part in that.

Was there a moment during your tenure when you felt the Academy’s role within the European audiovisual landscape truly shifted?
It came after a series of events. Especially in the aftermath of Oleh Sentsov’s release. The EFA played a significant leadership role in the campaign for the release of Oleh, but that campaign also led to us forming (along with the IDFA and the IFFR) the International Coalition for Film Makers at Risk (ICFR).  I truly believed that our experience on the Sentsov campaign should be professionalised, and that we should defend filmmakers at risk in a meaningful way, hence the ICFR. The organisation now provides a platform for advocacy, support, and monitoring for filmmakers at risk, ensuring that the film community can respond effectively to crises such as imprisonment or censorship. When Vladimir Putin began his illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine, the ICFR was in a position to act. We extended the role of the ICFR when Russia invaded Ukraine: an Emergency Fund for Ukrainian Filmmakers (EFF) in response to the 2022 invasion was set up, which provided micro-grants for urgent requirements, such as relocation, medical aid, and legal support, donating over €500,000 to filmmakers in need. Agnieszka Holland, who was president at the time, and I really believed that it was time for the EFA to get on its activist horse and try to make a real, tangible difference to things, instead of just talking. This was a key paradigm shift when the academy could really show its activist credentials and demonstrate that it could play an activist role alongside its core initiatives to position and promote European film art throughout the world.

Looking back, were some of the Academy’s original ambitions easier or harder to achieve than expected?
Well, if you look back to the Academy’s original manifesto, the founding members’ original reason for launching the academy was in part because they felt European cinema and European culture were under threat. So, if we simply look at that initial goal, and given the way the European cinema landscape has changed over the last nigh-on four decades, the ambition remains the same: even though European cinema has grown and vastly improved its footprint, in many ways it still feels under threat. The idea of the new global order has created a society that has become unsustainable and unhealthy for humans and other living beings.  For society to truly transform on both an individual and societal scale, art and politics must address the social issues within the institutions that run our society. And that can only be done through resistance. The only thing that can hold us back from creating the world we want to live in is the belief that we can’t change it. We must believe this change is possible. And this change can come about through using art, film or literature as a form of resistance to defend European cinema from the forces that are threatening it.

How would you define the European Film Academy’s mission today, at a time when global platforms are playing an increasingly central role?
Our core mission remains very much at the heart of what we do: to support, connect, and celebrate European cinema and its professionals, promoting its diversity and attracting new audiences by sharing knowledge, facilitating debate, highlighting talent, preserving heritage, and advocating for sustainability through initiatives like the European Film Awards and various education and industry networking programmes. In essence, the Academy acts as a central hub, bridging creativity and industry, promoting cultural values, and ensuring the vibrancy of European film for the future. Of course, the role the streamers play is important. Streamers significantly impact the European Film Awards by shifting production models away from traditional co-pros, and although in a way there’s increased funding for European content, they demand all rights and create tension over data transparency, quotas, and defining "European" productions, all while changing how films are seen and celebrated. Streamers provide opportunities for wider audiences and more productions, but they challenge the traditional European model, and this is why we need fairer rules for European producers (including ownership of IP), data access, and stronger European content quotas to maintain cultural independence, as we’re seeing in ongoing cultural and industry debates.

Do you believe the Academy has succeeded in placing filmmakers from smaller production countries on an equal footing?
One of my key goals when taking over the chairmanship, and one I shared with Agnieszka Holland when I was her deputy, was that there needed to be broader representation of the smaller nations in all areas of decision-making. This is why in 2023, board representatives started to be chosen from 15 regions in Europe. The defined regions, each comprising different countries, reflect the realities of modern Europe and provide a fairer, more equal distribution of voices from across Europe on the board. For sure, these changes are making for a more diverse and more democratically representative board to serve the European Film Academy, and we also made a number of structural changes to the way the Academy is run, in order to bring it up to date with contemporary best practices. This is just one of the changes introduced to help us better serve our membership and provide a voice for some of those territories which have occasionally been marginalised or sidelined; not through any ill will but simply by virtue of their geo-political location. In making these changes, we have now rectified the situation and recalibrated, and the Academy will emerge stronger, more inclusive, and fit for purpose in the years to come. But let’s not confuse representation with excellence.  In our selections, films from all territories are treated equally, with an eye to the quality and excellence of the films in question. Quality must never be compromised.  I think we’ve done a good job on that front, and European cinema itself has done a good job too.

How has the Academy’s relationship with European institutions, funders, and industry bodies evolved during your chairmanship?
The last six years have seen one major shift in funding, and that was the stepping back of the German National Lottery. It was an orderly, long-planned withdrawal and definitely one of the advantages of being a largely German-supported and funded organisation: these changes are made with a certain level of fiduciary duty and financial responsibility. The European Film Academy is mainly financed by the Governing Mayor of Berlin, with additional financial support from the German State Minister of Culture and the Media, as well as from Creative Europe - MEDIA, the Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg, and partners and sponsors associated with the Academy’s activities throughout Europe. We’ve found that more and more countries and national institutions are keen to support and be associated with the Academy and the awards, and the same is true with private and in-kind sponsorship. As the awards’ star has risen, so has the concomitant financial interest from public and private funders. The pandemic was tough, but we managed to survive that as well. I’m happy to step down from the board with the Academy’s finances in good shape. The numbers are positive, budgets are flexible, its business affairs aren’t only fit for purpose, they have some in-built fail safes.

Is the role of a chairman about culture and politics equally?
It is, of course, about both. The role of the Chairman of the Board is fundamentally about shaping the culture of European cinema and engaging in the politics of the European film industry. In my time and in Agnieszka and my shared time, the Academy has shifted from being a solely artistic body to one that takes a stand on political issues, particularly regarding the safety of filmmakers and freedom of expression. I’ve always seen the role as working to make the voice and mission of European Cinema better heard by politicians, starting from the position of promoting culture as a key player in consolidating democracy. I’d even go one step further: culture has a crucial role to play in our survival. Naturally, as humans, we need food, water and shelter to survive. But understanding is equally important. To survive, we need to understand our environment, each other and ourselves. We invented culture to meet this need: we found a shorthand to take the essential values and truths a society holds and combine them into a coded narrative, sound, images and symbols that mean something to all of us.  They give us a foundation for trust. Culture turns “the other” into “us.” The shared understanding that culture generates can, in these divisive times, bind us together as one world and guide us to political and economic decisions that benefit the entire species. And this has never been more important.

How has leading a pan-European institution for such a long period influenced your own work as a producer?
First of all, being in the privileged position of watching pretty much all the key films of the European film year over the last quarter of a century has allowed me to understand just what a massive wealth and diversity of talent we have in Europe. It’s a vast treasure trove, characterised by high aesthetic diversity, strong auteur-driven storytelling, and a focus on social, political, and cultural themes. With over 2,500 feature films produced in the EU in 2024, it’s a significant, thriving cultural and economic sector that can serve as a counterpoint to the ubiquitous mainstream Hollywood fare. It’s also given me an overview that can really inform my production decisions. What’s become clear to me in the context of my own work is that, despite the high quality of our European output, our industry continues to face challenges in distribution and competition from global streaming platforms. However, the European film scene remains resilient, and if we dig our heels in and celebrate our cultural diversity and artistic independence, we can survive.

What do you see as the main challenge facing European cinema over the next decade?
While Europe’s theatrical market remains stable, the global industry is experiencing significant shifts in terms of production, distribution and the role of digital platforms. For producers and distributors, these changes mean adapting to new business models and finding opportunities in a rapidly evolving landscape. But it’s on the political side of things that I see huge red flags on the horizon. We need to be very much on the alert, because the world is changing current popular rhetoric; ideologies and narratives don’t see culture and art as a crucial part of the health of a society. And, as defenders of culture and creativity, we must stay on the front foot to be flexible and ready and as independent and self-sufficient as possible for when the AfD comes knocking at the Berlin Senate’s door, as the various right wing, populist flag-waving nationalists get closer and closer to the centre of power in so many European democracies. Threats to the European cinema culture and organisations like the European Film Academy are very much present.  The goal to become as self-sufficient as possible with as broad a base of funders as possible will provide some security for the Academy. In the current global political landscape, where the violent removal of heads of state is a frequent occurrence and the world’s superpowers feel within their rights to annex countries which they ‘feel’ might be strategic to them, it’s hard to predict anything for the next decade in the context of a disintegrating world order.

In your opinion, what are the major threats to European cinema in 2026?
We can’t emphasise enough the increasing pressure of far-right and populist movements across the continent, which are targeting artistic freedom through funding cuts, institutional takeovers, and ideological censorship. This phenomenon is described as a "quiet erosion" of freedom of expression, characterised by the promotion of nationalist narratives and the suppression of works exploring themes of diversity, LGBTQ+ rights, or critical history. The shift of the political right towards the centre has become apparent in most European countries over the past couple of years, and many ideas that were formerly part of the extreme right are now seen to be centre-right or even so-called ‘common sense.’ However, the adoption of the Culture Compass for Europe - the first EU-wide strategy for culture in nearly a decade which sets out a vision for the development of the cultural sector at the European level and outlines what the Commission plans to do to support it - gives hope that some kind of balance may yet be possible, at least in mainland Europe, for the future of European cinema.

The new EFA board needs to trust its human assets. I have faith in the extraordinary leadership of Matthijs Wouter Knol who, with Jurgen Biesinger and Rainer Pyls heading up EFA productions, are two pillars of the organisation who can be depended upon to ensure the Academy’s future. We could do worse than placing full faith in them, as well as in the entire EFA team, including Bettina, Viviane, Pascal, Sandra, Karen and the vast array of talent and commitment who all work tirelessly and relentlessly behind the scenes to maintain the highest possible standards. These are the people who make your job, as a board member, easy. They think of everything. Their commitment levels are way above and beyond what you see in the iceberg tip of our board meetings. It’s all going on beneath the surface, under the waterline, and it’s something to be nurtured and treasured.