Commission opts for best path. The path chosen by the European Commission regarding public funding for cinema is a positive message from Europe to all lovers of European culture (see bulletin of 17 March, p. 11). Everyone agreed that film production should receive national funding, cinema being an integral part of the cultural identities of our country, and indeed Europe as a whole. However, during the preparatory phase, some Commission services called into question aspects of national systems that impose territorial rules, which, in practice, mean that funding is only granted if largely destined for national companies or for spending within the country itself. Are such rules compatible with borderless European free trade principles?
Respecting national schools. According to the Internal Market Directorate General (under the responsibility of Commissioner Fritz Bolkestein), "territorial" rules should be abolished or altered as they contribute to the "fragmentation of European markets". I recall that at least twenty years ago, a similar problem arose regarding co-productions: to gain public support, co-productions had to mix writers and actors from different countries. These combinations sometimes produced good results, but how ridiculous to make this an obligation, and what a misunderstanding of the meaning of the national nature of films! The great achievements in European cinema have always been related to the specific nature of national schools. Let us leave to one side German cinema, destroyed at its origin by Nazi madness that forced into exile Eric von Stroheim, Ernst Lubitsch, Georg Pabst, Fritz Lang etc. In Denmark (Dreyer), France (René Clair, Renoir and many others) and elsewhere, immediately recognisable schools were established: in Italy, neo-realism and 'Italian comedy', the Swedish school with Ingmar Bergman, the English school, and then the Almodovar phenomenon in Spain. It was common to find actors of several different nationalities, even for Fellini, but this was the writers choice, and not an obligation. As a general rule, European cinema has sourced its cultural and artistic meaning from the strong character of its national schools.
Creative technical input. The co-production issue had been resolved logically by doing away with any reference to the nationality of the artists. But this precedent has been partly forgotten when drawing up the new funding regime, and the working document drawn up by the Commission services after long consultations, submitted last December to national and professional cinema organisations, called strongly into question the territorial character of national funding. Three solutions were proposed, the most radical was to make the authorisation of funding dependent on abolishing any territorial measures; the second aimed to limit territorial measures for artistic and cultural spending; the third established a link between the amount of the funding and the percentage having to be spent in the country granting it. For certain member states, this limiting measure posed no problem as they did not apply territorial criteria. In others, France in particular, were strongly critical, highlighting the value creative input of technical industries (special effects, editing etc) and the need to respect the link between the different elements in the production process of a film. Relocation is always possible, if considered necessary, but must not be imposed by administrative measures. Co-productions often facilitate films that combine different national schools; the works of Almodovar, Nanni Moretti, Ettore Scola, Lars von Trier, Manoel de Oliveira are co-productions, as the directors of the country of origin are not always in a position to finance them. However, the specific character of national schools is rigorously respected, as there are no obligations regarding shooting the film nor the nationality of the artists.
At the end of the day, common sense has prevailed. In the adopted text , proposed by Viviane Reding in agreement with Mario Monti, the sentence in which the territorial nature of funding fragments the European market, has disappeared, and the current system is extended as is until 30 June 2007. The coming three years will provide valuable time for a study into the territorial question. If the next Commissioner for Culture has the same vigour and enthusiasm as Viviane Reding for promoting European culture, and if the next Competition Commissioner has an understanding as Mario Monti of the European company model, the outcome will be no cause for concern. All the other aspects of the text have been warmly welcomed, in particular measures for safeguarding the heritage of European cinematography.
(F.R.)