What's happening to Europe?

[Max Jacoby]

But the percentage of good movies that has come out of these systems are about 2% to 98%. And then I am probably nice.

I don't think Hollywood has a much better percentage. In fact I would argue that since the suits took over in Hollywood the quality of the films has really gone downhill. Any given year I see 1 or maybe 2 films that I think are authentic masterpieces. And none of them are Hollywood films, but their are either European or Asian. So these must be doing something right.

 

But even if the numbers would be reversed there is something very, very, very disturbing with a Country deciding what kind of art that gets produced, and in that also directly which artist are allowed to live on there craft.

 

You see, this leads to that one side always will starve, depending on which side that governs the country at the moment left or right.

I find it funny that you guys have this Soviet style system in mind that only allows ideological conform films. Even if that were the case (which it obviously is not), that would not prevent people from making 'subversive' films. Does the name Tarkovsky ring a bell at all? Or Abbas Kiarostami, one of the greatest living filmmakers, who is making his very personal films in Iran.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that a filmmaker is never truly independent. You always need to convince someone to finance your film. Be it a Hollywood studio, a body which dispenses public money, a television station, a distributor, etc... Of course some people have their foot in the door already and have easier access to money. Sure there is a certain 'being part of the club' aspect, but that is also the case in Hollywood.

 

I am well aware that you could argue that "but you are not free in the Hollywood system either you are bound by the money."

 

That is true but the fact remains, capital doesn't care what color it has or where it came from, in that way is great "democratizer". There is always some way to access it.

Yes there is access to money, but don't be fooled by that, because in return you are giving up creative control. In the US the filmmakers (mostly director/screenwriter) are subjugated to the studio's wishes (you can count the people who have final cut on the fingers of one hand), whereas in Europe the law actually protects the author much more when it comes to final cut, which is a given in most countries as far as I know. No one can take you film away from you, quite unlike the US! I would argue that such a creative freedom is worth more than money to most people.

 

European directors are doing very well in the USA. Nolan, Harlin, Emmerich, Scott, Hallstrom, Leterrier and the list can go on and on...

 

Al of the above directors makes movies that people would call American typical Hollywood fare. I mean for Christ sake Emmerich (German) did ID4 and more American film then that, it will be very hard to find.

Exactly, they are making 'typical Hollywood fare', so they obviously didn't go there to make the subversive films that evil European state funding didn't allow them to!

 

And why are these people "forced" to states. Well I will go out on a limb here and say it's because of the state funding, of films in Europe, have made it impossible to make the kind of movies they want to make with European money.

Eh these people are 'forced' to go to the States because in Europe one does not have simply the budgets available to do the kind of films they want to make. Period. That has nothing to do with the state funding per se, in the sense that you are suggesting, i.e. that their films films would get turned down on an 'ideological' basis, but simply because there is no money.

 

( Expect maybe the case of Hallstrom his Swedish movies are very similar to his US productions.)

His films are such completely inoffensive popcorn fare, he surely would never had problems getting state funding in Europe if he had been interested in making his films there. Once again, the choice to go to Hollywood is not because of ideological freedom, but most likely the desire to make bigger films with bigger stars.

 

Look what it comes down to is that we are looking at 2 different systems here: the more commercial driven approach of Hollywood and the more cultural approach of European countries. Both systems have their advantages and drawbacks. As filmmakers we can chose where we want to work. I think it's good that we have different system, because they make films for different audiences, so almost everyone should find something they like.

[Andy_Alderslade]

- Max, I have to support Adam here he is absolutely right in every point he makes. State funding has completely destroyed Nordic cinema, period.

 

I find it difficult to believe that state funding has destroyed a whole country's film industry.

 

To be honest if your country has state funded films, it probably wouldn't have any films made there at all with-out state funding! After all many similar sized countries in europe don't have any film industry, just limited commercial and television production.

 

You may find the choices that the funding boards are little hard to swallow, which i'm sure people do everywhere. However state funding has proven a great way to find new talent and re-energize stifled national film industries. France in the 1960's is the most obvious example, it really kick-started their national industry and gave birth to a new generation of talent.

 

Yes sometimes it seems to simply not work, but it works in principle and when implemented right it can work in reality.

 

 

Personally my big issue with state funding is when its used to continuously subsidize established talent, which seems to be more and more common. When state funding is used to give relatively new talent an opportunity or older talent to produce something of particular cultural and historical importance to the nation then it seem suitable.

 

But it does feel a bit fishy when some long experience director keeps getting their work subsidized (because their regarded as 'in') when they don't actually seem to connect with a big enough number of audience to justify their budgets.

[Max Jacoby]

And the reason the state funding didn't get involved is that Roy Andersson has for the last 30 years survived doing commercials (and very good ones at that) so he's the "enemy" and a corporate lackey in the eyes of the state funding body. He hasn't got the right political conviction for them, apparently. Obviously, when Songs From The Second Floor won bigtime in Cannes, they couldn't bask in the limelight quick enough.

Well state funding, in form of the Swedish Film Institute, did get involved in his follow-up film Du Levande. Having seen both films, I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that Roy Andersson has suddenly sold out on his 'political convictions' in order to get government money. So clearly there is more to getting government money than having the right political convictions: international success and recognition, as in this case, being prime reasons for sure.

[John Sprung]

But even if the numbers would be reversed there is something very, very, very disturbing with a Country deciding what kind of art that gets produced, and in that also directly which artist are allowed to live on there craft.

There are some arts, such as painting and literature, that are within the financial grasp of almost everybody.

 

There are others, such as architecture, filmmaking, and automotive body design, that require either wealth or Other People's Money. Government, business, or really rich folks are the possible sources of OPM. Take your pick.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Alex Lindblom]

Well though day for all Finns today lost against Russia 4-0 in the ice hockey world championship last nigh, it always hurts.

 

Now back to this lovely discussion.

 

Max it's obvious that we have different point of views here. But lets not spoil the dinner. I agree with you that...

 

1. Good films have come out of both systems, and will continue to do so. And yes the lowest common Hollywood nominator seems very low indeed these days.

 

The biggest damage state funding has done to the European industry is not the "ideology issue" it's just a small thing.

 

The elephant in the room and the real issue is that it destroyed the investment climate, and the fund raising mindset, all things we associate with the commercial film industry.

 

People have been so schooled ( my self included have fallen in to this trap), that the state founded way is the only way to do it.

 

This has led to that all things we associate with the business, agents, managers, investors the whole climate we call Hollywood, is virtually none existent in Europe, and that is a lot of lost job opportunities.

 

Personally i feel deeply saddened that we don't have that climate, that excitement in Europe right now. But as I said before the winds are changing, with the EU, open borders new studio buildings and so on, something is brewing in Europe it's just a matter of time.

 

Max you see I really want a European Hollywood. I don't see any conflict between commercial interest and so called art. In a commercial system there is room for both POTC and Inland empire.

 

Once upon a time in the west, one of the best "art movies ever" done on commercial grounds, and one of the biggest hits ever in France.

 

And to reply to you Andy...

 

It's not a statement grabbed from thin air. It's a fact.

Up to 1963 when SFI was grounded Sweden had booming film industry, with several distributors and production companies.

 

Fast forward 45 years and we now have a monopoly, SF (they are both production/distributor/and theater chain owner company ) the last man standing, one ring to rule them all...

[Max Jacoby]

Max you see I really want a European Hollywood. I don't see any conflict between commercial interest and so called art.

Hi Alex

 

Not sure what you exactly mean by 'European Hollywood'. If it is the hope that Europe should make the same type of 100M+ blockbusters that the US makes, I don't think that is a very realistic option. The US are a huge and pretty uniform market with the same cultural background, whereas the EU is an amalgam of countries that all have their different identity, so appealing to all of these (and making ones money back in the process) is exponentially harder. The only solution would be to make American films, but what's the point of that?

 

If on the other hand, if you mean by 'European Hollywood' that European films would get seen more, I hope for the same thing. But I don't think the quality of the films themselves are to blame for that, but rather the issue lies in the distribution, which is dominated by Hollywood films. Small European films, no matter how good they are, simply cannot compete with the Hollywood marketing machine. If Joe Public goes to the cinema on a whim and has the choice between the newest Tom Cruise film whose ads he has seen in every paper and a small European film that he's never heard of, we all know which one he'll pick.

 

Earlier this year I attended a think tank which dealt with these issues of getting European films seen more. In Europe there are some pretty weird things going on. For instance the French speaking part of Belgium doesn't watch any Flemish speaking films and vice versa! Even worse, the Flemish and the Dutch, who pretty much share the same language, don't even watch each others films! This is obviously not the fault of the films themselves, but a question of audience attitude. And if that needs to get changed if we want our films to be seen in different countries.

[Paul Bruening]

I've really been amazed by the responses of our European posters to this thread. I'm pleased to see that you are all so concerned about this matter. I sincerely hope that, somehow, solutions can be arrived at. Art has always been a critically important mirror to all societies. From fireside stories to cave paintings, man must see himself through others. Frankly, I don't think Hellywood speaks for the European mind. I don't think Hellywood is good for much of anything except distraction and social control.

 

Given that each language group limits the marketability of any movie product, is there any kind of product at a limited production level that could compete in its own language market? What I'm thinking is: If the sales are a known then can a type of product be defined within a budget level that will yield reasonable return on investment? I know the common thinking is to go with a horror movie or some other sub-B grade product, hoping that appealing to the lowest tastes will mean the lowest budget and highest ticket sales. My reaction is: Make movies with high social controversy content. The lower budgets might be forgiven and the product might market itself better if it strikes deep into that language group's psych. One of the problems with Hellywood is that it has driven up expectations of the actual theater experience by bombarding viewers with expensive eye candy. Can you get as much reaction and therefore ticket sales by grabbing the viewers by their psychological and sociological scrotum and snatching them around?

 

Or do you feel that the Euroean mind has become as dulled as the American mind and 160 million dollars worth of eye candy is all they will line up to the trough for?

[Guest Glen Alexander]

No filmmakers have given anyone real reason to go to the cinema any more, anywhere.

 

With 50"++ plasma, projectors w\121"diag, dolby 7.1, DTS, the home theater is at times better than the cinema with cheap seats, sticky goo, on the floor, someone talking, cellphones going off, crappy audio, crappy seating. Cinemas are more for a marketing benchmark on how well the DVD sales will go and the mandatory week release to qualifiy for academy awards. In the near future, everyone will have a solid wall for a screen, 2.4m x9m.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

David Lynch is going to do something, which is probably the best creative news I've read about in a long time.

 

http://www.filmneweurope.com/content/view/772/52/

 

and he's a big Rammstein fan as well. woohoo.

[Valerio Sacchetto]

No filmmakers have given anyone real reason to go to the cinema any more, anywhere.

 

With 50"++ plasma, projectors w\121"diag, dolby 7.1, DTS, the home theater is at times better than the cinema with cheap seats, sticky goo, on the floor, someone talking, cellphones going off, crappy audio, crappy seating. Cinemas are more for a marketing benchmark on how well the DVD sales will go and the mandatory week release to qualifiy for academy awards. In the near future, everyone will have a solid wall for a screen, 2.4m x9m.

 

Everytime i happen to be in the Tv section of a store i feel bad. People these days seem to like strange movement reproduction and artefacts :unsure:

 

Anyway i've heard on a talk show some minutes ago an absolutely true thing about cinema, fundings, production etc. Without commercially successful movies there can't be artsy movies becuase they're expensive as well. In italy we don't have commercially successful movies that are funded by the government...nor artsy for that matter. Probably putting more fundings in distribution might be a good solution.

[Guest]

No filmmakers have given anyone real reason to go to the cinema any more, anywhere.

 

With 50"++ plasma, projectors w\121"diag, dolby 7.1, DTS, the home theater is at times better than the cinema with cheap seats, sticky goo, on the floor, someone talking, cellphones going off, crappy audio, crappy seating. Cinemas are more for a marketing benchmark on how well the DVD sales will go and the mandatory week release to qualifiy for academy awards. In the near future, everyone will have a solid wall for a screen, 2.4m x9m.

 

I think you are right on many levels, Hollywood does use the theaters now as a loss leader to drive DVD and TV sales around the globe.

 

It's tough to get people out to see ANY movie at the theaters these days. Going to the theater means blocking out the time and showing up, watching on DVD means you do it when you feel like it.

 

In doing the marketing for the theatrical release on my movie I hear this so often, "I'll NetFlix it," or "great, I'll see it on DVD."

 

And that's from my own mother!! :blink:

 

R,

[Adam Frisch FSF]

To be honest if your country has state funded films, it probably wouldn't have any films made there at all with-out state funding! After all many similar sized countries in europe don't have any film industry, just limited commercial and television production.

 

You may find the choices that the funding boards are little hard to swallow, which i'm sure people do everywhere. However state funding has proven a great way to find new talent and re-energize stifled national film industries. France in the 1960's is the most obvious example, it really kick-started their national industry and gave birth to a new generation of talent.

 

I disagree. Just as many films would be produced yearly even without state funding, just different ones. Look at Italy's 60's and 70's horror/spaghetti western wave - very vibrant filmmaking based on completely commercial grounds. In fact, Italy's film production has plummeted since state funding came into play.

 

But state funding films always becomes a political issue in the end. I just happen to be a great believer in the self regulation of capitalism and I think the less any state commissars or envoys meddle with art (or anything), the better we - and art - are off.

 

Well state funding, in form of the Swedish Film Institute, did get involved in his follow-up film Du Levande.

 

Of course they did - now that they know that the first one was well received internationally they want in on the cake. Don't for a second think that bureaucrats don't run off self interest like everyone else in this world.

 

Being part of the club doesn't prevent him from making good films does it? Whether people like his films or not, there is no denying that he is a very daring filmmaker who really pushes the envelope of the art form.

 

I don't share your admiration for Von Trier. Think he's a hack. There's more to film making than coloring outside the lines.

 

Yes there is access to money, but don't be fooled by that, because in return you are giving up creative control. In the US the filmmakers (mostly director/screenwriter) are subjugated to the studio's wishes (you can count the people who have final cut on the fingers of one hand), whereas in Europe the law actually protects the author much more when it comes to final cut, which is a given in most countries as far as I know. No one can take you film away from you, quite unlike the US! I would argue that such a creative freedom is worth more than money to most people.

 

But that's not a good thing! Films are best when they have a lot of varied creative input - final cut rights from a hack (which, let's face it, most directors are) is a disaster. This is exactly why American films have prospered. There you have a strong producer tradition where they either option the material and adapt it, or get a screenwriter to write it for them. Then they finance it and THEN they find a director suitable. This means that there's a balance between the producer and the director. In Europe it's all backwards - director's hire producers that act as accountants for their indulged pet project that they've developed, shot and have final cut on. This is disastrous. I've always said that too much choice and no limitations stifles creativity and this is the perfect example of such a system.

 

One of my pet peeves here with directors is this obsession with being an auteur and originator at all times. Unless they've written and conceived the script, it's somehow not worth doing for them. And if you ask them if they'd ever direct someone else's script they knee-jerkingly immediately say no. It's very European - and it drives me nuts. They should learn from Spielberg and many others.

[Max Jacoby]

Of course they did - now that they know that the first one was well received internationally they want in on the cake. Don't for a second think that bureaucrats don't run off self interest like everyone else in this world.

And what does that actually mean for filmmakers? If you are successful, then your films will get financed, no matter how 'ideologically unconform' they are, which shoots down your whole argument that state funding only supports politically correct films.

 

I don't share your admiration for Von Trier. Think he's a hack. There's more to film making than coloring outside the lines.

Actually I am not a big fan of his films either, but there is no denying that he pushes the artform and has a big influence on cinema. A talent like him would never have flourished in Hollywood, he is a pure product of European cinema, which is my point.

 

But that's not a good thing! Films are best when they have a lot of varied creative input - final cut rights from a hack (which, let's face it, most directors are) is a disaster. This is exactly why American films have prospered. There you have a strong producer tradition where they either option the material and adapt it, or get a screenwriter to write it for them. Then they finance it and THEN they find a director suitable. This means that there's a balance between the producer and the director. In Europe it's all backwards - director's hire producers that act as accountants for their indulged pet project that they've developed, shot and have final cut on. This is disastrous. I've always said that too much choice and no limitations stifles creativity and this is the perfect example of such a system.

This is an oversimplification of two different systems. For one, the time of strong producers in Hollywood that you describe has been over since at least the fifties. At the moment even people in Hollywood complain that it is run by a committee of suits. You can't argue that the current output of Hollywood is anything to write home about. As for Europe it is once again not true that we only make vanity projects by hack directors. There are talented people in both systems, producers AND directors. And the quality of a film is determined by the talent of those involved, not what 'system' they are made under.

 

One of my pet peeves here with directors is this obsession with being an auteur and originator at all times. Unless they've written and conceived the script, it's somehow not worth doing for them. And if you ask them if they'd ever direct someone else's script they knee-jerkingly immediately say no. It's very European - and it drives me nuts. They should learn from Spielberg or Kubrick.

Funny that you should mention Spielberg and Kubrick, because Kubrick had a co-writing credit on all his films and Spielberg also has a strong hands in shaping his script. It's not like they showed up on set and were handed the pages.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

So for cinemas, who or what companies are the big hitters? not production but the cinema houses themselves.

 

UK?

 

France?

 

DE?