Reports Previous Workshops
First Workshop Report – 25 to 27 April, 2012 – Sigtuna (Sweden)
Module 2 - Partnership with Industry
Relations, Development and Expectations
More and more, the viability of the audiovisual sector depends on public money, increasing the responsibility of the film funds.
Or, in other words:
- What kind of relations do funds have with the industry? To what extent can public funds answer the needs and the wishes of the industry?
- How should public funds position themselves? As facilitators? And/or as leading organizations, i.e. policy makers? Or as both?
- How can funds collaborate with the industry effectively, support it in its development?
- To what extent can the film industry become involved in the policies and management of the funds?
- The film industry is often represented on bodies (boards, selection committees…) of all the funds, taking a direct part in funding policies. Where do funds draw the line? At what point do they distinguish between involvement and interference?
- What can be expected of the producer in this context? More responsibility? More entrepreneurship? How does this fit in with a protected and regulated environment?
Nota bene: the following elements reflect the various opinions and practices of the participants and must therefore not be understood as final conclusions.
1. Relations with the Industry
Dialogue and involvement
- There are different ways of talking to the industry and keeping up a dialogue with the professionals. It remains an ongoing communication, and changes of rules are made together.
- Not only producers are at issue. Funds have to be open to other professionals too. It is important to encourage all professionals. Problems always exist, but everybody should be treated at the same level, given the same consideration, whether a small or a major producer.
- Events, services and activities are set up on the funds' initiative, but feedback from professionals can be culled at the end of the year, with an eye to revising / changing / improving the plans for the next year.
- Funds can organize regular consultative meetings with the professional associations to discuss all issues. Smaller working groups can explore some issues in more detail.
- Discussions regarding the representativeness of the boards speaking for the different categories of professionals within the funds, the constitution of selection committee involving professionals in equal proportion, the choice of experts for documentaries, features, distribution, festivals are… endless, but also represent a real dialogue.
- One option to be developed: panels of experts to evaluate the market prospects.
Positioning
- Funds are an interface between the government and the professionals.
- Given that the budget of many funds comes from both the State (60%) and private investors (mostly TV for around 40%), and that the director of the fund is a civil servant, funds should take a neutral position.
- A fund should have ambitions in order to deserve the professionals' trust: it should be transparent, have good rules (and stick to them!), and know what it is doing.
Transparency
- Transparency is a big issue. Due to the fact that public money is involved, any decision - in particular why support has been refused to a project - should be explained.
- All information can be published online: applications, budgets, decisions with explanations, and all signed contracts. Even board meetings can be open to the public.
- Is transparency contradictory with confidentiality? The public might be shocked at how public money is being invested, and it could damage chances for films at the development stage to raise money from other funders.
- The whole industry could benefit from being more transparent, including about the failures.
- Too much public transparency (including failures for example) can change the decisions made on films by the film commissionners. The latter might opt for safer choices.
- Funds believe in transparency. Yet they cannot say the entire truth, since it is not a purely mathematical matter and could be counter-productive.
2. How Can Funds Develop the Industry?
- How far a fund goes depends partly on the size of the country. Funds play a different role in Germany and/or France than in smaller countries.
- Being the customers, producers have to please the funds Funds and producers serve each other - a tricky state of affairs. Including the audience in one way or another could help break this vicious circle.
- Often due to small markets, the industry depends heavily on public money. They then make films for the funds, and the funds let them do so. They should, however, help the producers to become stronger, more independent. Not only with respect to each "isolated" project, but as a general approach by filmmakers and producers.
- In larger countries, there are some strong companies, quite independent. These develop activities for TV, thus improving their financial capacity.
- If producers work more with private partners, they are no longer creative but executive producers…
- One option is to concentrate on the more ambitious companies: quality and box office are concentrated on 8 to 10 companies doing the most films a year. Such companies can also identify and work with new talents, because they have stronger muscles.
- To concentrate investment on 10 to15 aging producers is dangerous; funds need new blood, people who think differently.
- Funds should not work only with experienced producers, but also support small companies and beginners (including legal coproduction issues).
- Should funds really help producers with a small office, one computer/printer and a credit card of 10.000? Will they survive? Where are they heading?
- The task is to make the producer stronger so he can negotiate better.
- Sustainability is an issue. What kind of companies should the funds support? A balance should be struck between small companies and bigger ones with a slate of projects at an international level.
- The development of companies is a key factor. Funds should encourage producers with partners, with companies involving several people.
- Funds also need to strike the right balance between the market and public money; they should stimulate the market, target the audience. What makes up an audience? It is so fragmented. There is a need for a diversity of films for different types of moviegoers. Success is not only a question of money but also, on the cultural side, that of obtaining recognition at festivals.
- Ethics is important. A fund is not a studio either: it is in a tricky position. To come through clearly, funds should take on an advisory role.
3. What Funds Expect from the Industry
- For the most part, a producer’s experience is essential to a fund's decision-making process. Sometimes, the producer can be asked to team up with another producer who is in a stronger position, with an eye to improving financing chances, gaining a better distribution strategy, etc.
- Funds need producers ready to fight for the film they consider to be the best, to link up with persons who are ambitious, knowledgeable and skilled (in connection with scripts, working with talents...on through to the film's distribution) and thus destined to become good, creative producers.
- There is a need for reliable producers who understand the relationship between funders and professionals, and who are willing to put their trust in talents.
- Passion is very important. Filmmaking is such a risky business: like a fisherman, a producer will develop several projects but will land but one fish …
Some highlights about the case studies of MODULE 2
- Module 1 — The Role of Public Film Funds
- Module 2 — Partnership with Industry
- Module 3 — Strategies
- Case Studies Modules 1, 2 & 3
- Module 4 — Continuity and Newcomers
- Module 5 — Introduction by Keynote Speaker Inga Von Staden
- Module 5 — New Formats
- List of Participants (PDF)
- MEDICI First Workshop Full Report (PDF)
Illustrations by Daniel DePierre
Schedules Previous Workshops Partners Contact