Methodology, Skills and Professional Benefits Participants Participants' Comments MEDICI Head of Training «The 12 Labours of Hercules» Report of the Reports – Workshops 1 to 4

Reports Previous Workshops

Fifth Workshop – Tuesday 29 September to Thursday 1 October 2015 in Santpoort, Netherlands

Module 1 – Co-production: Landscape

(volume, co-production treaties, cinema vs television, financial, non-official)

In other words:

• What is the proportion of films supported by the funds that are co-productions with other countries (majority and minority, financial, service deals)?
• What are the advantages and limits of the co-production treaties?
• With whom and how to decide to sign a co-production treaty?
• What are the experiences of the funds of the co-production treaties signed by their own countries?
• What are the co-production treaties for TV productions and distribution?

Also:

• How to define an “official co-production”?
• What is the difference between regional and national funds when it comes to co-productions?
• How important are co-production treaties with non-European countries?
• Should the European Convention be more open to non-European countries?
• What is the future of co-production treaties in Europe?
• Do the public film funds have any impact or do they simply adapt to whatever is coming?

The Co-production Landscape

Karin Schockweiler, Deputy Director – Luxembourg Film Fund
Emmanuel Roland, Head of Production Department – Wallonia Brussels Federation

Please also see Karin Schockweiler and Emmanuel Roland’s presentation (PDF)

1. How to define “official co-productions”

A co-production treaty is an agreement between two or more governments.

There are 3 different types of treaties:

1. Bilateral treaties – a typical example is the one between Germany and France, or France and Italy, etc.
2. Multilateral treaties – involve more than 2 countries and, usually, smaller participation percentages than the bilateral ones.

3. 3. European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production – covers most of the member countries the Council of Europe and allows multilateral co-productions or bilateral co-productions for the members that don’t have bilateral treaties.

However, there are also treaty-like agreements between film funds. Such agreements are not official inter-governmental co-production treaties, but internal agreements to co-fund specific projects.

2. The advantages and limits of co-production treaties

Advantages:

• Create a legal framework for artistic, financial and technical co-operation at a European/international level.
• Give films the nationality of all the countries involved, allowing them to have access to public funding and tax incentives in more than one country.
• Define the entire co-production environment – the available financing sources, how to approach them within a specific framework, who are the competent authorities administering or revising the treaties.
• Be a motivator or multiplier of co-productions.
• Enable smaller countries to co-produce with bigger ones and therefore allowing them to be involved in higher-budget projects.
• Help the funds to be more successful in negotiating their budgets with politicians by showing that treaties with different countries create expectation of a higher volume of projects every year.
• Ensure a fair share of the rights and revenues among co-producers.

Limits

• The number of co-productions made under treaties does not correlate with the number of co-productions a country makes in reality. The ratio is still unknown.
• The treaties are useful if they open the door to funding. But if funding is “accessible” without using them (like regional funds, Nordic funds, etc.), what purpose do they serve?
• Signing a treaty does not mean co-productions will necessarily follow. Sometimes it is just a symbol, a ticked box, bringing nothing to the industry.

• Can the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production completely supersede co-production treaties? There is no treaty between Belgium and Luxembourg, for example, but in the period between 2004 and 2014, 110 audiovisual projects were co-produced between the two countries under the Convention.
• Bilateral treaties imply a lot of administrative work and bureaucracy. They imply obligatory cooperation on a technical and artistic level, which can be an unnecessary burden for the co-producers and have a negative impact on the creative aspects of a project.
• Negotiation processes between governments and/or co-producers can be overlong.
• Treaties do not include development. This trend is currently emerging.

3. Different administrative cultures

The French Model

• France has signed more than 55 bilateral co-production treaties, the highest number in Europe.
• Structured and formal. Official certificates are mandatory requirements for every action (production, distribution, selling a film to French televisions, etc.).
• Bilateral treaties supersede the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production.
• The treaties are under continuous revision in order to lower the mandatory participation and make its treaties more competitive with the European Convention.

The British Model

• Marked by a rather laissez-faire, market-driven approach.

• The moment it signed the European Convention, it phased out all its bilateral co-production treaties with EU countries except with France (see above).
• The UK has been signing a lot of treaties with non-EU countries (China, India, Israel, Morocco, etc) to access new markets.
• Nonetheless, UK minority co-productions are almost impossible.

The Nordic Model

• Marked by a lot of flexibility when it comes to treaties and doesn’t require official certification.
• Transparent and informal approach. Nordic countries are sceptical about the traditional notion of treaties because Nordic producers do not really need them to co-produce between each other.
• Certificates are provided only in order to meet the requirements of Eurimages or some national funds across Europe.

Ireland

• Uses Nordic Model approach. Official co-production treaties are not mandatory when you wish to apply to the Irish Film Board or access automatic funding.

Outcome of group discussions

The experience of using co-production treaties in different countries

The Netherlands Film Fund

• The treaties help The Netherlands to be involved in big-budget films.
• Bilateral treaties should have more flexibility. Sometimes, The Netherlands cannot provide the minimum 20% requirement even though the project in question may include all kinds of collaboration (creative, technical, etc.).
• The Netherlands Film Fund intends to start negotiating treaties with countries outside Europe such as South Africa, due to these countries’ historical connections and the shooting locations available in South Africa.

Croatian Audiovisual Center

• They encounter problems with bureaucratic procedures when it comes to the co-production treaties. The minimum 20% requirement cannot always be met, for example with the Italian one signed in 2009 (min 20% – max 80%). They had to use the co-production treaty signed with Yugoslavia in 1974 because it allowed derogations in certain cases.
• Another challenge is that the signing procedure can take a long time. For example, it took two years for them to sign the treaty with France.
• After the war, countries in the ex-Yugoslav region started to co-produce with each other thanks only to the European Convention and Eurimages. It’s possible that it wouldn’t have happened without this official co-production framework.

Austrian Film Institute

• Austria, Switzerland and Germany signed a tri-lateral co-production treaty 5 years ago allowing more flexibility than classical bilateral treaties. The percentage can be 80% -10% -10%.

nordmedia

• Like the other regional funds in Germany, co-producing under treaties is not an obligation. They simply co-finance projects that have a co-producer from the region attached.
• With some regional funds in Germany having bigger budgets than the federal film fund, unofficial co-productions could exceed the number of official ones.
• The question is: are those co-productions included in the federal statistics on the volume of co-production?

Norwegian Film Institute

• Even though NFI is a national film fund, they do not require a co-production to be made under a treaty. They only require that there be a local producer attached to the project and that he/she can apply for the funding.

Swedish Film Institute

• Sometimes treaties are signed for pragmatic reasons because it implies getting money back through reciprocity.
• The impact of official co-productions depends on the co-producing countries:
  • With France or Germany, it gives projects higher chances of being selected for some major festivals such as Cannes or the Berlinale
  • With Canada, despite the treaty, co-productions are difficult because they always have a different strategy to Sweden.
• Bilateral co-production treaties with many countries are useless if you do not co-produce with them all or if there is no other (possibly political) reason to have them. They lead to complicated procedures and time wasting.

Ontario Media Development Corporation

• Regional funds clearly follow domestic policies. To access Telefilm Canada, regional funds, CA broadcasters, and some of the tax credits, projects must be recognised as official co-productions. Everything is strictly regulated.
• Canada has over 50 co-production treaties and 25% of the production volume is made up of co-productions.
• Some of the treaties are used on a daily basis, but many of them are not really active. Therefore, there is a debate if a multilateral treaty with Europe could supersede all bilateral treaties with individual EU countries.
• The co-production volume is much higher when it comes to TV production.
• There are also many non-treaty co-productions, especially with the US.

Uruguayan Film Center

• Uruguayan producers naturally coproduce under the Ibero-American co-production treaty.
• There are also bilateral co-production treaties:
  • Some of them are the result of long-term collaborations between producers and are therefore flexible and adapted to the co-production reality, like the one currently being negotiated with Brazil.
  • Some of them are “empty boxes”, symbolic political gestures.
  • Latin America should have a tool to co-produce with Europe, but the framework they have now does not work. It still needs shaping.

The impact of the public film funds on co-production policies

Austrian Film Institute

• Believes that funds should establish a stronger collaboration with the film industry so that co-production treaties do not remain an empty gesture.
• They intend to engage more in launching co-production markets because Austria lacks them and they are essential for testing co-production possibilities.

Ontario Media Development Corporation

• For Canadian funds, natural co-productions are still a priority.
• In order to reach that objective:
  • During this year’s Toronto film Festival, OMDC hosted a co-production market called International Financing Forum where they discussed organic/natural co-productions as opposed to forced co-productions.
  • Accordingly, OMDC established a so-called “export fund” to keep producers more connected to the international market and encourage producers to participate in co-production markets around the world

Wallonia Brussels Federation

• As a film fund, its role is to look for a diversity of potential new partners, with or without success:
  • Latin American countries (Brazil, Mexico and Chile): contacts are under way.
  • India: contact stopped because their market is totally market-driven and because there is no regulation when it comes to co-productions.

Eurimages

• Today, it is extremely difficult for producers to put together an international project given the variety of (sometimes conflicting) funding and financing requirements, shooting locations, budget models and national laws.
• Therefore:
  • Funds should lobby to simplify the co-production rules,
  • The European Convention should become a general umbrella. Everything below should be regulated only through dialogue and collaboration between film funds and film professionals.

Irish Film Board

• Ireland has a liberal incentive system that stimulates official international productions, along with inward investment and other unofficial co-productions.
• The Fund intends to encourage collaboration with non-European partners as well.

Croatian Audiovisual Center

• The “official co-production” rule is still the only common rule across Europe that stimulates rather than slows down international collaboration.
• To be more flexible would require the entire system to be changed.

Case Study – Film productions made in Luxembourg

Karin Schockweiler, Deputy Director – Luxembourg Film Fund

Please also see Karin Schockweiler’s presentation (PDF):
The Luxembourg Context / General Facts
Why Audiovisual production in Luxembourg / Historical Context
Film Fund Luxembourg / Presentation / Mission…

Financial Support Scheme

Since the end of 2014, there is only a selective, cultural scheme called AFS (Aide Financière Selective), which is based on discretionary, repayable loans. It now makes it easier for the producers, because with the previous tax-rebate system the funding would only come in at the end of production.

Facts & Figures

• Budget for 2015: 28 million Euros
• Maximum amount to a co-production = 30% of the total budget or 1.7 million Euros.
• 5 deadlines a year.
• One selection committee consisting of 5 members.
• Selection criteria are cultural, social and economic.
• The fund’s support is allocated following a points grid, based on shooting days, post-production in Luxembourg, Luxembourgish key technicians, composer, director, scriptwriter, actors, etc.

Note: In Luxembourg, there is no distribution, no TV channel that can invest into films, there is only the national fund.

Economic Effects

• ~ 40 production companies (fiction/animation) – 20 active on an international level.
• 4 animation studios.
• 2 Film studios (Filmland Kehlen – 3000m2 and Studios Contern 1700m2).
• ~ 15 companies specialised in post-production, sound, SFX/VFX
• ~ 15 suppliers working for the film industry (location scouting, make-up, material, costumes etc.).

Social Effects

• Around 700 industry professionals (full time, part time, freelance etc.) earn their living from audiovisual production.
• ~ 500 technicians (200 in animation).
• ~ 40 directors.
• ~ 45 actors.
• Shooting days in Luxembourg: in 2012: 528 days.
• Professional associations: ULPA, LARS, ALTA, actors.lu, FLAC.

Training in Luxembourg

• Animation “BTS Animation” – a high school training course for animators – since 1990.
• Fiction “BTS Audiovisual” – a high school course for fiction production – since September 2014.
• Production: EAVE – a professional training, project development and networking organisation for audiovisual producers, supported by Film Fund Luxembourg and Creative Europe-MEDIA Training

Co-development scheme strengthens country’s position in co-productions.

Considering the volume of both official co-productions and co-productions in general (see PDF presentation), minority co-productions absolutely dominate in Luxembourg. However, in the future, it does not want to be an exclusively minority co-production country. That is why they introduced the co-development support scheme with a lot of money invested in development, in order to make production companies stronger and turn them into majority co-producers or stronger minority co-producers. Under this scheme, Luxemburg’s producers can co-develop projects with any other country even if the director is not Luxemburgish.

Co-production Treaties in Luxembourg

Luxembourg signed co-production treaties with:

• Canada in 1996, but it is currently under revision and a new one will be signed in 2016 to include all audiovisual works with a minimum share of 15%, and 10% for multilateral.
• France in 2001. New treaty with minimum participation of 10%. 98 projects between 2002 and 2014.
• Germany in 2002, includes all audiovisual works (minimum share of 20% for bilateral and 10% for multilateral projects). 24 projects from 2003 to 2014.
• Austria in 2006, audiovisual works with a minimum share of 20% for bilateral and 10% for multilateral. 13 projects from 2003 to 2014.
• Switzerland in 2011, cinematographic works with a minimum share of 20% for bilateral, not specified for multilateral and 10% for financial co-productions. 6 films from 2009 to 2011.
• Ireland signed in 2011, audiovisual works with minimum share of 20% for bilateral. 20 projects between 2004 and 2014.

International Coproductions, Development, Gender and quotas

• Module 1 – Co-production: Landscape (volume, co-production treaties, cinema vs television, financial, non-official)
• Module 2 – Co-productions: Financing issues: for the producers, for the funds (specific programmes, decision timeline, recoupment, financial coproduction)
• Module 3 – Co-productions: Legal and Financial Issues
• Module 4 – Distribution: co-production opens access to other countries, does the audience follow?
• Module 5 – Gender / Quotas Issue – Update on Funds’ Strategies
• Module 6 – What to foresee in the next ten years based on what’s going on now?
• Module 7 – Development – An underestimated stage in the production process?

• List of Participants (PDF)
• MEDICI Fifth Workshop Full Report (PDF)

Illustrations by Gijs van der Lelij

Schedules Previous Workshops Partners Contact