gt MEDICI Zürich 280916 INTRODUCTION gt film funding in Denmark an overview gt from automatic funding to selective funding of Danish maintsream films a story from real life gt wider implications a science fiction about European film funding ID: 620445
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "WHY AUTOMATIC FUNDING SUCKS!" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
WHY AUTOMATIC FUNDING SUCKS!
> MEDICI, Zürich, 28.09.16Slide2
INTRODUCTION
> film funding in Denmark - an overview
> from automatic funding to selective funding of Danish
maintsream
films - a story from real life
> wider implications - a science fiction about European film funding
> discussionSlide3
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
> a funding system can’t create good films
> but it can easily destroy them or prevent them from being made!
> cooperation between funders and producers, directors and scriptwriters is of key importance
> development is an important part of film funding
> selective schemes best secure cooperation and developmentSlide4
DANISH FILM INSTITUTE
>
government agency
> main funding body for films
> based on cultural criteria:
quality, variety & volume
>
funding
budget: 51 million €
>
development
,
production
and distribution
> features,
documentaries
, drama series, short films, talent films, digital games and
transmedia
projectsSlide5
FEATURE FILMS
Funding
scemes
for features:
> Commissioner Scheme: art house films with artistic qualities
> New Danish Screen: low budget films to develop new talents
> Minor co-production: cooperation with other countries
> Market Scheme: mainstream films with broad appeal and cultural valueSlide6
FUNDS
Feature films
> Commissioner Scheme – art house films 13,2
> New Danish Screen - talent developing 3,4
> Minor co-productions 1,6
> Market Scheme - mainstream films 8,6
26,8
Slide7
COMMISSIONER SCHEME
>
orginal
art house films with artistic qualities
> main criteria: to
contest
or
challenge
> 7-10 films a year
> 3 commissioners making funding decisions
>
individual decision makers
> recruited from the business: editors, writers, etc.
> employed for up to 5 yearsSlide8
NEW DANISH SCREEN
> talent developing in all genres
> main criteria: talents engaged in new ways of filmmaking
> 2 commissioners working closely together
>
individual decision makers
> recruited from the business
> usually employed 4 to 6 yearsSlide9
MINOR CO-PRODUCTIONS
> films made in
coorperaton
with foreign major producers
> criteria: creative strength, cooperation between producers, participation of Danish talents & distribution
> editorial board of film commissioners
> 5 - 9 films a year
> half of the films with the Nordic countries
>
treaties
with
Canada and New Zealand,
negotiating
with
Australia and ChinaSlide10
MAINSTREAM FILMS
> broadly appealing films to a larger audience
> cultural value, but not
necesarily
any artistic quality
> genres: comedies, drama, crime, family filmsSlide11
AUTOMATIC OR SELECTIVE?
>
untill
2011 a semi automatic scheme: the 60/40-scheme
> replaced by the Market Scheme
> from a automatic to a selective scheme for mainstream films
> how did it go?Slide12
60/40-SCHEME
> films with more than 175.000 admissions
> funding based on past merit and prediction of audience performance
> assessment done by 4 anonymous readers
> funding decided by a points systemSlide13
PAST MERIT
Slide14
AUDIENCE PERFORMANCESlide15
PROBLEMS
> low precision to predict audience performance
> too many films with a reasonably audience, but a very low quality
> low transparency and no dialogue with anonymous
decicionsmakers
> a point system based on merits can’t acknowledge new and original projects
> goal: to fulfill requirementsSlide16
MARKET SCHEME
> mainstream films within ‘popular culture’
> 7-10 films a year
> editorial board
> 2 members from the Film Institute, 3 part time members from the business
> appointed for 2 to 4 yearsSlide17
CRITERIA
> 2 main criteria: quality and performance
>
quality
: good storytelling, high production value & unique position on the market
> performance
: potential for a large audience, effective distribution & strong marketingSlide18
DECISION MAKING
> editorial board - no points!
> majority of applications are invited to a pitch
> written assessment of all projects
> emphasis on dialogue and cooperation through development, production and distribution
> from 1% to 7% of funds used on development
> flexibility!Slide19
HOW DID IT GO?
>
initialy
some concern from the producers
> higher quality of the films
> more films on festivals
> and better performance!
> goal: focus on the film and not on
fulfiling
requirementsSlide20
ADMISSIONS
60/40
Market
Number
of films 26 31
>
average
admissions 257.000 293.000
> under 50.000 12% 6%
> over 100.000 77% 90%
> over 200.000 42% 61%
> over 300.000 35% 35% Slide21
LEARNINGS
> is this an universal truth?
> is automatic funding good for producers?
> is automatic funding good for box office?
> selective funding
can
be better for producers and box office
> but it requires cooperation, challenges and a realistic approach to audience and cultural valueSlide22
DANISH FILMS
>
market
share
for Danish features: 25-30%
> Danish films
make
up 12-14% of all films in the
market
> so far in 2016 Danish films
were
in the
main
competition
at Sundance, Berlin and Cannes
> the country
with
most nominations for Best
Foreign
Language
film at the Academy Awards for last 10
yearsSlide23
EUROPEAN FUNDING
> from selective funding to automatic funding: Denmark the only country without automatic funding
> from funding schemes to incentives: 5 countries without incentives
> ’race to the bottom’
> film is politically moving from the culture to
commmerce
> the future: ’Game of Thrones’ financed by
european
tax payers!Slide24
THE END