Issues of co-production

4.6 Issues of co-production

Co-production assumed greater importance in the 1990s because of the EU’s view that European identity can only exist if it can be effectively transmitted. This clearly suggests a number of questions and areas of research – for example, what that identity is, the factors that might form it, and the ideological values that it might transmit. For the EU, and perhaps Europe as a whole, the key problem is to define being European in terms of

a cultural identity. (The simplest definition, for film and television, tends to be ‘not American’.) Defining and transmitting a European culture is now seen as one of the most important tasks to create a fully integrated community. As Jean Monnet stated, ‘If we were beginning the European Community all

over again, we would should begin with culture’ 1 . In fact, of course, it started with trade in iron, steel and coal.

Co-production existed in the 1920s and 1930s, but increased in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly between France, Germany and Italy. It is often criticised for producing bland films – ‘Europuddings’ as William Fisher

(amongst others) has called them 4 . However, it should be remembered that many of the films of Federico Fellini and Luis Bunuel and the later films of Ingmar Bergman were co-productions (e.g. La Dolce Vita (1960), directed by Federico Fellini, France/Italy; The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), directed by Luis Bunuel, France/Spain/Italy; and Fanny and Alexander (1982), directed by Ingmar Bergman, Sweden/France/West Germany).

The larger budgets and greater pool of talent might also produce films that could compete with American product within Europe, and even compete within the USA – although this seems somewhat fanciful, given language barriers. Anglo-European co-productions, for example The Land Girls (David Mamet, 1998), an Anglo-French co-production, overcome this barrier, but are not likely to be highly successful at the box-office within the USA. (The success of Notting Hill in the USA suggests that American/British co- productions are much more acceptable to mass American audiences.)

There are three main forms of co-production, also known as international joint ventures (IJVs):

1 Official co-productions. These are co-production treaties between named

countries, and offer the benefits of tax concessions and free or cheaper facilities.

2 Co-ventures. These have private financial arrangements and do not

benefit from tax concessions etc. There is therefore no access to government or state subsidies.

European Union media policy

3 Twinning packages. This method involves two countries collaborating to make programmes for each other, which results in a greater available market – e.g. France/Italy or France/Germany. It is unlikely that twinning will increase, because there is only a slight increase in profit unless an American company is involved in the co-production.

There are a number of benefits to IJVs, but the reduction of financial risk for producers is clearly the most important. The pooling of financial resources enables larger projects to be taken on, and may enable producers to access locations within the partner(s) country, either free or at a reduced rate. Government subsidies are available, except in the case of a co-venture. The film gains access to the partner’s market, and the production company gains experience from the partner.

There are also clear disadvantages to these co-produced films, some of which are sometimes evident in the final film. For example, there is a loss of cultural specificity, which often leads to the adoption of American narrative forms and technical style (particularly camera and editing) in order to transcend national differences. Specific cultural references to places, people and events will tend to be excised from the script, leaving little national identity within the film. More transaction and negotiation is involved in pre- production, which is often concerned with the desire of each producer to ensure the accessibility of the film to their national audience. This leads, in the worse cases, to international casts working in several languages, and an excessive use of locations to represent each producer’s country. Larger partners are able to force through decisions (for example on script or casting) based on their larger investment and market share. The process may also create more formidable competitors who, having gained knowledge of their production partner’s market and production methods, may be better equipped to compete in the future – although within Europe, language barriers might restrict this.

The European assumption would be that these disadvantages are maximised in co-production with the USA. However, IJVs tend towards American pacing, narrative development and generic models so that they are accessible to American audiences and indeed to pan-European audiences, whose common ground is likely to be American models of narrative and genre (unless the film adopts the conventions of European Art Cinema). Cultural resistance may largely depend on language difference – for example, in Canada the French language service of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) thrives because of its differentiation from American broadcasting (see Chapter 2).

Managing in the Media

American/German co-production would provide for the largest market group, but the language difference makes it very rare. Thus, co-production cannot just be addressed in financial terms, as it would be in many other industries; cultural considerations are vital to the financial success of a film or television programme.

Twinning packages are the most advantageous method in co-productions between European countries, because they provide an increase in market size without a corresponding loss of control. The producer can maintain autonomy, and, to a degree, cultural specificity is possible (although, clearly, references to regional geography and events are likely to be inaccessible to the partner’s audience). Because twinning tends to take place between partners with similar sized markets (for example, the UK and Germany, or, more commonly, France and Italy), a stable relationship can be developed between equal partners.

However, twinning packages produce a relatively low increase in financial returns, and indeed all European co-productions will tend to be limited in their income. Given the desire to promote co-operation between member states’ industries and the need to build up pan-European rather than national cinema, the EU established a funding programme specifically to promote co-production.