1. WHY AUTOMATIC FUNDING SUCKS!
> MEDICI, Zürich,

2. 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
> discussion

3. 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 development

4. 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 projects

5. 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 value

6. 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

7. 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 years

8. 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 years

9. 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
> films a year
> half of the films with the Nordic countries
> treaties with Canada and New Zealand, negotiating with Australia and China

10. MAINSTREAM FILMS > broadly appealing films to a larger audience
> cultural value, but not necesarily any artistic quality
> genres: comedies, drama, crime, family films

11. 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?

12. 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 system

13. PAST MERIT

14. AUDIENCE PERFORMANCE

15. 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 requirements

16. 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 years

17. 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 marketing

18. 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!

19. 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 requirements

20. ADMISSIONS 60/40 Market Number of films 26 31
> average admissions
> under % 6%
> over % 90%
> over % 61%
> over % 35%

21. 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 value

22. 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 years

23. 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!

24. THE END