1. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Kantstrasse 149, 10623 Berlin Script Forum Warszawa, 2009

2. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  specific economic nature of the cultural industries  cultural diversity  legitimacy of public support to the cultural industries in competition to the still dominating US Film Industry

3. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Support to the film industry is motivated by cultural arguments.  In smaller Countries Cultural criteria are the leading evaluation and economic indicators.

4. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Legal basis of the public support in most of the bigger European countries are also motivated, and legally organised, as industrial programmes.  Legal basis of the public support in most of the bigger European countries are also motivated, and legally organised, as industrial programmes.  The objectives are mainly industrial, the criteria of evaluation and the indicators used should of course mainly be of an economic nature.

5. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Public support is allocated, in most cases, to individual projects, not to companies and not in strategically manners in terms of strengthen the hole European market.  Public support is more an accumulation of micro- economic decisions respectively to the need of the economic and cultural reasons to regions, then made in respect to the macro-economic analysis.

6. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 The higher the level of the budget of the film, the greater the level of support. But the level of support may also relate to the need for public subsidy to fill the gap between the cost of making the films and the revenues they generate in the market place which relates the level of national production subsidy to the worldwide market for national films, using the number of admissions as a proxy for the market. sources: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

7. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  what the money is given for?  who takes the decisions?  how the decisions are taken?  the nature of the interaction between the decision-makers and the people to whom they give the money

8. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Secure national film production  Support the building of a sustainable film industry  Secure production of quality films  Add value to projects throughout the evaluation and production process  Stimulate employment and commercial activity

9. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Automatic funding based on a set of objective criteria  Selective funding based on individual assessment of projects  Script development  Project development  Production  Distribution  Promotion

10. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Subjective criteria  Distinctive artistic quality of the script  Entertainment qualities  Innovative qualities “breaking new ground”  Audience potential based on script  Cultural importance  “National” characteristics

11. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Objective criteria  Language  Film for children and young people  Women  Minorities  Merits of director  Merits of producer

12. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Objective criteria  Merits of screenwriter  Merits of the core team  Acknowledged actors  Previous support granted  Distribution guarantee/ M.G.  National / regional financial effect

13. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Internal readers make a written analysis of the project/script  External readers make a written analysis of the project/script  Administrative staff assess project, budget, finance etc.  Professional staff assess project, budget, finance etc.  Recommendations for support are made by individuals

14. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Recommendations for support are taken by a team Evaluation and decisions are taken by:  a board of film professionals  the institute’s or foundation’s managing director  the institute’s or foundation’s management team  the institutes or foundation’s governing body

15. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Writer  Director  Producer  Distributor

16. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Professional staff (readers, producers, marketing/ distribution people)  Administrative staff  Decision makers

17. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  repayable loan  “soft” loan, repayable after the private investment has been recovered  grant, not repayable  grant dependent on the commercial success of the film, paid upon cinema admissions  grant dependent on previous performance (“reference system” support)

18. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Tax subsidy programmes  Production-related tax discount  Discounts on production related expenditure  Tax shelter programmes  Investor tax deduction (e.g. sale-and-lease back)  Tax deduction related to future income

19. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  attract private funding for domestic production  attract foreign production  bolster employment in the audiovisual sector  attract risk capital

20. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009  Critical acclaim  Festival selections and awards  Audience response – theatrical release  Audience response – television release  The film’s profitability  Return of public support  Employment in the production sector  Distribution to other countries/territories

21. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Overall impact of public funding Overall, respondents put a weight of 3.1 (out of 6) on the extent to which public money determined whether a project was made. Nordic countries put the weight at 4.8; all “Small” and “Super Small” countries (including CEE countries) put on a weight of 3.6 – 3.8. For “Big” countries considered that the effect is only marginal (0.0), although this result arises because Italy (+2) and the United Kingdon (-2) cancel each other out. source: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

22. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Overall impact of public funding On average, national funds put the emphasis of their public support on cultural objectives, but there is no pattern to distinguish small and large countries, Central and Eastern European countries and Nordic countries tend to put the emphasis most strongly on cultural objectives. source: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

23. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Overall impact of public funding We see that three Big countries – Germany, Italy and Spain – tend clearly towards looking for “commercial” success (as does Luxembourg). The countries putting most weight on “cultural” success criteria are Flemish Belgium, France, Netherlands, Norway and Portugal. source: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

24. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Overall impact of public funding With the exception of Iceland and Norway, “artistic” criteria have more weight than socio/political” criteria; “Economic” criteria are the most important in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland. source: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

25. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Automatic schemes are more significant in “Big” countries and “Super-small” countries. Tax incentive schemes are more a feature in the “Big” countries and less in the “Central & Eastern” countries. Decision-making tends to be done by individuals rather than by committees in the “Big” countries and the “Nordic” countries. source: thinktank on european film and film policy the Copenhagen Report

26. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Berlin, 2009 Subsidies are awarded through particular programs four times a year. All applications are assessed by representatives of the film industry appointed by the Minister of Culture as film experts of the Polish Film Institute. Decisions regarding subsidies are made by the General Director of the Polish Film Institute and take into account the experts’ opinions. Source: Polish Film Insittute, Poland Film Production Guide 2008

27. © PRIMEHOUSE GmbH, Kantstrasse 149, 10623 Berlin Contact: Frank Stehling, f.stehling@prime-house.eu www.prime-house.eu