Contemporary European Cinema in the Digital Transition

7/30/2019 Contemporary European Cinema in the Digital Transition

1/25

University of Copenhagen

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Media, Cognition and Communication

Course: Contemporary European Cinema

Module: Media Organisations and Institutions

Winter 2011

CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN CINEMA

INTHE DIGITAL TRANSITION

Antonio Monachello

[email protected]


2/25

Contents

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

2. Methodology and limitations..................................................................................................2

3. Hollywood versus Europe?.....................................................................................................3

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................3

3.2 Current situation................................................................................................................3

3.3 Hollywood hegemony.......................................................................................................4

3.4 State support and import quotas........................................................................................5

3.5Auteur theory and homogenisation....................................................................................6

3.6 Film distribution in Europe...............................................................................................7

3.6.1 The American way...................................................................................................83.6.2 Little Europeans.......................................................................................................9

3.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................................10

4. European digital distribution and exhibition.........................................................................11

4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................11

4.2 Brief history of electronic and digital cinema.................................................................12

4.3 Technologies and standards.............................................................................................13

4.4 Digital cinema sites and screen.......................................................................................144.4.1 Current situation in Europe....................................................................................14

4.4.2 Current situation in North America........................................................................14

4.5 Digital advantages...........................................................................................................15

4.6 Opportunity or threat?.....................................................................................................16

4.6.1 Independent exhibitors...........................................................................................17

4.6.2 European funds......................................................................................................17

4.6.3 National case studies..............................................................................................18

5. Conclusion............................................................................................................................20

6. References.............................................................................................................................21


3/25

1. Introduction

This paper will focus on some of the current issues faced by contemporary European cinema.

The ongoing and much discussed process of media convergence characterised by new

implications, e.g. the shifting to a global market and the multiplications of screens, led to

various speculations about moviegoing practice as soon to be dead. The current situation, as

the statistics will show, is different from what one could have imagined just a few years ago

and is likely not to change abruptly in the immediate future. The analysis of the latest data

available provided by the European Audiovisual Observatory confirms it, along with the

domination of Hollywood cinema and the issue of the small number of European movies

being successful beyond the borders of the producing state.

This paper will deal with the problem faced by the multifaceted European movie industry,

marginalised in its own market, analysing some of the perspectives which influenced and are

still influencing the policies adopted, such as state support and import quotas, and how they

have harmed European cinema.

The first part will narrow down the issue starting from a broader perspective which will take

in account the overt radical perceptions of Hollywood and Europe as specular traditions of

cinema. This dichotomy is still traceable in academic discourses and in policy regulations aswell, and it will be seen from an historical perspective showing a much more complex

environment than the aforementioned dichotomy. It will then analyse the distribution sector in

Europe and it will show the differences with Hollywood studios.

This theoretical framework is needed in the second part of the paper for the analysis of the

digital roll-out taking place in European cinemas, especially when dealing with its economic

dimension. Along with a brief history of the electronic cinema, it will consider the

technologies used and the current figures of digital screens in Europe and North America. It

will acknowledge its advantages as well its disadvantages, i.e. the financial implications in the

roll-out, analysing what the European exhibitors and institutions state about the transition and

how the European and national cinema bodies are facing the matter.

As the commissioner Androulla Vassiliou, responsible for education and culture, recently

stated: The digital revolution has transformed the way the film industry produces, distributes

1


4/25

and screens films. These changes also create great opportunities for European cinema [...].1

As every other new technology in cinema, discussions concerning digital cinema being just a

commercial exploit should be put apart in favour of a more global discourse in relation to the

benefits such technologies could enable.

Rather than treat the digital technologies as some sort of magical cure, it will argue that the

adoption of digital technologies in distribution, as well as in the other phases, might be a

fundamental pillar upon which building a series of initiatives in order to foster the popularity

of European movies. Some of them are already being adopted by various EU and national

organisations but the path is still long, as the final paragraphs will show.

2. Methodology and limitations

This paper will be twofold: the first part will focus on the theoretical and historical

dimensions related to the the problem of Hollywood hegemony, with their paradoxes and bias,

while the second will analyse the digital roll-out taking place in Europe, strongly related to

the aforementioned problem. The process will be analysed mostly as it is happening in the

Western European countries. The historical division in Europe, only recently dissolved, would

require a much more comprehensive perspective in terms of the theoretical dimension taken in

account in the first part.

As for the evaluation of the profit of a movie, the multiplications of screens, with the

decreasing costs for home cinema and Internet among all, put it in a difficult position. As

some scholars have acknowledged (Doyle, 2002; Jckel, 2003; Kerrigan, 2010), the

impossibility to access this vast range of figures makes box office revenues the most

important exhibition window that can guarantee the commercial success of a movie. As the

statistics will show, moviegoing has still retained its appeal and rationale. Though the benefits

of Video On Demand, still at its infancy, seem by far the most promising, this paper will

address the issue only in matter of theatrical exhibition.

Furthermore, following the lead of Culkin and Randle (2003), it will leave apart the ongoing

discussion about the aesthetic qualities of digital cinema and the different technologies

developed.

1 http://europa.eu (2010). Press Release: Commission supports digitisation of European cinemas.http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1168&type=HTML (accessed Nov 22th,

2010)

2


5/25

3. Hollywood versus Europe?

3.1 Introduction

Since many facets of the digital transition of cinemas, especially its financial aspect, are

connected to the mentioned dichotomy, an analysis regarding the perceived struggle between

Hollywood and European cinema is needed. This paper will argue that this dichotomy that lies

behind this discussion between film as art and film as entertainment is historically much more

intricate than what could seems.

While Wood (2007) states that many European films are robbed of their commercial

opportunities by few European blockbusters in the market share left by the bigger American

ones, Elsaesser (2005) argues that cinema in Europe should not feel threatened by Hollywood.He takes a stance that follows Cowen (1998), arguing that Hollywood film industry is

sustaining the very infrastructure of cinemas in Europe. Dealing with film distribution in

Europe means facing the long debated issue of Hollywood hegemony. In order to assess it, a

picture of the current state is needed.

3.2 Current situation2

According to the latest provisional data provided by the European Audiovisual Observatory(EAO), the gross box office in the EU reached the highest level in 2009, with takings

amounting around to 6.27 billion, with a 12% increase compared to 2008. Such growth pairs

with the 6% rise in the number of admissions and the increase in ticket prices for 3D movie

screenings.

Another record was set in the number of movies produced in the EU. As the press release

points out, the effects of the global economic crisis are yet to be seen, though the latest news

point to a spreading reduction of funds in the public systems.3 The number of movies

produced slightly increased to 1,168, with fiction films consisting of an estimated 80% of the

volume.

2 EAO (2010).EU gross box office reached record high in 2009 as European film production continues togrow. http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/mif2010_cinema.html (accessed nov 20th, 2010)

3 Adler, T. (2010).HARD TIMES: How Europes Financial Crisis Is Affecting Each Countrys Film Industry.http://www.deadline.com/2010/11/hard-times-how-europes-financial-crisis-is-affecting-each-countrys-film-

industry/ (accessed nov 26th, 2010)

3


6/25

Comforting as the previous figures may be, the press release revealed at the same time other

important key issues: as usual, the largest part of this enlarged market share went to the top

100 films, marking out an increase from 69% to 75%. Moreover, the number of films with

more than 5 million admissions raised from 34 to 42. Most of them were American

blockbusters. US movies in total collected 67.1% of the share. This explains the lowering of

the market share for European films in total, reaching 26.7% in the EU, the lowest level since

2005. Even the share of EU/US co-productions decreased to 4.2%. Market shares for national

films went down in 18 out of 23 countries, after the record shares noticed in many countries in

2008.

3.3 Hollywood hegemony

These data show an ongoing tendency, i.e. the domination of Hollywood, that has been

addressed from different perspectives throughout film studies. A complete retrospective of

such views would be impossible, therefore this paper will only highlight those which

influenced the policies adopted.

To Bergfelder (2005) research dealing with European cinema has been historically focused on

the various national cinemas. Only in the last 15 years there has been a shift of focus in

academic and political policies influenced by the geopolitical integration. He acknowledges

that the European countries have used similar mechanisms in order to protect their own

national culture in the last 40 years. The typical life of a movie would include a production

dependent on state subsidies, a distribution network based on the marketing of festivals and

the exhibition in art-house cinemas. After the GATT talks in the mid-1990s, where the

European countries stood together against the liberalisation of film trade, there has been the

gradual erosion of art cinema as the master narrative of European cinema, both in terms of

industrial practice and in terms of academic debates and preferences (p. 318). This resulted

in the blurring of the boundaries between the once fixed categories of European high culture

and American commercialism, with the former linked to the classical arts, auteurs and state

support system while the latter being only commodified popular culture as a mean to

homogenisation.

However, a closer look in the film industry history regarding those issues shows that such

boundaries were never so fixed.

4


7/25

3.4 State support and import quotas

The protectionist measures were adopted by the European countries since 1920s. Various

quota systems were used to protect national film industries suffering from the effects of the

First World War. Apart from such measures, some European countries tried to create a pan-

European collaborative framework, but the results were not successful. The rise of nationalist

movements, along with the crisis of 1929 and the outbreak of the Second World War,

practically put an end to any further initiative until the 1960s.

Cowen (1998) argues that the debate for protectionism in French cinema began in 1930s, but

quotas and subsidies were introduced only during the Vichy government to defend the

national interests. The film industry was modelled on the German example and the institutions

and regulations were maintained after the war, this time limiting the foreign films, not the

French ones. Furthermore, he stresses the fact that the European subsidies are often being

used by American majors co-producing or having European subsidiaries. This practice has

historical traces going back to the 1930s, when the Hollywood studios opened subsidiaries in

United Kingdom taking advantage of the quotas put in place to foster the British productions.

While in Europe the practice of state funding for film production is ascertained, the

interrelations between production companies and the state are not so clear on the American

side. As Miller (2001) pointed out, the US governments have a long and documented history

of assistance to Hollywood film industry, with a support that spans from tax-credit schemes,

to an essential closure of the market for imported products and state, regional and city film

commissions.

Guback (1985) puts the stress on the establishment of the Informational Media Guaranty

Program in 1948, which gave Hollywood studios an advantage over the foreign ones, still

suffering from the Second World War. From the 1948 to the mid-1960s this program

reimbursed them in dollars at attractive rates for all films sold to countries with difficult or

inconvertible currencies, as long they reflected the American point of view.

Nevertheless, the foundation upon which is constructed the European approach to film

production and appreciation pretends to be more stable than it really is.

5


8/25

3.5 Auteur theory and homogenisation

Crofts (1998) states that the principal ways of marketing for European movies are by the

nation of production, by authorship and, only for a niche, by a more over sexual

representation. All defined against Hollywood as a more authentic offer to the viewers.

The definition of what can be considered auteurcinema is not an easy task. Wood (2007: 27)

affirms that:

The politique des auteurs was developed by 1950s' French critics to raise the cultural status of

cinema and to validate the superiority of European cinema over that of the USA. [...] Critical

consideration generally concentrated on the director's ideas and events in his/her life to explain

text events in the films. This model ignored the commercial context of film production [...].

Such claim is modelled more upon what has been said after than what the French critics,

namely the staff ofCahiers du Cinema, really wrote. Thepolitique des auteurs was developed

along the attacks to the tradition de qualit and the praise of film-makers which

comprehended the re-evaluation of the commercial American ones, like Hawks and

Hitchcock, despised by the intellectuals.4 The manifesto itself, Une certaine tendance du

cinma franais by Franois Truffaut, written in January 1954, was a harsh criticism of the

French cinema in that period.

As Andr Bazin (1957/1986), one of the founders of the Cahiers, wrote about the makers of

any piece of art:

The evolution of Western art towards greater personalization should definitely be considered as a

step forward, as a refinement of culture, but only as long as this induvidualization remains only a

final perfection and does not claim to define culture. At this point, we should remember this

irrefutable commonplace we learnt at school: the individual transcends society, but society is also

and above all within him. So there can be no definitive criticism of genius or talent which does not

first take into consideration the social determinism, the historical combination of circumstances,

and the technical background which to a large extent determines it.5

Moreover, dealing with Hollywood cinema:

If you will excuse yet another commonplace, the cinema is an art which is both popular and

industrial. These conditions, which are necessary to its existence, in no way constitute a collection

4 Marcorelles, L. (1963)Interview: Roger Leenhardt with Jacques Rivette.http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/OK/leenhardt-rivette.html (accessed nov 27th, 2010). Originally appearedin Sight and Sound Vol. 32 No. 4 (Autumn 1963), pp. 168-73.

5 as edited in Hillier, J. (1986: 251).

6


9/25

of hindrances no more than in architecture they rather represent a group of positive and negative

circumstances which have to be reckoned with. And this is especially true of the American cinema,

which the theoreticians of the politique des auteurs admire so much. What makes Hollywood so

much better than everything else in the world is not only the quality of certain directors, but also

the vitality and, in a certain sense, the excellence of a tradition. Hollywood's superiority is onlyincidentally technical; [...] The American cinema has been able, in an extraordinarily competent

way, to show American society just as it wanted to see itself; but not at all passively, as a simple

act of satisfaction and escape, but dynamically, i.e. by participating with the means at its disposal

in the building of this society.6

Puttnam (as quoted in Jckel, 2003: 14) argues that the mutation of the auteur theory into a

political ideology [...] condemned much of Europe's cinema into a cultural ghetto. Elsaesser

(2005) suggests the revision of the paradigm auteur/high culture/nation in order to better

understand contemporary European cinema. Moreover, another revision should be take place,

i.e. the liberation from the classic dichotomy between European cinema and Hollywood.

On the opposite side, Wayne (2002: 3) emphasizes the critical paradigm of Hollywood and

global hegemony, stating that the American majors in a very complex way are homogenising

the world film culture, while incorporating styles and personnel from the cultures it replaces,

in a one-sided unfair process. Bergfelder (2005) instead argues that while the samecomposition of Hollywood is essentially multi-cultural, and the focus on national cinemas in

Europe has denied the inclusion of diasporic experiences as integral elements.

The following paragraphs will then analyse the distribution market in Europe along with the

structural differences in the practices used in comparison to Hollywood.

3.6 Film distribution in Europe

The distribution sector is undoubtedly the most instrumental element in a film reaching its

audience. Irrespective of the talent of the writer, director, technical staff and stars involved, if a

film fails to secure a distribution deal with one of the majors or a respected independent

distributor, it will not be widely exhibited and will certainly not recoup its production budget.

Kerrigan (2010: 37)

As with the reckoning of box office revenues, the analysis of film distributors in Europe deals

with the international distribution companies of the Hollywood major studios. The

6 Ibid.

7


10/25

Hollywood strategy in dealing with Europe as a single market with only few differences

among the nations, ironically shows an approach only tentatively exploited by the European

institutions and organisations, historically focused more on their national identities. A brief

analysis of distribution structure and expenditures in Hollywood and European movies is

therefore needed.

3.6.1 The American way

As Jckel (2003: 91) points out, the distribution sector in Europe is dominated by a

concentrated core formed by Buena Vista International (the distribution arm of the Walt

Disney Company), Columbia TriStar (the international division of Sony Pictures

Entertainment), 20th Century-Fox (also handling MGM releases since November 2000),

United International Pictures (UIP) (a joint venture between Paramount and Universal) and

Warner Bros. This is also a result of the alliances and mergers between majors and European

distributors in the 1990s, which gradually strengthened their positions in the national markets.

De Vany (2004: 174), in his comprehensive statistical analysis, emphasizes the great

variability surrounding the movie industry, since competition in motion pictures where so

little is known and so much is at stake looks very different from competition in industries

where more is known about what customers want and how to produce it.

The fundamental characteristics of the Hollywood studios, developed throughout the past

century, are the size, both in terms of domestic market and of supply, and their structure. The

risk in the movie production is spread among their several releases, as opposed to the one-off

project, typical in Europe.

According to Gasson (as cited in Doyle, 2002: 108) only 2 movies out of 10 are profitable for

the majors, but they provide enough money to sustain their activities. The structure poses

another advantage, that is the marketing and distribution arms are integrated in the film

companies. The assured distribution gives the ability to spend more resources for the prints

and advertising sector, so as to build audience awareness of their own product (Doyle,

2002: 107). Nevertheless, the vertical integration was first introduced by the European

entrepreneurs in the USA, namely Path, which focused mainly in distribution (Kerrigan,

2010).

8


11/25

3.6.2 Little Europeans

As stated in the previous paragraph, the main problem in the film industry in Europe relies in

the smaller size of companies and their domestic markets, as well in their fragmented

structures, in which production is disaggregated from distribution and exhibition. Therefore,

producers usually lack the leverage in the negotiations for ensuring their movies a good

distribution, at the point that the European production companies are only small players in

the different national markets and very minor players in the international ones (Doyle,

2002). The smaller budgets in European then is also a result of the greater risk associated with

non-US movies, pushing the companies in a cycle in which poor investment results in low

revenues and vice versa.

Even if only few movies are profitable and dominate the box offices, the majority of the

Hollywood productions are given the potential to have larger revenues and produce more

awareness thanks to a wide distribution. Only recently the European distributors are giving to

their movies the same scale of release usually given to an American blockbuster, though this

is true only for high budget movies, at least in comparison to the independent ones.

In America, the cost of a print alone amount to $1,000 to $1,200 (Culkin & Randle, 2003: 88),

a figure higher in Europe.7 A release with 100 prints for a movie, far from the thousands of

copies issued for a blockbuster, coupled with the cost of shipping, would be then prohibitive.

These high prints and advertising costs makes it impossible for any independent production

company to provide what a vertical integrated industry can do for every given movie.

Usually, independent European movies are distributed with 5-10 prints being sent and used by

other cinemas after the initial screenings. Some copy would deteriorate, while the effects of

marketing (if there have been any) or social impact would vanish. In fact, when an

independent movie receive a sudden attention, the majors distribution companies take it under

their arms, with its probable negative drawbacks.

The supra-national, national and regional support could not possibly give many movies a wide

distribution in a market where most of the movies are not distributed. This lack or at least the

poor attention to distribution support by national governments could be linked to the fact that

such practice has sense only if structured across several countries, thus the state would have

7 von Schyowski, P. (May 2003).Digital Cinema Business Models: The global outlook. Screen Digest. as

cited in Culkin, N., & Randle, K. (2003: 88)

9


12/25

little control upon such companies (Batz, as quoted in Jckel, 2003: 12).

Elsaesser (2005) argues that the classic initiatives such as state subsidy systems and

partnerships with television didn't succeed in making European cinema competitive. Instead,

he suggests to directors and producers to go beyond the national cinema label. They may not

be successful in the national market or captivate large audiences, but they may perform well

on niche markets all over the world, being the box office only one parameter to measure the

success of a movie.

As Jckel (2003: 114) acknowledges, along with the hope in the priority given to the

distribution sector, the European supports could be playing a much more significant part in

ensuring that European films have greater access to more European screens.

Nonetheless, some movies, such as Lola Rennt (1998), Amelie (2001), Slumdog Millionaire

(2008) to name a few, have demonstrated that even small-to-medium budget movies

(especially compared to the American ones) can be appreciated among different countries to a

certain large extent as long as they are well distributed and marketed. Lieberson and

Appignanesi (2007) identify the lack of producers with entrepreneurial skills in Europe as the

main reason for the US domination. Moreover they see this role not opposing that of the

auteur, rather as a mean of enhancement. Some film-makers can become their own

distributors using Internet in conjunction with the possibilities to get known in the film

festival scene. It may be a time-consuming way to get noticed, and not everybody can or will

succeed, but it is still an opportunity.

The rise in the use of social networks and Internet in general will likely give more prominence

to the word of mouth and could be used as a more direct way to find an audience through

internet distribution or to gain awareness of their film (Kerrigan, 2010).

3.7 Conclusion

The approaches to film as art in Europe and film as entertainment in Hollywood are

theoretically related more to the critical theory proposed by Adorno and Horkheimer

(1947/2002) than to the politique des auteurs as it was conceived at the beginning. Still,

whatever the root may be, the policies put in places to defend national cultures on the one

hand helped and fostered the cultural diversity, while on the other marginalised the European

10


13/25

movies in their own markets.

On the other side of the ocean, Hollywood majors crying for a total liberalisation forgot how

the American government helped them since the establishment of their movie industry.

Fallacious as the American blockbuster model can be, with its overt anxiety on the first week

of release, the European short-sightedness produced many paradoxical situations.

While taking down borders within the continent, the European countries established imagined

borders against the American products with little results, as the statistics has shown.

Furthermore, even the production of movies with an higher budget than the usual, was long

considered only as a pale imitation of Hollywood blockbusters while it may be one of the

many solutions to adopt. The point is not to deny the cultural side of a movie, but rather

enabling their potential to have more social effect (as well as more revenue) through more

effective means of distribution. The positive efforts, especially those coming during the last

years from the European Union agencies, helped only on a small scale. The support for

cultural diversity may be beneficial in principle but its fragmentation, coupled with a poor

attention on how effectively to reach people, whether considered as an audience or as citizens,

mined its effects.

Then it came the digital cinema with its enormous cost saving potential. This is crucial in a

fragmented territory as it Europe, unable to create vertical integrated industry and lacking of

strong cooperative efforts, only recently fostered. The next part will therefore analyse the

digital roll-out and how it could in principle help the distribution of European movies.

4. European Digital distribution and exhibition

4.1 Introduction8

The effects of digitisation and Internet in the movie industry and culture have already been

treated by various scholars especially in terms of aesthetic differences with the analogue

process and about the possibilities opened up by CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) and

VOD (Video On Demand). The emergence of digital technologies is acknowledged at every

different level of film-making, and it will likely replace 35mm films in the movie chain in the

8 Europa Cinemas (2010)Digital guide. http://www.europa-cinemas.org/fr/actions/cinema_numerique/digital

%20guide/EC_digital_guide_GBFR%20.pdf (accessed dec 11th, 2010)

11


14/25

next years. This being true especially for Hollywood, always flexible in adapting new

technologies. Even the European organisations are acknowledging the benefits of digitisation,

as the new rule set by Eurimages for co-production funding shows, with the requirement of a

digital master copy, the 35mm copy being included only at producer's own discretion.

In production and especially in the editing stages, the digital technology offers more

advantages and it can be used only on a particular stage. Even if not shot with digital cameras,

the majority of movies are being edited and colour graded on digital platforms, resulting in a

digital master, called Digital Intermediate.

In distribution and exhibition, film prints retained their role until recently, as digital projection

in theatres is more and more gaining prominence. Elsaesser (2005), albeit not speaking about

this matter, stresses the importance of the technological innovations developed in Hollywood,

such those in sound technology or digital effects, transforming respectively the aural

experience and the way reality could be rendered on screen. A comparison between digital

projection and those other innovations might seem overtly positive and raise suspicion.

Though the stress here is put on the cut of distribution expenses, this perspective can serve as

a defence against any arguments treating digital cinema as a marketing gimmick. VOD and

other forms of movie consumption will not be analysed as stated, though they also enable new

means of distribution and possibilities for European movies. As the next paragraphs will

show, the opportunities offered for movie distribution by the current transition to digital

theatres are acknowledged as well as their potential disadvantages. First, an excursus on the

history of the use of electronic devices in cinema is needed.

4.2 Brief history of electronic and digital cinema

As Boddy (2008) acknowledged, the idea of replacing film stocks in the movie exhibition is

far from new. On the contrary, the experiments and public demonstrations go up to the 1920s

and 1930s, paralleling the beginnings of television industry even in the imagination of

reception scenarios. But be that as it may, the success was limited and it peaked in 1939 with

the British cinema television, installed in five London theatres and in early 1952 in the

U.S.A., where 102 theatres had been equipped for electronic exhibition. While in the 1960s

and in the 1970s the electronic cinema would be associated with media activists and video art,

12


15/25

in the following two decades the efforts were limited to the infiltration of electronic

production and post-production tools, along with the multi-channel theatre sound systems.

The end of the last millennium witnessed the the beginning of screenings in digital cinemas

across the USA. Since then, the overconfident claims clashed with a very slow progress, apart

for the use in editing and special effects areas. Only in the last few years the number of digital

theatres is expanding at a steady rate, as the related paragraph concerning the current figures

will show.

4.3 Technologies and standards9

Currently the most used types of projectors for digital cinema are two: Digital Light

Processing (DLP) Cinema, developed by Texas Instruments and Silicon X-tal Reflective

Display (SXRD), by Sony. The life expectancy of the projectors is currently estimated at

around 5 to 10 years, the usual time it takes to recoup its cost. While the cost for the projector

alone amounted to $100,000 seven years ago (Culkin & Randle, 2003: 88), now the price is

around the same but it includes the server (Meza & Keslassy, 2010). As for any other digital

equipment it is likely to lower as its use will spread. The aforementioned price is for the high-

level projector DCI compliant. DCI stands for Digital Cinema Initiative, a joint venture

formed to set a standard architecture for digital cinema systems which offers inter-operability,

compatibility and includes strong built-in anti-piracy measures.

Nevertheless, albeit developed by the Hollywood majors, the European Digital Cinema

Forum, a voluntary body supported by the main European cinema institutions10, is favourable

to its adoption (Monk, 2009). Moreover, the standards designed already take in consideration

future developments with long lasting specification, so to standardise on an higher-quality

threshold than we can appreciate in a first-generation print. The use of lower standards such

as High Definition would be not suitable for cinema environments. Using a global standard

would have the same advantage as it was for 35mm films, thus do not excluding smaller

theatres to show mainstream movies if they want to.

The specifications are about image quality and performance, not hardware, therefore there is

no restriction for technologies used to make a DCI compliant projector. Furthermore, every

9 Swartz, C. S. (2005)

10 EDCF Board Members 2010-2011. http://www.edcf.net/board.html (accessed nov 28th, 2010)

13


16/25

European requirements has been taken in account in its process. The issue related to the its

main drawback, i.e. the price, will be taken in account in the related paragraph.

4.4 Digital cinema sites and screen

4.4.1 Current situation in Europe11

The latest statistics collected by MEDIA Salles showed a substantial growth of digital screens

and sites in the 34 European countries covered by the program. The number of the screens

rose to 4,693, with a 206.9% increase compared to the previous year, while the number of

digital sites came to 2,374, with a 191.3% rise. Most digital theatres are in Western Europe, as

many as 3,904. The remaining countries located in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean rim

nevertheless showed an higher rate growth than the Western countries.

Compared to the total number of screens, digital screens rose from a 4.1% to a 13.1% market

penetration, while now 16% of the European cinemas have at least one digital screen.

Surprisingly, it surfaced the fact that the majority of digitalised cinemas were small-medium

sized ones, not multiplexes. This could be linked to the public intervention being a strong

support in some countries.

However, this growth revealed the high concentration in terms of exhibition companies: only

5% of them were responsible for 33.6% of digital screens. Another key fact is the increase in

the percentage of screens equipped with 3D technology from 54.4% in June 2009 to 68.8% in

December 2009 with respect to the overall number of digital screens, thus being the major

driving force.

4.4.2 Current situation in North America12

As it should be obvious, the role of Hollywood studios in the inception of digital cinema is

directly reflected in the number of digital cinema theatres. Unfortunately, the consulted

reports give a broad perspective which include the numbers of theatres in Canada as well.

According to a Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corporation update, at the moment there are 12,802

digital screens in North America, increasing by 86% since last year. Compared to the increase

in Europe this may seems controversial, but the numbers of digital theatres has increased

11 Media Salles (2010).DiGiTalk, Ideas, Experiences, and Figures on Digital Cinema from DigiTraining Plus2010. http://www.mediasalles.it/digitalk/ (accessed nov 29th, 2010)

12 http://cinedigm.com (2010) Cinedigm Issues Digital Cinema Industry Update.

http://investor.cinedigm.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=516936

14


17/25

steadily since 2005, and now represents approximately a third of total screens.

4.5 Digital advantages

As Culkin and Randle (2005) note, whether the quality of a digital projected movie is better

than the film or not, it eliminates several problems: the need for multiple prints, with their

costs; the deterioration after many screenings or after many copies; the cost and time needed

for their delivery. Furthermore it is in principle more environmentally friendly than films

stocks. The price of a Digital Cinema Package (DCP), the equivalent of a 35mm print, is

around 150, a big benefit for independent distributors, who could increase the circulation of

their movies.

Actually, digital mastering has an advantage even in the still dominant classic projection,

since a movie can be printed on brand new negatives without any loss and moreover can be

easily used for television broadcasting, DVD production and VOD. In a hypothetical scenario,

movies could be shot and preserved on films (given their higher life expectancy), while

distributed and projected in their digital form.

Considering the concerns related to the programming and diversity, digital files could contain

multiple versions in themselves: subtitled, dubbed or screenings censored for family to give

some examples. In principle, digital projectors can handle different sources. The main benefit

for exhibitors consists generally in a more flexible programming. It could not be limited only

to movies, but extended to every live event taking place in a foreign country. This includes

even the broadcasting of an event like an opera performance. Examples are already in place

even in Europe. On December 7, 2009 32 Danish cinemas and one cinema in Saint Petersburg

showed the live broadcast of Carmen being played in the opera hall La Scala in Milan

(Hamre, 2010).

Unfortunately, the adoption of digital cinema in Europe has some significant drawbacks,

which extensively reflect the conflicts analysed in the first part.

15


18/25

4.6 Opportunity or threat?13

The major challenge in the digital roll-out is economic: in principle, while distributors will

save money, the exhibitors have to make the financial investment required to buy the digital

equipment and renovate the screening rooms. Such investment would be unbearable by many

exhibitors (especially smaller theatres) without sufficient funds or if not grouped together to

share the costs. Therefore, some companies are using a model called VPF (Virtual Print Fee),

developed in the U.S.A., consisting in the intervention of a private or public investor, put in-

between the exhibitors and the distributors. This third-party investor covers the financial

requirement for the equipment in advance, and then will be repaid by the other two parties in

the contract, according to the agreed modalities (Blzquez, 2010).

The trouble with the aforementioned model is the applicability to the majority of European

theatres, especially in central and eastern Europe countries. While the VPF model is well

adapted to the multiplexes, smaller (frequently art-house) cinemas may not be well suited,

since this model is based on the week of release and the turnover rate. Most of them, which

screen a movie for a longer period, weeks after the initial release, may therefore not benefit

from deals with mainstream distributors. A viable response could be cooperation, as the

Cinema Buying Group (CBG) has done in U.S.A. and Canada. This group, formed by

independent exhibitors, is trying to cover the costs of the roll-out by mutualising with each

other. In Europe, the main response for such threats comes from the national and

supranational entities.

Doyle (2002: 118) is skeptic about the use of new digital technologies being able to hurt the

Hollywood dominance. He argues that as long as the majors held the capacity to supply

exhibitors with a steady flow of well marketed and attractive movies, little is likely to change.

Furthermore, the savings made by the majors could help increasing the concentration in the

sector. The most apocalyptic scenario is the often depicted one where only American movies

are shown in digital multiplexes. Such perspective clashes with the general consensus towards

digital cinema and the increasing attention towards marketing and Internet, along with a lower

entry barrier to the market.

13 http://ec.europa.eu (2009).Background Document On Opportunities And Challenges For European CinemaIn The Digital Era.http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/overview/consultations/docs/background_digital_cinema_en.pd

f (accessed dec 8th, 2010)

16


19/25

4.6.1 Independent exhibitors

Since the Hollywood studios are the major driving force for the transition, a comparison could

be drawn with the scenario in the U.S.A. in the 1950s. Though the issue was not of technical

matter, it had in its core the common struggle between majors and independent exhibitors.

The antitrust cases known as the Paramount litigation obliged the major studio to sell their

theatres. De Vany (2004) argues that these Decrees did harm the independent exhibitor sector,

their intended beneficiary.

As for the independent exhibitors today in Europe, they see the digital transition as a solution,

not a problem.14 15 In the conference The independent film exhibition sector and the

challenges of digitisation, held in Barcelona on March 4-6 2010, the 20 panellists and 200

professionals concluded that the roll-out should be a short process, limiting the period in

which 35mm prints and DCP coexist, since it would produce extra costs. Moreover, they put

the stress on the benefits like the access to alternative content, especially the high quality live

content and the possibility to get day-and-date release. Alongside the benefits, they maintain

that in the majority of the European sites, the financial investment should not be on the

shoulder of the exhibitor alone. While they express the need for more European distributors,

advertisers and alternative content suppliers to enter these deals, at the same time they call for

the role of the European Authorities in the establishment of guidelines by public intervention

in the legal and administrative fields of the VPF deals, when not directly involved in the

financial dimension.

But what is the current state of public funding in the digital transition?

4.6.2 European funds

Pauwels and De Vinck (2010) point out the role of the policies issued by the European

agencies to promote diversity of screen, with the support to small theatres, and diversity in

screen, with funds for film-making and training. At the same time, they acknowledge the

imbalance between national-level production support and European-level support. The

stimulation for the roll-out coming from the European organisations is arguably too little and

14 The independent film exhibition sector and the challenges of digitisation Conclusions,http://en.www.mcu.es/principal/docs/MC/PresidenciaUE2010/Cine_RetosDigitalizacion_Conclusions.pdf(accessed dec 25th, 2010)

15 The independent film exhibition sector and the challenges of digitisation Final report,http://en.www.mcu.es/principal/docs/MC/PresidenciaUE2010/Cine_RetosDigitalizacion_Finalreport.pdf

(accessed dec 25th, 2010)

17


20/25

late. The support of 5 million against a shortfall of 465 million will lead to fragmented

results. The limitations of the complementary role could then affect the effectiveness of a

more comprehensive and faster European response.

Even if state subsidy showed little result in terms of wide distribution, due to the lack of

proper funds, the digitisation of cinemas and the creation of a distribution network (larger

than the existing Europa Cinemas) could be a part of the solution. The national governments

and cinema institutes are heavily concerned about the matter.

The following paragraphs will evaluate the current situation of national funds in the countries

more related in the relationship with Hollywood, United Kingdom and France, albeit on

different grounds. The former historically opposed, while the latter more open to co-

productions and liberalisation. They will serve as a conclusion to show the current

development of digital cinema at its best. The case studies will evaluate the matter even in

terms of distribution, with two different independent distributors taken as example, though not

exhaustive.

4.6.3 National case studies

United Kingdom

United Kingdom has been the European pioneer in the digitisation with the set-up of Digital

Screen Network (DSN)16 by the UK film council in 2004. It spanned only for a few years and

granted 12 million which covered the roll-out of 240 screens in 210 theatres. The concern

was primarily the increase of diversity of movies screened, like other initiatives promoted by

the British Film Institute: the Prints and Advertising Funds, starting from 2003, and the pilot

application started in 2009 called Digital Innovation in Distribution.

The DSN funds covered a range of cinema from small to multiplexes, since it was open to

every cinema as long as they met the requirement to screen a certain amount of so-called

specialised films17 (basically foreign, non-mainstream, dealing with social issues or restored

films) and to develop a marketing strategy to give awareness of these movies to the audience.

The initiative helped significantly. UK had 284 digital screens in 2008, almost the 30% of

16 http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/dsn (accessed dec 26th, 2010)17 http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/media/pdf/r/2/Defining_Specialsied_Film_Update_20_04_08_.pdf

(accessed dec 26th, 2010)

18


21/25

total screens for the 34 European countries in the MEDIA Salles programme. By then the

number is more than doubled, reaching 668. Currently, though it is not the country with most

digital screens, it leads the way with regard to digital sites in Europe, to the amount of 358

(Media Salles, 2010: 34). The stagnant growth is related to unavailable of funds in the

program, but the interest in new technologies is still active as the launch of the latest

Innovation Fund shows.18

As for distribution, the case of the independent distributor Dogwoof19 is exemplary of the use

of new available technologies. Founded in 2004, it is specialised in social issues films. The

main characteristic is the heavy use of online marketing, especially on social media platforms

like Facebook and Twitter. King's Game (2004), produced in Denmark and distributed in UK

by Dogwoof, was the first film screened on the Digital Screen Network. Moreover, they

released Age of Stupid (2009), a movie about the climate change issue, with a premiere in 65

cinemas satellite linked.20 Still, this could seem nothing in comparison with mainstream

release, but it shows in concrete terms the way to take.

France

On the other side of the Channel, France offers a different example. The recent growth reflects

an initial distrust (at least in funding and deals) followed by a sudden reversal. While it had

only 44 digital sites and 66 digital screens in 2008, now the figures have increased to 257 sites

and 904 screens, the latter putting France as the leader in Europe as at 1st January, 2010

(Media Salles, 2010: 34). The number of digital cinemas is expected to rise thanks to the

efforts of commercial deals, and lately, of national funds.

The Centre national du cinma (CNC) launched a three year plan to digitise 1,500 screens

with a 104 million fund. An additional support coming at regional level will distribute 26

million (Meza & Keslassy 2010). Though those funds comes mostly as a response to the

commercial model, the choice is to follow the DCI standard. Furthermore, the public funding

and the commercial deals are opposed only in principle, since they are complementary and

show a cooperative approach by the different interested parties.

18 http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/ (April 1st, 2010). UK Film Council launches new 15m film fund tochampion British film. http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/article/16684/UK-Film-Council-launches-new-15m-film-fund-to-champion-British-film (accessed dec 27th, 2010)

19 http://www.dogwoof.com (accessed dec 26th, 2010)

20 http://www.dogwoof.com/blog/what-is-dogwoof-indie/

19


22/25

In the distribution area, the company Swift, founded in 2002, sets a different example. Its

main area activity in cinemas is the high-quality auteur film. Didier Costet, its director, was

recently interviewed during the the initiative European Distributors: Up Next!, which took

place during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. He blamed the small box office revenues on

young people, being unreceptive to auteur movies, on the means of distribution, the same as

those used 20 years ago, and on the abnormal restriction of movie promotion in

television.21 While this perspective is not totally unrealistic, it still shows a non-receptive

approach to the novelties in the sector and their acknowledged benefits.

5. Conclusion

The habits in movie consumption are changing but nevertheless cinema going is still alive.

The costs for digital production, distribution and exhibition, generally lower than in the

analogue process, are enabling a slow revolution in the European movie industry. Currently,

only 16% of theatres in Europe have at least one digital screen, but the growth is steady and,

as demonstrated, should be fast. Though the change is mainly driven by the new 3D movies,

at least at first sight, this should not be used as a rationale against it. The growth in the

numbers of digital screens and the efforts showed by the European agencies and the national

bodies demonstrate that even the concerns about the financial implications can be solved if

the different entities work cooperatively.

Furthermore, the differences in the approaches of cinema analysed in the first part are slightly

dissolving. Funding the use of newer technologies could mean more cultural diversity. If

sufficiently supported, the digital transition could be by far the greatest help the usually poor

distributed European movies ever had, even in the difficult field of theatrical exhibition. The

support to the digitisation of cinemas should be seen as a possible mean to create an European

network in which European movies can more easily circulate, treated both as art and

commercial works.

21 Lemercier, F. (August 30, 2010).Interview with Didier Costet. http://cineuropa.org/interview.aspx?

documentID=149836 (accessed dec 13th, 2010)

20


23/25

6. References

Adler, T. (2010).HARD TIMES: How Europes Financial Crisis Is Affecting Each CountrysFilm Industry. http://www.deadline.com/2010/11/hard-times-how-europes-financial-crisis-is-affecting-each-countrys-film-industry (accessed nov 26th, 2010). Standard pages: 5

Adorno, T. H., & Horkheimer, M., Noerr, G. S. (Ed.) (2002).Dialectics of enlightenment.Stanford: Stanford University Press. Original work published 1947. pp 1-136. Standard pages:150

Bazin, A. (1986).De la politique des auteurs. In Hillier, J. (Ed.) Cahiers Du Cinma: The1950's Neo-Realism, Hollywood, New Wave (pp. 248-259). Harvard: Harvard UniversityPress. Originally appeared in Cahiers du Cinema, 70, April 1957. Standard pages: 17

Bergfelder, T. (2005).National, transnational or supranational cinema? Rethinking Europeanfilm studies. Media, Culture & Society, 27(3), 315-329. Standard pages: 18

Blzquez, F. J. C. (2010).Projecting the Digital Future of Cinema. IRIS Plus 2010-2, 7-20.Standard pages: 22

Boddy, W. (2008).A century of electronic cinema. Screen, 49(2), 142-156. Standard pages: 23

Cowen, T. (1998).French Kiss-Off: How Protectionism Has Hurt French Films.http://reason.com/9807/fe.cowen.shtml (accessed nov 20th, 2010). Originally appeared inReason, July 1998. Standard pages: 12

Crofts, S. (1998).Authorship and Hollywood. In Hill, J., & Gibson, P. C. (Eds.) The OxfordGuide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310-324. Standard pages: 20

Culkin, N., & Randle, K. (2003).Digital Cinema: Opportunities and Challanges.Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 9(4), 79-98. Standard pages: 23

De Vany, A. (2004).Hollywood economics. New York: Routledge. pp. 143-189. Standardpages: 66

Doyle, G. (2002). Understanding media economics. London: SAGE. pp. 101-118. Standard

Pages: 22

European Audiovisual Observatory (2010).EU gross box office reached record high in 2009as European film production continues to grow.http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/mif2010_cinema.html (accessed nov 20th, 2010).Standard pages: 5

Elsaesser, T. (2005).European Cinema: Face to face with Hollywood. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press. pp. 13-132, 485-511. Standard pages: 183

21


24/25

Europa Cinemas (2010).Digital guide. http://www.europa-cinemas.org/fr/actions/cinema_numerique/digital%20guide/EC_digital_guide_GBFR%20.pdf(accessed dec 11th, 2010). pp. 6-29. Standard pages: 23

Guback, T. H. (1985).Hollywood's international market. In Tino Balio (Ed.), The American

film industry (pp. 463-486). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Standard pages: 24

Hamre, E. (2010).Alternative Content.http://www.mediasalles.it/training/dgt10/speaker_docs/2010_Mediasalles_Erik_Hamre.pdf(accessed dec 7th, 2010). pp. 2-7. Standard pages: 1

Jckel, A. (2003).European Film Industries. London: BFI Publishing. Standard pages: 178

Kerrigan, F. (2010).Film Marketing. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 17-81, 194-210. Standard pages: 112

Lemercier, F. (August 30, 2010).Interview with Didier Costet.http://cineuropa.org/interview.aspx?documentID=149836 (accessed dec 13th, 2010). Standard

pages: 1

Lieberson, S., & Appignanesi, J. (2007).Film: Is it a Business or Art Form?. Third Text,21(5), 633-637. Standard pages: 7

Marcorelles, L. (1963).Interview: Roger Leenhardt with Jacques Rivette.http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/OK/leenhardt-rivette.html (accessed nov 27th, 2010).Originally appeared in Sight and Sound Vol. 32 No. 4 (Autumn 1963): pp. 168-73. Standard

pages: 10

Media Salles (2010).DiGiTalk, Ideas, Experiences, and Figures on Digital Cinema fromDigiTraining Plus 2010. http://www.mediasalles.it/digitalk/ (accessed nov 29th, 2010). pp. 7-24. Standard pages: 11

Meza, E., Keslassy E. (2010).European arthouses: digital plans differ.http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027381?refCatId=13 (accessed nov 29th, 2010).Standard pages: 2

Miller, T. et al. (2001). Global Hollywood. London: BFI. pp. 44-82. Standard pages: 50

Monk, D. (2009).Key Capabilities of D Cinema (debunking the Myths).http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/Rome%20conference%20edcfDm%20pres.pdf (accessed dec5th, 2010). pp. 2-14. Standard pages: 1

Pauwels, C. & De Vinck, S. (October 2010).Le fabuleux destin du cinma europen?European film policy and the digital diversity dream. EIEL Workshop. Standard pages: 3

Swartz, C. S. (2005). Understanding Digital Cinema. Amsterdam; Boston: Focal Press. pp. 1-256. Standard pages: 223

22


25/25

Wayne, M. (2002). The politics of contemporary European cinema: histories, borders,diasporas. Bristol: Intellect Books, 1-22. Standard pages: 31

Wood, M. (2007). Contemporary European Cinema. London: Hodder Arnold. pp. 1-59.Standard pages: 75

23

Contemporary European Cinema in the Digital Transition

Documents

Transcript of Contemporary European Cinema in the Digital Transition