In collaborazione con Cineuropa News

2017 in calo dell’11.63% in Italia, disfatta della produzione nazionale
di Camillo De Marco

10/01/2018 - I dati presentati oggi all’ANEC a Roma dai rappresentanti dell’industria cinematografica registrano il peggior risultato dal 2014. In aumento la quota di mercato europea.

I dati del box office italiano 2017 presentati oggi all’ANEC a Roma dai rappresentanti dell’industria cinematografica parlano di una vera e propria disfatta. L’incasso totale è stato infatti di 584.843.610 euro per un numero di presenze in sala pari a 92.336.963, con un decremento rispetto al 2016 dell’11.63% degli incassi e il 12.38% delle presenze. Per un risultato peggiore bisogna risalire alla stagione 2014, quando il box office segnò 575.247.515 euro e 91.526.747 presenze.
Il risultato è negativo soprattutto per i film di produzione italiana, che hanno incassato circa 89 milioni di euro in meno rispetto al 2016, per un numero di biglietti venduti inferiore di 13,3 milioni. Mentre il 2016 aveva registrato i due risultati eccezionali di ‘Quo Vado’ di Gennaro Nunziante (65,3 milioni) e ‘Perfetti sconosciuti’ di Paolo Genovese (17,3 milioni), nel 2017 per la prima volta nessuna produzione nazionale ha superato nettamente gli 11 milioni d'incasso. I due film che hanno ottenuto i risultati migliori, ‘L'ora legale’ e ‘Mister Felicità’, hanno solo di poco superato i 10 milioni (rispettivamente 10,3 e 10,2 ml di euro).

I due titoli italiani si trovano in fondo alla top ten 2017. Il campione di incassi nell’anno passato è stato ‘La Bella e la Bestia’ (Walt Disney) con 3,2 milioni di presenze e 20,5 milioni di euro di incasso, seguito da tre film distribuiti da Universal: ‘Cattivissimo me 3’ (2,8 milioni di presenze e 18 milioni di incasso); ‘Cinquanta sfumature di nero’ (2,2 milioni di presenze e 14,9 milioni di incasso) e ‘Fast & Furious 8’ (2 milioni di presenze e 14,8 milioni di incasso).
La quota di mercato italiana, incluse le coproduzioni, è precipitata al 17,64 per cento (nel 2016 era al 29,05), mentre quella degli Stati Uniti sale dal 55,65 del 2016 al 66,28 del 2017. Positivo il dato suile produzioni europee: la quota passa dal 12,24 del 2016 al 13,23 dell’anno scorso.

Per il presidente dell’ANICA Francesco Rutelli il pubblico è sempre più attratto dalle nuove piattaforme che agiscono sul mercato, ma in molti hanno puntato il dito anche sulla piaga della pirateria on line, in continuo aumento, sull’eccessivo numero di produzioni italiane e sulla concentrazione delle uscite soprattutto nell’ultima e nella prima parte dell’anno. La speranza è riposta nei potenziali effetti pratici della nuova Legge sul cinema, i cui decreti attuativi sono ormai tutti operativi.

Rapporto industria: Digitale.
Diritti digitali dei produttori audiovisivi negli Stati Uniti e in Europa
di Jacob McPherson.

Both digitization and globalization are changing how members of the audio-visual labor market, known in this chapter as makers, operate worldwide. In Europe, individuals face restrictions on their content when attempting to engage with global distribution platforms. In the United States, a highly-trained, over competitive market threatens potential income for makers. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, resulting in a more nomadic workforce, location-based initiatives lose significance and importance. In Europe, this means makers are moving their businesses to countries which provide the best funding support. Similarly, United States based makers are partnering with European producers to benefit from national film funding organizations intended for European makers.
As mentioned, issues arise with how European makers distribute their content. Since national broadcasters often fund projects, while claiming co-production rights, this limits a maker’s’ ability to work with platforms like Netflix. Many makers find it difficult to negotiate for more rights without supplying their own financial resources. Although Netflix does not provide a perfect solution and usually pays a small flat fee in exchange for content, makers increasingly value any platform which offers distribution outside of a single territory. There is much tension between the nationalistic position of film funding organizations and demands from makers as a result of digitization. Most individuals would favors any solution which acknowledges their desire for greater global exposure.
These are just some of the findings of an exploratory qualitative research project carried out by Jacob McPherson as an internship for the MA Arts and Society programmer at Utrecht University. The research is also related to a project conducted by HTH Research and commissioned by the Dutch Portal for Audiovisual Makers (PAM), which is explained below.

Europe
Many European makers find it difficult to get their works distributed on global platforms, like Netflix. These challenges are often linked to how makers receive government funding. According to most interviewees, a national broadcaster will usually invest in a project along with most film funding institutions. Since these broadcasters commonly claim co-production rights, this creates difficulties if a maker wants to have their works distributed elsewhere. Platforms like Netflix seek co-production rights, and face challenges in transferring such ownership from a national broadcaster.

Another issue caused by government funding arrangements is in how a maker needs to recoup their investment. As films usually require a substantial amount of money to produce, it is highly unlikely for a company like Netflix to take on this burden in exchange for rights. One of the reasons government organizations are so interested in maintaining some control of film content is in the structure of these institutions and who they serve. They are a government entity, funded by the public, with the primary goal of creating and distributing content to the national audience they serve. Since funding institutions generally achieve this, there are limited incentives for giving rights back to the filmmaker.

Since each country has different funding requirements, some makers mentioned how they would establish a production company where the terms are most beneficial. One catalyst for this flexibility is the internet. As film production and content creation is transformed by digitization, the need to work from a physical space becomes less important. Additionally, makers can easily find co-production partners who live and work in places with better resources and support. Many interviewed makers discussed how they created a business for the sole purpose of applying to government funding organizations.

Such trans-national arrangements, easily facilitated by the internet, contradict how funding organizations aim to create content for a particular national audience. This lack of nationalistic loyalty is further fuelled by how some overarching European funding initiatives, like Creative Europe, require multiple co-production partners in at least two different countries. Financial resources allocated for a specific region could be applied to projects elsewhere as a result of makers sourcing support from across the European Union. This nomadic approach to funding contradicts how government funding organizations traditionally operate and often defeats their purpose.

Neither the European or United States models are perfect – both have room for improvement. However, European makers usually have more access to essential services like health care. Still, some European makers did express difficulty in receiving social benefits like unemployment insurance. Since there are various requirements for how unemployment insurance is recognized, including working in the country where an individual resides, receiving such assistance becomes difficult for makers who perform work in other countries.

One advantage of the European situation is that makers always have the option to earn an income from corporate work, in addition to government film funds. Individuals in the United States usually cannot rely on investments from public organizations. One example of this is with a nationally supported film, Rotterdam I Love You. The producer used money from performing corporate client work, in conjunction with support from private investors, to fund the project. This approach allowed him to retain rights to the project. He even commented on how European clients tend to pay higher than those in the United States.

Crowdfunding.
One revenue stream hardly touched upon during the interview process is crowdfunding. Online platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo provide the capability for makers to upload their project to solicit funding from online communities. Although crowdfunding seems like a viable way for a maker to raise enough money to fund a film project, there are some downsides to this approach. Most interviewees claimed that producing a feature film requires $250,000 to $1M. When discussing crowdfunding, some individuals mentioned that most campaigns raise around $50,000. While this is a good start, it is not nearly enough to pay for actors, editing, and other additional costs.

However, it does allow a maker to create material to present their idea to investors and government funding organizations. According to some interviewees, another issue with crowdfunding is the amount of effort needed to run a successful campaign. Between social media engagement and constantly asking people for money, crowdfunding can become a full-time job. Such commitments detract from the purpose of using crowdfunding as a vehicle for monetary capital, as any individual needs to support themselves.

When speaking with the owner of New York Film Loft, who advocates heavily for crowdfunding, many stakeholders like investors, television broadcasters, and major film producers view crowdfunding as beneficial. From the perspective of these stakeholders, crowdfunding helps show a film’s potential audience reach. However, some interviewed makers stressed that a successful crowdfunding campaign does not always reflect a project’s success in the real world. Since content is funded before anyone has seen it, there is no guarantee in terms of the level of quality or audience engagement.

Crowdfunding also lacks the ability to screen content and test an audience’s response. Also, some interviewees described examples of when a funded crowdfunding campaign did not result in a finished product. There seems to be no negative financial repercussions if the project is not completed.

Industry Report: Digital.
Urgent call for a new pan-European audiovisual legislation
by Fran Royo & Sandra Echeverri.

The third panel at the European Film Forum was held during the second day of the event (read the news), which took place in Brussels from 1-2 December, and was entitled “It’s All About Access, Fostering the Exploitation of EU Works”, featuring panelists Christophe Tardieu, director general of the Centre National du Cinéma, Lauri Kivinen, CEO of YLE Finland, Tom Van Waveren, CEO and creative director at Cake Entertainment, and Filmic and EuroVoD’s Jaume Ripoll. It delved into the Commission’s agenda to both modernize the EU copyright framework for the benefit of all stakeholders, and support the enhanced availability and visibility of European content, including across borders.

The idea of a platform.
Jaume Ripoll talked about his experience with the Filming platform, which has reached 1.8 million views only with European films, and remarked that the hardest aspect of video-on-demand services is dealing with sales agents. He asserted that existing platforms like Netflix and Amazon “don’t care about 90% of European cinema” and that, as a consequence, “those films need to find their audience elsewhere”.

When considering the idea of a common platform that promoted European content, Lauri Kivinen stressed the importance of the fact that it should be a “public platform that offers free content available for European citizens”. Tom Van Waveren highlighted the need for “windowing within existing and new platforms (...) which could amplify the success of European works”, because, as he optimistically stated, “Every time we add a platform service in the market, it increases everybody’s viewership.”

But which streaming devices are Europeans using the most? Dataxis conducted an analysis of this in 2015 and came up with a result: Apple TV was the leader when it came to streaming devices and household penetration.
The expansion in the use of platforms like Amazon and HBO in Europe is no longer a secret. Streaming platforms are a good idea, and this is well known to European competitors and foreign ones. Netflix, for instance, is a clear example of this (as shown in the graphic below, shared by Netflix itself).

Urgent call for new legislation.
The European Commission has proposed one legislative initiative and financial support measures to help the audiovisual industry adapt to the new digital environment and reach out to more audiences across borders. Christophe Tardieu underlined the risks of piracy within the current distribution system of European cinema, a problem that needs to be addressed with “pedagogy and a proper legislation that helps European films to travel more easily”. Van Waveren stressed the fact that a helpful legislation for European cinema must not overlook “curation and must keep an eye permanently on diversity”, and Ripoll contributed to the legislation topic by saying that having only a model whereby viewers subscribe to a platform “would lead to a failing business model that won’t be able to finance films with today's legislation trammels”.

The new legislation proposal focuses on the fact that the audiovisual media landscape is changing at a rapid pace owing to ever-increasing convergence between television and services distributed online. Consumers increasingly access on-demand content through smart/connected TVs and different portable devices. Young consumers, particularly, watch videos, including user-generated content, on the internet and through those new technologies.

Traditional broadcasting in the European Union remains strong in terms of viewership, advertising revenues and investment in content (around 30% of revenues). However, new business models are emerging. Broadcasters are extending their activities online, and new players offering audiovisual content online (HBO, Netflix and Amazon) are getting stronger and competing for the same audiences. However, TV broadcasting, video-on-demand and user-generated content are subject to different rules and varying levels of consumer protection.

The Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy for Europe calls for a modernization of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to reflect these market, consumption and technological changes. It requires the Commission to focus on the scope of application of the AVMSD and on the nature of the rules applicable to all market players (in particular those for the promotion of European works), consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area, with other Union policies (such as those on the e-Commerce Directive, on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, on unfair commercial practices, on consumer protection, or on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography) and with the obligations of international law, and a basis on the principles of subsidiary (for non-exclusive competence), proportionality, choice of instrument (and protection of minors), stakeholder consultations, collection and use of expertise, impact assessment, regulatory fitness and simplification, and budgetary implications, all of which are missing in the current legislative framework.

Rapporto industria: Digitale
Cinema e internet: amici e forse qualcosa di più?
di Julie Belgrado.

La TV è digitale, i film sono 'on demand' e internet è più veloce che mai. Ma qual'è il reale impatto di queste tecnologie sui più 'tradizionali' supporti come DVD o il digitale terrestre? Nell'ambito del Marché du film di Cannes, l'Osservatorio europeo dell'audiovisivo sta organizzando un atelier dal titolo "Cinema e internet: amici e forse qualcosa di più?". Accompagnato da un gruppo di esperti, l'atelier aperto al pubblico si concentrerà sui rapporti sempre più stretti tra l'industria cinematografica e le nuove opportunità offerte via Internet. In attesa degli ultimi dati che saranno presentati dall'Osservatorio, Cineuropa ha indagato sulla questione.

Dopo l'avvento del digitale e della televisione digitale, i supporti multimediali unitamente ai processi di diffusione si sono dovuti adattare a nuovi contenuti. Gli schermi di un computer, di uno smartphone o di un tablet sono diventati tante finestre e piattaforme dove vedere un film. Con 1,5 miliardi di utenti internet e una media di 24 ore al mese dedicate alla navigazione, il consumo di contenuti on line continua ad aumentare. E se i cinema sono oggetto di un massiccio processo di digitalizzazione, è la televisione digitale ad aver cambiato realmente il nostro consumo giornaliero di contenuti multimediali. La televisione, connessa a internet, è diventata per definizione un servizio non-lineare, cioè un servizio disponibile al momento scelto e su richiesta individuale. Noleggio, registrazione, catch-up TV o download temporaneo, i contenuti audiovisivi sono sempre più accessibili. Il successo è tale che, entro il 2014, il 50% delle famiglie avrà la TV digitale. Esplode il consumo digitale e anche la produzione. Con l'evoluzione dei dispositivi mobili come tablet o smartphone, chiunque può creare contenuti in qualsiasi momento e luogo.

Tuttavia, questo successo non è privo di conseguenze. Infatti, studi europei stimano che, entro il 2016, ci saranno 5 miliardi di consumatori di VOD per soli 2 miliardi di DVD venduti. Così, l'accesso al contenuto diventa più importante dell'oggetto posseduto. Pertanto, il DVD è un settore commerciale che rischia di essere messo in pericolo nei prossimi anni o addirittura di scomparire. Ciò che è peggio per l'industria cinematografica è che il potere della distribuzione sta cercando di fuggire dai suoi stessi distributori. Problemi ricorrenti sono il diritto di sfruttamento e l'aumento della pirateria. Per questo motivo, le pratiche di distribuzione esistenti sono attualmente oggetto di discussione. In questo contesto, diventa cruciale un'adeguata politica di sostegno e di promozione delle opere europee.

Il VOD, se gestito con diligenza e norme adeguate, può rappresentare un'opportunità di crescita nella promozione del film europeo. Infatti, le nuove piattaforme renderanno le opere europee più facilmente accessibili al di fuori del loro paese d'origine. Questo permetterà di migliorare la circolazione dei film europei in Europa e al di fuori di essa e, conseguentemente, permetterà di ampliarne il pubblico. Infine, sarà proprio l'uso di queste nuove tecnologie in fase di distribuzione che ne determinerà la competitività del settore.

Così, sostenere lo sviluppo del cinema europeo nell'era del digitale rappresenta una questione economica importante. In particolare, le politiche europee e il programma MEDIA ne hanno fatto uno dei loro obiettivi principali. La Commissione e il Parlamento hanno intrapreso una serie di iniziative politiche che, in particolare, hanno portato all'approvazione di una risoluzione in questo settore. Tra i numerosi testi legislativi, sono state redatte alcune regolamentazioni generali e altre più specifiche.

In primo luogo, ci sono regolamentazioni comuni stabilite per tutti i servizi audiovisivi; attraverso le quali ogni paese può decidere di essere più rigoroso, se lo desidera. In seguito, sono state stabilite delle regolamentazioni specifiche per i media audiovisivi non lineari. Tali regolamentazioni richiedono servizi di VOD e di altri Catch-up TV, per proteggere i minori e promuovere le opere europee. Per quanto riguarda il programma MEDIA, è lo stesso a rappresentarne una reale risorsa per il settore audiovisivo europeo.

Il programma stesso ha implementato molti componenti che supportano le nuove tecnologie, forniscono assistenza al VOD e contribuiscono alla diffusione del cinema digitale. Nel 2010, una comunicazione della Commissione europea ha avuto lo scopo di regolare il processo di digitalizzazione delle sale cinematografiche: dai grandi multiplex ai cinema indipendenti. Nel 2011, il Parlamento europeo ha adottato un bilancio di 2 milioni di euro per il primo anno dell'Azione «Circolazione dei film europei nell'era digitale».

Translator: Antonella Mastropieri