CANNES 2024: Members of film-funding bodies from both continents broke down their most significant challenges, including the influence of streamers

l-r: Lorna Tee, Jérémie Kessler, Kim Donghyun, Bérénice Honold, Alex Sihar and Chris Marcich during the panel discussion (© Éric Bonté)

At the Cannes Film Festival, the CNC organised a panel destined to offer some insights into how both Asia and Europe are dealing with the challenges they currently face in the film industry. EFAD (European Film Agency Directors association) and AFAN (Asian Film Agencies Network) were the partners of this event.

Present for the discussion were Jérémie Kessler, director of European and International Affairs at the CNC; Kim Donghyun, chairperson and committee member of the Korean Film Council (KOFIC); Chris Marcich, president of EFAD and the Croatian Audiovisual Centre; Bérénice Honold, advisor to the CEO for International Affairs at the Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA); and Alex Sihar, host chairperson and special staff, Directorate General of Film, Indonesia, a member of AFAN.

One of the questions asked by Lorna Tee, the moderator, and herself a producer and the secretary general of AFAN, concerned the power of streamers in the different countries. She asked the panellists what measures were being taken to either regulate or harness the influence of such platforms. All of the participants agreed on a key concept: those who benefit from the works should contribute to the creation of those works.

The first to elaborate was Kessler: “In France, we have tried to apply the system that we had built for the linear national and international broadcasters to the US streamers. The platforms were there, and we needed to work with them. We needed to have them in the French and in the European ecosystem. This was in order to safeguard our creation and to allow our producers, our creators, to make new works. But also, it was to deal with the new ecosystem that they were building.” The specific measures introduced by France are investment obligations and levies. In 2021, a decree was passed that states that 20% of the streamers’ turnover has to be invested back into French and European creation. This allows French producers to continue making works as they did before. “So far, it has worked well. For instance, Cannes’ opening film [The Second Act [+see also:
film review
trailer
film profile] by Quentin Dupieux] was financed partly by Netflix,” said Kessler.

As for the German side, Honold explained that the country does not yet have any similar tools: “We are a levy-based system, which means that the first thing we did was to integrate players, streamers, into our system on the same level as the local broadcasters. That was in 2016. Since then, there has been some stagnation. COVID-19 hit, and the market changed again. We are currently discussing the implementation of an investment obligation.”

Marcich explained what the situation is like in Croatia: “For smaller countries, like Croatia, the challenge was that we were legislating during COVID-19. So, the law was being promoted at that time. And that was a point when the streamers were really providing something to households that were holed up at home. And their market boomed, basically. We were very cautious politically because there were comments by the international streamers that if we legislated too much, maybe they wouldn’t be able to stay in the market. And so, that kind of intimidation, which was subtle but real, influenced our outcomes. We had a 2% levy and a 2% investment obligation, but those are both too low. We were inspired by the French to try to go for at least 10%, but it didn't work. So, we will modify our legislation in the future.” He concluded: “One message for all those who are looking at implementing these sorts of measures is not to be intimidated by fake arguments. The streamers have an interest in the market, and we have an interest in them participating in it.”

Turning to Korea and Indonesia, Donghyun, the chairperson of KOFIC, the Korean national film fund, had a sobering and pessimistic declaration to make concerning the relationship between the Korean film industry and the global streamers: “It is true that global streamers have played an important role in investing in Korean content and promoting our content to the world. However, owing to the streamers’ aggressive investment strategy, the content market has not had enough time to allow existing investors, producers and creators to respond quickly enough to the sudden changes. The standard costs of production and labour have risen significantly. Changes in the viewing environment, especially the decrease in theatre attendance, have caused more concern for traditional investors, who have to worry about generating profits along with rising costs, and producers have to cover costs while reducing their own fixed profits. So, although the streamers have clearly contributed to the external growth of Korean content, it has also, ironically, led to dire results for internal growth. […] Integration and cooperation are a long way off for the time being. If we try to apply regulations to global streamers now, domestic streamers may be disadvantaged by the side effects. So, it is a complex and difficult problem for us. And even though you might think that Korean content in general sells well, the range of buyers is not that broad, and we just sell our content at a fixed price.”

As for Indonesia, Sihar shared the fact that streamers have just discovered the potential of the local market. Legislation is, however, not yet able to set up regulations governing the relationship with those players: “Every time the streamers have big productions in Indonesia, it sucks up all of the resources, all the cast and crew. So, all local productions are on hold at that time. Before we can convince the politicians to implement levies or legal measures, we must concentrate on creating more resources, starting with education and training.”