A survey titled Movements of Central and Eastern European Projects conducted by Institute of Documentary Film and Documentary Association of Europe, and presented June 23 at Sunny Side of the Doc, indicates a low take-up of CEE projects across the major Western European doc markets.
Written by DAE’s Brigid O’Shea, the survey shows that of the 835 doc projects selected across the major co-pro markets between 2016-2019, 112 were from CEE (22 countries) while 723 were from the rest of the world (44 of which had a CEE co-pro partner).
The markets under analysis were of CPH:Forum, DOK Co-Pro Market, IDFA Forum, Sheffield MeetMarket, Thessaloniki Docs in Progress, Visions du Réel’s Pitching du Réel and Docs in Progress and When East Meets West Co-Pro Forum.
The market selection rate is published as follows in the survey (CEE/total selections): CPH:Forum 8/88 (not including 2016); DOK Co-Pro Market (41/138); IDFA Forum (23/228); Sheffield MeetMarket (11/199); Thessaloniki Docs in Progress (12/44); Visions du Réel’s Pitching du Réel & Docs in Progress (15/97); When East Meets West Co-Pro Forum (24/41)
The goal of the analysis, the survey notes point out, is to see how “how competitive are East and Central European documentary projects in the wider European marketplace? Can selection statistics show us the best places for East and Central European filmmakers to present their projects? And how can we create more geographic parity in the European Documentary Marketplace?”
Zdeněk Blaha, Programme Director of IDF, comments: “The study brought several interesting facts about the European documentary landscape. As we see from the numbers, the representation of the CEE projects on film markets and forums in Western Europe is very limited, thus supporting markets in the CEE region is crucial for levelling the playing field and bringing decision makers to the region. Especially now, when Creative Europe puts a bigger emphasis on co-production with low production capacity countries.”
He continues: “Another interesting fact is to see which countries were represented more than the others. Poland, Serbia, but also Lithuania were on top of the list with the most projects presented on international markets. This could be partly due to the support system in these countries, since the infrastructure of film funds and film organizations plays a key role in film promotion. All these countries were represented in the form of national delegations on several occasions in this specific time period we explored in the survey.”
Poland emerged as the country with most projects selected (18), followed by Serbia (15), Lithuania (12), Hungary (10), followed by the rest of the 22 countries with single digit project representation.
The survey defines the following countries as belonging to East and Central Europe (including plus post-Soviet), numbering 27 in total: Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Republic of Serbia, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine; plus the following post-Soviet countries: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan.
In her summary O’Shea lists a series of takeaways from the survey findings.
“The large audiovisual markets: Germany, France, UK and USA represent the largest number of projects selected for these markets and events,” she writes, which is “a domination that, as Creative Europe has correctly pointed out, requires special treatment and support to be lent to the countries of small audiovisual output, of which all CEE countries are, either small or medium.”
“This support must not necessarily be an implementation of a selection quota system, but rather the ongoing support for pitching events and markets in these smaller countries, to showcase and celebrate European storytelling in all its diversity, while also allowing the same support and ‘home court advantage’ to be accessible to CEE film professionals,” she continues.
“Bringing the decision making structure to the region may be the most effective way to improve competition and lift the profile of the professionals and projects. Specific and special training that organisations in the CEE region can offer the projects prior to their own events is also essential to increase their professional experiences and chances for success,” she adds.
Enhanced opportunity for networking building is another must, O’Shea stresses. “As one of the core mandates of the Creative Europe programme is B2B business exchange and improving the networks of European film professionals, events outside of Germany, France, Netherlands etc. are essential to create strong local networks, improve competitive chances for professionals in the large markets/abroad, as well as broader opportunities for professional development.”
O’Shea concludes her report: “As each Western European film market has its own focus, size, atmosphere and idiosyncratic offerings, it is difficult to say if participating in one market is better/more impactful for a project. A combination of markets is necessary for projects to build a network to successfully finance and distribute a documentary internationally. This includes research work as part of delegations or attending as an observer, not just having a project officially selected for a market, as well as ongoing work that many institutions are doing for professional development and training (e.g. Serbia, Hungary).”
