Huw D Jones

This paper is about the EU's MEDIA programme’s support (or lack of it) for women filmmakers in Europe. My analysis of a sample of 1,473 films funded through MEDIA’s flagship theatrical distribution scheme – which promotes the cross-border circulation of European films – reveals that, during the most recent 2007-13 funding cycle, only 16% of MEDIA-funded films had a female director. In financial terms, 13% of the distribution scheme’s €228 million budget went towards films directed by women, while their median average award was 20% lower than male-directed MEDIA-funded films. This paper examines why the gender gap in MEDIA funding exists and what it means for audiences in Europe.

European films accounted for 17.4% of UK cinema releases in the period 2002-14, but only 1.8% of the gross box office. Drawing on box office data, audience surveys and interviews with industry players, this article argues that European films generally perform badly in the UK box office because they suffer from a heavy 'cultural discount' and structural weaknesses at the level of production and distribution. Those European films which do 'breakout' are either English-language films with qualities designed to appeal to a mainstream British audience (e.g. stars and special effects) or foreign language films with cultural elements (e.g. well-known story, director, genre, subject matter or source material) which many British cinemagoers are already familiar with. Breakout European films are also mainly released by Hollywood studios or major independent distributors. These findings provide insights into academic and policy debates about the transnational circulation of film and other media products.

For decades, Italy has been a major producer and exporter of ‘quality cinema’. This paper examines how active that role is today. It focuses on what are officially designated ‘Cultural Interest films’, which the Italian culture ministry (MiBACT) recognises for their “significant cultural, artistic or spectacular quality”. Drawing on the quantitative analysis of industry data, it is argued that Cultural Interest films – which account for about a quarter of Italian film output – are more likely than other Italian productions to display attributes associated with quality cinema, including large budgets, high production values, international co-production partners, highly regarded creative personnel, showy mise en scène, genre ambiguity, major awards, festival appearances and positive reviews. They also sell more cinema tickets in both Italy and the rest of Europe, suggesting these quality indicators have a positive impact on the box office performance and international circulation of Italian films. At the same time, the performance of Cultural Interest films outside of their domestic market is still very low compared with films produced in other major European countries. Thus, while Italy can still claim to be a major producer of quality cinema, it is no longer a significant exporter of such films. It is argued that one reason why Cultural Interest films do not circulate abroad as well as films from other major European films in terms is because international distributors tend to preferioritise those films which display conventional quality indicators (e.g. well-known director, major awards, festival appearances) at the expense of films with elements (e.g. a strongclear story with both humour and social relevance) which actually appeal to international audiences. These findings have implications for both the Italian and the wider European film industry.

Ken Loach stands out as one of the few British directors whose films are regularly co-produced with European partners. Of the 19 films he has directed since 1990, 14 have been UK/European co-productions. This article draws on interviews with Loach's long-term producer Rebecca O'Brien, content analysis of his films and the statistical analysis of box office data to examine how and why Loach came to work with European co-production partners and how these partnerships have affected the cultural identity of his films and their box office performance. It argues that while some of Loach's co-production partnerships were initiated for creative reasons, most have proceeded on a 'finance-only' basis, whereby the partners have had very little creative input in his films. Co-production has therefore allowed Loach to continue making 'culturally British' films without the creative interference which often comes with this mode of filmmaking. This creative freedom has been vital in terms of maintaining Loach's reputation as one of Europe's leading 'auteurs' and attracting the attention of film festivals like Cannes and Berlin, which in turn have played a key role in marketing his films and increasing their admissions in key European territories. Co-production has also boosted the performance and circulation of Loach's films in mainland Europe by making it easier to access EU MEDIA distribution support. These findings not only offer new insights into Loach's films in terms of their production, content and reception, but also contribute to wider debates surrounding co-production and transnational cinema.

As research on transnational cinema makes clear, films do not easily coincide with national borders, but 'link people or institutions across nations' (Ezra and Rowden 2006, 1). While Britain's strongest transnational links are with the US, it has also developed production partnerships with its European neighbours. Each year, British film companies lead-produce about fifteen co-productions with other Europeans. But why do British filmmakers work with European partners, and what are the implications of these partnerships for their film's cultural identity and its box office performance? Through analysing a sample of recent UK/European co-productions, this article suggest most British film companies work with other Europeans for financial rather than creative reasons. At the same time, UK/European co-productions are more 'culturally European' than other categories of British film (i.e. domestic and inward investment features). While this does not necessarily boost their popularity with European audiences, the bigger budgets and better distribution links which co-production enables means UK/European co-productions on average perform better in Europe than UK domestic features. Co-production is therefore a useful strategy for getting British films made and circulated within Europe, though this strategy is also thwarted by a UK film policy orientated towards attracting higher value US inward investment features.

Between 1969 and 1976, the Welsh Arts Council (WAC) organized a groundbreaking exhibition series called ‘Art and Society’, which explored how particular themes – war, work, worship and sex – had been interpreted across different media. Combining ‘high’ art with ‘popular’ culture, this series attracted international attention for challenging cultural hierarchies and advancing a broader, sociological definition of ‘art’. Yet it also attracted controversy, both for rejecting critical standards and for the theme of its final exhibition, ‘sex’. This article examines ‘Art and Society’ in its broader historical context. It argues that the series demonstrates WAC’s contribution to key cultural debates in post-war Britain.

The formation of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) in 1945 marked the introduction of official state patronage for the arts in Britain. But while research has focused on ACGB's contribution to English cultural life, little has been written about its influence throughout the rest of Great Britain. This paper addresses this gap by examining ACGB's Welsh Committee's contribution to the visual arts in post-war Wales. It argues the Welsh Committee not only helped develop greater ‘knowledge, practice and interest’ in contemporary Welsh art, but also strengthened Welsh national identity, thereby illustrating the ‘plurinational’ character of British cultural policy.

Small nations are growing in prominence. In 1950, there were 22 sovereign European states with a population below 18 million. Today there are 36 - not to mention many more stateless nations. What are the particular characteristics of the media in small nations? What challenges do broadcasters and other media institutions in these countries face, how can these be overcome, and are there advantages to operating in a small national context? How are small nations represented on screen, and how do audiences in small nations engage with the media? Bringing together perspectives from across Europe, including case-studies on Catalonia, the Basque Country, Wales, Scotland, Iceland, Portugal, Slovenia and Macedonia, this collection answers these questions. At the same time, it provides readers with insights into broader issues of media policy, representation, national identity, transnationalism, audience reception and media research methods. With European media institutions and practitioners coming to terms with the changes brought about by digitisation and globalisation against a backdrop of financial uncertainty, this collection offers a timely contribution to debates about the media in Europe. Contributors include: Steve Blandford, John Newbigin, Sally Broughton Micova, Josep Angel Guimera, Ana Fernandez Viso, Agnes Schindler, Dilys Jones, Trish Reid, Jacqui Cochrane, Anabela de Sousa Lopes and Merris Griffiths.

This statistical report examines the production, funding, distribution and reception of European films directed by women over the last decade. The report reveals that while female directed European films are as popular amongst audiences and film critics as male directed European films (based on, for example, their IMDb User rating and Metacritic scores), they are seen by far less people in cinemas in Europe. This is partly because European films directed by women receive far lower levels of production and distribution support.  For example, in the period 2007-13, the average MEDIA distribution award for female directors was 29% lower than for male directors. The report aims to add to the evidence base on the position of women in European film industry, in order to inform policy and debate.

The study aims to analyse the culture of the visual arts in Wales between 1940 and 1994 – a period when the British state took formal responsibility for arts patronage through the Arts Council of Great Britain.  Special attention focuses on how exhibitions organised by Welsh representatives of the Arts Council helped define and assert a Welsh sense of national identity, whose interests this served, and what were its wider implications.  Following Peter Lord’s idea of an “Aesthetics of Relevance,” the study therefore examines Welsh art in relation to the broader social, political and economic development of the Welsh nation.  Using discourse analysis of exhibition files held in the Welsh Arts Council Archive, together with other primary and secondary sources, the study finds that the Welsh Arts Council promoted a British sense of Welshness – conceived first in communal, later in more progressive terms – that served to legitimise and reproduce the British social democratic consensus negotiated between government, capital and labour during the Second World War.  At the same time, it marginalised nationalist ideas of Wales.  This was achieved not only through the kinds of images shown by the Welsh Arts Council, but also how they were presented to Welsh audiences.  In conceptual terms, the Welsh Arts Council can therefore be thought of as a “disciplinary mechanism” which made use of curatorial practices of display to regulate images into discursive formations that permitted, and so naturalised, certain ways of thinking about national identity, while silencing others.  In turn, this codification of national culture helped define the social-space of the Welsh nation.  On the other hand, audiences often challenged the authorised version of Welsh art through the different knowledges and experiences they brought to a display site.  Art is therefore a key discursive space in which consensus on national identity is negotiated and contested.

| Praise for Exhibiting Welshness:

"For the evolution of Arts Council policy in Wales, see Huw David Jones, 'Exhibiting Welshness: Art, Politics and National Identity in Wales, 1940-1994', unpublished PhD thesis, Swansea University, 2007. I have drawn extensively on the work of Dr Jones for this chapter, and I am greatly indebted to him for his enrichment of my understanding of the period".

Peter Lord (2016). The Tradition: A New History of Welsh Art, 1400-1990. Cardigan: Parthian, p.322 [n.28]. (Peter Lord is Wales's leading art historian)