the Report 2009 in PDF version

Transcription

Report
The market and the cinema
industry in Italy
2009
fondazione ente
dello spettacolo
In collaboration with
CINECITTA’ LUCE S.p.A.
With the support of
Editing and graphics: PRC srl - Roma
Published by: Area Studi Ente dello Spettacolo
Consultation: Redento Mori
Report
The market and the cinema
industry in Italy
2009
fondazione ente
dello spettacolo
The Fondazione Ente dello Spettacolo has been in operation since 1946 within Italian
cinema culture.
Over time it has become one of the leaders in cinema content and manages cinema
information for Sole24ore.it, Libero.it, Yahoo, Acotel-Noverca, Previewnetworks, MTV,
Comingsoon Television and others.
The Fondazione carries out activity in terms of both traditional and electronic publishing
at the web portal www.cinematografo.it, organizes cultural events, international
conventions, seminars and film festivals (www.tertiomillenniofest.org), film previews, often
in collaboration with important Italian and foreign partners, among which the Centro
Sperimentale di Cinematografia, Cinecittà Holding, Istituto Luce, “Cahiers du Cinéma”,
Fondazione Cineteca di Milano, Museo del Cinema di Torino.
It is also the publisher of ‘Rivista del Cinematografo’ the oldest Italian periodical of film
criticism.
Introduction
he 2009 Report ‘The Market and the Cinema
Industry in Italy’ is the natural successor to the
previous Report which, for the first time in Italy,
provided an organic overview of this vital sector
of the economy.
The general consensus obtained from the previous edition
has resulted in new research, interpretation and analysis
with the integration of new data which serves to further
enrich this work carried out by the Fondazione Ente dello
Spettacolo in collaboration with Cinecittà Luce S.p.A.
T
Indeed, an essential aspect of this second edition is the research into
a better definition of the operators and economic assets of the
various components of Italian cinema.
In the 2008 Report attention was primarily given to the supply market
and it was in light of this that the authors attempted to provide a
definition of the confines of cinema activity (with a value approaching
5 billion euro), as opposed to a more traditional analysis dedicated
solely to market demand concentrating on cinema takings and the
revenue generated by home video (which was valued at around 1.5
billion euro) and lacking in data and information which can be defined
as absolute.
Once the area of analysis has been established, the current volume
is dedicated to individuating those Companies – among the over 9
thousand active companies – which have a value of production
contributing to over 80% of total business turnover (always in terms
of market supply) to the entire sector. The reference sample of
selected Companies has passed from 285 to 650 joint-stock
Companies.
Furthermore, for the first time the authors have attempted to
determine, in terms of investment in film production – from which
the turnover made every year by the sector takes it origins – the
contributions provided not only by private capital and public FUS
contributions, but also those of European funds and from Italian
regions through the Film Fund and the Film Commission. These are
contributions which, to some extent, are comparable to systems of
public financing (community, state and territory) which are used by
other European nations.
The result of this is to define the consistency and quality of Italian
national cinema in terms of its principle problem: the competition
with foreign productions, in particular those of the United States
majors , something which, furthermore, represents the fundamental
problem of all European cinema.
The vitality of Italian cinema is the very life-force of the entire
cinema sector.
The 2009 Report confirms that in spite of the aggressiveness of
foreign competition and the decrease in public contributions,
nevertheless, the creative and industrial world of Italian cinema has
not lowered its defences. It is a duty of all principle subjects in the
sector to prevent such critical urgency from compromising the
prospectives.
Dario E. Viganò
President of Fondazione Ente dello Spettacolo
Luciano Sovena
Chief Executive Officer, Cinecitta Luce S.p.A.
INDEX
Part one - THE EVOLUTION OF A WORLD
CINEMA FOR EVERYONE
Chapter 1 - The Digital Challenge
11
1. The Conquest of Mobilità
2. The Definition of Business
3. The Supply Market
14
4. Knowledge for Decision Making
5. Everything Changes with Digital
6. Learning from America in Europe
7. More of a Handicap than a Competitive Advantage
13
13
15
16
17
18
Chapter 2 - Economic Framework
1. Box Office
2. From Bordereau to Budgets
3. The Core Business and Macro Sector 4. Conscious Silence
5. Thousands Screens Generation
22
23
23
24
25
Part two - CINEMA AND ITS RESOURCES
LABOR AND CAPITALS
Chapter 3 - Companies and Business Activity
1. Figures of the Down Turn
2. The First Negative Balance
3. The LTD Companies Overtaking
4. Fewer Firms and the Turnover Drops • How Much does the Film Industry Produce?
• Profitability of Companies
5. Selection in Progress
• Classes of Turnover
6. Loss and Benefit
• Dimensional classes
7. Geographical Aspects of Cinema
• Geographical distribution
8. 736 Million Euros Fleeing Home
32
34
35
38
38
40
41
42
43
43
45
45
46
Chapter 4 - Labor Market and Professione
1. Importance of Cinema Leadership
• Labor Market
2. The Weight of Cinecittà
• Geographical Distribution
3. Real Dimensions of Workflows
• Employment
• Periods and Levels of Employment
4. Employment: Back to 1994
50
51
52
52
55
56
57
58
5. Transparency of VAT Numbers
• Wages
6. The Unbearable Lightness of the “Usage Rate”
• Equal Opportunities
• Wage Levels
• Income from Working
7. On the Verge of Poverty
• Classes of Income
• Turnover
8. Difficulties in Creating a Career
• Professional Qualifications
• Reputations
9. The Paradox of Flexibility Creating Rigidity
10. Associations in the Film Industry
• Representative Bodies of Companies
• Labor Unions
• Professional Organizations
• Professional Associations
• Artistic and Cultural Associations
• International Organizations
60
61
62
62
62
63
65
66
67
69
69
71
72
72
73
75
76
76
77
79
Part third - ALL THE MARKETS OF THE FILM SECTOR
FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMPTION
Chapter 5 - The Supply Chain
1. First Step: Capitals and Quality of Projects
2. Fewer Low Budget Films
• Investments
3. Brave Investors and the New Mix of Resources
• Private resources
• Share holders and financial partners
4. The Extended Family of Filmmakers
5. A New Financial Paradigm?
• Banking Partners
• Banking Foundations
6. If the FUS continues to be less important
• State Resources
• Regional Funds
7. The Role of the Film Commissions
8. Why We Talk About Cinema Federalism
• European Funds
• 9. How the Demand Was Born: the Activity of Production
• Asset Values
• Public Contributions
10. The Real Challenge for National Producers
• Community help
11. Film and its Declination
• The production mix
• Animation
• Documentaries
• Short films
86
87
88
89
90
91
82
95
96
97
98
99
102
102
105
106
108
108
108
110
114
117
118
118
119
119
• Film tv
• Porn
• Technical and Audiovisual industries
12. The Strategic Distribution Market
• Rental Commissions
• Export
• State Contributions
• Eu Support
• Widened Diffusion
13. The Cinema Hall Class Fight
14. Little Room in Cinemas for Italian Films
• Property Investments
• Technological innovation
• Public Incentives
15. So Many “Cinema Paradiso” to save
• Box Office Profits
• Business Areas
120
120
121
122
126
126
127
128
128
129
131
136
136
136
137
138
139
Part fourth - PROTAGONISTS GREAT AND SMALL
THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN RELATIONSHIPS
OF STRENGTH AND VALUES
Chapter 6 - Groups and Companies: the Main Realities
1. Holding and Dominating Groups
2. Operative Societies and the Leaders
3. The Principal Production House
4. The Major Distribution Companies
5. The Big Circuit of Practice
6. The First Industrial and Services Enterprises
143
144
148
150
163
169
170
Chapter 7 - Market quota
1. USA Hegemony is the Problem of Europe
2. Which Resources to Defend National Cinema
• The Ripartition For Sales
• Partition Of Sales
3. Italy-Abroad: a Relation of Strength
4. King Maker and Player
5. Major, Mini-Major and Indie
6. Where Business is
• Production
• Distribution
• Practice
174
175
176
179
180
181
181
182
182
184
186
APPENDIX
The Other Public Hand Regions and Film Commission
195
The Evolution of the State Cinema and Cinecittà Luce SpA
215
Part one
The evolution of a world
Cinema for everyone
CHAPTER 1
“THE CULTURE INDUSTRY IS A SYSTEM.
CULTURAL PRODUCTS HAVE A TECHNOLOGICAL
CHARACTER AND ARE EXCLUSIVELY
INSPIRED BY THE LOGIC OF THE MARKET”.
Theodor W. Adorno (1903 - 1969),
German philosopher, sociologist and composer.
The Digital
Challenge
s a part of cultural heritage, the cinema has a double DNA, artistic and
economic. However, in keeping with this image and attempting a definition
of its genetic code, it would be necessary to state that the origins of cinema
belong to the world of technology. This was implicitly acknowledged by the
same Lumière brothers, Louis and Auguste, from the moment they first
patented their filming and projecting equipment in 1895 with the statement - “The
cinema is an invention without a tomorrow”. Thomas A. Edison and Charles Pathé were
indeed the first to acknowledge that such an invention would be capable of becoming
an enormous event and to understand how to organize an entire industry from its
productions thereby discovering the so-called missing link: such a technological
innovation should not only be used for chronicling daily life but could also be used for
reproducing and showing other worlds, other realities1.
A
1
A recurring theme in the publications dedicated to the history of cinema is the reference to the gradual loss of interest of the public following the initial enthusiasm for cinema at the Grand Café di Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. Within a short time it was relatively clear that the spectators at the time
knew how trains arrived at their destination, how products and works came out from factories and
the most effective methods for watering their gardens, and city traffic. Also the “inventions” and tricks
of George Méliès, the first competitor to the Lumière brothers had a very positive influence following
their initial success. One of the most fortunate in the United States was the imaginative fire-brigade
This was first understood in Italy after 1910, even if, before that time the first films
were nothing other than the recreation of theatrical or literary works which clearly
showed the influence of the original authors. From ‘La morte civile’ which was
presented with the names of the comedy writer Paolo Giacometti and starring Amleto
Novelli to ‘Nanà’ “a film of 750 metres, by Zola”; from ‘Il padrone delle ferriere’ by
George Ohnet to the numerous versions of ‘La capanna dello zio Tom’ (‘Uncle Tom’s
Cabin’) “by Harriet Beecher Stowe” up until ‘Cabiria’ attributed to the Italian poet
Gabriele D’Annunzio, plus many others. This was also a method for giving artistic
dignity to the new cinema2.
From the moment in which space was conceded for cinematic creativity, the productions
of the film industry became an established art form, part of our cultural heritage, a
unique and original prototype with strong intellectual components. It was, furthermore,
from that moment that the cinema began to be a form of ‘media’ which transmits values
and communicates meaning, the occasion for a ‘good experience’ of wide consumption
in as much as it could be reproduced countless times.
However, in confirmation of its original genetic make-up it is technology which continues
to signal the cinema’s development. Following the release of the first bio -chromatic
film of Kodak for Cecil B. DeMille’s ‘The Ten Commandments’ in 1923 very few believed
in the sytem developed by Herbert Kalmus of Technicolor which, ten years later, revealed
itself to be fundamental in the passage to tri-chromatic film.
Even when sound was later introduced to Hollywood by Warner, the second great
historical innovation consisting of the musical soundtrack to ‘Don Juan’ played by John
Barrymore in 1926 and then, a year later, the dialogue and songs of Al Jolson in ‘The
Jazz Singer’ by Alan Crosland, it was, nevertheless, maintained that nothing would
change. A scene from ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donan (1952) is
recalled in a significant manner during a dialogue of two characters of the film director
Douglas Fowley - “It is a find which will not last!” - and from the musician Donald
O’Connor: “The same thing was said about the automobile”.
Charles Chaplin also remained unconvinced: “Silent movies will survive because they
represent the poetry of gestures”. On the contrary, sound - as well as imposing a new
standard of 24 frames per second in comparison to the previous 16 - did away with a
2
12 |
captain George C. Hale from Kansas City who invented the so-called ‘scenic tour’ which was presented for the first time at the Exposition of St. Louis in 1904 and consisted of a series of panoramic views
made in the most suggestive sites of America and Europe (the Niagara Falls, the Swiss Alps, the Tower
of London, the Colosseum in Rome, the castles of Loira, the pyramids of Egypt and the camels of the
Sahara were the films or rather documentaries most appreciated).
One promising example is the work left behind in the form of memoirs by the film director Giovanni
Pastrone, who was the first to put D’Annunzio onto the cinema screen: “I am proud today, at having
renounced the entire paternity of ‘Cabiria’ - I was only thirty years old- in order to present D’Annunzio a film which I had made myself. At such an age it was unknown to renounce everything for glory”.
whole generation of film makers and stars from silent movies. From 1941 onwards,
following the success of stereophonic sounds in ‘Fantasia’ by Walt Disney technological
innovation followed a constant rhythm, from Cinemascope up until the latest computer
technology for the creation of special effects and new systems of production and
digitalized projection, high-definition 3D, all assisted by satellite diffusion and the
internet.
1. The Conquest of Mobility
In the enhancement of expressive quality and artistic value, such a long series of
innovations has, at the same time, turned cinema activity into a cultural activity of
entertainment which is constantly more multimedia, augmenting - according to the logic
of the market to which cinema has been tightly subjected ever since its origins distribution channels and both the possibilities and scope of fruition. The film industry
began leaving cinemas in the 1950s and started becoming a part of home entertainment
through television. Since then domestic consumption of films has progressively
intensified with the introduction of the video recorder and VHS at the end of the 1970s.
‘Pay TV’ arrived in Italy in 1991 through which people’s homes themselves became
alternative expenditure outlets in opposition to box offices and video rentals or even
(some time later) newspaper stands.
Things already started becoming digital in 1985 with the introduction of the CD-Rom, the
new discs which led to a growing domestication of entertainment. This trend continued
thanks to the introduction of CD-I interactive CDs at the end of the 1980s and, in
particular, the release of the DVD in 1998. This was the same year in which the possibility
of surfing the internet and ‘file sharing’ (primarily illegally) “exploded” onto the scene
with ever increasing scale. At the beginning of the 21st century a further process of
change developed within the field of so-called VOD, or ‘video on demand’, this process
occurred simultaneously with the tumultuous diffusion of ‘play station’ for video games.
At the same time film was released, for the first time, from its normal locations - either
cinemas or homes - and took advantage of ‘mobile video content’ resulting in its full
mobility as ‘Open Sky’.
2. The Definition of Business
According to the most widely recognized estimates the macro sectors of the
communications industry have seen the value of their production rise from 28.6 to 105.2
billion euro (in other words 3.67 times) in the last 20 years. The revenue of the audiovisual
sector has risen from 998 million to a little more than 6.2 billion (6.25 times). Within the
audiovisual sector the cinema has been accredited with contributions which have jumped
| 13
from 283 million in 1987 to 637 million euro in 2008, equal to a multiplication of 2.25.3
Making reference to activity in the field of communication, primarily involving data based on
turnover generated from various channels and distributive supports - the so-called
platforms - which substantially belong to service groups developed by the so-called
‘carriers’, such as Telco systems, television and radio networks, providers, internet
publishers and conventional publishers. Of the three macro-sectors under consideration, the
largest is, for instance, ICT (Information, Communication and Technology) which covers 64%
of overall turnover; whereas at the sector level that of audio-visual productions is considered
part of the macro-sector involving editorial content (24.4 billion euro in sales) and, together
with the cinema - understood in its physical form as a hall for the screening of films, as a
sales outlet for the general public - consists of another five sources of income: radio and
television licensing, home video, pay television, games software and mobile video content.
In the logic of marketing it is instrumental to define the industrial apparatus of
telecommunications, the media, interactive entertainment and information services.
Principally, these are functional values for the description of the only assets of the demand
market and which are re-interpreted in the genetic code of the cinema as its ‘natural
destiny’ of simple technological solutions, just as was intended at the origin of cinema.
In as much as it is comprehensible, the analysis of any sector by means of the data concerning
market demand and sales outlets for the public is not always entirely adherent to productive
realities and is certainly hardly ever exhaustive. In particular there is the risk of providing
information which may prove misleading. As was revealed in the previous edition of this
report, in virtue of its various and common connotations, the cinema is, in essence,
considered as an artistic activity or a cultural activity, a part of the performing arts sector or
as a form of entertainment in general, moreover, it has also at times been considered as a
free time activity or even as a part of the communications market involving ‘e-content’, the
so-called content of electronic publishing found in the, by now, vast universe of ICT.
3. The Supply Market
Now would seem an opportune moment for highlighting once again that the definition of
the real cinematic context, aside from its essential and overriding artistic content which
constitutes its historical origin, is not a formal question but rather a basic problem when
one attempts to put together a valuation, which is both organic and technically valid, of its
social, political and economic worth. Aside from such objective difficulties - which are
certainly not easily dealt with - in attributing a certain identity code to the cinema sector,
it can be understood that certain determinate classifications could, quite reasonably, result
3
14 |
The reported data are to be found in the research paper “L’industria della comunicazione in Italia
1987-2008. L’andamento dei mercati, le sfide per il regolatore, i rischi e le opportunità per il cittadino”
edited by Flavia Barca and Andrea Marzulli for IEM - Istituto di Economia dei presentata al Sesto Summit sull’Industria della Comunicazione in Italia.
in diverse analyses and conclusions which may even by conflicting or at times reductive.
All comparative studies occasionally result as improper or partial, this is particularly so if
cinema is compared to other sectors such as museums or archaeological sites of interest or
even with sport. This is also the case if one area is separated from the whole sector - such as
home video for instance - as opposed to a diverse area, resulting from, say, the diverse physical
means by which the film is projected, or if certain, determinate productive realities are ignored
because their activity or their products are classified by the technical characteristics of
production as opposed to their destination market or type of consumption of created goods.
Clearly, the problem is more complex than it at first appears. Just as it is true that in the area
of cinema most discussion involves the content and quality of the film productions of major
success as determining factors in the market, it is equally certain that the lack of information
generally has specific consequences concerning what economists define as market
efficiency and which, in substance, concern the greatest possible use of available resources.
In a work by the American film director and writer Garson Kanin there is an example
which is as much dated as it is pertinent to today: “In the culminating phase of the cinema
industry here, they were producing 750 or 800 films a year. Now they say that Hollywood
is finished. It only just produces 250 or 300 films a year. However, they have forgotten
or ignored, one thing: the length. This is where they are mistaken. We are now producing
more metres of film than ever before in the history of Hollywood, and I have always been
here, right from the start. It genuinely is so now today More metres of film. I agree, a part
of this goes for television. But what difference does it make? It still concerns the cinema
industry, and it still involves film, whether they are projected in cinemas or are watched
on television screens or as videos, or if they are sold in supermarkets wrapped up in
cellophane. Maybe one day films will be sold by weight! But what difference does it make?
They are still films! And it always involves the cinema industry!” 4
4. Knowledge for Decision Making
As well as altering the correct functioning of the market such information asymmetries
(understood as unequal distribution of awareness regarding progress and regarding the
composition of the various sectors) and even more so the total lack of information in certain
cases, also have important consequences on competitive structure and on measures taken
by industrial or cultural politics which are otherwise adopted in a context of “poor visibility”.
In the first case the unequal distribution of information has, as a consequence, a limitation
on the competitive capacity of certain companies which are structurally more “limited” in
their operative decisions, precluding as a whole or in part the commercial results from
companies which are, nevertheless, productively efficient but which lack the adequate
prospective for making decisions in a manner which is completely rational. This situation
4
Garson Kanin (1912-1999), American film director and author in ‘Hollywood’ (Italian translation ‘Il romanzo di Hollywood’, Rizzoli Editore, Milano, 1984.
| 15
favours - as if often lamented in cinema circles - the dominant operators which due to the
possession of major and better information are able to operate in the market in a manner
which is simpler, more cogent and, as a consequence, with superior stability.
Secondly, the absence of a clear reference frame also affects the eventual normative
measures which a government can adopt in order to stimulate the arrival of specific results
or to promote the development of a given sector. As is demonstrated by the recent and
concerning previsions regarding an eventual drastic reduction in public contributions to the
cinema from FUS - Fondo Unico per lo Spettacolo (‘Unique Fund for the Performing Arts)
which is administered by MiBAC, the Italian Ministry for Heritage and Cultural Activity, a
fragmented or partial description of the situation can determine political strategies which
are far from the objective necessities or opportunities. It is one thing, for instance, to evaluate
the amount of support interventions of a specific sector credited with a value of production
of 637 million euro (or even 1,990) which hypothetically occupies a workforce of 37 thousand
according to determinate reports, nevertheless, it is something completely different analyzing
the impact of financial incentives in support of activities with a total business turnover which
is actually ten times greater and involves over 9 thousand companies - half of which are
individually owned - which employ over 100 thousand individuals.5
Whilst Albert Einstein’s claim that “not everything that can be counted counts, and not
everything that counts can be counted” is certainly true, it is equally true that in each
case there is a need “to know in order to deliberate” as the economist and ex-president
of the Italian republic, Luigi Einaudi, maintained.6
5. Everything Changes with Digital
The cinema of today is experiencing its umpteenth - and yet again epoch makingtechnological development which is destined to result in an overall genetic mutation. The
digitalization of systems of filming, of production and of screening by now appears irreversible
and it can be taken as given that this will have an enormous influence on the entire national
5
6
16 |
The figure 637 million euro, indicated in the report cited note 2, corresponds to the national cinema
takings accepted by SIAE in 2007. The figure of 1,990 million euro as a value of production and of 37
thousand employees both refer to the elaboration of “Libro Bianco sulla Creatività” a project put together by the Italian Ministry for Heritage and Cultural Activity. This study, edited by the Commissione
sulla Creatività e Produzione di Cultura in Italia, instituted next to the same ministry, developed its
analysis through a detailed classification of intellectual, artistic and technical activity, based on three
principle categories: cultural materials, including fashion, industrial and traditional design, taste industry; industry of content, of information and of communications, including software, publishing, TV
and radio, publicity, cinema; historical and artistic patrimony, constituted by cultural, architectural,
musical, performing arts and contemporary art patrimony.
With these two quotations Angelo Zaccone Teodosi, President of IsICult (Istituto italiano per l’Industria
Culturale) had the opportunity to open his speech of the title “Lo scenario dello spettacolo in Italia” at the
conference titled “Una legislatura innovativa per lo Spettacolo italiano” held in Rome on 7th April 2008.
cinema sector, with the definitive abandonment of analogical techniques and the evolution
from the chemical methods of celluloid to the ‘bits’ of digital software. Such an evolution can
be seen as somewhat delicate in terms of its relationship with film sets, studios, production
laboratories and projection structures, it is, however, also economically decisive. In terms of
both support for initial economic investment for production companies (a large part of the
technical industry and of post-production services are already passing through a severe
economic crisis) and for financial institutions, both of effective future cost reductions for
management (cuts are currently estimated at around 20-30%).
Already today there are no films, in spite of being made using traditional techniques,
which do not contain interventions of a digital nature in their master copies. Initially
applied in the preparation of special effects, software programs are now developing in the
area of film sets and phases of post-production. Furthermore, they certainly permit an
indubitable increase in that creativity which since the origins has represented a driving
force of the cinema system, a factor which is both of renewal and of public motivation.
In terms of finance this represents a further series of opportunities. Employing the technique
of satellite transmission for films and commercials results in a decrease in logistic
expenses, whilst at the same time increasing the flexibility of the entire system, with the
possibility of serving each structure in real time, including those sites designated as furthest
away or even “destitute”. In addition to this there is also the possibility of managing film
scheduling with far greater autonomy having, for instance, a greater number of titles to
show in the period of a single day or opening cinemas for the live screening of performances
or events (pop concerts, plays, works of opera, sports events) of particular interest.7
In lowering the costs of developing and printing copies of films, the costs of their
transportation and insurance, digital cinema has ended up involving the entire cinema
industry beginning with film distribution and bringing into question the already
articulated and complex equilibrium of the various sectors. Certain signs have already
emerged ever since the moment the new group ‘The Space Cinema’, originating from a
fusion of Medusa Cinema and Multicinema with Warner Village, caused the principle
distribution companies (the so-called ‘majors’) to have to re-examine the outline of their
agreements concerning film rights and scheduling for first releases.
6. Learning from America in Europe
However, the by far the strongest signal, in spite of certain reservations or doubts, comes
from the entire cinema market of the 27 nations forming the European Union. In 2009 the
European Union produced more films than ever and stabilized a new record concerning
7
The first digital circuit in Italy was Microcinema, supported by ACEC (Associazione Cattolica Esercenti
Cinema) which covers 1,050 parish cinemas. The film scheduling was inaugurated on 20th April 2007
with the live performance of “La Traviata” at the Teatro dell’Opera in Rome connected to 25 separate
cinemas via satellite. Today those cinemas belonging to the ‘digital network’ number over 110.
| 17
cinema attendances and takings: 6.27 billion euro in income as opposed to 5.60 in 2008
and 981.1 million tickets sold as compared to 925.3 the year before, resulting in an
increase of 12% in the former case and 6% in the latter. As was noted in the latest report
of the EAO (European Audiovisual Observatory), however, the merit for having created
such affluence and revenue is not the result of having produced 1,168 new works - 887
full length feature films and 281 documentary films - but rather to the success of three
particular films in 3D - ‘Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs’, ‘Up’ and ‘Avatar’. These are
all American productions and further to this United States cinema has also taken every
single position in the seasonal ‘top 20’, including the latest in the series of ‘Harry Potter’
films which, in spite of being branded as British were entirely financed by Warner Bros.8
In compensation, the ‘box office’ has taken the calendar of European film productions back
four years with a market quota equal to 26.7%, slightly more than the 24.6% reached in 2005
when it had initiated a comforting period of growth (27.9%-28, 1%-28.2%) from 2006 to 2008.
In the meantime United States productions (62.5% in 2005) have risen to a quota - equal to
67.1% - which was only known previously in the distant past. The first nation to lose part of
their rates was France which has lost in revenue 4.2 percentage points. Following behind
France is Italy which has, however, left behind 6 tenths of a point of its own rates from takings.
The affluent record of spectators and takings from United States productions has
indubitably been favoured by the growth of digital cinemas. Film projection technology
with ‘DLP’ Cinema or 4K equipment have risen to 2,602 in 1,350 European structures with
covering costs equal to 7.5% of the total and the data of Media Sales (Italian research
centre to which the monitoring of E.U. finance has been entrusted) indicate that on the
30th June 2009 there was an increase of 71% - equal to that registered for the whole of
2008 - at a rate of almost 180 cinema screens per month. Italy is among those nations,
such as France and Spain, which have developed at a most accelerated pace having an
increase rate of 129%. The number of digital cinema screens has by now reached 183 in
132 systems, with an incidence rate which is respectively 5.7% and 11.9% of the total
equipment of the industry.
7. More of a Handicap than a Competitive Advantage
It has to be said that the size of such a phenomenon clearly demonstrate the intensity of
such changes taking place, the resultant effects and the combination of danger and
opportunity which is projected onto the entire sector. The positive tendencies are most
certainly expressions of the capacity of ‘D-Cinema’ to re-evaluate the traditional
modalities of consumption of films and therefore of the entire distribution industry in
consideration of the role which cinemas have as a unit of measurement including all the
8
18 |
“Focus 2010 - World Film Market Trends” edited by André Lange and Martin Kanzler, Department forInformation on Markets and Financing (European Audiovisual Observatory, Strassburg, May 2010).
other platforms and modalities of fruition. The risks are clearly linked to the capacity of
foreign ‘majors’ to immediately extract the added value provided by new technology and
to, as a result, acquire from such technology a competitive advantage which is even more
superior to that which they already had available.
The structural weaknesses of the cinema-system and the reduced company presence,
apart from a few exceptions, of operators which compose the cinema industry represents
the principle handicap of Italian national productions in terms of competition. The digital
revolution, as has been well documented by a series of studies and international
research, is providing the cinema market with a force which can only be compared to
that which overwhelmed vinyl in music and negatives in photography.9
For this precise reason the General Administrative Office of MiBAC has in recent years
been committed to a policy of technological ‘re-conversion’ of cinema structures,
primarily of smaller cinemas, and has brought to life with the principle category
organizations the project “Schermi di qualità” (Cinema screens of quality) in support of
the scheduling of Italian and European films which have produced agreeable results,
subverting the wait for economic returns which are inferior. In the mean time various
Italian regions have also intervened in favour of updating the industry, in certain cases
aiming to favour the continuity of activity in cinemas which are found in city centres.10
Nevertheless, the situation which is expected in the short to medium term can be said
to put itself in contrast to - rather than in line with - the current context of the sector,
which despite the growing commitments of territorial institutions seems to foreshadow
the containment of public resources in support of new investments. In spite of such a
critical situation which could compromise the development of both production and
strategic communication - socially and culturally as well as economically - it is a common
conviction that research into creative solutions requires a proper role for both category
representations and political decision-makers.
9
10
“Creative Content in a European Digital Single Market: Challenges for the Future” document of the General Administrative Office of Information, Society and Media and Internal Market of the European
Commission (Brussels, 22nd October 2009); “Financing the digital roll-out: where do we stand? By Patrick Vanhoudt(EIB - European Investment Bank, Luxembourg);“Digitalising the cinemas” edited by
CNC -Centre national de la cinématographie (Paris); “The Impact of Digital Distribution” study by research centre KEA; “Audieu à la pellicule? Les enjeux de la projection numérique di Daniel Godineau;“Tutto il cinema, per sempre:il ruolo dell’Editore Audiovisivo nel futuro della comunicazione” by
Gaetano Stucchi (edited by Univideo);“Digital Network Microcinema: an operation realistic for digital
distribution” by Roberto Bassano;“Digital Cinema Economics” by Chris Koppelmeier (November
2007);“How to go digital? Proposal for a European business model” by the consultancy organization
RMC - Rinke medien consult (November 2007);“What is the future of cinemas in the age of new technologies?” by Marie Bloomfield, video analysis by Screen Digest (November2007).
The detailed analyses of the first three editions of the project “Schermi di qualità” were published
under the guidance of the Official Study of ANICA (Associazione Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche)
with the title “Cinema di qualità”, “I quaderni dell’ANICA”, Rome 2009.
| 19
CAPITOLO 2
“CINEMA IS ENTERTAINMENT FOR YOU,
BUT FOR ME IS ALMOST A VIEW OF THE WORLD”
Vladimir Majakovskij, Russian poet, playwright and painter (1894-1930)
Economic
Framework
W
hen the mass media talk about the revolution produced by the
digital system in the movie industry, they generally refer to 3D
blockbusters (such as Avatar, the ice age 3-Dawn of the
Dinosaurs and Up). Movie theatres are full of spectators wearing
spectacles, experiencing films, new technologies and an
exceptionally high level of special effects. The digitalisation of the “theatrical”
segment is just the tip of the iceberg, metaphorically speaking it is the framing
onto which the opening credits unfold, introducing the following scenes. But what
lies underneath?
Firstly, screenings in movie theatres are the initial stage in the chain production
of a movie. At this stage films become products and their standard definition as a
piece of art, entertainment format and medium of communication is enriched by
genre features and technical standards. After that they are ready to be placed on
other distribution circuits and platforms.
Secondly, recalling the functioning of a stock market, where quotations are
fixed and stocks are capitalized, the movie properly gains value when placed on
the shelves of retailers. Basically market values are determined during
retaliation, and the potential added value of a work depends upon this process.
Thus the production network can work as a “value chain” for the movie industry,
but only after a positive response from movie theatres. In fact it is after public
screenings that multimedia content becomes suitable for different ways (cinema,
home video) and types (cultural, educational, recreational, entertaining etc.) of
consumption.
Compatibility management and business sustainability could be quite uneasy.
However movie theaters remain the very first indicators in determining profitability
of movies. Plus what succeeds in movie theaters it is then “exported” in the other
sectors. Therefore if 3D movies are having a prompt and growing public response,
they could soon become universal standard of production. Basically the same path
followed by Technicolor, talkies and Cinemascope in the past.
1. Box Office
It could be stated that the role of theatres is expanding more than proportionally, if
compared to the growth of several and alternative distribution platforms. The
relationship between these two elements seems to recall the Metcalfe law (named
after the inventor of Ethernet, Bob Metclafe), according to which utility and value of
a network are reflected in the number of users potentially in contact with each
other.1
This is one of the most famous law developed to assess the effects of technology on
communication and the significance of digital networks. Giandomenico Celata,
professor of Economics of media and ICT at “La Sapienza” University, Rome, said
that “The film without theatre is like a factory where offices and equipment are
abandoned, or better, have never started to function”. He gives an appropriate and
explanatory image of the movie as product-good.
This statement justifies firstly the importance and the attention devoted to results
of new movies at the box office; secondly the spread of results, highlighting public’s
choices and preferences. In reality box office results in terms of public and revenue
can be misleading.
They are appropriate to map the theatres and their type of activity. But they are less
accurate if taken as a parameter to evaluate the role and the importance of cinemas
in the movie industry. In fact revenue from tickets and attendance are consumption
indexes valid only for movie as a product (primary distribution channel), and not for
1
22 |
The mathematical formula applied to the law is “n-squared minus n” where n is the number of
users. Example: three online connected PCs, each PC can be connected to the others; two connections multiplied by three PCs gives six, the same number obtained by 9.
the movie industry as a whole. On the other hand they are the unit defining the value
of exploitation rights. Operators in secondary distribution channels purchase these
rights, thus influencing the movie distribution and the total revenue generated in
the industry.
2. From Bordereau to Budgets
The trend of the movie industry and market can be explained by an aspect of
administrative nature, instead of using SIAE (Italian Society of authors and
publishers) bordereau. Of all the operating film companies registered at the
Chamber of Commerce (9919 circa) - those obliged to file their balances are
1885. Usually the operation takes place between May and June, as the Civil Code
states that assemblies for the approval of annual budgets must be held within 120
days (or 180 in exceptional cases) from the end of the financial year (generally
coinciding with December 31).
But in 2009 the tradition was not respected. Evidence from the minutes of the
assemblies reports that companies had been waiting almost until the deadline to
meet their shareholders. By doing so, the balances arrived to the Chamber in
autumn.
The minutes often fail to state the reasons of any delay. They can be found in the
reports attached to the company balance, although they are written by only one in
two companies-the larger ones. Difficulties arisen in the second half of 2008 stand
out quite clearly by reading through the most recent reports. Difficulties in dealing with an ideal budget when a downturn is taking place, as well
as taking necessary financial countermeasures to contrast it. To add to this,
administrators are making cautious and almost reluctant forecasts on the possible
developments of the business in 2009. In particular they highlight the fact that
subsidies from the FUS (Entertainment Unitary Fund) might disappear, as
threatened by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage.
3. The Core Business and Macro Sector The rich and comprehensive amount of surveys on number of spectators and
revenue from ticket sales obscures some elements of the actual supply of the
industry. The emphasis on the box office is complementary to the chronic lack of
data and information about another kind of cinema.
This “thundering silence” negatively affects the industry as a whole. It denies a
thorough knowledge and understanding of industrial and commercial aspects of
cinema, hiding relevant market mechanisms, especially its economic substance.
| 23
Production, distribution and business are the historical sectors of film industry. They
are at the base, both in theory and in practice, of the so called “specific sector”. They
traditionally constitute the core business, but they do not generate the total revenue. It
is true that revenue from direct distribution-screenings in movie theatres- shows
better performances than it could have been predicted from past seasons, thanks to 3D
movies. And although it is vital to the value of total production, the revenue from the
business sector biases a trend of gradual and constant decrease in the industry. 2
The film evolution and the development of cinema as an industry, run through other
sectors. The others might be subsidiary, complementary or substitutes, but these
activities are now essential to make up a wider industry.
Then it is quite ironic that the cinema, a media producing and broadcasting
contents, shows a striking lack of information about its functioning. And this is
not casual.
The screening is when a movie acquires most of its credits, influencing following
distribution- e.g. on TV networks. In fact licensing depends upon the
positive/negative reception of a movie in cinemas. Therefore the results at the box
office are proportional to viewing figures and audience and share expectations. As
a consequence, exploitation rights gain corresponding values.
4. Conscious Silence
Often product development and promotion are prioritized in order to increase sales, while
aspects and issues of strategic value are “sacrificed”. The information gap affecting the
almost invisible supply side compromises the perception of management opportunities
and market values of the industry. The choice of certain communication strategies turns
the spotlight on the demand side, and consequently this is what the outside worldespecially institutions- can see.
This scenario makes an approach to policy makers quite difficult when it comes to raise
awareness on issues affecting the industry. Probably many cinema operators have
become aware of it during the last few months, when basic management structures and
market mechanisms have been unstable.
Actually, the iteration of analyses of box office results favors the lack of research and
data on the supply side. Thus the need of focus on the importance of Italian cinema with
its expressions and contents it is not redundant. Possibly it will lead to an effective
2
24 |
Information only on box office results does not justify market analysis (assuming that evaluation
of demand leads to a valid evaluation of supply). It would be the same as saying that quality and
purity of water are not relevant, because people go swimming anyway.
TAB. 1
CINEMA: CORE BUSINESS AND MACRO-SECTOR
CORE BUSINESS
Distribution
Cinema theaters
Home video
TV copyright
IPTV
Mobile
Production
Movies
Short movies
Documentaries
Animated movies
TV movies
Technical industries
Production
FUS financing
Regional contributions
Production service
Fiction – Spot – Clip
ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES OF THE MACRO-SECTOR
Distribution
Sales (abroad)
FUS funds
EU contributions
Merchandising
Industry
Production of film
Digital systems
Publishing
Gadgets
Film libraries - museums
Social security - assistance
Protection of copyright
Services
Studios and locations
Representative Agencies
Film commission
Education and training
Business
Single screen
Multi screen
Multiplex
Cinema d’Essai
Parish cinemas
Business
FUS funds
Regional contributions
Advertising
Bars and stalls
Events
Festivals
Contests
Prizes
Cineforums
comparison with other sectors of the industry or services and activities related to them.
It is worth repeating that the focus on the demand side leaves the supply side in the
dark, basically ignoring significant financial and economic variables influencing the
industry and its equilibrium. However it is hard to set an ideal target, due to the lack of official data or registers
or a complete and reliable database. This is a preliminary aspect, because the
quantity of information shapes and determines any in-depth examination in terms
of quality of the supply side and the sector altogether.
There is a line pronounced by Vincent Lindon in the movie “The crisis” (1992) by
Coline Serrau perfectly representing the state of statistical and economic
documentation on the film industry: «I have no answers, only questions».
5. Thousands Screens Generation
Assets, economic perimeters and market – defined as reflection of lifestyles and
consumption, subject to income flows and financial trends – are three key
parameters to evaluate the actual performance of film industry. They can be used
to identify trends over time and compare them to those of other sectors- in terms
| 25
of competition, overlap, purchasing power, consumer preferences- or to national
trends of the economy. In today’s society there is plenty of screens, thus media
contents are overflowing their traditional frame through new devices. They are
literally overfeeding consumers with their e-contents and cinema cannot be the
bystander. Cinema must reaffirm its competitiveness. Cinema is a world of
connections connected to the world. Following this statement, there is a (more or
less spontaneously) growing phenomenon able to subvert the current equilibrium:
a television bulimia.
There are approximately 400 channels between pay TV and DTT (digital terrestrial
television), but a further hybridization between broadcast and broadband is already
taking place in the cath-up television. Cath-up TV allows users to watch what they
want, when and where(personal computer, smartphone, handheld console, full HD
screen at home) they want.3
The step from “air” to “ADSL” – both IPTV and web TV - coincides with the landing
of television networks to a new platform, plus it establishes an approach to a range
of new multimedia content, completely different and independent from the context
of traditional networks and channels. According to many ICT observers and to
experts and scholars of the communication market this “TV evolution” is directly
related to pressing and dominant presence of the young among web users. Their
consumption in terms of time (the constant of all the research in this field) is much
higher than that recorded for other age groups.4
It probably means that within a few years the young will be likely to “impose” their
uses of television, with inevitable repercussions on home theater. Following this
perspective, the DVD will soon reach the mature stage of its life cycle, while its
influence and impact on the market will be deteriorating.5
3
4
5
26 |
Mediaset and LA7 are already offering cath-up TV on the web. Their streaming includes a
selection of best programs and several additional contents. RAI is about to launch a similar platform together with the launch of cube-TV by Telecom, providing access to multiple
networks. Cath-up TV is a sort of online library, identifying its commercial target in young
people, they prefer a customizable and individual content. The audience is becoming more
interested in single programs, more than in the networks generating them. TV channels
tend to follow the trend in order to maintain their market share. As a consequence networks are becoming impersonal, given the decreasing brand identification of users with
channels.
It should be noted that recent Italian and global box office success is due to 3D blockbusters, intended for younger audiences.
The comments in the last paragraph refer to the speech made by Giandomenico Celata (scientific director of the Multimedia Lab-CATTID-Sapienza University of Rome) during the European
workshop “The revolution of digital cinema in Italy” held during the States-General of Italian Cinema (21st October 2009, Auditorium Parco della Musica - Rome). Celata is also president of RomaWireless and director of the Audiovisual and ICT District of Rome.
Therefore the proliferation of distribution platforms will increase competition
between distribution circuits- movie theatres, television, home video, web - and also
between movies and other audiovisual media - video clips, documentaries, TV
movies, short films.
| 27
Part two
Cinema
and its Resources
Labor and Capitals
CHAPTER 3
“WE DON'T MAKE MOVIES TO MAKE MONEY.
WE MAKE MONEY TOMAKE MORE MOVIES”
Walt Disney (from The Disney Version. The Life, Times, Art and Commerce of Walt Disney
by Richard Schickel, Ivan R. Dee Publisher, Chicago 1986)
Companies
and Business Activity
T
he film industry registered a large increase in the early millennium in terms
of entrepreneurship. The companies registered at the Companies Register
were just under 5 000 in 2000, whereas in 2007 there were already
10,656. The production sector was the main driver of this development, with
an increase of 161.3%. However it could be noted- as in the first edition of
this report – that the expansion was gradually slowing down. Considering an overall
growth of 115.3% over that time span, the sector as a whole achieved an increase of 81,
5% already between 2001 and 2004. During the same period the increase achieved by
production companies was even higher, almost 125%, but for distribution and projection companies settled to 82, 8% and 27.2% (compared to total *deviation between 2001
and 2007, respectively 68.4% and 31.8%). The pace has not changed and between 2008 and 2009, the trend has even gone
negative, in countertrend to the successful season experienced by the demand in 2008,
when the public attendance in theatres was above 100 million. The latest figures from
the Cerved Business Information Database certify that the number of Italian cinema
companies is shrinking. In the historical series from the Chambers of Commerce
database the number is objectively quite small (mainly due to the computer system being
active and operative from 1996), however, data show that the turn took place after nearly
two decades of positive annual balances.
It seems quite obvious that the companies tally is not a totally reliable index to assess the
sector good or bad shape. Anyway it indicates that the happening changes are heading
for consolidation and that Italian cinema could open up to different and new perspectives
from those of previous years. It is a fact that the national film industry consists essentially
of small and medium enterprises – similarly to all the other industries in Italy. On one
side this universe of very small-scale operators gives a fragmented and atomistic picture
of the industry, while on the other side they contribute with their complementary or
subsidiary role to the market makers’ activity. Thus they play a key role in making the
supply substantial, widespread, and able to compete at a European level with France,
England, Germany and Spain.
It is quite straightforward that the reduction in the number of companies involves smaller
companies in the first place and creates a sort of involution, rather than further
development of the industry dynamics. In fact the elements involved in this negative
process are vital to any productive activity: spirit of initiative, willingness to do business,
market freedom, new entrepreneurship’s capabilities in terms of design and realization
and assets development, access and availability of capital investment, opportunities and
advantages of working as a company.
In addition to their statistical significance, data about the sector composition also favor
observations about the nature of the readings and the possible evolutions of the reported
trends.
1. Figures of the Down Turn
The fall in the number of companies in the film market was relatively moderate and for
this reason it could be considered an episodic phenomenon, linked to specific short-term
contingencies. However the downturn was previously triggered by an ongoing trend that
was coming to its maturity stage. Considering dimensional indicators as misleading, it
could be assumed that the phenomenon is part of a structural process, whose real
intensity-more in the medium than in the short run- has yet to be proved. Being the
intensity an “unknown term”, any future effect of the phenomenon related to the industry
and its composition cannot be forecasted. During the past three years the industry has
followed the path showed in table 1 (figures provided by Cerved database).1
1
32 |
According to Cerved data the sector has grown. In 2008 there were 9,987 registered companies and
9,071 of them were active. In 2009 these numbers changed to 10,656 and 9,902 (the basis for
statistical analysis is the same as the most recent years, since Cerved database has redefined its
TAB. 1
Number of firms per division
Production
Distribution
Projection
Total Sector**
Production
Distribution
Projection
Total Sector**
INDUSTRY BREAKDOWN BY BUSINESS SEGMENT
2007
2008
2009*
Active Cinema Companies
7,098 7,234
7,222
623
616
606
1,856 1,792
1,775
9,902 9,958
9,919
Companies registered at the Companies Register
7,631 7,793
7,764
685
676
662
1,967 1,888
1,878
10,656 10,731
10,673
Variation 2009
over 2008
Balance 2009
over 2007
-0.1%
-1.6%
-2.1%
-0.4%
+124
-17
+81
+17
-0.4%
-2.0%
-0.5%
-0.5%
+133
-23
-89
+17
Source: Elaboration on Infocamere-Cerved data
* Data referring to 2009 are updated to March 31. They include administrative acts deposited during the first trimester.
** Values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
always higher than the arithmetic sum. This error is due to the objectively difficult classification of some activities.
Even compared to more recent fluctuations, data indicating the sector composition (9,900
active companies out of 10,600 registered) confirm its consistency. Although a noticeable
number of registered companies does not necessarily lead to an equal number of active
companies, it needs to be noted that this is a constant in Italian corporate activities. This
fact reflects quite thoroughly the peculiarities of film production-of smaller companies
data according to the introduction of new parameters). The deviation is due to the upgrading of the
Register of Companies operated by the Chambers of Commerce, following NACE directives (in force
since 1st January 2009). Company names are grouped in macro-sectors and specific subdivisions.
The macro-sector considered in this chapter responds to the previous classification called ATECO,
in force until 2008. The macro-sector is “Recreational, cultural and sporting activities” (number
92.0). Cinema companies belong to the sector 92.1, “Cinema and video production and distribution”.
Further subdivisions are “Cinema and video production” (92.11), “Cinema and video distribution”
(92.12) and “Film screenings” (92.13). Such classification reflects cinema reality only in part, since
technology has created opportunities for new activities, often falling in different categories. In
particular, many pre and post-production companies used to be classified as 92.11. Furthermore,
many companies work in production, publishing and distribution and other related markets at the
same time. This is the main reason for deviation of 92.1 total value compared to the total value of
its subdivisions. NACE has created a new macro-sector “Communication and Information services”
(59). Cinema sector corresponds to “Production of motion picture, music, video and TV programs”
(59.1). It has five subdivisions: “Cinema, video and TV programs production” ( 59.11); “Cinema, video
and TV programs post-production” (59.12); “Cinema, video and TV programs distribution” (59.13);
“Film screenings” (59.14); “Sound recording and music publishing” (59.20). It is hard to believe that
the new classification will improve the transparency of core business. However it is evident that a
good portion of cinema companies see TV as the main alternative sector.
| 33
in particular-and it is also highlighted by the alternation of films made over time by
thousands of businesses requesting public funding in order to finance their creations
(fully documented by FUS).2
2. The First Negative Balance
Two circumstances can be noted in evaluating the actual turnover of companies in the
cinema. Firstly the sum of companies shut downs, failures and liquidations began to
exceed the number of new companies registrations in 2008. The driver of this change
was mainly the production sector (including business and technical services), while
distribution and projection were already suffering since 2006. Between 2006 and 2008
the balance was still positive due to the fairly small size of corporate deficits, but during
the last two years the balance has gone from positive (+123 registered companies) to
negative (-203 registered companies).3
Analyzing the situation in percentage terms, the trend shows a linear path, contrasting
the aforementioned absolute values. During the last four years the amount of new
registrations has gradually slowed down (excepting the distribution sector) and the drop
outs have constantly gone up. Secondly the decreasing number of companies appears to
be largely offset by the average number of new registrations compared to the number of
companies already registered. If on one side this is a positive fact, on the other the deficit
in the film industry is higher than the average deficit in other national productive sectors.
But the film industry continues to express its nature even in hard times, making each
product a prototype, requiring a permanent turnover: its mission is to experiment, to
innovate.
This basic attitude – essentially concerning production companies – supports cinema
companies capability in facing and overcoming critical scenarios, despite the constant
demands of a highly competitive market. Its attitude is undoubtedly stronger than in
other companies operating in the entertainment sector (recreational, cultural and
sporting activities). Plus it is incomparable to the average turnover of other industries (
the indicator used in table 4 measures the average survival rate for a company – data:
Cerved database).
2
3
34 |
The percentage distribution of funds refers both to the number of disbursements and granted
financing. Proportions change for successful applications: 40% of the cases for companies with
no share capital, 50% for joint stock companies and 10% for limited liability companies.
Starting a new business project implies the formal act of their foundation. Often the project is not
implemented- or it is, but for a short time- but the company remains registered with the future
perspective of re-establishing the activity. Thus promoters of that venture keep renewing the
registration to avoid duplication of administrative and bureaucratic dossiers. This is why the
Chamber of Commerce always overestimates the company census.
TAB. 2
“BIRTH RATE” AND “DEATH RATE” OF CINEMA COMPANIES
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Registered
Active
New registrations
Ceased-Liquidated
Failed
Ceased-Liquidated-Failed
Total cinema companies*
10,074
9,472
823
573
30
603
10,453
9,763
733
577
33
610
10,656
9,902
680
751
19
770
10,731
9,958
616
793
26
819
Registered
Active
New registrations
Ceased-Liquidated
Failed
Production companies
6,989
6,557
688
402
21
423
7,392
6,910
643
424
24
448
7,631
7,098
597
564
11
575
7,793
7,234
570
595
20
615
Registered
Active
New registrations
Ceased-Liquidated
Failed
Distribution companies
700
641
17
43
2
45
699
637
21
33
6
39
685
623
8
38
0
38
676
616
14
41
4
45
Registered
Active
New registrations
Ceased-Liquidated
Failed
Projection companies
1,991
1,922
97
99
5
104
1,970
1,893
60
101
3
104
1,957
1,856
67
116
8
124
1,888
1,792
26
129
2
131
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data – January 1, 2009
*values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
However from the end of 2007 the global financial crisis has deeply concerned every field
of production and created uncertainties about the performance of domestic economy.
Many sectors have started suffering from the changing scenario. Including cinema, which
despite its “resistance”, has experienced an “erosion” in survival rates, also related to the
degenerating entrepreneurs’ spirit of initiative.
3. The LTD Companies Overtaking
The decline in the establishment of new companies, together with the significant increase
of drop outs, has changed the morphology of Italian cinema. The most popular legal
| 35
TAB. 3
Year
New registrations
Ceased - liquidated
Failed
Ceased or failed
TRENDS IN ITALIAN CINEMA COMPANIES
2006
8.62%
6.00%
0.31%
6.31%
2007
Total companies**
7.18%
5.73%
0.33%
6.06%
2008
2009
National
average 2009*
6.51%
7.18%
0.18%
7.37%
5.78%
7.44%
0.24%
7.69%
1.79%
2.93%
0.04%
2.97%
New registrations
Ceased – liquidated
Failed
Ceased or failed
Production companies**
10.62%
9.02%
6.20%
6.07%
0.32%
0.34%
6.53%
6.41%
8.08%
7.63%
0.15%
7.78%
7.47%
7.80%
0.26%
8.06%
1.79%
2.93%
0.04%
2.97%
New registrations
Failed
Ceased or failed
Distribution companies**
2.39%
3.00%
6.06%
4.71%
0.28%
0.71%
6.34%
5.43%
1.14%
5.44%
0.28%
5.44%
2.04%
5.99%
0.58%
6.57%
1.79%
2.93%
0.04%
2.97
New registrations
Failed
Ceased or failed
Projection companies**
4.94%
3.01%
5.04%
5.07%
0.25%
0.15%
5.30%
5.22%
3.40%
5.89%
0.41%
6.29%
1.33%
6.59%
0.10%
6.69%
1.79%
2.93%
0.04%
2.97%
*National average refers to the Italian industry as a whole.
** categories (new registrations, ceased-liquidated, failed, ceased or failed) percentages refer to the ratio of number of companies per category
divided by total registered companies.
status chosen by new companies is sole proprietorships, followed by partnerships, but
on a smaller scale. 4 In the current situation, with decreasing company registrations,
simple legal structures are widely chosen when a new company is to be started. A choice
probably reflecting the current situation, where decreasing company registrations
discourage entrepreneurs from choosing a more complex type of business.
The Cerved system does not allow to distinguish the kind of companies exiting the industry.
In turn, an estimate of the companies outflow can be indirectly made from the figures in
table 6. Now it is possible to determine which areas are mostly subjected to drop outs.
Between 2007 and 2009 sole proprietorships and partnerships have been overtaken by LTD
companies; LTDs are now exceeding the threshold of 50% of film business. This majority
4
36 |
It should be noted that data for each sector is not fully corresponding with cumulative value of the
macro-sector (note 1). In 2009 the sum of new registrations in the production, distribution and
projection sectors is 610. The Companies Register reports 791 exiting companies, hence the
overall reduction is 181 units.
TAB. 4
“SURVIVAL” RATE OF CINEMA COMPANIES
Survival rate
of registered companies
Up to 1 year
2007
2009
Up to 3 years
2007
2009
Up to 5 years
2007
2009
Production
Distribution
Projection
95.7%
95.4%
98.9%
94.9%
97.8%
97.6%
83.9%
86.7%
96.5%
83.2%
91.8%
89.3%
73.4%
72.1%
90.9%
72.7%
85.8%
86.4%
Total sector
Average Macro sector
Average Italy
96.3%
94.7%
94.0%
95.1%
94.2%
93.2%
86.1%
82.9%
81.2%
83.8%
81.9%
79.4%
76.0%
72.3%
71.3%
74.7%
71.2%
68.7%
*Macro sector (Ateco) refers to “recreational, cultural and sporting activities”.
TAB. 5
LEGAL STATUS OF NEW COMPANIES
New companies
per legal status
and division
Total sector
Film and video
production
2007
2009
Film and video
distribution
2007
2009
Film screening
2007
2009
2007
2009
Limited liability companies 0.2%
Companies limited by share 17.6%
Other joint stock companies 4.2%
0.0%
13.9%
5.1%
0.2%
18.2%
3.5%
0.0%
4.2%
5%
0.2%
0.0%
33.2%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
12.8%
10.3%
0.0%
16.4%
0.0%
Joint stock companies
Partnerships
Sole proprietorships
Other companies
22%
8.6%
63.3%
6.1%
19%
4.4%
72.8%
3.8%
21.9%
9.0%
67.9%
1.2%
19.2%
5.0%
75.2%
0.6%
33.4%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
23.1%
2.6%
17.9%
56.4%
16.4%
0.0%
46.1%
38.5%
Companies
with no share capital
78.0%
81.0%
78.1%
80.8%
66.6%
50.0%
76.9%
84.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
100.0% 100.0%
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data – March 31, 2009
opens up to a comforting perspective for the film industry: stronger companies lead to higher
financial strength and capital investment, causing a reinforcement of the industry as a whole.
Limited companies are predominant especially in the production sector, where they have
gained three percentage points between 2007 and 2009 and another 1.9% specifically
gained by more complex and structured joint stock companies. Production companies are
the basis of the industry for two reasons. In the first place they represent 73.5% of the
sector, including pre and post production companies. Secondly they actually make the
movie, that is the building block of the film market as a whole.
The overtaking by LTD companies has left behind smaller companies, with no share
capital, such as partnerships and proprietorships. Even though some limited liability
companies are exiting the industry too, they are still the most representative of the
market (4,500 units ). Together with micro and small enterprises they make up 42% of
| 37
TAB. 6
Legal status
per division
DISTRIBUTION OF COMPANIES PER LEGAL STATUS
Total sector
Film and video
production
2007
2009
Film and video
distribution
2007
2009
Film screening
2007
2009
2007
2009
Limited liability companies 1.9%
Companies limited by share 40.3%
Other joint stock companies 6.3%
2.5%
42.0%
6.6%
2.0%
39.8%
6.0%
2.8%
41.7%
6.3%
3.2%
63.3%
5.7%
4.5%
66.2%
6.4%
1.4%
28.6%
6.9%
1.5%
29.4%
7.0.%
Joint stock companies
Partnerships
Sole proprietorships
Other companies
48.5%
15.0%
32.6%
3.9%
51.1%
14.5%
30.5%
3.9%
47.8%
13.6%
38.0%
0.6%
50.8%
13.4%
35.2%
0.6%
72.2%
14.6%
12.3%
0.9%
77.1%
12.4%
9.7%
0.8%
36.9%
21.6%
24.4%
17.1%
37.9%
20.9%
22.6%
18.6%
Companies
with no share capital
51.5%
48.9%
52.2%
49.2%
27.8%
22.9%
63.1%
62.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
100.0% 100.0%
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data – March 31, 2009
the total. Simple legal forms are still preferred by companies registering for the first
time, but they do not compensate the general decline due to liquidation or failure of those
already in the Companies Register. As a result the proportion of LTD companies is getting
larger than ever, as proved by Cerved statistics.
4. Fewer Firms and the Turnover Drops When a productive system evolves in terms of structure and organization there is always
a redistribution of economic values and assets. In such a situation the fragmentation of
the film industry has negatively influenced the companies turnover.
HOW MUCH DOES THE FILM INDUSTRY PRODUCE?
In order to determine how much is produced in the industry, it is possible to refer to the
historical series by the Chamber of Commerce. These readings are essential in defining the
impact of film companies on the economy. They are obtained from companies budgets and
for practical reasons they do not take into account budgets from the last financial year. 5
To add to this, data refer only to LTD companies because they are required to deposit
annual financial statements (balance sheet and income statement). For all the other
companies with no share capital there are only two requirements: registration - at
the Companies Register and at the REA (Economic and Administrative Registry) -
5
38 |
Sole proprietorship and partnerships are companies with no share capital. Sole proprietorship
is a business entity owned and run by one individual that has unlimited responsibility for all
and communication of key information about their management. 6
The final balance analysis shows a reduction in the turnover during the last two years,
similarly to other sectors of the economy. This is quite surprising, considering that the
movie industry has always been an exception to the business cycle, showing little
correlation with the expansion/contraction of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and
the cost of living.
The historical series processing includes the incidence of the video-film industry both on
macro sector “Sports and recreational-cultural activities” and GDP. The turnovers
achieved by companies with no share capital are not taken into account by these
indicators, because of their small economic burden (12-15%). Anyway their numerical
significance is much higher, around 50%; more specifically production, distribution and
projection companies account respectively for 52.2%, 22.9% and 62.1%.
6
losses and debts. It is subjected to IRAP ( regional tax on productive activities) and IRPEF
(personal income tax). One of the advantages is the simplified accounting system, consisting
only in VAT reports. Similar to sole proprietorships are family based companies (run by a family
or by husband and wife). Partnerships are characterized by imperfect capital autonomy, where
there is no clear distinction between personal capital and the company assets. In fact creditors
can claim capital from the members if the company has limited assets. There are different kinds
of partnerships, varying upon their structure and activity. Some partnerships are only in charge
of management, others have equally responsible partners for debts and losses. Another
possibility is limited partnerships, where one or more people called limited partners contribute
a certain amount of assets as capital. Limited partners are not liable for the debts and
obligations of the company beyond the amount contributed. In all these cases, there is no
obligation to pay a minimum share capital, but a charter and a financial statement are necessary.
A joint stock company is a business entity with a clear distinction between capital share and
partners’ assets. The business entities recognized by Italian law are: company limited by share,
limited liability company and joint stock companies. In the first ones the manager is liable for
debts and obligations if the capital of the company is not enough. JSCs must pay a minimum
social contribution and approve an annual budget filed at the Companies Register. These entities
are required to complete financial statements and balance sheets: JSCs (article 2423 of the Civil
Code); companies limited by share (article 2454); limited liability companies (article 2478-bis);
cooperative societies (article 2519) and their associations; mutual associations (article 2547); the
so-called “European Economic Interest Groups” (Decree-law number 240/1991); consortiums
(article 2615 of the Civil Code); and all the institutions involved in music, theater and dance,
which have turned into Private Law foundations(article 16, paragraph 5, of Decree Law 367/1996,
as amended by article 6 of Decree Law 134/1998). JSCs have to publish financial statements by
depositing them at the Companies Register at the Chamber of Commerce.
In reality, companies fail to deposit their documentation regularly. Plus they are now exempted
from reporting changes in the number of employees (circular number 3628 of the Finance
Ministry). In fact the Chamber of Commerce obtains this information directly from INPS (National
Social Security Institute), although it excludes several categories of workers from its report. Those
excluded might come from cinema sector, because they are part of ENPALS, or from the
distribution sector and are part of Fondazione Enasarco (Representative body of commercial
agents and representative).
| 39
TAB. 7
Turnover in thousand euros
Production
Distribution
Film screening
Total sector*
Activity of macro sector**
ANNUAL TURNOVER OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1,723,113
928,294
481,936
1,893,415
908,793
544,466
2,038,064
1,027,389
537,618
2,024,150
896,992
568,875
2,157,665
926,776
621,306
3,847,451
19,607,384
4,158,487
21,287,258
4,354,327
22,922,860
4,303,570
25,498,985
4,290,076
26,188,216
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data relatively to annual budgets deposited by joint stock companies between 2004 and 2008.
* Values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
** Macro sector (Ateco) refers to “recreational, cultural and sporting activities”.
TAB. 8
% revenue deviation
BUSINESS TRENDS IN FILM INDUSTRY
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Production
Distribution
Film screening
14.1%
24.4%
17.2%
-5,4%
-40.8%
18.3%
-23.3%
66.1%
6.0%
9.9%
-2,1%
13.0%
7.6%
13.1%
-1.3%
-0.7%
-12.7%
5.8%
6.6%
3.3%
9.2%
Total sector*
Average macro sector**
18.2%
8.2%
-9.8%
-2.2%
0.7%
15.3%
8.1%
8.6%
4.7%
7.7%
-1.2%
11.2%
-0.3%
2.7%
4.8%
3.7%
3.1%
4.2%
2.7%
3.9%
4.0%
Italian GNP
* values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
The film industry largely influences GDP as well as cultural and leisure activities ( any
calculation of its revenue is practically impossible, but most probably it is much higher
than sport related activities). Its importance within these sectors supports research and
a deeper insight on the actual nature of its uncertain market.
PROFITABILITY OF COMPANIES
The trend of individual film companies does not report outstanding phenomena. Referring
to the last year in question, growth or decrease in revenues was unevenly distributed
amongst companies. Despite the majority of companies reporting growth rates up to 10%,
there were overall decreasing revenues: the turnover of the sector diminished by -0.31%.
A first deduction leads to believe that the decreasing (downward) curve of revenues of
large groups was sufficient to determine the negative trend of the industry. Because of its
consistency the curve countered the positive trend of smaller companies, but this
observation seems limiting, since it does not explain the actual condition of other companies.
40 |
TAB. 9
Data on divisions
and sector**
IMPACT OF FILM INDUSTRY ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Cumulative turnover
in million euros
Impact on macro
sector**
Estimated impact
on Italian GNP
Production
Distribution
Film screening
2,157.665
926.776
621.306
8.23%
3.53%
2.37%
1.40%
0.60%
0.40%
Total sector*
4,290.076
16.38%
2.78%
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data relatively to balance sheets, 2007
* Values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
TAB. 10
TREND OF COMPANIES OUTPUT
Trend of value
of production
Decreasing
Increasing
0%-5%
5%-10%
Above 10%
Production
2007 2008
40.9% 40.8%
59.1% 59.2%
17.4% 19.8%
38.3% 36.4%
3.4% 3.0%
Distribution
2007 2008
47.6% 39.0%
52.4% 61.0%
19.9% 25.4%
25.9% 31.1%
6.6% 4.5%
Film screening
Sector
2007 2008 2007 2008
49.4% 30.2% 43.0% 39.1%
50.6% 69.8% 57.0% 60.9%
25.0% 25.6% 19.4% 21.6%
21.1% 36.5% 33.7% 35.4%
4.5% 7.7% 3.9% 3.9%
Macro sector
2007 2008
37.1% 35.5%
62.9% 64.5%
22.6% 24.2%
34.8% 35.0%
5.5% 5.2%
ITALY
2007 2008
33.0% 33.7%
67.0% 66.3%
24.9% 25.8%
35.7% 34.3%
6.4% 6.2%
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data – January 1, 2009 - Macro sector (Ateco) refers to “recreational, cultural and sporting activities”.
However there is an alternative method to determine how the changes in production have
been reflected on the economic trend in recent years: that is to divide the aggregate turnovers
of the sectors by the number of limited companies that composes them. Hence, surveying the
historical series, deviations of unit revenue for each company are virtually determined.
In a theoretical scenario it can be noted that a restriction of the market correspond to a
larger reduction in unit revenues. For instance the industry turnovers decreased by 1.16 %
and 0.31% respectively in 2007 and in 2008, while the unit revenue per company decreased
by 3.8% and 14.1%. Therefore even when the total revenue goes up (e.g. production sector
+6.6% and distribution sector +3.3% in 2008), the hypothetical turnover per company is
eventually negative (-1.0% and -15.0%). On the contrary the trend of projection sector is
positive; the value of the output has gone from 5.8% up to 9.2% in the last two quarters
while the average total turnover per company has increased by 2.6% (from 7.0% to 9.6%).
5. Selection in Progress
In order to analyze trends in the industry, it should be paid particular attention to the
critical conditions concerning the majority of operators as well as the selection that
is reshaping the industry. But which subjects are the most affected? While the
| 41
frequency of a certain legal form may provide some clues to identify the structure of
the industry, the classification in classes of turnovers remains the most widely used
indicator to assess the performances of the industry.
TAB. 11
Economic value
in million euros
AVERAGE ESTIMATED REVENUE OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES
Total sector**
Film and video
production
Film and video
distribution
Film screening
2005
JSCs*
4,396
Total turnover
4,158,487
Average hypothetical revenue
945.9
2,919
1,893,415
648.6
463
908,793
1,962.8
685
544,466
794.8
399
1,027,389
2,574.9
690
537,618
779.1
390
896,992
2,299.9
682
568,875
834.1
474
926,776
1,955.2
679
621,306
915.0
2006
JSCs*
4,263
Total turnover
4,354,327
1,021.4
2,886
2,038,064
706.1
2007
JSCs*
4,383
Total turnover
4,303,570
981.8
3,026
2,024,150
668.9
2008
JSCs*
5,088
Total turnover
4,290,076
843.1
3,624
2,157,665
595.3
* The value quantifying the number of joint stock companies corresponds to the number of financial statements taken into account.
** Values referring to the total sector do not express the arithmetic sum of Cerved data concerning the three divisions analyzed. The sums are
CLASSES OF TURNOVER
It was already noted that the film industry reflects the national scenario in terms of
company size, where small or medium companies are the majority (over 90% of production
units). Beyond this analogy, a more specific observation can be made thanks to a grid
dividing the film industry in ten classes of turnover. It allows a rough definition of factors
influencing market equilibrium power relationships between operators of different types.
The amount of 1 million euros revenue establishes the essential difference between
companies that have-or have not-the potential or the capability to gain visibility, position
and bargaining power in the market.
82.7% (4,207 out of 5,088) of limited companies with less than 1 million revenue covers
just 10.4% of total revenue. In the production sector, 84.2% of companies below one
million euros accounts for just 14.4% of cumulative revenue, while in the distribution
sector 76.2% of companies makes only 2.5% of total income. Out of 679 workers involved
in business, 534 (78.7%) contribute only for 15.8% of total revenue from business
activities. These values are proportionally similar to those registered the previous year.
42 |
TAB. 12
CINEMA COMPANIES - DISTRIBUTION OF CLASSES OF TURNOVER
Classes of turnover
in euro
% of the total
5-250 k
250-500 k
500 k -1 mln
1-2mln
2-5 mln
5-10 mln
10-20 mln
20-50 mln
Above 50 mln
Total
Total sector
Companies Turnover
Film and video
Film and video
Film screenings
production
distribution
Companies Turnover Companies Turnover Companies Turnover
40.2%
12.5%
9.1%
7.6%
5.7%
1.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.3%
2.6%
3.1%
4.6%
7.7%
12.4%
9.1%
9.1%
18.8%
32.5%
42.6%
12.3%
8.8%
7.0%
5.4%
1.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.2%
3.2%
4.3%
7.0%
14.0%
15.4%
10.0%
17.9%
16.0%
12.1%
32.1%
13.0%
6.5%
7.1%
6.5%
3.3%
2.2%
2.7%
2.1%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.9%
4.0%
4.4%
6.2%
15.9%
65.1%
32.9%
14.4%
11.5%
11.3%
6.2%
1.6%
1.5%
0.5%
0.2%
3.8%
4.3%
6.0%
9.8%
17.0%
12.8%
9.8%
17.6%
18.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data
* Total revenue of companies in this class is less than 0.1% of the total cumulative revenue of the different divisions. It was rounded to ease
the table interpretation.
6. Loss and Benefit
The constant number and the limited economic importance of smaller companies (those
with less than 1 million euros revenue) might lead to the assumption that the film
industry is not dynamic. Between 2007 and 2008 distribution companies with median
classes of revenue scarcely increased their turnover; meanwhile production and business
companies with average revenues (from 1 to 20 million euros) slightly decreased their
turnover. These fluctuations seemingly insignificant are regarded as physiological.
However it is hard to believe that the industry is not experiencing any kind of change,
given the numerical and the legal status transformations of the sectors previously
observed.
DIMENSIONAL CLASSES
An analysis of the single sectors in terms of dimensional groups appears necessary if it
is assumed that the adjustment of film industry involves complex factors. The
classification distinguishes between small, medium and large companies according to
their revenue (the class range differs from industry to industry, e.g. in manufacturing
the medium class range is 30-150 million euro, whereas it is 1-20 million euro in film
industry).
The cross-analysis connects deviations of the number of operating companies to those
in their earnings. The values, registered both as absolute and as percentage value, allow
the identification of actual differences between sectors.
The increased revenue of medium production companies (+24.2%) if compared to the
decreased revenue experienced by large companies (-25.9%) leads to contrasting views,
| 43
especially if the number of production companies increased by 0.5% only. These variations
can be explained by linking two phenomena. Firstly, the technological innovation involved
in the making of movies has strengthened post-production companies and technical
services (both situated in the medium class). Secondly, low budget productions have
regained liveliness and raised success. These two factors might be also read as indicators
of a (hopefully temporary) downturn in the activity of major producers- those who ensure
visibility to Italian cinema and make leading productions. On the other hand distribution
and business companies are growing; even if their growth is not outstanding, it represents
one of the most controversial phenomenon in the industry.
In fact the distribution market is revealing further strengthening of already strong
companies, plus the development of only certain marketing operators is concentrating
the intermediary roles in the hands of a few. The two events seem neither to follow the
trend nor the slightly expanding supply of the industry. As a consequence there is limited
access to consumers and Italian filmmakers’ expansionary perspectives are shrinking.
The business sector is moving along almost the same path. Revenues are now coming
from companies with different legal status, therefore “single-screen” theatres are
gradually diminishing, overtaken by suburban multiplexes. Structures with such high
turnovers are technologically up to date and are more likely to host foreign blockbusters
than national movies.
TAB. 13
Classes of turnover
Ratio: amount/total
RESOURCES TRANSFER BETWEEN DIMENSIONAL CLASSES
2007 Budgets
Companies Turnover
2008 Budgets
Companies Turnover
Ratio: 2008/2007
Companies Turnover
0-1 mln
1-20 mln
Above 20 mln
83.3%
15.5%
1.2%
Total sector
10.7%
82.7%
37.4%
16.1%
51.9%
1.2%
10.4%
38.3%
51.3%
-0.6%
+0.6%
0.0%
-0.3%
+0.9%
-0.6%
0-1 mln
1-20 mln
Above 20 mln
84.6%
14.5%
0.9%
Production companies
12.9%
84.1%
33.1%
15.0%
54.0%
0.9%
14.6%
57.3%
28.1%
-0.5%
+0.5%
0.0%
+1.7%
+24.2%
-25.9%
0-1 mln
1-20 mln
Above 20 mln
76.0%
20.1%
3.9%
Distribution companies
4.7%
76.1%
28.2%
19.1%
67.1%
4.8%
2.5%
16.5%
81.0%
+0.1%
-1.0%
+0.9%
-2.2%
-11.7%
+13.9%
0-1 mln
1-20 mln
Above 20 mln
80.9%
18.3%
0.8%
Projection companies
17.2%
78.7%
54.3%
20.6%
28.5%
0.7%
14.2%
49.4%
36.4%
-2.2%
+2.3%
-0.1%
-3.0%
-4.9%
+7.9%
Source: elaboration on Cerved data – January 1, 2009.
* Total revenue of companies in this class is less than 0.1% of the total cumulative revenue of the different divisions. It was rounded to ease
the table interpretation.
44 |
7. Geographical Aspects of Cinema
A map locating the “actors” operating in the industry is a an essential tool to outline the
productive context of the industry, and it should not be considered as merely descriptive
or statistical. The company density in a certain area directly influences several factors:
growth of operating companies, distribution and use of financial resources,
competitiveness and level of infrastructure/services and organizational networks.
TAB. 14
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CINEMA COMPANIES
% of companies
per region
2007
Sector
2009
Production
2007
2009
Distribution
2007
2009
Film screening
2007
2009
Piedmont
6.6%
Valle d’Aosta
0.2%
5.8%
6.0%
5.2%
2.0%
1.3%
8.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Lombardy
18.3%
0.4%
18.0%
19.9%
19.4%
13.2%
11.9%
15.8%
16.0%
8.2%
Trentino Alto Adige
1.4%
1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
0.5%
0.3%
1.1%
1.2%
Veneto
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
4.0%
3.3%
3.1%
6.3%
5.8%
Friuli Venezia Giulia
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.3%
0.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Liguria
2.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.9%
1.2%1.2%
4.5%
4.4%
Emilia Romagna
7.6%
7.0%
6.2%
5.8%
2.7%
1.9%
12.4%
11.7%
NORD
42.6%
40.4%
41.3%
39.4%
23.2%
20.2%
50.1%
49.2%
Tuscany
5.6%
5.3%
4.7%
4.4%
2.1%
2.6%
8,8%
8.8%
Umbria
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
1.6%
4.5%
Marche
2.4%
2.4%
1.8%
1.7%
1.1%
1.1%
4.2%
Lazio
28.8%
32.3%
33.1%
37.2%
57.4%
62.0%
9.2%
9.6%
CENTER
37.9%
41.1%
40.7%
44.4%
60.6%
65.7%
23.8%
24.5%
Abruzzo
1.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
0.5%
0.3%
1.7%
1.6%
Molise
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
Campania
5.5%
5.3%
4.6%
4.4%
6.7%
6.2%
7.0%
7.2%
Apulia
3.5%
3.2%
2.8%
2.5%
3.8%
3.8%
5.4%
5.4%
Basilicata
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.6%
0.5%
Calabria
1.6%
1.5%
1.8%
1.6%
0.8%
0.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Sicily
4.7%
4.4%
3.8%
3.2%
3.9%
3.2%
7.8%
8.0%
Sardinia
1.8%
1.8%
2.1%
2.0%
0.2%
0.1%
1.8%
1.8%
SOUTH AND ISLANDS
19.5%
18.5%
18.0%
16.3%
16.1%
14.1%
26.1%
26.3%
Source: Elaboration on Register of the Companies - Chambers of Commerce data - September 30, 2007.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
From Bollywood to Hollywood to Cinecittà, the history of cinema demonstrates that
the aforementioned map mirrors how different types and allocation of assets
influence the development of the industry.
From this point of view the industry is quite dynamic. Up until one year ago, the
geographical distribution of film companies was showing a five-centers pattern.
| 45
Rome was the historical and strategic core of the industry, followed by Milan with its
“products” (TV movie, spot, videoclip) and by three other growth poles Turin, Bologna,
Naples. Together they account for 66.8% of the industry and for 70.1% and 82% of
production and distribution sectors. Now the percentages have gone up to 68.4%,
72.0% and 83, 3%.
However the only and truly proactive centre has been Rome and Lazio region. The
number of companies has increased by 4.5%, whereas production and distribution
companies gained 4.1 and 4.6 points percentage.
This localized growth is explained by corresponding decreases of 1,8%, 2.1% and
4.3% registered in Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Campania.
Thus, Central Italy (Lazio, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche) has regained its leadership
over Northern Italy.
The strengthening of the historical core-Rome is linked with an overall adjustment
of the industry: the reduction of companies is widespread, but affects primarily the
younger ones.7
8. 736 Million Euros Fleeing Home
Economically speaking, a significant transfer of resources within an industry indicates
some changes in market equilibrium and productive structure. A fluctuation of 25.9% in the production sector is worth 558.8 million euros; an increase
of 13.9% in the distribution turnover means that 128.8 million euros have been
transferred; reallocation of 7.9% of revenue from business means that 49 million euros
have found a new “home”.
Some modifications in the industry do not seem to reflect the normal trend of the
business cycle. The feeling is that the film industry is experiencing a transition, in
the wake of the general trend of the economy.
The declining number of companies, the general downturn in activity, together with
the preference for limited companies are all elements that could lead to an
7
46 |
Also Lazio records a negative trend, with -22.8% of registered companies. New registrations are
only 4.3%. Regions recording a positive balance are: Aosta Valley (+125.0%), Basilicata (+19.6%),
Trentino Alto Adige(+14.9%), Friuli Venezia Giulia (+9.1%). Umbria, Molise and Sardinia did not
record any changes. All together they make up only 7.3% of national cinema companies.
Regions with significant negative balances are: Liguria (-44.4%), Apulia (-29.3%), Calabria (24.3%), Veneto (-17.6%), Abruzzo (-16.7%), Marche (-15.0%) and Tuscany (-14.4%). These last
regions have a standard level of activity, while the six remaining regions are the richest ones.
They have registered a limited deficit: -9.4% in Piedmont, -8.2% in Sicily, -6.7% in EmiliaRomagna, -6.0%in Lombardy and -4.8% in Campania.
evolution of the industry. It is quite risky to predict the outcome of such scenario,
whether it will be a development or an involution. Most likely it will be a decisive
breakthrough, a sort of class struggle involving market shares, financial resources
and control over factors of production.
| 47
CHAPTER 4
“ART IS A DIRTY JOB, BUT SOMEONE’S GOTTA DO IT”
Writing on a t-shirt in Così è la vita
by Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo and Massimo Venier (1998)
Labor Market
and Professions
ntil 2008 the film industry experienced a downfall in production and consequently in employment. The gradual and limited decline of the business was
also shown by a trend in labor market. As demand for workforce dropped, so
did the frequency and duration of jobs. Then, in 2009 the value of production
and the number of employees has gone up again.
In the film industry stagnation or recovery stages have immediate effects on
employment levels pointing out structural weaknesses. This is due to the nature of
the industry, that is capital intensive rather than labor intensive (labor only prevails
in low budget and less challenging projects).
One of the structural weaknesses is “pure” additionality, an issue for all European
cinema producers, that have to get external inputs to fund their works. Generally the
input comes from public funding, in the form of aid or financial subsidy issued by
governments, local authorities or central agencies. The uncertain availability of
external inputs leads to difficulties in planning the launch of new initiatives.
U
A second weakness is given by fixed term employment being the most frequent form of
employment in the industry. As demonstrated by large deviations from season to season,
the amount of full time contracts (22% circa) is insufficient to ensure stability and to
avoid substantial turnovers1. Similarly, the variety of company legal forms and turnover
size and class is another structural weakness. Again it is linked to the nature of the film
as product and to its realization.2
Integration and stabilization of the market are also affected by the highly specialized
knowledge required to employees. This is a vital requirement for the industry,
strongly influenced by the rapid and constant evolution of technology. In fact it is
through skilled, varied and ever-changing labor force that cinema can fully express
its art and creativity. However the high expertise of labor ends up corresponding to
a deep segmentation across the sector, making it more vulnerable to alternating
production cycles.
1. Importance of Cinema Leadership
Stating that the employment trend in cinema reflects all the fluctuations of the
economic cycle perhaps is not entirely appropriate. It would be more correct to say
that the economic cycle is the main determinant of the employment trend. This is
confirmed by historical series (table below). Data for 2009 are incomplete, the only
available indicator shows the number of workers paying social contributionsestimated provisionally by ENPALS (National Board of Welfare and Assistance for
Entertainment and Sport Workers). Percentage changes in the data sequence show
aligned values of labor indicators during favorable years and higher values when the
trend goes negative. 1
2
50 |
An indication of the workers’ conditions in cinema industry was given by a Censis research
(Companies of the audiovisual sector in Lazio-2007) about Lazio, the region that best represents
cinema industry. Indefinite term contracts are 20.8%, fixed term contracts 27.8%, project
collaborations 23.6%, occasional collaborations 13.1% and self employed (entrepreneurs,
partners of cooperatives, freelances, artisans) 27.8%. The research notes that a large portion of
companies (46.5%) engages young interns and staff with job grants.
ENPALS data about active companies does not distinguish between different business entities.
The Censis research mentioned in note 1reports the following classification (among ENPALS’
members): 58.8% limited companies; 20.4% sole proprietorships; 15.6% partnerships; 2.3%
cooperatives and consortiums; 2.9% companies with no share capital. ENPALS classifies
companies according to their field of activity: production companies; various productions;
production plants; development and print; dubbing; distribution and rental; pure cinema
businesses; multipurpose cinema businesses. Companies that have greater cultural and
industrial tradition and with indefinite term employees are concentrated in the first two
categories.
TAB. 1
OCCUPATION AND OUTPUT TREND IN THE SECTOR
Annual growth
Joint stock companies turnover
ENPALS* contributors
Total working days
Working days per capita
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
+0.7%
+5.6%
+6.3%
+1.0%
+8.1%
+8.4%
+3.8%
-4.2%
+4.7%
+2.3%
+0.1%
-2.1%
-1.2%
-5.0%
-10.2%
-5.5%
-0.3%
-5.0%
-13.2%
-8.6%
+12.4%
-
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data relatively to annual budgets deposited by joint stock companies between 2004 and 2009 (total turnover
of the sector) and to the report “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” edited by the
ENPALS Statistical – actuarial Department, Rome 2009 (number of workers and annual working days, both total and per capita, until
2008).
* Data for 2009 were estimated by ENPALS
Looking at the recent past, it could be stated that cinema functions as a determinant of the overall trend of the entertainment sector. Despite
the supposed importance of the broadcasting system, cinema is still the core of the macro sector (entertainment). Thank to its heterogeneous
configuration, cinema is entertainment and cultural and recreational activity at the same time.
LABOR MARKET
The number of employees and operating companies together with the payroll are
evidence proving the central role of cinema in the entertainment sector. This kind of data
is provided by ENPALS, and it takes into account only the activities paying social
contributions.3
Cinema was already the productive core of the sector in 2008-25.3% of the total- but it
has expanded during 2009 reaching approximately 27.9%. Cinema companies are
14.6% of the sector ( it should be noted that “various entertainment” and “sports
centers” account for 42.9% - mainly managed by clubs and membership associations)
and their income from services and activities is worth 31% of total remuneration
(together with radio and television-23.5%- cinema covers more than half of the total
payroll and total social contributions-54.5%). The record is confirmed by the
predominance of cinema operators in various occupational categories. They are the
largest component in 10 categories out of 20, and in 7 of them are the absolute majority.
Even though cinema artists and technicians are not present in two groups classified by
ENPALS, data (see table below) prove the versatility of the skills involved in the making
of movies.
These comparisons are useful to understand why the effects of an evolution in film
production worry so many. Particular apprehension has been expressed by
representative bodies, on how the evolution could affect the entertainment sector as a
whole.
3
Both members and owners of a firm can gain access to social security schemes if they are included in
the payroll of the firm itself. Likewise it happens for freelancers or self-employed who manage directly
(or through agents or representatives) their work. In such cases social contributions are either paid by
the worker or by the firm receiving the worker’s service.
| 51
TAB. 2
EVOLUTION OF LABOR MARKET IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR
Sectors and years
CINEMA
Radio – TV
Music
Theater
Various recreational activities
Sport centers
Other activities
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
Sectors and years
2004
2007
2008
2009*
Total contributors registered at ENPALS
68,927
74,658
76,442
72,608
26,375
28,980
30,896
28,787
71,111
69,133
66,068
63,483
20,321
21,181
21,262
22,348
39,781
35,106
34,711
47,689
20,427
17,456
20,477
23,043
12,112
12,269
14,925
18,613
257,954
258,783
264,781
276,671
68,942
26,239
58,366
23,279
49,761
24,627
21,121
272,355
77,563*
25,917*
53,067*
23,441*
47,229*
27,987*
22,036*
277,220*
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2008
CINEMA
Radio – TV
Music
Theater
Sport centers
Other activities
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
Active companies registered at ENPALS
3,288
3,241
3,471
3,520
1,421
1,425
1,479
1,430
7,150
6,312
3,018
5,742
2,154
2,066
2,333
2,381
6,640
6,086
6,693
6,606
3,109
3,044
3,827
4,358
1,333
1,386
1,453
1,613
25,095
23,560
25,274
25,650
3,534
1,429
4,608
2,389
5,790
4,529
1,779
24,058
CINEMA
Radio – TV
Music
Theater
Sport centers
Other activities
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
Total annual payroll in million euros
670.6
761.7
818.0
658.7
619.1
691.1
464.7
466.8
453.8
165.8
171.0
167.4
264.9
262.9
285.2
221.0
212.4
235.5
28.3
33.7
33.3
2,474.0
2,527.6
2,684.3
938.6
705.0
430.0
189.4
410.6
289.7
55.9
3,019.2
761.3
679.5
439.7
177.0
363.6
255.4
42.5
2,719.0
Source: Elaboration on data from the report “Statistics on employment and wages of workers in the entertainment and sport sector –
historical series 2000-2008” edited by ENPALS Statistical – actuarial department, Rome 2009.
* Data for 2009 were estimated by ENPALS.
2. The Weight of Cinecittà
Certain concerns seem quite reasonable and justified when it comes to assess the
leadership of film production from a territorial point of view. Affirming that Rome is the
capital of Italian cinema is a “historicized” and quite tautological expression. It is a
“mantra-like” statement, so obvious to appear natural.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The popular cliché about Rome could not truly describe the scenario of Italian cinema,
but a territorial analysis can actually restore the truth behind common knowledge.
52 |
TAB. 3
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR: THE IMPACT OF CINEMA
Artists and technicians:
ENPALS categories and groups 2008
Total activity
Actors
58,566
Employees
22,148
Operators (A)**
13,184
Coordinators, managers, inspectors***
5,591
Directors, assistant directors, screenwriters
5,784
Operators (B)**
7,962
Technicians (production and realization)
8,962
Set/interior/costume designers
2,924
Make-up artists and hair stylists
991
Suppliers/ equipment hire
451
Dancers and models
22,653
Presenters
17,174
Scene and dubbing directors
506
Singers
9,904
Musicians
42,569
Administrators
872
Conductors
885
Independent music operators
991
Sport centers workers
20,429
Entertainment facilities workers
22,148
Total
272.335
Consistency cinema sector
Second most
Number
Percentage represented sector
37,680
7,690
7,076
3,743
3,118
3,019
2,463
1,576
678
451
442
286
228
192
177
82
38
3
0
0
68,942
64.3%
34.7%
53.6%
66.9%
53.9%
37.9%
27.4%
53.9%
68.4%
100.00%
1.9%
1.6%
45.0%
1.9%
0.4%
9.4%
4.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
25.3%
10,642- Theater
16,086- Radio-TV
2,070- Radio-TV
1,169 - Radio-TV
1,773 - Radio-TV
1,501 - Theater
2,066 - Theater
489 - Music
215 - Radio-TV
0 – None
14,269*
6,609*
176 – Theater
7,720 - Music
31,745 - Music
632 - Theater
767 - Music
982 - Music
20,242 - Sport centers
19,157*
58,369 - Music
Source: Elaboration on Cerved data relatively to annual budgets deposited by joint stock companies between 2007 and 2008 (total turnover
of the sector) and to the report “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” edited by the
ENPALS Statistical – actuarial Department, Rome 2009 (number of workers and annual working days, both total and per capita, until
2008).
* Data for 2009 were estimated by ENPALS.
** ENPALS classification differentiates “operators” in two groups: Group A “fixed term employees working as artists or technicians in
production and realization of events”; Group B “fixed term employees not included in Group A”
*** officially called “Cinema, audiovisual and entertainment production group”
In fact the idea of cinema as the mainstay of the entertainment sector it is not
overrated. Some economic sectors- even on a national scale- depend upon cinema,
and it becomes quite clear when the business cycle experiences a downturn. In such
cases the economic weight of Rome and Lazio is crucial and it is not counterbalanced
by any other productive center: perhaps only Milan and Lombardy could partly
compensate its influence(table below). Rome is even predominant in terms of box
office and spectators, plus Lazio stipulates a supplementary contract for business
employees, providing a bonus (960 ¤ per year) based on the annual number of
spectators (they must be more than 13.5 mln, a value already reached in 2007). Half of the cinema companies are from Rome and Lazio-roughly 4 out of 10
companies- and they generate more than 60% of the total income. This is the reason
why the capital has such a significant role in the entertainment sector at a national
level. Rome represents 30% of the employees and 35% of their income, hence it is
| 53
TAB. 4
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS OF CINEMA SECTOR
Region
Active companies
registered at ENPALS
2007
2008
Active contributors
2007
2008
Average number
of workers per company
2007
2008
ITALY
Piedmont
Valle d’Aosta
Lombardy
Trentino Alto Adige
Veneto
Liguria
Emilia Romagna
NORD
3,520
201
1
605
28
122
27
64
224
1.272
3,534
185
3
685
33
110
30
48
232
1,329
72,508
1,570
5
19,128
89
1,916
230
347
2,481
25,776
68,942
1,457
10
16,217
105
1,251
334
373
1,867
21,614
20.6
7.8
5.0
31.6
3.2
15.7
8.5
5.4
11.1
20.3
19.5
7.8
3.3
23.7
3.1
11.3
11.1
7.7
8.0
16.2
Tuscany
Umbria
Marche
Lazio
CENTER
142
31
81
1,492
1,746
141
30
77
1,486
1,734
859
161
362
46,585
47,947
885
123
382
41,958
43,348
6.0
5.2
4.5
31.2
27.5
6.2
4.1
4.9
28.2
24.9
42
3
126
92
12
26
121
26
453
40
3
139
92
13
22
141
21
471
238
6
1,013
513
45
88
619
207
2,729
167
8
1,172
560
34
76
1,806
157
3,980
5.7
2.0
8.0
5.3
3.8
3.4
5.1
8.0
6.0
4.1
2.6
8.4
6.0
2.6
3.4
12.8
8.4
8.4
Abruzzo
Molise
Campania
Apulia
Basilicata
Calabria
Sicily
Sardinia
SOUTH AND ISLANDS
Source: Elaboration on data from the report “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages”
edited by the ENPALS Statistical – actuarial Department, Rome 2009.
able to determine trends, main changes and also the value of production in the
macro sector. It is worth mentioning that at the end of 2008 trade unions asked Lazio
region to take measures to contrast the downturn. They called for exceptional
measures, generally not provided for the entertainment sector, such as the state of
crisis recognition and access to extraordinary unemployment compensation
(measures were supported by companies’ representative bodies as well). It may be
that ENPALS emphasizes the role of Rome as structural and corporate core of the
industry, with its strong focus on employment and contracts ensuring social
security. However there is no doubt that Cinecittà and its impact on other areas
increases the attention paid to policies supporting the sector and the alternating
trend of labor market (in the entertainment sector but mostly in the cinema
industry). But there is a further aspect that needs to be addressed, implicitly
mentioned by the ENPALS surveys.
54 |
TAB. 5
IMPACT OF MACRO REGIONS ON NATIONAL CINEMA
Region
Active companies
2007
2008
Active contributors
2007
2008
Average number
of workers per company
2007
2008
Nord
(Lombardy)
Center
(Lazio)
South and Islands
36.7%
(17.1%)
50.3%
(42.3%)
13.0%
37.6%
(19.3%)
49.0%
(42.0%)
13.4%
33.7%
(26.3%)
62.7%
(64.2)
3.6%
31.3%
(23.5%)
62.9%
(60.8%)
5.8%
+4.4%
(+2.2%)
-0.6%
(-0.3%)
+3.9%
-16.1%
(-2.8%)
-9,5%
(-3.4%)
+45.8%
ITALY
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Elaboration on data from 2007 and 2008 reports “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment
and wages” edited by the ENPALS Statistical – actuarial Department, Rome.
TAB. 6
IMPACT OF LAZIO ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR ON NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITIES
Data in units
thousand euros
Ratio: cinema/other
entertainment activities (Lazio)
2007
2008
40.7%
40.5%
59.9%
53.9%
65.2%
62.0%
Active companies
Workers - operators
Total payroll
Ratio: entertainment activities
in Lazio/entertainment activities in Italy
2007
2008
14.5%
15.2%
29.3%
28.5%
35.6%
34.8%
TAB. 7
Year
cinque anni
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
FIVE YEARS OF LABOR MARKET IN THE CINEMA SECTOR
Active companies
Historical Absolute
series
variation
3,288
3,241
3,471
3,520
3,534
-23
-47
+230
+49
+14
Active contributors
Percentage Historical
variations
series
-0.69%
-1.43%
+7.10%
+1.41%
+0.40%
68,827
74,658
76,442
72,608
68,942
Workers per company
Absolute Percentage Historical Unit
variation variations
series variations
+3,378
+5,831
+1,784
-3,834
-3,666
+5.16%
+8.47%
+2.39%
-5.02%
-5.05%
20.9
23.0
22.0
20.6
19.5
+0.9
+2.1
-1.0
-1.4
-1.1
3. Real Dimensions of Workflows
The distinctive feature of a social security board compared to other trade unions is that
compulsory insurance is extended to both employed and self employed, i.e. it is linked to
the attribution of professional qualification, regardless of the type of contract. Thus, for the
insurance purposes all types of job in the sector are valid, even if occasional or casual, with
limited or irregular salary. However there must be at least one working day per year.
| 55
EMPLOYMENT
Between 2007 and 2008 cinema operators have diminished by 10%, basically by the
same percentage gained during the two previous years. The situation has returned
to the same levels as 2004 (table 1 and table 2 of this chapter) but it should be
compensated by an expected growth of 12.4% in 2009. A significant aspect is that the
negative trend in employment coincided with an increase of employers, i.e.
registered companies went up by 7.7%, followed by an impoverishment of job
opportunities.4
It was a significant depletion, although relatively small. The payroll has kept growing,
+14.7%, climbing from 808.0 up to 938.6 million euro (table 1 of this chapter).
However, another change occurred simultaneously to those aforementioned. The daily
wage (table 8) experienced an appreciation of 62.5%, even if the real value should be
around 25%. This means that frequency and duration of jobs have had contractions
larger than 10%, as shown by ENPALS reports.
TAB. 8
TEN YEARS OF WAGE LEVELS: FLUCTUATIONS
Year
1999*
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average daily wage (€)
Historical
Absolute Percentage
series
variation
variations
105.29
112.79
118.67
116.30
112.73
112.39
122.94
131.80
136.67
194.32
+97.50
+5,88
-2.37
-3.57
-0.34
+10.55
+8.86
+4.87
+57.65
+7.12%
+5.21%
-2.00%
-3.07%
-0.30%
+9.38%
+7.20%
+3.70%
+42.19%
Annual wage per capita (€)
Historical
Absolute Percentage
series
variation
variations
7,264.71
8,368.23
9,329.77
9,708.12
9,667.07
9,743.27
10,202.62
10,700.92
10,485.07
13,614.34
+1,103.52
+961.54
+378.35
-41.05
+76.20
+459.25
+498.40
-215.85
+3,129.27
+15.19%
+11.49%
+4.06%
-0.42%
+0.79%
+4.71%
+4.89%
-2.92%
+29.85%
*Monetary values were converted according to the following exchange rate: 1936.27 lire = 1 euro.
In order to assess the sample used by ENPALS, it should be pointed out how statistical
analysis and classifications may differ every year. Professional qualifications are the
most subjected to such irregularities. For example indefinite term and fixed term
employees were placed in two macro-categories: “workers and employees” and “artists
4
56 |
The largest numbers of firms paying social contributions in 2008 is given by stricter and increased
controls fighting tax evasion. It is not due to an increase in workforce, that is indeed decreased
in 2008.
and technicians”. Respectively 23% (17,500 workers) and 77% (58,700) of the total.5
Now these classifications are no longer clearly identifiable. In 2008 data monitoring
fixed term employment was divided in four categories, “employees”, “production of
cinema, video, entertainment”, “technicians” and “staff of equipment hire
companies”. Total employees were 13,300 and they hypothetically corresponded to
indefinite term employees, even if there were 4,200 workers less than previous
classifications.
PERIODS AND LEVELS OF EMPLOYMENT
The previous paragraph implicitly underlined the difficulty in identifying the position of
fixed term employees, especially artists and technicians, whose work is quite varied
and subjective.6 Anyway general parameters used by ENPALS - total and average
working hours and days - allow an overall quantification of these jobs. This is
fundamental in evaluating performances and development of business and labor
market.
Occasional and irregular job opportunities (often for just one project or work) bias
the count of annual working units. ENPALS reports a high number of registered
workers but it does not take into account their low annual productivity in terms of
working days. This asymmetry is a typical feature of the entertainment macrosector, and it clearly emerges from average annual working days reported in the
table 9.
It could be that some of the groups classified by ENPALS overlap. For example
cinema operators can also work for TV production or other activities. However
cinema employees have the lowest average employment rates. Lower than the
macro-sector average and almost three times lower than TV and radio. Those
employed in TV/radio and sport centers are basically full time workers.
5
6
ENPALS modified the categories classifying workers, according to new laws. The first classification was
given in the Legislative Decree CPS 16-7-1947 n. 708, modified by Law 29-11-1952 n.2388. Law Decree
30-4-1997 n.182 introduced the following classification: Group A “fixed term employees working as artists
or technicians in production and realization of events”; Group B “fixed term employees not included in
Group A”; Group C “indefinite term workers”. Specific guidelines on the classification were given in
Decree Law 10-11-1997, and modified again by Law 27-12-2002 n.289 and Decree Law 15-3-2005.
The professions of the film industry are traditionally divided into five groups: creative staff –
scriptwriters, screenwriters, set designers, costume designers and composers; artistic labor –
producers, directors, choreographers, photography and editing directors; performing labor – actors,
extras, musicians, dancers; technical line – assistant directors, casting directors, cameramen, sound
and lighting technicians, electricians, tailors, make-up artists, hair stylists; administrative work –
production agents and all the workers in charge of bookkeeping, purchase, equipment hire and
supplies. Each group can be divided into subdivisions, anyhow most of the times workers are hired
for one movie or just for a single stage of production. The only exceptions are directors and producers.
(Source: Film Economics, by Giacomo Negro and Fabrizio Perretti, Etas-RCS Libri, Milano 2003).
| 57
TAB. 9
EMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTORS
Sectors and year
2004
CINEMA
Radio-TV
Music
Theater
Sport centers
Other activities
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
2005
Average annual working days per capita
86.7
83.0
236.7
209.3
52.9
55.9
87.7
84.7
71.2
79.9
179.2
196.5
43.6
47.1
95.8
95.6
2006
2007
2008
81.2
214.2
53.8
81.1
83.5
190.3
39.0
96.2
76.7
215.7
53.9
78.4
91.7
176.7
37.0
94.3
70.1
239.8
56.8
79.4
96.3
181.1
40.8
96.9
4. Employment: Back to 1994
During the last four years the drop in average working days per capita has been
remarkable. Particularly because it has occurred in contrast to all other entertainment
activities. The diminishing trend started in 2004, and it has led to the same employment
level as 1999.
TAB. 10
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
EMPLOYMENT TREND IN THE CINEMA SECTOR
Working days per annum
Historical
Absolute Percentage
series
variation
variations
4,366.8
5,041.1
5,709.1
5,814.2
5,612.5
5,966.5
6,195.6
6,206.6
5,570.5
4,830.2
+674.3
+668.0
+105.1
-201.7
+354.0
+229.1
+11.0
-636.1
-740.3
+15.44%
+13.25%
+1.84%
-3.47%
+6.31%
+3.84%
+0.18%
-10.25%
-13.29%
Average annual working days per capita
Historical
Absolute
Percentage
series
variation
variations
69.0
74.2
78.6
83.5
85.8
86.7
83.0
81.2
76.7
70.1
+5.2
+4.4
+4.9
+2.3
+0.9
-3.7
-1.8
-4.5
-6.6
+7.52%
+5.97%
+6.17%
+2.73%
+1.09%
-4.27%
-2.16%
-5.51%
-8.68%
Similarly to a flashback, data are now showing a scene already seen in 1999. In 2008
total annual working days in the cinema industry were just over 4.8 million. It can be
deduced that the total number of employees, if working full time, was 15.481. Actually
registered workers are 68,942. Virtually it can be assumed that employment is so
occasional and low that it takes the job of 4.5 workers to form an indefinite term job.
58 |
The previous year it would have taken the job of 4 workers and 3.8 in 2007. According
to preliminary estimates by ENPALS the situation does not seem to be improving in
2009. In fact 8,591 cinema operators have already registered to the social security
board.
The low “usage rate”(perhaps more appropriate than employment rate) of artists and
technicians in the film industry emerges by comparing it to the usage rate of the
entertainment sector.
TAB. 11
Values
per decile
0 – 10%
10 – 20%
20 – 30%
30 – 40%
40 – 50%
50 – 60%
60 – 70%
70 – 80%
80 – 90%
Last 10%
DISTRIBUTION OF PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTORS
Cinema
2007
2008
1
1
2
4
10
34
99
196
312
312
1
1
2
3
8
23
78
156
266
312
Average annual working days
Radio - TV
Theater
Music
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
18
73
156
229
285
312
312
312
312
312
30
142
142
286
311
312
312
312
312
312
2
4
4
21
39
67
100
147
312
312
2
5
5
20
37
64
98
148
251
312
1
2
2
5
9
18
34
75
246
312
1
2
2
6
11
22
44
93
234
312
Total
2007
2008
1
2
2
13
31
68
132
234
312
312
1
2
2
15
33
70
133
240
312
312
The table above shows a comparison between macro sector, cinema, theater, music
and radio/TV in terms of percentage frequency (deciles) of operators. In 2007 music
industry had lower usage rates than cinema for each decile.
This is due to episodic nature of music ativities, such as concerts or registration.
In 2008 this difference could only be noted in three median deciles (60% to 80%).
Cinema also shows a diminishing trend for deciles over 60% if compared to theater;
plus it is far from a comparison with radio/TV, since they have a non-stop
broadcast.
Analyzing data thoroughly it can be identified a significant drop in music and radio/TV
operators registered at ENPALS. Even the preliminary balance for 2009 indicates an
ongoing contraction: a loss of 5,299 music operators (-9%) and 322 radio/TV operators
( to add to a previous dramatic decline of 4,657 operators, considering that radio/TV
needs less human capital). But contrarily to cinema, the average annual employment
rate has slightly gone up in these two sectors. Thus, cinema is experiencing an
“erosion” of the work force, no matter favorable or negative economic conditions,
while employment in radio/TV and music is going down but there is yet a selection
among the dismissed.
| 59
5. Transparency of VAT Numbers
The film industry might have an issue to solve: submerged economy. In fact some people
suspect that the decline of the employment rate results from the transfer of employment
from official to informal market. The main reason of this tendency could be the quality
of employment – occasional and usually based on a fixed term contract.
Illegal practice and tax evasion cannot be realistically excluded. This is a fairly
controversial phenomenon, and since it is “submerged” any possibility of assessment or
census fails. There are many operators at the bottom of the employment pyramid of film
industry. Generally they are young and involved in minor productions, such as
promotional documentaries, educational videos and reports on industrial and social
realities. These works are managed by minor agencies that are more subjected to illegal
practice, and their activity might end up in that 20% fleeing from official estimates of
national production (according to field research and surveys).7 Experts call it the “grey
zone”, and it involves not only cinema, but also entertainment and sport (from
professional to amateur). It has always been a well known reality periodically appearing
on the political agenda.8 In fact it happened during the meetings of the VII Cultural
Committee and the XI Labor Commission at the Chamber of Deputies. They made
different laws, assessing social security but from different perspectives.9
Avoidance and evasion practices are the main issues and they hide two further issues.10
Firstly they imply the existence of informal labor. Secondly the regulation and the compensation
of occasional work relations according to VAT number system. Thus black market appears as
provision of various services – consultancy, copyright etc. Evidence of this leak is the unusual
outflow of some contributors from ENPALS registers (radio/TV and music sector).11
7
8
9
10
11
60 |
This observation was made by Alberto Francesconi, president of AGIS (General Association of
Entertainment Firms), during the conference "Strategic Plan for 2009-2012 - CIV guidelines"
organized by the ENPALS Supervisory Board (CIV) and held on October 30, 2009.
This observation was made by Alberto Francesconi, president of AGIS (General Association of
Entertainment Firms), during the conference "Strategic Plan for 2009-2012 - CIV guidelines"
organized by the ENPALS Supervisory Board (CIV) and held on October 30, 2009.
The Cultural Commission has had on its agenda a bipartisan framework bill reordering the sector.
The bill should focus on development and public investment policies. On the other hand the Labor
Commission has proposed a bill concerning social security for the macro sector (recreational
activities, sport and entertainment). In the first bill there are also three articles about retirement
and assistance schemes. However they are still under discussion because they are in contrast
with the Labor Commission bill.
Some unions argue that working under the table and tax evasion are only a part of illegal practice.
In fact other practices could be listing work performances as unpaid rehearsals or payment of
contributions for an inexistent job.
The importance of the problem was underlined by Emilia Grace De Biasi, Secretary of the
Presidency of the Chamber of Deputies and member of the 7th Cultural Commission, during the
This is considered the fastest growing phenomenon, because formally is lawful and
legitimate, though its “chain-reaction” effects could be disruptive. It damages social
security because it gets around social contributions. It damages the tax system,
transferring tax positions from one system to another. It damages trade unions and
administrative and social institutions, by creating “grey areas” in regulatory areas. In the
long run, if the phenomenon spreads, it will bias already controversial policies, both at
national and local level.
WAGES
It could be that some effect on the number of registered contributors and amount of
working days has already occurred. Meanwhile it is more difficult to find out if the
phenomenon has had an impact on wage levels and their evolution (see table 8). Focusing
employment and wage levels, it is observed that their relationship is influenced by the
divergence of their values, both negative and positive.
TAB. 12
Annual
variations
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
LABOR MARKET: TRENDS IN EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE LEVEL
Active Contributors
cinema
registered
companies
at ENPALS
+1.52%
+0.91%
-0.69%
-1.43%
+7.10%
+1.41%
+0.40%
Working days
Annual
Average
(per unit)
Average wage
Per working
Annual
day (per worker)
Total workers of the cinema sector
-4.08%
+1.84%
+6.17%
-2.00%
-6.04%
-3.47%
+2.73%
-3.07%
+5.16%
+6.31%
+1.09%
-0.30
+8.47%
+3.84%
-4.27%
+9.38%
+2.39%
+0.18%
-2.16%
+7.20%
-5.02%
-10.25%
-5.51%
+3.70%
-5.05%
-13.29%
-8.68%
+42.19%
-4.06%
-0.42%
+0.79
+4.71%
+4.89%
-2.02%
+29.85%
Total
payroll
-0.19%
-6.43%
+5.99%
+13.58
+7.39%
-6.93%
+23.29%
Source: Elaboration on ENPALS data from: “Entertainment and sport workers’ employment and wage level – Fundamental
distribution parameters of quantitative characters” 2007, “Statistics on employment and wages of workers in the entertainment
and sport sector – historical series 2000-2008”, “Business activity in the entertainment and sport sector” 2009, “Workers of
entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” 2009, edited by the ENPALS Statistical – actuarial
Department, Rome.
But the real recurring and constituent element of labor in the film industry is the
extremely low “usage rate” in some artistic divisions. Actors in particular- 54.6% of the
workforce- are a burden influencing and orienting the change of the key indicators.
CIV (ENPALS) conference held on October 30, 2009, in Rome. Also Giulia Rodano, Lazio regional
councilor for culture, sports and entertainment, expressed her concerns on the same issue:
“workers of the sport and entertainment sector can be self employed or not. But if workers of the
entertainment sector shift to VAT, then they are moving away from ENPALS and social security
issues might change. We should be careful, because it is already happening in the entertainment
and sport sector, where work opportunities are occasional. The actor is not self employed, he
relies on a company and he is not a freelancer”.
| 61
6. The Unbearable Lightness of the “Usage Rate”
The significant number of actors and the low usage rate are part of the structure of film
industry. For this reason they are prevalent in the scenario drawn by ENPALS surveys.
The analysis of composition and remuneration according to different professional
qualifications reflects perfectly such situation. Among the qualifications, it should be
noted that the actors’ average daily wage is the fourth highest, but they are also the
category with the less annual working days.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
Considering the different remuneration between men and women, it is introduced another
relevant variable highlighting gender disparities. There are no recent gender-related data
for the film industry. Hence the findings reported in the table refer to high density (always
over 50%) professional qualifications of the macro-sector (entertainment).
TAB. 13
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR: THE IMPACT OF CINEMA
ENPALS contributors
Actors
Employees
Operators (A)*
Coordinators, managers, inspectors and secretaries**
Operators (B)*
Technicians (production and realization)
Dancers and models
Presenters
Singers
Musicians
Administrators
Conductors
TOTAL
Number
of workers
Average annual
working days
Average
daily wage (€)
37,680
7,690
7,076
3,743
3,118
3,019
2,463
1,576
678
451
442
286
228
192
177
82
38
3
68,942
11.1
215.6
101.7
114.6
95.8
185.3
135.4
103.0
73.3
229.5
57.7
80.5
112.6
15.3
40.9
149.7
51.0
39.7
70.1
397.70
82.74
103.23
155.63
533.34
55,16
118.90
214.29
212.85
104.35
196.41
8,366.88
212.68
442.51
105.91
171.38
379.90
153.16
194.32
Source: “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages”, edited by the ENPALS Statistical –
actuarial Department, Rome 2009.
*ENPALS classification differentiates “operators” in two groups: Group A “fixed term employees working as artists or technicians in production
and realization of events”; Group B “fixed term employees not included in Group A”
**officially called “Cinema, audiovisual and entertainment production group”
WAGE LEVELS
In order to identify the economic profile of the interrelationship between high supply and
low demand of labor in the film industry, it is useful to refer to a cumulative frequency
62 |
of periods of employment and retribution classes. Table 13 shows that annual average
working days are 70.1; average daily wage is ¤194.32; average annual salary is ¤13,600.
Considering these three values in terms of deciles underlines how the last 20% of the
workforce ( 13,780 out of 68,900) compensates in excess the daily wage of the lower 80%,
almost balancing low average annual salary.
TAB. 14
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY : PARAMETERS FOR GENDER EQUALITY
Professional groups with more than 50% of filmmakers
Men
DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS PER GENDER
Gender distribution in main categories
Number
Percentage
Actors
Operators (A)*
31,866
10,633
2,788
3,398
909
350
189
54.5%
80.7%
49.9%
58.8%
31.1%
27.4%
42.0%
Women
Number
Percentage
26,700
2,551
2,803
2,386
2,015
931
262
45.5%
19.3%
51.1%
41.2%
68.9%
72.6
58.0%
WORKING DAYS AND DAILY WAGE PER GENDER
Average annual working days and wage (€)
Working days
Wage Working days
Actors
Operators (A)*
20.9
48.1
130.2
116.8
104.9
91.7
224.7
243.54
110.05
156.70
351.17
181.57
176.75
116.49
18.2
130.5
144.7
154.4
104.2
91.3
233.0
Wage
193.61
74,57
108.16
219.74
162.80
133.39
95.90
*ENPALS classification differentiates “operators” in two groups: Group A “fixed term employees working as artists or technicians in production
and realization of events”; Group B “fixed term employees not included in Group A”
**officially called “Cinema, audiovisual and entertainment production group”
INCOME FROM WORKING
Supply and demand of employment and remuneration range are structured similarly
to all the other creative, cultural and entertainment sectors. The comparison of
remuneration between cinema and other sectors shows a parallel trend during the
last five years. Despite the apparent scarcity of employment and resources of the industry, cinema has
had the highest average annual salary per capita, leaving behind radio/TV, based on a
more profitable indefinite term employment. A tool to objectively assess the adequacy
of income values is provided by the Agency of the Revenues and by IRPEF (personal
income tax). Although they are not specific, the incomes declared for 2008 are
congruous with ENPALS findings.
| 63
TAB. 15
DISTRIBUTION OF PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE LEVEL
Values
per decile
Maximum annual
working days
2007
2008
0 – 10%
10 – 20%
20 – 30%
30 – 40%
40 – 50%
50 – 60%
60 – 70%
70 – 80%
80 – 90%
Last 10%
1
1
2
4
10
34
99
196
312
312
Maximum daily
wage (€)
2008
1
1
2
3
8
23
78
156
266
312
51.57
60.55
67.15
72.72
80.43
97.36
128.98
177.10
305.26
-
Maximum annual
wage (€)
2007
2008
68.0
130.0
218.0
463.0
1,106.0
3,557.2
9,357.0
18,061.8
30,083.2
9,253,050.0
69.44
121.26
200.00
396.00
918.00
2,878.45
7,843.77
15,816.98
26,152.88
-
TAB. 16
EVOLUTION OF INCOME FROM WORKING IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR
Sectors and years
CINEMA
Radio-TV
Music
Theater
Sport centers
Other activities
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
2006
2007
2008
AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE PER WORKER
9,743.27
10,202.52
10,700.92
24,974.41
21,363.01
22,368.59
6,534.85
6,752.26
6,868.68
8,159.05
8,073.27
7,873.20
6,830.66
7,488.75
8,216.42
10,819.01
12,167.74
11,500.71
2,336.53
2,746.76
2,231.16
9,590.86
9,767.26
10,137.81
2004
2005
10,485.07
23,604.40
6,926.26
7,920.17
7,624.40
11,083.63
2,283.35
9,831.11
13,614.34
26,868.40
7,366.92
8,137.14
8,251.44
11,763.51
2,646.65
11,086.35
Source: “Statistics on employment and wages of workers in the entertainment and sport sector – historical series 2000-2008” edited by the
ENPALS Statistical – actuarial Department, Rome 2009.
Self-employment includes high salary categories, last 20%, with an average of ¤42,500
taxable income, and low salary, with 13,600 taxable income. In this case the figure by
ENPALS almost coincides with that estimated by the Treasury Department for self
employed contributors operating in the artistic field. But there is no coincidence or
extreme contradiction between estimates of income from indefinite term employment
(according to ENPALS it was 21% of the workforce in 2007). The partial shift seems
due to discrepancy between the standard classification made by IRS and the complex
reality of cinema. Looking at table 19, it can be observed that the most critical scenarios are at the
bottom of the sector’s professional hierarchy. Apart from music, cinema shows lower
wages than other sectors in 60% of the cases.
64 |
TAB. 17
COMPARISON BETWEEN INCOMES FROM SELF EMPLOYMENT
2008 incomes – thousand euros
Contributors
Cumulative income
Average income
AVERAGE VALUES (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE)
Total self employed
697,200
30,862,227
Artistic activity category*
17,397
740,419
Users of simplified accounting system
1,505,079
27,056,632
Artists using simplified accounting system
12,521
173,543
44.266
42.580
17.977
13.860
AVERAGE VALUES (ENPALS)
272,335
68,942
Total registered workers
Cinema workers
3,019,200
938,600
11.086
13.614
* Internal Revenue Service (Agenzia delle Entrate) sampled income from working from 2008 income statements. According to the Treasury
Department such values should considered as temporary . According to the tax system, the exact definition is “Artistic, sporting, entertainment
and recreational activities”.
TAB. 18
COMPARISON BETWEEN INCOMES FROM SALARIED JOB
2008 incomes – thousand euros
Total self employed
10-50K euros
Contributors
Cumulative income
Average income
21,018,413
14,725,576
455,270,206
330,343,992
21.660
22.430
ESTIMATED INCOME FROM SALARIED JOB IN THE CINEMA SECTOR (ENPALS)
Cinema salaried workers*
7,960
221,971
Employees of equipment hire firms*
224
5,863
28.865
26.175
* Internal Revenue Service (Agenzia delle Entrate) sampled income from working from 2008 income statements. According to the Treasury
Department such values should considered as temporary . According to the tax system, the exact definition is “Artistic, sporting, entertainment
and recreational activities”.
Plus in a year time there have been two changes. Cinema has lower deciles than the
previous year, except the first decile. The decrease ranges from -4.6% to -15.%.
Remaining sectors have grown (fifth decile of theater is the only exception), especially
radio/TV- increase has exceeded 20%.
7. On the Verge of Poverty
Table 19 brings to attention rate of usage and consequent income levels again. The
rate of usage almost corresponds to inaction - less than 8 working days per annum.
According to ENPALS contributory records the maximum average annual wage is
€918, way below the poverty threshold. This is a common situation for at least 50%
of registered workers (34,471). An additional 10% (almost 6,900 persons) earns less
than €2,878 per year. More than 40,000 workers cannot live with just the amount
| 65
TAB. 19
Values
per decile
0 – 10%
2007 value
10 – 20%
2007 value
20 – 30%
2007 value
30 – 40%
2007 value
40 – 50%
2007 value
50 – 60%
2007 value
60 – 70%
2007 value
70 – 80%
2007 value
80 – 90%
2007 value
Last 10%*
2007 value
CLASSES OF INCOME IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTORS
Cinema
69.44
68.00
121.36
130.00
200.00
218.00
396.00
463.00
918.00
1,106.00
2,878.45
3,577.20
7,843.77
9,357.00
15,816.98
18,061.80
26,152.88
30,983.20
9,253,050.00
Maximum annual wage in 2007 and 2008
Radio - TV
Theater
2,047.10
1,139.00
7,367.46
4,018.00
13,955.00
8,606.50
18,355.81
14,173.00
23,521.00
18,596.00
29,397.54
23,380.00
36,952.00
20,477.00
44,704.68
36,245.00
54,255.34
45,347.00
4,315,782.00
108.00
99.40
275.00
250.00
645.00
600.00
1,320.00
1,296.00
2,538.00
2,592.00
4,574.43
4,590.00
7,564.06
7,637.00
12,916.29
12,595.20
22,209.68
21,142.40
3,161.572.00
Music
43.38
41.00
108.00
90.00
210.70
173.00
400.00
325.00
800.01
608.00
1,643.46
1,153.00
3,526.20
2,456.00
8,802.00
6,165.00
27,791.99
24,944.32
1,600,924.20
Source: “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” (2008) and “Statistics on employment
and wages of workers in the entertainment and sport sector – historical series 2000-2008” edited by the ENPALS Statistical – actuarial
Department, Rome 2009.
*Statistics for 2008 do not include values for the last decile in order to prevent indiscretions on the identity or income of the most successful
artist/filmmaker during the year.
ensuring social security. Forty thousand is such a high number that hides some
complex and vital issues.12
CLASSES OF INCOME
Film operators cannot be homogeneously classified. There are relatively young
workers- on average 35 years old- with €13.600 annual income, working 70.1 days a
12
66 |
ENPALS annual reports on the sector activity often bring the attention to workers in the first
six deciles of income, i.e. to those who cannot support themselves working only in the
entertainment sector. This is not just an Italian concern. In fact the European relevance of the
issue is proved by the research “ Age, gender and job opportunities for artists – performers in
Europe” commissioned by EuroFIA, the European branch of FIA (International Federation of
Actors) and supported by the European Commission. The research was coordinated by Deborah
Dean (Industrial Relations Research Unit of Warwick University) and it confirms that “most
artists cannot earn their living with their job”. Plus in 25 countries “on average 5% of artists
have earned nothing with their profession”.
year (social security system requires a minimum contribution of 120 working days per
year). Anyway half of these workers are younger-on average 27 years old; they earn
less than a thousand euros working very few days (maximum 8) a year. The other half
has 45 years old, works 150 days a year and makes €15,000 of annual income.13
The first group must work for 15-16 years at least to be defined as “professionals” and to
attain the resources for a decent standard of living. To add to this, those who achieve the
stability must still fight for a full time career in order to benefit from the new contributory
scheme and secure their pensions. Low wages involves all workers, although the effects are
linked to the importance of the single category. They are an extensive problem among
“generic” actors (including extras) and young technicians, less protected and with no
bargaining power.14 Directors, assistant directors, screenwriters, set and costume designers
are not immune to low wages and bordereaux. There is a stable 10% living exclusively of
their work (annual income: €3,500), trapped by volatile job opportunities and bordereaux.
Sometimes the sector experiences some benefits, but they are unevenly distributed.
Imaging a wage-pyramid, the central part will have a consistent and linear improvement.
Anyway the top of the pyramid will gain benefits in exponential proportion. Therefore the
recipients of a positive trend are not so many. Data progressive disaggregation (this
process requires a careful analysis) estimates that there are only 100 millionaires among
the 7,400 richest filmmakers.
TURNOVER
The passage of several workers beyond the poverty line implies a phenomenon called
“forced turnover”. Diminishing annual social contributions correspond to extremely
occasional job opportunities and performances over time. Hence, from year to year
thousands of workers happen to be jobless for long periods, longer than the natural
turnover of artists and technicians in the cinema industry. Often the inaction - and the
absence of revenues - lasts even more than twelve months over a two years time span
for circa 7,000 workers.
13
Massimo Antichi, Director General of ENPALS, referred to these data during the CIV conference
held on 30 October 2009 in Rome.
14
The mode values (i.e. the most frequent values in a statistical distribution) for artists are: 23.5
years of age, one working day per year and a daily (and consequently annual) wage of 55 euros.
This is also the income declared to ENPALS for social contributions. The consistent gap
between fixed term and indefinite term workers is also marked by other indicators measuring
statistical distribution. For example the skewness for indefinite term workers has low values
(-0.91 for annual working days and 1.32 for annual wage), meaning a higher level of annual
wage and working days. For fixed term workers skewness has higher values (2.34 and 36.81),
underlining a less pleaseant scenario. In turn, standard deviations (in percentage) for annual
working days and annual wage are respectively 46.0 and 80.26 for indefinite term workers
and 194.40 and 522.63 for fixed term workers.
| 67
TAB. 20
ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS: PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND SECTOR
Number of workers
per qualification
Cinema
Radio - TV
Theater
Music
TOTAL WORKERS PER SECTOR
68,942
26,239
23,276
58,369
Actors
Dancers and models
Presenters
Singers
Musicians
Conductors
TOTAL WORKERS PER ARTISTIC QUALIFICATION
37,680
3,118
1,576
678
442
286
228
192
177
38
44,415
1,311
1,773
315
215
26
1,515
16
109
333
11
5,624
10,642
551
420
40
1,608
203
176
542
1,960
45
16,187
1,727
277
489
200
5,810
1,743
73
7,720
31,745
767
50,551
Employees
Operators (A)
Coordinators, managers, inspectors and secretaries
Operators (B)
Technicians
Suppliers/equipment hire
Administrators
TOTAL WORKERS PER MANAGERIAL QUALIFICATION
7,690
7,076
3,743
3,019
2,463
451
82
3
24,527
16,086
2,070
1,169
54
1,231
3
2
20,615
1,951
627
310
1,501
2,066
632
2
7,089
2,129
2,027
191
1,205
1,174
110
982
7,818
Source: “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” edited by the ENPALS Statistical –
But there is another kind of turnover. That “classic” turnover of workers entering or
exiting the sector. It is interesting to compare the turnovers of cinema artists and
technicians to those ones working for radio-TV and theater.
TV sector is the only one without a predominant artistic workforce. In cinema, actors
are the majority (54.6% of the sector, and 64.3% of the entertainment macro-sector),
as well as in theater (respectively 45.7% and 18.1%), and music where performers
and orchestral players(54.3% and 74.5%) are ahead of singers (13.2% and 77.9%). TV
and radio - excluding generic operators and employees – have very few artists,
considering that directors, screenwriters and adapters are just 6.7% and 30.6%. Low
percentages demonstrate the dislocation of artists from TV to other sectors,
particularly to cinema, and their consequent overabundance.
Practically television experience is less prestigious than that gained in other
sectors. In fact cinema is generally seen as the gateway for those who decide to
have solid fame but also social and fiscal security. Unfortunately job opportunities
are very limited and workers end up in more profitable sectors, where jobs are not
as scarce.
68 |
TAB. 21
TURNOVER OF MAIN PROFESSIONAL CATEGORIES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR
Main professional
qualifications per sector
Number of workers
with artistic qualification
2007
2008
Annual variations
2007
2008
CINEMA
Actors
Directors and screenwriters
Set and costume designers
72,608
40,102
3,102
1,116
68,942
37,680
3,118
1,576
-5.02%
+2.30%
+1.50%
+3.11%
-5.05%
-6.03%
+0.51%
+41.21%
RADIO – TV
Actors
Presenters
Directors and scriptwriters
28,787
3,604
2,442
2,199
26,239
1,311
1,515
1,773
-6.83%
-8.56%
+0.56%
-4.78%
-8.85%
-63.62%
-37.96%
-19.37%
THEATER
Actors
Musicians
Dancers
22,348
10,187
1,676
1,348
23,276
10,642
1,960
1,608
+5.11%
+7.97%
+3.89%
+10.21%
+4.15%
+4.46%
+16.94%
+19.28%
MUSIC
Musicians
Singers
Dancers
63,483
42,504
7,290
5,211
58,369
31,745
7,720
5,810
-3.91%
-12.45%
-1.39%
-7.23%
-8.06%
-25.31%
+6.03%
+11.49%
Source: “Workers of entertainment and sport companies: main figures on employment and wages” edited by the ENPALS Statistical –
8. Difficulties in Creating a Career
Overabundance of artists “freezes” the opportunity of starting a career for many. As the
accumulation of performances slows down, the artist cannot be placed on the “market”.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Potentially cinema has two kinds of compensation. The first one is tangible, basically money.
The other one is the so-called artistic remuneration, i.e. reputation gained by an artist within
his sector of activity. It is based on elements of various importance that can influence wage
levels, but without compromising its intrinsic value. Artistic remuneration is created through
experience and number of performances, appreciation (in terms of public and economic
results), personal characteristics responding to the target of ongoing projects etc.
The reputational value is essentially related to creative and sometimes technical jobs.
While the recognition for generic workforce is purely economic.15
15
The group corresponding to “performing labor” includes 70% of total artists and technicians, 6%
of “artistic labor”, 2% of “creative staff”, 16% of “technical line” and 6% of “administrative work”
( those who are not part of a specialized company or have fixed term contracts).
| 69
Artistic reputation is the key to understand traditional “star system” and the team work
characterizing the most recent way of doing cinema.16
In fact in Italian cinema the director is the pivot of a team. His fame is a sort of brand,
influencing public and critics’ response as well as their expectations on the quality of
the movie. From a different perspective, the director’s fame determines the access to
financial, technical, artistic and human resources.17 The situation is quite different for
generic workforce, which is mainly bound by indefinite term contracts. But it ensures
stable and structured employment according to management/administrative/commercial
standards, similarly to that in manufacturing industry.
TAB. 22
MOST ACCOMPLISHED ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS PER PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION
Number of works
(movies, short movies,
documentaries)
Directors
Screenwriters
Film editor
Director of photography
Set designers
Costume designers
Composers
Production sound mixer
Special effects
Casting direction
Assistant directors
TOTAL SAMPLE
Total
filmmakers
Filmmakers
with more
than five movies
527
731
375
353
158
149
343
381
154
56
132
3,359
25
58
49
57
48
46
35
95
81
15
24
533
Minimum 10 movies
number percentage
3
16
22
22
12
12
12
41
43
6
2
191
0.5%
2.2%
5.8%
6.2%
7.6%
8.0%
3.5%
10.7%
27.9%
10.7%
1.5%
5.7%
Minimum 5 movies
number percentage
22
42
27
35
36
34
23
54
38
9
22
342
4.1%
5.7%
7.2%
9.9%
22.8%
22.8%
6.7%
14.2%
24.6%
16.0%
16.6%
10.2%
Source: Elaboration on data from “Chi è” – “Yearbook of Italian cinema and audiovisual productions – 2009/2010” (Rome 2010) and
from www.cinemaitaliano.info, March, 2010
16
17
70 |
Two scholars from Bocconi University, Fabrizio Montanari and Alessandro Usai, have applied some
methods of the Social Network Analysis to study team production in Italian cinema (“The artistic and
ideational team”, second chapter from the book “Cinema, a possible venture. The challenge of change
for Italian cinema” edited by Severino Salvemini, Edizioni Egea, Milano 2002). The frequency of
collaborations is to be seen in the light of probability and game theory (e.g. assuming that there are
only three subjects, each of them can express three preferences on “how continue working”: 1. with
one partner; 2. with both; 3. with neither of them. By combining the three options 64 combinations
are obtained). The research sample analyzed included all the cast of Italian movies produced between
1990 and 1998. The results highlighted the presence of stable production teams. In particular three
are the most consolidated and revolve around Carlo and Enrico Vanzina, Enrico Oldoini (director),
Alessandro Bencivenni, Leonardo Benvenuti and Piero De Bernardi (screenwriters).
"Cinema, between art and box office: reputation and relationships" by Alessandro Usai, Filippo
Montanari and Giuseppe Delmestri (in “Artwork & Network” by Severino Salvemini and Giuseppe
Soda, Edizioni Egea, Milano 2001). The research shows that the Italian cinema production has
been characterized by a strong polarization: many directors who have directed a few films and a
REPUTATIONS
Artistic remuneration is directly related to individual achievements. It grows at the same
pace as the career, according to creative contributions to a certain work and its subsequent
success. This is valid for directors, actors, screenwriters, set designers, editors etc.
The real value of such reputation has its quantitative evidence in work credits of 3,359
filmmakers relatively to recent years (published on “cinemaitaliano.info” and “Directory
of Italian cinema and audiovisual”)18. Each unit of the filmmakers’ sample is identifiable
with a physical person, his career and work experience.
TAB. 23
AVERAGE ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS PER PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION
Number of works (movies,
short movies, documentaries)
Directors
Screenwriters
Film editor
Director of photography
Set designers
Costume designers
Composers
Production sound mixer
Special effects
Casting direction
Assistant directors
TOTAL SAMPLE
Filmmakers with
less than 5 movies
343
425
129
125
96
103
206
183
73
41
101
1,825
Minimum one movie
number percentage
271
72
65
79
92
98
129
128
71
41
94
1,141
51.4%
9.8%
17.3%
22.3%
58.2%
65.7%
37.6
33.6%
46.2%
73.3%
71.2%
33.9%
One movie
Only doc or
number percentage short movies
72
353
64
46
4
4
77
55
2
7
684
13.6%
48.3%
17.0%
17.0%
2.5%
2.7%
22.4%
14.4%
1.3%
5.3%
20.3%
159
248
197
197
14
1
102
103
7
1,001
Source: Elaboration on data from “Chi è” – “Yearbook of Italian cinema and audiovisual productions – 2009/2010” (Rome 2010) and
from www.cinemaitaliano.info, March, 2010. Percentages from table 22 and 23 should be added to the percentage (n.a.) of “Only
documentaries or short movies” in order to get 100%.
18
small group of directors who have directed several films. Those with just one movie between
1990 and 1998 are 330. Only 23 have directed more than six movies: Carlo Vanzina 16 ; Neri Parenti
14; Pupi Avati 10; Carlo Verdone and Nini Grassia 9; Enrico Oldoini, Maurizio Zaccaro, Gabriele
Salvatores, Mario Monicelli, Maurizio Ponzi, Carlo Mazzacurati, Alessandro Benvenuti, Aurelio
Grimaldi 7; Aristide Massaccesi, Lucio Fulci, Ettore Scola, Daniele Luchetti, Marco Risi, Francesco
Nuti, Tinto Brass, Cristina Comencini, Lina Wertmuller and Christian De Sica 6. As noted in the
previous edition of this report, the debut of new directors is a positive fact, but quite often it has
not been followed by a second movie. This phenomenon can also be found in recent years (see
paragraph 8 of this chapter “Reputations”), as shown by data on directors’ artistic credits: 71
directors with just one movie from 2005 onwards.
Its reform came 30 years later, and the name “National Union of Actors”, changed to “Italian
Actors’ Society” in 1960 and again to its current name “Italian Actors’ Union” in 1976. During the
same year it was affiliated to CGIL ( Italian General Confederation of Labor), SLC division
(Communication Workers’ Union). Achille Majeroni, Cesare Dondini, Ruggero Ruggieri, Vittorio De
Sica, Anna Magnani, Gino Cervi, Giancarlo Sbragia, Enrico Maria Salerno, Nino Manfredi, Marcello
Mastroianni, Arnoldo Foa were active members. It had a crucial role in the winning of many social
| 71
While 15.9% of artists and technicians, particularly directors, has a solid CV, there is a
consistent 54.2% that has participated to the production of only one movie (20.3%) or just
short movies and documentaries (29.1%).
Considering famous filmmakers’ wage, it emerges the reason of limited opportunities for
thousands of professional artists and technicians. The low “rate of usage” results in a
production of 100 movies and 200 short movies/documentaries.
9. The Paradox of Flexibility Creating Rigidity
An overall analysis of the labor market could lead to the conclusion that frequent
fluctuations are balanced by flexibility of employment. A flexibility characterized by many
job opportunities and a low wage or few opportunities and higher wages. But reality looks
quite different, in fact cinema labor market tends to accentuate its structural rigidity.
Even if a positive trend occurs, market key factors (investment, output and employment
growth) are not able to trigger a proper evolution of the sector and workers do not gain
any benefit. Unfortunately the market is very sensitive when there is a downturn,
resulting in an erosion of status and economic and professional conditions for the
majority of workers.
Such scenario concerns all sectors in Italy. It reflects a productive and economic critical
situation affecting also labor market, where positive and negative trends are determined
at a national level. Although a comparison does not help to focus on the reasons for
heavier repercussions on cinema labor market, considering its highly creative and
technical human capital. Deskilling is one of the catastrophic consequences feared in
the sector; its consequences could be heavier than in other “overcrowded” sectors. Hence it is crucial to verify if the impoverishment of the labor market (already occurred
in film industry) is an involution of national employment system. In such case it would
violently affect the ability of Italian cinema to create value and to be artistically and
economically competitive.
10. Associations in the Film Industry
The evolution of labor market has brought an increase in the initiatives taken by
representative bodies. In particular they focused on the request of reinstatement of funds
to the FUS, initially reduced. Film production is based on additionality, and for this reason
security “battles” and in 1977 founded IMAIE (Social Security Institute for Artists and Performers).
It was directed by Pino Caruso e Massimo Ghini. The current director is Giulio Scarpati, while
Maurizio Feriaud is the secretary general. It is affiliated to FIA (International Federation of Actors).
72 |
it is destined to suffer from a contraction of (mainly public) funding supporting investment. Associations and representative bodies have never acted as a whole in the film industry.
Individualism and protagonism are two inner characteristics of cinema and they do not
favor the aggregation of interests, expectation, guarantees and objectives. Not surprisingly
cinema “activism” is heterogeneous and its fragmentation has been enhanced by new
technologies and innovation in productive standards. Cinema “society” is undermined by
this peculiarity, because its activity is not only cultural and artistic, but also economic.
Evidence can be found in the role played by associations in publishing magazines or other
multimedia content, as well as in their involvement in festivals, awards, film shows and
professional schools and courses. Basically promotion and protection of their specific
interests are reflected in action or commitment in well defined areas.
REPRESENTATIVE BODIES OF COMPANIES
The main differentiation is between the organizations signing collective agreements and
those associations representing companies at a political and social level, but not as a
labor union. Given the sector fragmentation, there are three agencies gathering
production and distribution companies-not counting TV production ones- two for
retailers, home video and technical companies (development and print, studios,
equipment rental, audio and video post production, transportation). While those agencies
are joined by a restricted number of companies, they are still representative. In fact all
major operators are members and they account for 70%-80% of production and for
higher percentages of indefinite term employment. The oldest is AGIS, General Association of the Entertainment Sector that is a sort of
institution. AGIS has tended to entrust the care of specific interests to smaller
organizations, but it has maintained a key role at regional level. The most consolidated is
ANICA, its structure is based on specific sections, each for a different sector. It represents
medium and large producers- including Mediaset, public broadcaster RAI, Cinecittà Luce
and the foreign majors- with a share of production and workers above 60%. Plus it gathers
the 11 largest multiplex chains (ANEM) and the most advanced technical companies.
Another organization is UNIVIDEO, with 71 distribution companies covers circa 95% of the
home video market (among the members: U.S., Japanese and Italian majors- RAI,
Medusa, Mondadori, RCS, De Agostini, Hachette, Filmauro, Mondo TV etc)majors and
Japanese and the major national operators, RAI and Medusa Mondadori RCS, De Agostini
and Hachette to Filmauro, World TV, etc.), while minor operators are part of UNIDIM. In
addition to ANEM there are other business organizations: ANEC, for companies managing
smaller movie theatres; ACEC, generally for cinemas managed by a parish (circa 1,050);
FICE for art cinemas (450 of the 100 art cinemas are members, but they do not sign
collective agreements); FEAC, recently established (600 small businesses). Other business
associations are mentioned in the table above. For example Cartoon Italia that represents
80% of sector’s production or APE with 13 main executive producers and Doc/it with 80
production companies and 120 authors of documentaries.
| 73
TAB. 24
MAJOR ENTREPRENEURIAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CINEMA INDUSTRY
Acronym
Official name
AGIS*
ANICA*
-UNPF**
-ANEM**
-UNITEC**
-DISTRIBUZIONE**
ANEC
API
APC
APT*
UNICS
UNIVIDEO*
UNIDIM
SIGNATORIES OF CONTRACTS
Italian Entertainment sector General Association
National Association of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industry
Film Producers’ National Union
National Association of Multiplex Firms
National Union of Cinema and Audiovisual Technical Industries
Technical Department of Distribution Firms
Cinema Operators’ National Association
Independent Authors and Producers
Cinema Producers’ Association
Television Producers’ Association
National Union of Cinema and TV Specialized Industries
Audiovisual Publishers’ Italian Union
National Union of Multimedia Distribution Firms
* These associations together with AIE, ANES (publishing sector), AFI, FIMI and PMI (music sector)are members of Sistema Cultura Italia
(Italy Culture System) that in turn is a member of Confindustria (General Confederation of Italian Industry).
** ANICA sub-divisions
TAB. 25
74 |
MAIN ASSOCIATIONS IN THE CINEMA INDUSTRY
Acronym
Official name
ACEC
FICE
CARTOON ITALIA
ASIFA
DOC/IT
APE
UNEFA
APICE
AGPC
FAPAV
UIC
LARA
SAPAR
FEAC
CIAC
ANESV
ANVI
AVI
AIPSC
OSA
ASSOCIATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Catholic Association of Cinema Firms
Italian Federation of Art Cinema
Association of Animation Studios
Italian Association of Animated Movies
Italian Documentarists’ Association
Executive Producers’ Association
Audiovisual and Cinema Exporters’ Union
Independent Cinema Producers’ Association
Young Cinema Producers’ Association
Federation against audiovisual piracy
Italian Casting Union
Independent Association of Artists’ Representatives
National Association of Tools for Public and Recreational Activities
Federation of Audiovisual and Cinema Companies (Confesercenti)
Italian Committee for Cinema and audiovisual production
National Association of Travelling Shows’ Companies
National Association of Italian Video Shops
Association of Italian Video and Media Stores
Italian Association of Entertainment and Culture Professionals
Associated Entertainment Operators
LABOR UNIONS
The cinema community is motley. Mainly it is based on interpersonal relationships, thus
acquaintances and friendships made on sets and in studios are the core of the network,
rather than representative bodies. Nevertheless, the film industry has one of the richest
labor union systems in Italy. SAI ( Italian Actors’ Union) is the heir of similar labor unions
founded in 1865, the first ones recognizing the legal status of actors and promoting
protection of basic rights and specific regulations. Other two previous unions joined SAI,
they were LAD (League of Dramatic Actors-the very first signatory of a collective
agreement) and the League for Improvement of Dramatic Actors, promoter of the first
strike against managers in 1919. From 1976 SAI has become part of CGIL ( Italian General
Confederation of Labor). It is also affiliated to FIA (International Federation of Artists),
which brings together more than 100 unions and associations in the world.
TAB. 26
REPRESENTATIVE BODIES IN THE CINEMA INDUSTRY
Acronym
Official name
SAI-SLC-CGIL
FISTEL-CISL
UILSIC-UIL
CONFEDERATIONS
Italian Actors’ Union
Information Entertainment Telecommunication Federation
Italian Labor Union for Entertainment Information and Culture
LIBERSIND
CONFILS
AGI
UNAMS
SOS-ESSEOESSE
SANAS
INDEPENDENT UNIONS
Confederation of Independent Labor Unions (Confsal)
Italian Confederation of Entertainment and Communication Workers
Italian General Association for Entertainment
Art Music Entertainment National Union
Entertainment Operators’ Union
National Independent Union for Art and Entertainment
The number of representative bodies is quite restricted, plus there is a low rate of
unionization. This happens despite the complexity of the sector, a characteristic emerging
from extremely detailed contracts. The productive structure contributes to such proliferation
of details. In fact profiles and qualifications, together with an outline of expected operations,
are given in order to precisely quantify working hours, standard compensations and
minimum wages. The basic problem is the predominance of occasional collaborations and
projects of very short duration. This kind of performance results in small and peculiar
measure units. Common parameters are working days and hours, meters of film, reels,
pronounced lines or duration of sounds.The other two major Italian labor unions CISL (Italian
Confederation of Workers’ Unions) and UIL (Italian Labor Union) are represented in cinema
by FISTEL (Information Entertainment and Telecommunications Federation) and UILSIC
(Italian Labor Union for Entertainment Information and Culture) operating in the
communication sector. There are also three independent organizations, which signed
separate agreements implementing actions taken by the three major confederations.
| 75
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The variegated and creative nature of the sector has encouraged the establishment
of professional organizations, a sort of modern craft-guild with a strong technical
focus.
They are committed to enhancement of professional qualifications and training, instead
of legal representation of workers and associates in the sector. Some of them, such as
the SNS (Writers’ National Union) founded in 1945, and ANAC (National Association of
Film Writers) have an important role in the history and evolution of national cinema,
thanks to their initiatives.19
Professional organizations do not have a standard classification. What characterizes
them is the attention they pay to professional issues, not the number of members or a
wide consensus. The focus of these organizations is content and value of professionals’
performances and an appropriate recognition of their contribution to the success of a
work. Although they work to promote Italian cinema, they share a common mission with
all the other organizations in the entertainment macro-sector.
There is an implicit will to protect and promote the role of artists and technicians,
“endangered” by a progressive standardization of productive methods imposed by the
multimedia integration of the market.
Many organizations are in the cinema industry, but they have recently upgraded their name
by adding the far-reaching word “audiovisual” to reflect the current entertainment context.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
No matter if they are labor unions or professional associations, the organizations in
the film industry are engaged on a common front: social security, welfare and fiscal
framework.20 They complain political institutions’ inattention, since they govern both
welfare (managed by ENPALS) and fiscal benefits.21
19
20
21
76 |
ANAC, directed by Ugo Gregoretti and Citto Maselli, has always been committed to freedom of
expression and protection of property rights. This has been ANAC’s vision since its establishment in
1950. The founders were Agenore Incrocci, Alessandro Blasetti, Mario Camerini, Ettore G.
Margadonna, Furio Scarpelli and Cesare Zavattini.
The claims do not concern ENPALS, since its activity is regulated by law. To add to this, the Court
of Auditors has been monitoring ENPALS management since 1961 and it has always expressed
a positive judgment. Evidence is given by the last report by councilor Maria Luisa De Carli (Court
of Auditors, determination 99/2009 presented on December 22, 2009).
The European Parliament adopted a resolution about “improving the situation of artists in Europe”
in June 2007. It calls upon the Member States “to develop or implement a legal and institutional
framework for creative artistic activity through the adoption or application of a number of coherent
and comprehensive measures in respect of contracts, social security, sickness insurance, direct
and indirect taxation and compliance with European rules”. Such resolution was the result of
representative bodies of artists pressing for an intervention in favor of artistic and cultural
Some welfare regulations are considered unfair for artistic workforce, since there
are no social security benefits (in particular unemployment benefits) and no
regulation on support or assistance in case of illness or accident. The only
organization working on this point is CALT (Assistance Body for Troupes Workers),
supported by CGIL, CISL and UIL; anyway it works only for its specific category of
workers.22
One of the main issues concerns the social security regulation in force. It establishes a
retributive system for all jobs taken after 1999 that does not take into account the
contributions paid over years when it comes to severance pay. On the contrary the
previous contributive system set retirements and severance pays proportional to the
duration of the employment. With the retributive system there is a daily/annual
maximum retribution (€671.75/€92,147) subjected to social contributions. Plus on the
exceeding portion (€42,364) there is a withholding tax (5%) allocated to the solidarity
fund of ENPALS.
On the fiscal side instead the focus is on regulation of professionals’ taxation:
limitations to tax deduction of costs incurred during the activity are seen as
discriminatory.
ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS
It is undoubted the importance of eleven circles, clubs and associations devoted to the
promotion of art cinema. They have a long tradition: FICC (Italian Federation of Cinema
Circles) was founded in 1947; ACEC, of Catholic nature and FEDIC (Italian Federation
of Cineclub) in 1949; UICC (Italian Union of Cinema Circles) in 1951; FIC (Italian
Federation of Cineforum) in 1954; CGS (Socio-cultural Youth Cinema Circles) in 1967;
22
activities. In fact cultural heritage, property rights and artists’ socio-economic conditions are
threatened by multimedia integration and globalization as well as by the development of ICT
(Information Communication Technology) if there is no specific regulation addressing them. The
fact that these commitment was taken at a European and institutional level proves the relevance
of challenges and hardships faced by the artistic sector. Italy is experiencing this issue to a greater
extent than other European countries, according to representative bodies. This is due to a critical
situation in the domestic sector that is adding up to international concerns.
Assistance and social security services are provided by patronage institutes recognized by the
law. The most involved ones work together with ENPALS and are: INCA ( National Confederal
Institute for Assistance, promoted by CGIL); INAS (National Institute for Social Security – CISL);
ITAL (Institute for Protection and Assistance of Workers – UIL); INAPI (National Institute for
Assistance of Small Entrepreneurs – FENAPI); INPAS (National Institute for Social Security and
Assistance – CONFSAL); ENASCO (National Board of Assistance for Business Operators –
Confcommercio); ITACO (Institute for Protection and Assistance of business, touristic and service
operators – Confesercenti); INAPA (National Institute for Assistance and Patronage of Artisans –
CNA); CLAAI (Confederation of Independent Artisan Associations); EASA (Board for Social Security
of Artisans – CASA); ENCAL (National Confederal Board for Assistance of Workers – CISAL).
| 77
TAB. 27
FILMMAKERS’ ORGANIZATIONS
Acronym
Official name
ANAC
FAI
SNS
UNUPADEC
AIDAC
ANART
SACT
ASAE
UNS-UNSA
AIDAMA
ART
UNAC
CREATIVE STAFF
National Association of Film Writers
Italian Federation of Screenwriters
Writers’ National Union
National Professional Union of Cinema and Theater Authors
Italian Association of Dialogue Writers and Adapters for Cinema and TV
National Association of Scriptwriters for Radio TV and Theater
Associated Italian Screenwriters for Cinema and TV
Authors and Publishers’ Labor Union
Writers’ National Union – Writers and Artists’ National Union
Italian Association of Artistic Multi-vision Authors
Association of TV Fiction Directors
National Union of Film writers and Technicians
ANAD
ADAP
SNAD
UNASP
ANPALS
AIPSC
ASSOARTISTI
PERFORMING LABOR
National Association of Dubbers
National Association of Advertising Actors
National Union of Theater scriptwriters
Arts and Entertainment National Union
National Association for Promotion of Artists and Entertainment Workers
National Association of Entertainment and Culture Professionals
Artists and Entertainment Operators’ Association (Confesercenti)
AMC*
ASC*
AIC*
ARTISTIC LABOR
Cinema and Audiovisual Editing Association
Italian Association of Set/Costume/Interior Designers
Italian Association of Cinema Photography Authors
FEDIC*
APAI*
ATIC*
AITS*
AIAT-SFX*
AITR*
ANACINETV*
ANTEPAC*
EMIC*
AIARSE
ANAGRUC
AITC
AAMCT
AIFM
ARE
ANFP
APEA
ANTEP
TECHNICAL LINE
Italian Federation of Cinema Associations
Italian Production Staff Association
Italian Technical Association of Cinematography and TV
Italian Association of Sound Technicians
Italian Association of Visual Effects Compositors and Crew
Italian Association of Camerawork Technicians
National Association of Cinema and TV Props Technicians
National Association of Cinema Hair stylists and Make-up Artists
Italian Cinema Grips and Lighting Technicians
Italian Association of Assistant Directors and Publishing Secretaries
National Association of Drivers and Generator Operators
Italian Association of Cinema-TV Camera Operators
Association of Cinema-TV Assistant Film Editors
Italian Association of Re-recording Mixers (Cinema and TV)
Cinema and TV Outdoor Location Shots Association
National Association of Professional Photographers
Association of Production Managers and Administrators
National Association of Hair stylists and Make-up Artists
* The affiliation of these associations is a larger representative body: FEDIC
78 |
TAB. 28
PROMOTERS OF ART CINEMA
Acronym
Official name
FCI
AFIC
AIACE
ANCCI*
FEDIC*
FIC*
FICC*
CGS*
CINIT*
CSC*
UCCA*
UICC*
AICA*
FAC
FEDEFESTIVAL
CTSIS
PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Italian Film Commission
Italian Cinema Festival Association
Italian Association Friends of Cinema d’Essai
National Association of Italian Cinema Circles
Cineclub Italian Federation
Cineforum Italian Federation
Italian Federation of Cinema Circles
Youth Socio-cultural Cinema Circles
Italian Cineforum
Center for Cinema Studies
Arci Cinema Circles Union
Italian Union of Cinema Circles
Association for Cinema and Audiovisual Initiatives
National Committee for the Promotion of Cultural and Art Cinema
Music Theater and Cinema Festival Association
Committee for the Protection of the Entertainment Sector
SNCCI
SNGI
PUBLISHING SECTOR
National Union of Italian Cinema Critics
National Union of Italian Cinema Journalists
* Affiliated to AICA, providing them assistance and consulting services
SNNCI (National Union of Italian Cinema Critics) in 1971; ANCCI ( National Association
of Italian Cinema Circles) in 1973; Fice (Italian Federation of Cinema d’Essai)in 1980.
Their strength is in the localized branches. AICA states that its nine affiliated
associations can count on the membership of 700 circles. For example ANNCI has 182
circles in 19 regions, FIC has 115 cineforums (census: 1st March 2010) and UICC more
than 90 cineclubs.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Cosmopolitan par excellence, the cinema community can count on international
organizations. Some of them were born in the wake of a growing commitment of
the EU executive commission in cultural, information and communication
policies.
It has launched several intervention and support programs as well as regulation
plans (regarding the protection of cultural identity, copyrights and intellectual rights
and exchanges with non-European countries).
Apart from FIA and EuroFia (European Council of International Federation of
Artists), which have a widespread distribution, these organizations are relatively
consistent and based on voluntary membership. EUFCN (European Film
Commission Network) brings together 71 film commissions (from 20 European
| 79
TAB. 29
MAIN INTERNATIONAL CINEMA COMMUNITIES
Acronym
Official name
EUFCN
CINEREGIO
EPAA
EPC
EDN
ECN
CICAE
EUROPA DISTRIBUTION
EUROFIA
UNICA
CEFC
EFCA
EFA
EFP
ESIST
FEAOSC
IMAGO
EUROPE
European Film Commission Network
Network of Regional Film Fund
European Producer Associations Alliance
European Producers Club
European Documentary Network
European Cinema Network
Confederation Internationale des Cinémas d’arts et d’essai
European Independent Film Distributor
European Council of International Federation of Artists
Union International du Cinema d’Amateur
Coordination Européenne des festivals de cinema
European Children’s Film Association
European Film Academy
European Film Promotion
European Association for Studies in Screen Translation
European Federation of Artists and Entertainment and Culture Operators
European Federation of Cinematographers
AFCI
FIAPF
FIA
A FACE
AMPAS
AIDAA
AIP
FIPRESCI
CICT-UNESCO
CIFEJ
FIAF
FIAIS
IATSE
WORLD
Association of Film Commission International
Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Film
International Federation of Actors
Association for Fair Audiovisual Copyright in Europe
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Association Internationale des Auteurs de l’Audiovisuel
Audiovisual Industry Promotion
Fédération Internationale de la presse cinématographique
Conseil International du Cinema et Television
Centre Internationale du Film pour l’Enfance et la Jeunesse
Centre Internationale des Archives du Film
International Federation of Images and Sounds Records
Int. Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees – Moving Picture Machine Operators
countries) of the 300 members of AFCI (International Association of Film
Commissions- Chairs: Belle Doyle-Scottish Screen and Joan Miller-Island North
Film). Cineregio gathers 33 regional funds of 12 EU members, in addition to Norway,
Serbia and Switzerland.
EPC (European Producers Club) has 50 members (potentially 3000) from 20
countries (Italy is represented by Aurelio De Laurentiis-Filmauro, Cristiano
Bortone-Orisa Productions and Marco Chimenz-Cattleya). Europa Distribution has
75 distributors (including Italian companies BIM Distribuzione, Lucky Red,
Mediafilm, Mikado and Theodora).
CICAE (Confederation Internationale des cinemas d’arts et d’essai) has 3000
screens in 30 countries. In spite of an apparent frailty, European associations
80 |
should be mentioned for the intensiveness and the quality of their initiatives. Some
examples are international promotions of art films by CICAE or the creation of a
database monitoring European films distribution called CIDINET by Europa
Distribution (chairs: Régine Vial-Les Films du Losange, Antonio Medici- BIM).
| 81
Part third
All the Markets
of the Film Sector
From Production
to Consumption
CHAPTER 5
“I DON’T WANT TO WIN AWARDS: I WANT FILMS
THAT FINISH WITH A KISS AND THAT MAKE MONEY”
Walter Pidgeon in The bad and the beautiful by Vincente Minnelli (1952)
The Supply
Chain
n spite of the contraction of the economic situation with regards to industrial
activity and the service industry, the Italian cinema in 2009 in terms of productive
results has shown a comforting vitality. It is known that the sector is not strictly
cyclical and therefore only partially reflects general economic trends, that since
2008 have been subjected to the pressure of a violent and wide spread financial
crisis. It is also comprehensible how the considerable commitment in 2009 of the film
companies can be seen to emerge from the two previous consecutive seasons of
positive development, like those in 2007 (up turn) and in 2008 (genuine expansion).
However the final account is commendable. 1
According to the data gathered about the working practices of the employees and the market
structure, the national cinema seems, particularly since 2008, to have put pressure on the
subjects in the field; however appearing like propositions which seem essentially structural
rather than genuine reactions which would specifically counter act the objective difficulty in
I
1
The first overall data on the industrial productions and services trends and on the accounts
results of Italian companies in 2008 and 2009 are in: “Analisi dei bilanci al 31 marzo 2009 dei
grandi gruppi” (R&S-Il Sole 24 Ore); “Dati cumulativi dell’industria italiana” (Ufficio studi
Mediobanca); “Osservatorio sui bilanci” (Cerved); quarterly disclosures by Movimprese
(Unioncamere-Infocamere); “Statistiche sulle dichiarazioni dei redditi”, Finance Department of
the Ministry of Economy.
the general context. It is a question of seeing if this tendency, after having been outlined will
be confirmed in the short to medium term as a much steadier trend. In this case it could be
said that the process which seems to be leading the Italian cinema is in fact growing.
Especially in light of the evolution of one part of its entire productive body the progressive
reduction of the grant aid given out by the single fund for Italian cinema (FUS – Fondo Unico
per lo Spettacolo) run by the Minstry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (Mibac Ministero per
I Beni e le Attività Cultural). Until recently 50% of these funds have always gone to supporting
the raising of capital for the investments in production and they have played an important
role in the first decisive step to trigger and power the entire cycle of activity of all of the sector.
1. First Step: Capitals and Quality of Projects
The initial financial resources, put in and represented by the investments necessary to
carry out the film projects, qualify themselves as “irreversible” work, as the costs of global
production are sustained until the completion of the work and before obtaining any kind of
gain ( most of the economic profit goes into the funds after several months, and some items
even after years, from the first outlay) without the possibility of disinvestment, second
thoughts or strategy changes. So the success of the single initiative and the wellbeing of
the sector as a whole depends on the quality of choices in their destination of use.
TAB. 1
THE NUMBER OF FILMS THE ITALIAN CINEMA PRODUCES
Number of films
Italian Films produced *
With only private capital
With State contributions **
Italian films coproduced
Majority coproductions
Minority Coproductions
Total
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
86
57
29
17
8
9
10
68
37
31
35
22
13
103
96
44
52
34
17
17
130
98
45
53
19
12
17
117
96
55
41
38
15
23
134
68
50
18
30
16
14
98
90
69
21
26
11
15
116
90
61
29
31
17
14
121
123
82
41
31
20
11
154
97
71
26
34
17
17
131
Source: "Il cinema italiano in numeri" ('Italian Cinema in Numbers') (from 2000 to 2008) by 'Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica (an Italian
national association for the cinema, audio-visual and multimedia industries)
* By 'produced films' we mean all films that have obtained the motion picture rating in the year referred to and from the calculation films
which are explicitly pornographic in nature have been omitted. 'Italian film' refers to works made only with Italian capital.
**Amoung the Fus contributions (Single fund for cinema) all those give out in the previous years are considered.
In the last 10 years in Italy 1.207 films have been produced and the average of 120 titles
every twelve months which expresses the potential and the capability of the system as a
whole. The whole sector practically revolves around this activity. Because it is the domestic
production houses that nourish the other sectors, including that of the raw materials
industry, and of the pre and post production processing and to “making” the market. Without
a national production the same international groups that distribute their works worldwide
86 |
( the so called majors Warner Bros, Universal-Uip, 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney and Sony)
would have to face many other conditions to operate, starting from quotas in importing their
films that has already happened in the past and still happens in some nations in relation to
market laws that attempt to avoid (even though the results are gradually more uncertain)
the formation of monopolies and to limit dominant positions; situations that put both in
question the safeguard and the protection of the cultural identity of every country.
TAB. 2
NATIONAL RESOURCES INVESTED IN FILM PRODUCTION
Amount in millions of euro
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
In films produced
In films co produced
Quota co production
Total
277,6
237,1
64,6
21,4%
301,7
197,4
87,0
30,6%
284,4
152,0
62,4
29,1%
214,4
187,6
69,7
27,1%
257,3
221,0
91,4
29,3%
312,4
253,3
76,8
23,3%
330,1
218,9
77,1
26,0%
296,0
national association for the cinema, audio-visual and multimedia industries) Rome 2010.
In 2009 the level of proposals by Italian filmmakers didn’t reveal consistent weaknesses
and as proof of the significant financial commitment – for the requests of a market that
increasingly demands more visibility of works in terms of marketing – also the use of
funds substantially kept the same standing. 2
2. Fewer Low Budget Films
There are two important pieces of data concerning this matter. The first concerns the
number of works in production (-14,9%) compared to the amount of capital available for
these projects (-13,6%). Breaking up the total national production in its two types , shows
2
In theory the investment costs correspond to the production costs for a film; in reality however
it is more correct to talk about project costs. Generally speaking production houses and
distribution companies do not coincide and in these cases promotional and diffusion costs are
not sustained by the producer but by the distributor, even though they are essential for the
introduction of the product to the market and therefore having commercialization costs
attributable to its creation, that is one of the activities on the balance sheet, entered as
“Intangible fixed assets- film stock” and is subjected, after the first public screening, to the
process of amortization. There are many ways and usages of applying the process of
amortization, that mainly depend on the length of these processes and from the exploitation
channels of the works, whose commercial life is related to their circulation in the halls or in the
home video circuit or tv ones. It is about essential technicalities for the representation of a
company’s activities, of its accounts and its general financial state. Also taking into consideration
that the film does not necessarily find a place in the cinema at the same time as the film is
terminated and can remain in stock in cinemas without managing to find a commercial opening.
| 87
that for the films produced with only private capital (13,4% less from 82 to 71 in
production and coproduction) the total of investments decreases only by 0,4%, while for
those supported also by state funding (36,6% decrease) the decline is over 50%.
The second is however even more significant. The average amount of investment for each
single film resulted in the rise compared to 2008: plus 9,6% for the entire production and
plus 10% for those with only private capital.
TAB. 3
THE TREND OF FILMS PRODUCED WITH ONLY ITALIAN CAPITAL
Film produced
with 100% Italian capital
2007
2008
2009
TOTAL WORKS PRODUCED WITH ONLY ITALIAN CAPITAL
Number of works produced
90
123
Total investments in euro
221.055.578
253.354.529
Changes from previous year
+17,8%
+14,6%
Average investment per film
2.456.173
2.059.793
+17,8%
-16,1%
97
218.922.596
-13,6%
2.256.934
+9,6%
WORKS PRODUCED WITH ONLY PRIVATE ITALIAN CAPITAL
61
82
179.586.739
204.077.508
+19,3%
+13,6%
Private capital invested per film
2.994.044
2.488.750
+37,2%
-16,8%
71
194.456.596
-4,7%
2.738.825
+10,0%
WORKS PRODUCED WITH STATE CONTRIBUTION
29
41
41.468.839
49.277.021
+11,8%
+18,8%
Average FUS contribution per film *
1.429.960
1.201.879
-19,0%
-15,9%
26
24.466.000
-50,4%
941.000
-21,7%
which are explicitly pornographic in nature have been omitted. 'Italian film' refers to works made only with Italian capitalo.
INVESTMENTS
Keeping to the range of financial commitment already reached previously and favor
works with more depth, that require a more substantial budget, designating much fewer
resources to those with estimated costs at a lower standard. 3
3
88 |
Budgets are traditionally set out on the so called negative income components, calculated using
a system named job order cost accounting that consider three cost categories: artistic
production (above-the-line), technical production (below-the-line) and post production, including
insurance costs, editing, dubbing and the registering of rights. Normally the full job order cost
represents the reference used to fix the price of cession of works and royalties (“Il cinema e la
misurazione delle performance” di Giovanni Tomasi, studi&ricerche Egea edizioni, Milano 2004).
In particular, as revealed by the research department ANICA the National Association of
film audiovisual multimedia industries (Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche
audiovisive e multimediali), the representation of category, the average investments for
the 44 medium-high budget films – of which 97 produced with only Italian capital – has
increased from 4,297 million to 4,474 (+4,1% compared to 2008 and +7,9% in 2007, when
it was guaranteed at 4,145 million), and for those with a budget lower than 2,667 to 3,007
million, with an increase equal to 12,7% in 2008 and 15,7%, compared to the 2,597 in 2007. 4
3. Brave Investors and the New Mix of Resources
Italian investors who physically gather the primary resources – largely drawing from the
original source of bank credit – can be considered as the actual cinema entrepreneurs,
that is the shareholders of the production houses, distinguished as direct producers, that
personally run the making of the films, and in indirect producers or co producers (Italians
or foreigners), that support the financial commitment of the initiative, of which the
executive running however depends on another partner of the initiative.
Among the private investors that nourish the sector also a part of foreign capital must
be included that joins in the investments of Italian films. Those – very few – financed and
organized by subsidiary companies of international groups , with offices in Italy and that
are therefore considered of national origin, and those – more numerous and of higher
influence – produced under co production, that is in co partnership with national
production houses and foreign operators.
From 2004 until 2008, as seen from the table, the amount of private investments for the
total of Italian productions shows a trend of gradual growth, whereas the total amount of
the resources follows a less consistent performance, due to the fluctuating revenue of
public funds. From a little more than a quarter in 2002, these contributions passed to over
a third in the two year period that followed, then fell to less than a sixth and a little more
than a fifth compared to 2007 and 2008, and finally plunged to 12,8%: less than an eighth.
4
On the International market the total production costs – intended as project costs - set up the
type of films according to a classification that is generally divided into: low budget (or content)
for production cost inferior to 1 million dollars (approximately 750 thousand euros); medium
budget for costs between 1 and 10 million dollars; high budget, where costs are between 10 to
40 million dollars (from 7,5 to 30 million euros); the so called blockbusters with costs of over 40
million dollars (30 million euros). As one can see from the average investments made in recent
years, Italian cinema is mainly in the first and second bracket, for national productions and co
productions. Together with Spain it is the most present in the second bracket, but with lower
average values compared to France, Germany and above all Great Britain. In the third category
however it recuperates, getting close to the English leadership, and compared to the values of
the other main European markets Italy is also present in the fourth category, where Germany
is practically inexistent and Spain and France can boast only occasional appearances.
| 89
TAB. 4
THE AVERAGE COST OF PRODUCTION AND COPRODUCTION
Amounts in millions of euros
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Number of films produced *
Average investment
Films with State help
Average FUS contributions **
86
1,69
29
1,66
FILM OF NATIONAL PRODUCTION
68
96
98
96
68
2,04
2,13
2,42
2,06
2,24
31
52
53
41
18
3,22
1,41
1,90
2,03
1,21
90
2,08
21
1,76
90
2,45
29
1,42
123
2,05
41
1,20
97
2,25
26
0,94
Number of films coproduced
Average investment
Films with State help
Average FUS contributions **
Average Italian contribution
Average foreign contribution
17
-
26
8,05
3
2,07
2,68
5,37
31
9,64
17
1,26
2,94
6,70
31
5,85
15
1,44
2,48
3,37
34
6,48
12
1,12
2,27
4,21
COPRODUCED ITALIAN FILMS
35
34
19
38
7,68
8,07
4
5
2,42
2,28
3,38
2,29
4,30
5,78
30
6,48
4
1,92
2,08
4,40
which are explicitly pornographic in nature have been omitted. 'Italian film' refers to works made only with Italian capital.
** Amoung the Fus contributions (Single fund for cinema) all those give out in the previous years are considered.
PRIVATE RESOURCES
According to the drop or the increase of the state funds, also the private investments registered
drop or increase, changing or inverting their trend line. On the contrary a lower influence of
contributions by FUS in coproduction was shown, with a basically irrelevant contribution, in
terms of gaps in the flow of resources by private Italian producers. The global extent of
investments for Italian films coproduced resulted on the other hand considerably superior to the
total budget for 100% national films and the sequence of medium investments (see previous
table) shows moreover the constancy of the Italian investment, that gives the co productions
financial resources almost similar in quantity to those devised for entirely domestic productions.
For the first time however in 2009 private investment moved almost independently, coping
with the vertical drop of the allocation of ministerial funds. Compared to 2008 their
amounts– assigned for produced and coproduced films – ceded just 0,38%, while the FUS
allocation lost 46,47%. In light of the depressing atmosphere of the international markets
and of the problems faced by all sectors in the period following the financial crisis in 2008,
this is (it seems correct to repeat it) a performance that deserves consideration.
Considering the matter again, when faced with a process of real change or of momentary
adaptation, some circumstances can be detected. For example the consideration of credit
and financial institutions towards film activity seems to increase, with a higher influx of
resources for the industry. A phenomenon that is not measurable at the moment, but
detectable also from the initiative of Cinecittà Luce, that became active with the ABI –
Associazione bancaria italiana – that represents the 733 company banks in the country
– opening the way to a greater collaboration and beginning a series of match – making
between the workers of both industries.
90 |
TAB. 5
INVESTMENTS FOR ITALIAN PRODUCED AND COPRODUCED FILMS
Amounts in millions of euros
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Private investments
FUS contributions *
Total Italian resources
State funds quota *
-
NATIONALLY PRODUCED FILMS
138,4
114,0
130,2
150,5
98,7
83,4
21,8
37,1
237,1
197,4
152,0
187,6
41,6%
42,2%
14,3%
19,7%
179,5
41,5
221,0
18,7%
204,0
49,3
253,3
19,4%
194,4
24,4
218,9
11,1%
Private investments
FUS Contributions *
Total Italian resources
Foreign Investments
Global resources used
Italian Quota
State funds Quota *
-
ITALIAN FILMS COPRODUCED
54,5
75,6
54,7
9,7
11,4
7,7
64,6
87,0
62,4
82,0
220,1
132,1
146,6
307,1
194,5
44,1%
28,3%
32,1%
6,6%
3,7%
3,9%
63,5
6,2
69,7
139,7
209,4
33,3%
2,9%
69,8
21,4
91,3
207,5
298,9
30,6%
7,1%
55,1
21,7
76,7
104,7
181,5
42,3%
11,9%
63,5
13,5
77,1
143,5
220,6
35,0%
6,1%
ITALIAN INVESTMENTS FOR THE WHOLE FILM
204,0
192,9
189,6
184,9
214,0
73,6
108,4
94,8
29,5
43,3
277,6
301,3
284,4
214,4
257,3
26,5%
35,9%
33,3%
13,7%
16,8%
249,0
63,0
312,0
20,1%
259,1
71,0
330,1
21,5%
258,0
38,0
296,0
12,8%
Private Resources
State Resources
Total Italian Resources
State Funds Quota *
Source: "Il cinema italiano in numeri" (from 2002 to 2009) edited by the Ufficio studi /Ced Anica of Anica.
* Amoung the Fus contributions (Single fund for cinema) all those give out in the previous years are considered in favor of the films produced
subsequently.
SHARE HOLDERS AND FINANCIAL PARTNERS
The bank Intesa Sanpaolo, the first group at national level, already credit partner of Mondo
TV with Mediocredito Italiano del fondo TorinoFilmLab designated in particular to sustain
the companies in the post-production phases, invested 5 million euros in the promotional
project perFiducia to produce three promotional short films of 10 minutes assigned to
Ermanno Olmi, Gabriele Salvatores and Paolo Sorrentino shown in 300 cinema halls and
in the 3 minute versions also on TV. The minority shareholder Lux Vide, controlled by the
Bernabei family and by Tarak Ben Ammar (head of Eagle Pictures), the bank also gave a
bond issue convertible from 8,5 million euros to strengthen the capital and sustain new
investments, finalized in particular to develop the growth of the Asian markets.
It was also central to two of the most important works of the year. First as a partner with
10% of the Cattleya production house, that in January 2009 sold 20% of its shares to the
Universal was the leading company in the initial investment directed by a USA major in
an Italian production company. Then financing together with Unicredit, for 50 million
euros, the acquisition by the private equity company 21 Partners SGR, which belongs to
the Benetton family, of 51% of the stock package of Medusa Cinema and Medusa
Multicinema (Mediaset- R.T.I. group) and then through these the owner of Warner Village
Cinema (controlled by the US corporate Time Warner), creating the largest circuit of
national cinema halls with 15% of the market share of the year (30% only in the multiplex
| 91
segment), 25 structures in all Italy, 257 screens and 125 milion in annual revenue. Then
the new Space Cinema, of which Mediaset now possesses 49%, sold five of these
structures to the real estate investment fund Delta, that belongs to FIMIT SGR (national
leader, run by Massimo Caputi and shared by social security institutions Inpdap with
30,72%, ENPALS with 19,0%, ENASARCO with 10,0% and INARCASSA with 5,0%). The
operation cost 65,199 million euro and was financed by Unicredit and IMI ImmobiliareIntesa Sanpaolo through a credit line of 39 million euros.
BNL-BNP Paribas gave its support with a 4 million euro bond issue to Film Master, controlled
by IEG-Italian Entertainment Group, in closing the privatization process that brought to the
attention of Cinecitta’ Luce (January 2009) its two former subsidiaries Cinecittà Studios and
Cinecittà Entertainment. Entirely financed by banks it was also another step to the
privatization led by the Cinecittà Holding and that concerned the multiplex MediaportGlobalmedia, purchased for 59 million euros by Farvem Real Estate , operational arm of the
FG Holding of Massimo Ferrero and Laura Sini; whereas another credit consortium assisted
Mik Holding of Franco Tatò and Sonia Raule in the taking over of the majority of Mikado Film
of De Agostini Communications (the value of the transaction has not been announced).
Other financial realities have moved closer to the world of the celluloid. Goldman Sachs
is a shareholder of Endemol-Mediaset; Interbanca and Ge Capital are historically involved
with Eagle Pictures and Film Master Group’s operations; the trust company
Eurofinleading is 25% partner of the group Film Participation of Ernesto Tabarelli; 4,9%
of the capital of the public Mondo TV goes to Symphonia SICAV; the Dutch fund Cyrte,
third partner of Endemol and that has amongst its investors the De Agostini group, boasts
an important presence also in the independent English producer RDF; Banca Sella,
through EasyNolo, invested in the agency QMI, specialized in the direct film cinema.
And fuerthermore: two of the major European banks, the French BNP Paribas and the
Belgian subsidiary Fortis, formed, in a Joint venture, a fund called “Global Export &
Project” to finance the digitalization of the multiplexes of the continent with an initial
supply of 100 million euros for the first thousand interventions;
The English fund Cambria bought 33% of the Palomar of Carlo Degli Esposti production
house; Lafitrade BV, a Dutch society whose is controlled by Lafico (Libyan Arab foreign
investment company), took over 10% of Quinta Communications for 19 million, the
holding of which Tarak Ben Ammar controls all its film-television activities and group
leader of Eagle Pictures; the investment bank Morgan Stanley bought from the Furlan
Family – historical dynasty of business in Veneto – a further 10% of the Cinecity Art &
Cinema circuit, after having already acquired the majority holding in 2007.
4. The Extended Family of Filmmakers
We cannot exclude the fact that some phenomenon is already underway. Despite the objective
difficulty that the market presents to those who want to begin a production activity, the number
92 |
of companies that produce films seems in fact to increase. If the unit of the companies that
show themselves to be operating in full continuity and stability remains restricted, fewer than
100, the number of companies that try – even for the first time – to develop single projects
made over the period of one or more years, often in co production) remains however vast, in
spite of the limited number of Italian works put in to the market yearly.
It is the latter who take turns to complete the national film supply and that often manage
to make from their foundation, a single film without ever reappearing in the distribution
market again. But this intense flux brings one to think that certain access conditions to
the sector – including those to capital investment – can evolve in a more favorable way.
TAB. 6
THE NUMBER OF WORKED PRODUCED BY ITALIAN PRODUCTION HOUSES
Company 1990-1998
Number
Quota
155
60,4%
41
15,9%
12
4,7%
18
7,0%
7
2,7%
14
5,5%
5
1,9%
1
0,4%
4
1,5%
257
100,0%
Productions and co productions
produced in the period
1
2
3
4
5
from 6 to 10
from 11 to 15
from 16 to 20
over 20
Total *
Company 1999-2009
Number
Quota
521
61,9%
114
13,5%
86
10,3%
33
3,9%
21
2,5%
28
3,3%
19
2,2%
12
1,5%
8
0,9%
842
100,0%
Source: The relative data refers to the period 1990-1998 from the study “Il cinema tra arte e box office: reputazione e relazioni” by A. Usai,
F. Montanari and G. Delmestri (Artwork & network, edizioni Egea, Milano 2001) and for the period 1999-2009 from the editions
“Annuario del cinema italiano & audiovisivi” (edizioni Centro studi di cultura promozione e diffusione del cinema, Roma) and from the
database from the site “cinemaitaliano.info” .
* The calculated total of the productions and co productions from the periodo 1990-1998 are 804 works (on averagea 3,12 per production
house) and for the period 1999-2007 1.601 films, short films and documentaries included, fora n average of 1,90 works per company.
The steady growth of the companies founded by filmmakers – directors, actors and
writers, in most cases in alliance or joint ventures with other investors – that in the wake
of Andrea Occhipinti, one of the first actors to pass to the other side of the studios,
founding the Lucky Red, decide to go it alone, initially wanting to self produce themselves
and then very often with the aim to produce other colleagues’ films. 5
5
Among the production and co production companies set up by artists and Italian filmmakers we can
cite: Agidi di Aldo, Giovanni e Giacomo; Alia Film e Achab Film di Enzo Porcelli; Alto Verbano di
Renato Pozzetto; A movie-Palomina di Anna e Sauro Falchi; Aranciafilm di Giorgio Diritti; Bambù
di Maurizio Nichetti e Luigi de Pedys; Bess Movie di Francesca Neri; Betty Wrong di Elisabetta
Sgarbi; BiBi Film di Angelo Barbagallo; Cesarea Enterntainment di Luca Barbareschi; Colorado di
Gabriele Salvatores e Diego Abbatantuono; Dap di Guido e Maurizio De Angelis; Dharma di Eleonora
Giorgi e Massimo Ciavarro; Devon di Luciano e Sergio Martino; Duea Film di Antonio e Pupi Avati;
Film 7 di Luciano Emmer; Film Albertos di Marco Bellocchio; First Sun di Silvia Venturini Fendi;
| 93
5. A New Financial Paradigm?
In substance the space for potential financial supporters seems to be opening, widening
the spectrum of basic economic resources for the activity. It is a way that allows for a new
compatability for a category of businessmen, like those in entertainment and cinema in
particular (who are used to acting – even with difficulty – with full autonomy and self
discretion), but in all probability forced to continue being competitive at the levels that the
market, not only national, seems now to expect. Already with a more frequent use of
product placement Italian filmmakers from some time have judged themselves on a
different ground of fundraising compared to the traditional one – and in the past nearly
unambiguous – of bank financing. Now the front widens.
The introduction of tax sharing and tax credits – although operational for more than a year
from when the law was passed – moves without doubt in the same direction and seems
almost to be preparing for a different typology, for the future, of the distribution of state
contributions following the example of the actions more wide spread in other European
countries and especially in North America, attenuating the model of the so called peer
review , that the FUS was originally conformed by, and accentuating instead the so called
crossbreed version of the challenges or reverse matching grants that seemed to be
moving towards the trend to remodel, at least partially, in time by the same FUS. 6
Gegé Produzioni di Mimmo Calopresti; Indiana di Gabriele Muccino; Italy Dreams Factory di Maria
Grazia Cucinotta; L’ottava di Franco Battiato; Hathor Film di Pappi Corsicato; Immagine e Cinema
di Edwige Fenech; La Dolce Vita Productions di Patrizia Pellegrino; Levante Film di Leonardo
Pieraccioni; Martinelli Film Company di Renzo Martinelli; Melampo di Roberto Benigni e Nicoletta
Braschi; Motorino Amaranto di Paolo Virzì; No Limit International di Franco Nero; Opera Film di
Claudio e Dario Argento; Sanmarco Film di Raoul Bova e Chiara Giordano; Sixteen Films di Ken
Loach e Rebecca O’Brien; Titania Produzioni di Ida De Benedetto; Trio International di Marco Risi.
6
The provision laws are contained in article. 1 of the law number 244 of 24 December 2007 (financial law
for 2008) paragraphs325-327 with reference to tax credit and paragraph 338-341 concerning the profits
tax reduction. The benefits are referred to investments in Italian films, although an extension for
technical industries (for example pre and post production, developing and printing, dubbing) who work
on foreign films is forecast. The introduction of the so called external tax credit is of particular interest,
that is the acknowledgement of tax incentives also for companies that are not film companies but that
contribute to the investments for film production. In other countries the use of tax credits to finance
films is much more wide spread and has been around for longer. Great Britain is the most advance
country for this, where a 100% tax exemption is foreseen and a tax credit of 25% for films with a budget
of less than 29 million euros and a deduction of 80% with a tax credit of 20% for all others. In France
private companies which decide to invest in the national cinema industry deposit their resources in the
Société de financement pour le cinéma et l’audiovisuel thereby enjoying a 100% deductibility within a
25% taxable income limit and a tax credit corresponding to 20% on admissible expenses arriving at a
level of 1 million euros. An analysis of the laws can be found in “Agevolazioni fiscali per il cinema. Studio
in materia di credito d’imposta per l’industria cinematografica italiana” by Gian Marco Committeri and
Mario La Torre (I quaderni dell’Anica, a cura dell’Ufficio studi Anica, dicembre 2008).
94 |
The challenge grants system forecasts that for every euro of public funds the production
company must obtain, for example, at least three of four euros from other non state
finances; while in the scheme for the almost similar reverse grants system the allocation
grant aid is ensured by a declared increase of the private financial sources, also in the
form of individual donations or sponsorship from private companies or foundations. 7
BANKING PARTNERS
Although the situation is neither systemic nor stabilized, it seems more promising than what
was described on the community scale through a thorough study of the role of the credit
system of the European cinema, advanced in the area of the Media community program.
Carried out in 2008, the study recognized the importance of the activity historically carried
out in Italy by the section for cinema credit by BNL – Banca Nazionale del Lavoro – that was
once public, but today is controlled after the privatization by the French group BNP – Paribas
– consolidated itself in the ten year period as operational arm for both the intervention
programs and state incentives and for the credit lines that the BEI – Banca Europea for the
financial investments on the conditions agreed on with the European Union for film
companies (the last one opened by BNL has an endowment of 100 million euros). 8
From the comparison with the other principle countries the greater weight covered
emerges however beyond boundary from the private credit system in the gathering of
economic resources for new productions through specific funds created for the sector,
mainly in the service of what is called gap or supergap financing, therefore of the first
capital of pure risk of initiatives (as not guaranteed initially by any protection or cover, in
the form of fidejussoria for example). Gap that is conventionally estimated between 10%15% for medium budget films – about 5 million euros – and between 25%-30% for higher
budget films, equal to or higher than 10 million euros. The reference is to the role of the
commercial banks of the French Ific (participated 49% of the state and 51% from 20
private credit institutes) the German Bbf Bavarian bank fund, the English Prescience film
fund, the Scottish Future Film, the Spanish Sgr and the Portuguese Fica, that also play
a profitable role in the financial activity of the export of national works, that in Italy has
almost always been excluded. 9
7
An analysis by Alex Turrini, assistant professor in public and nonprofit management at the
Bocconi University in Milan, on the financial criterias of cultural activities entitled “Finanziatori
privati in scena”, on the website of economic research www.lavoce.info (section articles
“Informazione”; settembre 2009).
8
The study “Study on the role of banks in the European film industry” (Bruxelles,2009) was carried
out by Thierry Baujard, Marc Lauriac, Marc Robert and Soizic Cadio from the company
Peacefulfish (consultancy for financing the content industry) for the European programme
Media. It considers 32 European countries and the final report contains 235 pages.
9
The study looks at all the forms of interim finance and bank debt in both the preparation and post
production stages, mortgages and loans, financial guarantees and it gives a approximate picture
| 95
Compared to the map designed only two years ago, the National framework seems
however changed and the predisposition of the credit companies towards the film
industry slightly more comforting, so much so that the Scottish Future Film, in its starting
up of continental expansion, has already begun to work in Italy.
BANKING FOUNDATIONS
When talking about banks, it is almost natural to think about their rich foundations.
Created by a delegated legislation in 1990 to unfreeze the market and transfer banking
entities – in particular the main ex public credit institutions and all the savings banks –
to unlimited companies, the foundations took control of the respective credit companies
without being able to practise any type of banking activity, but with the right to use the
dividends made from the profit for “the public interest and socially-oriented goals”, while
waiting for the permanent privatization of controlled banks and to sell the stocks on the
market; the real objective of the law, that hardly anyone, up until now has evaluated nor
shown any concern in, and that is usefully punishable by law. 10
Through various updated laws, the existing 89 banking foundations find themselves
operating in 19 sectors, so called institutional, with longer term annual disbursements
and projects and making use or not of open competition, at the discretion of the board of
directors, who however every three years must indicate five priority sectors that will be
given at least 50% of the 1,6 billion euros a year that they have at disposal for grants.
The research department Osservatorio dello spettacolo of the MiBac (Ministry of Cultural
Heritage) conducted an interesting screening on their interventions and discovered that
in fact “art and cultural heritage” is the first with regards to public interest , with a quota
of 30,6%, followed by “research” (14,4%), “education and training” (12%), “voluntary work,
philanthropy and charity” and “local development” (both with 10,4%) “social welfare”
(9,8%), “public health” (7,8%) and then “environmental protection and quality”, “sport
and recreation”, “family and connected values”, “civil rights”, “religion and spiritual
development”, “crime prevention and public safety”.
The cinema however, to the contrary of what was initially believed, does not have much
say in the matter. The banking foundations tend to provide funds for community activity
or foundations, avoiding giving individual contributions, as could happen with donations
for a film being made. Only a few rare allocations are given to supporting the organization
of active credit institutes in the film sector, the planning models adopted and the operative
schemes used by the institutions that allocate public funds.
10
After Law 218 in 1999 (so called Amato-Carli law), the following were introduced; Law 461 in 1998
(Ciampi Law), the legislative decree 153 in 1999 and law 448 in 2001 (the so called Tremonti
Law, corresponding to the 2002 financial law ). Law 266 in 1991 for voluntary organizations
decided that a fifteenth of the proceeds were to be given to regional voluntary funds; the
Supreme Court - decree 300 in 2003, confirmed the legal regime for private foundations, placing
them among “social liberty organizations”.
96 |
TAB. 7
BANKING FOUNDATIONS FOR ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
Allocation of funds
Based on budgets 2007
Contributions set
Number
Quota
Architectural assets
1.892
Music and theatre
2.516
Other artistic activities
3.138
Museums
422
AVisual arts, painting and sculpture 450
Libraries and archives
2.582
Mass media
731
Unclassified fields
1.125
Total amount
12.856
14,7%
19,6%
24,4%
3,3%
3,5%
20,1%
5,7%
8,7%
100,0%
Amount in euro
Milions
Quota
176,7
100,4
94,6
54,7
34,1
16,7
9,2
37,9
524,3
33,7%
19,2%
18,0%
10,4%
6,5%
3,2%
1,8%
7,2%
100,0%
Average amount
Thousands of euro
93,4
39,9
30,1
129,6
75,7
1,3
12,6
33,7
40,8
Data processed by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo on data from’Acri (Associazione casse di risparmio italiane).
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo-Anno 2008” (MiBac, Rome, 2009 – For architectural heritage, it
means the conservation and development of archeological heritage; music and theatre come under the area of artistic and literary creations
and interpretations; the communication systems are intended as mass communication, such as public press, radio, TV and internet).
of local festivals and events. Also on this front the difference with foreign countries is
quite marked, as in various European countries – also in the USA – the large industrial
group foundations or financial foundations believe that it is useful and convenient for
promotional purposes to support the production of films in line with their company
strategies and mission.
6. If the FUS continues to be less important
If the composition of the investment capital of film production houses in the 2009 season
indicates a new mix of sources and resources, this is owed to a large extent to the
progressive reduction of the FUS funds issued to Mibac (Ministry of Cultural Heritage). Its
importance has always agreed with the possibility for the filmmaker creators of art projects
to assure those added investments that often allow the main financers, such as the
production houses, to formulate an estimated budget that is compatible with the
expectations of its economic return and to induce them therefore to becoming partners for
the new productions. And the interventions and support of the national filmmaking – within
politics in favor of audiovisual systems – are on the other hand widely spread in all European
countries, in very different ways but in an equally higher measure. It is calculated that in
2008 in Europe more than 750 million euros were given in state funding for filmmaking. 11
11
Of the 89 banking foundations, with assets of over 48 billion euros, 18 are based in the North-West
(with average assets of over 1 billion euros, the double of the average general of 554 million), 30 in
the North-East(together with those in the North-West have 33,2 billion worth of assets equal to 68%
of the national total), 30 in the centre and 11 in the south, now joined in the Foundation for the South.
| 97
STATE RESOURCES
The contraction of the FUS has been ongoing since 2003, when 517,93 million euros were
allocated, equal to the 0,39% of the GDP. Since then it has slowly decreased, until
reaching the amount of 441,29 million in 2007, then increased twelve months later to
471,33 million. The black year, if we can call it this, was however 2009, with an initially
estimated supply of only 378 million and with an eventual, restoration to 460 million. At
the end an integration - 60 million – drawing on the chairman’s emergency funds, and
the ministry “top sliced” this increase, giving priority to and increasing the funds
designated to lyrical foundations and to the filmmaking activity.
However the reality of FUS remains of a continuingly less substantial capacity: from the
first revenue in 1985 – among other things the lowest in its history with 357,48 million,
having then risen to 530,4 in 2001 - and the erosion until 2009 results equal to 41,7% and
its influence on the GDP, of 64,7%. All this at present value, because at constant value
the GDP, in the mean time, in reality almost quadrupled. 12
The issue presents some singular aspects. While with the EDPF 2008-2011 (Economic
and financial planning document) the government committed itself to adding value to the
activities for cultural heritage, with the declared goal of taking the available resources to
1% of the state budget, with a decree converted to law in August 2008 in the overall
allocation registered in the expenditure forecast of the department cuts were made on all
the activity – FUS included – for 236,6 million in 2009, for 251,3 in 2010 and 434,5 million
for 2011. With the effect of further lowering the funding for culture and moving further
away the effect on the country’s budget from the level of 0,28% of the GDP that it has now
reached (at present value) and that already figures amongst the lowest in all Europe. 13
It is to be remembered that the financial law of the 22nd December 2008, number 203,
also contained a 3 year allocation forecast of the FUS that did not and does not show
better times ahead: 398 million for 2009; 429 for 2010; 307 for 2011.
The other situation – that has previously been revealed by the Court of Auditors in its
function of control, with the annual reports on the MiBac activity – consists in the ongoing
cash balance that is typical of the organization of the administration, where allocation
times are very slow compared to the formal recognition of the funds. Despite a reduction
of about 10% of this availability in the recent years, the department counts on a cash
float of over 400 million euros, that with 358,3 million of committed expenses brings to
a remaining cash flow of 757 million, mostly accumulated from 2002, and that turn into
the so called special accounting. 14
12
“Study on the role of banks in the european film industry” carried out by the research company
Peacefulfish for the European community programme Media (Final report, Bruxelles, 2009).
13
The importance is underlined in the Relazione sull’utilizzo del Fondo unico per lo spettacoloAnno 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo ( Mibac, Rome, 2009).
14
The two circumstances are revealed by the Courts of Auditors in the yearly report on the work
carried out by the Mibac in 2008.
98 |
TAB. 8
ALLOCATIONS PER SECTOR FROM FUS
Contributions 2008 allocated
Amount in euros
Quota
84.143.569
16,3%
269.696.259
52,3%
84.197.702
16,4%
63.367.858
12,4%
9.585.772
1,8%
4.269.005
0,8%
515.260.165
100,0%
Screening 2008
Thousands
Quota
Yearly admissions
Milions
Quota
FILM ACTIVITY
1.504,9
90,38%
111,0
75,3%
LYRICAL- SYMPHONIC FOUNDATIONS
3,1
0,18%
2,3
1,6%
PROSE THEATRE
87,0
5,23%
16,0
10,8%
CLASSICAL MUSIC
13,6
0,81%
3,3
2,3%
DANCE
6,5
0,40%
1,9
1,3%
CIRCUSES AND TRAVELLING SHOWS
49,9
3,00%
11,8
8,7%
TOTAL FUNDS
1.665,2
100,0%
147,5
100,0%
Box office takings
Milions euros
Quota
637,36
53,19%
89,68
7,48%
226,88
18,93%
39,87
3,33%
26,96
2,24%
177,67
14,83%
1.198,43
100,0%
Elaborated on data from the Osservatorio dello spettacolo and data Siae (Società italiana degli autori e degli editori).
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anno 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo del MiBac
(Roma 2009).
Those from the single fund are not the only state resources designated to the
entertainment business, if we consider other funding that come from “ special financial
laws, ad hoc laws and from other departments” (as read from the MiBac report on the
Fus activities) or from the midweek extractions of the lottery, the assignment of the
money from the “8x1000” and the “5x1000”(an optional gift-aid scheme which helps
support the Catholic Church) from the Irpef (personal income tax), from the tax relief
given to businesses by means of sponsorships or free money allocations that must be
communicated to the ministry. For the cinema industry things do not change a lot. The
partition of the contributions has a historical structure and for different sectors follows
specific laws.
The involvement of the MiBac concerning the resources given to the Fus every year,
according to the financial law, applies to these six sectors, music, opera-symphony,
dance, cinema, circuses and travelling shows, presents in fact a very complex framework,
with various types of involvement and receiver of each of these, that are mainly outside
of the volume of the activity carried out, from the resulting economic value generated for
the whole sector and of the dimensions of use by the public, of the films produced. 15
The same Court of Auditors in its annual report on the MiBac does not abstain for
example from underlining (in line with the doubt spread by different parties) how the
distribution in favor of the lyric foundations has had such an effect on the amount of debt
15
Another annotation from the annual report by the Court of Auditors on Mibac activity.
| 99
TAB. 9
HOW THE PUBLIC HELP THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS
Percentage changes 2008 compared to 2007
Film Activity
Lyrical- symphonic foundations
Prose Theatre
Classical music
Dance
Circuses and travelling shows
Total finances
Contributions
Screenings
Entries
Takings
+9,51%
+27,97%
+14,51%
+0,28%
+23,28%
-36,21%
+17,66%
+18,86%
+2,83%
-3,38%
-6,16%
-3,45%
-14,26%
+15,73%
-4,55%
+5,15%
-7,89%
+1,47%
-9,45%
+7,69%
-3,86%
-4,82%
-6,56%
-6,03%
+1,34%
-14,18%
+58,65%
+0,72%
Elaborated on data from the Osservatorio dello spettacolo and data Siae (Società italiana degli autori e degli editori).
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anno 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo del MiBac
(Roma 2009.
of these theatrical organizations, while for the other sectors the appraisal is essentially
referred to the validity of the work done or of artistic projects- this is the case of the
cinema-proposed and produced. And if the share out of the funds traditionally sees the
cinema at second place in importance with the amount of 84,1 million, the operasymphony foundations, although there being only 14, benefit from greater help – over
50% of the total – and from more considerable “topups” even when a particularly rigid
diet is forced on the sector.
TAB. 10
WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE STATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CINEMA
Persons or organizations
for funds 2008 for the cinema
Associations
Consortiums-committes
Public organizations
Religious organizations
Foundations
Individuals
Individual companies
Companies (spa-srl-snc-sas-coop)
Sector Total
Disembursements 2008
Number
Quota
236
4
48
196
30
24
115
632
1.285
18,4%
0,3%
3,7%
15,3%
2,3%
1,9%
8,9%
49,2%
100,0%
Total in euros
of contributions 2008
Quota
of funds
11.693.954
251.000
2.493.261
1.368.055
22.141.548
1.071.441
1.656.842
43.466.569
84.143.570
13,9%
0,3%
3,0%
1,6%
26,3%
1,3%
2,0%
51,6%
100,0%
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo-Anno 2008”, MiBac-Ministero per i Beni e le attività culturali
(Roma, 2009) – Elaborated by the Osservatorio sullo spettacolo from data revealed from the from the direzioni generali Cinema e Spettacolo
dal vivo by MiBac.
The fact is that Italian filmmakers have to compete with an international market where
the competitors of the other most important European countries can usually always
count on superior support. In 2009 for example the national German foundation Ddff had
59,6 million euros designated only to production (for 104 projects, including 38 co
productions: 76 films, 24 documentaries and 4 animated films) doing so reaching in the
100 |
TAB. 11
WHICH FILM COMPANIES RECEIVE STATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Company structures and sizes
of cinema funds
Limited liability company
Limited company
Limited partnership
General partnership
Cooperative
Total companies
Allocations 2008
Number
Quota
356
56,3%
55
8,7%
99
15,7%
60
9,5%
62
9,8%
632
100,0%
Amount in euros
of funds 2008
18.906.107
21.928.814
1.043.632
898.709
689.307
43.466.569
Funds
quota
43,5%
50,5%
2,4%
2,0%
1,6%
100,0%
Average amount
in euros
53.107,0
398.705,7
10.541,7
14.978,4
11.117,8
68.776,2
(Roma, 2009) – Elaborated by the Osservatorio sullo spettacolo from data revealed from the General Direction for the cinema by MiBac.
last three years the amount of 178,1 million, supporting 302 films. The French Cnc
reserved 348,28 of the 502 million euros available, to the cinema, and planning an
increase of 5,6% its 2010 budget.
In addition, with the Fus resources every year the funds issued by central organisations are
restored in the activities of the industry such as Cinecittà Luce (8,415 million in 2008), the
cinema section of the Fondazione Biennale di Venezia ( 7,561 million, with a 36% increase
compared to 2007) and the Fondazione Centro sperimentale di cinematografia (11,5 milion,
the highest ever amount), that refer to the National school of cinema and the Cineteca
nazionale. The modernization of the structures is highly subsidized, both commercial and
art films, and helped (next table) in a substantial way the activity of promoting Italian film.
TAB. 12
Distribution 2008
per area concerned
Promotional
Cinema Culture
Experimental halls
Foreign Promotion
Special projects
Grand Total
CINEMA PROMOTION FINANCED BY FUS
Assigned to
Number
169
9
828
21
47
1.064
Funds Allocated
Millions of euros
8,605
1,250
3,000
1,000
8,955
22 ,810
Average Amount of contributions
in euro
Variations from 2007
50.917
-2,2%
138.899
+27,4%
3.623
+0,3%
47.619
+26,7%
190.532
-4,8%
21.438
+24,7%
(Roma, 2009) – Elaborated by the Osservatorio sullo spettacolo on data by the General Direction for the cinema.
The number of beneficiaries and the consistency of the average amount of the
contributions designated to the industry, prove that the cinema currently represents
the component of the national screening that justifies the original mission and function
of the FUS, that is to dedicate itself firstly to project funding; the so called unstable
funding that on the inside of the whole spectrum of the Fus interventions currently
gives only 13% of the availability used. And vice versa the stable funding, made up of
| 101
TAB. 13
Band of contributions in euros
allocated in 2008 to the sector
Up to 1.500
From 1.500 to 5.000
From 5.000 to 10.000
From 10.000 to 30.000
From 30.000 to 60.000
From 60.000 to 100.000
From 100.000 to 200.000
From 200.000 to 300.000
From 300.000 to 500.000
From 500.000 to 1 million
From 1 to 2 million
From 2 to 5 million
Over 5 million
Sector Total
THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS GIVEN TO CINEMA
Allocations 2008
Number
Quota
49
3,81%
643
50,04%
209
16,26%
155
12,06%
81
6,30%
58
4,51%
39
3,03%
18
1,40%
6
0,47%
7
0,54%
12
0,93%
6
0,47%
2
0,16%
1.285
100,0%
Total for each band
Thousands of euros
36,7
2.123,0
1.381,6
3.167,9
3.714,2
4.653,5
5.628,7
4.402,6
2.395,6
5.181,0
15.340,7
16.617,6
19.500,0
84.143,5
Average amount in euros
Quota for each contribution
0,04%
749,4
2.53%
3.301,8
1,64%
6.610,5
3,77%
20.438,1
4,41%
45.854,4
5,53%
80.233,2
6,69%
144.326,1
5,23%
244.590,1
2,85%
399.279,5
6,15%
740.152,1
18,23%
1.278.398,9
19,75%
2.769.601,9
23,17%
9.750.000,0
100,0%
65.481,3
(Roma, 2009) – Elaborated by the Osservatorio sullo spettacolo on data by the General Direction for the cinema.
in general by recurring allocation to organizations, or companies that support their
institutional or social activity, absorbs almost all of the other resources. 16
REGIONAL FUNDS
With regards to the diffusion of the interventions in favor of entertainment, it has
nevertheless been registered for some time the gradual growth of interest and presence
of territorial administrations, both regional, city and provincial. Because of objective
limits of accessibility and knowledge of separate data, no institution so far has been able
to measure the total capacity of the economic effort sustained by decentralized public
structures, but various sample surveys confirm the validity of the already wide spread
belief, or rather that the contribution of resources from the government – at least those
concerning all cultural and artistic activities – are today a minority, not only for the 8.100
cities and provinces in the country, but also for the 20 Italian regions. 17
7. The Role of the Film Commissions
In the local organizations in particular, the formation of the so called Film commissions
continues to spread, agencies responsible for encouraging territorial cinema activities
16
17
102 |
The last allocation decree by the Mibac was on 13 February 2009.
“Uno spettacolo che non deve continuare” by Filippo Cavazzoni (Ibf Focus, Istituto Bruno Leoni, Torino 2009).
TAB. 14
TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUS CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CINEMA
Contributions allocated 2008
Thousands of euros Quota
2.374.751
58.444.094
8.571.654
1.367.411
5.156.357
1.811.678
1.009.334
1.349.544
85.100
361.976
126.700
792.808
376.175
173.833
80.000
97.193
803.396
2,8%
69,5%
10,2%
1,6%
6,1%
2,2%
1,2%
1,6%
0,1%
0,4%
0,2%
0,9%
0,4%
0,2%
0,1%
0,1%
1,0%
Screening 2008
Thousands
Quota
Yearly admissions
Box office takings
Millions
Quota Millions euros
Quota
247,60
LOMBARDIA
16,4%
20,31
18,3%
124,65
19,6%
200,99
LAZIO
13,3%
15,98
14,4%
92,97
14,6%
109,96
VENETO
7,3%
8,73
7,9%
50,58
7,9%
116,81
PIEMONTE
7,7%
9,02
8,1%
47,37
7,4%
149,84
EMILIA ROMAGNA
9,9%
11,47
10,3%
67,38
10,6%
116,40
CAMPANIA
7,7%
8,85
8,0%
46,82
7,3%
SICILY
4,6%
70,08
5,26
4,7%
26,83
4,2%
112,36
TUSCANY
7,4%
7,86
7,1%
49,00
7,7%
20,95
UMBRIA
1,4%
1,46
1,3%
8,68
1,4%
37,97
ABRUZZO
2,5%
2,64
2,4%
14,81
2,3%
13,95
CALABRIA
0,9%
0,87
0,8%
4,96
0,8%
82,26
PUGLIA
5,4%
5,29
4,8%
28,64
4,5%
51,96
LIGURIA
3,4%
3,34
3,0%
19,72
3,1%
0,8%
5,35
0,8%
14,55
TRENTINO ALTO ADIGE
1,0%
0,91
4,54
MOLISE
0,3%
0,27
0,2%
1,57
0,2%
7,07
BASILICATA
0,5%
0,42
0,4%
2,25
0,4%
54,04
MARCHE
3,6%
3,20
2,9%
18,90
3,0%
0,2%
1,41
0,2%
1,8%
11,41
1,8%
2,5%
13,96
2,2%
100,0%
637,36
100,0%
91.293
0,1%
4,57
VALLE D’AOSTA
0,3%
0,26
580.611
0,7%
36,48
SARDINIA
2,4%
2,03
449.118
84.083.569
0,5%
100,0%
53,35
1.513,90
FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA
3,5%
2,76
TOTAL ITALY
100,0%
111,01
Elaborated on data Osservatorio dello spettacolo and data from Siae (Società italiana degli autori e degli editori).
Source:“Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anno 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo by MiBac
(Roma 2009).
| 103
TAB. 15
OTHER REGIONAL FUNDS IN EUROPE
Countries and contributions
In millions of euros
Budget
national
Budget
regional
Total
public funds
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Cezch Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain
Greece
Ireland
Island
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburgh
Norway
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweeden
Switzerland
Hungary
Total
24,35
32,50
6,49
7,80
0,88
11,00
3,00
6,02
13,44
179,97
71,89
79,88
6,04
11,40
3,20
3,36
1,60
3,93
30,01
16,33
31,46
17,78
4,28
3,80
2,33
64,50
44,45
25,51
4,88
712,08
14,11
2,50
1,61
36,85
0,45
39,11
104,71
48,05
1,04
2,70
41,79
9,10
10,55
312,57
38,46
35,00
6,49
9,41
0,88
11,00
39,85
6,02
13,89
219,08
176,60
127,93
6,04
11,40
3,20
3,36
1,60
3,93
31,05
19,03
31,46
17,78
4,28
3,80
2,33
106,29
53,55
36,06
4,88
1.024,65
Elaborated on data from the study “Study on the role of banks in the european film industry” carried out by the company Peacefulfish in the
community programme Media of the European Union (Final report, Bruxelles, 2009).
and created initially to promote the locations for the works in progress, to organize events
and festivals and localization of companies. Within a short time however, these structures
dedicated themselves to directly supporting the production of new films and to becoming
a tool of direct contribution to companies, associations, filmmakers and workers in the
sector through the so called Film Fund.
It is a relatively recent phenomenon in Italy and is still not easy to describe in an analytical
way, with regards to the specific nature of these interventions and the economic
consistency of the contributions, given the variety of ways that the policies and promotional
strategies are carried out by the different administrative organizations. The path of their
development – that is elaborated on in the appendix – seems however to conform to the line
104 |
traced in other countries, in particular in the nineties. And since the last decade a steadier
increase has been met in the regional organization in Europe, even though today their
activity seems to be going through a new and further propulsive phase. 18
Even in the United States, there was a return of interest in the role of film commissions
when the governor of California- ex actor Arnold Schwarzenegger initiated a series of
incentives to attract new productions, obviously arousing uproar, as it concerned the State
of Los Angeles and Hollywood, the Capital of the celluloid world. In reality it was
discovered that the percentage of films made in Hollywood had decreased from 66% of the
American production in 2003 to 31% in 2008 and that in terms of locations, Los Angeles
was no longer the chosen place by producers: the number of films filmed there had gone
done from 71 (1996) to 21 in 2008 and even to 8 in 2009. It had happened, that in the
meantime, other states – like Louisiana, the near New Mexico, Utah, Oregon and Arizona,
had approved special terms that were very favorable, and able to attract the sets of many
films. Michigan had in fact exceeded everyone (using the American parameters), giving out
a mandate to its Film Office, to reimburse 42 cent for every dollar spend in its boundaries
by the companies that had decided to produce their new works there, as done by Clint
Eastwood in the search for Hmong emigrates from Cambodia for “Gran Torino”.
8. Why We Talk About Cinema Federalism
From here you can understand the reason why in the partial recomposition of the
resources that fuel the investments in films, the funds allocated by the territorial
administrations are gaining importance, especially at a regional level, covering the
growing role in the new mix of financial contributions that are being formed.
If on one hand, their presence seems to almost rebalance the crisis of the insufficient
state contribution of revenue, almost keeping the complexity of public allocations stable,
on the other hand however, it seems doubtful that their development will lead to the
widening of both the number of interlocutors and the filmmakers toolboxes, diversifying
the supply sources and the gathering of capital for investment.
However, the evolution of the phenomenon does not contemplate only economic and
operative aspects. It can indirectly implicate, even possible reorganizations concerning
the quality and what the projects contain. The experiences of other European countries
are very different, for example in France, where the enormous public capital covers 80%
of the supply, and in the traditionally federalist German origins, where the considerable
funds from the lander(state) occupy the higher rate with 60. In French territory for
example the association of directors, complain about the lack of attention dedicated to
18
Studies and investigations regarding this have been carried out for example by Censis,
Federculture and Isicult.
| 105
the distribution and to the provincial companies; while inside the German boundaries
they hope for more incisive actions to support the industry at a national level.
At the beginning of the year, in Spain, cinema entrepreneurs and workers in Catalonia,
publically contested a new cinema law that the Generalitat catalana was getting ready to
approve, that planned , among other things, new quotas for dubbed films and films with
subtitles in Catalan, passing from the present 2,9% of production to 50%, with the sole
exception of the films in Castilian and European ones with fewer than 15 printed copies.
The workers fear a vertical drop in the market and job losses, that would not justify the
goal to protect the use of the Catalan language and this issue is still ongoing.
Italy also had an idea concerning local dialects, in the summer of 2010, the Regional
Council of Veneto,– in the implementation of the law on the dialect from Veneto, that has
been in vigor for sometime – approved the projects put forward to promote the use of
dialects that are financed every year with a fund of 250 thousand euros. Among these,
there was one that proposed to dub in Veneto an American cartoon. The project was
passed (obviously with some difficulty) obtaining a contribution of 25 thousand euros
against a budget of costs equal to 60 thousand euros, the first block of episodes,
rigorously in local dialect have already been shown on some local channels.
Whether artistic or economic, the cinema sector in fact, has needs and problems,
including political, administrative and regulation choices that involve the cultural and
business activities for their social and market aims. It is enough just to think, on a
practical level, about the strategies to safeguard and protect the country’s heritage
and cultural identity; tax regimes to apply to boost or not, the diffusion of certain
products; the laws that regulate the relationships and the redistribution of the takings
between the media and their operators: the regulations that concern the opening of
new cinemas and so on.
EUROPEAN FUNDS
Getting the right balance is a very real problem. In principle it is the same problem that
the European Union had with inconstant political results, despite the intense variety of
programs and tools put into action on all communication fronts, cultural and artistic
cooperation, promotion of the show business and the incentive and diffusion of
audiovisual systems and the ICT (Information Communication Technology.)
The EU has been giving resourses to the film sector since 1986 and has gradually
extended its assistance from the production to the distribution, then from the screening
to the co production both in the community area and all the Mediterranean regions and
moreover, from technological innovation to the promotion of films for young people and
children. The main “revisited” and updated programs in 2009, are Media and Euromed –
in the community area - and Eurimages and Europa Cinemas, defined as European as
they are tied to the international cooperation of the EU countries. They all provide for the
allocation of contributions to the operators of the 28 EU countries (in reality five more
“partners” are added to the program.) where the Italians prove able to hold out in the
106 |
traditional activities division, while they seem to show less spirit of initiative in the areas
tied more to technological innovation, as shown in the following table referring to the
overall data from the period 2008-2009 period, an indicator of the consistency the
community resources dedicated to the cinema.
TAB. 16
THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THE ITALIAN CINEMA RECEIVES FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
Main areas of EU help
with funds for workers
Support for producers
Development of single projects
Development of slate funding
Market access
i2i Audiovisual
Works for TV broadcasting
Development for interactive works
Media International 2009
Support for distributors
Selective Distribution
Automatic Distribution
Sale agents for export
Festivals
New technologies
Vod and digital distribution
Pilot projects
Training
Professional training
Initial training
Support for coproduction
Support for distribution
Total resources allocated
Totale resources
2 year period 2008-2009 *
Funds given to
Italian companies
MEDIA PROGRAMME
17.317.925
1.288.219
6.977.982
397.817
10.339.943
890.402
3.518.059
180.000
5.775.271
172.770
20.274.000
552.000
2.303.569
0
3.791.884
375.000
47.785.680
5.985.676
22.724.100
3.247.000
25.061.580
2.738.676
2.110.813
0
2.117.406
85.000
11.495.315
350.000
10.793.565
350.000
701.750
0
11.179.942
682.000
7.831.781
682.000
2.988.278
0
EURIMAGES PROGRAMME
34.890.000
1.325.000
1.719.686
21.515**
145.375.550
11.058.180
Italian Quota
on total resources
7,43%
5,70%
8,61%
5,11%
2,99%
2,72%
0.00%
9,88%
12,52%
14,28%
10,92%
0,00%
4,01%
3,04%
3,24%
0,00%
6,10%
8,70%
0.00%
3,79%
1,25%
7,60%
Source: Processed from data information from the results of the 2008 and 2009 tender notices in the Media programme field 2007-2010
and Eurimages of the European Union, on the 31 March 2010.
* A two year period analysis was necessary as the rate of tender bids would not have allowed for a temporary reference of one year.
** The amount indicated for the Italian companies in the field of support for distribution, allocated in the Eurimages frame work is an
estimation, as the specific company budgets and the allocations given to them are not communicated.
In the beginning the allocations were very selected, in virtue of the fact that the community
still did not include many states (12 in 1986, increased to 15 in 1995), then in the twenty
first century, with the entrance of new partners the number of allocations increased,
reducing however the average amount, despite the increase of the ceiling available. To
avoid the acknowledged incentives from being needlessly low, from a three year period the
number of applications accepted has been once again limited, while the type of assistance
has been divided. The Media program for example includes seven areas – support for
producers; promotion, distributors; business; festival; training; new technologies – and
| 107
different types of assistance is planned for each one, more specifically, in particular the
ones that foresee the allocation of contributions to single business projects.
9. How the Demand Was Born: the Activity of Production
The growth of cinema federalism, undoubtedly a positive thing, brings about, in substance, new
importance and greater attention to the problems faced by the sector, that when it sees a series
of opportunities opening, welcoming new partners and investment initiatives and support, it
hopes for stability and certainties concerning the conditions of activities. Problems that concern
mainly producers. The bases of the market demand are set on the production activity, with the
conception and realization of film projects and with the organizational planning of the relative
business through the other departments of the company – distribution of the business – from
which the redistribution of the proceeds go back to the start of the cycle. The production
companies are the first to attempt to raise investment capital, private or public, and to confront
themselves with possible financial partners. In general spreading out part of the company risk
with the operators of the distribution, through contracts that assure a minimum of the box office
profits guaranteed; however the greatest quota of economic commitment remains theirs.
The possible success of a film is without doubt proof of professional quality, but the real
focus in terms of capability and productive potential is particularly concentrated on the
possibility to grow economically: the results obtained at the box office and from the other
forms of commercialization of the product become vital for the society as guarantees to
obtain the financing necessary to produce other films.
ASSET VALUES
In modern production, most companies are no longer the owners of tools and equipment,
starting from film studios. Almost everything needed is outsourced, and since they do not own
material goods, the so called intangible resources, made up of a library of films which the
company can claim property rights for their economic gain, have become extremely important
in the running of the production houses. The abundance of this library also contributes to the
strengthening of brands, an aspect that up until a few years ago had no influence on the life
of the independent houses. At the most their reputation was tied to the ability to repeat their
success in terms of quality or box office hits for a series of films produced. Today however, the
logo can qualify an entire catalogue of home videos or a Pay TV channel, video on demand. Only
the most important and most consolidated Italian production houses, have however
bought property, to guarantee an important part of self-financing; for the others the
provisions of investment capitals and the bank loans remain extremely challenging.
PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS
In the specific area of production, two types of allocations are planned: contributions for
the quality of the film projects, also defined as indirect financing for the production, and
108 |
quality awards and awards for the profits made by the films. Only the first can be
considered in the same way as the capital investments and they were set up to help the
production of new works.
TAB. 17
FUS FUNDS: PASSED AND REJECTED AT THE STATE EXAM
Fus-Mibac funds
for production
Full length films
First-second works
Short films
Screenplays
Total Production
Number of requests in 2007
Presented Accepted Rejected
68
36
32
130
32
98
81
27
54
90
20
70
369
115
254
Numero di requests in 2008
Presented Accepted Rejected
68
33
35
129
29
100
117
32
85
87
20
67
402
114
287
In 2009
Accepted
44
31
28
20
123
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anni 2007 e 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo del
Mibac and “Il cinema italiano in numeri –2009” edited by theUfficio Studi/Ced Anica (Roma, 2010).
Four different types are referred to, as indicated in the table: full length films considered
as of cultural interests (abbreviation IC); first and second works (OPS); original
screenplays of particular value (SSO); short length films of cultural interest (CO). The
table is only an indication, as the acknowledgement times and times of allocation of the
contributions do not take place in the same year, and for this reason there may be some
discrepancies in the numbers referred to in the table.
TAB. 18
HOW THE STATE CONTRIBUTES TO CINEMA PRODUCTION
Financing given in 2007
Number
36
34.500.000 958.333
33
12.000.000 375.000
29
28
1.080.000
32
SHORT FILMS
1.200.000 37.500
24
960.00
40.000
20
SCREENPLAYS
700.000
35.000
20
700.000
35.000
98
36.160.000 368.979
116
700.000
Average
euros
Number Total
Average
in euros
euros
FULL LENGTH FILMS
33
30.600.000 927.273
20
Total
in euros
38.571
35.000
48.280.000 416.207
Number
Total
in euros
27
24.900.000 922.222
FIRST-SECOND WORKS
10.800.000 372.414
27
9.600.000
355.555
TOTAL PRODUCTION
114
43.300.000 379.825
Average
euros
Source: “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anni 2007 e 2008” edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo
del Mibac-Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and “Il cinema italiano in numeri –2009” edited by theUfficio Studi/Ced Anica
(Roma, 2010).
In the same way, but divided by company, the assignment of indirect contributions to
production that were made available by FUS in 2008 are shown in the table. A further
source for production companies consists in the allocations belonging to the second
category, that are not designated to finance in new investments but appear rather
| 109
finalized to support specific goals of political interest and of the general development of
the national cinema. The state law that regulates the Fus- Mibac interventions, defines
them as direct production support, they represent a transfer of money to the producers
or authors and are in two types: quality awards and contributions on the profits made. The
quality awards were given by a ministerial commission of valuation until 2008, but were
suspended to provide for the payment of those recognized in 2005 and that had not been
liquidated: 68 for 10 films, for a total of 1,592 million. The acknowledgements distributed
amongst the authors (screenwriters and directors) and producers of films that
distinguish themselves from others, for “particular artistic and cultural quality” had still
not been weighed out in fixed payouts in that period. The contributions on the profits are
however directly related to the success achieved at the box office, even if the criteria set
to award prizes for this category of incentives do not refer to the global accumulation for
each film and forecast four different revenue classes at the box office – up to 2,6 million;
from 2,6 to 5,2 million; from 5,2 to 10,3; and finally from 10,3 to 20,7 milllion – to which
four different percentages of contributions are applied; 25%, 20%, 10% and 7%. The
allocation of fus contributions has often been topic of discussion for the objective
difficulty in organizing the concessions with extreme balance and caution and the
complete satisfaction of everyone who requested the funds especially for those whose
request was not answered. Apart from these inevitable perplexities and discussions, it is
necessary to reveal – after the reform law in 2004 – the transparency of the incentive
system entrusted to the Direction General of cinema Mibac. The publication of the reports
of the allocations deliberated for example of state funds in favor of other industrial
services, agriculture or commercial are rarely found. 19 Even the establishment of
contributions on the takings has been linked to perplexity and discussion. Their
introduction on the other hand was inspired to incentivize the production of films with a
big public range, to represent an alternative to the blockbusters of the foreign majors and
to have a greater appeal for export to the international markets.
10. The Real Challenge for National Producers
It is the same principal that led the other main European countries to adopt a similar
system of contributions, that rewards films which already have the support of the public.
The competition with the made in USA product is a challenge that unites the continental
production houses. It is a competition that begins even before the real confrontation
19
110 |
According the research centre Korda, linked to the European audiovisual observatory, in 31
countries out of the 180 Public funding bodies, 62 are State and 118 regional. The European
audiovisual observatory (in “Regional public funding”) estimates that their economic contribution
went from 20% in 2005 to a quota of 30% in 2008, as confirmed in the table.
TAB. 19
STATE CONTRIBUTION FAVORING PRODUCTION INVESTMENT
Company with high rate of Fus
Type of allocation
allocation in 2008
IC
OPS
CO
SSO
Fandango
Lumière & Co.
BiBi Film-Minerva*-G.B. Produzioni
Cattleya
Medusa Film-Jean Vigò Italia
On My Own
Ager 3
AuroraFilm
Martinelli Film Company
Aranciafilm
Gertie
International Dean Film
Lucky Red
Taodue
Bianca Film
Heles Film Production-Diamante
IIF-Italian International Film
Other production companies
Total Production
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
25
1
1
1
19
22
1
29
30
1
19
20
Amount in euros
Quota
of contributions
on total
2.525.000
2.475.000
2.250.000
1.900.000
1.900.000
1.800.000
1.735.000
1.600.000
1.600.000
1.500.000
1.500.000
1.500.000
1.500.000
1.400.000
1.100.000
1.100.000
1.040.000
14.875.000
43.300.000
5,8%
5,7%
5,3%
4,4%
4,4%
4,2%
4,0%
3,6%
3,6%
3,5%
3,5%
3,5%
3,5%
3,2%
2,5%
2,5%
2,4%
34,4%
100,0%
Source: Direzione generale per il cinema del MiBac (da “Relazione sull’utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo – Anno 2008”,
edited by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo, Roma 2009).
* Of which one is presented in production association with BiBi Film TV and one with G.B. Produzioni.
between products and their screen qualities begin. Because the US cinema has a wide
range of resources, it is based on a different star system, it adopts play scripts that
represent authentic best-sellers to produce works planned from the start for the
international market and not only the domestic market. It is promoted much better and
due to this strength, this “contractual” power, the European production houses – especially
the small ones - and the national filmmakers in particular if it is their first work, have
trouble finding the same opening to the channel of distribution and to be seen by the public.
It is on the other hand obvious to the workers involved with the films distributed on a
national scale that if a film does not “survive” at the first weekend of screening, it is
permanently “lost” for the circuit of the cinema halls and is excluded at the speed of
light. In this particular phase, even the US majors have felt the repercussions of the
stagnation stage, experienced by the international economy and their approach to the
foreign market (what according to Hollywood standards, ensures all the real margin of
net profit to the volume of investments reserved for big productions) is in fact even more
intense. The Italian film (table above) has grown from 2004 to 2007 and has “defended”
itself with honor. The American leader has instead continued gradually – apart from one
regress in 2005 – to grow and looking carefully at also the fluctuating trends of the other
European titles it is influenced by the presence or not of US works produced or
| 111
TAB. 20
THE DISTRIBUTION TO PRODUCTION HOUSES FROM STATE CONTRIBUTIONS ON TAKINGS
Beneficiaries and film titles
Amount of contributions 2008 in euros
Percentage of total
Filmauro
5.754.440
20,8%
Manuale d’amore 2 (2,32 milioni) – Natale a New York (2,37) – Natale in crociera (1,05)
Medusa Film
2.496.800
9,0%
Olè (1,56) – La sconosciuta (0,92 milioni)
Cattleya
2.255.042
8,2%
Commediasexi (1,20) – Ho voglia di te (1,05 milioni)
Melampo
2.129.359
7,7%
La tigre e la neve (2,12 milioni)
R&C Produzioni
1.500.276
5,5%
Saturno contro (1,45 milioni) – La Niña santa (0,04)
ITC Movie
1.481.680
5,4%
Il 7 e l’8 (1,48 milioni)
Agidi
1.336.549
4,8%
Anplagghed al cinema (1,33 milioni)
Media one
1.274.265
4,6%
Eccezzziunale... veramente: capitolo secondo... me (1,27 milioni)
Dino De Laurentiis
1.214.720
4,4%
Hannibal Lecter-Le origini del male (1,21 milioni)
Levante
887.769
3,2%
Ti amo in tutte le lingue del mondo (0,88 milioni)
Rai Cinema
739.936
2,7%
Notte prima degli esami (0,73 milioni)
Bim Distribuzione
548.242
2,0%
The Queen-La Regina (0,54 milioni) – Niente da nascondere (0,002)
Lucky Red
505.629
1,8%
Il mio migliore amico (0,41) – Azur e Asmar (0,08 milioni)
Istituto Luce
345.299
1,3%
I colori dell’anima-Modigliani (0,25 milioni) – Private (0,09)
Blu Cinematografica
326.347
1,2%
Tutte le donne della mia vita (0,20) – Ma l’amore… sì (0,12 milioni)
Moviemax
265.587
1,0%
Nero bifamiliare (0,26 milioni di euro)
Other 10 companies
646.649
2,3%
10 different films
Artigiancassa
3.907.679
14,1%
Recovery on loans given and not paid by five different works
Total 27 beneficiaries
27.616.269
100,0% *
Source: General Direction for the cinema of MIBAC from "Relazione sull'utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo - anno 2009" edited
by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo. 2009.
* The sum results equal to 100% even though the law forecasts a payment equal to 0,96% for the Siae (Società italiana autori ed editori)
for the assessment of the takings, but in 2008 for the first time the allocation for this service was not given due to lack of funds.
coproduced in Europe and that travel with an English passport rather that a German one.
The marketing investments of USA majors are practically incomparable with the
European productions and often go over the budgets set at the outset, in a comparison
that with Italy can be measured for example in tens of millions of euros compared to –
at most – 1 million (but more often than not the budgets stop at 5 zero numbers).
112 |
TAB. 21
THOSE RECEIVING FUNDS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS FROM FUS CONTRIBUTIONS ON TAKINGS
Production houses
Filmauro
Rai Cinema
Levante
Medusa Film
R&C Produzioni
Bim Distribuzione
ITC Movie
Cattleya
Lucky Red
Amount 2007
Quota
Amount 2008
Quota
3.529.187
2.472.085
1.485.600
1.360.636
859.625
606.902
444.921
439.370
427.205
18,1%
12,7%
7,6%
7,0%
4,4%
3,1%
2,3%
2,3%
2,2%
5.754.440
739.936
887.769
2.496.800
1.500.276
548.242
1.481.680
2.255.042
505.629
20,8%
2,7%
3,2%
9,0%
5,5%
2,0%
5,4%
8,2%
1,8%
Source: General Direction for the cinema of MIBAC from "Relazione sull'utilizzazione del Fondo unico per lo spettacolo - anno 2007" edited
by the Osservatorio dello spettacolo.
* The sum of the percentage quota does not add up to 100%, as the total of available funds involves the restitution to the Banca nazionale
del lavoro of 1,189,107 euros (6.1% of the total) and the competencies of SIAE (Società Italiana autori e editori) for the assessment of the
takings equal to 185,749 euros (1.1%).
TAB. 22
FIVE YEARS OF IMPORTS DOMINATED BY THE MADE IN US
Number of films imported
European Union
United States
Other countries
Total imports*
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
104
169
54
327
100
177
67
344
93
167
35
295
72
194
30
296
72
163
21
256
Information source: "Il cinema italiano in numeri" ('Italian Cinema in Numbers') (from 2005 to 2009) by 'Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica (an
Italian national association for the cinema, audio-visual and multimedia industries) (Roma, 2010).
* Per film imported means foreign work that has obtained a censorship license in the year referred to (dubbed films and films with subtitles
have been considered in the calculation).
Through the latest settlements of the department and its adaptation of strategies, the
national cinema has however shown to be able to better interpret and apply ,the
modalities of product packaging of the so called blockbusters, as shown in the table and
as the fact indicates that in the last 8 years, for 7 times the absolute winner at the box
office has been a national film (only exception the Da Vinci Code by Sony in 2006,
interrupted a series of 4 “cinepanettoni” Italian Christmas films by Filmauro). In the
meantime, as claimed by Riccardo Tozzi, president of the ANICA, the Italian production
seems to have given life to a group of authors of a new generation, to a type of film
defined as art films for a mass audience that has joined, with a market share of 40%, the
traditional types “comical” and “popular comedy”. This is the background that brings
cinema companies to sustain the necessity for a new political sector, looking for example
at the French model as a bench mark to follow, considering the equal market position
maintained by the national production of Oltralpe and the favorable results obtained
especially in relation to the competition with the US majors. Considering the internal
revenue that the Italian cinema gives to the treasury, the possible ministerial financing
represents only a small part. Evaluating only the indirect taxes, the State in reality
| 113
received from the cinema sector resources for a total equal to about 270 million euros
according to the turnover generated in 2008, in line with the volume registered in 2006
and 2007. Table 26 indicates the internal revenue, restricted to the indirect taxes coming
from the production sector, from cinema halls, the TV market and home video. The
receipts from the taxation of business profits are not taken into consideration. 20
In this way it can also be remembered that in 2008 over a third of the taxes from the
entertainment business (cinema included) are merged into State funds in a treasury
account ,that is non interest bearing, that at the end of 2009 had accumulated 1,2 billion
euros. Considering that the average annual return of those resources, in the institutional
running by ENPALS, in the last five year period resulted equal to 3,3% net, it is estimated
that the “hidden” contribution given only from the cinema in favor of State finances is
equal to 5 million euros a year. 21
COMMUNITY HELP
A powerful integration of resources come from the development plans of the European
community. In 1996 the EU started the Media program , now in the third season (20072013 period), aimed to support cinema production, and that in 14 years offered support
to almost 2 thousand companies for over 1 billion euro.
The support for producers goes from the development of projects (single and slate
funding) to the so called “i2i Audiovisual” dedicated to documentaries, short films,
cartoons (refunding insurance contracts, and financial burdens backed by bank credit)
and from “broadcasting” contributions for the diffusion and planning of new production
on TV circuits to those for the development of “new interactive works online and offline”
intended for the Internet, digital TV, mobile phones, videogames.
20
The incentive system in the FUS (single fund for entertainment) field is regulated by the law. The
evaluation devices for the requests put forward, in time have been become more detailed, with
attribution mechanisms of point systems where there is not much discretion; the application
regulations are subject to continuous revisions; the balance sheets of the allocation of funds,
show in detail the decisions by the board that assess the documents presented; they also report
all the amounts given (there are 200 pages out of 550 from the Mibac report dedicated to the
cinema on the use of Fus funds).
21
The evalutation scheme proposed in “Agevolazioni fiscali per il cinema – Studio in materia di
credito d’imposta per l’industria cinematografica italiana”by Gian Marco Committeri and Mario
La Torre, I Quaderni dell’Anica, numero 2 (Roma, dicembre 2008), edited by the Ufficio studi
Anica was used. The numbers on the production department were calculated based on the
estimates by Anica and a difference of 20% was applied to the original amount, 206,5 million
euros, to exclude a part of the production costs that are not in the IVA (VAT) field; to the numbers
for home video, based on the Univideo Report 2009 a difference of 10% was applied regarding
profits from sales and 20% on those of the newsagent’s channel to eliminate the non cinema
components present in the official estimations; a tax rate related to the television market and
the box office was applied to the original amount.
114 |
TAB. 23
ITALIAN FILMS AND FOREIGN COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
Film nationality*
Title
Quota Takings in euros
Quota
Attendances
Quota
2004
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
-
-
80.855.906
36.474.915
117.330.821
62.895.766
357.562.945
39.745.511
460.204.222
577.535.043
14,0%
6,3%
20,3%
10,9%
61,9%
6,9%
79,7%
100,0%
20.070.754
60.064.219
77.802.000
97.872.754
20,5%
61,3%
79,5%
100,0%
2005
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
-
-
100.336.324
32.190.191
132.526.515
105.938.522
287.759.577
10.296.906
403.995.005
536.521.520
18,7%
6,0%
24,7%
19,6%
53,8%
1,9%
75,3%
100,0%
22.500.963
68.052.078
90.553.041
24,8%
75,2%
100,0%
2006
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
209
89
298
242
330
90
662
960
21,8%
9,3%
31,1%
25,3%
34,3%
9,3%
68,9%
100,0%
111.967.460
23.335.199
135.302.660
61.359.943
338.412.621
11.309.788
411.082.352
546.385.012
20,5%
4,3%
24,8%
11,2%
61,9%
2,1%
75,2%
100,0%
18.890.686
4.161.018
23.051.704
10.669.983
56.491.668
1.900.627
69.062.278
92.113.982
20,5%
4,5%
25,0%
11,6%
61,3%
2,1%
75,0%
100,0%
2007
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
195
73
268
234
317
68
619
887
22,0%
8,2%
30,2%
26,4%
35,8%
7,6%
69,8%
100,0%
166.134.716
29.384.162
195.518.878
71.615.253
342.131.463
7.823.729
421.570.445
617.089.323
26,9%
4,8%
31,7%
11,6%
55,4%
1,3%
68,3%
100,0%
27.094.310
5.137.339
33.041.649
12.270.057
56.812.191
1.376.053
70.459.201
103.500.850
26,9%
4,9%
31,8%
11,8%
54,9%
1,3%
68,2%.
100,0%
2008
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
214
74
288
196
300
61
557
845
25,3%
8,7%
34,0%
23,2%
35,6%
7,2%
66,0%
100,0%
164.204.765
7.627.275
171.832.040
58.141.618
357.678.917
6.049.645
417.870.180
593.702.220
27,7%
1,3%
29,0%
9,8%
60,2%
1,0%
71,0%
100,0%
27.715.086
1.374.435
29.090.241
9.914.053
59.224.299
1.074.683
69.313.035
99.303.276
27,9%
1,4%
29,3%
10,0%
59,6%
1,1%
70,7%
100,0%
segue
| 115
segue TAB. 23
ITALIAN FILMS AND FOREIGN COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
Film nationality*
Title
2009
100% Italian
Co productions
Total Italy
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
225
69
294
189
313
61
563
857
Quota Takings in euros
26,2%
8,0%
34,3%
22,0%
36,6%
7,1%
65,7%
100,0%
140.587.029
4.979.621
145.566.650
71.465.077
395.789.059
9.840.535
477.094.671
622.661.321
Quota
Attendances
Quota
22,6%
0,8%
23,4%
11,5%
63,5%
1,6%
76,6%
100,0%
23.231.987
863.356
24.095.343
11.999.655
61.176.001
1.668.879
74.844.535
98.939.878
23,5%
0,9%
24,3%
12,1%
61,8%
1,7%
75,6%
100,0%
Elaboration from source: "Il cinema italiano in numeri" (from 2004 to 2009) edited by Ufficio Studi Anica. (Roma, 2010).
* The data relate to all the films in distribution (and until 31 December of each year concerning takings and presences).
TAB. 24
THREE YEARS OF COMPETITION AT THE BOX OFFICE BETWEEN ITALIAN AND FOREIGN FILMS
Years *
100% Italy
Total Italy United States
Europe
Foreign
total
General
total
TREND FOR THE NUMBER OF FILMS IN DISTRIBUTION
2007
-6,7%
-10,0%
2008
+9,7%
+7,5%
2009
+1,4%
+2,0%
-3,9%
-5,4%
+4,3%
-3,3%
-16,2%
-3,5%
-6,5%
-10,0%
+1,0%
-7,6%
-4,7%
+1,4%
TAKINGS TREND COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR
2007
+48,4%
+44,5%
2008
-1,1%
-12,1%
2009
-14,3%
-15,3%
+1,0%
+4,5%
+10,6%
+16,7%
-18,8%
+22,9%
+2,5%
-0,9%
+14,2%
+12,9%
-3,8%
+4,9%
YEARLY VARIATIONS IN THE NUMBER OF PRESENCES
2007
+43,4%
+43,3%
2008
+2,3%
-11,9%
2009
-16,2%
-17,2%
-0,5%
+4,2%
+3,3%
+16,7%
-18,8%
+22,9%
+2,5%
-0,9%
+14,2%
+12,3%
-4,0%
-3,6%
* The data relate to all the films in distribution (until 31 December of each year concerning takings and presences). The heading “100%
Italian” only refers to entirely national products, to which those co produced with foreign companies are added to and join in the “Total Italy”;
and “Foreign total” includes all films produced abroad, apart from those from the United States and the rest of Europe which are shown
separately to highlight the incidence.
From 2008 the program Media Europe has counted on a new body, Media International,
reserved for training, film promotion and cooperation amongst cinema circuits, carried
out by individuals from the community in partnership with workers from all over the
world (a further program is expected called Media Mundus).
An even more historical program is Eurimages, dedicated to the coproduction
among community companies and to support the distribution of European films in
the whole national cinema circuit. Over 21 years, 1.267 film and documentary
projects have been financed for an amount of 384,2 million euro (303,2 thousand
116 |
TAB. 25
THE EVOLUTION OF ITALIAN FILMS WITH MILLIONAIRE TAKINGS
Year and value in euros
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
11
4
2
17
13
2
3
3
21
15
3
3
1
22
21
3
4
28
18
3
4
25
13
4
1
2
20
17
7
3
2
29
1917
5
3
1
28
2
4
1
24
Millions of euros
94,5
100,5
110,5
120,0
125,5
98,5
171,7
142,3
119,0
AVERAGE MILLIONS
5,55
4,78
5,02
4,28
5,02
4,92
5,92
5,08
4,95
From 1 to 5 milions
From 5 to 10 milions
From 10 to 15 milions
Over 15 milions
Italian Blockbusters
Source: "Il cinema italiano in numeri" (from 2001 to 2009) edited by Ufficio Studi Anica. (Roma, 2010).
TAB. 26
THE AMOUNT OF INDIRECT TAXATION TAKEN FROM THE CINEMA BY THE TREASURY
Areas of activity and
data from 2008 in millions of euros
Production
Hall-Box office
TV sales
Home video
Sales
Rentals
Newsagent’s
GRAND TOTAL
Amount
taxable
Rate applied
income
Takings from the treasury
from indirect taxation
165
669
240
776
406
161
209
1.850
20%
10%
20%
20% and 4%
20%
20%
4%
-
33,00
66,90
48,00
121,76
81,20
32,20
8,36
269,66
Elaboration of data based on the simulation contained in “Agevolazioni fiscali per il cinema – Studio in materia di credito d’imposta per
l’industria cinematografica italiana” by Gian Marco Committeri and Mario La Torre, I Quaderni dell’Anica, numero 2 (Rome, December
2008), edited by Ufficio studi Anica.
euro average unit). The initiatives produced with the participation of Italian
production houses were 239 (215 films and 24 documentaries) together with 472
different community partners with a total EU contribution of 91,28 million euro and
for the average amount of 381,9 euro. The specific quota of the share taken by the
Italian companies for each project is not known, and to identify the possible size of
their allocations, designated in these co productions, only the general average can
be referred to: 136,2 thousand euro. In 2009 five films – all at 50% – by national
filmmakers received an EU contribution, for a total of 1,32 million euro (264,0
thousand a head).
11. Film and its Declination
If production is talked about in terms of market demand, we can see it is an
understatement to refer to films only as a “product” of the cinema. Its different types are
| 117
overlooked, for example animation films and documentaries, that are considered films
for children and documentaries for scientific purposes or for general information. A part
from a few cartoons (e.g Disney cartoons) designed and produced specifically for the
cinema, almost all animation films and documentaries – as with short films – are
designated to home video and television.
THE PRODUCTION MIX
Apart from their privileged diffusion channels, the works are of a specific technical
nature, but they belong legitimately to the cinema production and contribute to a turnover
value and revenue for the entire section, equal to or at least of that generated from the
distribution in the cinema.
Together with animated films and documentaries, there are at least four more activity
sections that integrate the vast pool of societies and companies of all the productive
system, although not entering normally in the visual field of gathering and analysis of
statistical data on the cinema consumption market, that the film production is constantly
monitored by. Three of these are distinguished by the type of diffusion channel; the fourth
runs through all production.
ANIMATION
In 60 years of history, Italian animated cartoons have always had an important
role in the children sector ( and not only), especially through the diffusion by TV,
unlike what happens in other main European markets, investment quotas or
programming obligations are not expected for video networks in favor of cartoon
production. Only the RAI is committed, according to the service contract signed
by the Ministry of Communication, to designating 0,75% of their turnover to their
production. 22
Animation is often used for advertisements and the main market for animation is in fact
television and home video, the main products are American (Walt Disney and Marvel)
and Japanese, but the influence of national productions are increasing, with Rainbow of
Iginio Straffi, who launched the Winx in the whole world, creating in six years a turnover
of over 60 million euro.
Small and medium size companies – apart from Rainbow- which work in the animation
cinema are estimated today to be little more than 100 and they are continually engaged
in the technological updating brought about by digitalization and the 3D system. These
are active companies and studies on the production horizon, of both internal and external
distribution with a turnover of over 120 million euros, which is linked to a merchandising
business (bags, teddy bears, music, diaries and gadgets) for about 20 million. In this
22
118 |
Information from Massimo Antichi, director general Enpals, during the convention sponsored by
Civ 30 October 2009 in Rome.
segment, action films for children are traditionally included from various countries
between 2000 and 2008, where the leader on a European level is the Italian Big 5 with 11
films shown at the cinema. 23
DOCUMENTARIES
With the attention given to full length films, often the effort made by the same film
production houses to the making of documentaries is left aside. Nevertheless , according
to the subscriptions to the PRC (Pubblico registro cinematografico) run by the SIAE
(Società italiana autori ed editori) in Italy on average 300 are produced each year,
basically, 100 additional films to the traditional yearly number of national full length
films.
Rather than minor works due to the shorter length and lower budgets, they are different
from normal films as they are aimed to document reality and their characteristics, not
to developing a plot(that is the basis of films), that are distinguished by international
tradition in two main categories: civilization(society, art and culture, anthropology,
science) and nature (history and archeology natural elements, flora and fauna).
These so called “films” are mainly commissioned by satellite and cable TV networks,
free and pay-tv, with a programming only on the general networks that exceeds the quota
of 2 thousand a year, especially in information and disclosure programs (1.300 hours)
and with less frequency in an autonomous form (500 hours) or support for educational
transmissions (400). The distribution in the cinema results in very few privileged, selected
documentaries: on average 15 per year, that total up to about 260 thousand presences.
The value of the total production call be calculated in almost 50 thousand euro, 20 of
which from commissioners of the four main broadcasters. 24
SHORT FILMS
The distinction between documentaries and short films is not always evident. Often the
definition of short films is extended to Advert films and videos and movie clips. But in the
more specific and professional international meaning, the so called short films refers to
a specific segment of cinema production, that identifies short works – whose length does
not go over 20/30 minutes- with a typical film structure and a narrative plot. Essentially
the preferred diffusion channels, are the TV networks and the public and private
commissioners. Moreover the making of the short films sees the commitment, together
with many workers, who exclusively dedicate themselves to the production of the short
23
“Osservatorio Rai-IsiCult sull’animazione e i contenuti digitali: un dataset di scenario”, edited
by Giovanni Gangemi and Angelo Zaccone Teodosi of the IsiCult-Istituto italiano per l’industria
culturale (April 2009).
24
“The theatrical circulation of european live action childern’s films in Europe 2000 to 2008” edited
by Martin Kanzler and Susan Newman-Baudais (European audiovisual observatory, Strasburgo,
June 2009).
| 119
film, various producers from the most active houses in the primary channel of the
section. The Italian short film counts an average production of 120 films a year, of which
80-85 of these put forward a request for FUS funding. The total turnover of this section
is considered to be around 5 million euro.
FILM TV
The television has managed to shape almost independent cinema products, such as
movie tv and in second place, the so called TV series, drawing from the experience gained
in its growth from the Italian cinema and especially with the collaboration of artistic
resources. TV serials in all their forms - soap operas, telefilms, sit coms, mini-series
etc – are not and cannot be confused with the cinema.
TV movies however conserve their own identity of film products and have managed to
make a good amount of business, estimated in 2008 at over 60 million euro, equal to
about a third of what the networks spent for the acquisition of the national cinema. Apart
from specific creation and production techniques, the activity has remained very
integrated, to the extent that some of the houses created to produce only TV films have
started to dedicate themselves to the cinema market, from Tao Due (Mediaset) and Lux
Vide (Bernabei family, Quinta Communications of Tarak Ben Ammar, Banca Intesa),
national leader of the sector.
PORN
In view of the increasing use of digital TV, the traditional supply of explicit sex films in
porn cinemas (now reduced to less than a tenth compared to 15 years ago) and in home
videos has been considerably reduced. And at the same rate the domestic production
has fallen, due to the scarce competition in terms of costs compared to the products of
Eastern Europe: an average investment of 6-7 thousand euro for the 15-20 thousand
domestic production. Today from the 1.500 films put into the porn market in Italy every
year, only 300 are in house productions – with a total investment of about 2 million euros
– by about thirty small companies. Porn products are now mainly distributed by Pay TV
and Pay Per View channels and furthermore the use of mobile phones and internet is
becoming more and more popular. The most consistent market share from the pay TV
supply, is consequently the leader, Sky Italia network, with 220 thousand subscriptions
to porn channels, with an average spending of 10 euro per day and profits in 2009 for
slightly more than 800 million euro. As an alternative to Sky there are scrambled systems
and with the parental control also Conto TV, that integrates satellite transmissions with
digital systems, and the youngest Glamour Plus on digital TV that cumulate proceeds of
80 million euro.
The economic evaluation of the cine-porn on video phones is more problematic. Porn
videos, the most popular videos supplied by all the active administrators in Italy, but no
telco gives data on this or on that generated by the numbers of erotic telephone
conversations (amongst the workers of the sector it concerns a business of about 200
120 |
million euro). It is just as difficult to evaluate streaming on the internet of xxx rated films,
that are almost all digitally filmed, at the average cost of 6 euro for a limited time of 48
hours. The most widespread estimations talk about over 1 million clients with a unitary
spending of 50 euro per year and therefore a possible turnover could reach the amount
of 50 million euro.
A further 150 million would be generated by the licensing royalties granted to the
commercial TV transmitters for films shown on air and for the sales of DVDs in video
shops. Despite the verification difficulties, the size of the “X rated” business, altogether
could be worth at least 1,4 billion euro.
TECHNICAL AND AUDIOVISUAL INDUSTRIES
A common denominator for all cinema production departments, the section includes the
technical and executive companies that are the starting and finishing points of all the
work of filming, the so called shooting, and they complete the making. In Italy it is
estimated that there are over 2 thousand, 43% of which are represented by individual
companies or people (that is not by capital) made up of independent workers, craftsmen
and businessmen that work practically on their own, while a further 30% of corporations
(eight out of ten in Srl) are of extremely reduced size. 25
TAB. 27
TREND IN TECHNICAL AND EXECUTIVE SERVICES OF PRODUCTION
Sales in millions of euros
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Prose Theatre-tv studios-filming
Managem. of technical / transport services
Development and printing – video copying
Post production audio and video
Electronic filming cinema and tv
Sector total
225,1
19,2
216,2
46,5
123,9
630,9
226,1
19,2
216,2
46,6
123,9
632,0
150,0
19,0
190,0
49,0
125,0
533,0
160,0
19,0
192,0
45,0
150,0
566,0
157,0
20,0
190,0
57,0
147,0
571,0
165,0
25,0
189,0
55,0
140,0
574,0
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (year 2003 to 2008) edited by studi/Ced Anica (Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche
audiovisive e multimediali) su dati delle aziende aderenti all’Unitec-Unione nazionale delle industrie tecniche cinematografiche e audiovisive,
associata all’Anica.
It is the section that faced the most difficulties in 2009, with considerable profit losses,
but that are not yet known in detail (the table indicates data only until 2008), due to
extremely tough competition. The companies find themselves in a delicate and financially
taxing reconversion to digital technologies, that if on one hand represent the future
25
Amongst the main operators we find Vivo Film, that in the last five year made 23 productions,
Fandango e Zelig (18), Palomar (15), Suttvuess (12), Komedì Production (10) and Stefilm
international (9). Regarding works that participated only by name and signed by producers, in
the most recent years the following have stood out: Gregorio Paonessa (22), Georg Zetler (17),
Gianluca Arcopinto (13), Federico Schiavi (12), Francesca Cima and Nicola Giuliano (11), Nicola
Sofri (10), Domenico Procacci (9), Federico Schiavi (12).
| 121
development of the sector and cover over 30% of the activity, on the other hand they bring
about a lowering of the work tariffs. In the last year the television sector began a
systematic and decisive operation to cut and contain costs, putting its suppliers in a
declining market. In the audiovisual market field a net separation between cinema and
TV does not exist and over 60% of the technical industries are also involved in TV
production. 26
The critical situation is not only in Italy. In fact, in France the companies’ debt has
increased to a level of alert; others have been incorporated by public TV and the
reconversion to digital continue to request investments for over 150 million euro every
year, to the point of pressing for an injection of money from the treasury through the FSI
(Fonde stratégique d’investissement) for at least 40 million.
Regarding Italy, based on the general indications from the workers of the section in 2009,
the global profit and loss account closed in a turn down, near 530 million euros, that sum
the profits of the big industrial groups, suppliers of the raw materials and important
companies such as Kodak, Fuji, Hasbro and so on.
12. The Strategic Distribution Market
The distribution is the strategic sector for a market strongly brokered like that of the
cinema, where the production houses do not have direct consumers and are suppliers for
other companies that take charge of making the films arrive at the final users. With its
results the total trends of the sector can be traced and it is with its numbers that all the
workers try to intercept possible trends underway.
In front of the only real positive sign registered by the overall film market compared to
2008, that is the profit growth of +4,9%, the satisfaction of the Italian producers is relative,
as it is matured in presence of a contextual drop of entries though in a more constrained
proportion (-0,4%) and in consequence , in virtue of an increase of the ticket price, more
specifically those for 3D films such as the latest box office champion, the American
“Avatar”, where the spectators have special glasses (for the price of 1 euro per show).
This circumstance is proof of the power of new technology, typical at the moment of the
blockbusters produced by American majors and suitable only for a certain type of cinema,
those with digital screens and that are technologically advanced, used by a very restricted
number of multiplex cinemas compared to the normal facilities that characterize the
business market.
In this way the interpretation of threats or opportunities that can loom up in front of Italian
films arise, after the last rather low profile season: 294 titles made in Italy programmed in
cinemas in 2009 compared to 288 in 2008 (155 compared to 130 first release) but with a
26
122 |
“Le imprese dell’audiovisivo nel Lazio”, Censis-Centro studi per gli investimenti sociali, Rome.
TAB. 28
THREE YEARS OF COMPETITION AT THE BOX OFFICE BETWEEN ITALIAN AND FOREIGN FILMS
Year *
100% Italian
Total Italy United States
TREND OF THE NUMBER OF FILMS IN DISTRIBUTION
2007
-6,7%
-10,0%
2008
+9,7%
+7,5%
2009
+5,1%
+2,0%
SALES TREND COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR
2007
+48,4%
+44,5%
2008
-1,1%
-12,1%
2009
-14,3%
-15,3%
YEARLY VARIATIONS IN THE NUMBER OF PRESENCES
2007
+43,4%
+43,3%
2008
+2,3%
-11,9%
2009
-16,2%
-17,2%
Europe
Foreign Total General Total
-3,9%
-5,4%
+4,3%
-3,3%
-16,2%
-3,5%
-6,5%
-10,0%
+1,0%
-7,6%
-4,7%
+1,4%
+1,0%
+4,5%
+10,6%
+16,7%
-18,8%
+22,9%
+2,5%
-0,9%
+14,2%
+12,9%
-3,8%
+4,9%
-0,5%
+4,2%
+3,3%
+16,7%
-18,8%
+22,9%
+2,5%
-0,9%
+14,2%
+12,3%
-4,0%
-0,4%
* The data relate to all the films in distribution (until 31 December of each year concerning takings and presences). The heading “100%
Italian” only refers to entirely national products, to which those co produced with foreign companies are added to and join in the “Total Italy”;
and “Foreign total” includes all films produced abroad, apart from those from the United States and the rest of Europe which are shown
separately to highlight the incidence.
decrease of total gain from the box office of 15,3%, resulting in a decrease of their market
share from 28,4% to 23,4% for imported films and interrupting in a considerable way the
positive trend of the previous years.
The distribution section is the one that physically organizes the flow of money resulting
from the money spent by the public and that through succeeding and gradual distribution,
goes back to the start of the cinema cycle. Because of this catalyst function the number of
distribution companies has always remained very restrained, strengthening gradually the
negotiation power with regards to the buyers at the start of the sector and the dealers at
the end. A strong position that the big Hollywood producers nipped in the bud, absorbing
the main US distributors and becoming directly responsible for the diffusion of their own
works and exporting this model of commercialization to their foreign markets, starting
with Europe.
Only in relatively similar times, when the TV networks Rai and Mediaset entered directly in
the sector, the Italian groups managed to cut themselves an important space, followed by
other production houses determined to work on their own and to release their own films
and after a certain time, also those of other houses.
The leadership put in to use by the European branches of the big Hollywood groups of
vertical integration still results clearly predominant in terms of cinema profits. Over
time they have selected the total number of films put into the market every year, but
concerning the launch of new releases their influence seems still undoubtedly solid.
Five of them possess in relation to production a share of 50%. The other four major
Italian operators (if we include Eagle Pictures) have 40%, demonstrating that they are
| 123
TAB. 29
TOTAL NUMBER OF FILMS DISTRIBUTED ON THE ITALIAN MARKET FROM 1999 TO 2005
Film Nationality
1999
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
Distributed
Quota
New releases
Quota
Premiere in tot
185
138
301
439
624
29,6%
22,4%
48,0%
70,4%
100,0%
100
104
174
278
378
26,5%
27,5%
46,0%
73,5%
100,0%
54,0%
74,2%
57,8%
63,0%
60,3%
2000
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
176
132
342
474
650
27,0%
20,4%
52,6%
73,0%
100,0%
86
87
195
282
367
23,4%
23,5%
53,1%
76,6%
100,0%
48,8%
65,9%
57,0%
59,5%
56,4%
2001
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
188
136
326
462
650
28,9%
20,9%
50,2%
71,1%
100,0%
106
89
174
263
369
28,8%
24,1%
47,1%
71,2%
100,0%
56,4%
65,4%
53,3%
56,9%
56,7%
2002
Italy
Europe
United States
Totale Estero
GENERAL TOTAL
216
147
301
448
664
32,6%
22,1%
45,3%
70,4%
100,0%
114
83
171
254
368
44,9%
32,6%
67,3%
69,0%
100,0%
52,7%
56,4%
56,8%
56,7%
55,4%
2003
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
238
155
327
482
720
33,0%
21,5%
45,4%
66,9%
100,0%
113
97
177
274
387
29,3%
25,0%
45,7%
70,7%
100,0%
47,4%
62,5%
54,1%
56,8%
53,7%
2004
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
-
-
104
45
152
265
369
28,2%
12,2%
41,2%
71,8%
100,0%
-
2005
Italy
Europe
United States
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
-
24,7%
19,6%
53,8%
75,3%
100,0%
98
62
166
294
392
25,0%
15,8%
42,3%
75,0%
100,0%
-
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (years 1999 to 2005) edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’Anica- National Association of Cinema,
Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries (Roma, 2010).
124 |
TAB. 30
TOTAL NUMBER OF FILMS DISTRIBUTED ON THE ITALIAN MARKET FROM 2006 TO 2008
Film Nationality
2006
100% Italian
Co productions
Italian Total
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
Distributed
Quota
New releases
Quota
Premiere in tot
209
89
298
242
330
90
662
960
21,8%
9,3%
31,1%
25,3%
34,3%
9,3%
68,9%
100,0%
100
53
161
71
285
385
26,0%
13,8%
41,8%
18,4%
74,0%
100,0%
33,5%
21,9%
48,8%
78,9%
43,0%
40,1%
2007
100% Italian
Co productions
Italian Total
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
195
73
268
234
317
68
619
887
22,0%
8,2%
30,2%
26,4%
35,8%
7,6%
69,8%
100,0%
110
51
154
55
260
370
29,7%
13,8%
41,7%
14,8%
70,3%
100,0%
41,0%
21,8%
48,6%
80,9%
42,0%
41,7%
2008
100% Italian
Co productions
Italian Total
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
214
74
288
196
300
61
557
845
25,3%
8,7%
34,0%
23,2%
35,5%
7,3%
66,0%
100,0%
130
43
163
40
246
376
34,6%
11,4%
43,3%
10,6%
65,4%
100,0%
45,1%
21,9%
54,3%
65,6%
44,1%
44,5%
2009
100% Italian
Co productions
Italian Total
Europe
United States
Other countries
Foreign Total
GENERAL TOTAL
225
69
294
189
313
61
563
857
26,3%
8,0%
34,3%
22,0%
36,6%
7,1%
65,7%
100,0%
115
36
159
45
240
355
32,4%
10,1%
44,8%
12,7%
67,6%
100,0%
39,1%
19,0%
18,8%
73,8%
42,6%
41,4%
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (2006 to 2009) edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’Anica- National Association of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries (Roma, 2010).
amongst the best equipped on the European front: among the first ten continental
economic realities for business volume Medusa is fourth, 01 Distribution sixth and
Eagle Pictures seventh.
The distribution sector, in its position of intermediary agent, is the smallest of the film
sector, with little more than 600 active companies compared to over 7.200 production
companies (75,2% of the total sector) with tens of thousands of workers and direct
collaborators (80% of the global employment ) and 1.775 companies in this business –
| 125
equal to 18,5% of all the business names – with the other relevant proportion of staff
(14,1%). But as a profit collector on various channels, it is at the centre of the distribution
process of the resources generated by public demand.
RENTAL COMMISSIONS
The procedures of distribution follow countless types of modulations and therefore it
seems extremely difficult to determine the real proceeds from its workers. 27
With regards to the global profits from the cinemas an amount is normally assigned to
the distribution – made up of rental commissions, that is in the concession of film rights,
after tax of the costs for the printing of copies to distribute and the costs of promotion –
between 20% and 30%. Against total screening revenue of 622,6 million euro according
to the findings of the Cinetel survey based on the SIAE collections, the net profits would
place themselves in a bracket between 125 and 190 million euros per year.28
EXPORT
Another source of profit is represented by the circulation in foreign cinemas. The Italian
cinema has never had great success in international markets and despite the efforts
produced by numerous promotional initiatives by different institutions and associations
they have never managed to overcome this weakness. The absence of credit lines
dedicated to film exportation from the Italian banks is decisive; a tool which is available
to the foreign distributors.
27
It is a varied picture, where four main industries can be distinguished for the different activities
carried out: 1 publication services and post production, with the largest number of workers; 2
production services, set and photographic components, costume preparation and special
technical supplies; production management, financial advice and assistance, rights, budgets,
working plans; 4 creative services, who work on special effects, music and sound tracks,
choreography and ser revision. Most companies – 45,5% with offices in Rome and 18,5% in Milan
– belong to the first type and have for 20,8% from 6 to 10 workers and for 20,3% over 20 full time
workers.
28
In the “fixed sum” or flat fee license, the production house does not take on the risk of a film’s
success and hands over the royalties to the distribution company in exchange for a fixed amount
(license) that can be budgeted in three different ways: fully absorbed costing, covering the
artistic and technical costs of the making of the film; full costs, also covering general expenses
and financial interests on investments; cost-plus with predetermined profit in absolute value.
However with the percentage of gross profit margin system the producer takes on the risks of
the project. They can decide whether to share or not the profits with the distributor. In the case
of complete assumption, the distributor only charges its own costs and commissions; in the
case of sharing the distributor will credit the amount of profits that come from his percentage
of investment capital. Normally distribution companies do not gain any advantage in a
partnership of less than 50%, as their commission generally corresponds to 30% of the gross
profit margin and the promotional, advertising and diffusion costs of the film that they have to
sustain on average amount to 20% of the gross profit margin.
126 |
TAB. 31
NEW ITALIAN RELEASES: WHO DISTRIBUTED THE FILMS THAT MADE MILLIONS
Italian millionaire film houses
2006
2007
2008
2009
2006-2009
Medusa Film
01 Distribution
Filmauro
Warner Bros. Italia
Bim Distribuzione
Lucky Red
Mikado
Universal
Walt Disney Italia
Eagle Pictures
Fandango Distribuzione
Moviemax
Sacher Distribuzione
Total millionaire Italian films
6
6
2
3
1
1
1
20
9
9
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
29
11
8
2
3
1
1
1
1
28
10
8
2
1
1
2
24
36
31
9
7
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
101
101,49
85,48%
5,07
166,20
90,19%
5,73
142,30
85,52%
5,08
119,08
92,47%
4,96
529,08
81,62%
5,24
Filmauro
18,59
15,66%
Filmauro
20,23
10,47%
Filmauro
17,65
10,75%
Filmauro
16,39
12,73%
Filmauro
72,86
12,40%
Takings in millions-euros
Quota on total italy
Millions on average per film
Italian Film leader
Film leader Takings *
Italian Quota leader
Elaboration of data from “Il cinema italiano in numeri” years 2006-2009 edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’Anica- National Association
of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries (Roma, 2010).
* The films that occupy the top places in the ranking of Italian films with takings over 1 million euros in the year are: “Il mio miglior
nemico” in 2006; “Natale in crociera” in 2007; “Natale a Rio” in 2008 and “Natale a Beverly Hills” in 2009.
On the operational front the national production can count on a restricted number of
companies that exclusively work in the exportation of single works, for their sale and
diffusion on the circuits of other countries. Because of the broken up nature of the activity
and the lack of information on the programming in the cinemas in other countries of the
titles of different nationalities, the real size of Italian cinema exportation is unknown.
Only recently Media Salles, the research centre entrusted on behalf of the EU for the
monitoring of all the continental projection structures, has begun a survey to analyze
the circulation of European films outwith their respective boundary, to value the possible
influence in terms of profits, even if the takings from film exportation depends on the
application of a long and diversified series of royalties, based on concession contracts or
licensing of different types.
STATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Amongst the actions taken, of an institutional nature, to contrast some of the difficult
conditions of the distribution market, the allocation of public incentives in the FUS field
also appears. The only works with access to these contributions are those which have
already been acknowledged for cultural interests or that have received the so called
| 127
TAB. 32
OVER THREE YEARS REMAINING AMONGST THE TOP 20 DISTRIBUTORS
Number of films distributed
and market quotas
2006
Number
Quota
2007
Number
Quota
2008
Number Quota
Number
2009
Quota
MAJOR FOREIGN BRANCHES
Universal-UIP
Warner Bros.
Sony Pictures Releasing Italia
Walt Disney-Buena Vista Int. Italia
20th Century Fox
46
62
45
59
43
13,07%
7,45%
9,25%
12,03%
11,77%
49 13,11%
61 13,64%
45 6,35%
48 9,25%
45 11,00%
49 19,86%
60 9,59%
24 5,12%
31 7,74%
44 6,42%
58
63
52
37
37
13,34%
12,15%
11,19%
9,88%
9,32%
ITALIAN COMPANIES
Medusa Film
01 Distribution
Eagle Pictures
Filmauro
Eagle Pictures
Lucky Red
Bim Distribuzione
Moviemax
Fandango
Teodora Film
Mikado Film
Mediafilm
Dnc Distribuzione
86
61
40
10
40
55
48
14
32
15
94
14
7
12,98%
9,49%
6,02%
8,18%
6,02%
0,84%
2,39%
1,09%
0,45%
0,18%
1,00%
0,79%
0,35%
75 17,33%
67 9,90%
42 3,68%
13 8,21%
42 3,68%
44 1,36%
43 0,87%
17 1,86%
26 0,10%
17 0,31%
70 1,56%
11 0,22%
11 0,26%
82 16,60%
70 11,20%
40 3,97%
8 8,04%
40 3,97%
44 2,92%
48 2,47%
21 2,37%
21 0,38%
15 0,33%
71 1,58%
17 0,07%
9 0,21%
6
70
33
5
33
49
48
22
16
16
46
7
-
14,10%
8,03%
6,74%
5,71%
6,74%
2,52%
2,49%
2,16%
0,42%
0,28%
0,27%
0,26%
-
Elaboration on data Cinetel from “Il cinema italiano in numeri”anni solari 2006- 2009 edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’AnicaNational Association of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries.
quality awards by the FUS. In 2008 the funds- equal to a total of 1 million euro- were
assigned to Aranciafilm, Moviemax Italia, 01 Distribution, Medusa Film, Warner Bros.
Italia, Istituto Luce, Mikado Film, Nuvola Film and specifically for exportation to Adriana
Chiesa Enterprises, leader of the Italian export societies.
EU SUPPORT
In full harmony with its mission, the EU reserves the highest number of resources for the
growth of the European cinema to the distribution sector. It is in fact the distribution
channel that allows the circulation of European films from a country to another and it
represents a fundamental step in the competition between the national films in the
community and the American ones. Consequently the intervention tools that support the
diffusion in the two Media and Eurimages programs concentrate 34% of the funds and in
20 years of activity they have benefited over 3.800 societies.
WIDENED DIFFUSION
Despite being vital for the success of a film and that the box office results follow a
standard criteria for the public viewing of a film, neither the national market nor the
foreign market of the cinema halls uses up the possibilities of film distribution. For some
128 |
TAB. 33
CINEMA STRUCTURES
Cinema type
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Number
Quota Number
Quota Number
Quota Number
Quota Number
Quota
MONO HALLS
Complexes
Screens
779
779
61,0%
25,8%
713
713
58,9%
23,3%
658
658
56,4%
21,2%
612
612
54,2%
19,5%
582
582
52,7%
18,1%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Complexes
Screens
403
-
31,6%
-
325
864
26,9%
28,2%
329
884
28,2%
28,6%
324
875
28,7%
27,9%
312
845
28,3%
26,4%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Complexes
Screens
1.256
41,7%
69
405
5,7%
13,2%
71
418
6,1%
13,5%
80
470
7,1%
14,9%
91
536
8,2%
16,7%
MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN 7 HALLS
Complexes
93
7,3%
103
Screens
981 32,5%
1.080
8,5%
35,3%
108
1.132
9,3%
36,7%
113
1.184
10,0%
37,7%
119
1.246
10,8%
38,8%
TOTAL STRUCTURES
Complexes
Screens
100%
100%
1.166
3.092
100%
100%
1.129
3.141
100%
100%
1.104
3.208
100%
100%
AVERAGE SCREENS
1.275
3.016
2,36
100%
100%
1.210
3.062
2,53
2,64
2,78
2,90
Elaboration on data Cinetel from “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (year 2005 to 2009) edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’AnicaNational Association of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries (Roma, 2010).
time the diffusion of the film product has developed other important distribution
platforms, tied to the running of the so called secondary rights compared to the primary
circuits of the cinema halls. Channels of such an importance that allow profits of even
triple the value compared to those made from the cinema hall takings and that see the
production and distribution houses tied up with a long series of partners and
counterparties:
• the market for pay TV: home videos with a fee or hired films and Pay-Per-View, that is
satellite or cable channels or VOD – video on demand;
• television: free television or free advertising, Pay TV, that is digital terrestrial, satellite
or through cable subscription;
• the internet through the IPTV (internet provider) with VOD – video on demand with direct
connection or through downloads;
• free vision telephone networks, in exchange for publicity or payment.
13. The Cinema Hall Class Fight
It has been observed that in 2009 Italian cinema produced 23 films less than in 2008: in
total 131 compared to 154 amongst which those made with only private capital went from
82 to 71 (-13,4%). However it managed to put in a higher level of investment for each
| 129
film, with an average increase of 9,6% on the total of the works (that include those
supported by state contributions) and 10% for the production fuelled by only private
resources. Moving on to the distribution market however a less comforting picture was
revealed: Italian titles programmed in cinema halls in 2009 resulted to be 294 compared
to 288 in 2008 (+2,0%), while their market share at the box office decreased from 28,4%
to 23,4% compared to the imported films and an opposing trend to the positive trend of
the previous years. Unfortunately the sector of the cinema does not bring any comforting
elements to this picture. Because in the outlook of the Italian cinemas the turnover from
the complexes shows the same trend as recent years. As you can see the number of
cinemas has dropped – 25 less – and at the same time the number of screens have
grown: 67 more. The cinemas that have suffered the most are the historical mono halls,
and those with 2 to 4 halls, when the showing of only one film a day, changed to a number
of films being shown at the same time. In the last four years, the closure of mono hall
cinemas have brought the number from 779 to 582, with a loss of 25,3%. It seems ever
more probable that by the end of 2010 their total influence on the total of the cinema
halls may arrive to below the 50% mark. The most vital segment remains that of the 4 to
7 cinema halls structures, while there seems to be no end to the opening of new
multiplexes. The most apparent effects of this turnover are expressed in the takings
trend. For the first time ever the public spending at the box office at the traditional one
hall cinemas is under 10% of the total and in the meantime the spending in the cinemas
with 2 to 4 halls lowers even further under the 20% mark: from 2009 not only in terms
of profits but also in terms of entries. Vice versa for the multiplexes, after having gone
over the 50% mark in 2007, in the last twelve months they have managed to make further
important progress, exceeding the quota of 55% of the takings from entries.
It is clear that the projection market is facing a “class fight” between big and small
complexes, that is costing the latter serious problems concerning market quotas. Their
lost of competitiveness in terms of average profit per cinema and per screen has been
shown over three seasons and it is not expected to stop. Judging from the rate of closure
of so many cinemas with long and honorable careers in the historic centers of cities one
would say that their running is reaching the limits of profitability. The erosion of the
market quotas of the minor structures naturally contrast the expansion of those of larger
dimensions - with important implications for Italian cinema. In the interpolation of losses
and gains from various types of structures it emerges that the deficit of 9,3 million euros
of revenue in 2008 recorded in the two inferior classes are more than compensated by the
earnings of the big complexes, equal to 39,4 million, generating a positive final balance
for the whole national circuit of 29,2 million for 2008. Of this 9,3 million of debt from the
two classes of the minor cinemas, “only” 3,9 are ascribed however to the mono screens
compared to the 5,4 debited to those with 2 to 4 halls; even if the drop in the number of
spectators of the mono screen cinemas was of 900 thousand attendances compared to
a decrease in the entries of the second section which was a little over 1,7 million and so
almost double. Vice versa for the addition of 39,4 million cashed in by the big cinemas,
130 |
25,9 of this coming from the multiplexes and 13,5 of multi halls with 5 to 7 screens, in an
almost perfect ratio of two thirds against one. Yet the public increase was almost
identical; slightly inferior for the multiplexes: 1,1 million compared to 1,3 million. This
means that the revenue per head for each ticket in 2009 corresponded to the average
unit price per spectator of 5,67 euro in the mono screen cinemas; 5,89 euros in the
cinemas with 2 to 4 halls; 6,31 euros in the multiplexes with 5 to 7 screens; and finally
6,55 euros in the multiplexes with more than 7 halls.
TAB. 34
HOW THE CINEMA CIRCUITS AND THE FLOW OF THE PUBLIC CHANGE
Yearly rates *
Complexes
Screens
Presences
Takings
MONO HALLS
2007
2008
2009
-7,6%
-7,0%
-4,9%
-7,6%
-7,0%
-4,9%
+0,6%
-18,6%
-8,5%
+0,5%
-18,8%
-6,1%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
2007
2008
2009
+1,2%
-1,5%
-3,7%
+2,3%
-1,0%
-3,4%
+8,3%
-7,7%
-8,2%
+8,0%
-7,4%
-4,5%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
2007
2008
2009
+2,9%
+12,7%
+13,7%
+1,2%
+12,4%
+14,0%
+15,6%
- 3,4%
+8,2%
+16,7%
-3,0%
+13,4%
2007
2008
2009
+4,8%
+4,2%
+5,3%
+4,8%
+4.6%
+6,0%
+16,9%
+1,3%
+2,1%
+17,4%
+1,1%
+8,1%
TOTAL STRUCTURES
2007
2008
2009
-3,6%
-3,2%
-2,2%
+0,9%
+1,6%
+2,1%
+12,3%
-4,1%
-0,3%
+12,9%
-3,8%
+4,9%
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (yearl 2006 to 2009) edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica dell’Anica- National Association of Cinema,
Audiovisual and Multimedia Industries).
* The data refers to all the films in distribution( until 31 December of each year concerning takings and presences).
14. Little Room in Cinemas for Italian Films
Referring to the reasons for the demeaning profitability of the mono hall cinemas and the
stimulus givenbt the 3D blockbusters to the large structures that are technologically
suitable for their projection – generally multiplexes with digital screens – these value
ratios for each single screening seem to indicate in a first analysis a market structure
that is less congenial for Italian films.
Concerning the last season the response from the public to the supply by the national
cinema has been conditioned by circumstances of an artistic nature. Of the most
| 131
TAB. 35
Takings values
in euros
MONO HALLS
Takings
Admissions
TAKINGS AND MARKET QUOTAS PER STRUCTURE TYPE
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Millions
Quota Millions
Quota Millions
Quota Millions
Quota Millions
Quota
88,0
15,9
16,4%
17,5%
77,9
14,0
14,2%
15,2%
78,3
14,1
12,7%
13,6%
63,4
11,4
10,7%
11,5%
59,5
10,5
9,5%
10,6%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Takings
Admissions
122,8
21,5
23,0%
23,9%
117,0
20,6
21,4%
22,4%
126,4
22,4
20,5%
21,6%
117,4
20,7
19,8%
20,8%
112,0
19,0
18,0%
19,2%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Takings
Admissions
75,0
12,6
14,0%
13,9%
82,2
13,8
15,0%
15,0%
96,0
16,0
15,5%
15,4%
93,0
15,4
15,7%
15,5%
106,5
16,7
16,9%
16,9%
Takings
251,2 46,7%
270,0
Admissions
40,5 44,7%
43,7
49,3%
47,4%
317,0
51,1
51,3%
49,3%
320,4
51,7
53,9%
52,1%
346,3
52,8
55,6%
53,3%
TOTAL STRUCTURES *
Takings
537,0
Admissions
90,6
100%
100%
617,7
103,6
100%
100%
594,2
99,4
100%
100%
623,4
99,0
100%
100%
100%
100%
547,2
92,2
Elaboration of data Cinetel from “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (year 2005 to 2009) edited by Ufficio studi/Ced Anica.
* In the sums total takings and presences the results of activities for festivals are included.
appreciated Italian filmmakers who get the greatest response from the public, that
produce films that obtain on average a revenue of 4-5 million euros, almost none make
a film every twelve months. But every year, in rotation, they release a film. In 2009 there
was practically no turnover and the repercussions seems to have been felt, as proved by
the pickup recorded in the beginning of 2010 when in the list of the first films coming
out, there were films by some of these directors.
In the competition between Italian film and foreign productions, where the real focus is
on the competition with the USA majors cinema, the evolution of the cinema halls market
remains however central. The quantity of spectators that it takes in is the first
consideration, where the first economic returns for the sector and its workers mature
and are able to influence the economic fortune of the films even in the other distribution
channels and on the other platforms of consumption.
It is known that the structure of the so called sales network is able, in the long term, to
determine also the supply contents. For example, it is enough to think about the parallel
path that cinemas located in shopping centres are taking, following in the footsteps of the
path that brought the mass distribution of food and groceries to the present expansion
to the outskirts of all cities. One could also stop and look at the strength of the system,
paradigmatic for the most elementary marketing manuals, that the supermarkets and
megastores have had on the big supply companies through their need for standardization
of weight and volume of products, packaging, of massive promotion brand and goods
support, of huge presence at the sales points with an inescapable but extremely specific
132 |
TAB. 36
ATTENDANCES AND TAKINGS: THE DIFFERENT RETURNS FROM BIG AND SMALL CINEMAS
Average in thousands
2006
2007
2008
2009
of euros
Establishm.
Screen Establishm.
Screen Establishm.
Screen Establishm.
Screen
MONO HALL
Average takings
Average admissions
109,3
19,7
109,3
19,7
118,9
21,4
118,9
21,4
103,5
18,7
103,5
18,7
102,2
18,0
102,2
18,0
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Average takings
Average admissions
360,2
63,6
135,5
23,9
385,1
68,2
143,3
25,4
362,3
63,9
134,1
23,6
359,1
60,9
132,6
22,5
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Takings
Admissions
1.191,7
200,5
203,0
34,1
1.351,5
225,2
229,5
38,1
1.163,1
116,8
197,9
32,8
1.159,7
183,7
196,8
31,2
2.935,8
473,3
280,0
45,1
2.835,6
458,1
270,6
43,7
2.910,6
444,0
278,2
42,4
529,9
88,9
199,8
33,5
526,3
88,0
189,1
31,6
564,7
89,7
194,3
30,8
Takings
2.620,8
249,9
Admissions
424,3
40,4
TOTAL STRUCTURES
Takings
Admissions
452,2
76,2
178,7
30,1
Elaboration on data Cinetel from “Il cinema italiano in numeri” 2006-2009 by the Ufficio studi/Ced Anica (Roma, 2010).
TAB. 37
WHO LOSES AND WHO EARNS MARKET IN THE CINEMA SECTORS
Yearly variations
2006
2007
2008
2009
-12,2%
-12,3%
+0,5%
+0,6%
-18,8%
-15,2%
-6,1%
-8,5%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Takings
Admissions
-2,9%
-2,4%
+8,0%
+8,3%
-7,4%
-7,7%
-4,5%
-8,2%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Takings
Admissions
+9,1%
+9,3%
+16,7%
+15,6%
-3,0%
-3,4%
+13,4%
+8,2%
Takings
Admissions
+6,7%
+6,9%
+17,4%
+16,9%
+1,1%
+1,3%
+8,1%
+2,1%
TOTAL STRUCTURES *
Takings
Admissions
+1,7%
+1,6%
+12,9%
+12,3%
-3,8%
-4,1%
+4,9%
-0,3%
MONO HALLS
Takings
Admissions
alternative offer. In the meantime in urban centres, many small food and general
household product stores closed down, wiped out by the competition, and the taking over
of one brand activities.
The problem of the European cinema, and especially the Italian and French one, is that
| 133
TAB. 38
THE EXTENT OF AUDIENCE FROM ITALIAN FILMS
Film Results
in cinema halls *
Attendances in millions of spectators
2006
2007
2008
2009
MONO HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
Quota of the total attend. in all halls
2006
2007
2008
2009
4,84
9,21
6,13
7,95
4,49
6,97
3,72
6,77
21,0%
13,3%
18,6%
11,3%
15,4%
9,9%
15,5%
9,0%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
6,28
14,39
8,55
13,89
7,35
13,37
5,62
13,39
27,2%
20,9%
25,8%
19,7%
25,3%
19,0%
23,3%
17,9%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
3,29
10,54
4,75
11,45
4,28
11,17
3,79
12,93
14,3%
15,2%
14,4%
15,9%
14,7%
15,9%
15,7%
17,2%
Italian Films
8,66
13,61
Other films
35,06
37,41
12,97
38,78
10,97
41,88
37,5%
50,6%
41,2%
53,1%
44,6%
55,2%
45,5%
55,9%
TOTAL STRUCTURES
Italian Films
Other films
29,09
70,31
24,10
74,97
25,0%
75,0%
31,9%
68,1%
29,3%
70,7%
24,3%
75,7%
23,07
69,20
33,04
70,60
TAB. 39
Average values
in thousands
HOW THE AUDIENCE FOR ITALIAN FILMS IS DIVIDED IN CINEMA HALLS
2008
Screen
Establis.
Screen
YEARLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADMISSIONS IN MONO HALLS
6,78
6,78
9,31
9,31
7,33
7,33
12,91
12,91
12,08
12,08
11,39
11,39
6,40
11,63
6,40
11,63
Italian films
Other films
YEARLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADMISSIONS IN COMPLEXES WITH 2 TO 4 HALLS
19,33
7,27
25,99
9,67
22,68
8,39
17,99
44,27
16,65
42,22
15,71
41,26
15,28
42,91
6,64
15,84
Italian films
Other films
YEARLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADMISSIONS IN COMPLEXES WITH 5 TO 7 HALLS
47,78
8,14
66,92
11,36
59,44
9,09
41,70
152,75
26,02
161,27
27,39
139,62
23,76
142,08
7,08
24,12
Italian films
Other films
Establis.
2006
Screen
Establis.
2007
Screen
Establis.
2009
YEARLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADMISSIONS IN MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN 7 HALLS
Italian films
84,05
8,01
126,03
12,02
114,85
10,96
92,11
Other films
340,39
32,46
346,39
33,05
343,18
32,75
351,93
Italian films
Other films
YEARLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADMISSIONS IN ALL STRUCTURES
19,06
7,53
28,34
10,68
25,77
9,26
57,19
22,60
60,55
22,85
62,27
22,38
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” 2006-2009 by Ufficio studi/Ced Anica (Roma, 2010).
134 |
21,83
67,90
8,80
33,64
7,51
23,37
TAB. 40
WHERE ITALIAN AND FOREIGN FILMS MAKE THE MOST PROFIT
Film results
in cinema halls *
Yearly takings in millions of euros
2006
2007
2008
2009
Quota of total takings in all cine. halls
2006
2007
2008
2009
MONO HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
26,94
50,99
33,89
44,21
24,65
38,74
20,78
38,72
19,9%
12,4%
12,7%
10,5%
14,3%
9,2%
14,3%
8,1%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
35,33
81,74
48,18
78,55
41,51
75,87
32,14
79,92
26,1%
19,8%
20,5%
18,6%
24,2%
17,9%
22,1%
16,7%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
19,62
62,71
28,64
67,42
25,71
67,34
23,15
82,39
14,5%
15,2%
15,5%
15,9%
15,0%
16,0%
15,9%
17,2%
Italian Films
53,48
84,82
Other films
216,38
232,35
79,98
240,45
69,53
276,84
39,5%
52,6%
51,3%
54,9%
46,5%
56,9%
47,8%
57,9%
TOTAL STRUCTURES
Italian Films
Other films
171,85
422,40
145,60
477,87
24,8%
75,2%
31,7%
68,3%
28,9%
71,1%
23,4%
76,6%
135,37
411,82
195,53
422,32
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (year 2006-2009) edited by Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica.
* The data refers to all the films in distribution and the presences revealed until 31 December of each year.
TAB. 41
Results
in the cinema halls *
MONO HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
THE FOUR SEASONS OF THE ITALIAN FILM
Yearly Variations of spectators
2006
2007
2008
2009
Yearly Variations of takings
2006
2007
2008
2009
-9,4%
-12,8%
+27,0%
-13,6%
-26,8%
-14,9%
-17,0%
-3,0%
-8,9%
-14,6%
+26,0%
-13,3%
-27,3%
-12,4%
-15,7%
-0,1%
FROM 2 TO 4 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
-1,6%
-4,0%
+35,8%
-7,0%
-14,1%
-3,7%
-23,6%
+0,1%
-3,0%
-4,6%
+36,1%
-3,9%
-13,8%
-3,4%
-22,6%
+5,3%
FROM 5 TO 7 HALLS
Italian Films
Other films
+13,4%
+7,7%
+44,1%
+6,7%
-10,0%
-0,6%
-11,2%
+15,6%
+12,1%
+8,7%
+46,0%
+7,5%
-10,2%
-0,1%
-10,0%
+22,5%
Italian Films
+9,6% +57,2%
Other films
+7,3%
+6,4%
-4,6%
+3,9%
-15,5%
+8,0%
+9,0%
+6,9%
+58,6%
+7,4%
-5,7%
+3,5%
-13,1%
+15,1%
-12,0%
-0,4%
-17,2%
+6,6%
+2,0%
+1,8%
+44,4%
+2,5%
-12,1%
-0,1%
-15,5%
+13,1%
TOTAL STRUCTURES
Italian Films
Other films
+2,4%
+1,5%
+43,2%
+2,0%
Source: “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (year2006-2009) edited by the Ufficio Studi/Ced Anica.
* The data refers to all the films in distribution and the presences revealed until 31 December of each year.
| 135
Art films, request resources and investments that cannot be left out, and they are less
compatible with the “sales network” – dedicated to quality programming – that continues
to get smaller and is weaker also in its margins of profitability.
In the configuration of the business circuit – that is essential to determine the
accountability of the works towards all the other platforms and ways of consumption,
multipliers of profits – it reflects in substance the evolution of the national cinema, aimed
to support the investments in its own production and to look for complementary resources,
and to cultivate ones expressive dna in popular art films, in a market competition where
the aggressiveness of the rivals is actually of the present system of international cinema.
PROPERTY INVESTMENTS
The process that reshaped the outlook of the screening in cinemas was driven by the
enormous flow of capital that the so called developers gave to the big multi screen
complexes in the late nineties, able to generate superior economic return, much more
rapidly compared to other initiatives and investment opportunities. 29
It is calculated that in the previous 15 years, over 3 billion euros were invested in Italy. In
2009 they launched 17 bigger structures: 11 with 5 to 7 halls and 6 multiplexes – for a
property value of about 160 million euros.
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Technological innovation also has a part in this evolution that had a big effect in the pre
sales phase (booking services via telephone or internet) and especially the ways of
projecting. The D-cinema is making the viewing in the latest generation complexes more
sophisticated, for example in the multiplexes, but it also allows for the transmission of
films via satellite and of commercials– eliminating printing, transport and insurance
costs, with savings of 20%-30% for the dealer.
The first on field experience in Italy has been ongoing for several years, the result of the
collaboration between the l’Acec (Associazione cattolica esercenti cinema) and some private
investors (Strategia Italia Sgr, Piemontech, Club degli Investitori) with the technological
support of the centre for studies and research of Rai in Torino. The joint venture gave life to
a microcircuit, a network of 27 cinema halls mostly located in the North of Italy, that have a
total of 8 thousand places. It was the first to project live concerts and international sporting
events, with a different way of using the complexes with positive feedback from the public.
PUBLIC INCENTIVES
To allow for the regeneration and renewal of the business, the FUS (the single fund for
entertainment) for years has given resources aimed to “make new cinemas, refurbish
29
136 |
Cinetel is a survey company equally made up by Anec (Associazione nazionale esercenti cinema)
and Anica (Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali).
existing cinemas”, giving grants related to assets or financing in terms of low interest
loans to lower the tax burdens of loans taken out to finance the conversion works, with
maximum amounts growing with the increase of the number of screens for each complex.
The two forms of incentives foresee an added allocation of funds for the creation of
cinemas in towns with a population of less than 10 thousand or the transformation into
multiplexes in towns with less than 20 thousand inhabitants and with the intention of
promoting and favoring the diffusion of national cinema rather than the overbearing
influence of the majors. In both cases it is foreseen that the owners commit themselves
to programming a certain number of Italian films or European productions.
TAB. 42
WHAT TAKINGS DO ITALIAN FILMS MAKE IN CINEMA HALLS
Average values in thousands 2006
of euros
Establis.
Screen
AVERAGE TAKINGS IN MONO HALLS
Italian Films
37,8
37,8
Other films
71,5
71,5
2007
Establis.
Screen
51,5
67,2
2008
Establis.
Screen
2009
Establis.
Screen
51,5
67,2
40,2
63,3
40,2
63,3
35,7
66,5
35,7
66,5
AVERAGE TAKINGS IN COMPLEXES WITH 2 TO 4 HALLS
Italian Films
108,6
40,8
146,4
Other films
251,5
94,6
238,7
54,4
88,8
128,1
234,1
47,4
86,7
103,0
256,1
38,0
94,5
AVERAGE TAKINGS IN COMPLEXES WITH 5 TO 7 HALLS
Italian Films
284,2
48,4
403,3
Other films
908,8
154,8
949,5
68,5
161,3
321,3
841,7
54,6
143,2
254,3
905,4
43,2
153,7
AVERAGE TAKINGS IN MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN 7 HALLS
Italian Films
519,3
49,5
785,4
74,9
Other films
2.100,7
200,3
2.151,4
205,2
707,8
2.177,9
67,5
203,0
584,3
2.326,4
55,8
222,3
152,2
374,1
54,7
134,5
131,8
432,8
45,4
148,9
AVERAGE TAKINGS IN GENERAL IN STRUCTURES
Italian Films
111,8
44,2
167,6
Other films
340,3
134,5
362,2
63,2
136,6
Source “Il cinema italiano in numeri” 2006-2009 by the Ufficio studi/Ced Anica (Roma, 2010).
In 2008, 6,859 million euros funds were granted for capital accounts for 143 refurbishing
projects, most of which were not large amounts (the average amount equal to 47,9 thousand
euros), but in some cases they were particularly substantial: four were between 622 and 871
thousand euros: three between 434 and 621 thousand; five between 126 and 433 thousand
euros. Only nine requests were received for contributions for interest accounts to lower the cost of debt.
15. So Many “Cinema Paradiso” to save
Another portion of resources falls into the category of the plans to support promotional
initiatives and concerning the cinemas recognized by Mibac as Art cinemas, a category
| 137
that includes also over a thousand parish cinemas. A network of structures that complete
the national availability of places in cinema halls, since the so called commercial cinema
has only 45%: 26% with the 582 mono screen cinemas still in business and 19% with 522
multi halls, with an media of 670 seats per complex (137 for each screen).
The granting of help – in capital account, that is free grant – tends to sustain the activity
dedicated to the diffusion of quality cinema and concerns unitary amounts that are in
reality very small. In 2008 the total financing amounted to 3 million euros and 828
requests were granted for an average unitary amount of 3.623 euros.
Amongst the public tax breaks there is also the support measures used by some regions
to finance the digitalization of screens or to protect – for example in Puglia – the historical
cinemas in small towns. For the diffusion of new digital technologies a part of the help
is given from the community Europa Cinemas, but the extent of the contributions does
not seem to be very incentivizing, especially in light of the credit line of 65 million euros
given in February 2010 by BEI to XDC, the Belgian company, leader in digitalization of
cinemas and partner of the five US majors in the development of 3D cinema, to guarantee
financing at a low tax rate for ten year periods to the owners that decide to technologically
upgrade their cinemas.
Other Europa Cineamas help is put in a different way, given to incentivize the
programming of European films, through progressive contributions that go from 15
thousand euros for the mono halls to 45 thousand for the multi screen cinemas and
assigned for 80% of the amount based on the number of showings designated to
European films, but not national, and for 20% to those dedicated to European films for
children, in the framework of a new community initiative called Jeune Public that is
getting itself known.
TAB. 43
Availability of halls
for projection
Campione Cinetel
Experimental Cinema
Parrochial cinemas
General Total
TOTAL OF THE MAIN SCREENING CIRCUITS IN ITALY
Type of halls
Active Screens
Mono halls Multi halls
612
828
1.050
2.490
517
2
519
Always
120 days
3.141
355
3.496
425
500
925
Other screens
Total
Less than 120 days
Halls
Screens
403
150
603
1.129
828
1.050
2.957
3.141
828
1.055
5.024
BOX OFFICE PROFITS
The sales proceeds of the management companies correspond to what is usually defined
in the cinema industry as “nettissimo di borderò”, the process is however due to a series
of variables making the average estimate for each sector uncertain. Based on the
agreements and licensing contracts that are signed now and again, the final sum given
back to the distribution companies is in fact debited in percentage of the net profits of the
business- once the rights and VAT on the tickets are deducted, that is 10% in contrast with
138 |
the 20% applied to rental - depending however on the weeks of “showing”, on the mix of
distributors involved, on the integration or not of titles to be shown in a readymade “pack”
of films to be rented in blocks and so on.
An approximation of the share out can be calculated, and it shows that the projection
sector gives 40,4%-42,2% of the profits from the public to the distribution sectors, who
then pass on a the relevant percentage to the production sector. Regarding the
administrators of the business circuit the estimated expected percentage is between
45,7% e il 47,5%, from the moment that the gross receipts from the box office have to be
debited 10% VAT and SIAE royalties of 2,10%. The net profits for the administrators of
cinemas and multi screens from the Cinetel sample can be on average calculated in the
vicinity of 290 million euros.
Regarding the profitability of the structures other two factors come into play. The first
obviously regards the influence of structure costs(cost of electricity can reach for
example 10%) and maintenance ,staff (from 10% to 15%), marketing, cleaning and so on.
BUSINESS AREAS
The second is tied to the collateral business areas, such as publicity in cinema halls (the
value of this is 0,30-0,50 euro per spectator, plus a minimum guaranteed), telephone
and internet booking services (from 0,5 to 1 euro per ticket), bar or restaurant services
that can contribute to 25% of the added revenue from the proceeds from money made
(the average cost is 1,3 euros per person; the profit margin on fizzy drinks is equal to
25%, and popcorn 8%), the renting of halls for events or conventions (increasing the total
turnover by 10%), the running or the renting of areas and sales corners and so on. 30
Based on the information gathered by SIAE, that monitors these activities, the parallel
businesses appear to be rising and are worth over 100 million euros. The sales of services
or products to the public that enter cinemas generates profits of 61,95 million, while
publicity receipts, sponsorships and other activities bring further profits of 38,06, forming
a further turnover quota of 15,7%. The total value of production of the department –
revenue from takings plus gains from collateral businesses- rises based on the
estimations available – to 390 million euros.
30
The economic advantage of multi cinemas and multiplexes business was shown for property
investments in average profits of 10,5%, superior for example with the spread of 1,5% of the
profitability ensured from the creation of shopping centres, and in a “return” of 15%-20% for the
total transaction, with payback period limited to 5-7 years and now getting closer to the
American payback period of 3-4 years. The new generation structures are complexes from 3040 thousand square metres, normally with 25 thousand parking spaces, with a volume of 50
thousand metre cubes of building, a covered area of about 4,500 square metres and 1,500 of
flooring. They are equipped with bars, ice cream parlors and pizzerias, music and gadget shops,
they hold conventions, events and shows, and hold at least 6 thousand people.
| 139
Part fourth
Protagonists Great and Small
The Confrontation between Relationships
of Strength and Values
CHAPTER 6
“IF PRODUCERS HAD THEIR OWN WAY,
IT WOULD BE LIKE COCA-COLA: DOES THAT BOTTLE SELL?
LET’S MAKE A THOUSAND MORE”
Rob Cohen, director and producer
Groups and Companies:
the Main Realities
ehind the market there is the industry and behind competition there is
the enterprise activity, in order to acquire the share of film production
and consumption. Within the Italian film-making system, this rule has
being translated for decades in the comparison between the Italian
movies and the others from abroad, especially from Hollywood. As we
have seen in the fifth chapter, the situation represents a delicate transitional
phase, with national movie-makers engaged in an articulated evolution of fundraising, while the distribution and selling structures of the sector seem to be
fostering concentration towards so-called gross market products.
Nowadays, in correspondence to determining the growth factor for single
enterprises, the balance points between operative compatibility and market
conditions become the strategic backbone for the development of all Italian
cinema. It is demonstrated by its organic plant, traditionally dominated - like in the
rest of Europe and the world – by a restricted group of societies able to influence
B
the general trend with their own and, thus, to place a strong control on the allocation
and destination flows of resources: they influence at the end the opening of new
opportunities for all operators, whether they are big or small, old or young.
Compared to the previous edition of the report, the reference to the entrepreneurial
and professional realities of the sector (defined as a starting point) is composed by
the selection of a much wider sample (650 vs. 285 companies). This is to qualify the
vast number of so-called “indies”, the independent cinema that still characterizes
the Italian cinematic supply, through its fragmentation. Even if it is difficult to track
this, the widened map of the production assets At the same time, it emphasizes
their vitality, through their ability in sustaining the diffusion of original works and
an alternative proposal to the imported cinema.
1. Holding and Dominating Groups
The reconstruction of the sources that create economic value in the sector
(constituting who and how they let cinema live, and feed its content and business,
by contributing to determine the assets, balance and evolution) doubtlessly confirms
the conventional reading provided by the market of the demand through the boxoffice results and the frequency of visitor numbers. By analyzing the societal budget,
done through the data bank of Chambers of Commerce, we can see that the major
cinema operators have an incredible strength in influencing the sector. It can
particularly happen thanks to the organization and managing model built on a
network. This model, through the presence of its own enterprises in the different
fields, makes possible an almost complete autonomy in production and an extensive
control on the system of the market as well; both in the step of distribution and
direct or indirect sale, which can be considered the cession of the property rights or
right on the use of realized works.
The amount of cinema companies that are part of the same group is bigger than the
TAB. 1
Percentage of enterprises
Production of movie and video
Distribution of movie and video
Cinema projections
Global sector
Macro-sector average
Italian average
QUOTA OF ENTERPRISES PART OF A GROUP
Situation on 2002
2007
2008
3,8%
6,9%
7,1%
5,0%
2,6%
1,7%
3,8%
7,4%
8,2%
5,1%
3,3%
2,0%
3,5%
6,9%
8,2%
4,0%
3,5%
2,3%
Source: elaboration on Cerved data from 1st January – The group is defined with reference to financial linkages between leader holding and
respective subsidiaries, from the budgets registered in Registro delle Imprese – “Leisure, cultural and sport activities” is, from Ateco code, a
macro-sector of cinema enterprise.
144 |
amount of companies in other entrepreneurial realities in the country, in the
industry or the tertiary, even if it has registered a certain decrease in the last period.
Beyond the gathering of statistical data on the number of enterprises that are
financially bounded to the same group, it is nevertheless quite difficult to catch the
real economic dimension both of the phenomenon in its complexity and the size of
business stored by each holding thanks to the activity made in different fields.
Almost a half of these “conglomerates” do not draw up either the societal budget
or the consolidated budget, so the budget that summarizes the revenues obtained
through the different industrial assets during the year and values the economic
relations within the same group. Then, patrimonial States and economic accounts
from single enterprises are unnecessarily uniform. Despite the presence of
accountancy principles established by law and the administrative and fiscal
regulations, their interpretation and application – like the financial practice teaches
us – are never unambiguous. In particular, concerning the imputation of the incomes
from the different activities.
Since no report summarizes the number of every company’s turnover, we
consequently need to entrust a formally empiric reworking of the budget through the
very complete screening of the report and the following selection of societies
controlled and financially linked to the respective groups. Therefore, the following
table has been made by using this method: it offers the analytical point of the main
realities represented by the Italian and foreign holdings within the national market;
and the data has been put in depending on respective income. It does not wish to be
exhaustive, but, the same habit in financial analysis nevertheless testifies how
fundamental an initial specific classification is in the field of research, in order to
extrapolate the principal evaluation elements. Among the general indicators that
this table furnishes about the status of Italian cinema, the real dimension of its
economic activity is increasing. The list of the 64 groups summarizes 144 social
reasons (with 30 sub-holding, respectively comprehensive of another hundred
operating units) and they express a total value of the production of almost Euro 3.2
billion 3.2 equal to a fivefold of the year flush, globally registered in the movie
theaters of the country. More than a demonstration of the relative, specific value of
the results taken from the box-office, the turnover of these holdings is the testimony
of the partial “coverage” of the Ateco of Registro delle Imprese’s classification –
Euro 4,290 million for 9,919 active enterprises – is able to ensure on the effective
economic consistency of the activities realized in all the cinema sector.
In the composition of the cinema supply market and its leaders, the ranking of
principal groups shows that the dimensional stature is only compatible with half of
the subjects. That means that the structure of the group basically corresponds to a
conception of the strategy within the market that can exist without the relative size
of made business and generally comes from organizational, managerial and
sometimes even financial choices and needs.
| 145
TAB. 2
146 |
PRINCIPAL GROUPS FOR SALES IN THE CINEMA SECTOR
Groups
Activity
Sales in 2008 in euro
Results in euro
1 Rai **
2 Fininvest-Mediaset **
3 The Walt Disney Co. **
4 Paramount Motion Pict. Gr.
5 Warner Bros. Ent. **
6 Thomson Holding Italy
7 Quinta Comm. Italia
8 Odeon & UCI Cinemas
9 Kodak Versamark Italia
10 The News Corporation ***
11 Filmauro ***
12 Mondo H.E.-Mondo TV
13 Rainbow-Straffi
14 Gruppo Cattleya
15 Pozzoli Group
16 Sony Italia **
17 De Luxe Italia Holding
18 B&D-De Agostini **
19 Italian Int. Hold.-Lucisano
20 IEG-Italian Ent. Group
21 Bixio-Publispei
22 Fandango-Procacci
23 Mediacontech-Bleu Gold
24 Gruppo Occhipinti
25 FG Holding-Gr. Ferrero
26 Universal St.-United Int. Pict.
27 Circuito Cinema Roma
28 Gruppo Giometti
29 Gruppo Etabeta
30 Iven-Colorado
31 Gruppo Duradoni
32 Hasbro Inv. Netherlands
33 Cinecittà Luce
34 Gruppo Quilleri
35 Gruppo Panorama
36 Bmz Services-Duplas A.
37 Sefit spa
38 Messaggerie Italiane **
39 Poccioni-Valsania
40 Film Participation
41 Gruppo Panalight
42 Banzai-ePrice **
43 Bertelsmann **
44 Artech-Aegida
45 Cicutto-Musini
46 Minerva Pictures Group
P-D-S
P-D-PR
P-D-S
D
P-D-PR
I
P-D
PR
D
P-D
P-D-PR
P-D
P-D-I
P-D
I
P-D
I-S
P-D
P-D-PR
P-D-S
P-S
P-D
S
P-D
P-PR
D
PR
PR
S
P-D
D
I
P-D-S
PR
P-D
I-S
S
S
P-D
P-D
I-S
S
D-S
I
P-D
P
593.073.461
363.305.169
210.072.714
193.221.455
155.334.340
129.801.907
116.572.134
91.472.249
84.309.080
78.588.201
74.805.671
71.556.00
67.472.671
64.071.177
62.050.087
60.517.845
59.446.151
56.173.564
54.517.702
50.323.585
44.427.699
42.091.297
34.100.000
32.644.308
30.579.358
25.852.262
22.651.886
22.273.846
20.433.286
20.154.479
20.143.345
18.334.196
16.211.531
15.753.999
13.786.935
12.755.519
12.219.482
11.848.515
10.975.498
10.269.199
8.929.665
8.310.610
8.007.677
7.329.816
6.840.459
6.441.623
31.625.644
20.378.974
7.329.746
-5.532.413
-646.612
4.253.357
1.646.041
-6.929.657
1.518.259
1.092.500
-3.322.640
-23.028.000
20.414.308
4.705.527
753.356
-3.577.700
2.185.704
-4.944.885
1.493.969
-6.568.219
406
1.192.428
1.510.000
-1.302.457
330.458
283.203
-431.373
10.685
265.751
819.254
-858.993
1.089.589
704.403
2.328.757
212
1.001.965
-112.915
1.608.035
73.871
-1.016.475
806.512
-307.843
-39.280
-890.248
9.343
-180.774
Employees
328
515
562
1.462
168
412
77
696
208
219
98
170
26
254
77
158
76
135
314
81
240
45
187
80
14
55
61
15
33
21
73
7
11
9
52
35
4
segue
segue
TAB. 2
PRINCIPAL GROUPS FOR SALES IN THE CINEMA SECTOR
Groups
Activity
Sales in 2008 in euro
Results in euro
Employees
47 Parenzo-Videa CDE
48 Air P. Television
49 Outline Group
50 Pathé-Vis Pathé
51 Gruppo Levi
52 Optical Media Group
53 Gruppo Draicchio
54 Gruppo Furlan
55 Gruppo Lumiq-Vrmm
56 Eurolab-CCS
57 Gruppo Sacher
58 Burgay Finanziaria **
59 Gruppo Von Lorch
60 Staz. Marittima-Ipe
61 Gruppo Proedi-Jarach
62 Gruppo Bideri
63 Gruppo De Pedys
64 Studio Azzurro-E-tica
I-S
P-D
S
PR
P-D
I-S
P-D
PR
P-S
S
P-D-PR
P-S
P-D
PR
P-S
D-PR-S
D-PR
P
6.415.597
5.768.833
5.188.403
4.919.293
4.804.843
4.648.215
3.927.084
3.817.079
3.767.241
3.526.645
3.261.995
3.237.235
2.655.339
2.271.337
2.175.771
2.169.538
1.951.988
1.882.122
-752.275
-541.947
69.790
17.433
176.210
-897.144
-263.639
-161.142
1.096.436
141.008
87.076
4.619
-102.162
-33.011
23.169
504.479
169.909
-59.300
20
30
36
3
21
14
37
37
16
15
4
8
Label: P – PRODUCTION; D – DISTRIBUTION; PR – PRACTICE; I – INDUSTRY; S – SERVICES
Source: elaboration on Cerved data and budgets, Infocamere-Registro delle Imprese and Borsa Italiana for the societie squoted Rai, Mediaset
and Mondo TV.
* The budget of Mediaset is funded in the one of the holding Fininvest but it does not have its own consolidate budget.
** This financial data corresponds to the ones about the cinema activity (while the numbers of employees – where it has not been possible to
find out their specific allocation – is referred to all the activities).
*** The financial year of Sony, The News Corporation (20th Century Fox), Filmauro and Giometti does not coincide with the 12 months of the
solar year from 1st January to 31st December and the respective budgets are closed 31st March, 31st May, 30th June and 31st August every year.
Because of the important quantity of respective volumes of business, the
classification for groups underlines the leadership of the two national majors, Rai
and Fininvest-Mediaset, with the latter acting with a share of 49% in society. They
have a strong position, especially if we consider that the next eight places are only
occupied by foreign societies (only Quinta Communications is a meaningful part of
the Italian production company Eagle Pictures). Nevertheless, the following 12
places are for national holdings, with the unique exception of Sony and de Luxe.
These national holdings represent the formation of a mini-majors unit able to
sustain internationally relevant role, if supported with favourable contexts and
conditions.
Moreover, the activities from abroad that contribute to the global business of the
first Italian groups are quite important: Mediaset mostly works in Spain through
Telecinco; Rainbow makes 42.6% of its product from abroad; the export of Pozzoli
reaches the amount of 70%; B&D (Boroli-Drago) – De Agostini is a shareholder of
the English producing society RDF and it is directly present in Spain with Antena 3
and with the joint venture Planeta; Mondo HE and TV has subsidiaries in the three
| 147
European major markets. Among the relevant presences in the national field, we
can also add Sintonia holding by the Benetton family, that with the financial bill “21
Investments” has acquired 51% of multi-screen circuit both of Medusa-R.T.I. and of
Warner Bros. (Warner Village). It has also allied itself with Mediaset that has
become a partner for 49% of the newborn The Space Cinema. This is one of the most
relevant operations in the field throughout the last decade and it projects the
Benetton galaxy among the principal characters of the national market, even if it
just used to be present with some documentary productions by Fabrica. From the
financial point of view, The Space Cinema market can’t be analysed yet because its
activity started in 2010 and therefore there are no available budgets from the past.
Also among the American majors a big deal of the value of Euro 18.5 billion at the
end of 2009, with the purchase of 51% of Nbc-Universal by the corporation of
communication Comcast. We are reminded that Nbc-Universal is a General Electric
Company sub-holding, where all media and entertainment activities have been
placed and, among the others, with the network Nbc and the Universal Studios (with
Euro 21.9 billion turnover) too. Also in this case – where Comcast adheres to the
classical model of multimedia integration already used in Italy by Mediaset and Rai
– the patrimonial and financial effects of the operation will influence future reports,
2010 one included.
Regarding the specific connotation and the elements that characterize the evolution
of several groups of national cinematography, there are some others aspects and
data that can be more deeply analysed. It seems more appropriate to leave this
analysis in the appendix, where you will find the new developing period of Cinecittà
Luce that, between 2008 and 2009, has had its most important improvements, like
the formalization of the privatization process of Cinecittà Studios and Cinecittà
Entertainment.
Besides, we shall say that the scenario of all the groups is mainly composed by
holding active in production and even more in distribution. In the first bracket there
only is Odeon & UCI Cinemas (controlled by the French-Belgian Europalaces)
notwithstanding its activity is shaped on an organizational circuit structure that
allows common managerial models and the planning and regular diversification of
programming in more cinemas and screens. In the case of societies entirely
dedicated to the projections, the volume business seems mainly to be smaller
compared to the one of societies active in other sectors.
2. Operative Societies and the Leaders
144 societies refer to the 64 groups of the sample and, as we have seen in many
cases, many of them usually have sub-holdings that can have an even bigger
turnover compared to their main holdings. The scenario of the most important
148 |
operative societies from the sample partially embraces the activities of the holdings
and the so-called dominant groups, for example, 36 out of the first 36. Nevertheless,
it is the breaking down of the different social reasons that delineates the real
dimensional relations in such an extended sector, even if it is differentiated and
atomized at the basis and polarized at the vertex in the case of its most developed
subjects.
At the level of brands we have the same statement already expressed at the
beginning of the book about the real volume of business and production made by
the Italian film-making system. Talking about the activity of groups, we can observe
that the data about the aggregated turnover of the first 10 companies (more than
Euro 2,010 million) are bigger than three times the volume of revenues of the usual
gathering of statistical data about entertainment consumption. For what concerns
the dimensions of single operation companies, it is possible to notice that the
revenue of the first 22 social reasons is enough to overcome the same threshold of
Euro 2.000 million of global turnover.
At the disaggregated level, the classification in dimensional order of the turnover
(considered like the value of the production and not like a pure sale) is functional
above all in facilitating the exposition and the reading of data and the composition
of the sector as well. On the other side, it would not help in making an exhaustive
classification of the industries and their activity. Then, this classification has the
aim of schematically representing the verification of the powers in the field; the
same powers that, even if in an elementary way, allows the delineation and
perception of volumes of business and the “weight” of different realities in the single
section.
By giving the leadership to Rai Cinema, the scenario also shows the unquestionable
depth, almost double compared to Medusa Film and Walt Disney ones, that work
also in other field and not only in the production. Among the others, the objectives
of Rai Cinema are not only the engagement with the production and the purchase of
Italian and foreign cinema works – with the main commitment of respecting the
resources shares, pre-determined within both the European norms and the service
contract drafted with the Ministry of Communications. Moreover, there are also the
objectives of acquiring and commercializing fictions, movies and cartoons “in order
to limitlessly follow the general editorial needs of the group and its subsidiaries”,
like the company mission states, “by being transmitting, distributive and
economically supporting (cinemas, home video, Pay-Per-View, pay TV and so on)”.
For this reason, the budget does not allow to establish a clear division between the
production linked to the world of television (that is anyway a minority) and the one
strictly bounded to the cinema.
The second evidence is about the relatively measured presence of houses of
production, compared to the distribution campaigns and the exercise enterprises.
Close to the two major national companies, Rai Cinema and Medusa, we however
| 149
have Walt Disney that makes a small part of original works, Taodue (Mediaset-R.T.I.)
that mostly works on TV movies – like Lux Vide does – and the most important indies
of the producing group Filmauro, Cattleya (now shared with 10% by Universal, busy
in making autonomous projects in Italy too) and Eagle Pictures.
Like we have already observed in the previous edition. The percentages relative to
the age groups of Italian cinema enterprises show that distribution companies and
circuits of the exercise have been really active for a longer period compared to the
more volatile one of production. This longer time has also made the growth and
consolidation of these companies possible.
The data in the table are extremely eloquent, even if they hide a very relevant and
significant factor for the Italian companies: the longer tradition reality – like
Cinecittà Luce, Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia and Bim Distribuzione
(founded in 1983 by Valerio De Paolis) – are nowadays in the middle class of the
table because of the value of their production.
Regardless the crisis that is gnawing all the sector of home video, particularly the
renting one (only partially compensated by the progressive growth of the title on
Blue-ray), Blockbuster Video Italy Inc. keeps a relevant position. This shows the
development that the Italian subsidiary owned by Blockbuster Entertainment Inc.
(Viacom-Paramount) has done in our country. With 157 direct dealers and 55
franchising ones – against the 178 and 64 of the previous year – and more than 1.9
million of affiliated clients, it definitely is the major employer in the sector. After
one year of intense turnover, the number of the employees has decreased to 165.
We can finally stress that, in the sample of 650 selected enterprises, more than half
of them are settled in Rome (344, comparable to 52.9%) and that almost a quarter
(exactly 24.2%) work on the other hand in Milan, leaving the rest 22.9% enterprises
in other districts of Italy – the same ones that are in the inferior class because of
their minor turnover.
3. The Principal Production House
There are two data produced by ENPALS (WSAWE), the Welfare Service Agency for
the Workers of Entertainment that are able to define the common point of Italian
houses of production. They are the so-called sustainability index and the rate of
activation, through which it is possible to calculate the numbers and shares of
enterprises that pay social taxes every year, for artists and technicians working
for the making of new films. It has been considered the most recent triennium
which has registered an average of active agencies – so respecting the duty of
paying money for the workers – of 3,408, and it has been observed that from one
year to the next there are at least a thousand companies that suspend the payment
because they do not have ongoing work, while almost another thousand of
150 |
TAB. 3
PRINCIPAL SOCIETIES FOR SALES IN THE CINEMA SECTOR
Society of the sample
1 Rai Cinema
2 Medusa Film
3 The Walt Disney Co. It.*
4 Blockbuster Italia
5 Technicolor
6 01 Distribution
7 Kodak
8 Tao Due
9 Warner Bros. Ent. Italia*
10 Warner Village
11 Filmauro
12 Cattleya
13 Eagle Pictures
14 De Luxe Italia Holding
15 Pozzoli
16 Universal Pict. Int. Italy
17 Rai Trade *
18 Rai Sat *
19 Publispei
20 Medusa Cinema
21 Rainbow S.p.A.
22 Cinecittà Studios
23 Sony Picture Releasing It.
24 Lux Vide
25 20th Century Fox H.E. It. *
26 Prima TV
27 Melampo Cinematografica
28 Cinemeccanica
29 Albatross Entertainment
30 Paramount Home Ent. It.
31 Fandango
32 Italian International Film
33 Medusa Video
34 Cinecity Art & Cinemas
35 Sipra
36 Lucky Red
37 Opus Proclama
38 UCI Nord
39 The Disney Store Italia *
40 MTC-Mediacontech
41 IMS Manufacturing
42 UGC Ciné Cité Italia
43 Sony Pictures Home Ent.
44 Mercurio Cinematografica
45 Moviemax Italia
46 Medusa Multicinema **
Sector
Sales 2007
Result
P
P
P-D-S
D
I
D
I
P
P-D
PR
P-D-PR
P
P-D
I
I
P-D
D
D
P
PR
P-D
I-S
P-D
P
D
P
P
S
P
D
P
P-D-PR
P-D
PR
S
P-D
S
PR
S
S
I
PR
D
P
P-D
PR
373.851.306
190.201.341
185.859.773
133.175.849
122.146.590
101.157.393
83.798.788
80.404.000
77.908.402
77.425.938
67.098.452
62.979.177
61.210.699
59.446.151
54.911.582
51.591.725
46.777.000
45.350.000
44.157.754
44.148.828
41.098.570
40.304.540
39.878.865
39.289.271
38.855.203
37.361.435
36.034.061
36.458.536
36.369.859
34.249.744
32.143.381
29.118.522
26.644.000
26.278.328
26.044.762
25.267.993
24.314.686
24.238.745
24.212.941
23.200.000
20.948.706
20.751708
20.638.980
20.055.958
20.089.981
20.037.463
16.414.630
13.901.580
6.211.490
-6.777.663
991.985
69.957
1.507.786
11.998.000
-10.415280
-1.988.051
-3.369.615
4.549.527
888.428
2.185.704
716.937
531.856
2.626.529
7.000.000
2.353.458
3.180.905
17.385.069
106.037
-1.437.032
796.280
975.564
-715.972
5.553.667
790.986
10.587
979.322
491.770
370.888
1.832.000
156.786
5.514.528
612.899
-2.208.361
195.577
1.118.256
1.400.000
-3.049.408
-4.299.745
-2.140.668
615.249
491.450
3.231.888
Employees
59
73
313
1.439
321
28
193
123
678
15
19
39
158
211
89
112
272
78
219
42
421
29
6
93
12.
23
69
12
190
448
15
14
170
259
60
180
35
15
17
144
segue
| 151
segue
TAB. 3
47 Frame
48 Wilder
49 Globalmedia *
50 Colorado Film Production
51 Telecinco Cinema
52 Thomson Italia
53 Terminal Video Italia
54 20th Century Fox Italy *
55 Movie Magic International
56 Mondo Home Ent.
57 UCI Italia
58 Etabeta
59 Cinecittà Luce
60 CG Home Video
61 Centro Sperimentale
di Cinematografia
62 Agidi
63 UCI Sud
64 Bim Distribuzione
65 UCI Centro
66 Fond. La Biennale Venezia *
67 ICET Studios
68 Tridimensional-Rainbow
69 GDD Manufacturing
70 Panorama Films
71 Cinelandia
72 Hasbro Italy
73 C.G. Cinema Spettacolo
74 Andrea Leone Films
75 Circuito Cinema Roma
76 Mikado Film
77 Square
78 Duplas Avelca
79 Equipe Service Group
80 UCI Nord Est
81 IBS Italia
82 Stella Film *
83 Mediolanum Comunicaz. *
84 ITC Movie
85 Backstage
86 UCI Nord Ovest
87 Replic
88 Antena 3 Films
89 Martinelli Film Co. Int.
90 S.E.FI.T.
91 Brw Filmland
92 Duea Film
152 |
Sector
Sales 2007
Result
Employees
I-S
P
PR
P-D
P-D
I
D
D
P
P-D
PR
S
P-D-S
D
S
19.952.874
19.888.675
19.931.653
19.783.648
19.774.000
19.387.079
18.494.857
16.969.666
16.482.591
16.442.686
16.422.219
16.343.682
16.211.531
16.166.950
15.938.132
-1.657.348
-67.346
-6.786
942.600
-11.956.000
202.967
-4.158
77.200
29.749
-7.263.383
-1.864.583
175.652
704.403
-1.021.123
29.626
45
16
167
3
110
20
43
19
7
31
141
71
61
11
135
P-S
PR
D
PR
S
S
P-D
I
P
PR
I
PR
P-D
PR
P-D
S
I
P
PR
D
PR
P
P
S
PR
P
P-D
P
S
P
P
15.385.929
15.128.183
15.064.680
14.508.414
14.033.000
13.967.805
13.936.000
13.820.393
13.786.894
13.442.412
13.441.532
12.174.842
12.159.078
12.148.970
11.975.112
11.800.000
11.440.826
11.188.426
10.862.891
10.778.643
10.668.371
10.625.784
10.467.076
10.388.435
10.331.797
10.205.058
9.564.596
9.406.654
9.190.842
9.160.654
9.023.712
262.995
-776.440
-619.435
-336.398
0
-92.170
3.390.000
-2.198.898
156
1.116.328
980.769
-3.044.814
288.383
-689.801
-3.801127
110.000
262.426
44.095
342.275
448.365
275.428
-1.113.151
-103.817
2.128.094
318.712
567
-3.236.999
2.974
-14.329
-18.696
76.037
121
8
115
52
42
112
15
166
45
123
3
26
32
75
60
49
90
1
8
74
15
1
10
segue
segue
TAB. 3
Sector
Sales 2007
Result
93 Rainbow IT Solutions
94 Koch Media
95 Panalight
96 Technicolor Milan
97 Exon Film
98 Dolmen Home Video
99 Biancafilm
100 Arvato Services Italia
101 Ecofina
102 Movierecord
103 Key Films
104 Lumiere & Co.
105 Quantum Marketing Italia
106 Artech Video Record
107 Sac-Servizi Ausiliari Cin.
108 Dall’Angelo Pictures
109 Cineteam
110 Cin Cin
111 Blu Cinematografica
112 Studios (ex De Paolis)
113 Conto TV
114 Pumais Due
115 Minerva Pictures Group
116 Rodeo Drive
117 Nexo
118 Cartoon One
119 On My Own
120 Mediafilm
121 Film Master Group
122 Yamato
123 Cineworld Group
124 Torino Spettacoli
125 Atlantyca Entertainment
126 International Video ‘80
127 16 Film
128 Cinehollywood
129 Character
130 Jean Vigo Italia
131 Aptv
132 Rodeo Drive Media
133 Cime grandi impianti
134 Emme Cinematografica
135 Wizard of the Coast It.
136 La BiBi.it
137 Cinema Sviluppo
138 CVD-Cine Video Doppiatori
S
S
I-S
I
P
D
P
D
D
S
P-D
P
S
D-I
S
P-D
P-D-S
PR
P
I
D
S
P-D
P
P-D-PR
P
P
D-S
P
D
PR
PR
P-D
P
P
S
S
P
D
P
S
D
I
S
PR
S
8.865.896
8.675.478
8.623.665
7.635.930
7.618.510
7.575.912
7.496.220
7.439.761
7.424.932
7.402.938
7.289.367
7.189.324
7.078.919
6.999.541
6.790.285
6.616.861
6.587.099
6.374.619
6.102.904
6.057.130
5.936.491
5.931.064
5.929.370
5.915.909
5.915.243
5.870.603
5.740.699
5.732.824
5.721.414
5.579.468
5.565.854
5.653.818
5.626.691
5.432.408
5.397.772
5.376.760
5.284.785
5.276.216
5.116.583
5.059.599
4.969.130
4.949.472
4.892.664
4.799.808
4.727.954
4.614.426
47.225
-5.334
747.435
60.739
-3.813
-544.922
19.192
-106.317
423
-2.528.761
-1.923.588
19.581
370.810
-847.932
1.158.961
124.098
887.881
1.350.600
3.141
11.637
60.206
35.209
-180.774
14.031
1.201.518
8.150
-44.949
-1.063.891
8.6783
86.579
-1.093.461
-102.281
22.402
182.887
183.591
131.658
-56.752
-125.967
-1.947.11
-87.902
678.694
384.578
108.820
90.746
432
7.076
Employees
92
10
50
1
10
47
29
20
3
22
35
51
7
8
20
42
33
3
35
10
4
10
5
7
41
20
3
16
1
28
4
10
2
35
11
segue
| 153
segue
154 |
TAB. 3
Sector
139 Mondo TV
140 Outline
141 Mediafilm Cinema
142 11 Marzo Film
143 Dynit
144 Dubbing Brothers Int. It.
145 Fratelli Cartocci
146 Dania Film
147 General Video Recording
148 Green Movie Group
149 Multimedia San Paolo *
150 Alto Verbano
151 Planeta Junior Italia
152 Camaleo
153 Giometti Ancona
154 Matrix Technology
155 Cinecity
156 Arcadia
157 Studio P.V.
158 13 Dicembre
159 Sofind
160 R&C Produzioni
161 Cinemax
162 Fono Roma F. Recording
163 Surf Film
164 It. Int. Movieplex
166 Videa-CDE
167 Apulia Film Comm.
168 Giometti Porto S. Elpidio
169 Cineworld
170 Top Ten Group
171 Cam
172 PCM Audio
173 Coges
174 Teodora Film
175 Merak Film
176 Eurolab Italia
177 Sky Italia
178 Multimedia Network
179 Intervideo
180 Farvem Real Estate
181 Ager 3
182 Faro
183 Fidia Film
184 Publiodeon
185 A Movie Productions
P
S
P
P
D-S
I
S
P-D
D
P
D
P
D
P
PR
I
PR
S
P
P-D
PR
P
PR
S
P-D
PR
D
S
PR
S
S
S
S
PR
D
I
I
P
S
S
PR
P
PR
P
S
P
Sales 2007
Result
4.648.000
4.553.487
4.536.375
4.451.105
4.433.204
4.283.623
4.106.161
4.022.946
3.976.395
3.890.862
3.836.306
3.667.463
3.657.944
3.635.448
3.631.188
3.603.127
3.570.633
3.534.554
3.523.483
3.522.690
3.358.845
3.289.340
3.272.206
3.270.943
3.262.568
3.198.223
3.111.507
3.092.353
3.084.623
3.076.899
3.070.382
3.029.320
3.007.807
2.937.601
2.916.050
2.879.868
2.875.718
2.874.657
2.762.376
2.748.422
2.729.528
2.757.130
2.700.800
2.586.701
2.579.682
2.519.427
-7.636.000
64.431
47.416
4.455
94.106
169.680
73.907
65.445
162.130
110.010
-1.197.729
-235.155
-58.272
-61.065
340
-523.680
9.761
-59.280
55.745
209.797
-11.769
-16.664
15.614
-59.863
58.665
43.312
-219.335
197.190
23.925
-198.820
215.414
38.538
14.371
692.214
3.186
54.320
-67.998
184.282
111.201
-28.398
26.693
42.979
320.187
101.914
23.223
3.343
Employees
41
20
1
3
11
21
22
0
3
52
9
5
21
21
64
45
9
0
28
10
20
11
7
65
14
22
1
21
30
20
0
0
12
70
11
segue
segue
TAB. 3
Sector
Sales 2007
Result
186 VR&MM Park
187 Megacinema
188 Puettmann-Stummer Italia
189 Fratelli Reposi
190 Fandango TV
191 Porta Nova
192 ANICA Servizi
193 Giometti Jesi
194 Ariston *
195 Multicinema
196 Gestioni Cinematografiche
197 Rainbow CGI
198 Fotocinema
199 Lvr
200 Gruppo Alcuni
201 Sacher Distribuzione
202 Sacher Film
203 Filmexport Group
204 Millennium
205 Giometti Pesaro
206 Upc
207 Ripley’s Home Video
208 Delta TV Programs
209 Veneta Cinema e Teatri
210 Cinematext Media SA
211 Studio Asci
212 Millennium Storm
213 Laser Film
214 The Animation Band
215 Starplex
216 Sedif
217 De Mas & Partners
218 Movie Engineering
219 Giometti Fano
220 Transmedia
221 D4 S.r.l.
222 Circuito Cinema Firenze
223 T.S.C.
224 Giometti Senigallia
225 Proedi Comunicazione
226 Esperia Film
227 Studio Azzurro Prod.
228 Post in Europe
229 Coming Soon Pubblicità
230 Ripley’s Film
231 Passworld
S
PR
I
PR
P
PR
S
PR
PR
PR
PR
P
S
S
P
D
P-PR
D
PR
PR
I
D
P
PR
S
S
P
S
P
PR
D
P
S
PR
PR
D
PR
S
PR
P-S
P
P
S
S
D
P
2.489.711
2.475.000
2.466.973
2.436.172
2.423.374
2.412.207
2.405.926
2.368.354
2.367.931
2.334.166
2.262.958
2.260.000
2.363.938
2.235.230
2.215.826
2.199.520
2.162.235
2.150.553
2.133.487
2.062.870
2.037.388
2.015.404
1.997.792
1.973.887
1.968.000
1.940.66
1.896.092
1.887.470
1.866.385
1.843.192
1.842.519
1.827.303
1.816.106
1.809.114
1.779.142
1.773.925
1.755.657
1.736.482
1.720.518
1.687.632
1.681.079
1.680.902
1.673.472
1.664.122
1.661.680
1.644.333
1.731
9.362
-46.280
-11.728
106.583
92.321
624.999
16.843
246.021
-118.369
-20.320
11.000
-168.882
-13.128
-13.180
108.583
32.784
15.113
-391.638
1.589
2.032
-250.872
7.369
28.067
481.600
7.187
-330.378
-3.971
41.444
-189.209
-25.179
-402.414
112.033
12.155
109.600
128.564
224.015
15.916
8.203
-54.867
-25.605
-61.317
25.294
-268.489
-22.767
-106.660
Employees
20
12
9
2
65
19
19
40
12
0
14
30
7
4
6
10
17
5
5
12
10
0
10
8
2
7
7
0
segue
| 155
segue
156 |
TAB. 3
Sector
232 Circuito Cinema Genova
233 Avo Film
234 Globalplex
235 Colby
236 Ice
237 Open Sky
238 Aurora Film
239 Stazione Marittima
240 Italian Int. Holding
241 Fortino Food
242 One Movie
243 Vegas Multimedia
244 Banzai
245 Sharada Film
246 Laura
247 Intramovies
248 Adriana Chiesa Ent.
249 3 Emme Cinematografica
250 Microcinema
251 Bmz Services
252 Rainbow Distribution
253 Century
254 Digital Video
256 Sample
257 Lumiq
258 Circuito Cinema Qualità
259 Delta Pictures
260 DreamLight Sc
261 Mediaport
262 Film Kairos
263 Arco Program
264 Studio Cine
265 Circuito Cinema Torino
266 Digitopoli
267 Aranciafilm
268 Medialia
269 Raflesia
270 Fratelli Giometti
271 Bideri Comunicazione
272 Gestioni Culturali
273 Mo-Net
274 Warner Bros. Int. Televison P
275 Bideri Canzoni Edizioni
Varie e Libri
276 Giometti Holding
277 Arco Filn
278 Sound Art 23
PR
D
PR
S
S
S
P
PR
P-D-PR
I
P
D
S
P
P
P
S
P
PR
S
D
PR
P
D
P
PR
D-S
D
PR
P
P
S
PR
S
P
P-D
S
PR
S
PR
S
841.924
S
PR
P-D
S
Sales 2007
Result
Employees
1.615.676
1.576.102
1.575.353
1.566.210
1.552.358
1.548.229
1.540.736
1.535.282
1.532.586
1.520.039
1.519.306
1.509.143
1.492.677
1.448.783
1.429.138
1.424.578
1.358.055
1.350.073
1.342.743
1.314.693
1.312.000
1.299.318
1.294.966
1.284.255
1.277.530
1.254.895
1.239.443
1.218.766
1.815.273
1.189.595
1.155.459
1.143.852
1.131.583
1.304.090
1.126.446
1.109.048
1.014.683
994.411
971.002
970.327
888.976
30.368
816.579
34.285
87.373
1.872
-32.149
33.085
60.997
-15.364
8.108
259.041
20.667
2.557
-8.302
-381.480
-72.445
-32.601
13.081
-154.758
-36.353
-479.835
739.539
-409.000
5.797
10.837
-24.323
-1.098.167
218.860
-2.758
11.983
308.410
6.986
19.408
18.533
228
12.872
20.049
-154.533
1.775
22.277
-308.011
4.728
61.946
4
1.474
5
6
8
0
0
6
0
10
9
0
0
3
3
2
2
1
14
11
6
7
12
0
1
0
5
1
2
11
5
2
15
797.308
796.529
787.109
8.870
153.501
1.678
2
0
6
segue
segue
TAB. 3
Sector
279 Devon
280 Gestioni Cinestar
281 Impresa Pubblici Esercizi
282 Elastic Rigts Italy
283 Limina
284 Pasquino Distribuzione
285 Achab Film
286 Ccs-Cinema Com. Service
287 Ermitage Multimedia
288 Dahlia TV
289 Dnc Entertainment
290 Outline Audio Int.
291 Film Commiss. Campania
292 Gertie
293 Sonopress Italia
294 The Licensing Factory
295 Cinecittà Entertainment
296 Mediaservice 2000
297 Kdg Italia
298 Pianeta Zero
299 Studio Bozzetto
300 Award Network
301 Kodak Versamark Italia
302 Revolver
303 The Family Events
304 Stefilm
305 Archibald Enterprise Film
306 MTC-Medianetwork Com.
307 Cinematext Media Italia
308 Cinevideo Corporation
309 Patrizia Biancamano
310 C.D.A. Studio Di Nardo
311 Matrix International
312 Gennarelli Bideri Editori
313 Andromeda Gestioni
314 Movimento Film
315 Movie Factory
316 Blue Film
317 Tangram Film
318 Mfd
320 Digital Solutions
321 Centro Federico Fellini
322 Bolero Film
323 Aegida
324 Co.Mi.Ci
325 Cristaldi Pictures
P-D
PR
PR
S
S
D
P
S
P
D
D
S
S
P-D
D-I-S
S
P-S
S
I
P
P
S
I
P
P
P-D
P-D
S
S
D
S
S
S
S
PR
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
D
D
I
P
Sales 2007
Result
777.555
744.106
736.055
718.676
718.351
715.000
681.080
650.927
644.211
652.250
626.389
634.916
617.243
594.825
567.916
557.795
552.773
521.290
518.246
516.500
514.197
513.496
510.292
503.480
491.215
467.716
465.136
425.600
424.381
419.500
414.009
412.817
384.640
381.957
377.472
369.433
361.607
354.469
353.738
348.708
338.139
337.763
336.103
330.275
329.767
321.023
6.071
70.544
-41.119
87.011
-12.063
35.171
415
-73.010
9.991
-540.000
13.656
5.359
41.524
34.398
67.037
6.286
-3.509.525
-23.321
-18.186
-17.965
122.665
2.226
10.473
708
20.219
7.536
-23.692
-236.364
30.340
-554.100
53.202
-3.460
89.528
194.994
1.099
-406
17.157
171.755
-4.294
+77.036
1.665
1.770
-42.316
-56.713
3.240
Employees
1
7
0
1
1
0
0
7
1
2
0
16
4
12
5
0
10
6
16
2
0
1
15
2
0
2
3
5
3
4
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
segue
| 157
segue
TAB. 3
Sector
Sales 2007
Result
Employees
326 Impronte Digitali
327 Panalight Studios
328 Graphilm
329 Kitchen Film
330 VP Graphic Design
331 Duemilauno Distr.
332 Acin
333 Finanziaria Cinema
334 Est. Picasso Fabbrica
335 Reti in Rete
336 Dbw Communication
337 Licensing Italia
338 Officine UBU
339 Motus
340 O.D.S.-Operatori
Doppiaggio e Spettacolo
341 Offside
342 Rainbow Entertainment
343 Vis-Pathé
344 Martoon
345 Enanimation M.P.
346 Fandango Home Ent.
347 Moretto
348 Usa Home Ent.
349 White Cat
350 United Artists Co.
S
S
P
P
I
D
PR
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
S
308.230
306.000
296.572
294.934
291.364
285.547
270.163
258.616
245.000
234.681
224.841
223.190
222.021
221.966
217.092
4.725
59.077
2.133
8.589
2.003
+5
32.728
-6.098.561
256.000
-43.270
1.550
-30.462
335
32.277
-20.985
3
3
1
4
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
4
P
P
PR
P
P
D
PR
D
P
P-D
215.780
205.000
190.699
189.935
177.182
163.325
137.538
121.222
87.008
56.400
535
14.000
1.450
32.079
-22.924
658
12.772
6.125
18.482
17.275
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
0
Source: elaboration on Cerved Data, Infocamere-Registro delle Imprese and budgets of Borsa Itaiana for societies quoted Rai, Mediaset
(Medusa) and Mondo TV.
* The data are only referred to cinema activities.
** The budgets of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment and Sony Picture Releasing foresee the closure of financial year every 31st March. All
the budgets of 20th Century Fox do it instead every 31st May. Filmauro’s deadline is 30th June; for Cinestar the end id 31st July; for all
societies of Giometti is 31st August.
TAB. 4
Old age Index
Production
Distribution
Projections
GLOBAL SECTOR
ITALIAN INDUSTRY
TREND OF MOVIES ONLY PRODUCED WITH ITALIAN CAPITALS
Less than 1
From 1 to 5 years
From 5 to 10 years
More than 10 years
7,6%
2,3%
1,6%
6,0%
6,1%
29,0%
9,4%
17,5%
25,3%
22,4%
24,1%
11,5%
19,4%
22,5%
20,2%
39,3%
76,7%
61,6%
46,2%
51,3%
Source: elaboration on Cerved data, 1st January 2009.
158 |
TAB. 5
PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION HOUSES IN THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
Society in the sample
1 Rai Cinema
2 Tao Due
3 Eagle Pictures
4 Medusa Film
5 Publispei
6 Filmauro
7 Rainbow S.p.A.
8 Warner Bros. Ent. Italia
9 Lux Vide
10 Prima Tv
11 Melampo Cinematografica
12 Albatross Entertainment
13 Fandango
14 Italian International Film
15 The Walt Disney Co. It.
16 Lucky Red
17 Cattleya
18 Mercurio Cinematog.
19 Wilder
20 Telecinco Cinema
21 Movie Magic Internat.
22 Mondo Home Ent.
23 Tridimensional-Rainbow
24 Panorama Films
25 Sony Picture Releasing It.
26 Lucky Red
27 Colorado Film Prod.
28 Equipe Service Group
29 Agidi
30 Mediolanum Comunic.
31 ITC Movie
32 Replic
33 Antena 3 Films
34 Martinelli Film Co. Int.
35 Duea Film
36 Exon Film
37 Biancafilm
38 Lumiere & Co.
39 Cineteam
40 Blu Cinematografica
41 Rodeo Drive
42 Nexo
43 Cartoon One
44 On My Own
45 Film Master Group
46 International Video ‘80
Sector
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Sales 2008 in euro
Result
373.851.306
80.404.000
49.308.510
47.081.829
44.157.754
42.217.888
41.098.570
40.791.420
39.289.271
37.361.435
36.034.061
36.369.859
32.143.381
29.118.522
28.534.567
12.732.572
24.954.107
20.055.958
19.888.675
19.774.000
16.482.591
16.442.686
13.936.000
13.786.894
12.854.000
12.732.572
12.250.667
11.188.426
10.771.784
10.625.784
10.467.076
10.205.058
9.564.596
9.406.654
9.023.712
7.618.510
7.496.220
7.189.324
6.587.099
6.102.904
5.915.909
2.044.840
5.870.603
5.740.699
5.721.414
5.432.408
16.414.630
11.998.000
888.428
13.901.580
2.353.458
-3.369.615
17.385.069
-10.415280
796.280
-715.972
5.553.667
10.587
491.770
370.888
6.211.490
612.899
4.549.527
615.249
-67.346
-11.956.000
29.749
-7.263.383
3.390.000
156
-1.437.032
612.899
942.600
44.095
262.995
-1.113.151
-103.817
567
-3.236.999
2.974
76.037
-3.813
19.192
19.581
887.881
3.141
14.031
1.201.518
8.150
-44.949
8.6783
182.887
Employees
59
39
73
15
78
123
421
6
12.
69
12
313
15
19
15
16
110
7
31
15
4
15
3
90
1
15
1
10
3
8
20
3
35
10
4
5
3
segue
| 159
segue
TAB. 5
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
160 |
16 Film
Jean Vigo Italia
Rodeo Drive Media
Minerva Pictures Group
Mondo TV
Outline
Mediafilm Cinema
11 Marzo Film
Mikado Film
Green Movie Group
Key Films
Alto Verbano
Camaleo
Studio P.V.
13 Dicembre
R&C Produzioni
Sky Italia
Ager 3
Fidia Film
A Movie Productions
Fandango TV
Rainbow CGI
Gruppo Alcuni
Sacher Film
Nexo
Delta TV Programs
Millennium Storm
The Animation Band
De Mas & Partners
Esperia Film
Studio Azzurro Prod.
Passworld
Aurora Film
Italian Int. Holding
One Movie
Sharada Film
Laura
Intramovies
3 Emme Cinematografica
Digital Video
Lumiq
Film Kairos
Arco Program
Aranciafilm
Medialia
Warner Bros. Int. Televison
Sector
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Sales 2008 in euro
Result
5.397.772
5.276.216
5.059.599
4.767.295
4.648.000
4.553.487
4.536.375
4.451.105
3.901.807
3.890.862
3.819.260
3.667.463
3.635.448
3.523.483
3.522.690
3.289.340
2.874.657
2.757.130
2.586.701
2.519.427
2.423.374
2.260.000
2.215.826
2.162.235
2.044.840
1.997.792
1.896.092
1.866.385
1.827.303
1.681.079
1.680.902
1.644.333
1.540.736
1.532.586
1.519.306
1.448.783
1.429.138
1.424.578
1.350.073
1.294.966
1.277.530
1.189.595
1.155.459
1.126.446
1.109.048
841.924
183.591
-125.967
-87.902
-180.774
-7.636.000
64.431
47.416
4.455
-3.801127
110.010
-1.923.588
-235.155
-61.065
55.745
209.797
-16.664
184.282
42.979
101.914
3.343
106.583
11.000
-13.180
32.784
1.201.518
7.369
-330.378
41.444
-402.414
-25.605
-61.317
-106.660
-15.364
259.041
2.557
-72.445
-32.601
13.081
-36.353
10.837
-1.098.167
6.986
19.408
20.049
-154.533
30.368
Employees
1
4
41
20
1
3
26
20
5
45
0
0
70
9
12
35
4
6
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
11
7
1
0
1
2
4
segue
segue
TAB. 5
Sector
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Achab Film
Ermitage Multimedia
Pianeta Zero
Studio Bozzetto
Revolver
The Family Events
Stefilm
Movimento Film
Movie Factory
Blue Film
Tangram Film
Cristaldi Pictures
Graphilm
Kitchen Film
Estudios Picasso Fabrica
DBW Communication
Officine UBU
Offside
Rainbow Entertainment
Martoon
Enanimation M.P.
White Cat
Sales 2008 in euro
Result
Employees
681.080
644.211
516.500
514.197
503.480
491.215
467.716
369.433
361.607
354.469
353.738
321.023
296.572
294.934
245.000
224.841
222.021
215.780
205.000
189.935
177.182
87.008
415
9.991
-17.965
122.665
708
20.219
7.536
1.099
-406
17.157
171.755
3.240
2.133
8.589
256.000
1.550
335
535
14.000
32.079
-22.924
18.482
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
Sources: elaboration on Cerved data, Infocamere-Registro delle imprese and budgets of Borsa Italiana for societies quoted Rai, Mediaset
(Medusa) e Mondo TV.
* These data refer to Filmauro only for the activity of production according to the indications within the notes of comment on budget and
for Medusa Film it is about an evaluation year budget of Filmauro close its financial year every 30th June.
companies start doing it again. If the stability rate is, like in the case of cinema,
about 70% and the activation rate is correspondent to 30%, it nevertheless does
not mean that seven out of ten companies continuously work and the other three
just alternatively do. It otherwise means that activations and substitutions only
involve nine out of ten societies during the three-year period and that only 10% of
the them are constantly working and don’t participate to the ENPALS (WSAWE)
contributors’ turnover.
Apparently difficult, the gathering of data actually simply shows the limits of
the activities part of the majority of the Italian production houses. The situation
of the principal production houses expressed by this sample (depending on the
budget of capital companies in 2008) makes different dimensions of the
societal turnover within the scenario tracked with ENPALS (WSAWE) gathering
of data. In the scenario there are two factors to be underlined. The first one is
about the activity regularly dominant of Rai Cinema, for what regards the
| 161
volume of business; even if the company works in a complex variety of sectors.
The second one instead concerns the presence of some production houses of
works mainly designed to for televisions like Taodue, Publispei and Lux Vide.
Actually, these companies have been paying attention to cinema for a long time
and their portfolio already has many movies, as an alternative to traditional
fiction.
With regards to the global earnings of the groups, the data of some companies like
Filmauro, Cattleya, Fandango, Eagle Pictures, Lucky Red-Key Films and Mikado can
seem modest. On the other hand, the data taken from other Italian operators, are
referred to the sole activity of production and acquisition like it is indicated in the
budget.
The major part of the enterprises, as everyone knows, works both in the production
and the distribution. And in front of difficulties they can meet in defining a clear
distinction of the volume of business generated in a field or in another one, they
prefer to furnish only general indications, without particular details (for example, in
Medusa Film, they are the reference of the evaluations that can be found in company
communications). The sources of the earnings (or of the eventual losses) are
completely derived from indicators. These sources take place in one market more
than another one and it is for this reason preferable to maintain the global indication
of registered results.
Concerning the direct production in Italy, it has been registered - with a good
estimation - the output, even if small, offered by the major companies:
Warner Bros., Disney – sometimes still with the brand Buena Vista – Sony
(MGM and United Artists) and 20 th Century Fox. We need to add to these the
commitment of Fox International Channels Italy through the co-participation
supported by Sky Italia and Sky Cinema, even if their conventions with ANICA
(Association of National Producers) hadn’t been renewed after their deadline
yet.
Although it can seem superfluous, we have to notice that the majority of the
houses have not directly committed themselves during the year in making new
movies, notwithstanding the fact that they still have an active flow of proceeds
thanks to the works previously produced. Roberto Benigni and Nicoletta
Braschi’s Melampo is the most explicative and significant demonstration
through its 13 movies gone out in previous seasons (from Pinocchio with 17.5
million of right only in 2008, to La tigre e la neve with 7.8 million; from Dante
with 6.2 million , to Johnny Stecchino with Euro 2.594).
On the foreground, there is DUEA by Pupi and Antonio Avati Bros. that has been able
to produce a new movie and to keep constantly and successfully alive the relation
with the public in both the cinemas and TV.
162 |
TAB. 6
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTION HOUSES IN THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
Societies of the Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Medusa Film
Blockbuster Italia
01 Distribution
The Walt Disney Co. Italia**
Warner Bros. Ent. Italia**
Universal Pict. Int. Italy
Rai Trade **
Rai Sat **
20th Century Fox H.E. Italia**
Paramount Home Ent. It.
Medusa Video
Filmauro **
Sony Pictures Home Ent.
Moviemax Italia
Cattleya
Terminal Video Italia
20th Century Fox Italy **
Mondo Home Ent.
Sony Picture Releasing It.
CG Home Video
Bim Distribuzione
Eagle Pictures
Andrea Leone Films
IBS Italia
Lucky Red
Colorado Film Production
Fandango
Agidi
Dolmen Home Video
Arvato Services Italia
Ecofina
Dall’Angelo Pictures
Mikado Film
Conto TV
Mediafilm
Atlantyca Entertainment
Yamato
Sector
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Sales 2008 in Euro
137.645.103
133.175.849
101.157.393
72.899.978
61.737.049
51.591.725
46.777.000
45.350.000
38.855.203
34.249.744
26.644.000
23.880.564
20.638.980
20.089.981
19.177.000
18.494.857
16.969.666
16.442.686
16.201.000
16.166.950
15.064.680
14.259.477
12.159.078
10.778.643
10.766.560
8.054.740
3.925.010
3.100.397
7.575.912
7.439.761
7.424.932
6.616.861
6.179.301
5.936.491
5.732.824
5.626.691
5.579.468
Result Employees
13.901.580
-6.777.663
69.957
6.211.490
-10.415280
531.856
2.626.529
7.000.000
975.564
979.322
1.832.000
-3.369.615
-2.140.668
491.450
4.549.527
-4.158
77.200
-7.263.383
-1.437.032
-1.021.123
-619.435
888.428
288.383
448.365
612.899
942.600
491.770
262.995
- 544.922
-106.317
423
124.098
-3.801127
60.206
-1.063.891
22.402
86.579
73
1.274
28
313
123
89
112
29
23
15
35
17
19
43
19
31
42
11
8
39
3
60
15
3
69
1
47
7
26
10
20
7
segue
4. The Major Distribution Companies
Beyond the production houses, the monitoring that the social security authority
ENPALS conducts in the labour market of cinema is obviously referred to the
sector of distribution as well and it has been confirmed through the data that
| 163
segue
TAB. 6
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTION HOUSES IN THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
Società del campione
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Aptv
Emme Cinematografica
Dynit
General Video Recording
Multimedia San Paolo *
Nexo
Planeta Junior Italia
Key Films
Surf Film
Videa-CDE
Teodora Film
Sacher Dostribuzione
Filmexport Group
Ripley’s Home Video
Sedif
D4 S.r.l.
Ripley’s Film
Avo Film
Vegas Multimedia
Rainbow Distribution
Sample
Delta Pictures
DreamLight s.c.
Minerva Pictures Group
Arco Film
Devon
Pasquino Distribuzione
Dahlia TV
Dnc Entertainment
Gertie
Archibald Enterprise Film
Cinevideo Corporation
Bolero Film
Aegida
Duemilauno Distr.
Fandango H. Ent.
Usa Home Ent.
United Artists Co.
Settore
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Ricavi 2008 in euro
Risultato
Addetti
5.116.583
4.949.472
4.433.204
3.976.395
3.836.306
3.697.527
3.657.944
3.470.107
3.262.568
3.111.507
2.916.050
2.199.520
2.150.553
2.015.404
1.842.519
1.773.925
1.661.680
1.576.102
1.509.143
1.312.000
1.284.255
1.239.443
1.218.766
1.171.669
796.529
777.555
715.000
652.250
626.389
594.825
465.136
419.500
336.103
330.275
285.547
163.325
121.222
56.400
-1.947.110
384.578
94.106
162.130
-1.197.729
1.201.518
-58.272
-1.923.588
58.665
-219.335
3.186
108.583
15.113
-250.872
-25.179
128.564
-22.767
87.373
-8.302
-409.000
-24.323
-2.758
11.983
-180.774
153.501
6.071
35.171
-540.000
13.656
34.398
-23.692
-554.100
1.770
-42.316
+5
658
6.125
17.275
28
11
3
52
35
9
20
10
11
1
0
7
5
7
10
6
12
0
1
0
2
0
12
3
0
0
1
0
4
0
Sources: elaboration on Cerved data, Infocamere-Registro delle imprese and budgets of Borsa Italiana for societies quoted Rai, Mediaset
(Medusa) e Mondo TV.
* These data refer to Filmauro only for the activity of production according to the indications within the notes of comment on budget and
for Medusa Film it is about an evaluation year budget of FilmauRo close its financial year every 30th June.
** he indicated values are the result of estimates, because the society is active both in the production and the distribution. The date are
referred only to the cinema activities.
164 |
TAB. 7
THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION HOUSES OF THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
Societies of the sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Warner Village *
Medusa Cinema *
Cinecity Art & Cinemas
UCI Nord
Ugc Ciné Cité Italia
Medusa Multicinema *
Globalmedia **
UCI Italia
UCI Sud
UCI Centro
Cinelandia
C.G. Cinema Spettacolo
Circuito Cinema-Roma
UCI Nord Est
Stella Film *
UCI Nord Ovest
Cin Cin
Cineworld Group
Torino Spettacoli
Cinema Sviluppo
Giometti Ancona
Cinecity
Sofind
Cinemax
It. Int. Movieplex
Giometti Porto S. Elpidio
Coges
Faro
Megacinema
Fratelli Reposi
Porta Nova
Giometti Jesi
Ariston ***
Multicinema
Gestioni Cinematografiche
Millennium
Giometti Pesaro
Veneta Cinema e Teatri
Starplex
Giometti Fano
Transmedia
Circuito Cinema Firenze
Giometti Senigallia
Circuito Cinema Genova
Globalplex
Stazione Marittima
Sector
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Sales 2008 in euro
77.425.938
44.148.828
26.278.328
24.238.745
20.751.708
20.037.463
19.931.653
16.422.219
15.128.183
14.508.414
13.442.412
12.174.842
12.148.970
10.862.891
10.668.371
10.331.797
6.374.619
5.565.854
5.653.818
4.727.954
3.631.188
3.570.633
3.358.845
3.272.206
3.198.223
3.084.623
2.937.601
2.700.800
2.475.000
2.436.172
2.412.207
2.368.354
2.367.931
2.334.166
2.262.958
2.133.487
2.062.870
1.973.887
1.843.192
1.809.114
1.779.142
1.755.657
1.720.518
1.615.676
1.575.353
1.535.282
Result Employees
-1.988.051
3.180.905
156.786
195.577
-4.299.745
3.231.888
-6.786
-1.864.583
-776.440
-336.398
1.116.328
-3.044.814
-689.801
342.275
275.428
918.712
1.350.600
-1.093.461
-102.281
432
340
9.761
-11.769
15.614
43.312
23.925
692.214
320.187
9.362
-11.728
92.321
16.843
246.021
-118.369
-20.320
-391.638
1.589
28.067
-189.209
12.155
109.600
224.015
8.203
34.285
1.872
8.108
678
272
190
170
180
144
167
141
121
115
166
123
75
49
74
41
35
21
9
20
12
12
65
19
19
14
17
10
5
0
segue
| 165
segue
TAB. 7
THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION HOUSES OF THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Microcinema
Century
Circuito Cinema Qualità
Mediaport
Circuito Cinema Torino
Fratelli Giometti
Gestioni Culturali
Giometti Holding
Gestioni Cinestar
Impresa Pubblici Esercizi
Andromeda Gestioni
Acin
Vis-Pathé
Moretto
Sector
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Sales 2008 in euro
1.342.743
1.299.318
1.254.895
1.815.273
1.131.583
994.411
970.327
797.308
744.106
736.055
377.472
270.163
190.699
137.538
Result Employees
-479.835
5.797
218.860
308.410
228
22.277
4.728
8.870
70.544
-41.119
32.728
1.450
12.772
2
14
0
5
7
0
1
-
Sources: elaboration on Cerved data, Infocamere-Registro delle imprese and budgets of Borsa Italiana for societies quoted Mediaset.
* The financial year of the enterprises does not coincide with the solar one and the budgets are closed 31st August.
ANICA, the national association of producers and distributors, gathers every time
a new work that is coming out. In fact, it seems like that, within the total amount
of movies put every year in the market , only 18 % of distribution companies are
permanently active in movies coming out, the remaining 82% comes from time to
time during the season. As the next table shows, also from the distribution profile,
the Italian cinema market does not substantially change the original setting of the
sector. Here, some big companies stand out of the crowd of middle-small
companies.
Generally, when you talk about cinema distribution, you referred to the
companies that feed the cinema circuit. It is, however, well-known that in
economic terms, the field of home video is richer than the one of the practice
and, therefore, the study includes the enterprises that work in this field, without
excluding the companies that directly retail and don’t only act as intermediaries
like the traditional cinema firms do. We can thus observe the importance that
Blockbuster, a group of the holding Viacom (that is led by Paramount and United
Pictures), has for the entire sector. Even if the DVD and CD selling has been
registering a decline throughout the world, Blockbuster has a superior turnover
compared to all the others major companies’ and it is second only to Medusa
Film, with slight inferior sales (euro 4.5 million). Moreover, Fininvest-Medusa
actually has another commercial branch like Medusa Video that lets it obtain
more than 164 million global sales . For what concerns the global proceeds,
Medusa-R.T.I. would be not even the first, because Rai, with 01 Distribution, Rai
166 |
TAB. 8
THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION HOUSES IN THE SAMPLE FOR SALES IN EURO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Technicolor
Kodak *
De Luxe Italia Holding
Pozzoli
Cinecittà Studios
Cinemeccanica
Sipra *
Opus Proclama
The Disney Store Italia *
MTC-Mediacontech
IMS Manufacturing
Frame
Thomson Italia
ICET Studios
GDD Manufacturing
Hasbro Italy
Square
Duplas Avelca
Backstage
S.E.FI.T.
Rainbow IT Solutions
Koch Media
Panalight
Technicolor Milan
Movierecord
Quantum Marketing Italia
Artech Video Record
SAC-Servizi Ausiliari Cin.
Studios (ex De Paolis)
Pumais Due
Cinehollywood
Character
Ci.Me grandi impianti
Wizard of the Coast It.
La Bibi.it
CVD-Cine Video Doppiatori
Outline
Dubbing Brothers Int. It.
Fratelli Cartocci
Matrix Technology
Arcadia
Fono Roma Film Recording
Cineworld
Top Ten Group
Cam
PCM Audio
Sector
I
I
I
I
I-S
S
S
S
S
S
I
I-S
I
S
I
I
S
I
S
S
S
S
I-S
I
S
S
I
S
I
S
S
S
S
I
S
S
S
I
S
I
S
S
S
S
S
S
Sales 2008 in euro
122.146.590
83.798.788
59.446.151
54.911.582
40.304.540
36.458.536
26.044.762
24.314.686
24.212.941
23.200.000
20.948.706
19.952.874
19.387.079
13.967.805
13.820.393
13.441.532
11.800.000
11.440.826
10.388.435
9.190.842
8.865.896
8.675.478
8.623.665
7.635.930
7.402.938
7.078.919
6.999.541
6.790.285
6.057.130
5.931.064
5.376.760
5.284.785
4.969.130
4.892.664
4.799.808
4.614.426
4.553.487
4.283.6231
4.106.161
3.603.127
3.534.554
3.270.943
3.076.899
3.070.382
3.029.320
3.007.807
Result Employees
991.985
1.507.786
2.185.704
716.937
106.037
790.986
5.514.528
-2.208.361
1.118.256
1.400.000
-3.049.408
-1.657.348
202.967
-92.170
-2.198.898
980.769
110.000
262.426
2.128.094
-14.329
47.225
-5.334
747.435
60.739
-2.528.761
370.810
-847.932
1.158.961
11.637
35.209
131.658
-56.752
678.694
108.820
90.746
7.076
64.431
69.680
73.907
-523.680
-59.280
-59.863
-198.820
215.414
38.538
14.371
321
193
158
211
19
93
448
14
259
60
45
20
42
112
45
32
8
92
10
50
29
22
35
51
42
33
16
10
2
11
20
21
22
21
64
28
65
14
22
segue
| 167
segue
TAB. 8
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
168 |
Merak Film
Eurolab Italia
Multimedia Network
Intervideo
Publiodeon
VR&MM Park
Puettmann-Stummer Italia
ANICA Servizi
Fotocinema
Lvr
Upc
Cinematext Media SA
Studio Asci
Laser Film
Movie Engineering
T.S.C.
Post in Europe
Coming Soon Pubblicità
Colby
Ice
Open Sky
Fortino Food
Banzai
Adriana Chiesa Ent.
Bmz Services
Studio Cine
Digitopoli
Raflesia
Bideri Comunicazione
Mo-Net
Bideri Canzoni Edizioni
Varie e Libri
Sound Art 23
Elastic Rigts Italy
Limina
Ccs-Cinema Com. Service
Outline Audio Int.
Sonopress Italia
The Licensing Factory
Cinecittà Entertainment
Mediaservice 2000
Kdg Italia
Award Network
Kodak Versamark Italia
MTC-Medianetwork Com.
Cinematext Media Italia
Patrizia Biancamano
Sector
I
I
S
S
S
S
I
S
S
S
I
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I-S
S
S
S
I
S
I
S
S
S
Sales 2008 in euro
Result Employees
2.879.868
2.875.718
2.762.376
2.748.422
2.579.682
2.489.711
2.466.973
2.405.926
2.363.938
2.235.230
2.037.388
1.968.000
1.940.666
1.887.470
1.816.106
1.736.482
1.673.472
1.664.122
1.566.210
1.552.358
1.548.229
1.520.039
1.492.677
1.358.055
1.314.693
1.143.852
1.304.090
1.014.683
971.002
888.976
816.579
54.320
-67.998
111.201
-28.398
23.223
1.731
-46.280
624.999
-168.882
-13.128
2.032
481.600
7.187
-3.971
112.033
15.916
25.294
-268.489
-32.149
33.085
60.997
20.667
-381.480
-154.758
739.539
18.533
12.872
1.775
-308.011
61.946
1.474
787.109
718.676
718.351
650.927
634.916
567.916
557.795
552.773
521.290
518.246
513.496
510.292
425.600
424.381
414.009
1.678
87.011
-12.063
-73.010
5.359
67.037
6.286
-3.509.525
-23.321
-18.186
2.226
10.473
-236.364
30.340
53.202
21
30
20
11
20
2
40
30
10
12
0
2
7
6
8
6
9
3
1
5
11
2
15
2
6
1
1
7
16
5
0
10
6
16
1
15
3
5
segue
segue
TAB. 8
Sector
93
94
95
96
96
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
S
S
S
S
S
I
S
S
I
S
S
S
S
S
CDA Studio Di Nardo
Matrix Internazional
Gennarelli Bideri Editori
MFD
Digital Solutions
Co.Mi.Ci
Impronte Digitali
Panalight Studios
VP Graphic Design
Finanziaria Cinema
Reti in Rete
Licensing Italia
Motus
ODS-Operatori Doppiaggio
e Spettacolo
Sales 2008 in euro
412.817
384.640
381.957
348.708
338.139
329.767
308.230
306.000
291.364
258.616
234.681
223.190
221.966
217.092
Result Employees
-3.460
89.528
194.994
-4.294
77.036
-56.713
4.725
59.077
2.003
-6.098.561
-43.270
-30.462
32.277
-20.985
4
0
3
4
2
4
1
1
4
Sources: elaboration on Cerved data, Infocamere-Registro delle imprese.
* The values indicated are referred to the only activities of the cinema sector.
Trade and Rai Sat would exceed 193 million. The weight of major companies is,
however, preponderant and, if not for Medusa and Rai, would occupy all the first
places in the ranking. Beyond the position within the market, their influence is
corroborate through the consistence of their sales that, compared to the
volumes reached by all the other Italian independent houses, are much bigger.
5. The Big Circuit of Practice
The practice sector is paradigmatic of the entire national cinema market as
well. In general terms, from the fragmentation point of view, it really is
paradigmatic if we consider the wide crowd of small essai cinemas and the
parish circuit that still is traditional in the management. This management,
which has always induced the operators – even the most consolidated ones and
owners of several complexes on the territory – to build companies for every
property setting up. But it is paradigmatic as well because of the presence, in
this field, of big foreign groups, that have mainly developed the multi-screen
and multiplex groups by conquering the market quota and revenues from
strategic positions.
Within this field, the segmentation of this type of supply has been set through the
minor structures virtually dedicated to the author’s movies and elite works and to
| 169
the major dimension ones as well, that make mass products by now, especially
the blockbuster products of the big American cinema companies. Nowadays, a
similar situation has come to question under the technological innovation
pressure. This pressure sees the multi-screen reality in a full digitalization phase
and the minor companies in difficulty, facing the economic resources needed in
order to promote proper financial investments depending on the new projection
standards.
The scenario that can be seen in the sample of companies that is the main basis of
this report is sufficiently indicative, also for what concerns the presence of
structures with a really small dimension that converge in group structures and
contribute in integrating market strategy.
The classification based on economic values is made in order to facilitate the
exposition of data and it has a purely indicative meaning. It has to be specified that
if the function of Medusa Cinema and Multicinema-Warner Village had already been
operative in 2008, we would have found a group on the top of all the circuit of
exercise. This group which, considering the result of the respective budgets, would
have summarized more than euro 141 million of sales (even the business plan of
the project talks about 125 million, once the two structures are integrated) and 1,904
employees. Its most direct rival, Odeon & UCI Cinemas, through its five subsidiaries,
would not exceed 91.4 million. In the meantime Cinecittà Luce has also ended the
privatization of Globalmedia-Mediaport, now under the control of Farvem by
Massimo Ferrero, while the last society of Fin.ma.vi., Vittorio Cecchi Gori: C.G.
Cinema e Spettacolo’s holding with 11 cinemas downtown in Rome, is still in
liquidation.
6. The First Industrial and Services Enterprises
If we want to concretely perceive the real extension of the archipelago of Italian
cinema productivity, we have to look at all the undervalued factors that still are
incredibly important. They are generically defined as pre and post-production
services and they collect an endless group of professionalism and
specialization, from the manufacturing industry to the technical services, from
the advanced tertiary to the global area of communication. When we talk about
it we think of a generic product of cinema but it actually is a group of activities
very linked to the sector and its dimension legitimizes its role and essential
functions.
The research conducted on the sample of enterprises linked to the cinema
production makes a variegate scenario, where there are at least two
characteristics that mark all the sectors of cinema: firstly, the economic
relevance of all the activities of the movies production, with the values that are
170 |
s i m i l a r t o t h e d i m e n s i o n o f o t h e r c i n e m a e n t e r p r i s e s ; s e co n d ly , t h e
predominance of the foreign capital at the top of the pyramid.
| 171
CHAPTER 7
“IF WE WERE AS GOOD IN SPEAKING HIGHLY OF ITALIAN CINEMA AS WE
ARE IN SPEAKING ILL OF IT, WE WOULD HAVE SUCH A PROMOTION...”
Giuseppe Tornatore, director
Market quota
E
very year, at Marché du Film of Cannes Festival, EAO (European Audiovisual Observatory) presents a report on the cinema from all the continents
which is named “World Film Market Trends”. This study is basically a statistic data gathering on production and (above all) consumption of movies
in the world. It seems to be a bit repetitive because the results of the box
offices from all over the world are always the same, with the productions and co-productions of Hollywood major companies on the top of the list every year. The titles are
the only thing that changes whilst characteristics, selling proportions and sales follow
the case study every year. For example, you can only find movies made in USA in the
list of “Top 10 films worldwide”, with the only exception of some titles from abroad
(especially from Europe) at the bottom of the list.
Therefore, it really is repetitive and could not be different if we consider its aim: the
analysis of the observatory answers to the mission of developing the culture and the
media of EU. As we can clearly see from the brief introduction signed by André Lange
(chief of Department for Information on Markets and Financing on EAO) there always is
a focus on the progressive expansion of the five trusts of international cinema. Among
the others, the only countries that have national movies as favorite ones in their box office
are just five: China, Japan, India, Egypt, South Korea. Moreover, even if they have
sometimes experienced some momentary crises, the major companies can usually make
some ambitious strategies become true. They for example feed their hegemony in terms
of income and reduce, at the same time, the annual making of new movies. If we look at
the American case, we will thus see that the production decreased from 699 movies in
2005 to 500 in 2009 and the numbers of the major companies from 290 to 240.
It is easy to understand that, beyond this ability of patronizing business, there is also
the boost and dynamism of a financial market which, like the American one, has
invested 14.7 billion euro and so 1.5 billion euro more that what is earned every year
in both USA and EU (at least in the last three-year period). On the other hand, the
globalized policies of big founds of private equity and institutional investors are
maturing within technologically developed scenarios, which introduce a significant
evolution of life styles and consumptions. The main result of this process is for sure
the exponential growth of VOD market. According to most recent data of EAO (there
are not any specific statistical data gathering because of the impossibility of making
sure their existence and size), the access to movies through Pay-Per-View and NVOD
(Near Video On Demand) is doubling every year. It has almost reached 150 million euro
only in USA (against 34 million euro in Europe) and it is close to achieve a ten times
bigger volume of access in the short term. And therefore, in 2013, the same level of
access in the cinema rooms.
1. USA Hegemony is the Problem of Europe
The problem is that if video services on demand have 40 different active operators (TV
network, telephone companies, providers) in Europe, in US there are “cartels” founded
on PlayStation console which can be found in all big production companies linked to
Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Particularly, Apple iTunes Stores and Microsoft’s
Xbox 360 cover 85% of demand, but in their acquiring foreign markets they are running
at an even faster and extraordinary speed. In fact, the last market projections state that,
at the end of 2010, they will get 65% of the market in Europe (in 2008 it was just around
16%). Sony as well can already count in its budget 380 million downloads from its
PlayStation Network and the new PlayStation 3 launched on the market with a library.
With regards to Disney, after having registered a distribution VOD for 5 million downloads
with the second three-month budget, it has set as its new strategic aim the development
of this segment , in order to reach the diffusion on 25 million VOD and 50 million dollar
sales in 2013. Actually, it has also tried to break – without success because of several
174 |
TAB. 1
Partition of sales
European Production
France
Italy
Germany
UK
Spain
Other Countries
Coproduction Europe-Usa
Production Usa
Other productions
WHO OWNS THE SALES OF ALL CINEMAS IN EUROPE
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
24,6%
8,6%
2,2%
4,3%
4,5%
2,4%
2,7%
5,8%
67,3%
2,3%
24,6%
9,2%
2,9%
3,2%
3,9%
2,3%
3,1%
12,5%
60,2%
2,7%
27,9%
10,6%
3,0%
4,8%
2,8%
2,8%
3,9%
5,5%
63,4%
3,2%
28,6%
8,4%
3,8%
3,8%
6,1%
2,1%
4,6%
6,3%
63,2%
1,8%
28,4%
12,6%
3,6%
3,5%
2,2%
1,4%
5,0%
6,8%
63,2%
1,6%
26,7%
00,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
5,1%
0,0%
00,0%
2,0%
Source: EAO - European Audiovisual Observatory (Strasbourg, May 2010) on the data of the Centre of Studies Lumiére in Paris.
polemics, even if Sony had already copied it – one of the principal rules acknowledged
at the international level by all operators on the distribution market: Pay-Per-View and
NVOD traffic can only start after 7 or 9 months after release at the screens.
As it has been registered by the communitarian observatory, the main source of the
problems of the European cinema is the predominant influence of the majors and the
defense of market quota for film-makes by the so-called big five (Italy, UK, France,
Germany, Spain).
2. Which Resources to Defend National Cinema
The central point of the issue is that cinema is not only business but, above all, an
expressive means with its messages and values, with the experience and the meanings
that is broadcasts. As an artistic and cultural activity with an intellectual and creative
content, it creates problems to the structure of market not only from the economic point
of view; in the contrary, it requires evaluation of the social profile as well. In further
delimiting the spaces of development of national cinema, the hegemony of American
multinational companies works on the cultural homogenization in its expressive forms.
For this reason – and not to protect cinema in its entertainment and consumption role –
almost all the countries have settled state financial systems in favor of film production
and the EU as well has promoted and given its support funds.
But the competitiveness of European cinema, especially in terms of resources for
investments, still is inferior to the oligopoly of the majors. Moreover, the continuous
monitoring of the contributors is still really important for the European cinema system,
which wants to measure the impact of public contribution. In fact, in some cases (like in
the Italian one), this public contribution is an object of perplexity and it is risking its
abrogation.
| 175
TAB. 2
THE PARTITION OF TURNOVER FOR SECTORS OF COMPANIES
Annual turnover quota
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Top 10 companies
from 11 to 30
Top 30 companies
from 31 to 50
Top 50 companies
All other houses
33,7%
19,8%
53,5%
4,8%
58,3%
41,7%
PRODUCTION HOUSE
31,9%
28,4%
20,0%
18,5%
51,9%
46,9%
6,3%
11,6%
58,2%
58,5%
41,8%
41,5%
28,7%
18,1%
46,8%
8,9%
55,7%
44,3%
26,9%
20,3%
47,2%
8,8%
56,0%
44,0%
26,0%
18,6%
44,6%
8,5%
53,1%
46,9%
26,8%
17,8%
44,6%
8,1%
52,7%
47,3%
Top 10 companies
from 11 to 30
Top 30 companies
from 31 to 50
Top 50 companies
All other companies
75,5%
17,7%
93,2%
3,1%
96,3%
3,7%
DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES
79,2%
83,3%
79,5%
14,8%
12,3%
14,7%
94,0%
95,6%
94,2%
3,0%
2,3%
3,0%
97,0%
97,9%
97,2%
3,0%
2,1%
2,8%
83,2%
11,7%
94,9%
2,9%
97,8%
2,2%
82,3%
11,8%
94,1%
3,4%
97,5%
2,5%
83,0%
12,3%
95,3%
2,8%
98,1%
1,9%
Top 10 companies
from 11 to 30
Top 30 companies
from 31 to 50
Top 50 companies
All other gestors
39,3%
20,8%
60,1%
8,4%
68,5%
31,5%
CIRCUITS OF PRACTICE
39,9%
39,8%
42,7%
21,5%
17,2%
16,9%
61,4%
57,0%
59,6%
8,6%
8,9%
8,0%
70,0%
65,9%
67,6%
30,0%
34,1%
32,4%
40,8%
19,2%
60,0%
8,3%
68,3%
31,7%
41,6%
18,4%
60,0%
8,6%
68,6%
31,4%
42,6%
18,9%
61,5%
8,2%
69,7%
30,3%
Top 10 companies
from 11 to 30
Top 30 companies
from 31 to 50
Top 50 companies
All other operators
38,6%
16,6%
55,2%
8,1%
63,3%
36,7%
ALL THE SECTOR IN GENERAL
34,5%
34,3%
33,5%
18,2%
18,2%
17,8%
52,7%
52,5%
51,3%
8,2%
8,1%
8,2%
60,9%
60,6%
59,5%
39,1%
39,4%
40,5%
31,1%
18,1%
49,2%
9,7%
58,9%
41,1%
31,4%
16,6%
48,0%
9,1%
57,1%
42,9%
30,1%
16,6%
46,7%
9,2%
55,9%
44,1%
Source: Data by Cerved, 1st January 2009.
THE RIPARTITION FOR SALES
A first evaluation refers to the level of concentration of the global sales made by all the
companies in the sector, depending on the database of Camere di Commercio which is
the main (and only) instrument of comparison.
The data of Cerved are about all the companies of the three different sectors, without
distinction on nationality, and they show the trends of the supply. As we can observe, the
situation in these three sectors is changing towards a unique trend: through the 50 main
enterprises, we can see a consistent decline between 2002 and 2008 for the entire sector,
especially because of decrease of production, the stalemate of distribution and the
minimal increase of the rate of the practice.
Nevertheless, the gap among the different dimensional classes describes more clearly
the dynamics of these processes.
176 |
TAB. 3
THE CONCENTRATION OF REVENUE IN THE SECTOR OF CINEMA
Quota of revenue
for class of companies
Top 10 companies
2002
2005
2008
Top 30 companies
2002
2005
2008
Top 50 companies
2002
2005
2008
Production
Distribution
Practice
ALL THE SECTOR
33,7%
75,5%
39,3%
38,6%
53,5%
93,2%
60,1%
55,2%
58,3%
96,3%
68,5%
63,3%
28,7%
79,5%
42,7%
33,5%
26,8%
83,0%
42,6%
30,1%
46,8%
94,2%
59,6%
51,3%
44,6%
95,3%
61,5%
46,7%
55,7%
97,2%
67,6%
59,5%
52,7%
98,1%
69,7%
55,9%
Source: Data by Cerved, 1st January 2009.
TAB. 4
HOW CONCENTRATION OF REVENUE HAS CHANGED IN THE SECTOR
Variation of revenue
for classes of companies
Production
Distribution
Practice
GLOBAL SECTOR
Variazioni di fatturato
per classi di aziende
Production
Distribution
Practice
GLOBAL SECTOR
Top 10
2008 on 2002
-6,9%
+7,5%
+3,3%
-8,5%
Top 30
2008 on 2002
IN LAST SEVEN YEARS
-8,9%
+2,1%
+1,4%
-8,6%
Top 10
2008 on 2002
-0,9%
-0,2%
+1,8%
-1,0%
Top 30
2008 on 2002
IN LAST THREE YEARS
-2,6%
+0,4%
+1,5%
-2,5%
Top 50
2008 on 2002
ALL THE OTHERS
2008 on 2002
-5,6%
-1,0%
+1,2%
-7,4%
From 41,7% to 47,3%
From 3,7% to 1,9%
From 31,5% to 30,3%
From 36,7% to 44,1%
Top 50
2008 on 2002
ALL THE OTHERS
2008 on 2002
+2,7%
+0,3%
+1,4%
-4,0%
From 44,0% to 47,3%
From 2,2% to 1,9%
From 31,7% to 30,3%
From 41,1% to 44,1%
Source: Elaboration on data by Cerved, 1st January 2009.
• In the production sector (where the activity of the foreign majors is basically nonexistent) the reduction of sales in 7 years by top ten companies is equal to a significant
6.9% which increases of two further points if we enlarge the group to 30 companies.
On the other hand, it decreases a bit – 5.6% - when the range contains up to 50 companies.
• In the distribution sector (where the majors directly work) the sales of top ten operators
register an increase of 7.5%. This value earns 2.1%, by enlarging the screening up to
the 30th position, and it is almost equal to 0 if we go down to the 50th position, so that it
changes sign (-1%).
• In the practice sector, facing a growth of 3.3% for the group of top ten circuits, there is
just an inferior improvement (1.4%) for the 30 main subjects and a slight decrease
(1.2%) if we consider top fifty operators.
The evolution has nevertheless followed different trends in the three sectors. The
constant trend of production (widening of the market) and distribution (strengthened
concentration) have taken their shape between 2002 and 2005. However the practice has
| 177
TAB. 5
MARKET QUOTA OF THE MOVIES DISTRIBUTED IN MAJOR ITALIAN CINEMAS
Market quota
for origin
of distributed works
2006
Italy
Co-production
TOTAL ITALY
Europe
USA
Other countries
TOTAL
Film of only opening
Included Film
Total number
takings in euro
Number
Quota
Number
Quota
Million
Quota
Million
Quota
100
53
161
71
385
26,0%
13,8%
41,8%
18,4%
100,0%
209
89
298
242
330
90
960
20,5%
4,3%
31,0%
25,3%
34,4%
9,3%
100,0%
18,89
4,16
23,05
10,66
56,49
1,90
92,11
20,5%
4,5%
25,1%
11,6%
61,3%
2,0%
100,0%
111,92 0,5%
23,3
4,3%
135,32 4,8%
61,31
1,2%
338,46 1,9%
11,3
2,1%
546,3 100,0%
2007
Italy
Co-production
TOTAL ITALY
Europe
USA
Other countries
TOTAL
110
51
154
55
370
29,7%
13,8%
41,7%
14,8%
100,0%
195
73
268
234
317
68
887
21,9%
8,3%
30,2%
26,4%
35,8%
7,6%
100,0%
27,90
5,14
33,04
12,27
56,81
1,37
103,50
27,0%
4,9%
31,9%
11,9%
54,9%
1,3%
100,0%
166,12 6,9%
29,3
4,8%
195,5 31,7%
71,61
1,6%
342,15 5,4%
7,8
1,3%
617,0 100,0%
2008
Italy
Co-production
TOTAL ITALY
Europe
USA
Other countries
TOTAL
130
43
163
40
376
34,6%
11,4%
43,4%
10,6%
100,0%
214
74
288
196
300
61
845
25,3%
8,7%
34,0%
23,2%
35,6%
7,2%
100,0%
27,71
1,37
29,09
9,91
59,22
1,07
99,30
28,0%
1,4%
29,4%
10,0%
59,6%
1,0%
100,0%
164,2
7,6
171,8
58,1
357,6
6,0
593,7
27,7%
1,3%
29,0%
9,8%
60,2%
1,0%
100,0%
2009
Italy
Co-production
TOTAL ITALY
Europe
USA
Other countries
TOTAL
115
36
159
45
355
32,5%
10,1%
44,8%
12,6%
100,0%
225
99
294
189
313
61
857
26,5%
8,0%
34,3%
23,1%
36,5%
7,1%
100,0%
23,23
0,8
24,09
11,99
61,17
1,66
98,93
23,5%
60,8%
24,3%
12,1%
61,9%
1,7%
100,0%
140,5
4,90,8%
145,5
71,4
395,7
9,8
622,6
22,6%
23,4%
11,5%
63,5%
1,6%
100,0%
Source: the report “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (Italian cinema in numbers) – years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 – by the Office of
studies/CED of ANICA (National Association of Audiovisual and Multimedia Cinema Industries) on Cinetel data.
switched its trend between 2005 and 2006, when the erosion of the one-screen circuit
became relevant in historical city centres, because of more than four-screens and
multiplex cinemas.
Notwithstanding the gradual progress of the concentration among different enterprises
of distribution and practice, the global sales of the sector have in general an opening
of the market of 3% of the general turnover, a percentage that corresponds 128.7
million euro. The economic consistency of the two sectors is relatively low compared
178 |
TAB. 6
PARTITION FOR SALES AMONG MAIN OPERATORS WITHIN THE NATIONAL MARKET
Main companies
of distribution
Medusa Film
Universal-Uip
Warner Bros.
Sony Pic. Italia
W. Disney
20th Century Fox
01 Distribution
Eagle Pictures
Filmauro
Lucky Red
Bim Distribuzione
Moviemax
Fandango
Bolero Film **
Teodora Film
Mikado
Archibald Ent. F.
Indipendenti reg.*
Cinecittà Luce
Dnc ***
Mediafilm *
Film distributed
2007
2008
2009
75
49
61
45
48
45
67
42
13
44
43
17
26
17
70
18
39
49
11
16
82
49
60
24
31
44
70
40
8
44
48
21
21
1
15
71
4
9
17
76
58
63
52
37
37
70
332
5
49
48
22
16
10
16
4
13
6
37
-
Takings in million euro
2007
2008
2009
106,99
80,9
84,1
39,2
57,0
67,8
61,1
2,7
50,6
8,3
5,3
11,4
0,6
1,9
69,
0,9
10,8
2,1
1,5
1,3
9,5
116,8
56,9
30,1
45,5
37,8
65,9
23,3
47,3
17,2
14,5
13,9
2,2
0,6
1,9
69,3
1,3
1,2
4,3
87,71
83,0
75,61
69,6
61,4
58,0
49,9
41,9
35,5
15,6
15,4
13,4
2,6
2,6
1,7
1,6
1,0
0,7
0,7
-
Quota out of total takings
2007
2008
2009
7,33%
13,11%
3,64%
6,35%
9,25%
11,00%
9,90%
3,68%
8,21%
1,36%
1,36%
1,86%
0,10%
0,31%
1,56%
0,16%
0,14%
0,35%
0,26%
0,22%
16,60%
19,68%
9,59%
5,08%
7,67%
6,37%
11,10%
3,94%
7,97%
2,90%
2,45%
2,35%
0,38%
0,10%
0,33%
1,57%
0,22%
0,21%
0,73%
14,10%
13,34%
12,15%
11,19%
9,88%
9,32%
8,03%
6,74%
5,71%
2,52%
2,49%
2,16%
0,42%
0,42%
0,28%
0,27%
0,16%
0,12%
0,11%
-
Source: reports “Il cinema italiano in numeri” (Italian cinema in numbers ) – years 2007, 2008 and 2009 – by the office of studies/CES
of ANICA on Cinetel data.
* The independent regional distributors and Mediafilm have achieved a quota inferior to 0.1% in 2009.
** Bolero Film has established its activity in 2008, distributing its new first movie in the month of December.
*** The subsidiary DNC Entertainment S.r.l. has replaced the company Dnc S.p.A. in 2008, in order to take its activity and the right of
using movies and DVDs.
to what has been totalized by the production enterprises which represents 49.8% of
total sales of cinema.
PARTITION OF SALES
Where does cinema express its nature of cultural and artistic activity and plays its
function as a media that transmits meaning and messages? It is essentially within the
market of demand which measures the diffusion in terms of consumption and public
response. In Italy, the most used parameter is the documentation made by Cinetel, the
centre of research equally established by category organization such as ANICA (National
Association of Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia Industry) and ANEC (National
Association of Cinema Dealers). It registers, through a digitalized system, the presence
and the gross takings of the cinema during the night and it distributes the data of each
projected movie to the share holders the following morning. It is the main instrument of
work in order to monitor the real trend of the sector thanks to the prompt analysis of the
| 179
results got at the box office by the operators and it allows to value the efficiency of their
strategic choices and plans1.
According to the screening made by Cinetel, the configuration of the market related to
the quota of demand of the Italian cinema production and the foreign ones of the last
seasons, we have this scenario.
By observing the distribution of movies went out depending on their nationality and their
success among the public, the predominance of US cinema seems to be doubted, with a
supply of titles already superior (36.5%) and a proposal of new movies (44.8%) bigger
than the other potential competitors.
3. Italy-Abroad: a Relation of Strength
This relation of strength is clearly visible if we consider the results, since the movies
largely distributed by the majors get a proportionally more elevated part of the sold
tickets (61.9% in 2009) and an even bigger one (63.5%) in global takings.
Even if it has a total bunch of works slightly smaller (34.3% of all movies) but weaker
regarding the coming out of new movies (32.5%), the Italian cinema scores much less
than half of the entries and the takings. The other foreign production represents the rest
1
180 |
The data gathered by Cinetel are not about all the cinemas but only about a representative sample
of cinemas chosen depending on their volume of takings if between 80% and 90% of the real
total. Actually, the paying audience ensured by SIAE (Italian Society Authors and Editors) – that
checks all the tickets of all kind of show, event of manifestation with fee – exceeds the threshold
of 100 million euro and, talking about the takings, the quota of 600 million euro. On the contrary,
Cinetel registers an average of presence per year smaller than 23 million and the income of 110
million. SIAE statistics are by the way about the global amount of subjects and they include more
than 5 thousand cinemas. The cinemas with only one projection a year are part of the statistics
as well, with a total planning of 6 thousand movies if we count the so-called “continuations” of
works already gone out in previous seasons (second visions, shows and so on). As tools of
marketing, the surveys by Cinetel are made in cinemas that are defined technically active and so
operating at least 120 days a year (3.2 thousand cinemas, 56.1% of the total amount). Then, they
verify the exit poll of new distributed movies, the so-called opening. On the other hand, since the
census by SIAE is cumulative, it is therefore anonymous and does not have any data about the
presence to single movies and so a table of the sales. It is also consumptive and it means that it
is periodically made every six months. Another system of data gathering on cinema consumption
is made by the research companies CRA (Customized Research and Analysis) in collaboration
with Rai Cinema. Its name is Audiocinema and it is the result of two different and complementary
surveys: Telepanel and Oversample. The first one involves a sample of 3,500 families for a total
amount of 9 thousand people (representative for demography characteristics of the Italians) that
monthly communicate thei type of cinema consumption. The second one develops a form of
opinion surveys out of the cinemas (for a total amount of 20 thousand interviews per year) in
order to understand and know the opinions and the satisfaction of the seen movies.
30% of the planning (23% Europe, 7% rest of the world) but with a narrower carnet of
“openings” and with even more modest takings: 12.1% of audience and 11.5 takings from
continental products, respectively 1.7% and 1.6% for non-European ones.
It is a widespread opinion that, in 2009, the Italian cinema has experienced some
unfavourable contingencies, starting from the contemporary absence of many successful
authors in cinema. However, coming back of the situation of 2006 seems to be only
temporary. Throughout the last decade, the trend has been basically positive, by making
more than 90 movies a year and reaching the quota of more than 30% within the audience
and the sales. For this reason the situation is also completely different to one of the years
of crisis between the ‘70s and the ‘80s, when the Italian market of cinema was really
contracted due to the general contraction of the market.
Beyond the different nationality of the works and the relative influence of respective
productive structures on the total amount of activities, Cinetel surveys allow the definition
on the partition of the quota of the demand market among all operators, through the
results among the public and the takings made by each movie.
4. King Maker and Player
It is possible to evaluate the effective competitiveness of companies, the formation of
leading groups and especially the possible dimensions and repercussions of these
leading positions. Above all, it is possible because the strategic influence and the
contractual power that a group of king maker is able to exercise (if it is wide and wellestablished) can bias the structure of the entire market at the national level, by limiting
the potential competition of any other player and so the development of the same sector.
According to this, Cinetel data about last three seasons draw a map like this: the imports
in million euro are far from the turnover really obtained and mentioned in the budgets
of several companies described in previous tables. Cinetel surveys tap into takings on
the distribution market, even if significant parts of these takings (from 60% to 65%)
practically follow different destinations: towards production houses and towards the
practice enterprises as well. These data are furthermore about the only takings from
box office, by excluding all the others reached through different diffusion circuits – home
video and TV at the top – which represent more than two out of three resources from the
selling of a movie.
5. Major, Mini-Major and Indie
If we consider the nationality of main groups present in the table, the incidence of
their activity (which covers 99.43% in 2007, 99.16% in 2008 and 99.39% of general
takings of the distribution) and the societal structure of many of them (which allows
| 181
to collect taking also from production and practice), we can draw the segmentation
of the demand market through Cinetel data. We therefore have three main ranges
of operators:
Major: the international holdings Warner Bros., Universal-Uip, 20th Century Fox, Walt
Disney and Sony;
Mini-major: the national group Rai-01 Distribution and Medusa-Mediaset, Filmauro
(vertically integrated) and Eagle Pictures (thanks to its homogeneity);
Indie: the Italian independent companies with a middle-small size but a bigger density
and continuity of work and so the further ten companies that are in the previous table
and whose data we can find in the next table.
The narrow comparison in the three-year period 2007-2009 appoints the important
revival of the hegemony of foreign majors and the contextual coming back of national
cinema, both in the influence of mini-majors and in the occupation of residual space by
small independent companies.
6. Where Business is
The partition for ranges of turnover and taking by Cerved and Cinetel, even if quite
different from each other, offer a substantially homogeneous analysis of the quota of
different sectors between the demand and supply markets.
PRODUCTION
The pretty high number of companies in the sector of production – where there is almost
65% of the companies active in pre and post-production – gives a more relatively small
role to the big foreign companies (like Thomson-Technicolor, Kodak and Deluxe)
compared to what happens in the sector of distribution and practice.
In the present settlement, there are no Anglophone majors in the cinema production
structure and it registers a significant prevalence of the other so-called national minimajors with a selected number of indies and some other minor indies (almost 300 small
TAB. 7
SEGMENTATION AND MARKET QUOTA FOR TYPOLOGY OF ENTERPRISES
Cumulative data
for groups of enterprises
Film distributed
2007
2008
2009
Takings in million euro
2007
2008
2009
International Majors
National Mini-majors
Italian Indies
TOTAL ITALY
248
197
340
537
329,2
241,4
44,3
285,7
208
200
251
451
247
184
318
502
287,3
235,3
67,5
302,8
347,9
185,2
66,9
252,1
Quota % out of total takings
2007
2008
2009
53,35
39,12
7,19
46,31
48,21
39,61
11,40
51,01
55,88
34,59
9,10
43,69
of ANICA on Cinetel data – The sum of percentage quota out of the total amount of takings are not equal to 100% because they refer only
to top 19 distribution companies. However, their incidence is 99.16% fro 2007, 99.2% in 2008 and 99.57% in 2009.
182 |
TAB. 8
ITALIAN OPENINGS: WHO HAS DISTRIBUTED MILLIONAIRE MOVIES
Houses of Italian millionaire movies
2006
2007
2008
2009
2006-2009
6
6
2
3
1
1
1
20
9
9
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
29
11
8
2
3
1
1
1
28
10
8
2
1
1
3
2
24
36
31
9
7
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
101
101,49
85,48%
5,07
166,20
90,19%
5,73
142,30
85,52%
5,08
119,08
92,47%
4,96
529,08
81,62%
5,24
ITALIAN LEADER MOVIE
FILMAURO
Leader movie revenue *
18,59
Quota leader out of total in Italy
15,66%
FILMAURO
20,23
10,47%
FILMAURO
17,65
10,75%
FILMAURO
16,39
12,73%
FILMAURO
72,86
12,40%
Medusa Film
Rai-01 Distribution
Filmauro
Warner Bros. Italia
Bim Distribuzione
Lucky Red
Mikado
Universal
Walt Disney Italia
Eagle Pictures
Fandango Distribuzione
Moviemax
Total Italian millionaire movies
REVENUES IN MILLION EURO
Quota out of total italian
Average million a film
of ANICA on Cinetel data
* The titles of the movies that lead the list of Italian openings with revenues superior to 1 million euro a year are: Il mio miglior nemico
in 2006; Natale in crociera in 2007; Natale a Rio in 2008 e Natale a Beverly Hills in 2009.
companies) with an instable patrimony and a waving activity. The plethora of operators,
even if with small budget turnover, however limits the influence of major producers
compared to all the operators in activity. In this regard, the invested resources and the
abilities of the two leaders Rai and Medusa-Mediaset still have a remarkable power of
attracting the entire sector.
There is a significant confirmation of the analysis of density and frequency of Italian
movies with taking more than 1 million euro, on the behalf of production houses that
have made them.
In four season, only 13 companies (like the Italian subsidiaries of Warner Bors., Universal
and Walt Disney) have been able to launch new movies able to ensure millionaire taking
at the box office. The best three ones – Rai, Medusa and Filmauro – have signed 75.2%
of titles with similar successful performances.
The middle range of national production houses (which is the heart of the sector)
basically shows a narrow activity. For this reason the sector registers a global quota of
the market for the first 50 companies that is slightly bigger than 50%, in countertrend
to what we can see in the distribution and practice cases.
| 183
TAB. 9
TOP 20: A LOT OF DISTRIBUTION SHARED AMONG FEW
Importance of top 20 companies
2006
2007
2008
2009
TOP 5
Number of distributed movies
Quota of movie out of top 20
Quota out of total revenue
295
35,0%
59,34%
297
37,0%
64,96%
269
40,5%
64,96%
286
38,0%
60,66%
TOP 10 *
500
59,3%
92,63%
462
58,1%
94,32%
452
68,0%
90,91%
480
63,7%
92,97%
TOP 20
843
100%
99,38%
795
100%
99,66%
664
100%
99,42%
753
100%
99,55%
of ANICA on Cinetel data – The values are about the results got till 31st December of every year and they consider the movies that keep on
being in the cinema for the year after.
* In the four considered top 10 distribution companies and 5 majors (Universal, Warner Bros., Walt Disney, Sony e 20th Century Fox),
four major Italian companies Medusa, 01 Distribution, Filmauro and Eagle Pictures, Bim (2006), Moviemax (2007) and Lucky Red
(2008 and 2009).
DISTRIBUTION
The size of the quota of the turnover made by all the production companies after the
50th position does not show a widened market. Actually, the values underlined in the
sector of distribution prove that the operators which work for it – foreign majors and
main Italian distributors – conserve their spaces. Therefore they limit channels of
access to market to all the small production houses which, if the latter want to put
their movies in the market, have to face and control themselves with the contractual
power of the former. This situation is also made possible through the growing
concentration of shows within the practice that allows main distributors to impose
even more strongly their power.
It is sufficient to observe how the companies between the 11th and 20th position for
taking order (in the upper table) can occupy a space in the market equal to just
6.58% even if they put in the circuit of practice no less than 36.3% of the works in
the cinemas.
The following consideration is that in the process of settlement and evolution of Italian
cinema-making of the last period, the majors have not lost their influence within the
national market. Even if they kept on focusing their action in the distribution of movies
and DVD they have strengthened their influence within the entire sector. Furthermore,
this strategy has been mitigated only recently through some incursions in the internal
production by Warner Bros. Italy, Walt Disney and especially Universal after its
entrance in Cattleya. Either the statistics on the companies which have distributed
the top 20 movies for takings of the last 4 seasons is good. There are only 10 majors
184 |
TAB. 10
TOP 20 MOVIES: ALWAYS THE SAME COMPANIES A THE HEAD
Top 20 top movies of the year houses
2006
2007
2008
2009
2006-2009
4
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
6
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
-
3
5
3
3
2
1
2
1
-
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
-
16
13
10
9
9
7
7
6
2
1
227,11
41,56%
11,35
272,11
44,09%
13,60
223,74
37,68%
11,18
259,63
41,69%
12,98
982,61
41,29%
12,28
SONY P.
28,69
5,34%
UNIVERSAL
20,23
3,12%
FILMAURO
17,65
2,97%
20TH C. FOX
29,69
4,76%
24,06
4,04%
Medusa Film
Uip-Universal
Walt Disney-Buena V.
Filmauro
Warner Bros. Italia
Sony Pictures Italia
01 Distribution
20th Century Fox Italia
Eagle Pictures
REVENUE IN MILLION EURO
Quota out of total sector
Million in average a movie
LEADER TOP 20 OF THE YEAR
Revenue leader movie *
Quota leader out of total
* The movies that lead top 20 list for revenues of the year are: Il codice da Vinci (The Da Vinci code) in 2006; Shrek III in 2007; Natale
a Rio in 2008 and L’era glaciale 3-L’alba dei dinosauri (Ice age 3 – Dawn of dinosaurs) in 2009.
TAB. 11
THE LIST OF BEST REVENUES IN AVERAGE FOR EACH DISTRIBUTED MOVIE
Revenue in average for movie in euro
2006
2007
2008
2009
ITALIAN COMPANIES
Filmauro
Eagle Pictures
Medusa Film
01 Distribution
Moviemax
Bim Distribuzione
Lucky Red
Fandango
Teodora Film
Mediafilm
Archibald Ent. Film
Mikado Film
4.469.403
822.500
824.962
849.852
424.731
271.522
83.159
77.454
64.501
1.150.507
284.416
55.180
58.305
3.895.162
540.828
1.425.790
912.030
674.932
125.324
190.575
24.221
113.216
717.111
86.212
325.649
137.825
5.916.895
584.593
1.201.937
941.787
665.076
303.091
391.140
108.457
131.065
186.025
254.534
77.283
131.517
7.113.777
1.271.275
1.154.854
713.838
610,070
322.432
320.261
163.672
108.045
79.908
79.058
14.328
36.279
SUBSIDIARIES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES
Walt Disney-Buena Vista
20th Century Fox
Universal-Uip
Sony Pict. Italia
Warner Bros.
1.114.026
1.495.591
1.552.592
1.122.748
656.569
1.188.751
1.508.063
1.161.245
871.147
1.379.797
1.469.242
859.397
2.384.942
1.256.946
949.322
1.661.892
1.568.112
1.432.363
1.339.919
1.201.028
| 185
with 45 performances (equal to 4.7% of total amount of movies in the market) against
the 35 of the Italian competitors (with 2.5% of global presences in the top 20 movies
charts of the last four-year period).
The possibility to organize the exit strategy of every new work at the international scale
(or intercontinental) adds besides the opportunity to play a big role in economy by
enlarging the number of sold copies, changing communicational and marketing plans
and advertising.
With the passage of time, the big foreign houses have also increased the threshold of
investments in promotion, so that the marketing budget for each title reaches 30% of
production expenses, against 10% of a few years ago. It is very difficult for a company to
become a blockbuster without spending at least tens of millions euro for its campaigning.
Even if the table awards in absolute terms the choices and investments of Filmauro as
the winner at the box office, the list of best average takings of movies show the deep gap
that divides the results of the majors and the national distribution companies.
PRACTICE
In 2000 multi-screen cinemas in Italy were 20 for a total amount of 65 screens and they
covered 19.2% of audience and 26.6% of takings globally registered in the sample of
Cinetel, respectively equal to 77.2 million spectators and 436.5 million euro. At the end
of 2009 the number of these cinemas multiplied itself 26 times and the screens of 40
times, while their incidence in terms of entrance has reached 89.4% and the percentage
of the entrance has risen up to 90.5%, correspondent to 563.9 of 623.4 million euro
registered by Cinetel survey.
In the progression of multi-screen structures there is basically the process of progressive
concentration of the practice. Since they have been opened by big international chains
and major national circuits (able to sustain significant investments necessary to their
building), multi-screen cinemas have strengthened the market quota, up to present
levels.
From a formal point of view, the prevalence of foreign operators within multi-screen
practices is still sensitive (63% of the takings), but from a practical point of view – after
the acquisition by 21 Investimenti (Benetton) of 51% of The Space Cinema, where all the
activities of Warner Village and Medusa have gone – the incidence of national circuits
has increased of 46%, as the Cinetel survey shows.
Notwithstanding this big and important operation, the specific structure that articulates
the sector of practice does not seem to have subdued particular changes. The typology
of centres and multi-screen cinema chains as place for consumption is constitutionally
bound to a policy of planning oriented to American movies and blockbusters. Thus, it
consolidates the already noteworthy power of attraction on cinema audience. And since
the dealers have to guarantee to themselves a constant flux of spectators and takings –
especially who owns structures with big spaces and big costs like multi-screen ones –
the principal distributors (like the international majors) have confirmed even more their
186 |
TAB. 12
MARKET QUOTA OF THE CINEMAS ACTIVE IN ITALY FOR TYPE OF STRUCTURE
Market quota
for kind of structure
2006
Mon-screen
Multi-screen (2-4)
Multi-cinema (5-7)
Multiplex (8-19)
TOTAL
Active Cinemas
Number
Quota
Total screens
Number
Quota
Global Presences
Million
Quota
Revenues in euro
Million Quota
713
325
69
103
1.210
58,9%
26,9%
5,7%
8,5%
100,0%
713
864
405
1.080
3.062
23,3%
28,2%
13,2%
35,3%
100,0%
14,0
20,6
13,8
43,7
92,2
15,2%
22,4%
15,0%
47,4%
100,0%
77,9
117,0
82,2
269,9
547,1
14,2%
21,4%
15,0%
49,3%
100,0%
2007
Mon-screen
Multi-screen (2-4)
Multi-cinema (5-7)
Multiplex (8-19)
TOTAL
658
329
71
108
1.166
56,4%
28,2%
6,1%
9,3%
100,0%
658
884
418
1.132
3.092
21,3%
28,6%
13,5%
36,6%
100,0%
14,0
22,4
16,9
51,1
103,6
13,6%
21,7%
15,4%
49,3%
100,0%
78,1
126,7
95,9
317,0
617,8
12,6%
20,5%
15,5%
51,3%
100,0%
2008
Mon-screen
Multi-screen (2-4)
Multi-cinema (5-7)
Multiplex (8-19)
TOTAL
612
324
80
113
1.129
54,2%
28,7%
7,1%
10,0%
100,0%
612
875
470
1.184
3.141
19,5%
27,9%
15,0%
37,7%
100,0%
11,4
20,7
15,4
51,7
99,4
11,5%
20,8%
15,5%
52,1%
100,0%
63,3
117,3
93,0
320,4
594,2
10,7%
19,8%
15,7%
53,9%
100,0%
2009
Mon-screen
Multi-screen (2-4)
Multi-cinema (5-7)
Multiplex (8-19)
TOTAL
582
312
91
119
1.104
52,7%
28,3%
8,2%
10,8%
100,0%
582
845
536
1.245
3.208
18,1%
26,3%
16,7%
38,8%
100,0%
10,5
19,0
16,7
52,8
99,0
10,6%
19,2%
16,9%
53,3%
100,0%
59,5
112,0
105,5
346,4
623,4
9,5%
18,0%
16,9%
55,6%
100,0%
ANEM (National Association of Multimedia Dealers) on Cinetel data – Source of elaboration: reports “Il cinema italiano in numeri”
(Italian cinema in numbers ) – years 2007, 2008 and 2009 – by the office of studies/CES of ANICA on Cinetel data – Global data about
presences and imports from revenues are also the result of festivals.
contractual power. This is starting from key variables which influence the final result of
movies at the box office: period of launching, number of cinema rooms where the movie
is projected and number of days the movie stays in planning2.
It is true that the expansive dynamics has stressed competiveness of major networks,
eight of which own more than 50% of the multiplex structures. At the same time, the
2
Beyond the official deals, these planning are programmed with formal agreements between
distributors and dealers. These agreements are part of use and consumptions in the private pact
between operators and commercial practices – with non-written rules and the so-called silent
clauses – which mark some markets, especially in the direct relation of business to business. In
their centenary story, the American majors have often been at the centre of attentions for their
potential capabilities in pressing. Therefore antitrust authorities of US and vigilantes on free
competitions from other countries of EU (which is the most engaged party in supervising the
audiovisual market) check these majors. In Italy, the law about it is the 287 of 1990, named
| 187
major concentration of market quota tends to stabilize itself, more than subvert the
rule of the sector and the relations among the same operators. It has, for example, to
be said that the partition for classes of turnover by Cerved can have two ways of
reading it.
According to what we said at the beginning of this chapter, top 10, 30 and 50 companies
would store progressively 42.6%, 61.5% and 69.7% of takings of the sector. But the
database considers the enterprises as distinguished social reasons and it does not
aggregate the results of the groups per society. If we consider top 10 holding of the
circuit we can see that their economic accounts sum actively 412 million euro in
revenues, so 66.7% of the entire value of production assigned to practice. By adding the
next 5 chains we reach 73.2% of global turnover and with further 5 management
enterprises we reach 75.5%.
With its 1,775 active companies, the Italian practice keeps anyway jagged. But it is just
about a partial fragmentation because a structural separation between the centre and
the entrepreneurial complex is taking place, through the growing concentration going
on right now and the constant erosion of traditional mono-screen structures. The latter
are capitalized and industrially managed and the staff of the structure of projection
has a family owned business (the companies registered in Camere di Commercio are
actually 1,878 and they reach several hundred of non-capitalized companies in order
to represent d’essai and parochial cinemas which share 30% of the market).
It is nowadays well-known in the five biggest European markets – the so-called big
five, using the name used by researchers in centres of studies – that there are some
repercussions to the rules of the sector of production. In fact, the national works
(which are not usually as charming as the products made in US) meet more difficulties
in making themselves a way to an informally compartmented market. For this reason,
they labour in conquering adequate spaces in a “shop window” where visibility and
longer staying of movies are preventively dedicated to products of larger and easier
consumption.
For the major part of national movies, this is usually expectable (in Italy like in the
rest of Europe) that only in front of an immediate consensus by the public at large
they can get more printed copies, longer planning instead of a traditional reduced
“Norme per la tutela della concorrenza sul mercato – sulle intese, sull’abuso di posizione
dominante e sulle operazioni di concertazione” (Norms for the protection of market competition
– on agreements, on abuse of right of the dominant position and on the planning operations)
which has established AGICOM-Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Authority for
Guarantees in Communications). The cartels in order to arrange renting and ticket prices and
the practice of block-booking (which requires that dealers are furnished of both big movies and
smaller ones) are mentioned in this law as well. This system foresees other alternative means:
blind buying (renting a movie in a poke), first runs, designated play dates and reciprocity of
dealing.
188 |
visibility. It is not often ensured the cover of national territory and sometimes not even
the one in big cities like the Rome, Milan, Turin, Genoa, Padova, Bologna, Florence,
Napoli, Bari, Catania, Cagliari, Ancona.
Actually, as we have seen in previous chapters as well, the partition of presence and
revenues of national titles depending on typology of projection structures differs quite
a lot from the one of movies of the majors and integrated groups.
| 189
Appendice
“EVEN DWARFS STARTED SMALL”
Title by Werner Herzog (1970)
The Other Public Hand
Regions and Film Commission
The Territory as a Set
I
n Italy many people talk about federalism. For example about the fiscal one, even
if the reform is slowly going on. In the meantime there are territorial policies of
the sector that, at the practical level, autonomously improve and establish themselves. It is the case of the so-called cinema federalism, became a central reality for the entire national cinema.
As the members of the commission for evaluation of quality awards of FUS (Unique
Fund for Entertainment) sustain, the requests of contribution for movies that have already obtained some support from a regional structure is more and more frequent.
That is why you can find the titles of movies proposed in national and international festivals with the presence of co-production works. The people in charge for the territorial Film Commission confirm that they usually are the first in seeing new projects,
even before Mibac (Ministry for Goods and Public Activity that manages the FUS). After
them we can find TV network, product placement agencies and distributors.
1. Ten Fats Lived Years
It is a widespread opinion that the exponential growth of interest from regional and local
authorities for cinema activity is to be linked directly to the law n° 59 of 1997 on displacement of administrative functions (so-called Bassanini’s Law) and then the reform of the
Fifth Title of the Constitution (constitutional law n° 3 of 2001). The latter, through the
new formulation of the article 117, assigns the legislative power to the Regions in the
matter of entertainment and to the State only for “special” (and so a limited power) matters1.
THE PRODUCTION AS A FOCUS
Actually, the regional institutions have always considered entertainment only in its cultural value, as it is proved by their prolific normative production since the ‘70s. They have
therefore focused their attentions on the role of organisms and manifestations (festival,
show, award, cine-forum) already present in the territory and on the structure of the circuits of practice.
THE INITIATIVE OF FILM-MAKERS
Their first interests towards cinema as production activity and in its dynamics of projecting and making can really be found at the end of the ‘90s, during the administration reform. Nevertheless, the actual change has occurred not because of the new laws but
thanks to the project of some people in the field. Women and men have in fact proposed
1
194 |
According to the article 117 of the Italian Constitution (in the former version of the 5th Chapter),
entertainment was not part of the territorial pertinence. With the law “Norms on the regional
system” (n° 382 of 1975) entertainment entered into it. In fact, during the Seventies and the
Eighties the norms production in the regional sphere had reached high levels and some regions have promoted the referendum of 1993 which repealed successfully the Ministry of
Tourism and Entertainment. The awaited Bassanini’s law, for what concerns the sector of entertainment and the film-making activity above all, has not been useful enough. In fact, also
after the reform of the 5th Chapter of the Constitution, many legislative interventions made by
the government have been necessary. In 2003a decree and then a law were approved in order
to allow the allocation of contributions of the Unique Fund for Entertainment, otherwise illegal. On the other hand, some cases in front of the Constitutional Court have been helpful in
solving the most difficult issues. An important passage for clarifying the situation has been the
subscription of the “Pact for cultural activities of entertainment” by Mibac, the Conference of
Regions, Anci (National Association of Italian towns) and UPI (Union of Italian District), which
has ratified the principle of the so-called concurrent subsidiarity. However, there are still some
conflicts for competences, above all for what concerns for example the ruling (unban, commercial, for security one) of the sector of exercise. Here the territorial authorities have many
laws but AGCOM (Authority for Guarantees in Communication) underlines the necessity of some
national leading rules.
TAB. 1
Key words
Audiovisual
Documentary-short film
Cinema
THERE IS A LOT OF CINEMA IN REGIONAL LEGISLATION
Laws
Articles
261
81
87
7.234
2.140
2.873
Key words
Cinema
Film Library
Film Festival
Laws
Articles
202
41
5
6.839
1.408
62
Data from the Archive of Laws of the Chamber of Deputies, Database LREC Ancitel of the regional law.
the model of Film Office in Italy, a model diffused in USA since the ‘40s but almost inexistent in Europe2.
THE REGIONS AFTER THE CITIES
The experimentation of these “agencies” of facilitation has furthermore started from a
local level – above the cities – and the local institutions (like the Regions) have started
understanding the validity and capacity of attracting resources only in front of their results. Once more people from cinema have been the active part of this process in order
to convince the administrations to provide themselves with a Film Commission and to
let the investments converge to it. They have been able to start direct actions, with a proactive and not only intermediary function, through the availability of financial capital for
producers and authors, with the instrument of the Film Fund3.
The public administrators wanted to make new authorities more organic for their structure, also because the autonomy crashes with the strict bureaucracy rules of the public
jurisdiction. They also decided to give the responsibility of management direction to professionals of the sector with a great competence in the cinema sector.
2
3
Amongst the first initiatives there is the constitution of the private association Campania Film
Commission in 1997 in Naples by Rino Piccolo who has been firstly assistant and then production manager in Los Angeles. Italian Riviera-Alpi Del Mare Film Commission has been created
in 1998 in Savona by Alessandra Bergero, after her coming back to Italy from New York.
A Film Commission can be an authority, an agency or a service distributed by a non-profit local
institution. It usually has the aim of attracting cinema production in a specific territory and it
offers certain services for free to the productions in order to create opportunities and benefits
for the territory and the local enterprises (also from an employment point of view). Its finances
can be controlled by several departments which, since they have legal status, deal with the
preparation of administrative acts as well. The noun commission means “a workshop with
multi-sector capabilities” because all its activity cannot be linked to only one office with a specific delegation. There is also the easier form of Film Office (generally adopted by administrations in towns whit a high level of production) which deals with management of permissions and
offer of information.
| 195
TAB. 2
Film commission
Established by the Region
Emilia-Romagna F.C.
Umbria F.C.
F.C. Torino Piemonte
Toscana F.C.
Lombardia F.C.
Veneto F.C.
F.C. Regione Siciliana
Marche F.C.
F.C. Regione Campania
Genova-Liguria F.C.
Sardegna F.C.
Roma Lazio F.C.
Apulia F.C.
THE REGIONS AND THEIR FILM COMMISSIONS
First year
Legal Form
City
1997
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2001
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
Sector of service
Association
Regional authority
Foundation
Department
Foundation
Office
Department
Office
Foundation
Foundation
Association
Foundation
Foundation
Bologna
Trieste
Terni
Torino
Firenze
Milano
Venezia
Palermo
Ancona
Napoli
Genova
Cagliari
Roma
Bari
FILM FUND IN AN OVERALL VIEW
As a part of the factors that led the regions to promulgate recently so many new laws finally organic for all the cinema sectors, the phenomenon has strengthened. It still shows
a certain heterogeneity in its constitutional forms as we can see for the societal profiles
in the tables below. But, at the same time, it seems to be further developing along four
principal lines of trends4.
1. The tendency of framing more and more of the initiatives in favor of cinema among
the interventions of promotion of economy and industry within the field of interested
administrations. This has happened thanks to the grown available resources in the
budgets so that these initiatives are no longer part of the interventions for culture,
education and leisure time.
2. The growing orientation of territorial authorities in enriching the typologies of support for cinema with a financial instrument, through which allows facilitations of contributions for operators that decide to make part of the job on the territory, co-produce
some works or co-participate in the projects. The endowment of a Film Fund produces many complex problems for administration and bureaucracy, in addition to transparency and correctness in managing problems.
4
196 |
The last law on the sector at the National level is the decree “Reform of the discipline in the field
of film-making activity” (n° 28 of 22nd January 2004). Many regional laws are much more recent.
Sardinia, Liguria, Friuli, Venice and Friuli Venezia Giulia have published some in 2006; Lombardy,
Veneto, Tuscany, Trentino Alto Adige and Marche have in 2009.
TAB. 3
Regions and frequency
of the key words
Abruzzo
Basilicata
Calabria
Campania
Emilia-Romagna
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Lazio
Liguria
Lombardy
Marche
Molise
Piedmont
Apulia
Sardinia
Sicily
Tuscany
Trentino Alto Adige
Bolzano Prov. Aut. **
Trento Prov. Aut. **
Umbria
Valle d’Aosta
Veneto
Total Regions
FILM COMMISSION BY LAW
Laws
Film
Articles
9
2
0
1
4
8
6
4
7
4
0
1
2
4
8
2
1
9
5
2
0
2
81
629
181
0
16
79
137
531
49
105
62
0
3
68
120
398
16
5
130
182
28
0
27
2,176
Film commission
Laws
Articles
3
1
0
0
0
4
1
3
3
1
0
0
2
4
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
30
197
86
0
0
0
53
193
21
38
9
0
0
68
120
35
0
0
0
36
28
0
27
911
Film Fund *
Laws Articles
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
Data from the Archive of Laws of the Chamber of Deputies, Database LREC Ancitel of the regional law.
* The research has been done on the word “Film Fund”, since the term “fund” is used with different meanings.
**The laws of the autonomous districts of Trento and Bolzano have the status of regional law.
3. The awareness that the growth of a sector cannot be fed only through financial
means because it has to be sustained with a network of structures. These structures have to be a stable reference for both the production working on the territory
and the local operators, in order to give concrete application to policies of support.
The new Cineporto in Turin, Genoa, Bari and Lecce, the Giffoni Multimedia Valley,
the Polo della Cinematografia in Milan, the Polo di Produzione Audiovisiva in Cornigliano in Genoa, the Centro di produzione in Termini Imerese, the projects of Case
del Cinema in Florence and Bologna, beyond their demanding economic sustainability, represent the will of capitalizing the resources invested in terms of professionalism, occupation, young education and the will of acquiring an asset not only made
with poster advertisements. With this process, the activities of the Film Commission have started the following research of coordinated strategies by several public
structures that serve in the same territory (centres of production, documentary departments and historical archives). Moreover, they are coherent for different types
| 197
of support furnished in manifestations, events, festivals, awards, competitions, conferences and academic courses. Many administrators want to create a cinema district and this is an aim for some regions that have already expressed this will
through their laws5.
4. The cosmopolitan perspective where the Film Commission are set and try to project
their activity in order to both attract foreign productions which would confirm their
value and to get in touch with different realities. The wish of an international atmosphere is visible in the intense participation in festival and events of foreign markets
with many single sets of representation and promotion.
PHISIOLOGIC DYNAMICS
Basically, we can see the factors of dynamics and innovation that such a young reality has
introduced in the scenario of Italian cinema, as if we want to honour the manifesto of the
underground cinema signed by the director Jonas Mekas, director of the Anthology Film
Archive in New York: «We should abandon the sanctuaries of official cinema and get
down in the limbo where ideas and dreams are born».
This is a reality that is still changing and there are also proposals of ordering competences, ruling and making the configuration become organic, and coordinating the activity. This is about a phenomenon grown in the past ten years and therefore it seems to
be normal to have such a problem of coordination: from the public status to the private
or legal one (there are foundations, companies, associations, consortiums); from the administrative nature (departments, sectors, service offices) to the territorial one (regions,
towns, districts). Even if the main differentiation has to be done with the borders of the
Film Fund, between the Film Commissions that have the delegation to manage themselves (or act on behalf of the Regions that have constitute them) and the Film Commissions that do not have the same power.
AS ABROAD
Up to now the choice of the IFC-Italian Film Commission, the association representing 18 organizations to which they adhere, was to unify the membership basically
around three requirements: be non-profit organizations that provide free services to
the production (assistance in search for locations and facilities, land information, facilitations in relations with public institutions and the granting of permits for the work,
liaison with professionals and service providers); have been created or recognized by
a government local, regional, municipal or provincial; not being part of the system of
5
198 |
This is a vision that, even in its referral to the general theory of complexity by Chris Meyer seems
to adhere to the strategy of development of clusters by Micheal Porter and to the principles of configuration of the maps and landscapes by Richard Normann.
production or distribution of the film to avoid conflicts of interest6.
These are the same internationally recognized pre-conditions, on the basis of which it can
be the adherence to the European network EUFCN-European Film Commission network,
which has 83components and to the worldwide network-AFCI Film Commissions International Association, which represents more than 300 film commissions.
WHICH POLITICAL SYSTEM
The considerations on whether or not a regulation at national level is needed are in fact
to demonstrate the importance of regional policies and the functions of the Film Commission, which have given birth to a market of the local film tourism and a “stock exchange” of the locations. And the Film Fund of the Regions run in parallel with
assessments of the role which already has risen in the economic system of the national
film industry. Especially because of the recent layoffs in importing resources through
the Fund for the Performing Arts, administered by Mibac in a relationship between the
state and film, which is well suited to the significant dialogue between Zbigniew Zamachowski and the illegal money changer Cezary Pazura in Three colours - White Movie by
Krzysztof Kieslowski: «Password? I do not want. Counterword? But I must».
Even in the last Report on the use on the FUS, the Observatory on Entertainment of the
same Ministry has dedicated, for the second consecutive time, a long study to the subject (“The skills of show: the relationship State-Regions. The film commissions in Europe.
The Italian scene”). And as the previous year (“Film Commission in Italy”) they underlined the need of a common “address” and to bring these new players “within a national
system”.
THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The belief that the subsidies of regional Film Fund might complement the FUS of the
State and in the future perhaps replace them entirely has become more and more common.
From 2007 to 2009, the state contribution of FUS to the production is actually passed
from 48.28 million to 36.16 million euro, while the estimated contribution to the regional
6
The scheme of synthesis of the key functions recognized Film Commission refers to the hearing
before the seventh standing committee of the Senate (Public education, cultural heritage, scientific research, entertainment and sports - the Parliament) under the ‘Consultation on the film
and the performing arts “by Andrea Rocco, director of Genoa-Liguria Film Commission and former president of the Coordination of Italian Film Commission (140th session, December 6, 2007).
Since December 2009, the Italian Association-IFC Film Commission is chaired by Maurizio
Gemma, director of the Film Commission Regione Campania (Enrica Serrani vice-presidents are
responsible for the Bologna Film Commission, and Silvio Maselli, director of Apulia Film Commission).
| 199
funds has increased from 15.11 million to 4.9 thousand euro. This has been due to the
establishment of seven new Film Funds among the 12 currently in operation, by excluding the particular form of inter-regional fund of the South which is represented by the
project Contemporary Senses7.
Although not completely, compensation has taken place: the state has “saved” 12.12 million compared to 2007 and the regions have invested more 10.21 million. The contribution ratio between state and regional investment dedicated to the production has
therefore reached 70.5% versus 29.5%. This ratio is in line with the same one of rates that
occurs between the global contributions of FUS and those of the regions to the whole
field of cinema (including promotion, distribution, and especially practice, where the local
authorities have been pouring substantial resources both for digitization and the cinemas
for several years). This is among other things the same proportional system that we can
find in all European countries: the state contribution accounts for 69.5% compared to
30.5% of the Regional Funds.
The European average is, however, the result of sometimes conflicting situations: domestic support in France amounted to 82.1%, in the UK to 62.4%, in Spain to 60.7%, in
Germany, however, stops at 40.7%. It is a matter of policy and strategy towards film-making activities, at both central and local level, open in almost all countries. But even before the competition and the best balance between the two categories of funding
(different in nature and types as well as their origin) there is, for Italian cinema, the problem of an overall development that does not seem to be the ideal solution. The latent
contraction of the state contributions contrasts with the dynamism of the regional Film
Fund. Therefore the contribution of public investment is likely to end up in standby mode,
compared to growth opportunities otherwise available to nourish their competitiveness.
7
200 |
Contemporary Senses (subtitle: “Project for the promotion and dissemination of contemporary art
and the development of architectural and urban contexts in the South of Italy”) is an experimental program launched in 2004 by the DPS-Department for Development Policies and cohesion
with the Ministry of Economic Development; by the DARC-Direction for Architecture and Contemporary Art of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture Foundation; and by the Venice Biennale
which has promoted the objective of extending its activity to the South as well. The project (which
is financed with European development and cohesion funds within the APQ-Framework Programme Agreements and FAS-Fund for the Underdeveloped Areas) involves seven regions of
southern Italy: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Molise, Puglia, Sardinia and Sicily. Under a memorandum with the DGC - General Directorate for Cinema and the DGS-General Directorate for Live
Performances (Mibac), an APD (“The development of the audiovisual industry in the South”). Many
regions like Sicily, Sardinia, Basilicata have adhered, in order to support new productions. Concerning the cinema, 43 films have been financed until March 2010: two in 2006 and 2007, 14 in
2008, 24 in 2009 and a final one in the first quarter of 2010. It is not known in detail the extent of
these contributions, but they should be an amount of over 6 million euro.
TAB. 4
HOW MUCH DO THE FILM FUNDS INVEST IN THE PRODUCTIONS?
Film commission and regione
with film funds
Friuli Venezia Giulia F.C.
F.C. Regione Siciliana
F.C. Regione Campania *
Apulia F.C.
Piemonte Doc Film Fund
Bologna F.C.
Emilia-Romagna F.C.
Marche F.C.
Roma e Lazio F.C.
TOTAL FILM COMMISSION
Regione Toscana
Filas (Regione Lazio) **
Regione Sardegna **
Regione Veneto
Totale Regioni
TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN 2009
Funds to audivisual
productions in 2009
Characteristics of the available
investment budget
Institution
funds
FILM FUND MANAGED BY FILM COMMISSION
2.093.000
On total budget of 4,425,000 euro
3.000.000
Investments in 2008: 4,950,000 euro
1.800.000
Budget 2010: 1,800,000 euro
700.000
Budget 2010: 1,600,000 euro
500.000
Managed by Region e F.C.
240.000
Budget 2010: 240,000
140.000
Budget 2010: 350,000
100.000
On total budget of 277,000 euro
Budget 2010: 250,000 euro
8.573.000
-
2003
2008
2005
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2010
-
FILM FUND MANAGED BY REGIONS
4.500.000
Budget 2010: 4,500,000 euro
1.290.000
Plus rotation fund of venture capital
648.7000
On fund of rotation of 1,300,000 euro
Budget 2010: 750,000 euro
6.438.700
15.011.700
-
2009
2007
2007
2010
- -
Data from the communications of regional authorities and film commission (only the ones referred to the investments for production of audiovisual works (film, documentary, short films).
* The value given to F.C. Region Campania is calculated on the basis of a cumulative sum
** Region Sardinia e Filas (finanziaria della Regione Lazio) work also with other facilitations impossible to quantify.
2. The Many Jobs of the New Investors
As a phenomenon in constant motion and almost out of the norm than the traditional
patterns of industry, the film of the regions and their Film Commission is physiologically
conformed to the different realities of the territories. However, it presents a general uniformity of structure, organizational structures and instruments This thanks to the mission and coincident visions, which could be summed up in the guideline of the American
independent cinema drawn from one of its early exponents, the director Robert J. Flaherty (1884-1951): «The truly great films have yet to come; they will not be by large manufacturers but by the passionate people who will dedicated themselves to them not-for
profit; and these films will be made of art and truth».
On a practical level the regional commissions still have a very lean configuration. The
consistency of the staff varies from a minimum of two persons to a maximum of 13 employees and has a complex of a little more than 100 units (with the municipal and provincial commissions you get to a total of about 150 employees). The so-called operating
budgets are contained in the order of 180-200 thousand euro for minor structures and
of 400-500 thousand per year for the most developed ones. This happens according to co| 201
ordinates that can be altered only through the management and direct delivery of contributions to production projects (with their burden of administrative practices).
Management aspects do not generally determine the assessment of their efficiency and
results. The most frequently used parameters concern the number and permanence of
productions in the area. Those actually incurred with services, assistance or subsidies (if
provided) while there is still some sporadic cases of structures with “films made in the
territory”. Other parameters are about the importance of the production: for example, an
international co-production with a cast of prestige is able to qualify the activity of an entire year and to gratify the territory - creating jobs and economic benefits - almost as
much as the realization of a long TV series would.
MAP
It is interesting anyway to define the composition and dimension of the regional cinema
and to draw a global framework of the development that was featured in the last ten
years.
REGIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
• Rome and Lazio Film Commission. It was established as a foundation in 2007 by the
Lazio Region in partnership with the City of Rome and the provinces of Rome, Frosinone, Viterbo and Rieti, particularly in view of creating a single organism than a previous situation of two different entities, one relating to the Region and the other to
the capital city (CineRomaCittà FC, founded in 2000 by an agreement between the Department of Culture of the Municipality of Rome and Cinecittà Holding). It has an annual budget of 690 thousand euro, fund assets of 1.090 thousand and a team of six
people.
As a reference of the national center of cinematography, this commission has one of
its primary goals in regional marketing. Furthermore, it does want to make Rome and
Cinecitta and the national cinema converge with the interest of major international
operators in order to both encourage the partnership in co-produced projects and to
tie the realization of their products to the Italian structures and locations. For this reason, the commission is a partner of CRC-Capital Regions for Cinema – a network between the Film Commission of the European capital city-regions with Ile de France,
Comunidad de Madrid and Berlin-Brandenburg - which organizes periodic meetings of
co-production (over 400 projects submitted up today, 130 of them from Italian homes)
and participates with its own representation at major international festivals.
Since 2010, Rome Lazio F.C. was also equipped with a fund to support the access to the
services of pre and post-production for the works in progress. This fund, amounteing
to 250 thousand euro, is the first direct availability. The resources to invest in production or acting on factors of economic incentive and attraction (through which to convey
to the territory of Rome and Lazio new initiatives and activities) are actually managed
and paid directly by the financial arm of the Lazio Region, Filas, which is a member of
202 |
Cine-Regio (the European network among the 33 major regional funds for the audiovisual sector in Europe).
Among these tools the fund for the co-financing venture capital cinematographic and
audiovisual works has for example to be included. Its budget of expenditure is concentrated at least 50% within the regional borders (with aid up to 500 thousand euro)
and it recorded admission of 38 productions for a total of intervention 8.5 million at the
end 2009 (120 applications involving economic uses for more than 34 million). Other
funds are intended instead for the development of new projects - with a budget of 1.29
million - which include the enhancement of the Lazio region (up to 70% of development costs and for a maximum of 50 thousand euro), to the granting of guarantees to
facilitate access to credit, in cooperation with Unionfidi Lazio and a ceiling equal to 2.15
million, or even to fund the tax credit, to provide advances of public funds and finally
to contribute to the reduction of VAT, which represents a major problem for foreign
productions or productions shared with foreign operators.
In its role of facilitation and interaction, Rome Lazio Film Commission has so far followed more than 300 film and audiovisual projects, entering into five co-productions.
On the other hand, it has introduced a series of initiatives with regard to the institutional activity of the collector and promoter of national and especially international productions. For this reason it has been able to bring productions from Europe, India,
Singapore, Argentina, Brazil (with the State of Sao Paulo) and United States (with the
New York Film Office) towards the capital, through collaboration and cooperation
agreements with public and private authorities.
• Turin Piedmont Film Commission. It has the legal status and was established in 2000
by the City of Turin and the Piedmont Region, which are the founders and financial backers. From the beginning it has dedicated itself to support the productions made in
Piedmont, both in preparation (surveys, research location) and in the works (in permitted facilities, other facilities). Moreover, it has given contributions to the essential
purpose of lowering logistics costs of the companies that choose to operate in Turin and
Piedmont, with special attention to projects that enhance the territory without putting
any particular constraint in this respect. It has a long series of operations: from 2000
to 2009, 113 movies, more than 70 TV dramas and soap operas, almost 250 documentaries and short films and almost 60 commercials and music videos were made with
the support of the Commission, with 2,611 weeks of manufacturing and 413 weeks of
preparation.
F.C. Turin Piedmont does not operate through the Film Fund. However it has been managing Piedmont Doc Film Fund since 2007. This is a fund created by the Region and
specifically dedicated to documentary, with a disposable income of 500 thousand euro
and that has provided financial support to more than 150 jobs (for the first time in Italy
in favor of documentary production). In 2008 Torino FilmLab was also promoted with
the National Museum of Cinema. It was created to support projects of emerging filmmakers from around the world in their first or second works with production grants
| 203
from 50 thousand to 200 thousand euro, without the obligation to invest in Italy. Thanks
to regional funds it has been possible to build the investment company FIP (Film Investment Piedmont), designed to attract international film productions by enhancing the
territorial opportunities and skills in the area of Piedmont.
The last major initiative in terms of time concerned the construction of the Turin Cineport. It was developed after five years of work and a cost of almost 8.5 million euro
in the industrial complex of the former cotton mill Colongo. This is an area of 9,4 thousand square meters, 6,400 of which are covered and divided between offices (conference rooms, casting and costumes) and workshops (tool room areas, carpentry,
laundry room), plus a viewing room 35mm and digital with 96 seats. Designed to accommodate up to five productions to work on the ground, it does not provide soundstages, as exist at the Turin Lumiq and other structures in the region.
• Afc-Apulia Film Commission. It is a foundation for participation established by the regional law in 2004 and is operative since July 2007. The cities of Bari, Brindisi and
Lecce, the Province of Lecce and 16 towns are also members together with the region
which pays the capital endowments. Since its inception, it is expected that it has many
functions. Firstly, the three functions typical of the Film Commission: attracting investments in the audiovisual sector, promoting the region, exporting art and culture in the
Italian territory and in the world. Secondly, it supplies and manages a movie fund by directly providing contributions or grants (and the province of Lecce has waived simultaneously its pre-existing Salento Film Fund). In 2007 258 thousand euro contributions
were allocated; in 2008 to 463.2 thousand and almost 700,000 in 2009, for eighty films
that included filming in the area. The amounts recognized from time to time in these
operations are anticipated only for 20%, while the remaining 80% is paid after verification of compliance with any compatibility. The actual detailed report of the first two
years underlines a total budget of 25.9 million for 11 titles of 2007, 3.8 of them spent
in Apulia and total budget of 13.8 million and for 30 works in 2008, 4.8 of them spent
in the region.
The budget of the 2010 film fund has been increased to 1.6 million euro and divided into
1 million for activities in support of production and 600 thousand for the hospitality
(over 100 crews are housed in two and a half years). The government members of AFC,
however, have given to the Foundation the responsibility for managing resources from
the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). These resources feed the regional
operational Por-Programme of Apulia in 2009-2011 for a total in the amount of 7.070
million. In convergence with the EU directives, the statute – which used to provide a
possible participation of private entities - has been amended by formalizing the complete public nature.
Based on this assignment, Apulia Film Commission has prepared a master plan for
the implementation of specific projects, in large part already started. The new Cineport
of Bari was opened and it unified the Hall 180 of the Fiera del Levante and AFC (whose
guidance office has a staff of five people, as well as 35 between employees and con204 |
sultants and a general manager). A multimedia room with 96 seats, exhibition spaces
and meeting, casting, costumes, props rooms, a hairdresser and a scenes deposit.
Another Cineport was set up in Lecce at the former Manufacturing Knos owned by the
district of Lecce, in a pavilion of 4 000 square meters and with an organization of space
suitable to host productions during construction. The structure was opened to the public last May 13th. A circuit of 20 single-screen cinemas and multiplexes with 2 to 4
screens in the direct management has became operational - through a call that has issued 1.44 million euro, in addition to 750 thousand euro for communication. For this
project, a single annual contribution of 36 thousand euro has been provided. Furthermore, advertisements of planning on the regional scale (linked to a share of at least
51% of Italian and European films) have been required. The festival Bif&St of Bari (dedicated to the presentation of previews for distributors), a European audiovisual coproduction forum and Apulia workshop for students of film schools in the
Mediterranean were promoted as well. The coordination of the regional system composed of audiovisual regional Media Center of Bari, the UNESCO Media Center of Specchia (Lecce), the Digital Learning Center of Mola (Bari) and the Center of film culture
Cinema ABC of Bari (second historic Hall of art house Italy, recovered after four years
of work) has been assigned to AFC.
• Friuli Venezia Giulia Film Commission. Founded in Trieste in 1999 as an association,
it is recognized by the Region for which it holds “public service activities for the support of film production and audio-visual”, according to a five years convention and the
annual fund given in large part by the entity. This commission is the first one to have
provided a Film Fund (established by the Regional Law of 2003) with the aim to support
productions with 70% of the outdoor shooting (or at least 50% of the total mounted
shooting) in the territory. In this way, it ties the spending in the regional boundaries to
contributions that correspond to 150% of the amount paid.
With the new regional law of 2006 on the audiovisual sector the fund was later reformed in 2007, raising the limits of budget commensurate with the working week (the
maximum for seven weeks of shooting has gone from 120 to 140 thousand euro). Moreover, the reform has broadened the spectrum of intervention to promote other audiovisual works (animation, documentary and short films) and to adjust the circuit
cinema, support four regional media centers and training both culture and film authorities, including festivals. The total financial commitment in 2009 was 4.425 million
euro, of which 0.812 for the film products (over 20), 1.281 for audiovisual (for 102 projects), 0.555 fro cultural authority and 0.160 to cinemas.
• Sardinia Film Commission. Established by a resolution of the Giunta (town parliament)
in December 2002, it was formally recognized by the Regional Law in September 2006
as a councilor structure of public education, cultural information, entertainment and
sports. It was run by an organization associated with the municipalities and provincies
of the island (but without excluding the possible participation of private entities). All
these authorities have finally signed a protocol designed to permit the coordination of
| 205
interventions in the field. Its task is to promote and enhance the artistic and environmental heritage, the professional and technical resources and to attract films and audiovisual productions in the area by providing services and facilities.
The regional law provides several types of contributions: to the production (up to 400
thousand euro and 500 thousand for international co-productions, with a revolving fund
of 1.3 million euro); to the scripts (up to 50 thousand euro and 80 thousand if drawn
from literary works and foresee the acquisition of copyright); to documentaries and
short films; to broadcasting, distribution and marketing of the films of regional interest up to 50% of the costs incurred; to the cinemas; to the cinema education in schools and universities (141 thousand euro last year); to professional training; to the
promotion of film culture - of which 114.8 thousand for the exhibitions, 150 to festivals, 80 000 to awards, 56 to seminars, 67.7 to conferences and 150 to the organization
of circuits - and centers of research and studies (24 thousand in 2009). Considering
the creation of two new structures such as the Sardinian Regional Film Library Foundation and the Center for Audiovisual Documentation, we can see a consistent intervention. In fact, the Film Commission acts as a counter because the appropriations are
physically delivered by the Region after the screening of technical and artistic commission.
• Tuscany Film Commission. From 2000 to 2006 a service office of the regional communication and advertising of the Regional Department for communication has born
this name. Then, the Region has decided to unify the structures dedicated to the film
industry and has sent the skills to Tuscany Regional Media Foundation, of which the
Film Commission is now a department. The activity was always very intense, because
Tuscany is considered almost a natural set - full of settings and scenarios - and is
chosen each year by dozens of Italian and international productions (43 last year to
530 days of shoots). This situation has an economic impact (estimated at 14.2 million
euro for 2009) that testifies the value of the territory as a capital asset. The new configuration has seemed to enrich the amount of opportunities in front of an already
high demand for facilitations. On the other hand it has increased the growth of direct
financing services offered in other geographical areas as well. In 2009 the Fund for
the cinema and audiovisual media was so created by a regional law, with a budget of
9 million euro for 2009-2010 and a particularly broad range of contributions: new
scripts (up to 15 000 euro); first works (up to 50% of the cost of production and for a
maximum of 200 thousand euro); second films (up to 10% and 450 thousand euro, in
co-production or with the pre-sales of the rights), documentaries (up to 50% but not
more than 50 thousand euro). The Film Fund is managed by the Region, as an instrument of economic more than cultural policy and at the end of the first call on
31st December 2009, the Directorate General for Economic Development had received 135 applications. Another fund of 2 million euro is dedicated to the operators for
technological innovation, with funding up to 50% of expenditure and a ceiling of 80
thousand euro.
206 |
• Film Commission Sicilian Region. It was formally established in 2000, when the only
technical structure then active in the region, the Sicilian Regional Film Library, was
delegated by the regional authority to carry out its duties. Since 2006 it has become rather a service of the Department of Environmental Cultural Heritage and education, of
Architecture and Contemporary Art belonging to the Councillorship of Cultural, Environmental, and Public Education in the region. The latter has then merged it into the
same Film Library, in a reverse process to the one in Tuscany. Even with this role, it
continues to collaborate with the structures formed by individual provincial or municipal authorities in Palermo, Catania, Taormina, Siracusa, Ragusa (even thanks to the
settlement of locations for multi-year television series such as The Inspector Montalbano and Agrodolce), which are still autonomous. Since 2007 it has been managing the
Regional Fund for cinema and audiovisual established by the Regional Law of discipline
in the sector, which foresees five bands of contributions to new production (up to a maximum of 250-150-100-50-10 thousand euro). The amount of money provided is related to the number of weeks working on the territory and the recruitment of technical
staff and local artists, plus disbursements in favor of another part of the festival already
active. The EU’s ERDF resources channelled in FPA and POR Sicily converge in the
Film Fund as well and they have already been used to support production within three
years of 29 films. At the first call of the Fund in 2008, with a budget of 4.95 million, 314
have been approved and 57 then allowed (7, 13, 13, 18 and 6 in the respective groups)
out of the 337 submitted projects. In 2009 the budget was increased to 3 million, but
the procedures for the allocation, have suffered a slowdown: the Tar Sicily in fact decided to suspend the implementation of the previous call, on appeal of a company excluded because it was made up less than a year before. The Film Library service is
also in charge of the technical-scientific Department of Documentary Film Palermo, recently completed with the region financing. It has therefore become the decentralized
site of the National Film School of the Experimental Centre of Cinematography in the
former Officine Ducrot (now called Cultural Shipyards of Zisa). Furthermore, the latter houses the new regional Film, Media and New Technologies Archive. A last interesting information is about the development of the manufacturing of Termini Imerese.
• Emilia-Romagna Film Commission. From an administrative point of view it is a sector
of the culture, sport and youth projects service in the Region which was formalized in
1997. It has always dealt with the promotion and development of the area by providing
assistance and services to the productions. Since 2008 it has been managing the operations of direct participation which the regional entity has established for the benefit
of animation and documentary cinema (with a strictly territorial bound). The contributions were not more than either 20 euro or 50% of the budget costs which were payable only at the end of filming. In response to 52 applications, in the first year 46 were
accepted and 12 funded for a total of 132 thousand euro in 2009. In 2009, 35 of the 54
applications submitted were deemed eligible and 10 of those financially financed for a
total of 140 thousand euro. ERFC lives with Bologna Film Commission, an office of the
| 207
City which operates in the district and is located in the municipal seat of the Cinematheque of Bologna. The latter manages an art cinema with two Lumière halls and the
newly established Centre for the Development of the audiovisual and the digital innovation in Emilia Romagna which should give rise to a future of multimedia District in
agreement with the region. With the support of the regional authority, the Centre for
Audiovisual has promoted together with FCB a contract with 420 thousand euro on the
2010-2011 period to support the production of projects (to the extent of 20%) and works
(the remaining 80%) by involving local filming. The available resources do not constitute a grant because it has set its restitution in cases where the works come into production.
• Campania Film Commission. Since its establishment in 2004 by the Campania Region,
the activity of the cultural association Campania Film Commission has gradually finished. The latter was promoted by the producer Rino Piccolo during the end of the Nineties and then formally established in 2000 with the participation of other private
shareholders and 19 between towns and districts and it could be defined as a precursor of the new Commission. FCRC used to foresee the entry of districts as additional
partners but it became operational in 2005 as a cooperative company with limited liability (transformed into a foundation for participation in 2007) fully owned by the Region
of Campania. Moreover, it was related to the sector of development and promotion of
tourism through a framework convention which has been instrumental to provide it
with the necessary funding financial year. Since the beginning, the Film Commission
(which is based in Naples in the historical building Degas close to Piazza del Gesù) has
been entrusted to manage the Fund for participation in co-production film, television
and multimedia, with total resources of 8.9 million between 2005 and 2009. In that period, some contributions were allocated (according to the investment planned for the
period of stay in the territory) to 100 movies, 14 TV series and dramas, 38 documentaries, 29 documentaries, 24 television, 14 music videos and commercials. The activity of
institutional promotion of the territory and delivery of services and assistance to production activities in the region includes the collaboration of two television series (A
Place in the Sun and The team) as well. They are conducted at the Centre of Rai production of Naples, the largest structure of the audiovisual sector in Campania which is
alongside the imposing complex of studios and workshops Giffoni Multimedia Valley.
The latter is almost ready in the town of Giffoni Valle Piana and is funded by the Campania Region and the Ministry of Economic Development.
• Marche Film Commission. Its birth is a decision of the Regional Council in June 2001,
as an office of tourism and accommodation, with headquarters in Ancona. In June 2008,
a process of transformation was launched in order to provide it of its own structure,
which is taking place after the approval of the regional law “Support the film and audiovisual” (March 2009). In this perspective, the management of the homonymous regional fund on the “Plan for the film-making activities” (prepared annually by the
Department of International Affairs, culture, tourism and commerce in the region)
208 |
would be delegated to it. In its first edition in 2009 the plan has provided Film Fund of
277 thousand euro: 157 thousand to support festivals, exhibitions and awards already
in the territory, 20 thousand of funding to the Regional Gallery established in 1997, 50
thousand for contributions to projects of pre-production and feature films of regional
interest; 50 thousand to support the practice. However the practice already has 800
thousand euro foreseen in the chapter of expenditure and it would be for investments
in energy saving).
• Genoa-Liguria Film Commission. It was born in 2006, picking up the legacy of Genovaset Film Commission, the office of the tourism department of the city set up in 1998.
It had had more than 300 productions in the seven years of activity (it was also the first
ever to hold a circuit 250 fine private homes available to be used as a set). In the new
guise GLFC is a foundation created by the participation by the Liguria Region and the
Municipality of Genoa which have then associated other several territories: provinces,
municipalities, parks and mountain communities. Its primary goal is regional marketing to attract productive investment and stimulate the growth of local businesses and
services by creating jobs. Since its establishment, has already assisted over 150 productions. Since September 2009, it has been working in the new headquarters in previous Villa Bombrini in Cornigliano, the area where Italsider and Ilva steel complex
used to be. This area was converted with a program between public administration and
the private Company for Cornigliano (owner of Villa Bombrini after purchase for 8.7
million euro by Fintecna, a company 100% controlled by the Ministry of Economic Development). In the old headquarters of the former steelworks new Cineport of Genoa
(1,400 square feet of offices, laboratories and parking studies and 2000) was opened in
February 2010. There, the Film Commission manages the newly constituted PPACPolo Audiovisual Production of Cornigliano for the establishment of local businesses
and the hospitality of productions in progress in the area.
• Lombardia Film Commission. Promoted in 1999 as an experimental Film Commission
by the Culture Department of the Lombardy Region, it adopted its present nature of
foundation in 2000, with the participation of the Municipality of Milan, Fondazione Fiera
Milano, Unioncamere Lombardia and Cariplo. It supports the management fees depending on the annual agreement provided by the region. In recent years it has worked for regional marketing and has provided support and assistance to professionals
working in the field and local production. More than 250 partnerships have been given
from 2003 to 2009, including feature films, shorts, doc, and TV programs, commercials
and video clips). As Management Partner of the new Polo’s film recently installed in the
former tobacco factory in Milan (together with the Italian Film Library Foundation and
to the decentralized site of the Experimental Center of Cinematography), it should also
receive the delegation to manage the Sole Fund for the Performing Arts. It has a 1 million euro grant, after the definition and approval within the Board of the call for participation. The contributions to the restructuring and digitalization of the cinema and
the recognition of the economic facilities introduced in July 2009 pertaining to the De| 209
partment. These benefits were in the form of tax credit and the taxation of profits for
the entire entertainment industry.
• Veneto Film Commission. It was formally established in 2000 - upon resolution of the
regional council - as a unit of promotional activities and special projects of the Department Culture, information and migration. Furthermore it was entitled to act mainly as
a provider of services for cinema operators. Its activities, however, have been significantly amplified after the approval of the first systemic law for the whole audiovisual
sector promulgated by the region in October 2009. The measure includes in particular
the definition of a three-year plan of promotion for cinema to be implemented in collaboration with local organizations and through an annual plan of identification of the
specific objectives and related resources to be allocated. Four key areas of action have
been distinguished: characterization of the practice and quality its circuits; development of the regional Media Center established in 1984; dissemination of film culture
(through exhibitions, festivals and other events); full operation of the regional Film
Commission. In particular, the management of a fund to support projects and promotion on the market of works made by “people working in the Veneto” were entrusted
to the Commission. Then the creation of a regional center for audiovisual production
in the abandoned areas of Porto Marghera was entrusted to the structure as well. For
the first and third field of action 250 thousand euro has been allocated both in 2010
and 2011. The MediaCenter has received 150 thousand euro per year, while 750 thousand euro have been given to the new Regional Fund for cinema and audiovisual for
2010 and 850 thousand in 2011. The law has now entered a phase of physiological interim, waiting to become fully enforceable.
• Umbria Film Commission. It is a regional agency established in 1999 on the initiative
of the Umbria Region, the provincial governments of Perugia and Terni, the town of
Terni and the Multimedia Center of Terni (controlled by the public company USI-Umbria Innovative Services). In addition to promoting the area as the location for film and
television productions, it acts as a helpdesk for the production. Two specific memoranda define the collaboration between 43 towns of Umbria and the Agency for promotion of tourism (in particular on the supply side of a network of accommodation with
discounts between 40% and 60% across the region). Together with the Multimedia Center in Terni, Umbria can count on Papigno Studios (which refer to Cinecittà Studios) on
a second fully integrated production area.
PRIVATE INITIATIVE STRUCTURES
• Italian Riviera - Alps of the sea Film Commission. Founded in 1998 by Alessandra Bergero, it is supported by the Foundation De Mari (owned by the District of Imperia), with
the support of the district authorities of Savona, Imperia and Cuneo and so the territories between the Riviera di Ponente and lower Piedmont. It has collaborated with
over 35 film productions (5), documentaries and shorts (6), reality shows and TV programs (8), music videos, commercials and advertising campaigns (17).
210 |
• Abruzzo Film Commission. It was established in 2001 and designed by Gabriele Lucci
who is the promoter and founder of several initiatives in L’Aquila (The Magic Lantern
Film Institute, International Academy of Image Arts and Sciences, Cinematheque
Aquila, Theatre of Abruzzo and Theatre of innovation L’Uovo). It counts on the partnership of the City and District of L’Aquila and the Abruzzo region as well.
• Calabria Film Commission. Foundation promoted by Francesco Zinnato, it has been
active since 2005. It is based in Catanzaro and organizes the festival “Cinema, environment and landscape”.
• Basilicata Film Commission. It is actually a project in progress, promoted on private
initiative in the legal form of a foundation. It is based in Matera. An agreement between the District, Town and Chamber of Commerce of Matera and the Murgia Park
Authority provides their future participation in it.
WORK IN PROGRESS
• Trentino Film Commission. Covered by district law “Rules of cultural activities” (number 15 of October 3rd, 2007) the establishment of the Film Commission was initiated
by the Autonomous Province of Trento. In February 2010, the latter has entrusted the
realization of the project to the Scientific Committee of Format, the Centre audiovisual
of the same District.
SCOPE OF PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
There are another 32 Film Commissions in Italy at the municipal or provincial level, both
public and private in nature, almost all in regions which already have a Regional Film
Commission (but seven are virtually inactive).
In Lazio, for example, there are the very active Latin Film Commission Foundation (established by the District and with a local agreement with almost all the 33 towns in Pontino) and Civita Film Commission in Civitavecchia (established two years ago by the City
Council). The Commission of Latina has also formed the Latina Film Fund, but it is the
prize in a contest for documentary devoted to the area.
In Puglia, in addition to the regional AFC, there are also the cultural associations Alberobello Apulia Apulia Film Commission and Film Commission in Bari. The latter is the organizer of the event “Cinemangiando”, Taranto Film Commission (recognized in 2008 by
the City) and Trani Film Commission.
In Sicily, there are commissions active in Palermo, Catania, Taormina, Messina, Syracuse and Ragusa: the first four as offices of the respective municipalities (Department
of Culture) and the other for the regional district of Syracuse (since 2001 as a foundation)
and Ragusa (in 2006).
In Lombardy there are two organizations founded by private cultural associations: Mantua Film Commission and BAFC-Busto Arsizio Film Commission, promoted by the same
| 211
group of partners that bring the Raptor Studios. The latter is a fully equipped centre for
filming in 3D. Both are organizers of the local exhibitions of Mantua Film Fest and BA
Film Festival.
In Liguria there is the Portofino Film Commission, as an office of the City.
In Emilia Romagna there is the historical presence of Bologna Film Commission, a service that the municipal authorities in the district have established since 1997 and that has
been part of youth policies since 2001.
Operating in Campania there is the MediaTerre Film Commission as well, promoted in Irpinia by Acting (public agency for the management and implementation of the network),
based in Avellino. Then there is the Caserta Film Commission, an association of private
individuals and Capri Film Bureau, the film office constituted by the City Council in 1997
and that is part of the department for Tourism.
In Tuscany, there are the public Livorno Film Commission, Lucca Film Commission and
the Terre di Siena Film Commission. These offices were established respectively by the
municipal administration (in 2000), APT-Tourism Promotion Company and the City-District of Siena.
In Calabria there are the Film Commission Co-operative Society of Lamezia Terme and
the Calabria Film Commission SaS.
In the Veneto Are there are also the active Venice Film Commission (part of the City),
Padua FC, Verona FC and Vicenza FC Vicenza which is promoted by the consortium Vicenza È.
Abruzzo Film Commission has formally created in the region three subsidiary branches:
L’Aquila Film Commission, Adriatica Film Commission and Sulmonacinema Film Commission.
212 |
“I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THE LUCE INSTITUTE HAS
NOT MADE ME ASSIST YET”
Benito Mussolini
The Evolution
of the State Cinema
and Cinecittà Luce SpA
The Duce Put the First Stone:
Cinecittà was Born
O
n 26th January, 1936, during the war of Ethiopia, Mussolini put the first
stone on the ashes of a fire: the study of Cines in Rome at “via Veio”. Cinecittà was born, a place where the Duce did not go anymore. The impressive rationalist building designed by Gino Peressutti was built in record
time – in little more than a year, 475 days. The «new modern center of
Fascist activity», (as defined by Mussolini) used to have 16 studios, three swimming
pools for underwater filming, apartments, buildings, 40 thousand square meters of
streets and squares, 35 thousand flower beds and gardens, 900 salaried workers that
soon became 1,200, restaurants, barracks, dance halls, rooms for billiards and a library. The Duce had realized that cinema was a persuasive and powerful tool of propaganda to the masses and he liked to repeat that is was “the strongest weapon”.
Therefore it was to be run by men close to him and so people he could really trust. The
most important person in Cinecittà was Luigi Freddi (a futurist like Tommaso Marinetti) the former press chief of the National Fascist Party and Vice-President of the
Italian Fascists Italians abroad. Despite being a man of the regime, Freddi was con-
vinced that cinema did not necessarily have to respect the strict criteria of fascist ideology. Here, the first films of escape-motivated and sentimental happy ending were born.
These were for cinema the years of the so-called “white telephone” genre and the phenomenon of superstars. Each script was subject to strict controls. The plot cannot possibly show unethical behavior, but they have to give space and underline the fascist
values. For this reason, many laws were enacted and in 1935, for example, the filmmakers were obliged to project only Italian film or, in 1938, the foreign movies were subdued
to the state control. Moreover, in 1939 the requirement to be a part of the National Fascist Federation of Industrialists of the Spectacle became compulsory. The directors
were Nazzari, Giachetti, Valenti, Cervi, De Sica, Villa, Girotti.
Thus the long struggle between public and private began, a struggle that from here on
out will feature up to the present day the history of Cinecittà. In 1935, for example, with
the Decree of 21st January, the National Institute Luce gives life to National Authority of
Film Industries (ENIC), with a capital of 2 million Euro and 90% shares controlled by the
same Institute Luce. The following year, by Art. 4 of the Decree of 24th September, the
Institute Luce ceases to be employed by the Head of the Government and passed under
the control of the Ministry for Press and Propaganda (MinCulpop). In the statutes of the
foundation of Luce, represented by the profile of a beak of a black eagle, the purpose of
the Institute seems to be the one of «spreading the popular culture and the general education by means of cinematic visions, marketed to the minimum conditions of sale and
distributed for charitable, patriotic and national propaganda». Natalia Marino writes,
«the decree according to which every cinema has to pay a daily tax to Luce Institute is cashing about 300-400 thousand lira a month, while the distribution of educational films
happens thanks to the Pittaluga company which is the owner of nearly all Italian cinemas»1. In the opening year of Cinecittà over 20 films were made, 36 in 1938, 51 in 1939,
55 in 1940 and from there onwards it was a great crescendo of successes and prestigious awards. According to many people, the first feature ever filmed in the Rome’s theaters was Another Experience by Gennaro Righelli. It was then followed by Mister Max by
Mario Camerini, with Vittorio De Sica as a novice.
Unfortunately, with the fall of Fascism in 1943, the factory of the film died as well. Mussolini was arrested, the studios stopped filming and over 1200 workers became unemployed. Many facilities were put onto trains and sent abroad by the Germans. Many others
end up in the Barrandov studios in Prague. The bombing did not spare Cinecitta. The
theaters were razed to the ground and the Germans occupied the Cinecitta studios. When
Luigi Freddi was released from prison, he was re-appointed President of Cinecittà. Gradually the boards began to be restored and reopened; but the path of reconstruction will
be long.
1
216
L’Ovra a Cinecittà. Polizia politica e spie in camicia nera by Natalia Marino, Emanuele V. Marino
– Bollati Boringhieri – Turin, 2005
“AT CINECITTÀ IS THE REAL LIFE”
Federico Fellini
The Period of Dolce Vita
and Hollywood on the River Tiber
C
inecittà reaches its heyday during the ‘60s when films (which will soon become masterpieces of Italian and international cinema) are shot in Rome.
These were the years when the studios of via Tuscolana 1055 tried to be better than the legendary Hollywood studios, the years when international stars
landed in Rome and the years in which the myth of Cinecittà was born. Ronnie Pizzo writes: «Everyone was trying to get to Cinecittà and Cinecittà welcomed everyone: unemployed, on sick leave, pensioners, women and girls from good families and
from the countryside, children, acrobats, strangers, relatives of the employees, relatives
of relatives, relatives of relatives of relatives, curious passers-by and layabouts»2.
These were the years when they film epochal movies in Cinecittà, such as Love in Rome
by Dino Risi, The Loves of Hercules by Ludovico Bragaglia, Letto a tre piazze by Steno,
Amori pericolosi by Carlo Lizzani, Giulio Questi and Alfredo Giannetti, Le belle famiglie
by Ugo Gregoretti, Casanova 70 by Mario Monicelli, La corruzione by Mauro Bolognini, The
Visitor by Antonio Pietrangeli, Romeo and Juliet by Franco Zeffirelli and so on. Before coming to the realization of the magnificent works of various Fellini, Visconti and Pasolini
there was a passage, the one of neo-realist filmmakers who preferred the streets to the
theaters in Cinecittà, commoners to the professional actors, the natural to artificial light.
Zavattini, Rossellini, De Sica, choose to shoot outdoors, away from the artificial studios
of Cinecittà; but neo-realism was not long-lasting. Soon the building began to be re-populated by Italian and U.S. productions and the work at Cinecittà started prosperously
again.
The ‘70s were the years of politicized cinema. The state presence in the film is enclosed
in a judgment «with which the journal of ANICA “Cinema Today” comments on a draft law
on film by Giorgio Napolitano (the head of the Culture Committee of the Italian Communist Party). It was this period in which Piccoli’s decree which fixed tasks of Ente Cinema
(the authority for cinema) was about to be enacted into law. The draft foresaw that in
case the proceeds of the film in a cooperative venture were not sufficient to repay the cre-
2
Ronnie Pizzo, Panni sporchi a Cinecittà, Editorial Group Olimpia, Sesto Fiorentino, 2008.
| 217
dit granted by the State, the loss would be borne by the State. This concept of the state
that bets on the culture, that takes care of any losses and that becomes a producer (taking on the economic risks) in order to promote equality cinema, has been imposed by
the law on cinema that is still in force (n° 153 of ‘94) for films of national cultural interest with revealing artistic purposes»3.
3
218 |
Una poltrona per due, by Franco Montini, Enzo Natta, Effatà Editrice, Turin, 2007.
1997: the Privatization Starts
T
he privatization of Cinecittà Studios has been successfully completed».
This is what the president of “Cinecittà services” Luigi Abete said on 1st
July 1998 to communicate the shareholding structure of the new company
cinema in Rome. There are four companies that subscribe 50 billion in capital: Cecchi Gori Group, Filmauro, the group Della Valle and the Merloni
group (kitchens and furniture) with 11.25%, the Dear Cinestudi and Efibanca Merchant
Bank of BNL group (7.50%). The remaining 40% of the capital remains in the hands of Cinecittà Holding (formerly Ente Cinema) which reserves to itself the right to assign a portion of its shares to new members. AGCOM writes: «Cinecittà Services manages the
business unit that deals with the production of film material used in film and television
purposes, with particular reference to the management of the studios and related technical equipment, as well as plant, machinery and equipment for post-production processes and management systems for the processes of developing and printing film
negatives or positives films». The operation was successful, although large groups of
the audiovisual sector as Rai and Mediaset did not enter the organization of shares. On
the contrary they left the place to private groups that, even if did not have anything to do
with cinema, will be of great help in the future «for the international exploitation of merchandising of the brand Cinecittà, a name known around the world»4. The 10th November 1997 Luigi Abete also became the new CEO, appointing as directors: Francesco
Gesualdi, Luciano Grisanti, Massimo Merzetti, Roberto Natrici, Enzo Roppo, Severino
Salvemini, Giuseppe Sangiorgi. The 17th March 1998, Cinecittà Holding, Cecchi Gori and
Filmauro jointly acquiring a stake of 12% in the company Cinecittà Services, following
the sale by Cinecittà Holding, which holds a stake of 76%.
There were years when the state was trying to get stronger and stronger presence in the
movies, but they were also the years of historic films shot in Cinecittà as ‘Daylight with
Sylvester Stallone, The English Patient by Anthony Minghella and Dangerous Beauty with
Jacqueline Bisset, Marriages by Cristina Comencini, Little Teachers by Daniele Luchetti,
Il compagno by Francesco Maselli, Dirty Linen by Mario Monicelli, The Nanny by Marco
Bellocchio, Gallo cedrone by Carlo Verdone. And again: The Chambermaid on the Titanic by Bigas Luna in the famous Theater 5 and Banzai by Carlo Vanzina. The fiction finds
a home at Cinecittà as well: Mamma per caso by Sergio Martino with Raffaella Carrà, the
S.P.Q.R. series by Claudio Risi for Italia 1, the new Amico mio by Paolo Poeti and La dottoressa Giò by Luigi De Filippo.
With the passage of the “omnibus” law on 1st July ‘99, the Minister for Arts and Culture
became the shareholder of Cinecittà Holding and therefore of the historical theaters in
«
4
A chair for two, by Franco Montini, Enzo Natta, Effata Edistrice, Turin, 2007.
| 219
via Tuscolana; the Holding is in fact the owner of the land and facilities of Cinecittà. President of Cinecittà Holding is Gillo Pontecorvo, while the CEO is Luigi Abete, who has the
same position for Cinecittà Services. Institute Luce refers to Cinecitta Holding and it is
the company that works for production and distribution of films. Its president in those
years is Angelo Guglielmi and Roberto Patruno the Director General. Everything changed again in 2000, when Fabiano Fabiani was nominated as CEO in Cinecittà Holding, on
appointment of the board of directors of the company chaired by Felice Laudadio. Many
people talked about this appointment, especially because of the numerous public commissions received in the past by the same Fabiani. In fact he has been for over twenty
years in RAI with various management positions in cultural services and information,
and then CEO of Autostrade and then still CEO and president of Finmeccanica.
Cinecittà Holding
Cinecittà Holding was founded in March 1998, as a transformation of the Autonomous Authority of management for film, known in 1993 as the Cinema Institute. This was done by
implementing the plan of reorganization of public shareholdings in the part of the Treasury. These were the years in which Cinecittà Holding used to own all the shares of Luca
Institute, and it was one of the shareholders in Cinecittà Studios. With the Expo in Milan,
the Holding of the film is a shareholder of AIP - Audiovisual Industry Promotion. It is involved with the City of Rome and the Lazio Region as well, in initiatives to promote the
territory like the Rome and Lazio Film Commission. In the following years the company
has expanded its role by directly intervening in a wide range of activities: film production
and distribution, operation and promotion, management of media rights in the educational sector, the establishment of an observatory of the cinema market as well as a financial initiative to develop the first private equity fund of Italian cinema.
The aim is to «bring Cinecittà Holding to the center of the movie system, provide services and support activities, attract resources and investment». The author of this development plan is the CEO at the time, Ubaldo Livolsi who collects an address by the
Minister for Arts and Culture, Giuliano Urbani.
These were the years when the political debate was really active on the role of Cinecittà
Holding. Before the nth attack of the opposition, the government (in a parliamentary act
of 2005 the Chamber of Deputies5) confirmed and clarified that «Cinecittà Holding SpA
complex pursues a mission of public interest in the film industry and for this reason it receives precise guidelines for the management and the objectives of its activities by the
shareholder of reference».
5
220 |
Parliamentary Acts – 19504 – Chamber of Deputies – 19th May 2005.
2006: The first “Commissioner”
of Cinecittà
The real public-private admixture (also linked to new phenomena like the spoils system)
takes place in 2006 with the commissioner of the “dream factory”. In June 2006 the Minister for Arts and Culture Francesco Rutelli spoke about the governance of Cinecittà
Holding, revoking the directors in office (including the President Carlo Fuscagni and the
CEO Massimo Condemi) appointing aCEO in the place of the Director General for Cinema
at the Ministry, Gaetano Blandini, who accepted the assignment. Minister Rutelli stated
the rationale for his decision as a «necessary and documented decision of renewal». In
fact (as we can read in the act of address issued by him) the acts of the previous Board
have followed the objectives outlined in the previous act of address; there was a «’very
strong internal conflict» within the Board and its subsidiaries, in particular with the Institute Luce. The Minister pointed out that «plans and projects not included in the guidelines of the shareholder, or provided by law or the statutes of Cinecittà Holding» were
launched. Moreover, he said that the appointments in the subsidiaries and affiliates (Cinecittà Studios, Cinecittà Entertainment, Cinefund SGR, Anteo SpA, Cinesud S.r.l.) were
made without informing the shareholders. Finally, some administrators in charge, six
months after their settlement, had not «sent» to the Board of Auditors the documentation on the «ownership of fit and proper requirements». Shortly, harsh accusations that
can be found both in the political world and the management of the public cinema giant.
The revocation was made on the administrative appeal which, however, the Court ruled
in favor of the company and the choice made by the Minister. The administrative courts
emphasized the measure that Rutelli was immune from any defect, thus rejecting the action brought by the former CEO of the company, Massimo Condemi.
But the ministry official documents did not affect much of the work of Cinecittà, where
it kept on shooting films that then became famous like Commediasexi by Alessandro
D’Alatri, A Dinner for Them to Meet by Pupi Avati, Go Go Tales by Abel Ferrara, The Unknown Woman by Giuseppe Tornatore, The Mother of Tears by Dario Argento.
At the end of the short-term management period of the one CEO (30 days from June 28th
to July 28th, 2006), when a reconnaissance of the major economic and financial status of
the company have however been carried out, the Minister appointed a new Board of Directors consisting of Alessandro Battisti (Chairman), Francesco Carducci Artenisio (CEO),
Mario La Torre, Severino Salvemini, Wilma Labate, Giovanna Grignaffini, Gabriella Pistone, Roberta Lubich, Michele Conforti. Pietro Ietto was confirmed in the role of Chief
Operating Officer of the company.
| 221
Cinecittà Holding and its Subsidiaries:
Institute Luce, Filmitalia Mediaport and Cinecittà Multiplex,
Now in Liquidation
During 2007 Cinecittà faced some issues related to the necessary reorganization of the
group but Cinecittà Holding that, as we will see, were actually completed during a second
“commissioner” and therefore during the new Gaetano Blandini’s management as sole
director.
From this point of view, 2007 was characterized by the only liquidation of Cinefund SGR
that was born in 2005 in order to develop the first fund for private equity working in the
Italian cinema sector.
The failure of public resources necessary to complete the closing of the collection, has
led administrators to close down. They have however recorded some losses due to costs
incurred for the start-up initiative. The total costs incurred, including costs of incorporation (193,464.02 euros, of which 124,387.73 compensation for the CEO) and ascertained losses (886,640.97 euros, of which 115,333 in 2005, 762.614 in 2006 and in 8693.97
2007), amounted to ¤ 1,080,104.99.
The Institute Luce (which was founded in 1924) is owned 100% by Cinecittà Holding and,
by statute, is responsible for production, dissemination and distribution in Italy and
abroad, of audiovisual and cinematographic works. It holds the management of historical photographic and cinematographic programming of cinemas. Moreover, it owns the
advocacy, organization and implementation of promotional initiatives in the film industry and audiovisual. It used to own 20% stake in Cinecittà Multiplex, which no longer
exists.
Even Filmitalia is 100% owned by Cinecittà Holding with the aim of promoting contemporary Italian films abroad.
Filmitalia Cinema was created by Italia Cinema, then became AIP-Audiovisual Industry
Promotion (in joint venture with Milano Expo). Since 2006, despite an assumption of merger with Cinecittà Holding (never made), it was acquired by the latter to 100%. In 2006
Irene Bignardi (President) and Roberto Cicutto, Serafino Murri, Claudio Gubitosi and Marcello Di Tondo were at the apex of society. Carla Cattani was appointed as Chief Operating Officer of the company.
Filmitalia collaborated with the most significant international film festivals, including
Cannes, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Toronto, Shanghai, Tokyo, Locarno, New York and London. In 2008, the company was permanently embedded in Cinecittà Holding.
Mediaport was founded in 1996 with private capital and was purchased by Cinecittà Holding with several steps between 2003 and 2004, up to reaching 100% of the equity. It
222 |
deals with the management of cinemas. The story of Mediaport is quite controversial
and complex. First it was the only subsidiary that, unlike other companies that are part
of Cinecittà Holding, was sustained only by its own resources. But unfortunately, since
its birth, its turnover has never been exciting because it operates in a sector chronically
in loss.
The parts of the parent company Mediaport/GlobalMedia (of which it directly owns a capital of 93.92%): Mediaport Cinema, owned of 76.27% by Mediaport and 23.73% by Cinecittà Holding (which also owns 50% of Cinemax).
Since 2006, Cinecittà Holding has launched with a public process the procedures for disposal of the participation which has been defined only on November 28th 2008, when it
was acquired by the producer Massimo Ferrero’s Farvem Real Estate. «The new buyer
– we read on the financial newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore6 – has assumed a total debt of 26.5
million and the payment of 100 thousand euro at the time of transfer».
The latest subsidiary, now in liquidation since 2000 and that there is no more, is Cinecittà
Multiplex. Founded in ‘98 by a joint venture between Warner Village Cinemas and Cinecittà with the aim of promoting a film complex (multiplex cinema and theme park) in the
district of Cinecittà, it was finally liquidated in 2009. It was 50% owned by Cinecittà Holding, 30% by the Cinecitta Studios and 20% by Institute Luce.
The Subsidiaries of Cinecittà Holding:
Cinecittà Studios, Cinecittà Entertainment, Film Circuit7
Cinecittà Studios is owned by Cinecittà Holding at 25%. It was established in 1997 in
order to manage the business unit rented by the Holding company together with the properties (studios). The capital was initially owned at 75% by private shareholders. Cinecittà Studios owns 48% stake in Cinecittà Entertainment and 30% of Cinecittà Multiplex.
In the mid-nineties, Cinecittà Studios undergoes an important institutional transformation, becoming a private reality instead of the public authority it used to be. Today there
are 5 members who run it (plus Cinecittà Holding): Aurelio De Laurentiis (Filmauro S.r.l.),
Diego della Valle (Gimar S.r.l.), Vittorio Cecchi Gori (Cecchi Gori Group Fin.Ma.Vi. S.r.l.),
Orium S.A., FinCine.
Cinecittà Entertainment, owned for 2.47% by Cinecittà Holding, deals with television pro-
6
7
Sole 24 Ore, 4th December 2008.
31st December 2008.
| 223
duction. 48% of the share capital within the framework of the activities of the division of
Cinecittà Studios was acquired in 2008 by the newly formed Italian Entertainment Group.
Circuit Cinema, of which 7% shares is owned by Cinecittà Holding, is active in the field
of the cinema exercise.
Lumière Srl, concerning the exercise of a room in Catania, held 50% of the share capital.
You can find the budgets of the individual subsidiaries and affiliates below:
Institute Luce SpA
Cinecittà Studios SpA
Cinecittà Entertainment SpA
Circuito Cinema Srl
Lumière Srl
224 |
2007
2008
-3,647,257
53,576
1,853,762
-443,596
-8,727
333,304
106,037
-3,609,525
-689,801
-22,341
2008: the Second
“Commissioner” of Cinecittà
I
n mid-2008, the economic situation and financial position of Cinecittà Holding and
the public group was seriously compromised.
Crushed by a total debt that of almost 66 million, the company needed a radical
and speedy restructuring intervention and revision of its mission.
By act of address in June 6th 2008, the Minister Bondi considered some points.
First of all the fact that «the Finance Act of 2008 provides a necessary reorganization of
public companies, with a strong cost containment and the establishment of a new mission for legislation to eliminate any market distortions, discrepancies and overlapping activities already carried out by the Public Administration». Then he also stressed that
«there is the need to appoint a sole CEO for Cinecittà Holding SpA, somebody with a technical-institutional profile in order to speed up the reorganization, as above foreseen by
the Finance Act 2008». Therefore he finally decided that «the CEO will prepare a proposal of regulatory reform of the article 5a of the Law of 23rd June 1993, (n° 202) consistent
with the provisions of the Finance Act 2008 and aims to outline the overall reorganization and renewal of strategic interests and objectives of the group».
The Chief Executive appointed by Minister Bondi was again Gaetano Blandini which performed its task for free, until the approval of the budget on 31st December 2008.
During his term Blandini was able to complete all the outstanding tasks he set himself,
and that led to the reformation of the company. Among these, we must remember the attempt of increasing the value of the practice of the studies that was presented in Cinecittà Studios (maintaining the property and trademark of Cinecittà), the disposal of the
group Mediaport, the liquidation after eight years of Cinecitta Multiplex, the sale of all
non-strategic shares and decisive action to make the management more efficient.
In the concluding evaluations included in the report published by the Corte dei Conti
(Court of Auditors)8 for the year 2008 we read: «The year 2008 ended with a useful result
of EUR 704,403 for Cinecittà Holding SpA, compared to the loss of EUR 7,889,624 of the
previous budget of the year. The consolidated financial statements reported a surplus of
EUR 2,431,245 against a negative balance of ¤ 10,593,241 for 2007. This leads to a positive opinion on the management of the practice in reference. Opinion that has to be confirmed in light of the considerations that follows.
In 2005, the Group at the head of Cinecittà Holding SpA used to include eight subsidiaries, as well as a large number of subsidiary affiliates. Among these the Group Media-
8
Report on the result of the control made on the financial management of Cinecittà Holding SpA
for the year 2008, available on the website www.corteconti.it.
| 225
port, a cinema operator whose heavy and continuous operating losses determined the
negative result of the annual consolidated financial statements. They tended to favor the
establishment of specific companies for the pursuit of their different specific purposes.
In this regard, in the report relating to the period 2004-2005, the Control of Authorities
Section showed that “the establishment and operation of several companies have considerable costs (especially for compensation to the members of management and control). These costs are justifiable only in the front of the specialization required by the
complexity of the issues, or plausible regarding the benefits of the streamlined management”. Furthermore, it noted that “the highlighted short-term of too many companies
and the dissolution of some of them (followed by renewed formation of others with a different name but with the same object) pose the need for reflection on the validity of this
way of running the holding company and of possible liability associated with the losses
and expenses incurred unnecessarily”. It concluded by saying that “anyway, each choice
must be supported by specific plans and through a careful and severe examination of
costs and benefits”, with the foresight to “avoid the duplication of tasks among different
companies or between Cinecittà Holding SpA and its subsidiaries”.
Partly as a result of these positions, the number of subsidiaries gradually decreased. So
now you can look back with satisfaction at the outcome with, on the one hand, the sale
of commercial tasks such as the management of cinemas and, on the other hand, the incorporation of the functions of public importance in the same parent company, which
has lost its nature of Holding and has become an operational company.
The operation (that, among the others, has allowed the company to reverse the trend
with respect to economic performance of recent years) was the sale of the subsidiary
Mediaport SpA, of which we have previously made a quick summary. Here we want to
emphasize that the benefit of the operation for the company went beyond mere contractual agreements because, in fact, it allowed the same reduction of over half the entire
consolidated debt of Cinecittà Holding Group. Moreover, it generated potential savings for
future years as well. We need to add to this that the operation was successfully completed with regards to the social point of view, having protected the entire core of employees
(218 units) without any cuts.
In 2009, the company continued restructuring and reorganizing by perfecting the merger
with the subsidiary Institute Luce SpA and giving rise to the new company Cinecittà Luce
SpA. With this last operation, the company has completed the path for the reorganization
of the group, which has assumed the role of the sole company in which all the activities
(formerly managed by subsidiaries controlled by Cinecittà Holding) are now internal divisions, with a consequent positive impact on economic and management data of the
company.
The restructuring, of course, cannot fail to affect the same function in society. As part of
the address of the Minister of Heritage and Culture on June 6th 2008 (which anticipated
the appointment of the sole CEO), the administrative body was asked to formulate a proposal for a revision of Article 5 bis of Law 202/1993. The CEO has formulated a proposal
226 |
for a revision to the Shareholder before the termination of his office. However, it has not
yet been discussed or approved by the State».
The Minister Bondi proudly stated that «Cinecittà was risking the collapse under the burden of the debts: 65.8 million euro, of which 38.8 from Mediaport. Since 2009, the consolidated debt will be reduced to 8.8 million».
| 227
May 2009:
Cinecittà-Luce SpA was Born
A
s a final act of his management, Gaetano Blandini approved the merger of the
Institute Luce with Cinecittà Holding and therefore gave birth to the new
company Cinecittà Luce SpA.
May 11th 2009 is therefore an important date for the cinema audience because it corresponds to the formalization of the return to retained earnings
but also the birth of Cinecittà Luce SpA.
The President was Robert Cicutto, the CEO Luciano Sovena, former president of the Istituto Luce. Board members were Nicola Porro (vice-director of Il Giornale) Roberto Cadoni (psychologist) and Massimo Biasiotti Mogliazza (a lawyer expert in corporate
reorganization). Pietro Ietto is confirmed as General Manager.
For the President Cicutto «Cinecittà Luce must become, even more than in the past, not
only a tool at the service of this industry. It must rather become a center of proposal, rationalization and development of all those ideas that should put the Italian cinema in all
its sectors in step with the times and height of its cultural and industrial importance».
The CEO Sovena noted that with the merger «a historical objective is achieved» ensuring
that «a great attention will be devoted to the extension of the Historical Archive, including new acquisitions and new alliances».
Cinecittà Luce distributes film premieres by supporting the access to the market of
emerging authors; but it is also involved in documentary production by exploiting the
enormous wealth of their historical archives.
The Cinecittà Luce Film Library is also an invaluable archive which includes the three
thousand more representative titles of the Italian film production: they constantly feed the
circuit of the promotion of diplomatic missions around the world (embassies and cultural institutes). But Cinecittà Luce also plays the activity of study and research in its Study
Center. Among the activities, there is also the management of exploitation rights on the
film works financed by the State which did not return the funding received. Moreover,
there is the monitoring of access to tax incentives for the sector (tax credits and tax shelters) on behalf of the Ministry. In addition, they make publishing initiatives such as monographs and reviews on the main authors of the Italian cinema. In short, Cinecittà is
once again in full organizational and strategic swing; it continues its path like a nice Alfred Hitchcock’s overview, that skillfully dribbles between public and private.
228 |
History of Cinecittà
1924
Institute Luce was founded as a private entity, with the aim of providing the production
and distribution of cinema information.
1925
The Institute Luce is purchased by the state and becomes the first film production company owned by the public in a western country.
1927
Daily Luce (Giornale Luce) was born. It was an instrument of propaganda and news of the
Italian government of the thirties.
1929
The Institute Luce becomes a quasi-independent body which is given a particular order.
1935
The Magazine Luce (Rivista Luce) and ENIC (National Cinematographic Industry), the
first distribution company with public ownership were born.
1936
With the Decree 372 it has decided to create a new industrial film center led by Carlo
Roncoroni.
1958
The Autonomous Agency for Cinema Management was born, in order to coordinate the
government intervention in the film industry and promote the spread of the Italian audiovisual production in the national and international fields.
1959
Fellini shot La Dolce Vita at Cinecittà. Via Veneto was completely rebuilt in the studios of
Cinecittà.
1961
The Ministry of State Holdings announces the intention to establish a new “company” for
“the exercise of the film industry”, to deal with broader responsibilities than the denotation of the educational-informational nature of the old LUCE.
1962
Istituto Luce SpA was born.
| 229
1978
The Institute Luce in the Piazza Cinecittà is transferred to the City of Rome and is used
as an administrative site for the tenth District, today Tenth City Hall.
1993
The law 202 turned the Cinema Authority film into a company owned by the Ministry of
Treasury.
1996
Film Circuit Srl was born for the will of the Institute Luce, BIM Film, Mikado Film, Lucky
Red, Greenwich Srl and Emme Film. The company has the goal to build a circuit of cinemas. Mediaport SpA was born.
1997
The privatization of Cinecittà started. It begins with the establishment of Cinecittà Services (with private equity) which manages the activities of the theaters and factories.
1998
The privatization of Cinecittà Holding was completed. 50 billion lire were signed by the
following companies: Cinecittà Holding (40%), Cecchi Gori Fin.Ma.Vi (11.25%), Filmauro
(11.25%), Group della Valle (11.25%), Merloni Group (11.25%), Dear Cinestudi (7.50%) Efibanca (7.50%).
1999
The shareholder in Cinecittà Holding becomes the Ministry of Heritage and Culture.
2001
Cinecittà Digital was born. It was a new area of Cinecittà Studios dedicated to the world
of digital.
2002
• Elsacom, a Finmeccanica company, and Cinecittà Holding announce the launch of EScreen, a EU project for the commercialization of digital cinema via satellite.
• Start - Multimedia Incubator was launched. It was created by Cinecittà Holding with the
funds provided through the law 266 managed by the City of Rome, for the development
of entrepreneurship in the context of digital technologies in the audiovisual sector.
• The Assembly appoints Pupi Avati as the President of Cinecittà Holding, and the board
members in Francesco Alberoni, Gaetano Blandini, Ubaldo Livolsi, Michele Lo Foco,
Angelo Maria Petroni, Francesco Pionati, Alessandro Usai and Marcello Veneziani.
230 |
2003
• The Board of Directors appointed new CEO of the Institute Luce. Andrea Piersanti takes
office as President. Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, Pietro Melograni, Antonio Morè and Luciano Sovena entered in the Board.
• Cinecittà World (owned 99% by Cinecittà Entertainment and 1% from Cinecittà Studios)
was born. The new company was formed primarily to create a theme park, capable of
promoting and increasing the value of Cinecittà.
• Cinecittà Holding became the sole shareholder of Mediaport SpA.
• The Audiovisual Industry Promotion (AIP), a joint venture between Fiera Milano and Cinecittà Holding, was born.
• The first Euro-Mediterranean Centre of Cinematography and Audiovisual was born in
Morocco, made by the Region Lazio, the Institute Luce and Cinecittà Holding.
2004
• Cinecittà Holding completed the acquisition of 100% of the group Mediaport. Cinecittà
Cinema was born.
• Cinecittà Holding launched Cinefund, a closed-end fund private equity investments for
the cinema, proposing to raise by 2005 between 50 and 70 million euro to be invested
in 30/40 projects.
• Maurizio Costanzo entered in Cinecittà Entertainment and created Cinecittà Campus,
a new structure within the studios dedicated to performing artists.
2006
• The assembly of Cinecittà Rights approved the merger with Cinecittà Holding. Cinecittà Holding started managing directly the film rights and those which may be granted by the Convention to be signed with the Directorate General of the Ministry of
Cinema Arts and cultural activities.
• Gaetano Blandini was appointed CEO until July 2006.
• The procedure for the disposal of the public Mediaport started.
• They appointed new members at the head of Cinecittà Holding: Alessandro Battisti
(Chairman), Francesco Carducci (CEO), Mario La Torre, Severino Salvemini, Wilma Labate, Giovanna Grignaffini, Gabriella Pistone, Roberta Lubich, Michele Conforti.
2007
Cinefund SGR was liquidated.
| 231
2008
• Gaetano Blandini was re-appointed CEO.
• The business unit Esercizio Film Studies was awarded in Cinecittà Studios.
• The entire shareholding of the group Mediaport was sold. Cinecittà Holding ceased to
operate in the practice.
• Filmitalia is embedded in Cinecittà Holding.
• The company is fully healed and closed the year reporting a net profit of euro 704 000
and euro 2 million on a consolidated level.
2009
Cinecittà Luce was born from the merger of Institute Luce and Cinecittà Holding.
232 |
An acknowledgment to:
Barbara Millucci (for the chapters on Cinecittà Luce SpA)
Alessandra Orlacchio
Valentina Prontera
Matteo Zara
for the precious collaboration
Copyright © 2010
by Edizioni Fondazione Ente dello Spettacolo
Via G. Palombini, 6 - 00165 Roma
Tel. +39 06 9651 9200
e-mail: [email protected]
www.cineconomy.com
€9,90

the Report 2009 in PDF version

Transcription

Similar documents

Visual Story for Ambassadors Cinema I am going to see a film at the

How has the evolution of cinema buildings

Film quiz 12 May 2011

Unseen Cinema 2016 - End Credits Film Club

cinema 4d - Design Express

notes - il Cinema Ritrovato on Tour at Brown

Bandyke Moving Pictures

THE CREATION OF MEANING - Press Kit

Poolside-Frolics - Finite Solutions

English Bulletin - Kolkata International Film Festival