Pan(ned) Atlantic –
The dreaded international co-production Part 1
by Dean Brandum
To any self-respecting, serious film-buff, the term
‘international co-production’ is cause for instant derision and immediate
dismissal. Conjuring up memories of turgid and incomprehensible narratives set
in far-flung corners of the earth and populated with a gallery of
disinterested, fading performers delivering depressingly dreadful dialouge.
Once a staple of 1960s-1970s cinema (and later filling many a late night TV
schedule), such Europuddings are still concocted, but their multi-national
pedigrees are somewhat better disguised.
Indeed, if you follow the production histories of many recent Hollywood
blockbusters you will find they are a complex web of financial necessities are
considerations, with input from a consortium of international backers. Tax concessions,
currency exchange rates, available production facilities, appeal to foreign
markets are all woven into the getting a film off the ground. Today’s
international co-production may appear more seamless than those earlier forays
into a true, global cinema, yet such smoothing of the edges has robbed the mode
of its jet-setting soul.
There is little love lost for the original euro-pudding
(or ‘runaway production’ as the trade more kindly described it), however, in a
regular series, I would like to delve into this rather forgotten past and pay
some tribute to the films, their makers and how (and why) they came into being.
For those unfamiliar and those just trying to forget,
perhaps a very brief and potted explanation is in order…
“In the age of political integration, co-productions are
inevitable and necessary. Indeed, they provide the only strategy to boost the
cinema economically and to secure a film’s success at the boxoffice. Worries
that artistic input might suffer in purely economic considerations might be
justified. But much more important is to find the foundations for workable
joint productions with any country in the world which is willing to
co-operate…” – Horst Axtmann in 1967
Following the Second World War the European Cinema was in
a state of crisis. Individual nations were deep in debt, talent had been
decimated and infrastructure destroyed. Assistance to the European countries
from the United States arrived swiftly to both wartime allies and enemies in
the form of loans and rebuilding programs. A number of American films also
arrived on the continent, provided free for educational, inspirational and
entertainment purposes.
During the war, Hollywood lost its once lucrative
European markets. Apart from Britain, the studios were only importing (and
deriving income from) the British Empire, Latin America and a handful of
neutral countries of negligible value. With a number of markets now again
available, the studios leapt into the void created by the war and the dearth of
local product by flooding European cinemas with the backlog of films
accumulated over several years. The American industry was also aided by the
loss, during the war period, of the many practices such as quotas and tariffs
imposed by governments that had restricted the import of foreign (especially
American) films. With the approval by the US government for a legal cartel
formed by the studios to enhance export opportunities, these factors allowed
for a concerted effort by Hollywood to gain a position of power in a vulnerable
European film market. That it was detrimental to the European industries was an
inevitable consequence.
Yet, the European nations fought back. Apart from the
damage to European industry and culture, the American studios were draining
currency from desperately poor nations with little tangible in return.
Restrictions on film imports were implemented and, in an attempt to stem the
currency loss, new regulations were imposed whereby the American companies
could only use such funds (or percentages of them) if they were used for
purposes of production or investment within the European countries. In 1946
Italy and France signed an ‘experimental’ co-production agreement, ratifying it
in 1949. Of the many bi-lateral and more expansive agreements made in the decade
after the war, this was the most successful, producing over 230 films by 1957.
Germany signed with France in 1951, France with Argentina and Spain in 1953,
then with Yugoslavia and Austria two years later. Eventually nearly all of the
filmmaking countries (including smaller nations such as Holland, Hungary,
Sweden and Denmark) of Europe had passed agreements, often with overlap. Each
of these agreements had a complex set of criteria for each participating
company to fulfil in order that the production met the requirements of national
representation within the pact. This process was often tied in with government
initiatives that supported film production, such as subsidies and tax rebates.
Various categories were established (often markedly different over each
agreement) in which the percentage of investment could be evaluated. This would
determine such details as how many performers and crew would be required from
that country and, how many scenes would need to be shot there. Indeed, in many
cases, having a compatriot fulfil a certain high profile position, such as
director, would be regarded highly by the regulators at the expense of some
other, otherwise mandatory, requirements.
When quantified in numbers of pure production, the
co-production method was highly successful. Between 1949-1964 there were 1091
films made involving at least two national partners. Mostly genre films, the
filmmakers adapted quickly to ever-changing market tastes. In the process some
genres such as the German ‘Heimatfilme’ (domestic melodramas of the ‘homeland’)
which were very popular in the 1950s had vanished by the end of the decade.
Action became the key ingredient of the co-production, a selling point that
appealed to audiences across all national boundaries. The concentration of
spectacle also alleviated the reliance upon dialogue, relegating it to general
conversation and exposition. This also strengthened the films’ claims to being
truly pan-European, with post-synchronising (dubbing) of the soundtrack made
easier. Importantly, action-based genre films, especially those featuring
Europe’s most cinematic natural and urban landscapes, could be exported outside
of the continent, including to the lucrative US market. Although not within the
scope of this discussion, it must be noted that many well received films that
played well in the international arthouse market were the product of
co-production details. Luchino Visconti’s The Leopard (1963) was an
Italian-French co-production, as was Francois Truffaut’s Day for Night (1973).
Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1900 (1976) was financed through Italian, German, French
and American partners. The system did allow an auteur-cinema to flourish, as
long as the directors were willing to bend to certain pan-national conditions.
[To be continued]
Præriens skrappe drenge – Danish title
