Question:India movie industry (1998-2019) background on the country India domestic Market shares India film admission & box o

ché mondial du !

Lay-out: Acom*Europe | © 2010, Marché du Film | Printed: Global Rouge, Les Deux-Ponts

Imprimé sur papier labélisé issu de forêts gérées durablement. Printed on paper from sustainably managed forests.

3

With its key indicators, FOCUS 2010 gives you a complete overview of the fi lm industry worldwide, and highlights new and up-and-coming areas such as Latin America and the Middle East.

It is an indispensable guide to understanding the undercurrents and changes in the interna- tional market, in a context where it has become vital to anticipate changes as they happen, to adjust strategies.

Jérôme Paillard Executive Director

Le FOCUS 2010 vous offre, avec ses indi cateurs clés, une vue d’ensemble de l’industrie du cinéma mondiale, et met en valeur de nouveaux terri- toires en pleine expansion, comme l’Amérique Latine ou le Moyen-Orient.

Un guide indispensable pour comprendre les courants et les évolutions du marché inter- national, dans un contexte où il devient indis- pensable d’anticiper les mutations en cours pour ajuster ses stratégies.

Jérôme Paillard Directeur Délégué

FOCUS 2010 World Film Market Trends, appears for the thirteenth consecutive year. We are pleased to collaborate once again with the Marché du Film and value highly our work together.

Wolfgang CLOSS Executive Director European Audiovisual Observatory

The European Audiovisual Observatory was set up in December 1992. It is a public-service body whose mission is to gather and distribute information on the audiovisual industry (fi lm, television, video and multimedia) in Europe. 36 European states are members, along with the European Community repre- sented by the European Commission. The Observatory operates within the framework of an extended par- tial Agreement of the Council of Europe. It carries out its mission with the help of a network of part- ners, correspondents and professional organisa- tions. The Observatory provides information on markets, fi nancing and legal aspects of the audio- visual sector.

!"Internet site (http://www.obs.coe.int)

FOCUS 2010, Tendances du marché mon- dial du film, paraît pour la treizième année consécutive. Nous nous réjouissons de cette colla- boration avec le Marché du Film, à laquelle nous portons toute l’estime qu’elle mérite.

Wolfgang CLOSS Directeur exécutif Observatoire européen de l’audiovisuel

Créé en décembre 1992, l’Observatoire euro- péen de l’audiovisuel est un organisme de service public consacré à la collecte et à la diffusion de l’information sur l’industrie audiovisuelle (cinéma, télévision, vidéo et multimédia) en Europe. 36 Etats européens en sont membres ainsi que la Communauté européenne représentée par la Commission euro- péenne. L’Observatoire fonctionne dans le cadre d’un Accord partiel élargi du Conseil de l’Europe et remplit sa mission avec un réseau de partenaires, de correspondants et d’organismes professionnels. L’Observatoire fournit des services d’informations sur les marchés, les fi nancements et le cadre juridique du secteur audiovisuel.

!"Site Internet (http://www.obs.coe.int)

Editor: Martin Kanzler [email protected] Analyst, Department for Information on Markets and Financing, European Audiovisual Observatory

Editorial

4

LEAD ARTICLE Public Aid for Digital Cinema The Lead Article takes a look at the legal questions raised by public support mechanisms aimed at facilitating the digitisation of cinemas. It looks at the legal construction and problems of three di! erent variants of national funding schemes and at the EU law with which these constructions eventually need to comply. It also describes two state aid schemes that have already been approved by the EU Commission and a tax incentive scheme currently under investigation. Finally, the Lead Article points the way ahead by explaining ongoing policy and funding activities of the EU. • Digital Cinema • State Aid for the Digitisation of Cinemas • EU Actions

RELATED REPORTING Reality Check for Digital Roll-out The Related Reporting supplements the information contained in the Lead Article and compares EU policy with the reality of promoting (or struggling with) digital cinema in various countries. • Aims and Concerns • Spring Boards • Stumbling Blocks

ZOOM Market Data The Zoom section equips you with a solid understanding of the market of commercial digital cinema screens and sites by providing concrete " gures on their country by country development in Europe.

Digital Cinema

IRIS plus – Digital Cinema:

• Electronic edition ISBN 978-92-871-6846-7 ! 33 –

• Print edition ISBN 978-92-871-6838-2 ! 24,50

• More information: www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_ plus/publ_iplus2_2010

• At the Marché du Film 2010 in Cannes available on the stand of the Observatory: Palais des Festivals, Riviera Booth A6

• Order on line at: http://www.obs.coe.int about/order

• Order by email: [email protected]

• Order by fax: +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 19

76 Allée de la Robertsau F – 67000 STRASBOURG Phone +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 00 – Fax +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 19 www.obs.coe.int

is part of

RIS plus Digital Cinema:

5

Introduction 7

World 11

Europe European Union 14 France 22 Germany 24 Italy 26 Spain 28 United Kingdom 30 Russian Federation 32 Other Western Europe 34 Nordic Countries 36 Central and South-Eastern Europe 38 Poland 40 Turkey 41

Americas North America 42 Latin America 46

Australia 50

Asia 52 China 54 Japan 56 India 58 South Korea 59

Africa 60 Middle East 62

Sources 64

Contents

6

7

Introduction

The pace of cinema digitisation in Europe is undoubtedly quite surprising. Ten years after the unveiling of the fi rst equipment, it seemed to be very slow but, to the surprise of many, accelerated in the latter half of 2009. According to Screen Digest, the number of digital screens worldwide went up by 89% in 2009 and repre- sented about 15% of all modern screens at the end of December.

The role of James Cameron’s fi lm Avatar in this development is undeniable. What is para- doxical about this pleasantly ecological fi lm is that it is in fact itself, the terrible weapon of the logic that it illustrates: the destructive effi ciency of technologies once blindly unleashed on tradi- tional environments. At this point in time, many European cinema professionals suddenly feel just as threatened as the Na’vi in Avatar.

Various elements have contributed to this acceleration of the digitisation process: the des- ignation of the DCI format as the international standard, the development and propagation of the Virtual Print Fee (VPF) model by which dis- tributors contribute, through third-party investors, to fi nancing the digitisation of cinemas, and the arrival of 3D, which fi nally provided ex hibitors with a commercial argument by offering the public a new cinema experience. The history of the cinema teaches us that major innovations become fairly quickly established throughout the world cinema system as soon as the costs are borne by the majors and the big cinema networks. The move to digital is now clearly underway and it is impos- sible to see anything that could stop it.

There is no reason to doubt that the digi tisation of distribution is a step in the right direction. Like the development of multiplexes around ten years ago, the DVD and, more recently, Blu-ray and video on demand, digital cinema is an aspect of the modernisation of distribution that helps to keep the industry in good health.

However, this enthusiasm must not blind us to the risks inherent in the transition. These risks are obvious as far as something dear to the hearts of cinema professionals, cinéphiles and

cinema policy-makers worthy of the name is concerned: the existence of a network of inde- pendent cinemas that ensure the diversity of the fi lms offered and the circulation of minority interest works – European fi lms and fi lms origi- nating from production and distribution chan- nels other than the Hollywood based compa- nies, such as Asian, Indian, South American and African fi lms and independently produced fi lms from North America or Oceania.

The conference entitled “The independent exhibition and the challenges of digitisation” organised in Barcelona (4-6 March 2010) by the Spanish presidency of the European Union served to highlight the concerns of independent exhibi- tors and the diffi culties in introducing national or European policies. (1) The participants agreed that it was preferable for the transition process to be as short as possible since it led to cost duplication and therefore delayed achieving the economies of scale that could be generated for the benefi t of the fi nancially weakest.

Risk assessments for the fi lm exhibition sector in the European Union have been produced by the European Investment Bank, according to whose fi gures 4.4% of screens are already digi- tised without recourse to the VPF. In most cases, these are screens belonging to certain major cir- cuits that have decided to fi nance their transition themselves. About 5 400 screens out of 30 185 (or approx.17%) are allegedly unable to access the VPF system. However, this estimate presup- poses that the integrators’ rollout potential has been fully achieved. The integrators have already signed agreements for 4.7% of screens and are in negotiations with distributors for another 15.2%. In addition to the 17% considered at risk, there are accordingly more than 17 500 cinemas (or 58%) for which the validity of the VPF model still has to be demonstrated. This means there are considerable uncertainties. The fi nancial situ- ation of the third party integrators is not under discussion here but it seems clear that these new players are dependent on access to bank loans, which has been made more diffi cult by the crisis.

Saving Na’vi cinemas

(1) All the documents, speeches and conclusions of the conference are available at the Spanish Presidency’s website: http://en.www.mcu.es/MC/PresidenciaUE2010/Conferencias/ImpactoTecnologia.html

Links to sources of information and reference documents can be found at the European Audiovisual Observatory’s website: http://www.obs.coe.int/medium/digitalcinema_europe_links.html

8

Introduction

In this context, it is now admitted that the VPF model, in its different guises, is not universal and that alternative models need to be developed. The ideal is clearly for the exhibitors to be able to fi nance the transition themselves, which would potentially strengthen their programming autonomy. However, there can be no doubt at all that the fact that invest- ment capacities are often limited and the VPF model is not systematically applicable constitutes a failure of the market that justifi es public intervention. It is against this background that public bodies at the European, national, regional and local levels are trying to come up with solutions to support the transition. In September 2009, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a recom- mendation on national fi lm policies, which states in particular that “public policies should urgently and proactively take into account the need to support the emergence of business models for digital fi lm and the development of new platforms and services for European cinema. Such models should respect the diversity and specifi city of cinemas in Europe and of their program- ming, and make sure that distributors keep control of release plans. Models should also ensure that all theatres wishing to engage in such a ‘digitisation process’ can do so in a co-ordinated way, and within a reasonable timeframe. European participation in the ongoing international digital cinema standards defi ni- tion process should be strengthened and enforcement of these standards should be ensured.”

The Barcelona conference illustrated the diver- sity of the solutions explored:

• At the European level, the European Commission launched a consultation of professionals in late 2009. The results should lead to the publica- tion by the Commission of a Communication on Opportunities and Challenges for European Cinema in the Digital Era and the incorpora- tion next autumn within the MEDIA 2007 Programme of a new support scheme for the digitisation of cinemas offering substantial European programming. Possible funding is also available, under certain conditions, through the structural funds, which involves the pre- sentation of dossiers by the regions and not the exhibitors. The European Investment Bank is also starting to become involved. In the fi rst instance, it is supporting the market solutions by facilitating access to funding (especially for the integrators). It then envisages becoming involved by supporting the other European

and national public initiatives to assist with the transition those cinemas that are unable to access the VPF model.

• At the national level, several support schemes are already in operation. In the United Kingdom, the UK Film Council launched its Digital Screen Network scheme in 2005. In Norway, the Film&Kino network of municipal cinemas launched its scheme in 2006 and negotiates VPF agreements directly with the majors. In Finland, the new measures for supporting the cinema industry, which were approved by the European Commission in 2008, include aid for cinema digitisation. In Sweden, the Swedish Film Institute launched a pilot project to sup- port the digitisation of 28 cinemas in 2009. In the Czech Republic, the State Fund for Support and Development of Cinematography launched a support programme in 2009. In Slovakia, a new fund was created in December 2009. In the Netherlands, in February 2010, the new Eye Film Institute has assigned the implemen- tation of a project to PriceWaterhouse and this should commence in July 2010.

• At the regional level, the Land of Bavaria set up a support system in 2009. In Poland, the region of Ma!opolska (Cracow) has succeeded in obtaining aid from the Community struc- tural funds as part of a project to develop tourism and the cultural industries.

• At the local level, there are a few municipali- ties that provide support for the digitisation of cinemas located in their area.

In several countries, support schemes have run up against political or legal diffi culties. (2) In Germany, negotiations on the implementation of a support scheme worth 40 million euros, proposed in June 2009 by the Federal Film Board (Filmförderungsanstalt – FFA), was rejected in November 2009 by the fed- eration of exhibitors, which does not accept the principle of this support being offered in exchange for the withdrawal of the exhibitors’ complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court concerning their alleged unequal treatment: their contribution to the funding of the FFA is compulsory, whereas that of the television broadcasters is voluntary. In Italy, the tax credit plan proposed by the government in 2009 for the installation of digital projection equipment is being investigated by the European Commission’s DG Competition. At the beginning of April 2010, the Commission had not yet issued its opinion. Finally,

(2) For a detailed analysis of the legal aspects of this question, see Digital Cinema, IRIS Plus, European Audiovisual Observatory, April 2010.

9

ONE FILM, ONE NUMBER, WORLDWIDE ISO 15706

NL ISAN Österreich

More Registration Agencies on www.isan.org ISAN International Agency founded by AGICOA, CISAC and FIAPF

10

Introduction

in France the plan for a mutual fund drawn up by the CNC in 2009 has had to be abandoned in response to the Opinion of the Competition Authority, which held that the system would have caused signifi cant distortion of the market for funding the transition. The CNC was therefore forced to propose an alter- native plan in March 2010.

The procedure opened by the Commission on the Italian case is particularly important for the whole of Europe: the Commission has to assess the compatibility of tax credits for exhibitors with Article 83(3)(c) of the EC Treaty or with the excep- tion in the case of aid to promote culture provided for by Article 87(3)(d). The Commission accord- ingly has to check the need for the aid as well as its proportionality and relevance. The various com- ments sent to the Commission by the national agen- cies and professional bodies tend to support the need for public assistance and agree that the Italian government’s proposal is appropriate.

The focus of the European debate is on the support available to fi lm exhibition companies to enable them to fi nance their equipment. However, the impact of the transition on the different areas of the sector should not be underestimated: not only the impact on the technical industries – we are likely to witness the disappearance of print pro- duction facilities in a few years’ time – but also on distri bution and production. The rapid increase in cinema digitisation that took place in the second half of 2009 is forcing the independent distributors and sales agents to speed up making their own strategic choices. At the same time, the political and legal uncertainties affecting the transition timetable of the independent cinemas is a destabilising factor. The very nature of the business of managing the scarcity of prints is about to change, since digiti- sation will radically alter ways of accessing fi lms. These uncertainties as far as distribution is con- cerned are clearly having an impact at the level of independent production, which is also going to be hit by the additional costs involved during the transition period and will probably also be affected by the uncertainties of the timetable. (3) All this will be compounded by the diffi culty in Europe in responding to the announced fl ood of productions in 3D, a technology that requires big development and production budgets if it is to be successfully exploited. Some European producers of animated fi lms are taking risks in this area but the market share effects produced by Hollywood observed

in 2009 and the fi rst quarter of 2010 are likely to continue in the months and years ahead.

It seems urgent that the European fi lm industry emerge from the present confusion and for a time- table for completing the transition to be deter- mined by mutual agreement between the parties. It is striking to compare the methods employed for the digital transition in the cinema sector with those of the television sector, where Europe has succeeded in laying down its standards, regula- tory framework and transition timetable, with tran- sition already completed in some countries and proceeding smoothly in most of the others. As far as the cinema is concerned, Europe has had no alternative but to adopt de facto the DCI standard chosen by the American distributors and registered as ISO standard, and it is still very diffi cult to estab- lish common legal rules and a timetable. European television is a sector dominated by a few big pri- vate and public groups with signifi cant planning and investment capabilities, and the issue of the release of spectrum used for analogue transmission has stirred the institutions and economic players into action. Despite the existence of a number of integrated groups, the European cinema sector, whether it be production, distribution or fi lm exhi- bition, is still essentially one made up of micro- or even nano- companies with low profi tability and weak investment capabilities.

It may be this structural fragility that accounts for the charm and romanticism of European fi lm industry. This fragility, creative and rich in many different tal- ents, enables it to lay claim to being an alternative to the Hollywood model, which, despite everything, is still dominated by planning and rationalisation. However, if Europe wants to continue to offer the world the wealth of its cinema, it is important for it to succeed in bringing about mutual co-operation between all the sector components, both public and private, in order to ensure a smooth transition. We believe this applies all the more because the dig- ital surge defi nitely poses a threat to other Na’vi tribes worldwide whose resistance and investment capabilities are still weak and because the alterna- tive European model is being monitored with great interest in other parts of the world.

André Lange Head of the Department for Information on Markets and Financing European Audiovisual Observatory

(3) It should be noted that the Council of Europe’s Eurimages Fund offers producers fi nancial assistance for the production of digital masters.

11

World

Admissions | 2005-2009 In millions.

Gross box offi ce | 2005-2009 In USD million. National currencies converted at average annual interbank exchange rates.

Sources: MPAA, OBS, EIREN, Screen Digest

Sources: MPAA, SARFT, EIREN, OBS

North America

North America

EU 27 e

EU 27 e

China e

Japan

Japan

China e

12

World

Number of screens | 2005-2009

Sources: OBS, MPAA, EIREN, SARFT

Number of digital and 3D screens | 2008-2009

Sources: MPAA, Screen Digest

(1) Excluding drive-in screens.

(2) Modern screens.

US (1)

Digital 2D screens

Digital 3D screens

EU 27 e

China (2)

Japan

13

World

(1) Still on release in 2010. Sources: Variety, OBS (2) Films available in 3D distribution.

(1) Revised series.

Top 20 fi lms worldwide by gross box offi ce | 2009 USD million.

Number of feature fi lms produced in the European Union, the United States and Japan | 2005-2009

(1) Revised series

Sources: OBS, MPAA, EIREN

EU 27 fi lms produced e

US fi lms produced (1)

Chinese fi lms produced Japanese fi lms released

Original title Studio Country of origin

North American box offi ce

International box offi ce Total

1 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Warner Bros. GB inc/US 302 632 934 2 Avatar (1) (2) Fox US/GB 352 547 899 3 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2) Fox US 197 691 888 4 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Paramount US 402 433 835 5 2012 (1) Sony US/CA 163 591 754 6 Up (2) Disney US 293 417 710 7 New Moon (1) Summit US 288 400 688 8 Angels & Demons Sony US 133 352 485 9 The Hangover Warner Bros. US/DE 277 190 467

10 Night at the Museum: Battle of the… Fox US/CA 177 238 415 11 Star Trek Paramount US 258 128 386 12 Monsters vs. Aliens Par- D'Works US 198 183 381 13 X-Men Origins: Wolverine Fox US 180 195 375 14 Terminator Salvation WB-Sony US 125 247 372 15 Fast & Furious Universal US 155 208 363 16 Inglourious Basterds Weinstein-U US/DE 121 199 320 17 The Proposal Disney US 164 153 317 18 A Christmas Carol (1) Disney US 137 174 311 19 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Paramount US/CZ 150 152 302 20 G.Force Disney US 119 165 284

14

European Union

Admissions near 1 billion 3D and a generally strong line-up of titles helped

European Union admissions grow by 6%, with an estimated 981.1 million tickets sold in 2009. This represents the highest level since 2004. Rapid growth in the number of 3D screens allowed 3D blockbusters to create strong interest among audiences and rea- lise their full potential, with Ice Age 3, Up and Avatar selling a cumulative 86 million tickets throughout the EU. All three titles made it into the top 5 fi lms of the year. Premium prices for 3D screenings also drove up average ticket prices, generating an esti- mated EU gross box offi ce total of EUR 6.27 billon (USD 8.72 billion), an impressive 12% year-on-year increase and the highest level on record. 2009 was also a year in which the European cinema landscape was more than ever dominated by blockbusters, with the number of fi lms generating more than 5 million admissions increasing from 34 to 42 and market share for the top 100 fi lms increasing from 69% to 75%. Theatrical markets which performed particu- larly well were Germany, up 13.1%, France (+5.7%) and the United Kingdom (+5.6%).

EU production continues to grow

2009 saw EU production levels continue to grow, though at a slower pace, despite a diffi cult eco- nomic environment. The European Audiovisual Observatory estimates that 1 168 feature films were produced within EU member states in 2009, 28 fi lms more than 2008, and a new record high. Overall growth was primarily the result of a strong increase in German fi ction fi lms, growing from 96 fi lm releases in 2008 to 129 in 2009 (+33). Overall, the number of European fi ction fi lms increased from 859 in 2008 to 887 (+28) while the pro duction of theatrical feature documentaries remained stable at 281 productions. Fiction fi lms accounted for an estimated 80% of total European production volume, feature documentaries for around 20%.

With 194 feature fi lms released in 2009, including 65 feature documentaries, Germany became, for the fi rst time in recent history, the country with the highest production output in Europe, followed by former leader France, which saw production levels fall from 196 features to 182.

European fi lms’ share slightly down European fi lms achieved an estimated market

share of 26.7%, down from 28.2% in 2008. Market share for European fi lms produced in Europe with incoming US investment, such as Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, decreased slightly from 4.4% to 4.2%. Market share for US fi lms climbed from 65.6% to an estimated 67.1%. The most successful European fi lms without incoming US investment were Slumdog Millionaire, attracting an audience of over 16 million people, followed by Swedish thriller Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) which sold 6.6 million tickets across the European Union.

EU digital screen base takes off According to fi gures provided by MEDIA Salles

the number of digital screens in the European Union more than tripled in 2009, growing from 1 335 in 2008 to 4 134 digital screens. 3D proved to be the single most important force for digital conver- sion in 2009. On average there were 2.1 digital screens per digital cinema site. With 904 instal- lations, France overtook the UK to become the clear leader with regard to digital roll-out in the EU, followed by the UK (668) and Germany (592). There were 2 723 digital 3D screens operational by year-end, representing 66% of the total EU digital screen space.

Sources: OBS, MEDIA Salles

Information on the number of European digital screens is provided by MEDIA Salles and refers uniquely to digital screens equipped

with DLP Cinema and Sony 4K technology.

Population 2009 e 501.3 million GDP per capita 2009 e 30 609 USD Gross box offi ce 2009 (billion) e 6.27 bn EUR (8.72 bn USD) Admissions 2009 e 981.1 million Average ticket price 2009 e 6.39 EUR (8.89 USD) Average admissions per capita 2009 1.96 Screens 2008 | 2009 29 225 | ~ Screens in multiplexes 2008 | 2009 e 40.9% | ~ Digital screens 2008 | 2009 1 335 | 4 134 3D screens 2008 | 2009 e ~ | 2 723

Market shares 2009 e

US 67.1%

Others 2.0%

European fi lms 26.7%

EUR inc/US 4.2%

15

European Union

Number of feature fi lms produced in the European Union | 2005-2009 In units.

prov. Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Sources Austria 100% national fi ction 5 8 4 7 7 OFI

maj. co-prod. fi ction 4 8 2 7 5 OFI min. co-prod. fi ction 3 0 6 3 5 OFI Feature documentaries 18 17 20 13 17 OFI

Belgium e 100% national fi ction 10 11 20 14 13 MFB, OBS maj. co-prod. fi ction 10 14 11 15 15 MFB, OBS min. co-prod. fi ction 20 32 28 30 23 MFB, OBS Feature documentaries 6 12 15 20 23 MFB, OBS

Bulgaria 100% national fi ction 2 4 4 2 8 NFC maj. co-prod. fi ction 1 3 1 3 0 NFC min. co-prod. fi ction 3 3 2 4 3 NFC Feature documentaries 7 5 3 6 0 NFC, OBS

Czech 100% national fi ction 17 28 18 18 21 Min.Cult. Republic maj. co-prod. fi ction 4 1 5 5 8 Min.Cult. min. co-prod. fi ction 6 6 0 4 4 Min.Cult.

Feature documentaries 4 10 7 12 12 Min.Cult.

Denmark 100% national fi ction 11 13 8 13 14 DFI maj. co-prod. fi ction 9 7 9 7 7 DFI min. co-prod. fi ction 4 4 7 6 7 DFI Feature documentaries 7 9 4 4 2 DFI

Estonia 100% national fi ction 6 5 7 3 2 EFSA, OBS maj. co-prod. fi ction 0 3 2 3 1 EFSA, OBS min. co-prod. fi ction 0 2 0 1 3 EFSA, OBS Feature documentaries 2 1 3 6 9 EFSA, OBS

Finland 100% national fi ction 8 12 9 9 12 FFF maj. co-prod. fi ction 3 5 5 4 4 FFF

min. co-prod. fi ction 4 6 3 5 4 FFF Feature documentaries 4 3 4 1 5 FFF

France 100% national 126 127 133 145 137 CNC maj. co-prod. 61 37 52 51 45 CNC

min. co-prod. 53 39 43 44 48 CNC

Germany 100% national fi ction 60 78 77 81 87 SPIO maj. co-prod. fi ction 18 20 16 15 42 SPIO

min. co-prod. fi ction 25 24 29 29 21 SPIO Feature documentaries 43 52 50 60 70 SPIO

Greece e 100% national 21 18 20 25 20 GFC, OBS maj. co-prod. 2 2 0 3 5 GFC, OBS

min. co-prod. 1 2 5 2 0 GFC, OBS Hungary 100 % national 17 37 26 25 22 Min.Cult., AHFD, NFO maj. co-prod. 1 9 2 1 1 Min.Cult., AHFD, NFO

min. co-prod. 8 0 0 4 4 Min.Cult., AHFD, NFO

Ireland …

Couv Focus 2005_9000ex 27/04/05 18:20 Page 1

focus 2005 World Film Market Trends Tendances du marché mondial du film

Editorial Editorial

FOCUS 2005, Tendances du marché mondial du film, paraît pour la huitième année consécutive. Nous nous réjouissons de cette nouvelle collabora- tion avec le Marché du Film, à laquelle nous por- tons toute l’estime qu’elle mérite.

Wolfgang CLOSS Directeur exécutif Observatoire européen de l'audiovisuel

FOCUS 2005 World Film Market Trends appears for the eighth consecutive year. We are pleased to collaborate once again with the Cannes Market and value highly our work together.

Wolfgang CLOSS Executive Director European Audiovisual Observatory

The European Audio

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.