GUEST COMMENTARY - Baume-Schneider's new film funding: more bureaucracy, less personal responsibility

As every year, the Swiss film industry gathered at the Locarno Film Festival over the past two weeks. 28 domestic films were screened in the program, a good number. The economic environment also looks good at first glance: Last year, Swiss film's theatrical market share was almost 10 percent, the highest it's been for a long time. And due to the newly introduced 4 percent investment requirement for streaming platforms ("Lex Netflix"), a quantitative increase in film and series production in the commercial sector is expected in the coming years.

The Federal Office of Culture (FOC) always invites the film industry to an event in Locarno. Minister of Culture Elisabeth Baume-Schneider delivered a speech to the assembled filmmakers. The title was: Cultural Industries at the Interface of Creativity, Market, and Politics.

The platitudes about the importance of cultural funding were initially received warmly. But then Baume-Schneider referred to a study by a Berlin-based consulting firm commissioned by the Federal Office of Culture to examine the state of the Swiss film industry. The results were intended to form the basis for the new film funding program (Fifö). The mere announcement of such a study last year had already sparked discontent within the industry. The concerns were justified, but the results are disappointing.

The most important recommendation from the nearly 200,000 Swiss franc study: Swiss film must be made more visible through domestic promotion. This advice was not surprising from a marketing firm. And many of the simple recommendations ("too many films," more "market-oriented films," etc.) are far removed from the reality of the Swiss cinema landscape, which is characterized by diversity. But how is a Berlin-based consulting firm supposed to know this when it employs a study director who speaks neither French nor Italian?

What the study and the industry agree on: A key goal is the introduction of economic development programs. For example, in Austria, where €80 million is available annually to attract American and German film productions, which then generate many times that amount for the local economy during filming.

But the elephant in the room was not addressed at the event with Baume-Schneider, nor at the panel discussion afterward: that funding is dwindling, while the requirements for filmmakers are ever increasing. The bloated bureaucracy is blatant: Despite austerity measures, the state film funding agency is constantly creating new positions for tasks that could be taken over by the industry through self-responsibility and self-organization. Symbolically, on the panel discussing the new BAK policy, there were only two filmmakers alongside four people from politics and administration. The whole event reminded older filmmakers of a Soviet party event.

The fundamental problem facing the film industry was also not discussed: the stagnating resources of state film funding have long since been insufficient to effectively promote young talent and guarantee the continuity of recognized filmmakers.

In the medium term, this jeopardizes the previously strong presence of Swiss films at major international film festivals. These films have previously shaped Switzerland's cultural image abroad. Such attention and appreciation are not achieved through successful Swiss comedies and children's films, but rather through sophisticated art-house films, which are only possible through the free creativity of the filmmakers.

But now the Federal Office of Culture (BAK) wants to dictate to filmmakers what kind of films they should produce. Among other things, the BAK wants more children's and genre films. Such regulations represent a dramatic curb on entrepreneurial and cultural freedom. This is an industry whose success is based on the entrepreneurial and artistic freedom of filmmakers. This won't work with a five-year plan controlled by the Ministry of Culture.

In the film industry, no one objects to producing expensive domestic genre films alongside the comparatively inexpensive art-house films desired by the film funding agencies. However, this cannot be achieved without increasing selective funding. This hasn't been increased in 16 years, while production costs have risen rapidly. The many new regulations on inclusion, diversity, environmentally friendly production, and so on that have been added in recent years have also driven up costs. There are now regulations for everything.

Even inflation of approximately five percent has not been adjusted during this period. Those working in creative and technical film professions are understandably pushing for an increase in their salaries to offset inflation. However, this is unaffordable for producers. And so, film projects are often ultimately guaranteed by partially waiving fees or even eliminating overhead. This undermines the economic foundations of independent film productions.

The strong commercial presence of Swiss productions in television series and online products is thus counteracted by weak cultural funding. And it is precisely in this area that not only are further cuts being made, but bureaucratic regulations and requirements are even creating further difficulties.

One example is the expansion of the mandate for Swissfilms, a state agency previously responsible for promoting Swiss film abroad. It will now also promote Swiss film domestically. This is based on the Berlin-based consulting firm's finding that Swiss film lacks sufficient visibility at home. Despite objections from the industry, the Federal Office of Culture and Consumer Protection (FOC) decided to divert CHF 690,000 from its film production budget to Swissfilms. To this end, Swissfilms hired a new employee who does not come from the film industry. The industry has since hired additional people. It can be assumed that these people also do not come from the cinema sector, but from marketing. This is because the industry has been accused on several occasions by the administration of being incapable of "selling its products." It has since been leaked that the largest portion of Swissfilms' budget increase will be used to cover the wages of these new employees – they receive salaries that no one in the independent distribution industry even comes close to.

There are many other examples of how the administration is inflating bureaucracy and expanding its control over film production and distribution. For example, in the future, two members of the six-member expert committee that assesses projects for funding will be permanently employed. This contrasts with the other experts, who serve on the expert committees on a voluntary basis. Who appoints these permanent employees and according to what criteria is not specified anywhere.

The film industry is aware that public funds are scarce. Therefore, it has submitted dozens of suggestions to the Federal Office of Culture (BAK) on how to offset the pressure to save money. For example, by restricting requirements and simplifying processes. The funding system in France could serve as a model. There, dossiers containing hundreds of pages are not permitted, as is the case here. Budgets and financial plans should also only be presented in very rough outlines. Every professional knows that much will change during the financing process. The most important thing in a film is the idea, i.e., the script. Only once a large portion of the financing has been secured does the French funding body examine all the details. This saves them the bureaucratic overhead in the initial stage that the Federal Office of Culture (BAK) involves in our case.

At a meeting between Baume-Schneider and the Film Academy in February, a request was made to organize a roundtable discussion with the entire industry. The industry should be included in the cost-cutting efforts, with the goal of simplifying regulations and finding innovative financing solutions. The Film Section of the Federal Office of Culture (FOC) has a total budget of 57 million Swiss francs, but only 27 million of this goes to film production. The rest goes into the so-called superstructure, i.e., bureaucracy. Our proposal was rejected by Baume-Schneider.

Samir Jamal Aldin , often referred to simply as Samir, is a filmmaker, producer, and co-president of the Swiss Film Academy. In 1994, he founded the production company Dschoint Ventschr, which has since produced numerous internationally award-winning feature films and documentaries.