Global Media Ecologies

Networked Production in Film and Television

Doris Baltruschat

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781136966170
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film History & Criticism

In this study, Baltruschat calls attention to dramatic changes in worldwide media production. Her work provides new insights into industry re-organization, digital media, and audience interactivity as pivotal relationships are redrawn along the entire value chain of production, distribution, and consumption. Based on an international study, she details how cultural agents now negotiate a media landscape through collaborative ventures, co-productions and format franchising. These varied collaborations define the new global media economy and affect a shift across the entire field of cultural production.

Through detailing the intricacies of globally networked production ecologies, Baltruschat elucidates the shifting power relations in media production, especially in regards to creative labor and trade of intellectual properties. In the new global economy, "content" has become the "new currency." As a result, relational dynamics between cultural agents emerge as key forces in shaping worldwide cultural production, now increasingly characterized by flexible production and consumption.

The blurring of lines in international media developments require new parameters, which define creativity and intellectual property in relation to interactive audiences and collaboratively produced content. Baltruschat clearly maps and defines these new dynamics and provides solutions as to how creative labor constellations can advance and enrich the new media economy. This is especially pertinent as global film and TV production does not necessarily result in greater media diversity. On the contrary, interdependencies in policy regimes, prioritization of certain genres, and branded entertainment epitomize how current networked ecologies reflect broader trends in cultural and economic globalization.

1
International Film and TV Co-production under Review

International film and TV co-production emerged as an important global production technology in the mid-1990s as a result of economic and technological changes in the cultural industries. The dismantling of broadcasting monopolies in Europe, the ensuing re-regulation of the same along commercial mandates and the technological convergence that led to a multi-channel universe created ideal conditions for extending film and television production into interregional and global domains. At the same time, protective measures in the form of content regulations and cultural import restrictions were meant to develop new markets to compete against the proliferation of U.S. productions through global distribution channels.

During that time, the European Union introduced the Television without Frontier directive in 1992, which stipulated a 50% quota on foreign content to encourage the development of works by independent European producers. The initiative was created as much for economic reasons as for cultural purposes. On the one hand, governments sought to create economic opportunities for local industries, while, on the other hand, collaborations were meant to foster a cultural identity—or in the case of Europe, a pan-European identity. Film and TV co-productions therefore played a vital role in the economic and cultural integration of Europe (Council of Europe, 1992). They were also key for establishing inter-regional trade between European nations and countries such as Canada and Australia.

The 1990s are synonymous with neo-liberal economics and trade liberalization, exemplified by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Mexico and Canada in 1993 and the overriding General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which became the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. In the negotiations between Canada and the U.S., the Canadian government was insistent that cultural industries were exempted from NAFTA in order to “prevent the cultural standardization of content and the complete foreign control of distribution” (Government of Canada, 1993, p. 33; WTO, 2004). While Canada and France argued for the prerogative to establish national content regulations during the Uruguay Round, the U.S. pressed for a laissez-faire approach to the international trade of cultural products (Acheson & Maule, 1994; Miller & Yúdice, 2002). In the same vein, the U.S. called on European governments to lower cultural import quotas (McAnany & Wilkinson, 1996, p. 3), which the Motion Picture Association of America termed as a “maimed, disabled theory … alien to the very objective of GATT, which is to reduce trade tension and break down trade barriers” (Jack Valenti, 1991, as cited in Given, 1995, ¶ 13).

During this decade, the global market became a strategic priority for Canada and Australia (Telefilm, 1999; Hammett-Jamart, 2004b), and co-production was seen as a tool to finance high-quality productions for international distribution. To exemplify, between 1995 and 2002, treaty co-productions between Canada and other countries (in particular the U.K.) increased dramatically. However, in 2003, the use of this production technology collapsed. This chapter provides an analysis of the reasons for the failure of treaty co-production to create a long-term solution for viable local film and television industries. The following section first details the cultural policy context, which underscores treaty co-production, followed by a detailed overview of how this production technology ‘works’, and how it evolved historically. The chapter then corroborates how media and cultural agents as part of a global media ecology are increasingly subjected to an international climate of trade liberalizations that stands in sharp contrast to cultural policies based on the advancement of cultural diversity. Thus, in spite of persistent rhetoric of cultural rationales for treaty co-productions, they are increasingly subjected to international trade imperatives. In addition to undermining the goal of advancing cultural diversity, these developments present a missed opportunity to utilize treaty co-productions to partner with filmmakers and producers from countries generally under-represented in the global flow of cultural goods.

THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL FILM AND TV CO-PRODUCTION

International film and TV treaty co-productions are as much a tool for public diplomacy and inter-cultural collaboration as they allow film and television producers access to capital and markets abroad. According to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (2003), co-productions are of “considerable cultural significance, particularly in the areas of cooperation and coordination” (p. 533). At the same time, they form part of an economic strategy for the improvement of trade relations. Bilateral co-production agreements therefore encourage cultural collaborations that are underpinned by regulatory regimes for handling goods and services as well as movement of labor and capital across international borders. In 1994, co-productions were exempted from the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) to provide ‘most favoured nation’ treatment to signatories.¹ The primary reason for this exemption was to prevent access to benefits and advantages of co-productions by non-treaty countries, in particular the U.S. (Dymond & Hart, 2001, pp. 3, 18). However, as early as 1994, Acheson and Maule (1994) suggested that many of the privileges associated with treaty co-productions are extended to projects with non-treaty partners and, consequently, encourage the same level of integration with Canadian film and television industries as with treaty countries such as the U.K. and France. Therefore, the authors note, “The extension of de facto treaty status to a broader set of projects is one way in which the treaties have been multilateralized” (¶ 25). The new ‘flexibility’ that is given to co-production arrangements with international partners in the 2000s and 2010s confirms the accuracy of this early observation.

Co-production therefore entails the dichotomy of culture and economics, which inevitably lies at the core of film and television as artistic, cultural, educational and informative media, on the one hand, and industries, on the other. Yet, cultural and economic values are not necessarily conterminous. On the contrary, even though film and television are ideal media for the expression of collective experiences—through local and global stories, self-reflection and historical memory—laissez-fair economics, in addition to uneven, global flows of cinematic and televisual content, affect diversity of expression due to corporatization and globalization.

The counter-argument to culture as a common good generally entails the claim that if cultural productions do not generate profits, their overall value becomes questionable. Within a neo-liberal paradigm, that is certainly true. However, beyond the neo-liberalist mind-frame, which has been naturalized through institutional reforms and political-economic practices (Harvey, 2007), a collective imagination, in addition to a global consciousness (noticeable in a growing environmental awareness), challenges the doctrine of unfettered capitalist expansion—due to corporatization, free markets and free trade—through notions of a creative commons, human rights and biodiversity, underscored by an engaged citizenry seeking equitable access to public goods and services.

In 1999, the Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT) advocated liberalization of international trade, but also recommended a balance between cultural policy objectives and international trade obligations. In particular, the advisory group to the Canadian Minister of International Trade proposed an ‘international cultural diversity instrument’ to provide “the ground rules for cultural policies and trade, and allow Canada and other countries to maintain policies that promote their cultural industries” (SAGIT, 1999, p. 32). This proposal for a new international instrument outside the WTO became the basis for lobbying efforts and initiatives by the International Network for Cultural Policy (INCP) and the International Network on Cultural Diversity (INCD) in the early 2000s to work with ministers of culture from various countries, arts organizations and civil society groups toward implementing a convention on cultural diversity (Acheson & Maule, 2004; Maule, 2002).

Significantly, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the ‘Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’ in 2002 to preserve the “common heritage of humanity”, cultural diversity, including biodiversity and cultural rights. Most importantly, the Declaration recognizes that cultural goods and services “which, as vectors of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer goods” (UNESCO, 2001, p. 11). Furthermore, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO, 2005) promotes international cooperation, and encourages “the conclusion of co-production and co-distribution agreements” (p. 8) within the paradigm of fostering diverse cultural forms of expression. Co-productions in this instance include cultural collaboration with developing countries, which would ideally lead to more film and TV co-productions with countries with less developed industries to facilitate cultural exchange and an increase of diverse media for global distribution. However, as discussed in this chapter, economic imperatives for co-production activities continue to undermine this objective.

Even though the UNESCO Convention provides valuable guidelines for cultural exchange, it does not resolve the dichotomy of free trade and cultural diversity. Furthermore, in contrast to the WTO, the Declaration lacks the means of reinforcing its guidelines in spite of a proposed dispute settlement mechanism, which includes seeking solutions through negotiations, mediation and non-binding conciliation (Voon, 2007 p. 188). Acheson and Maule (2004) therefore suggest that the Declaration is predominantly a tool for strengthening the bargaining position of WTO members, who do not wish to liberalize cultural activities, especially since governments— notably from Canada, France, Croatia, Greece, Mexico, South Africa, Senegal, Switzerland and Sweden—sponsored and subsidized both the INCP and INCD (pp. 246, 253).

In conclusion, even though treaty co-productions—like the broader field of audio-visual production—are exempted from the GATS and the WTO, they are nonetheless increasingly subjected to pressures of the international marketplace, that is, in the form of having to make concessions on how to structure projects financially and involve third-country talent, as discussed in more detail next. In the case of co-productions with the U.K., the Film Council’s ‘integrated approach’ to film and television projects—combining domestic, co-production/co-venture and foreign location production— impacts on new project development, which is increasingly capital driven. As a result, treaty co-productions have become more ‘flexible’ in order to adjust to changes in the global market place. More specifically, cultural agents have to accommodate these new demands in their official co-production guidelines in order to keep this production technology viable for collaborative film and television project developments. However, as discussed in this chapter, this new flexibility in treaty co-productions remains a contested issue, as some industry representatives, especially from guilds and unions, fear that local culture and labor interests are ultimately compromised by these new policy regimes.

FILM AND TV CO-PRODUCTION AS A GLOBAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Official co-productions are produced under the auspices of bilateral treaties, which are, in the Canadian case, negotiated by the Department of Canadian Heritage and administered by Telefilm Canada’s International Co-productions department. Similarly, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) in Australia and the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) in the U.K. negotiate co-production treaties, while Screen Australia and the U.K. Film Council administer the treaties for their respective jurisdiction. Treaty co-productions are considered ‘national’ programs in participating countries and are therefore eligible for government funding, tax credits and labor credits while, at the same time, satisfying local ‘content regulations’.

It is important to note that the term ‘co-production’ is often used for a variety of different financial and business constellations, which do not fall under an official treaty. Jäckel (2003b) cites examples of co-financing deals, such as pre-sales to television channels or foreign territories as well as creative and financial collaborations between produces and broadcasters (p. 58). In comparison, Morawetz, Hardy, Haslam and Randle (2007) equate international ‘co-producing’ with ‘co-financing’, as collaborations on film and television projects is increasingly capital driven. Finally, Miller et al. (2001) use the term to describe different types of collaborative work in film and television with an emphasis on the international division of cultural labor, which now defines global media production.

This highlights that the terms treaty co-production and non-treaty co-production tend to be used interchangeably, even though distinct differences exist between these two production technologies. Non-treaty co-productions—better referred to as ‘co-ventures’—include collaborative business ventures between countries that do not have a treaty—such as Canada and the U.S.—and co-productions that fall outside specifications outlined in a treaty.² To clarify, the following discussion focuses predominantly on treaty co-productions in order to establish a clear link between cultural policy interdependencies on an international scale, and resulting guidelines for officially co-produced projects.

Canada’s international co-production agreements with 53 countries around the world make it an excellent focus for a closer investigation into ‘how treaty-co-production works’. In general, bilateral co-production agreements require a minimum contribution of 15% to 30% per country. In the case of Canada–France feature film co-productions, which are made in French and have a budget of more than $3.2 million,³ the minimum financial participation can be 10% by either country (Telefilm Canada, 2007). Personnel and talent need to be ‘nationals’ of their respective countries. In addition, projects have to achieve a creative, technical and financial balance between co-producing partners. Five elements in particular necessitate equal participation and collaboration with Canadian co-producers: the financial structure, expenditures in each country, revenues and copyright as well as creative and technical participation, which is proportionate to the co-producers’ financial contribution (Larocque, 2005).⁴ In the case of a tripartite or multipartite co-production, a minimal contribution in the form of technical or creative elements is needed from each partnering country (Telefilm, 2007). Tripartite or multipartite co-productions involve multiple producers who either choose to include additional partners to access cheap locations (see below) or to facilitate greater regional integration of film and television industries. The latter can be found in co-productions between different Latin American countries, which often co-produce with Spain to access the European market (Hoefert de Turégano, 2004).

Additional requirements for Canadian co-productions include the following:

• Co-producers cannot hire personnel from a non-co-producing country. However, in Canada, Telefilm may grant an exemption in the case of ‘actors’ from a third country (this particular point remains a point of contention for guilds and unions in Canada as well as in Australia).

• Location shooting in a non-co-producing country is only allowed when it is essential to the script (studio shooting in a third country is not permitted).

• Screenplays, concepts, bibles or audio-visual projects from a third country can not be used for co-production development.

• All recommended projects have to be approved by the foreign competent authority, which is the equivalent to Telefilm in the co-producing country. In the U.K., the Film Council is designated as a competent authority, whereas Screen Australia overlooks and approves co-produced projects in Australia.

Most importantly, treaty co-productions allow producers to pool resources such as government funding, talent and labor into a production package that exceeds most budgets for domestic feature films and ...

Table of contents

• Routledge Advances in Internationalizing Media Studies
• Contents
• Tables, Figures and Maps
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• Introduction and Overview
• 1 International Film and TV Co-production under Review
• 2 Activating Codes and Conventions in Co-produced Docudramas
• 3 Media Ecologies in Format Franchising
• 4 Formats and Reality TV
• 5 Auditioning for Idol
• 6 ‘Content as Currency’
• 7 Summary and Conclusion
• Appendix
• Glossary
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index