Although the author loves cinema, their knowledge is limited to what they simply like or dislike.
The Screen Behind the Curtain
Walk into almost any cinema across Europe today, and the experience feels remarkably uniform. The trailers, the blockbusters, the stars—they all originate from the same source: the US film industry. While European audiences have always enjoyed a rich cinematic tradition, the sheer volume of American output has created a landscape where local stories struggle to find space on the big screen.
This dominance isn’t accidental. For decades, the US has leveraged its massive domestic market and global distribution networks to saturate international markets. But beyond the economics, there is a deeper question about what we actually watch and why.
Is Taste Manufactured?
How much of our preference for Hollywood blockbusters is genuine, and how much is the result of decades of exposure?
It is worth considering whether “acquired taste” is simply the result of constant bombardment. When a specific style of storytelling, a specific type of hero, or a specific visual aesthetic is repeated in every cinema, on every streaming platform, and in every advertisement for thirty years, it begins to feel like the default setting for entertainment.
Marketing plays a significant role here. The machinery behind US cinema is designed not just to sell tickets, but to shape expectations. If a film doesn’t look or sound like what we have seen before, it risks being dismissed as “niche” or “difficult,” even if it offers a compelling story.
Discussion point:
Are we choosing these films because we love them, or because they are the only ones we have been taught to recognise?
A Path Forward: Putting European Cinema at the Heart of Europeans
It has been my observation that European cinema currently survives on life support: without substantial revenue, it persists only thanks to subsidies and protectionism. How can we shift this paradigm?
To achieve this, Europe requires a bespoke solution tailored to its constituent nations. This approach must embrace our kaleidoscopic cultural character, fostering interaction like interlocking gears among the myriad institutions scattered across the continent. It demands enough elasticity to transcend the linguistic diversity and varying formats that each country has cultivated over time.
Among the most insightful studies I have encountered is the work by the CresCine consortium, sub-titled “Increasing the International Competitiveness of the Film Industry in Small European Markets”.
While I understand they are still in their third year, I wonder if industry stakeholders are fully aware of the consortium’s findings. Moreover, will we see any of the suggested transformations materialise in the coming years? The key pillars proposed are:
- Data standards and common infrastructures.
- Transitioning from subsidy administrators to strategic coordinators.
- Modernising distribution and circulation.
- Upskilling and continuous professional development.
- Building future audiences.
As an audience member, I lack both the data and the macro-level perspective to see the full landscape. However, the advantages of operating in scalable markets are evident. We must acknowledge that Europe extends beyond the “Big Four” (France, Germany, Italy, Spain), whose domestic audiences are large enough to sustain themselves independently. Smaller producing nations must learn to leverage data, align standards, and maximise resource efficiency to overcome the inherent challenges of being European: born without a common language, fragmented geographically, and culturally heterogeneous.
Perhaps it is necessary to revisit these reports with greater scrutiny to delve deeper into how we can build new audiences. Simultaneously, we must ask: why are we not creating new films that resonate with the current public?
Discussion Point:
If evidence shows that potential new audiences vote with their euros for European cinema for different reasons, what are producers doing collectively to engage them? Specifically, how do we bridge the gap between those seeking commercial entertainment and the artistry of auteur cinema?
I understand that making high-budget films requires substantial revenue, unique talent ready to work, and competitive conditions for both internal and external rivalry. It demands a complex ecosystem comprising finance, human resources, equipment, technology, quality products, marketing, sales, and revenue generation—a spiral far more intricate than represented here. Yet, this model has been mastered not only by the USA but also by India, China, Japan, the UK, and even Nigeria, which have all taken steps to present domestically produced goods with competitive commercial characteristics.
Discussion Point:
What lessons can we learn from these countries? Why do films from these nations fail to generate the same box-office impact within European cinemas? Furthermore, what lesson can be drawn from answering the previous question to better understand the “Hollywood effect”?
The goal is to reach a tipping point where watching a European film is not just for an elite, but a fashionable, engaging choice. I believe that once the momentum builds, the economic return will follow naturally.
Help us build this:
This is an early-stage initiative. If you have thoughts on how to challenge the status quo or ideas for promoting European culture, please get in touch. We are looking for contributors to help us reach a critical mass.
The author utilised Lumo to overcome linguistic barriers and refine the drafting of this piece.