HISTORICIZING THE PRESENT
On May 22 and 23, 2025, twenty researchers came together at Complutense University of Madrid to discuss the recent transformations of the European film industry. The conference Frames of Change had been organized by Fernando Ramos (UCM) and Daniel Biltereyst (Ghent University), principal researchers of the Reboot Project in Spain and Belgium, and provided a space to critically discuss the results of Lessons from the past . This report, released in February 2025, was based on the analysis of 68 in-depth expert interviews with key stakeholders in the European film industry and reflected how senior representatives from different sub-sectors and countries have experienced and reflected on key changes over the past three decades. The main aim of the event in Madrid was thus to present these findings to a broad audience of experts and academics, to engage in dialogue with fellow researchers, and to reflect on the current challenges faced by the European film industry.
After Fernando Ramos’ introduction, where some of these issues were directly addressed, Mariana Liz (University of Lisbon) presented a brilliant keynote speech entitled “Half Full: Positive Conceptions of European Cinema” . Her presentation focused on the current state of European cinema, as well as the emergence, development and growth of European cinema studies as an academic field. One of her main arguments was that “European cinema has always been in a state of crisis”, arguing for a more positive outlook on the place of the European film industry in the global film landscape. Finally, Liz underscored the necessity to develop the branch of European Film Studies in academia: European cinema is, unlike 30 years ago, a clearly defined topic and the recent technological, policy and sociocultural changes only reinforce the necessity to study Europe’s cinema in an holistic perspective.
For two days, the participants had the opportunity to listen to several experts in the history of European cinema. The thirteen presentations were organized in four panels (Policies, Production, Identities, and Audiences and Reception).
In the first of those,Marina Rossato Fernandes (University of Liège) introduced an interesting debate on its competitiveness, based on a pan-European survey and 37 in-depth interviews with EU film experts. Its results, she explained, challenge dominant assumptions of the academic literature on film competitiveness, as the findings reveal a perception towards competitiveness which is significantly influenced by the potential alignment of economic, societal and cultural values among stakeholders. This seems also to be the case in the Turkish film industry, where, according to researchers Elif Akçalı, Melis Behlil and Ruken Doğu Erdede (Kadir Has University), European funds are key for filmmakers who want to tell alternative stories or experiment with formal aesthetics. Almost all films from Turkey that do circulate globally in festivals have been European co-productions since the country’s inclusion in the Eurimages fund. As Julie Amiot-Guillouet (École Normale Supérieure de Fontenay Saint-Cloud) argued in the closing presentation of the first panel, these models are also relevant on more modest economic scales even if their viability could be questioned. Amiot-Guillouet opened the discussion on the export of a European model of auteur cinema, through cooperation instruments that make it possible to spread beyond the continent a cultural and economic model that is alternative to that of the American majors.
In the second panel, Christopher Meir (Carlos III University in Madrid) illustrated how European auteur film production has been in demand on platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, which have become active buyers and producers in this segment of the European film industry. These productions include a number of films which were later promoted as being “impossible” to have been made otherwise, with the platforms branding themselves as patrons of the cinema and European culture. Konrad Klejsa (University of Łódź) talked about the changes in film production and film exhibition after Poland's accession to the EU in 2004. From a legal point of view, new business decisions had to be taken whereas new productions showed a clear disinterest in what was previously praised as the national cinema culture. In the same sense, Pavel Skopal (Masaryk University) showed how Czech companies operate in the European and global market and how this commercial and cultural configuration informs their strategies.
The third panel was dedicated to issues of representation and identities in European cinema, which were a priority subject for debate introduced by Emil Egenbauer (Freie Universität Berlin) who explored how the New Austrian Film’s aesthetic interventions reflect broader shifts in European cinema: the disruption of traditional production and exhibition models, the emergence of alternative programming strategies, and the confrontation of Europe’s changing social fabric. Jorge Marrero (Complutense University of Madrid) talked about how European cinema has tried to construct an identity, suggesting the existence of a broad concept of ‘European cinema’ understood as a type of diverse cinema that encompasses a variety of common themes and issues by elaborating on the case of Pedro Almódovar. Lidia Merás (Autonomous University of Madrid) addressed the issue of transnational Romani cinema in Europe in two case studies inspired on Charlie Chaplin´s legacy. Merás came to the conclusion that the differences in terms of modes of production challenge notions of a cinema that aims to transcend national borders. Finally, Imme Klages (Johannes Gutenberg University) explored how Doris Dörrie’s film work historicized a fleeting cultural moment -the 1990's decade-within the broader European cinematic context.
The last panel, focused on audiences and reception, gave Philippe Meers (University of Antwerp) the opportunity to talk about European contemporary audiences, in particular ‘small cinema countries’ audiences, who are indeed liberated of their structural-economic-technological constraints after two decades of digitalization. Meers presented the results of two large scale audience research projects conducted in 2001 and again in 2015. Also Eirini Sifaki (University of Thessaly) elaborated on this topic, more precisely on how young audiences engage with European cinema and the extent to which U.S. based streamers influence their viewing choices. Lastly, Karina Aveyard (University of East Anglia) explained how contemporary European environmental film festivals work as spaces where new patterns of integration between the textual and socio-cultural aspects of film viewing are emerging.
The final roundtable was set up as a discussion between Valeria Camporesi from the Spanish National Film Archives (Filmoteca), David Deprez , former artistic director of the art-house cinema Lumière in Maastricht, Daniel Biltereyst and Fernando Ramos. This final panel raised questions about the abundance of films, audience strategies, and all kinds of obstacles and opportunities for European cinema to grow in the future.
