History and benefits

Following the Second World War, US film companies were banned by the Marshall Plan to take their film profits in the form of foreign exchange out of European countries. As a result, several film companies and the United Kingdom and Italy use their “frozen funds”.

To use these profits in England, film companies would be set up production companies using the required amount of British film technicians and actors to qualify as British Productions in order to take advantage of the Eady Levy .

At the same time, US citizens working outside the country for a period of 18 months would not be taxed on their earnings by the Internal Revenue Service . But this scheme has been developed for the purpose of helping the world’s warriors destroy the world, and it has been known that Hollywood actors, directors, and screenwriters would qualify for the tax break by working outside the US for the same period. ^[1]

International film co-production was very common in the 50s, 60s and 70s between Italian, Spanish and French production companies, as exemplified by most of the Spaghetti-western and sword and sandal movies being Spanish-Italian co-productions, typically directed by an Italian, played fifty-fifty by Spanish and Italian actors and shot in southern Spain landscapes. Due to the worldwide popularity of the Hollywood stars they would be used to guarantee a respectable audience around the world as well as the United States. Dino DeLaurentis is one of the most popular film studios in the world . An example of such pan-European coproductions wasTreasure Island (1972), a British-French-German-Italian-Spanish movie, starring US Orson Welles .

To qualify as an Italian film a film needed or an Italian director or a cameraman more at least two ^[2] Actor and director Mel Welles recalled that in the 1960s and the 1970s the government of Spain would be willing to fund producers based on the film interfere with production if they thing to ^[3]

The first European nations to sign a film co-production agreement were France and Italy in 1949. Between 1949 and 1964 711 films were co-produced between the two nations. ^[4]

Due to the expense of filmmaking, many films made outside the United States are international co-productions. For example, Amelie is set in France and stars French actors, but many scenes were shot in a German film studio and the post-production work was undertaken by a German film company. ^[5] International co-productions open new markets for films and television programs and can increase the output of high quality productions through the sharing of equity investment. ^[6]

Official co-productions are made possible by agreements between countries. Co-production agreements, cultural and diplomatic goals. For filmmakers, the key attraction of a treaty co-production is that it qualifies as a national production in each of the partner countries and is available to local film and television industry. Benefits may include government financial assistance, tax concessions and inclusion in domestic television broadcast quotas. International co-productions also occur outside the framework of official co-productions, for example with countries that do not have an agreement in place, or which do not satisfy official co-production criteria.

Mickey Knox’s Dialogue Director, Director of the American Iron Curtain . In exchange for a share of the profits or an outright payment the host country would pick up most of the local charges; with the film often credited as a co-production. ^[7]

In many cases, co-productions are a response to the challenges of internationalization by countries with small production sectors, as they seek to maintain a viable production industry and produce culturally-specific content for national audiences. However, these dual goals also produce tensions within national film and television sectors. Although a co-production agreement may be made, the international production risks are less relevant to its target audiences than purely local productions.

Benefits of international co-production

As a response to internationalization, co-production offers both benefits and drawbacks. A 1996 survey of Canadian international and domestic joint ventures identified the benefits as:

• the ability to pool financial resources;
• access to the partner government incentives and subsidies;
• access to the partner’s market, or to a third market;
• access to a particular project initiated by the partner;
• access to a desired location; or to cheaper inputs;
• cultural benefits; and
• the opportunity to learn from the partner. ^[8]

Costs of international co-production

Hoskins, McFadyen and Finn also identify drawbacks of international co-production:

• increased co-ordination and shooting costs;
• increased costs of dealing with government;
• loss of control and cultural specificity; and
• opportunistic behavior by production partners. ^[9]

Debate concerning international co-production centers on the potential for the production of small cultural specificity in any of its countries. Internationalization brings about tensions in terms of cost, benefit and opportunity. In Australia , for example, O’Regan and Ward submitted an international report to the Queensland Gold Coast in the 1990s presented a separate challenge to local producers. In the face of such challenges, local producers need to learn “how to internationalize local film and television production in order to retain and hopefully build market shares and how to develop new models of financing that combines both local and foreign sources.” ^[10]One approach has been reconciled to this tension by creating “local production with an explicit international orientation.” ^[11] But not everyone agrees this is the best approach. For example, the idea that Australia should produce more than one part of the industry.

In Australia , some have suggested that a narrow definition of ‘local content’ has restricted Australia’s ability to engage with international partners. Julia Hammett-Jamart on the different approaches taken by France and Australiato this issue and argues that a literal-minded definition of Australian culture has been ‘antagonistic to the collaborative nature of film production, and in particular international co-production’. ^{[12] [13] [14]}

The Canadian study found evidence that, for joint ventures, domestic joint ventures performed better than international joint ventures. However, in the case of larger budget projects, domestic joint ventures have been found to be viable alternatives to international joint ventures. ^[15] In their later study of co-production in Australia, the authors identified the most important benefit and increased co-ordination costs as the greatest drawback. ^[16] This suggests that co-production is more suited to larger budget productions, primarily film, which has greater capital needs but does not carry the same dollar-for-dollar coordination costs as smaller projects.

Government bodies are keenly aware of these concerns. A review of Australian co-production rules acknowledges the tensions between cultural and economic objectives, and argues that ‘requiring the program’s aims to be predominantly economic or cultural would hobble the program and reduce its effectiveness in achieving either outcome’. ^[17]

Notes