danish film production policy through the years

8/14/2019 Danish Film Production Policy Through the Years

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/danish-film-production-policy-through-the-years 1/22

Danish film production policy through the years

A historical and analytical overview (1896-1989).

Author information

First name: Gertjan sv

Surname: Willems

1. Table of contents

1. Table of contents .....................................................................................................................1

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................................2

3. Danish film production policy through the years

(1896-1989) .................................................................................................................................3

3.1. A private industry: silent film (1896-1930) .....................................................................3

3.1.1. The beginning (1896-1910), the golden years (1910-1915) and World War I ..... ....3

3.1.2. The first cinema law (1922) and the coming of sound ............................................. 4

3.2. The first signs of government support (1930-1960) ........................................................ 5

3.2.1. Dansk Kulturfilm (1932) ...........................................................................................5

3.2.2. The cinema law of 1938 ............................................................................................6

3.2.3. World War II .............................................................................................................7

3.2.4. After the war: the first support for feature films .......................................................8

3.3. The establishment of a subsidized film sector (1960-1982) ............................................ 9

3.3.1. The Ministry of Culture and the ‘arm’s length’ principle .........................................9

3.3.2. The film law of 1965 ...............................................................................................11

3.3.3. Criticism on the film law of 1965 ........................................................................... 12

3.3.4. The Danish Film Institute and the consultancy system (1972) ............................... 13

3.3.5. The artistic film consultants: a hot debate .............................................................. 143.4. The commercializing of the perspective (1982-1989) ................................................... 15

3.4.1. The film law of 1982 ...............................................................................................15

3.4.2. The 50/50 policy (1989) ..........................................................................................16

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 19

5. Literature list ......................................................................................................................... 21



Danish film production policy through the years (1896-1989)

2. Introduction

With the dogma 95 movement and directors like Lars von Trier, Susanne Bier, Bille August,

Thomas Vinterberg and Christoffer Boe, it seems that the Danish cinema is experiencing its

second golden age. As a result, there exists an extensive literature on recent Danish films, the

dogma 95 movement and the place of a small country as Denmark in the film world. When

we browse through this literature it is conspicuous that many authors mention the Danish film

policy to (partly) explain the recent success of Danish film (see, among others, Bondebjerg,

2005 and Hjort, 2007). Although, not much research has already been dedicated to this film

policy in specific. Most of the time, film policy is mentioned in the margin and without depth.

If there is paid some larger attention to the subject it is often very factual.

For these reasons I decided to make an explorative literature study about Danish film policy

over the years. The overview will cover a period of nearly hundred years; it will start from the

beginning of film in Denmark in 1896 and it will end with the film law of 1989. The choice

for a historical approach comes out of the belief that if one wants to understand the

contemporary policy, one has to know its history. With the knowledge of the policy’s growing

process, contemporary policy is put in a wider perspective and can easier be understood. In

other words, I will research the past to understand the present.

I will strive for a clear, analytical overview. It is my intention to search for the causes of things, and the question why something happened will always be put on the foreground. The

focus in this historical and analytical overview will be on the Danish policy concerning the

production and support of feature films. Other aspects of the Danish film policy (e.g.

censorship, cinema regulation, policy concerning shorts and documentaries …) will only be

mentioned if it is necessary for a good understanding of the main subject.

Gertjan S.V. Willems 2




3. Danish film production policy through the years

(1896-1989)

3.1. A private industry: s ilent film (1896-1930)

During the period of silent film (from 1896 to 1930), the Danish film industry was a private

market driven industry. The state only intervened through censorship, cinema taxes, and a

license system for cinemas. “The authorities were thus involved only in a negative sense.”

(Nørrested & Alsted, 1987, p. 657). With the coming of the sound film, the first calls for state

support arose.

3.1.1. The beginning (1896-1910), the golden years (1910-1915) and World War I

Although Denmark was one of the first European countries introducing the invention of film,

there was not quite a film production in the first few years (Widding, 1998, p. 6-7). Actually,

there was only one single man who made some (reportage) films, namely Peter Elfelt, a court

photographer. He also made the first Danish feature film in 1903, but feature film production

only really took off with the establishment of Nordisk Films Kompagni in 1906. For the few

coming years, we can say that the Danish film production sector was equal to Nordisk Film,

because of its huge dominancy (Engberg, 1990, p. 5).

From 1910 on, Danish film was experiencing its golden age. Nordisk Film was one of the

“leading international film companies, probably only surpassed by the French companies

Pathé frères and Gaumont”, so that Denmark was put on the world map of film (Thorsen,

2006, p. 53). Danish films were much wanted, both at home and abroad. As a consequence of

this success, the Danish film production industry was a lucrative industry, in which the

economic perspective highly dominated.

Monty (1973, p. 30) describes Ole Olsen, the founder of Nordisk Film, as “an eminent

businessman […] He was not entirely devoid of artistic ambitions but first and foremost he

saw the possibilities of the cinema as an entertainment industry”. In this respect, Ole Olsen

can be seen as a prototype for the Danish film sector as a whole. It was a private, competitive

sector in which every film was expected to make profit.

As a consequence, the only forms of state intervention in these early years were of a negative

(restrictive) nature. For example, there was a license system for cinemas whereby the cinema-

owner had to ask permission to the local chief constable (in Copenhagen to the magistrate)

every year again (until the coming of the first real cinema law in 1922) (Engberg, 1990, p. 5).





Another form of (negative) government intervention within the film sector was the censorship

(introduced in 1907), to protect the public moral (Nørrested & Alsted, 1987, p. 657).

Because of the neutrality of Denmark during World War I, the war had at first no or only little

effect on the film production. In fact, the Danish position was even strengthened, because of

the damage the French production companies sustained (Engberg, 1990, p. 8-9; Thorsen,

2006, p. 60-5). But after a while, the war did have some bad effects on the Danish film

industry, mainly because of its bonds with the German film industry. Around 1915 the golden

age for Danish cinema was over.

3.1.2. The first cinema law (1922) and the coming of sound

As the Danish film scene developed and grew, it became clear that real government

intervention could no longer stay out. As a result, the first cinema law was introduced in 1922

(Engberg, 1990, p. 9). Film was placed under the Ministry of Justice, and there came an

‘entertainment tax’ of 40 percent on the income of the cinemas. This law mirrored the pure

commercial approach to film and cinema that was living in the sector, and there was no single

sign of supporting the film industry in any way. However, with the coming of sound the first

calls for state support arose.

After the success of The Jazz Singer in 1927 (in Denmark the film was only shown in 1929),

it was clear that the ‘talkies’ would replace the silent films, despite the resistance of some

filmmakers and producers (Widding, 1998, p. 12). This brought a big problem along for the

Danish (and many other European) filmsector: the language. The universal language of silent

film was a thing of the past, and suddenly, it became much more risk-bearing to produce

Danish films.

“Danish-language films were generally impossible to export, and the Danish film

industry was completely dependent on the domestic market. A further consequence of

this is that government regulation had had a decisive impact on the development of the

movie business in Denmark.” (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 1).

Engberg (1990, p. 13) calculated that around 1930 the average cost to produce a feature film

was some 125,000 to 150,000 kroner, while the cost of a cinema ticket in Denmark varied

from 1.40 to 1.75 kroner, of which 40 % went to the state. This meant that a movie had to sell

500,000 tickets to recoup the cost, something that was quite difficult considering Denmark’s

population. Engberg nuances this at the same time by pointing at the fact that production

companies were given the permission to run a cinema, which was very lucrative. But this

compensation was not satisfactory and the call for support became louder.





3.2. The first signs of government support (1930-1960)

The next period we can distinguish when we look at the history of Danish film production

policy starts with the coming of sound around 1930 and ends in the last year before the

Ministry of Culture was established, namely 1960. This period is marked with state support

for shorts and documentaries which the government finds valuable. This policy started with

the establishment of Dansk Kulturfilm in 1932, was strengthened with the cinema law of 1938

and continued during World War II. However, the feature film industry remained a private

industry, getting no support at all. The first kind of (primitive) support arose right after World

War II.

3.2.1. Dansk Kulturfilm (1932)

“The 1920’s was a decade which was characterized internationally by debates on the necessity

of cultural and educational films”, and this was also the case for Denmark (Nørrested et al.,

1987, p. 660). While Duelund (2003, p. 35) states that “the leadership of the Danish labor

movement in the early 20th century deemed cultural policy to be a low priority”, Engberg

(1990, p. 11-12) points at the fact that in the 1930s “an understanding for a film’s cultural

effect” was growing with the social-democratic government. In 1932, a report of the

committee was presented which paid attention to the cultural and educational potential of

films (Larsen, 2006, p. 146). There was also paid attention to the possible value of

propaganda films abroad. The government was convinced and this resulted, two months after

the report, in the establishment of Dansk Kulturfilm (Danish Cultural Film).

Dansk Kulturfilm was “a private association encouraged by legal and economic provisions

carried through by the Social Democratic government” (Dahl, 1999). The goal was to produce

and to import films that either could serve to ‘educate’ the Danish population, or could

function as propaganda for Denmark and its trade. Dansk Kulturfilm was publicly financed,

namely through the taxes that cinemas had to pay. “The idea was that these resources should

be recycled within the film culture, but in a way that gave priority to enlightenment rather

than entertainment” (Dahl, 1999). Even though the goal was to produce films from the

beginning on, Dansk Kulturfilm could at first only build up distribution channels (like

schools, trade unions, film clubs, workplaces …) for films that the government found

valuable. Also, a part of the income went to the administration of a film archive.

In the period from 1933 to 1938, Dansk Kulturfilm represented all the film-activities of the

government, but Larsen (2006, p. 146) finds that this was less prestigious than it sounds,

because until 1936 Dansk Kulturfilm did not produce a single film. Although, it is worth





noting that there was already the intention, and there was laid a basis for a broader

subsidizing.

However, even before the establishment of Dansk Kulturfilm the first state-subsidized films

were already produced (Nørrested et al., 1987, p. 659; Engberg, 1990, p.13, Tybjerg, 2007, p.

4). After the ‘Easter crisis’ in 1920, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to do something

about the image of Denmark by means of propaganda films. During the 1920s and the 1930s,

some propaganda films were made, the most well-known being Danmark (1935) of Poul

Henningsen. The money for these films did not come exclusive from the Treasury, but also

“from private foundations, and from those trades and industries that saw an advantage in the

international aim of the propaganda industry.” (Nørrested et al., 1987, p. 659).

3.2.2. The cinema law of 1938

In 1933, right after the establishment of Dansk Kulturfilm, a new cinema law replaced the old

one of 1922. The new law primarily worked out the license system for cinema, and Tybjerg

(2007, p. 3) points out that “beyond the cinema licenses awarded to the production

companies, the new Cinema Law which was passed in 1933 did not give any sort of support

for Danish filmmaking.”. This statement is not completely right, because there was Dansk

Kulturfilm. But, as we pointed out above, this institution did not yet work how it should, and

it was only aimed at ‘educative’ films, so Tybjerg possibly meant feature films in his

statement.

To get the production of informational, educational and cultural valuable films really off the

ground, an important law was drawn up in 1938 to provide a solid basis for these aims.

Through the establishment of the following three institutions (next to Dansk Kulturfilm) there

came a national, state-subsidized short and documentary production (Dahl, 1999; Engberg,

1990, p. 12, Larsen, 2006, p.146):

- The Film Foundation ( Filmfonden, the forerunner of the Danish Film Institute), which provided economical support by the production of informational and educational

films;

- The Government Film Office (Statens Filmcentral ), which was established in 1939

and was the producer and distributor of short films and documentaries;

- The Film Advisory Board ( Filmrådet ), which functioned as an advisory body and link

between the Ministry of Justice and the two other organs, namely the Government

Film Office and the Film Foundation.





The original goal (highly influenced by the debates in the 1920s and 1930s, see 3.2.1) was to

support ‘artistic and cultural valuable’ films, but this idea of the social-democratic

government did not receive a warm welcome with the cinema-owners and the distributors, so

the focus was switched to shorts and documentaries (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 6).

This law remained until 1965, and in the spirit of this law, the Danish Film Museum was

established in 1941 on private initiative. From 1950 on, the Film Museum received financial

support from the government (Danish Ministry of Culture, 2002, p. 16). The Danish Film

Museum was “charged with raising critical awareness about cinema, circulating information

about film, and collecting and preserving the national film heritage” (Bondebjerg, 2005, p.

112).

3.2.3. World War II

In spite of the fact that the war was a hard time for Denmark, it was a flourishing period for

the Danish film industry. There was a rise in cinema-attendance - because of the rationing,

people had more money than they could spend, and this money often went to entertainment,

whereby cinema was very attractive because of its escapist character - and a rise in the

number of produced Danish films (Tybjerg, 2006, p. 173). Danish films made profit again,

because of the rise in cinema-attendance, and because of the ban on Hollywood movies that

the Germans introduced (Dahl, 1999).

But as the war proceeded, also the film sector underwent some of the more negative

consequences of the occupation. To discourage the Danish resistance movement, the Nazis

began to use some kinds of terrorism, and the film sector was not spared. At the beginning of

1944, the film studios of the big Danish film production companies (Nordisk, Palladium and

ASA) and, a little later, the biggest cinema of Copenhagen (Kinopalæet), were blown up

(Tybjerg, 2007, p. 6).

During the war, the debate about feature film subsidizing was enjoying a break, mainly because of the war of course, but also because there was just no need for financial support for

Danish feature films. On the other hand, there were the many shorts which were very

intensively supported by the state:

“The propaganda films served an immediate political need to disseminate information

– mainly about the legislative initiatives of the coalition government to counteract the

social problems caused by the occupation. Above all, the propaganda work centred on

the many state-administered job creation projects, money-raising campaigns, re-





circulation programmes, and projects for the provision of alternative energy”

(Nørrested et al., 1987, p.667).

In 1941, the ‘Beskæftigelses-filmudvalg’ (in 1944 the name was changed into Ministeriens

Filmudvalg, the Ministerial Film Commission) was established to produce these kind of informative films. The commission was placed under the wings of the commission for job

creation and worked totally independent of the existing film institutions (see 3.2.2). Next to

the political need to inform the people, there was also a more ideological motive for these

films. The government wanted to create a feeling of unity and to encourage the people to hold

on (Nørrested et al., 1987, p. 669). Another motive for the production of these films was the

fact that Danish cinemas could replace the German Wochenschau (which always had to be

shown just before main film) with such a Danish informational short film. The German

cinema journals were not much loved by the Danish audience, so this tactic was often used.

The most obvious thing that the occupation brought along was of course the strong

censorship. Nevertheless, there were made some (short) films which made an ambiguous

attack on the German occupation, the most well known being Kornet er i fare (the corn is in

danger) from 1945.

Both the Ministerial Film Commission and Dansk Kulturfilm provided a platform to a group

new and young filmmakers (but also more experienced filmmakers made movies for these

institutions). While making the films by government order, they could experiment with the

medium, and these institutions often worked as a springboard to produce feature films after

the war (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 6-7). In this sense, the government provided indirect qualitative

support for future feature films.

3.2.4. After the war: the first support for feature films

After the war, the rise in cinema attendance continued and as a consequence, the Danish

cinemas earned much money (Engberg, 1990, p. 17). The government noticed this and

decided to raise the cinema tax from 40 to 60 percent. With a part of these cinema taxes, the

first positive intervention for the production of feature films was realized: from 1946 (until

1950) there was a total annual sum of 500,000 kroner awarded to the ‘best’ (this meant the

highest artistic and cultural valuable) films.

After the Second World War, the whole debate about state support for feature films,

stimulated by the renewed foreign competition, made big progress. It was still a lucrative time

for the Danish cinemas, but no longer for the Danish film production sector. Hollywoodmovies became the big crowd-pullers again and Danish films could barely survive. The





Danish government was not pleased with this (as in many other European countries, they

were afraid for the so-called Americanisation, which was, and is, highly associated with

Hollywood movies) and promulgated some compensation decrees:

“A producer could apply to the Ministry of Finance and ask for his film to beexempted from entertainment tax, or he might even be supported with hard cash if the

film’s content was in some way educational.” (Engberg, 1990, p. 17).

The films Engberg mentions here were also called ‘problem pictures’ and dealt with issues

such as abortion, crime and alcoholism (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 11). Engberg (1990, p. 17) states

that this kind of support was sometimes misused. Some ‘normal’ films just shortly mentioned

a ‘problem issue’ to get the support, while they didn’t pay any larger, more in-depth attention

to the issue.In 1949, there was put an end to this policy, and the system was equalized for all Danish

films. From the income of cinema tickets for Danish films, 25 % went straight back to the

producers instead of going to the government as a cinema tax (Widding, 1998, p. 17). The tax

on cinema tickets was thus de facto a tax on foreign films. Actually, the cinema tax can be

seen as a tax on Hollywood movies (at the expense of other foreign, mainly European, films),

as it were these films on which they wanted an advantage (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 12). Engberg

(1990, p. 20) points at the fact that because Danish films received this advantage, the financial

awarding of support films came to an end, as Danish films were supposed to be able to

compete with foreign films.

3.3. The establishment of a subsidized film sector (1960-1982)

In the early 1960s, the debate about film and cinema made a decisive turn; there came real

attention for the more artistic, qualitative films. This change can be seen in the establishment

of the ministry of culture (1961) and in the film laws of 1965 and 1972, which had the attempt

to support these kinds of films. Although, this goal was not so easy to achieve, and there was

a lot of criticism on both laws.

3.3.1. The Ministry of Culture and the ‘arm’s length’ principle

At the beginning of the 1960s, two important events relating to feature films took place;

namely the support for children’s films and the establishment of the Ministry of Culture.

Danish producers of children’s films could barely survive those days, because the children’s

films were almost never profitable. However, the government found it important that Danish





kids and youngsters would not only see the American films, but also (and preferable mostly)

national works. For this reason, the government decided in 1960 to help the Danish children’s

films by exempting them from the tax on cinema tickets (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 17). This positive

attitude towards children’s films is something that is maintained from 1960 until nowadays.

The following year, the Ministry of Culture was established and all matters concerning film

and cinema were put under its wings (before 1961, it was the Ministry of Justice who took

care of film-related issues). According to Duelund (2003, p. 42), this new Ministry was

“merely a political and administrative framework designed to improve the conditions for

culture but not interfere with the content.” Here we can see clearly the ‘arm’s length’

principle which remained very important through the further history of Danish film policy and

Danish cultural policy in general.

“The ‘arm’s length’ principle implies that politicians may not make concrete decisions

on arts funding, either by expressing opinions of taste or by making professional

judgements about quality.” (Duelund, 2003, p. 63).

The Ministry of Culture functions thus as an architect, providing the frame in which can be

worked, which is clearly to protect the artistic freedom. This principle is put into practice by

creating independent government institutions with boards and councils who take (without

government intervention) the decisions about the division of the subsidies (The Danish Film

Institute is a perfect prototype of this). Whereas Duelund (2003, p. 52) states that, within the

general cultural policy, the principle became weaker throughout the years, we can say that this

is not (or at least to a lesser degree) the case concerning the film policy.

Tybjerg (2007, p. 18) states that the placement of film under the Ministry of Culture pointed

“in the direction of an official recognition of film as an art form”. This recognition of film as

an art form had its roots in the debates of the 1920s and 1930s (see 3.2.1), but whereas the

focus back then was mainly on film as a cultural and educational valuable good, the focus in

the 1950s and the 1960s was replaced to film as a product with an artistic value. This debate

was of course strongly influenced by the Italian neo-realism and the French nouvelle vague

films of those times. Widding (1998, p. 17) sees these debates as the direct causes for the

loudening call for government support for certain feature films:

“At the beginning of the 1950s, the notion of quality film appeared as one of the

central concepts of the Danish film debate. The call for state subsidies was motivated

by a need to guarantee a qualitatively superior production and to avoid a staking of

safe bets, namely popular film.”.





3.3.2. The film law of 1965

Next to the growing awareness of the ‘art film’, there was also another reason for the

loudening call for government support. I mentioned the advantage Danish films had on

foreign films (see 3.2.4), but in spite of this, it went straight downhill with the Danish filmsector, due to the decline in cinema attendance (Stevenson, 2003, p. 165). This decline was

strengthened when television came into the picture (although not immediately, only at the end

of the 1950s the effect of television on cinema attendance could be felt). Schepelern (2004, p.

140; 2006, p. 221) sees this decline in cinema attendance as the main cause for the new film

law in 1965. Also Larsen & Nissen (2006, p. 35) point at the fact that this law should be seen

in this context, but they state that the fall in sold cinema tickets was not the only reason for

the new film law. There was also the dominance of American films and the beginning of a

recognition of film as an art form. Engberg (1990, p. 23) gives us a description of the law, of

which the most important points for this paper are the following:

- The entertainment tax was abolished and was replaced by a ‘normal’ tax of 15 % on

cinema tickets. This did not mean that Danish films lost their advantage, because the

money from Danish films went again straight back to the production companies;

- The income of the Film Foundation existed of the license system for cinemas and the

tax on cinema tickets from non-Danish films. Also the Government Film Office and

the Danish Film Museum were financed by these sources;

- The Film Foundation became the most important actor within the institutional frame

of the film sector. The Foundation had to subsidize the following things:

⇒ The qualitative support for the Danish film sector. This contained mainly the

education of film technicians and artists, but also the support for scriptwriters and

the establishment of a ‘workshop’ project. In the spirit of this qualitative support,

the Danish Film School (1966) and the film department at the University of

Copenhagen (1967) were established;

⇒ The awarding of money prizes to stimulate films of quality, this was thus the

return of the system that was introduced after World War II (see 3.2.4);

⇒ The production of more feature films. Here the support existed of a kind of bank

guarantee, whereby the repayment was done by both the producer and the Film

Foundation, the division of the repayment depended on the profits the film made;

⇒ The promotion of Danish films on foreign festivals.





“Prior to the establishment of the Film Foundation, one of the unavoidable

prerequisites for getting a film produced was a very strong indication that it would be

seen by a very large number of Danes. […] Scriptwriters and directors might well get

a good idea, but if it was too unconventional its chances of getting realized were

extremely small.”

This ‘economical’ film law of 1965 should then be seen as a condition sine qua non to realise

an ‘artistic’ film law. In other words, the way to a ‘good’ film law is a process that proceeds

in steps, whereby the law of 1965 was a necessary step to be able to take the following step,

namely the film law of 1972.

3.3.4. The Danish Film I nstitute and the consultancy system (1972)

“In 1972, the Danish Film Institute was established, with the objective of supporting

the production of Danish films of artistic value.” (Schepelern, 2006, p. 225).

As an answer to the criticism on the law of 1965 (see 3.3.3) and as a new attempt to get the

Danish film production industry out of the impasse, a new film law was introduced in 1972.

In Danish film circles, this law of 1972 is often called ‘the world’s best film law’, so it is clear

that there must be a fundamental change (Bondebjerg, 2005, p. 120).

According to Engberg (1990, p. 26), the two most important changes that this law brought

along were the replacement of the Film Foundation by the Danish Film Institute (hereafter

DFI) and the bigger emphasis on the artistic aspects of film. This emphasis was realized

through the so-called ‘consultancy system’. Two artistic consultants were appointed and their

task was to judge whether a project (a feature film) was worth subsidizing or not. In 1976,

there came a third consultant, for the decisions on children’s films. Officially, the films which

made a profit had to pay the money back to the DFI, but Stevenson (2003, p. 167-8) claims

that this almost never happened.

An important change for the production of Danish feature films that Engberg does not

mention is the fact that the DFI, next to providing subsidies to production companies, could

from now on also be the producer or the co-producer of a film (Stormgaard, 1973, p. 77;

Widding, 1998, p. 26). This, together with the new consultancy system, made it easier for

young filmmakers to make their first films, because the (profit-minded) production companies

were no longer the only ones who could produce their films.

The law of 1972 also broke “decisively with the regulatory system of the past” (Tybjerg,

2007, p. 23). The tax of 15 percent on cinema tickets and the license system for cinemas were





both abolished. As these were the two former sources of income for the old Film Foundation,

the newly established DFI was now directly financed through the state. Drouzy & Piil (1979,

p. 9) state that the DFI was now dependent on economical and political fluctuations. Their

second statement is probably right, but why the financing of the DFI would depend on

economical changes is not very clear.

3.3.5. The artistic film consultants: a hot debat e

Although there was a board of five members at the head of the DFI, Engberg claims that it

were the film consultants who had the real power within the DFI. When one of them wanted

to support a film, the DFI almost automatically provided the necessary money. These

consultants were professionals from the film world who on a pure subjective basis had to

decide whether a project was the support worth or not. The big advantage of this system is

that “producers dealt with a single person and not with a committee or a faceless institution”

(Stevenson, 2003, p. 167). This is a strength of the system, but at the same time also a

weakness. Films that attract virtually no audience (Stevenson gives an extreme example of a

film that sold only 69 tickets, namely Perfect World (1990) from Tom Elling) can be

produced when you can convince just one consultant. In such a context, the public debate

about spending public money on films in which nobody is interested can of course become a

very hot one.

Another, even hotter debate which Stevenson (2003, p. 171-5) draws the attention on is the

debate about possible favouritism. In the small Danish film landscape virtually everybody

knows each other of course, and this is not different for the film consultants. There have been

a few incidents by which the consultants were accused of favouring certain production

companies or directors (especially Peter Aalbæk Jensen has in the 1990s been accused for

favouring Lars von Trier and their production company Zentropa). Also Hjort (2007)

mentions accusations of favouritism to some artistic consultants, but beside this, she alsodraws the attention on the criticism that because of the consultancy system, there developed a

prescribed concept of how a Danish film should look like in order to get support from the

DFI. Hjort also states that the film consultants would not follow (enough) the quick changing

trends of the film production sector.

Another danger that the system could bring along is that in the long term a certain form of

taste could dominate the choice of films that were supported (Bondebjerg & Hjort, 2000, p.

22). For this reason, but also for the other reasons above, the consultants were appointed for a





period of only three years (and maximum renewable to five years). This solution perhaps does

not take away all of the problems, but at least it let them change every few years.

The DFI itself defends the system totally, and the most eminent reason they give for this

defence is that (according to the DFI, but also in the academic literature this statement is

widely accepted, see, for instance Hjort, 2007) without this system the recent success of

Danish films would never have existed, and a director like Lars von Trier would never have

been able to produce a single film. Also Bondebjerg et al. (2000, p. 8) share this opinion,

stating that with the establishment of the DFI in 1972 and the allied introduction of the

consultancy system “the groundwork […] for the international breakthrough of Danish film in

the 1990s” was laid.

3.4. The commercializing of the perspective (1982-1989)

During the 1980s, the government realized that not only artistic films were in need for

support, but almost all Danish films. As a result, the film consultants were given the

instruction to broaden their perspective, but this did not seem to work and in 1989 there came

an apart subsidizing system for the more popular films.

3.4.1. The film law of 1982

“In 1965 a new film law went into effect, giving financial support to the production of

artistic films. This would lead to the establishment of the Danish Film Institute in

1972; but a few years later it was clear that not only artistic films required state

support in order to survive but that all Danish film production had become dependent

on state funding of some kind.” (Schepelern, 2004, p. 145).

Already since the 1960s, there was a decline in cinema attendance (see 3.3.2), and this decline

continued through the following decades (Engberg, 1990, p. 29). The government wanted to

secure the continuance of the cinemas and of Danish film in general (the law of 1972 did not

seem to succeed in this), and for this reason, there came a new film law in 1982. But the new

film law also has to be seen in the broader context of the general cultural policy that Denmark

pursued in the beginning of the 1980s. Duelund (2003, p. 48) draws the attention on the high

unemployment degree and the allied economical crisis that Denmark underwent around 1981.

He states that “like every other export activity, cultural export was to be stimulated in order to

drag the country out of its economic crisis and […] was to be stimulated in order to help to

forge an identity and find a foothold in a changing Europe and a changing world.”.





Concretely, the new film law contained a broadening of the focus of film subsidizing: “It was

no longer film as an art form only the legislators wanted to help.” (Engberg, 1990, p. 29). It

was the national film production as a whole they wanted to help. To do this, an annual

minimum of feature films that had to be produced was introduced, namely 15 per year. This

was the minimum that was expected to be sufficient to hold on a national film production.

However, it seemed (in spite of the efforts of the DFI) hard to produce the 15 films each year,

because the production costs kept on rising sharply, and even the very commercial minded

films had problems to find financing. The link with the protection of the continuance of the

cinemas was that the Danish cinemas (especially the small, more rural cinemas) were highly

dependent on Danish feature films (Engberg, 1990, p. 29). But there came no direct help to

the cinemas.

Another aspect of the new film law, building further on the initiative of 1960 (see 3.3.1), was

that the DFI now had to spend 25 percent of her budget on children’s films, and this policy

remains until today (Bondebjerg, 2005, p. 120).

So the film consultants now also had to support the more commercial films, and this led to

some discussions “especially when they funded popular farces while denying support for

some ‘difficult’ art films” (Tybjerg, 2007, p. 26). To serve both parties (both the artistic film

milieu and the commercial film milieu), a new system was introduced with the film law of

1989.

3.4.2. The 50/50 policy (1989)

In 1989, the film law was revised again, and there came a new subsidizing mechanism for

Danish feature films. But next to this new support system, the 1989 law introduced also

another important change, namely the change of the definition of a ‘Danish film’. This

definition is very important, as only ‘Danish films’ can get Danish subsidies. Until 1989, the

very strict definition from the 1972 law was in force. According to this definition, a Danishfilm had to be in Danish and the biggest part of the artistic and technical personnel had to be

Danes (Bondebjerg et al., 2000, p. 17-8). With the revision of the law in 1989, this definition

was eased; a film was Danish when it was in Danish or if there was a “special Danish artistic

or technical effort contributing to the promotion of film art and film culture in Denmark”

(Brandstrup & Redvall, 2005, p. 146).

The definition was thus kept rather vague to be able to support a broad range of films. Hjort

(2007) sees Lars von Trier as the direct cause for the broadening of the definition, because in

1984, there had to be made an exception for his debut, The Element of Crime, which was in





English. However, Brandstrup et al. (2005, p. 142-6) see it broader and state that the

definition was eased so that Danish films could benefit from the new -transnational-

subsidizing mechanisms (like Eurimages and the Nordic Film and Television Foundation)

without loosing their right on Danish subsidies.

But the most important change that the 1989 law brought was the new subsidizing system for

popular Danish films. According to Bondebjerg (2005, p. 122), there was a search for a new

subsidizing system “to counterbalance elitist tendencies in film support” that could arise

through the film consultants. Also Hjort (2007) sees the criticism on the consultancy system

(see 3.3.5), in combination with the continuing absence of a Danish public for national films,

as decisive factors for the introduction of a new subsidizing mechanism.

In April 1989, the so-called ‘50/50 scheme’ (50/50 ordning ) was introduced to support

popular Danish films. This did not mean that the consultancy system disappeared; from 1989

on, there existed two support systems next to each other, one for the more artistic films and a

new one for the more popular films (Dibie, 1993, p. 36). The system contained that when a

producer could get 50 percent of the production budget from private investors, the DFI would

provide the other half, with a ceiling of 3.5 million kroner (in 1997 the system was changed to

a 60/40 scheme, whereby the 60 represented the contribution of the state). The support thus

happened on an automatic basis, without the requirement of a certain level of quality or so. In

other words, it is clear that this system was introduced to support the commercial films; the

project did not need any approval from a consultant anymore before it could enjoy state

support (Bondebjerg et al., 2000, p. 284).

The money the DFI provided was actually an interest-free loan, which had to be paid back

with the profits that the film made. But the payment only had to start “after private fundings

have been recouped and after the producer has received a profit equal to his personal

investment”, so the DFI did not see too much of its money back (Dibie, 1993, p. 36). The

50/50 system was not something new in Denmark, as Duelund (2003, p. 59) points out, it was

already introduced in other cultural sectors (like the music, theatre and museum sectors)

during the 1970s. But here the one half of the budget did not had to come from private

investors (like it is the case for the film industry), but from local authorities.

The system was and is very much appreciated and celebrated:

“The 50/50 (60/40) proved to be an ingenious intervention. […] the DFI […]

understood the seemingly paradoxical logic of seeking new faces and new ideas by

neutralizing its very own gatekeepers” (Hjort, 2007).





“This funding mechanism is credited for the comeback of popular entertainment films

and a Danish film scene that […] is today heralded for its quality, diversity, and ability

to sell far more tickets.” (Stevenson, 2003, p. 169).

Especially the combination with the consultancy system has shaped excessive possibilities for Danish films. Under 3.3.3 I already pointed out that the way to a ‘good’ film law exists of

different steps, and the introduction of the 50/50 policy was obviously a very good step. It

also supports the these that to produce quality films (via the consultancy system), there has to

be a solid economical basis for this (via the 50/50 scheme). This combination made a very

pluralistic Danish film landscape possible, and contributed to the recent success of Danish

cinema.





4. Conclusion

When we look at the history of Danish film production-policy until 1989, we can distinguish

four key periods which correspond more or less with the key periods in Danish film history.

According to Bondebjerg and Hjort (2000, p. 8), these are: “silent film (1896-1930), classic

cinema culture (1930-1960), modern film culture after 1960 and the international

breakthrough of the 1990s”.

The first two periods I distinguish, namely silent film (1896-1930) and first signs of

government support (1930-1960), are totally in line with the periods Bondebjerg and Hjort

distinguish ( silent film and classic cinema culture). During these years, the film production

industry in Denmark was a market-driven, private industry which received no government

support at all, mainly because the sector was not in need of it. After World War II however,

we can see the very first (still primitive) help for Danish quality films. This tendency from

only negative government intervention in the film industry (via license systems, cinema taxes

and censorship) to a more positive intervention continued in the next period, which I called

the establishment of a subsidized film sector (1960-1982) and which Bondebjerg & Hjort call

modern film culture after 1960.

The ministry of culture was established and as a result from the debates about film as an art

form, there came a film law in 1965 to explicitly help these kind of quality films, a policywhich cultivated in 1972 with the establishment of the Danish Film Institute and the allied

consultancy system. This subsidizing system was not without criticism, and in the meanwhile,

it became clear that also commercial films were in need of state support. As a result, the

1980s can be seen as the commercializing of the perspective (1982-1989) in which the

groundwork was laid for the international breakthrough of the 1990s that Bondebjerg & Hjort

distinguish as the last period hitherto in Danish film history. At first, the artistic film

consultants had to broaden their perspective, but in 1989, a system explicitly addressed to popular films was introduced, namely the 50/50 scheme. The consultancy system went back

to its original aims, namely the support of more qualitative films.

This history can thus be characterized as an evolution from a private to a heavily subsidized

film industry. Whereas the first subsidies were only meant for the so-called quality films,

there is also an evolution towards support for the whole film sector, and this is precisely the

strength of the whole system; in order to produce quality films, there has to be a solid basis

for the film sector as a whole, or in other words, there must be the possibility to produce a





wide range of commercial films. This basis shapes then space for the commercial less

accepted, but often innovative quality films. This is exactly what the DFI does, by means of

the 50/50 scheme and the consultancy system. This unique combination of support systems

for the production of films, in combination with the individual artistic talents of some Danish

directors and actors, is the key to the recent success of Danish cinema.

As this paper stops with the law of 1989, it is clearly an unfinished one. The reason why the

paper does not proceed until the contemporary situation is the lack of space. Therefore, I

highly recommend further research for the situation after 1989 until nowadays, with, of

course, the film law of 1997 in particular.





5. Literature list

Bondebjerg, I. (2005). The Danish way: Danish film culture in a European and global

perspective. In A. Nestingen & T. Elkington (Eds.), Transnational cinema in a global

North, Nordic cinema in transition (pp. 111-141). Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State

University Press.

Bondebjerg, I. & Hjort, M. (2000). The Danish directors. Dialogues on a contemporary

national cinema. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Brandstrup, P. G. & Redvall, E. N. (2005). Breaking the borders: Danish coproductions in the

1990s. In A. Nestingen & T. G. Elkington (Eds.), Transnational cinema in a global North,

Nordic cinema in transition (pp. 141-163). Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University

Press.

Dahl, R. (1999). A national, historical perspective on documentary in Denmark. Screening the

Past (7), article 2. Consulted on 4 November at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/

firstrelease/fr0799/rdfr7c.htm

Dibie, J. (1993). Aid for cinematographic and audio-visual production in Europe. London:

John Libbey & Company Ltd.

Drouzy, M. & Piil, M. (1979). Le cinéma Danois. France: Centre Georges Pompidou.

Duelund, P. (2003). Cultural policy in Denmark. In P. Duelund (Ed.), The Nordic cultural model (pp. 31-71). Copenhagen: Nordic cultural Institute.

Engberg, M. (1990). Danish films - through the years. Holstebro: A-Offset.

Filmfonden (1970). The cinema in Denmark . Copenhagen: Filmfonden.

Hjort, M. (2007) Cultural policy and artistic leadership. In M. Hjort & D. Petrie (Eds.), The

cinema of small nations. Edinburgh: Edingburgh University press.

Larsen, L. R. (2006). Nordisk short-film production in the 1940s and 1950s. In L. R. Larsen

& D. Nissen, (Eds.), 100 years of nordisk film (pp. 145-171). Copenhagen: Danish FilmInstitute.

Larsen, L. R. & Nissen, D. (2006). 100 years of nordisk film. In L. R. Larsen & D. Nissen,

(Eds.), 100 years of nordisk film (pp. 8-51). Copenhagen: Danish Film Institute.

Monty, I. (1973). An unbroken tradition for film-making. In U. Stormgaard & S. Dyssegaard

(Eds.), Danish films (pp. 30-59). Copenhagen: The Danish Film Institute.

Nørrested, C. & Alsted, C. (1987). Kortfilmen og staten. Copenhagen: Eventus.

Schepelern, P. (2004). Postwar Scandinavian cinema. In E. Ezra (Ed.), European cinema.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.





Schepelern, P. (2006). The last tycoon - Erik Balling and the survival of Nordisk. In L. R.

Larsen & D. Nissen, (Eds.), 100 years of nordisk film (pp. 8-51). Copenhagen: Danish Film

Institute.

Stevenson, J. (2003). Dogme uncut: Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, and the gang that

took on. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press LLC.

Stormgaard, U. (1973). From object of taxation to art form. In U. Stormgaard & S.

Dyssegaard (Eds.), Danish films (pp. 73-79). Copenhagen: The Danish Film Institute.

Thorsen, I (2006). The rise and fall of the polar bear. In L. R. Larsen & D. Nissen, (Eds.), 100

years of nordisk film (pp. 52-71). Copenhagen: Danish Film Institute.

Tybjerg, C. (2006). Nordisk during the occupation. In L. R. Larsen & D. Nissen, (Eds.), 100

years of nordisk film (pp. 172-187). Copenhagen: Danish Film Institute.

Tybjerg, C. (2007). Danish cinema 1930-2000. In University of Copenhagen (Ed.), Danish

Cinema, intensive course - Reader (pp. 1-24). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

Widding, A. S. (1998). Denmark. In G. Iversen, T. Soila & A. S. Widding (Eds.), Nordic

national cinemas (pp. 7-30). London: Routledge.

danish film production policy through the years

Documents