Cinema Exhibition on a Cultural Basis in Europe: Reflecting on the Contributions of the Nordic Model for Portuguese Local Cinema Policies

Abstract

This paper addresses the need for local cultural policies targeting cinema exhibition. Portugal evidences extreme dependency upon the central government, including for local movie screening, thus expressing the Portuguese high territorial asymmetry. Our research discusses the importance of noncommercial exhibition for countering this situation, as it is implemented by local agents (not only film societies) with a wider cultural intervention. When reflecting on the European countries policies for cinema and acknowledging the big socioeconomic and historical differences between Portugal and the Nordic countries, the regional-local initiatives of the latter emerged as an important issue for decentralization, especially the Norwegian scheme.

Keywords:

• Public policies for cinema
• film exhibition
• Portugal
• Europe
• Nordic Cultural Model
• noncommercial exhibition
• local cultural policies

Introduction

Cinema and audiovisual policies represent one main focus of European cultural policies and consensus about the need for public support has been increasing (Blázquez et al. 2020). Cinema policies narratives target culture and identities, but market-driven interests are also powerful when national and European policies are addressed, especially due to the goals of countering the US dominance, which require efficient competitive standards. Cinema is acknowledged as an industry that generates substantial revenues and thus attracts economic interests, but involving high investments, so cinema policies are often justified by the implementation of costly technological processes in rapid transformation (Murschetz, Teichmann, and Karmasin 2018). The last decades of the twentieth century have shown a particular concern regarding cinema policies, in line with the “creative industries turn” in European cultural policies, i.e. the combination of culture and the market (Menger 2013). Nevertheless, analysis of cinema policies is still rare, and mostly concerned with production (Harris 2018).

The way governments enunciate and operationalize cultural policies expresses and influences the social value, meaning impacts of the cultural forms (Belfiore and Bennett 2008). Policy choices entail perceptions of (legitimate) “cultural identity” or “heritage,” public interventions being justified by market failures associated to social benefits brought by art and culture. Culture is a form of capital (Throsby 2010): every cultural demonstration accumulates value, from which the whole society can benefit from, as well as its economic development and sustainability. This applies to cinema policies in Europe: they assume cinema as an asset for arts, heritage, diversity and identity, which, in turn, is combined with its economic aspects (Milla, Fontaine, and Kanzler 2016). But the relation between cinema culture and economics remains dilemmatic (Santos and Miranda 2023): while distribution and exhibition are essential in linking cinema supply and demand, cinema policies tend to target production, the other segments lacking transparency and relying on market forces, especially distribution. The cinema industry in Europe is characterized by fragmentation in both production and distribution, which, along with the instability marked by two World Wars, prevented efficient policy responses to the US and its proficient distribution system (Lange and Westcott 2004; Scott 2004).

The conditions for exhibition are crucial, as they impact accessibility, tastes and choices: the type of circuit shapes film supply and thus programming. Three exhibition circuits can be distinguished: commercial, semi-commercial and noncommercial. The first is characterized by consumer and entertainment culture: commercial exhibitors depend on (major) distributors, they are mostly located at cities’ multiplexes, focused on the so-called “blockbusters,” typically American (Chisholm et al. 2015; Park 2015). Semi-commercial exhibition is an in-between circuit, proposing alternative (arthouse) filmographies in a commercial basis, although mostly publicly funded (De Vinck and Pauwels 2018). One main semi-commercial network at the European level is Europa Cinemas¹. Our research addresses the third type of circuit, departing from the Portuguese case: noncommercial exhibition (NCE). It can briefly be characterized as cultural associations’ exhibition (including non-major film festivals), typically film societies operating at local level. It is a minority segment, almost invisible, but essential to compensate market asymmetries that leave many peripheral territories with no access to cinema, as well as social inequalities in cinema consumption (Santos and Miranda 2023).

NCE is rooted in the early history of European cinema, back in the 1920s, when film societies started emerging (Dickinson 1969). The industry developments along the first half of the twentieth century established the actual cleavage between American and European cinema (Elsaesser 2005). Arthouse exhibition was threatened since the beginning, heavily relying on public support to exist: in the aftermath of WWII film societies’ movements and festivals expanded all over Europe (De Valck 2007), and since then cinema policies evolved in recognizing film as an economic and a cultural asset (Cucco 2018).

The digital transition is reconfiguring the dilemma between economy and culture (and policy) in the European film industry. On the one hand, it highlights the importance of exhibition in widening cultural accessibility “beyond the cinema sector” (Inglis 2010), i.e. the potentiality of using film as a driver for other arts, particularly in cases where itinerancy is difficult or impossible, which might have been accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. On the other hand, it is consensual that cinema policies must be clearly aware of streaming socioeconomics and culture, as cultural diversity and national and minority filmographies are at stake under the globalized film industry (Gran and Gaustad 2022).

Preliminary results on NCE in Portugal evidence the urgency to redefine the policy instruments regarding exhibition, not only by augmenting financial support (which is very low), but mostly by promoting territorial dissemination and encouraging regional and local embeddedness (for which the involvement of the municipalities is a core issue) (Santos and Miranda 2023). This is the main reason why it is relevant to compare the Portuguese case with other European countries: convergence in European film policies is key to countering US hegemony, while articulating (and negotiating) national and pan-European schemes.

The Nordic cultural model (NCM)² stands out as a particular association of decentralization, welfare state and accessibility (Rius-Ulldemolins, Pizzi, and Arostegui 2019). Historical background led to efficient municipal networks, particularly in Norway, in terms of articulating private and public interests as well as economic and cultural goals (Asbjørnsen and Solum 2003; Häyrynen 2018). On the contrary, public support for cinema in Portugal is dependent on the central state, with an extreme concentration of exhibitors and distributors (Costa et al. 2021). As we will show, comparing such different countries (except in demographic size) must not be reduced to socioeconomic aspects, acknowledging the need to augment funding amounts (Arostegui, Arturo, and Rius-Ulldemolins 2020). It is an effort to reflect on specific policy schemes within Europe, highlighting the articulation of national and regional-local levels, and a more efficient consideration of aspects such as film heritage and digital policies, which influence distribution and exhibition both in national and international markets, as shown in Norway (Gran and Gaustad 2022). Moreover, despite the fragilities of Portuguese policies, national film performance in the most important international film festivals, measured by the number of selections and awards, and taking into consideration the amounts of public support for production, expresses a high success when compared with several countries of equivalent size (e.g. the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden – Costa et al. 2021).

We will start with brief notes on European cinema policies (Contextualization of European Public Policies for Cinema section), following the main historical-cultural policy models (the British, the French and the Nordic), in order to frame the subsequent analysis, especially Portuguese policies.

Selected insights into the Nordic cinema policies and results will follow in Why Reflecting about the Nordic Model, from a Portuguese Perspective? section, and then the Norwegian system will be highlighted, as it presents important characteristics regarding decentralized exhibition that are crucial for local policies. Our rationale for the Portuguese policies and NCE will be designed in close relation to the NCM, emphasizing the lack of regional-local dimensions in cultural policies (The Portuguese Case and NCE section). Final remarks will be drawn on the policy implications of our analysis of cinema exhibition, sketching the strategic role of NCE in the articulation between different levels of policy.

The core documentary sources for our analysis come from the European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) reports and the sites of the national institutions in charge of cinema support in the considered countries: Danish Film Institute (DFI), Finnish Film Foundation (SES), Icelandic Film Center (IFC), Norwegian Film Institute (NFI), Swedish Film Institute (SFI), and Portuguese Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual (ICA)³. Depending on the availability of data, direct comparisons between countries cover the period between 2015 and 2018–2019. Systematic data about NCE in Portugal refer to the period between 2007 and 2017.

Contextualization of European public policies for cinema

The European cinema sector is difficult to portrait as high differences between countries result in a very heterogeneous sector. One of the most common forms of supporting the national film and television industry in Europe is through direct and indirect investments in production by broadcasters (respectively: obligation to invest directly in programmes, and obligation to contribute to national film funds) (Milla, Fontaine, and Kanzler 2016). European cohesion policies are complex to define and operationalize, as the recent Audiovisual Media Services Directive shows (last revised in 2018⁴): its implementation has been uneven across the countries, the fees for streaming operators’ investment obligations are very dissimilar, and the concrete application of the directive is also variable.

One EU policy goal is to stimulate the circulation of European films within Europe, so that scale and scope might be achieved for national productions, while promoting both national and European identities and cultures (Kulyk 2020; Raats, Schooneknaep, and Pauwels 2018). As a common feature, public support for cinema in Europe has an explicit cultural component and all countries establish specific cultural requirements that must be followed (Milla, Fontaine, and Kanzler 2016). The promotion/protection of art and film culture is a generalized aspect, even though the economic side of cinema takes significant resources. As referred to above, the goal of countering US cinema and audiovisual industry means consolidating European cultures (of which cinema is an undisputable vehicle) and facing a very efficient globalized business with a long history of disseminating US culture.

Despite the European heterogeneity, some cultural policy models are commonly acknowledged (for a recent state of the arts: Rius-Ulldemolins, Pizzi, and Arostegui 2019), and they help to understand national cinema policies. We will briefly refer to the Anglo-Saxon model (as typified by the UK) and the Central European model (France), considered the most paradigmatic cases, and then synthetize the Nordic cultural model.

The Anglo-Saxon model is characterized by the delegation to arm’s length bodies, intended as the guaranty of minimum state interference: the government defines the general policy, but its implementation is the independent agencies’ responsibility (Nogare and Bertacchini 2015). Considering the UK, the main form of public funding for cinema is tax reliefs for the screen industries that are part of the Government’s Creative Sector tax relief, which includes a core incentive to inward investment (not exempt of criticism, see Newsinger and Presence 2018). The British Film Institute (BFI) is the main institution for film and television awarding, through selective contests. Funding is provided by the British Film Fund, which prioritizes support for films considered as having strong cultural impact, new talents and perspectives, and plans to grow audiences while also increasing access to independent British and international films, especially for audiences outside London (Milla and Chochon 2019). Decentralization is an important effect of the arm’s length model: the UK has a history of municipal cinemas (similarly to Norway), and explicit concerns regarding the independent exhibition segment, as well as with accessibility in non-urban areas (Bigger Picture Research 2013). The country started early to take advantage of digitization, encompassing all types of arts (King 2018). UK has the most competitive cinema industry in Europe and the most market-driven and commercially successful worldwide. This national autonomy partially explains its modest presence in Europa Cinemas Network before abandoning it (27 cinemas in 2021).

France represents the core type of the so-called Central European Model. It configures the state protecting paradigm, characterized by centralization and direct subsidization and production. It has one of the most developed film sectors, with unparalleled initiatives that support both the commercial and the artistic segments (Creton 2015). The so-called “French bias” is a recurrent mention when portraying the European cinema sector (Kanzler and Talavera 2018). Along with a strong national policy (e.g. the stimulus to first films’ production and the role of arthouse cinema have no equivalent in Europe), the French strategy comprises a consolidated participation in international co-productions, both as producer and co-producer, which ends up increasing the financing volumes and cultural diversity (Messerlin and Vanderschelden 2018). One national agency, Center National du Cinéma et de l’Image Animée (CNC), is the central entity, but France is the country with more sub-national funding bodies. Public support is both automatic and selective, and the amounts are obtained through taxes on cinema tickets, broadcasters and VOD platforms (similar to what is implemented in Portugal). Support to distribution and exhibition is granted for both national and “specialized films” (non-mainstream Hollywood movies, a concept also used in Denmark). There is a solid arthouse exhibition network, and selective support is attributed to exhibitors in non-urban areas (Milla and Chochon 2019). As the leading country of Europa Cinemas Network and being the birthplace of the European cinema label (Elsaesser 2005), France is the second country in terms of number of Europa Cinemas (127 in 2021, after Italy, with 195).

Taking the two above models as formally opposites, different combinations have been developed, depending on national characteristics. All in all, the liberal turn in the end of the twentieth century has refrained the state intervention all over Europe, putting economic and social utility at the core of cultural policies, configuring the prominence of the Anglo-Saxon influence (Menger 2013).

The Nordic model is consensually referred to as a coherent arrangement of both paradigms, efficiently embedded in the different national backgrounds. Several analyses of the Nordic cultural policies advocate their “resilience” (Sokka & Johannisson 2022, 8), especially as funding models rely on a scenario of consolidated welfare state policies. It is widely recognized its concern around democratic principles, i.e. equal opportunities and access, decentralization being a key feature, which, combined with a broad concept of the cultural field (from high to amateur arts and sports), is believed to enhance identity and to contribute to active participation and social responsibility.

A distinctive feature of NCM is that it is grounded on a common transnational (regional) agenda, based on citizens’ participation, protection of national identities and social goals. The ways common and national characteristics are balanced are critical for NCM, as different national backgrounds configured diverse approaches and practices: Denmark and Sweden’s long histories as independent countries make them more “traditional” countries, while Norway, Finland and Iceland are “newly created nation-states,” with recent foundations of modern cultural institutions and policies (Duelund 2008).

In general, the Nordic cultural policies followed the major European trends after the WWII (Menger 2013). According to Duelund (2008), after 2003 NCM is signaling “[a] massive reawakening of the national dimension in official cultural policy” (p. 19), which risks to express rigid nationalistic ideologies rather than cultural democracy and multiculturalism (see also Lindsköld 2015).

Although NCM is not exempted of criticisms or concerns, it is acknowledged as to have had the capacity of integrating “the best” of the state-oriented French model and the Anglo-Saxon British arm’s length model (Mangset et al. 2008; Rius-Ulldemolins, Pizzi, and Arostegui 2019). While succeeding in establishing strong public institutions and policy instruments at the national and local levels, NCM incorporates a liberal engagement, more individualized and economic driven. Studies highlight the close articulation between public and private initiatives, meaning the encouragement of private involvement through (high) public incentives (Power 2009). Local and regional institutions and agents enjoy relative autonomy in proposing different strategies, whereas also benefiting from significant incentives by the central state, both direct and indirect (Sokka & Johannisson 2022).

When looking at the cinema sector, some elements arise as distinctive. One is the establishment of the Nordisk Film & TV Fond (NFTVF) in 1990, a common institution of the five Nordic countries aiming at getting scale and scope not only within the region but also externally (Poort and van Til 2020). One important issue regards distribution, as some circulation requirements are needed for production support (Gaustad 2018). Co-productions have been increasingly incentivized, in line with the European policy goals (Bondebjerg and Redvall 2011; Milla and Chochon 2019).

The above models allow a general referent for cinema policies in Europe, with some degree of influence on the different European countries, such as Portugal. Before entering the Portuguese case (The Portuguese Case and NCE section), some insights regarding the five Nordic countries will be presented.

Why reflecting about the Nordic model, from a Portuguese perspective?

We will go through selected characteristics of the five Nordic countries, highlighting specific aspects relevant for our analysis.

All Nordic countries are small in demographic terms, as shown in Table 1. Sweden is the largest country, with around 10 M inhabitants, close to the Portuguese size, while Iceland has c. 350 thousand inhabitants. As for territory, Denmark surface is less than half the Portuguese one, Iceland is slightly bigger, and the other three are big countries. Contrary to Portugal, they are highly developed countries, with significant resources and referred to as solid democracies (Sokka & Johannisson 2022). Global amounts for cinema per capita are very high in Denmark and Norway (9.1 and 8.5 M in 2018), c. twice the values in Finland and Sweden (4.4 and 3.6 M), which in turn are around twice the Portuguese amount.

Table 1. Population in the Nordic countries and Portugal, 2015–2019 (millions), and amounts of funding for cinema and audiovisual in 2018 (M€).

	Population					Area (km^2)	Amount for public funding, 2018*
	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Denmark	5.7	5.7	5.8	5.8	5.8	43.9	52.7
Finland	5.5	5.5	5.5	5.5	5.5	338.4	24.1
Iceland	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4	103.0	--
Norway	5.2	5.2	5.3	5.3	5.4	625.2	45.1
Sweden	9.8	9.9	10.1	10.2	10.3	447.4	36.3
Portugal	10.4	10.3	10.3	10.3	10.3	92.2	18.9

*Sweden: 2012. No data available for Iceland.

Source: DFI, SES, IFC, NFI, SFI, ICA.

In line with most European countries, all Nordic countries have a central public body responsible for implementing support policies, and, in general, cinema funding covers the different phases and activities of the industry (involved in production, distribution and exhibition), both nationally and internationally. The central institutions operate under different schemes (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2021; Sørensen and Redvall 2021). For example, Danish economic and film policy is defined on a four-year basis, the other countries work on a one-year basis. The selection procedures for funding grants also varies across the countries: beyond some exceptions we will not detail, the main format for Swedish grants is a group of film commissioners hired for three years (at least for decisions about production), while in Iceland a group of film consultants evaluate the artistic aspects of the applications and supervise the projects granted; in Finland the decisions rely on film commissioners belonging to the SES staff.

One distinctive feature, particularly in Sweden and Norway, is the high degree of decentralization, reflected on the existence of regional and/or municipal funds with diverse bodies, resources and autonomy (Kääpä 2011; Poort & van Til 2020; Sokka & Johannisson 2022). This entails a strong territorial embeddedness of cinema policies, which, combined with the involvement of independent entities, contributes to a more efficient integration of distribution and exhibition (Harris, 2018; Stenström, 2008). The Norwegian case emerges as the most anchored in regional and local autonomy (Berge 2022), with a municipal cinemas system with a long history, dating back to the early twentieth century (Aas 1995).

The economic aspects are quite explicit in the policy national frameworks, stimulating and facilitating the private base of the cinema sector. This is meant to combine strong cultural policies (legislation, financing, regulation, evaluation…) with a liberal economic system (respecting welfare state principles) and a robust democracy (anchored in citizenship).

Another common feature of the five countries is digitization (Table 2). As practically all screens are digitally equipped, film heritage and the availability of digital copies of national films are directly addressed by the different funding schemes. This is very relevant for the internal market, in terms of distribution and exhibition, which, in turn, may reinforce national cultures and (international) cultural diversity (Gran and Gaustad 2022). Portugal also has a high digital penetration rate, but no territorial dissemination of film supply, as we will see.

Table 2. Number of digital screens in the Nordic Countries and Portugal between 2015 and 2019; and digital penetration rate in 2019.

	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	Digital penetration rate (2019)
Denmark	415	426	441	444	470	100%
Finland	294	311	309	320	344	100%
Iceland	39	39	39	40	43	100%
Norway*	428	433	437	443	470	100%
Sweden	751	793	817	841	841	98%-99%
Portugal	434	490	508	526	528	90%-95%

*100% digital screen penetration between 2010 and 2011.

Source: EAO Focus − World Film Market Trends; Media Salles 2020.

The relation to culture is especially high in the Nordic countries, which is associated to a combination of high educational rates, diversity and quantity of cultural goods and services, and territorial dissemination – quite the opposite of Portugal. Tables 3–5 summarize selected data about the cinema market. Although the penetration of American movies remains dominant, the market share of domestic films is very significant in all five countries, and has been growing, apparently not at the expense of lower film quality (Table 3). The same applies to the market share of European films, and, in 2018, Denmark, Norway and Finland were, respectively, the fourth, the sixth and the seventh European countries with the largest domestic market share, measured by admissions. In Portugal, European films penetration is considerably high, but the share of domestic films is extremely low. As for average cinema attendance (Table 4), the portrait is not so homogeneous: Iceland shows one of the highest EU ratios of admissions per capita in Europe, followed by Norway and Denmark, while the values in Sweden and Finland are comparatively lower, similarly to Portugal. Finally, the participation in Europa Cinemas network is an important variable regarding the semi-commercial circuit and territorial dissemination (Table 5): it is impressive its expression in Sweden and Denmark, but also in Norway and Finland, when compared with Portugal.

Table 3. US, European and national films market share in the Nordic countries and Portugal, 2015–2019 (%).

	2015			2016			2017			2018			2019
	US*	Eur	Nat	US	Eur	Nat	US	Eur	Nat	US	Eur	Nat	US	Eur	Nat
Denmark	50.0	18.0	30.0	60.0	13.0	21.0	61.0	15.0	21.0	52.0	16.0	30.0	58.0	12.0	27.0
Finland	50.0	17.0	29.0	48.0	20.0	29.0	59.4	10.0	27.4	49.0	23.0	24.0	60.0	20.0	16.0
Iceland	86.0	8.7	4.8	90.4	2.9	6.6	85.4	3.3	11.2	84.3	--	13.3	91.0	--	4.8
Norway	64.6	11.6	20.5	66.4	7.9	23.9	70.0	9.0	18.0	61.0	10.0	25.0	65.3	12.8	18.0
Sweden	59.2	17.1	20.0	65.6	18.4	15.1	38.8	37.1	18.0	42.0	35.0	18.0	40.0	33.0	17.0
Portugal	38.6	39.7	7.61	42.0	37.0	6.67	41.7	33.6	10.2	41.3	34.7	8.66	33.8	34.8	12.0

*The criteria for nationality is variable. In Norway and Sweden, the category is “North American films.” In Portugal, US films include co-productions, except with European countries, as European films exclude co-productions with the US.

Source: DFI, SES, IFC, NFI, SFI, ICA.

Table 4. Admissions per capita in the Nordic countries, Portugal and EU 2015–2019.

	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Denmark	2.4	2.3	2.1	2.2	2.3
Finland	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5
Iceland	4.2	4.3	3.9	4.1	3.5
Norway	2.3	2.5	2.2	2.3	2.1
Sweden	1.7	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.6
Portugal	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.4	1.5
European Union	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.0

Source: DFI, SES, IFC, NFI, SFI, ICA, EAO Focus.

Table 5. Number of Europa Cinemas venues in the Nordic countries and Portugal (2021).

	Venues
Denmark	15
Finland	8
Iceland	1
Norway	6
Sweden	47
Portugal	11

Source: Europa Cinemas.

Our brief analysis evidences that the Nordic policies for cinema establish a quite integrated support system for production, distribution and exhibition, under a high degree of decentralization: there is a mixed economy, combining private and public mechanisms (which does not exist in Portugal), while a strong logic of transnational cooperation reflects the coordination of different national backgrounds, actual circumstances and policies have been widely referred to, along with the articulation with other policies (e.g. the European level – Power 2009; Poort and van Til 2020). The concern with national identities and cultural heritage is noticeable, as well as initiatives to encourage audience participation by facilitating cultural access all over the territories. All in all, film policies seem proficiently integrated in the general NCM.

The portuguese case and NCE

Portugal is a small Southern, peripheral, EU country. For almost half a century, a dictatorship was in place, with an isolationist geo-political position. Internally, a generalized censorship system controlled all social spheres. Democracy was (re)established in 1974, and 10 years after the first constitutional government (1976), Portugal joined the then EEC (together with Spain), under a big structural gap (socioeconomic, political and cultural) regarding the postwar European welfare state democracies. Culture, in this context, has not been a state priority, and its recognition as an autonomous ministry came in 1995 (Garcia et al. 2018). Although there was a historical French influence in Portuguese culture, cultural policies have soon adjusted to the British model. After the 2008 crisis (2011–2014), the country was subjected to a severe programme of external financial “assistance” by “the troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund), which severely compromised the already vulnerable Portuguese condition in face of the EU standards. For example, in 2012 no funding was granted to the cinema sector. Notwithstanding efforts to recover from the crisis, with more funding for cinema and several legal adjustments, there remains a serious issue of underfunding, as well as of nonexistence of structured private and municipal funding.

ICA is the entity responsible for cinema policy, under a Secretary of State for Cinema, Audiovisual and Multimedia between 2019 and 2022. Its establishment in 2007 installed a relative stability in cinema policies, as both private and municipal funding are practically inexistent. The cinema granting scheme is predominantly selective, based on external juries allocated to the different programmes. Some programmes are plurennial, such as support to film festivals (triennial) and NCE (biennial), both since 2015. Incentives to co-productions are being essayed, such as a joint initiative with the Institute of Tourism to attract film productions (launched in 2018), and the cooperation with Portuguese-speaking countries.

Distribution and exhibition programmes contain explicit cultural criteria, aiming to increase circulation of national works, European works and of minority filmographies from all over the world. Portuguese films and authors are predominantly artistic, with high recognition in international film festivals and arthouse circuits, but with limited internal circulation and audiences.

As referred to, territorial asymmetry in Portugal is very high, with urban-coastal areas concentrating the main resources and population. In 2017, theatrical cinema did not reach 31% of the Portuguese population, mostly outside the littoral and major urban areas: only 35% of the 308 municipalities have some sort of cinema exhibition. Even NCE follows the general territorial asymmetry, with some exceptions, where NCE is the only cultural-artistic regular activity. This is the major contrast regarding the Nordic countries, as discussed above.

Within the Nordic countries, Norway is usually mentioned as the one where cinema policies are more efficient in terms of articulating national-regional strategies with international goals and its quality is being increasingly recognized by film festivals (e.g. in the 2019 Berlinale, 10 Norwegian feature films were screened). Contrary to the common situation all over the world, production does not get the lion share of funding: municipal initiatives (rather than films) are at the core, stimulating independently run cinemas with autonomy to elaborate their own programs and provide access to cinema to audiences in remote areas (Norwegian Film Institute 2021).

The digital transition had a positive role in reinforcing municipal cinemas: Norway was the first European country to complete the digitization of screens, due to successful negotiations with US major distributors and Norwegian private exhibitors (Aas n/d [2011]). Infrastructures and institutional articulation are essential, as illustrated by the existence of several cinematheques outside Oslo, or by the activity of the Norwegian Federation of Film Societies. Last but not least, although in 2016 only 184 out of 427 municipalities had cinemas, film exhibition was provided in 72% of the municipalities (Grunfelder, Rispling, and Norlén 2018).

This hugely contrasts with the Portuguese situation. Table 6 illustrates the difference between Portuguese and Norwegian schemes regarding alternative and noncommercial exhibition: beyond global amounts and the socioeconomic development gap, it is the diversity of schemes toward exhibition in Norway, as well as the relative weight of funding for exhibition and its articulation with diverse local initiatives, that are striking, as they have no correspondence in Portugal.

Table 6. Funding related with alternative and noncommercial exhibition in Portugal and Norway, in 2018 (M€ and % of total amount).

	Portugal		Norway
	N	%	N	%
All Programmes	18,9	100,0	45,1	100,0
Film Festivals	0,8	4,2	2,0	4,4
Exhibition in alternative circuits (NCE)	0,1	0,5
Local Film and Cinema initiatives			0,2	0,4
Film cultural initiatives			0,1	0,2
Cinematheques outside Oslo			0,5	1,1
The Norwegian Federation of Film Societies			0,3	0,7

Source: ICA and NFI.

The Portuguese territorial asymmetry and the dependency on central policies directly impacts the low rates of cinema attendance, as expressed by the admissions per capita (Table 4 above). Apart from ICA, almost no funding sources are available. Municipal support, when existent, is indirect and rather casuistic, usually limited to the access to facilities for local exhibition, and, apart from film festivals, regular formal agreements with regional-local governments out of the main cities. This is not a problem of administrative decentralization (which, of course, facilitates the Nordic reality), but of absence of cooperation (complementarity) between central and local policies, and of exhibition not being a local policy priority (Santos and Miranda 2023, 12–14).

Under the above picture, NCE is a precious resource for Portuguese cinema and culture: it delivers cultural content and diversity to peripheral communities, and its actual role can be much more enhanced with digital technologies. As referred to, the segment is almost exclusively dependent on ICA, under the programme for Film Exhibition in Alternative Circuits, addressed to cultural associations, which are often the only cultural agents at local level outside the main urban areas. Moreover, between 2007 and 2020 the amount awarded to NCE was stagnant around 100.000€ per year, which corresponded to a yearly amount of c. 5.000€ for each of the (usually 20) exhibitors. In 2021 the amount doubled, aiming at consolidating the conditions for each exhibitor, but not at expanding the field of NCE.

In the scope of our research on NCE, we started the analysis of the ICA database with a detailed characterization of the film sessions held between 2007 and 2017, i.e. a sample of 47 exhibitors and 14742 film sessions, resulting from the ticket digitization system provided by ICA to the granted exhibitors – Tables 7 and 8 present preliminary results related to our discussion. The majority of the entities does not have a screen of their own, so they depend on external institutions (mainly municipal theatrical venues) for exhibition (Table 7). The regional distribution of NCE (Table 8) clearly confirms the territorial asymmetry we have been mentioning, as the relative weight of the two Metropolitan Areas evidences⁵. Table 8 also gives some insight on how local audiences have been engaging with NCE, thus prompting for further analysis of the database. Beyond the “urban effect” (the combination of higher levels of cultural supply and more qualified people in sociological terms, particularly reflected in the North, where cinema has a historical tradition, and the two Metropolitan Areas), there is not a clear relation between the number of exhibitors or sessions and the number of spectators. The Azorean islands are an interesting case, as their higher average number of spectators per session is most probably the result of an intense local embeddedness of the exhibitors. The Center Region is quite the opposite, with a high presence and activity of exhibitors not performing so well in terms of audiences.

Table 7. Property of the venues used by the noncommercial exhibitors, 2007–2017, by type of exhibitor (% of total exhibitors, N = 47).

Type of exhibitor	Own venues	Municipal theatrical venues	Other public institutions’ venues	Private venues	Other (non-conventional venues)	Total
						%	(N)
Film society	4.3	38.3	14.9	6.4	6.4	70.2	(28)
Cinema		6.4	0.0	4.3	2.1	12.8	(5)
Cultural-artistic	6.4	6.4	2.1			14.9	(7)
Other cultural associations	8.5	6.4				14.9	(7)
Total (%)	19.1	57.4	17.0	10.6	8.5	(*)	(47)

(*) Total > 100% as the exhibitors tend to use more than one place of exhibition.

Table 8. Regional distribution of noncommercial exhibitors, film sessions and spectators, 2007–2017 (%).

Region*	Exhibitors	Film sessions	Spectators	Spectators per session
Lisbon Metropolitan Area	11.0	7.5	9.7	60
Porto Metropolitan Area	17.0	16.0	18.7	54
Norte (Porto Metropolitan Area excluded)	19.0	13.9	24.7	83
Centro	30.0	38.5	22.8	28
Alentejo	4.0	8.3	8.6	48
Algarve	6.0	12.0	9.9	38
Azores	13.0	3.8	5.6	68
(N)	(47)	(14742)	(684797)	(46)

*No data for Madeira.

Final remarks

In the context of a research about NCE in Portugal, we have been reflecting on the importance of exhibition as a core issue of cultural policies for cinema, particularly at the local level. Under the scope of the European cinema policies, the Nordic model arose as a particular case of valuating exhibition and effective decentralization. Having in mind the disparities between Portugal and the Nordic countries in terms of socioeconomic development, and their impact on cinema policies (mostly in financial terms), the main goal of our comprehensive comparison has been to demonstrate that exhibition needs to be effectively addressed by municipalities, as a crucial aspect for a well-succeeded cultural policy. In the case of cinema, it means balancing cultural and economic principles and purposes.

Contrary to the Nordic countries, decentralization is absent from the Portuguese policies for cinema. Regionalization has been debated for years, and it is a necessary step, but it alone will not solve the structural problems of cinema exhibition, which is not a priority for local cultural policies. Despite regionalization, the Nordic countries, and Norway in particular, show the efficiency of inter-institutional collaboration (see Why Reflecting about the Nordic Model, from a Portuguese Perspective? section). There is a structural deficit of Portuguese policies, at both central and local levels, as collaboration between ICA, National Cinematheque and other central cultural bodies, film societies, local governments, cultural-artistic agents, film distributors and exhibitors is limited or inexistent (for details, see Santos and Miranda 2023). This is the major result of our comparison of such different policy schemes and sociocultural and economic contexts, from the perspective of a Southern small European country, such as Portugal.

In the mid-long term, the active participation of the municipalities and efficient inter-institutional cooperation might contribute to increase and eventually diversify financial resources (a severe restriction in Portugal) and dynamize the internal market; to critically acknowledge the national filmography; and to promote cultural diversity and democracy. International policy strategies would also benefit from internal consolidation (as shown in Norway), as cultural policies as a whole would be strengthened. Moreover, considering the potentialities of digitization for countering territorial asymmetries in cultural supply (screen digitization, the digital conversion of heritage cinema, filmic registers of performative and visual arts), and given the local embeddedness of NCE, it arises as a strategic segment to consolidate the cultural dimension of film exhibition.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions received in presentations of this research in several academic meetings. We also thank Luís Delfim (Faculty of Economics, Porto), Luísa Barbosa (Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation) and Paulo Gonçalves (Portuguese Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual) for their insights and collaboration. Responsibility for any failings in the paper remains with the authors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The primary data source used in this research is from ICA. Some data are publicly available in https://www.ica-ip.pt/pt/centro-de-informacao/. All data sources are clearly identified.

Additional information

Funding

This research has been developed in close partnership with the Portuguese Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual (ICA), and it was financed by Portuguese public funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., in the framework of the project with reference UIDB/04105/2020.

Notes

1 Launched in 1992, it is targeted to stimulate the exhibition of European films, in Europe and globally. It also foresees territorial infrastructures for theatrical exhibition in rural areas (including digitisation) and audience development (young audiences) (Murschetz, Teichmann, and Karmasin 2018). Data used in this paper was retrieved from Europa Cinemas’ site: https://www.europa-cinemas.org/, ret. Dec/2022).

2 Comprising the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway. The first three are EU members. Greenland was not included in this analysis.

3 Respectively: https://www.dfi.dk/en; https://www.ses.fi/en/home-english/; https://www.icelandicfilmcentre.is/; https://www.nfi.no/eng/; https://www.filminstitutet.se/en/; and https://www.ica-ip.pt/en/. Data retrieved between Nov/2021 and Feb/2022.

4 Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj, ac. 30/Nov/2023.

5 Detailed data, not yet fully analysed, would show that the specific location of the exhibitors is essentially in the main cities and urban areas of each region.

6 Last access for all electronic sources: 30/Nov/2023.