Does Europe need a cultural detox?

Date: 04/05/05

Neo-liberal economics and a diverse European arts and film industry do not mix, says Gyula Hegyi

Individually people have a free choice. In the last two or three years I have not seen a single American movie because they do not interest me, and this is something that everybody can do.

Second, national or regional governments should take the decision that film is important and therefore support film archives, or film academies.

At a European level I think we should subsidise our film industry, or at least art houses and cinemas with artistic values.

The US often criticises Europe for subsidising its film industry, but it's not a question of subsidies, it's about protecting the multi-linguistic culture and heritage of Europe.

The European Union not only can but should do more. Only 1% of our budget is spent on culture, which is a very small amount of money.

While national education does not fall under the EU's remit, it could still encourage people to understand the other cultures in Europe via scholarships, co-operation between youth organisations or exchange programmes at universities.

Under the Council of Europe's Eurimages fund, which supports European cinematographic works, many good European films have been sponsored and distributed. The Council of Europe is financially worse off than the European Commission and so if it can afford the programme, we should have a similar one with a wider context and a bigger budget.

Television programming quotas should be maintained. People used to think that imposing quotas for national films was a bad thing because of free choice.

But experience shows that if people, because of a quota, are used to seeing European or national films and the film producers are pushed to make films because there is a need for it on the television then people become more open to it.

In Hungary there is an interesting phenomenon. In those cities where the council has kept its art houses, which used to be practically empty, they are now full of movie-goers because seeing Hungarian and European films has become very fashionable. In those cities where the art houses were shut down, nobody goes to see European films.

This neo-liberal thought that culture should be subject to market forces is very dangerous. I think the state should feel responsibility for the quality of films being shown in its country and not just show horror films if that is where the public demand lies.

I am the rapporteur for the Commission's proposal for a recommendation on film heritage, and I was pleased to see that the two French shadow rapporteurs share my view on this.

I have made some important amendments to this text concerning the archiving of films. My line is that it should be mandatory to make sure that when a film is publicly screened, a copy must be deposited in the national archive. Most member states do this but in some, such as the UK, it is not mandatory.

The next step, if digitalisation moves as quickly as it has done in mobile phones, would be to have a digital version of every single film in the archives. Then you can use it either from your home or via a computer.

The importance of this can be drawn from experience. After the Second World War, all copies of the famous Metropolis, by German film-maker Fritz Lang, had been destroyed. But then parts of it turned up in Brazil and other countries.

It took years to find the separate pieces of the film and to put them together as they were all different qualities due to the different archives. A good archive system can solve this problem.

• Hungarian Socialist Gyula Hegyi is a substitute member of the European Parliament's culture committee. Previously a film critic in Hungary, he has written a number of books on the film industry.

Education is the key to preserving European culture, says Vasco Graça Moura

The core of the solution to protecting European culture is education policy.

Primary and secondary schools in Europe, which pay very little attention to cultural heritage, can allow young people to develop a certain taste and therefore demand for particular products, which in turn promotes national culture.

Some responsibility must also fall on the media. They criticise the fact that American products are invading Europe but at the same time they encourage it.

They do not hesitate to devote pages and pages or hours of broadcasting time to promoting US-made films or books, such as, for example, The Da Vinci Code, instead of promoting and stressing the importance of national heritage.

The European Commission is doing what it can, but more funds are needed. In the Parliament I am pushing for the member states to increase culture spending to 70 cents per EU citizen in the next financial perspectives from 2007 to 2013, which would make a budget of €2.2 million.

I am the rapporteur for Culture 2007, the EU programme which aims to promote the knowledge of different member states' products in other countries.

In the member states we are so ignorant about the culture in other member states, particularly those of the new EU members.

But by supporting performing arts in different EU countries, ensuring the maximum circulation of works of art and people who work in the cultural sector, or promoting extensive translation throughout the EU we can create added value without compromising on quality.

Although as a general principle I am opposed to limiting the circulation of cultural products, quotas for national broadcasting can be useful.

Anything which can help citizens to get to know their cultural heritage better is important.

That said, on French radio, 40% of music broadcast must be French music. In 2002, 70% of that music was taken from just 3% of the available products, which meant that the other 97% were poorly considered by the listeners.

But there is also a temptation to tackle the problem by pouring money into subsidised programmes, which I think is the wrong mentality.

All subsidies do is encourage people to present projects merely to get the money, which means that the demand for quality is entirely put to one side.

Going back to the issue of American culture, it is important to remember that talking about cultural values is not the same as talking about competition.

There is a conference going on at UNESCO in Paris at the moment (1-3 May) that is concerned with protecting the diversity of our culture, but it is really about protectionism against the US entertainment industry.

Filmmaking is an industry. When one talks about an industry one is talking about markets, and in markets one has to compete.

Either you do not want to compete, in which case the problem is yours, or you are willing and ready to compete.

If this is the case then you have to produce a product that the public accepts and buys, which is what the Americans do.

There is also the problem that the US industry is so much more developed than the European industry.

There are seven or eight producers there but in Europe there are many more, divided by different languages.

At the same time, the pleasure of telling a story that everyone may enjoy is lost in many European films, which explains why they are less popular than American ones.

When the formula is the right one - such as the British film Four Weddings and A Funeral or the films by Pedro Almodovar - then they are successful.

• Portuguese EPP-ED deputy Vasco Graça Moura is a member of the Parliament's culture committee. He has translated numerous plays into Portuguese.

Two MEPs offer alternative views on how best to preserve Europe's diverse culture and support European film-making.

• Primary Source