more

Lithuanian Cinema in 1990-2004

Rasa Paukšytė
2004 July 19 d.

This study draws on diverse sources to give the first overview of Lithuanian cinema in the year 1990-2004. It deals with the changes in the environment for making Lithuanian feature films, with the issues of promotion and distribution, in Lithuania and outside it, the nature of film exhibition and current situation in filmmaking. Over the independence years, no systematic accumulation of data on film funding and promotion has been performed. Today only parts and bits of it can be extracted from general records by different film production companies. Hopefully, this publication on Lithuanian cinema will stimulate public attention to film art, as a witness to the national identity, and bring its problems and prospects emerging in the new context of the Lithuanian European Union membership to public awareness. Lithuania’s accession to the European Union has dramatically altered the opportunities for the national cinema to become country’s cultural ambassador.

Lithuanian Cinema: Financing and Promotion – Before and Today.

Lithuanian Cinema before 1990

The history of Lithuanian cinema falls into two distinct periods – soviet and post-soviet. This distinction appears based on the fact that the existence of cinema depends, to a great extent, on production technology, high production costs and opportunities to promote cinematic production and gain popular appeal.

Before Lithuania broke off from the Soviet Union in 1990, filmmaking in Lithuania was financed on the model, applied across all of the former Soviet Union. A short elaboration on this model might be useful, to clarify, why Lithuanian film of the period, despite censorship and ideological constraints, managed to emerge as a viable and popular art. Until 1990, Lithuania produced seven feature films, 40 documentaries and two animation films yearly, with a little variation in these numbers. Of the seven features, three were shot for theatrical release across the Union; four were commissions from the Gosteleradio (Central Television Station in Moscow). Of the forty documentaries, eight were shot for theatrical release across the Union, 12 for the local theatrical consumption and around twenty were documentaries commissioned by either Lithuanian or the Union’s agencies and institutions. All of them were made in film (no video technology was available).

Direct financing from the Lithuanian budget was available only for the newsreel Soviet Lithuania, documentaries for the local consumption. A part of specially commissioned pictures were also financed from the local budget. All feature and animation films as well as a part of commissioned production used to be financed from the Union’s budget: the money would be allocated only following the script’s approval by Moscow. This particular requirement introduced ideological restrictions both on the content and form of the films. However, feature films in Lithuania retained the role of reflecting the national identity and character. This would not have been possible without talented directors, well versed in Aesopian language, the high level acting school and high cinematographic culture. This cinema enjoyed a big audience and had a large distribution area (even though enclosed by the iron curtain) with a network of cinema theatres and television. All the cinematic products commissioned by the Gosteleradio were usually broadcasted on television. However, it is obvious that the advantages provided by this distribution system concealed numerous caveats. Lithuanian films as messengers of Lithuanian culture, seldom reached any theatres beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union, some saw limited distribution even inside it.

The film Feelings by Almantas Grikevičius has kept its status with the critics as the best ever made Lithuanian feature  Yet only 52 prints of the film were made for club exhibition, 0.9 million people saw the film. Based on these figures, it remains a film on the shelf. (A paradox of the period: in 1975, the Feelings participated at San Remo Festival in Italy). On average, a feature film would attract from 15 to 20 million-audience. 22.8 million people came to see Nobody Wanted to Die by Vytautas Žalakevičius, in 1966 based the box-office popularity, it placed nineteenth in the Soviet Union

Lithuanian Cinema in 1990-2004

After the restoration of Lithuanian independence, the structure of film industry, financing and distribution has been overhauled. A number of private production companies took the place of the Lithuanian Film Studio, a former monopoly of talent and technological assets in filmmaking. The national budget and private foreign and Lithuanian investors have become the only source to finance films. Local promotion and distribution opportunities until 2004 were constrained both by small production numbers and restrictive economic conditions for the operations of  Lithuanian cinemas, the key venues for Lithuanian feature film exhibition.

However, Lithuanian cinema has discovered avenues to reach international audiences. Lithuanian production companies have been exploiting these opportunities during all years of independence. Lithuanian films have been selected by experts to be featured by diverse and prestigious film festivals. Geographically, Lithuanian films have reached the distant locations in the West and in the East. Such wide dissemination of Lithuanian cinema is possible due to the high artistic quality of cinematic output, and producers’ ambition to look for wider audiences for their product.

The Lithuanian film demonstrates an overwhelming potential to employ modern feature film vocabulary for bringing across the message of cultural individuality and identity of the country. So far, it has been successfully pursuing this path to enter European cultural stage. On that stage, cinema has an important role to play. The responsibility for adequate exploitation of this potential lies with the country’s leadership, vested with the task of setting cultural policy as an integral part of the national home and foreign policy.

Private Production Companies

The year 1992 marked a real breakthrough in film production in Lithuania, with more films (two features, eight documentaries) coming out from the independent production companies than the Lithuanian Film Studio (one feature, four documentaries). Since that year onwards, private companies (they were also referred to as independent production companies, as their activity depended entirely on their own ability to attract private funding) have become a guarantor for the perpetuation of film production in Lithuania. Over fourteen years of independence, there emerged over 40 film production companies, which had filmmaking as their primary or secondary field of activity. The intensity of their activity and periods of operation were very diverse. Currently, there are at least ten companies steadily involved in making films from the very onset of their operations.

The overall dynamics of these companies’ activity is diverse, some of them fold up after having shot one feature, alongside new companies keep emerging. These most often see their future in collaboration with the coming generations of filmmakers.

Private companies ensure a balanced and efficient film production process, as they depend on their own ability to draft projects and sell their ideas to either national institutions in charge of distributing financial resources or foreign partners. The private companies are very concerned in keeping the deadlines, as working on schedule is one of the key reliability indicators in asking for support for new projects. Such companies are also free to look for cheaper film production services either in Lithuania or abroad. Often the final outcome of either making a film or not depends on their flexibility in searching and finding foreign partners and cheaper services.

Thus, since 1992, the production of the independent production companies has started exceeding that of the Lithuanian Film Studio, and in recent years, their output makes up most of the national film production. 


 

Year  Private companies          /         LFS

F

       S

        D                  

F     

S

       D

2003

2

3

2

2

2002

1

2

10

1

2

2001

1

11

4

2000

1

3

17

1

3

1999

1

9

20

2

1998

11

6

1997

2

2

14

1

2

3

1996

1

9

4

1995

2

11

2

1994

1

1

10

2

1993

2

1

9

3

1992

3

2

7

1

4

1991

2

3

2

13

1990

3

4

15

18

24

137

9

3

65

F – full-length features

S – short features

D – documentaries

Above all, some production companies (it should be pointed out that they do not have their own production infrastructure, but have to outsource services) in that year produced more or the same number of films like the Lithuanian Film Studio: in 2002, the production company A Propos produced three documentaries (LFS – two), in 1999, the Nominum produced three documentaries (LFS – two), etc.    

 Who Funds Production of Lithuanian Features?

Private production companies play a bigger role than determining the structure of contemporary Lithuanian cinema. Independent companies have been greatly instrumental at the stage of preparing Lithuanian filmmakers for co-productions. Today production companies and some producers take co-production as a natural and commonly accepted form of contemporary filmmaking. Half of the feature films – five – have been shot in collaboration with foreign countries, five have been funded from the Lithuanian state budget, and the sixth is a property of the Lithuanian National Television LRT (supported by the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture and the LRT). It also has to be said that foreign investment into Lithuanian features equals the money allocated from the Lithuanian budget. Private production companies have managed to attract quite a sizable amount of local private funds into film industry. The finances secured by film directors were critical in the years 1991-1994 helping feature film to survive. This only demonstrates that neither facts nor figures support the contention that Lithuanian filmmakers did nothing but wait “for the state to provide funds”.

Full-length Features Produced Mainly on Funds of Private Lithuanian Investors:

Rojuje irgi sninga (It Snows in Paradise Too), 1994

Ir jis pasakė jums sudie (And He Bid You Farewell), 1993

Atostogos (Vacation), 1992

Džiazas (Jazz), 1992

Trys dienos (Three Days), 1991

 

Full-length Features Produced Mainly on Funds of Private Foreign Investors:

Laisvė (Freedom), 2000

Namai (Home), 1997

Mūsų nedaug (Few of Us), 1996

Koridorius (The Corridor), 1995

Žvėris, kylantis iš jūros (The Beast Emerging from the Sea), 1992

Marius II, four parts, 1992

Ir ten krantai smėlėti (Sandy Beaches), 1991

Bilietas iki Tadž Machalo (Ticket to Taj Mahal), 1990 

Full-length Features Produced on Funds Shared Roughly by Half by the State and Private Investors:

Nuomos sutartis (The Lease), 1999

Feature Films Produced on Funds Shared Roughly by Half by the State and Foreign Investors:

Kiemas (Courtyard), 1999

Full-length Features Produced Mostly on the State Funds:

Vienui Vieni (Utterly Alone), 2003

Jonukas ir Grytutė (Jonukas and Grytutė), 2002

Elzė iš Gilijos (Else’s Life), 2000

Mėnulio Lietuva (Lunar Lithuania), 1997

Vilko dantų karoliai (The Necklace of Wolf’s Teeth), 1997

Žaibo nušviesti (In the Light of Thunderbolt), 1995

Mediniai laiptai (Wooden Stair), 1993

Žemės keleiviai (The Earth’s Travellers), 1991

Aš esu (I Am), 1990

Metai baigiasi saulėlydžiu (The Year Ends in a Sunset), 1990

Strazdas – žalias paukštis (Thrush, a Green Bird), 1990

Note: it is a doubtful statement that the production of the three 1990 releases was almost fully financed from the budget of the independent Lithuania.

Few of Us. Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 320,000 litas; the remainder of the budget, around 3,000,000 litas, was contributed by foreign investors.

Jazz. Private investors – 30,000 US dollars; 2,000 litas – Lithuanian Ministry of Culture (a copy cost).

It Snows in Paradise Too. Total budget – 70,000 US dollars. Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 10,000 US dollars; private Lithuanian investors – 60,000 US dollars.

Fronto linija (The Front Line). Total budget – 225,000 litas. Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 80,000 litas, the Soros Foundation – 100,000 litas, private Lithuanian investors – 45,000 litas.

Courtyard. Total budget – 1,805,000 litas; Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 938,600 litas, foreign investment – 866,400 litas.

The Lease. Total budget – 1,365,000 litas, Lithuanian Ministry of Culture– 737,100 litas, private investors – 627,900 litas.

The Necklace of Wolf’s Teeth. Total budget – 740,000 litas, Lithuanian Ministry of Culture– 634,400 litas.

Home. Total budget – 4,200,000 litas; Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 756,000 litas; foreign investors – 3,444,000 litas.

Freedom. Total budget – 4,300,000 litas; Lithuanian Ministry of Culture– 774,000 litas; foreign investors – 3,526,000 litas.

Else’s Life. Total budget – 2,266,000 litas; Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – 1,834,460 litas.

Jonukas and Grytutė. Total budget – 800,000 litas. The Lithuanian Ministry of Culture – main budgeting, 5% - private supporters.

Lithuanian Features Co-produced with Foreign Countries:

1995, The Corridor. Kinema, TV Ventures

1996, Few of Us. Kinema, Gemini Films (France), Mandragora Filmes (Portugal).

1997, Home. Kinema, Gemini Films – La Sept Cinema (France), Mandragora Filmes (Portugal)

1999, Else’s Life. Lithuanian Film Studio, QQ Medien GmbH

1999, Courtyard, Uljana Kim Studio, Les Filmes de ‘Obesrvatoire (France)

2000, Freedom Kinema, Gemini Films, Mandragora Filmes

Some Lithuanian Documentaries Co-produced with Foreign Countries:

1992, Olandų gatvė (Olandų Street). Studio Aura, Capricon Films (Holland)

1992, Tabu laisvės laikais (Taboo in the Times of Freedom). Studio Kopa in cooperation with HCL-Videoproduction (Germany)

1994, Ar dar toli Europa (Is Europe still far Away?) Studio Kopa in cooperation with HCL-Videoproduction (Germany)

1994, Sudie, Jeruzale (Farewell, Jerusalem).  Studio Kopa in cooperation with HCL-Videoproduction (Germany)

1997, Pavasaris (Spring). Studio Kinema, Sodaperaga (France)

2000, Diapausis. Image and Sound studio, Marc Block University (France)

Some of Lithuanian Documentaries Supported by Foreign Resources:

1995, Antigravitacija (Antigravitation). Danish Film Institute – 20,000 Danish krones. Felix Prize money – 20,000 German marks.

1996, Skrajojimai mėlyname lauke (Flying in the Blue Field). EuroStar AB – 20,000 US dollars.

1998, Uostas (The Port). Danish Film Institute – 10 thousand Danish krones.

1999, Fedia. Trys sekundės po didžiojo sprogimo. (Fedia. Three Seconds After the Great Explosion). Danish Film Institute – 10,000 Danish krones.

1999, The Front Line. Studio Seansas, Soros Foundation – 100,000 litas (50 per cent of the total budget)

1999, 9 vartų miestas. The Town of Nine Gates. Uljana Kim Studio, UNESCO – 17,000 euros (100% of the film’s budget).

2000 Viena (By Herself). Jan Vrijman Fund – 4,000 US dollars, Danish Film Institute – 10,000 Danish krones. 

   

Note: Data is incomplete. Collection of the data is impeded by the fact that the information is scattered across the production companies.

Over the independence period, all of the co-produced films have been shot by the private production companies, while co-production in general has been not only most modern, but the only form of production that has made the existence of Lithuanian feature films possible. Lithuanian film directors and producers went out off their way to continue shooting films even at the time when the state lacked not only more solid money for that, but also legal basis for foreign co-production. This is not to say, that co-production was illegal, but there were no legal acts to regulate such activity. Over all of the Lithuanian features made, over a half attracted private Lithuanian (until 1994) or foreign money. When it comes to the proportion of the films produced predominantly on foreign money and these from the national budget, the numbers are almost equal. However, since 1994, production costs have become too big a bite for investors, while the state funding was rendered insufficient. The EU-accession has essentially transformed the filmmakers’ relationships with foreign investors. Today potential investors into Lithuanian cinema are the European film support funds. These finance only projects that secure an equal contribution by Lithuania. Contribution from the national budget is the key prerequisite for co-production, without which the existence of the national cinema in the new reality is unthinkable. Given the current funding it is impossible to comply with this requirement, yet loosing potential fund support will result in a poor reflection of the present creative potential of filmmaking community in the country.

Television, Manufacturer of Audiovisual Production, But Not Films

The discussion of the Lithuanian audiovisual culture and production necessitates mentioning the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (LRT) as a prolific maker of audiovisual product.  The LRT has been making no fewer numbers of features and shorts than production companies.

Yet these products do not merit the name of films, as most of them represent the genre of the so-called TV dramas and hardly distinct from the video performances of the 1960s and 1970s. Though the action has been moved to the settings outside the pavilion, it does not suffice to alter their style. The merit of these products is that they have captured the faces of the actors on film.  Then, most of TV films have no ambition of an artistic discovery in the language of film. However, it was the spirit of discovery and experiment that attracted foreigner investment into Lithuanian pictures.  The ingenuity, national character and the feeling that these films belong to a particular address have so largely contributed to the wide geography of Lithuanian cinema. The TV films, in the opposite, are very much of didactic character. They deal with the new national ideology or social problems yet in an old-fashioned way, failing to create a new artistic quality, they remain just a lifeless illustration of the themes of new times. They target just the narrow Lithuanian audience, yet this audience has also been developing a more refined taste for the artistic.

The LRT has played a decisive role in creating a visual record of political, economic and social metamorphosis of the country. Despite its great contribution to the development of social awareness, it seems like making films as artistic messages is a task too ambitious for the Lithuanian television. As a rule, TV films are made by television directors and other TV staff, therefore they reflect the stylistics of TV production. The collaboration of the director Algimantas Puipa (with additional financial injections earmarked for cinema support) with television is one exception in this case. The LRT has opted to help this director to survive and took the risk. In 14 years In the Light of Thunderbolt is the only full-length feature in film to become property of LRT. A decade ago the LRT would invite for a joint project one or another young director, but as its financial situation was going down the hill, it has given up both shooting feature films on film (replaced by videotape) and co-operation with film directors (Artūras Jevdokimovas and Ramunė Kudzmaitė have made one or two pictures each on film and videotape). By the way, in recent years the LRT has offered its services for the artists working in video outside the LRT (e.g., the films by Algimantas Puipa, Janina Lapinskaitė, Algirdas Tarvydas, some products by the A Propos and the Studio 2000). Yet the role of the LRT in film production should not be overvalued, as in exchange for these services it acquires the broadcasting right. Without having to buy these films, the LRT forms part of its programme. Quite a big number of films run by other television channels, specifically, by the Baltijos TV and the LNK, should be taken with a pinch of salt, too. All these are mostly films with a social and historical message or portraits of artists, mostly brainchildren by film chroniclers Vytautas Damaševičius and Juozas Matonis. They have been doing this on funds from the Lithuanian Culture Ministry, Media Support Fund and the Lithuanian Culture and Sport Support Fund.

How to Make a Debut? When? On What Money?

The fourteen years in our focus (1990-2003) have seen nine directors to make a debut with a full-length feature. They are responsible for one third of the overall output of features. Film critics have found six of these debuts to be a success, while subsequent participation of these directors at the festivals and the prizes won was a kind of validation to the judgment of the local film establishment.

Šarūnas Bartas is the only director who pursues with determination and consistency the path of feature film (with the help of foreign partners). Yet we should note that his cinema has attracted investment only after his pictures Praėjusios dienos atminimui (In the Memory of a Day Gone By) and Three Days demonstrated the potential of his idiom and popularity with international audiences. It is also obvious that most of feature debuts in 1990 – 2003 have not been produced on the state money, but relied, entirely or in part, on private support.

The period from 1990 to 1994 saw six film debuts and was the richest in new filmmakers’ names period. Only three debuts were made from 1995 to 2003. Such miserable situation relates directly to the fact that since 1994, production costs have broken private investors’ bank, while the state’s budgeting has become insufficient. Such meagre financing makes the expert boards allocating state funding exercise caution and provide more solid support to already established film artists. Though prompted by a common sense, such an attitude largely contributes to creating a critical situation when cinema, the art that is expected to keep in pace with rapidly changing reality, is deprived of the young blood. There are no different generations of filmmakers who could offer different viewpoints in portraying the speedily changing reality. The existing financing practice makes it impossible for the beginners to find financial resources needed to demonstrate their creative potential before they can expect collaboration with foreign partners. The short-sighted policy caring only for the needs of the present day and neglecting the young generation puts into jeopardy the future of Lithuanian cinema. In ten years from now, there will be no filmmakers of equal artistic and professional calibre to replace the currently most productive and best-established generation in their 40s and 50s. This threatens to disrupt the continuity of creative potential in cinema. 

It becomes obvious that in deliberating the question of feasible annual film number for Lithuania to make, it is necessary to include the requirement of full financing of one or two full length feature debuts per year. 

Are There Artists Mature for a Debut?

Until 2003, 65 film directors have graduated from the main studies of the Film and TV Department, opened at the Vilnius Music Academy ten years ago. Some of the graduates received Bachelor’s Diploma; others have only completed the course (film and TV cinematography not included). Twelve students have graduated with Master’s Degree. The Film and TV Studio has a stock of around one 100 films, most of them on videotape, made by the students as their key project for an academic year or the entire study period.

In 1990-1997, 17 pictures were shot on film, most made from 1990 to 1994, before the increase of production and film cost, at the Master Course in Directing, given by Vytautas Žalakevičius (one class) and Arūnas Žebriūnas (two classes). Since 1997, two film and TV cinematography students and one director have produced pictures on film using their personal resources. 

From over half a hundred directors, alumni of the Film and TV Department, only one, Kristijonas Vildžiūnas, has made a debut with a full-length feature. From 1997 till 2003, one female director has started with a short picture on film. In 2003-2004, her three debut shorts received a considerable response especially by the Lithuanian teenage audience.

The students of the Film and TV Department graduate as TV directors (film directing is an option open only for postgraduate students, and not every year). It would be natural to see new names join the ranks of directors working for television. Yet in reality it is not the case. For a number of years, the LRT has to rely on production of middle generation - directors. We can look through the lists of the films produced by the LRT over ten years and will hardly come across new names. A few films have been made by the alumni, now in their 40s, from the Lithuanian Music Academy or the graduates from the former Soviet Union film schools prior to 1989. Over the last four or five years, from the Music Academy graduates, only two sound designers, three cinematographers (only two currently working) have started working for the LRT, three have been involved in producing TV programmes, four have produced a picture each for TV – separately or in collaboration with the school. Some of the most talented directors work for advertising agencies and commercial televisions (the LRT programmes are also assessed on the basis of ratings, therefore they have a commercial aspect, too). Thus it is probably correct to conclude that in a sense the money that the state pays to educate directors and cinematographers, trained by professional filmmakers, is an investment into audiovisual services outside the realm of cinema. Yet the blame is not on students, but on unpardonable situation of cinema financing.

Since 2002, the Department of Photography and Media started training young animators who hope to join the community of filmmakers.   

Financing and Quantity Indicators

A critical quantitative drop in film output (which limits the opportunities of higher artistic quality) took place around 1994. The rocketing production costs have rendered the state financing absolutely inadequate, to put it mildly. In 1995 and 1996, three new films were shot, two of these (The Corridor and Few of Us by Šarūnas Bartas) were co-financed by foreign investors. Just one, In the Light of Thunderbolt, was partially funded by the state, with a considerable contribution by the LRT. 1995 and 1996 saw not a single director to make a debut either with a full-length or short picture. Only four animation films were made in 1995, nine, in 1996, but six of them are shorter than four minutes.

Even though economic conditions in Latvia and Estonia have been similar to these in Lithuania, the Lithuanian feature production rate was almost twice as low. Output numbers mirror financing of cinema in respective countries.

Full-Length Features Made in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia

Year

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

ESTONIA

2003

2

2

4

2002

1

1

3

2001

3

3

2000

2

2

1999

1

3

4

1998

3

3

 

6

12

17

   State Financing  (in euros)

Year

LITHUANIA

LATVIA

ESTONIA

2003

1 040 894

1 608 248

3 135 730

2002

1 065 512

2 009 112

3 044 961

2001

1 034 812

1 421 207

2 111 410

2000

696 536

1 335 269

2 011 047

1999

1 385 252

1 346 509

1 735 324

1998

1 356 290

1 323 529

1 783 926

 

6 579 296

7 435 626

13 822 398

Note: Lithuanian state financing over the period from 1998 to 2002 may include the amount allocated to the Lietuvos kinas.

 

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Population:

3,698,000

2,349,768

1,361,242

Financing per capita:

0.18

3.16

10.15

Since 1998, six full-length features have been produced in Lithuania, 13 – in Estonia (one full-length animation film).

The situation with short features is no better. Over the last years, Latvians have been producing six or seven short features yearly; the numbers in Estonia are the same (excepting 2001, which saw 22 new short features). In Lithuania the record of four was achieved in 1997, but even three films are perceived as a lot. Formally, student films could be added to this number, yet it would be better to separate student films from debuts after graduation. There is an international practice to think that debut picture is indicative of the artist’s potential to work independently and secure funding. On the other hand, the emerging artists have to look for the sources to finance their work – there are a few films made in collaboration with the LRT and private production companies.            

It has not been exactly golden age for the Lithuanian documentary either. The documentaries shot on film stock are becoming fewer, and in general, the tradition of Lithuanian poetic documentary, recognized internationally, is losing its vitality and status. The artists in their 40s and 50s, the generation most active on the international stage, have been doing most to uphold this tradition. The video image inevitably implies specific type of aesthetics, determined by technological qualities. Therefore video is not a proper medium, which could ensure the continuation or development of the tradition of poetic documentary. Documentaries on videotape started dominating Lithuanian film production since 1994.

Year

Film

Videotape

2002

4

7

2001

7

8

2000

5

15

1999

5

15

1998

5

11

1997

6

10

1996

7

7

1995

9

4

1994

5

9

1993

9

3

1992

9

2

1991

16

1

1990

17

1

 

104

93

The categories of documentaries made in video and film are presented separately because of the fact that smaller production costs of video (in comparison to film) make it increasingly popular technology with directors and cinematographers. As a result, some of filmmakers have no experience of working in film. Yet only pictures in film can aspire to become pieces of art, exploiting, fully and powerfully, the potential of the motion picture. Working in film and video is different, as these two formats immediately imply a different aesthetic mode. Video technology is an adequate medium to achieve the goals pursued by TV films and informational documentaries. Yet a search of unique idiom, both in features and creative documentaries (that will earn the right to be screened at the prestigious festivals) is simply unthinkable without film. It is obvious that pictures made in film are in the foremost focus of the largest cinema festivals. Only such films can reach the screen through distribution. The production of such films requires collective effort and cannot be deteremined by ambitions of a single personality. In the making of such films costume designers and prop men – the already thinning so-called second echelon of film artists – come to play a larger role. Today, only individual professionals can be found working on this side, fanatically loyal to the Lithuanian film of the by-gone days.

Lithuania animation has also been exposed to sporadic financing and its production has been inconsistent. It is an expensive product, a large bite for supporters actually, as a minute costs approximately 10,000 litas. In 14 years, the number of animated films made per year varies from ten to two pictures. It should be mentioned too, that no animation film with the duration of over 10 minutes was made in 1998-2003.

Aspects of Financing. Producers’ Phobias      

Like it or not, such meagre output of Lithuanian films opens the unreasonably poor state’s support for cinema to criticism. Of all the neighbouring countries (let alone the countries of Eastern Europe, where the unwritten rule applies of producing one full-length feature film per one million of population yearly) Lithuania has been doing the worst job in supporting cinema. Such miserable financing leads to another practice: financing process of one project usually drags on for several years, two or three years actually for a feature film. This has a paralysing effect on the process of production. The protracted production has its impact on the quality of the product, making it unpredictable at times. Such procedure of financing generates more evils, like increased production costs and difficulty to maintain a film team (impact on quality). Planning promotion and participation at festivals gets next to impossible. Today not a single producer knows when a film in the process of shooting will be finished. 

The meagre financing is the cause of directors and producers’ phobias. Several years ago, there was a tendency to inflate the foreseen film budget. This was determined by the knowledge that it was impossible to get the total amount needed, in hope that “by exaggerating one can get more than playing fair”.  Of lately this budget is artificially reduced, but it is equally bad. A smaller budget looks more attractive initially, but next year, financial shortages make producers ask the state for additional financing. Both experts on the panel and the ministry bureaucrats can predict this course of events. In such cases, when the work is halfway or editing process is about to start, it is natural to grant support. Yet such additional financing of the incomplete projects absorbs part of the funds needed for new projects. If this routine of protracted financing throughout several years applied only to full-length features, situation would be manageable. Yet recently even shorts and a big part of documentaries are financed through several years in a row. Usually the amounts needed for completion of films (especially of documentaries) do not strike as huge – 10, 20 or 40 thousand litas. But when such amounts have to be given to almost all pictures that have been started, it totals to a sizable amount of money. To give an example, the sum of 600,000 litas allotted to cinema by the Culture and Sport Support Foundation, was used for the completion of films that had been started the previous year. However, not all the films, some even in video, got additional money.

The two institutions in charge of distributing finances for film making, the Council of Experts of the Ministry of Culture (now, Film Council) and the Culture and Sport Support Foundation have been successful, at least until 2003, in co-ordinating their activity, thus the problem is not poor re-distribution of resources. The problem is the shortage of money. Sceptics might say that lacking is not only money, but also ideas, yet it does not prove to be right in case of Lithuanian cinema. If one short feature film recorded on film in several years turns out to be failure, this translates only as a personal failure of the novice, but says very little about cinema in general. The true potential of the filmmakers, especially the young generation, remains terra incognita. Of course, discoveries are costly and involve risk. But there is no other way finding out what we are actually capable of. This is not to say that piles of good scripts are abandoned to dust on the shelf. The problem of scriptwriters in Lithuania is the worst. Yet, every year, a couple of projects for debut shorts fail to be realized, also some three or four promising full-length feature projects fall victims to financing shortages. Thus unrealised projects are getting accumulated, and the number of artists deprived of a chance to test and demonstrate their creative stamina is growing. This, in turn, reduces our chances to attract foreign investors, to contribute to spreading the artistic message of our country and its people, in other words, put up a visible cultural presence. By the way, these are very pragmatic arguments. We have seen already, that the world audience can be only interested in our pictures with a very strong personal touch. There are several directors, now in their 50s, who ten years ago demonstrated their talents and skills needed for this profession and produced one or several shorts, but never got a chance to try a hand in a full-length picture.

Opportunities and Conditions for Co-production with European Countries

Lithuania has secured avenues for co-producing with European countries, as the projects by directors and producers have already demonstrated to the international funds operating in Lithuania their competitiveness and acquired advantageous financial conditions.

Lithuanian participation, since January 1, 2003 in one of the European programmes supporting cinema, Media Plus, has demonstrated that foreign experts granted support to almost all of the presented Lithuanian film projects. In a year and a half, this fund made an injection of 180 thousand euros. Yet, Lithuanian producers and filmmakers will reap full benefits of the programme only when Lithuania gets in place and running a system of pre-production, production and distribution.   

Financing film production is attributed to national competencies. Thus if a film gets money via international film supporting mechanisms (e.g., Eurimages), a part of funding has to be provided by the national institutions. All international film support mechanisms are based on subsidising principle – the eligible applicants are required to have a secured part of funding from the national sources (usually, at least half of the total). When the core of the filmmaking team is Lithuanian, a national co-produced film must find the key part of financing in Lithuania.

There is something else to be said. The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production states: “European cultural co-operation in the cinema field takes place primarily through co-productions.” And continues: “…This requirement concerning identity is in some respects the guiding principle of the convention, which is inspired by a versatile but unified vision of European film production.” Therefore it would very naïve to worry that our cinema will loose its distinctiveness in the process of co-production. Our uniqueness is in our own hands. Cinema is a very democratic and a mobile vehicle for informing the world about us. It was very well illustrated by the cinema weeks, held on the occasion of the EU expansion in Brussels at the European Parliament meetings and the introduction of 25 states. Kristijonas Vildžiūnas with The Lease on contemporary themes (the film received positive critical acclaim at twenty international festivals) represented Lithuania.

Without co-production, international distribution of Lithuanian films is impossible. It is necessary that Lithuanian films reach the European cinema theatres for several reasons. Cinema allows the audience to understand more of our society, its mindset and values. On the other hand, for the Lithuanian cinema to stay in the ebony tower of the film festivals would equal to not getting the full value of the taxpayers money. Also, we cannot afford making such a costly product for internal market only. A role model to Lithuania in this respect is Iceland: its film policy is focused exclusively on co-production and aggressive promotion of their products abroad. This policy ensures a market for their feature films abroad and, alongside, provides a chance to present to the world their national identity. Yet nothing similar is possible with a yearly output of several feature films.

Co-production is the only way to insure the effective distribution of Lithuanian films outside Lithuania. It is not the question of participation at the international film forums: it is the question of finding way to cinema theatres, as this eventually ensures financial support of the funds.

To receive support from the Media programme, for instance, applicants need to prove that his or her previous films have been successfully distributed abroad or in Lithuania. It is a very serious obstacle for many Lithuanian filmmakers in accessing the European film funds. The presence of Lithuanian films at the film festivals contributes largely to the cultural image of the country, but it is different from distribution in the technical sense. Therefore, money has to be assigned not only for preproduction and production stages, but also to the final stage, exploitation. The absolute majority of the cinema support sources in Europe provide budgeting for the preproduction stage (search of partners and financing) and the stage that ends the process of making a film and is the actual goal of the process – distribution through theatrical release and VHS and DVD.

Lithuanian Films on the International Cinema Market  

Maybe one of the biggest and encouraging paradoxes about the predicament of national cinema over the years of independence has been its defiance to the budgetary restrains, which failed to cripple the quality of Lithuanian films. For ten years Lithuanian films have been part of the prestigious European film festivals. Producers (sometimes, also directors) have been successfully proliferating their product in the world, as in the new situation it has critical implications for the realisation of new projects and the survival of Lithuanian cinema. Lithuanian foreign partners have been greatly instrumental in promoting Lithuanian films: on the other hand, by promoting the film, they make their own name famous. From the very first years of breaking through the Iron Curtain, Lithuanian documentaries and features are prize-winning participants at prestigious cinema forums. The first films by Šarūnas Bartas, Arūnas Matelis, Audrius Stonys, Valdas Navasaitis have been recognized among leaders of the author’s film. 10 minučių prieš Ikaro skrydį (Ten Minutes before the Flight of Icarus) by Arūnas Matelis won the main prize of the Oberhauzen short films festival, Three Days by Šarūnas Bartas received the prize of the ecumenical jury FIPRESCI at the International Berlin Film Festival. Neregių žemė (The Land of the Blind) by Audrius Stonys has been recognized as the best European documentary, one of most prestigious awards won by Lithuanian filmmakers. Both the middle and senior generation of the filmmakers are active participants of film festivals: it would be difficult to find a documentary, even by a senior generation artist, that has not been screened abroad. The artists as Diana and Kornelijus Matuzevičius, Rimantas Gruodis, the late Henrikas Šablevičius are welcome participants and award winners of numerous film events. Their work typifies Lithuanian documentary tradition, which has gained the recognition by the international professional film community.

A rare new Lithuanian release is not invited, in ten years of its existence, to participate at the international Cannes, Venice or Berlin festivals, famous for their high and stringent selection standards. All the Lithuanian feature films shot in the last four years (1999-2003) were invited to participate at one of these three leading cinema events. For a country with such a small film output, it is an unprecedented situation and an important indicator of high artistic quality of Lithuanian films. Lithuanian documentaries are also regularly featured by the Oberhauzen, Leipzig International Film Festivals and other celebrated film events. 

Though Lithuanian filmmakers actively respond to the interest they receive in the West, the ties with the largest country’s neighbour Russia have not been severed either. Unfortunately, Lithuanian cinema production has no chance reaching Russian cinemas (Russian professionals find it one of the greatest problems that in Russia, the agreements with Hollywood have made theatrical exhibition even for Russian films impossible). Yet Lithuanian films, both full-length and shorts are well familiar to the audiences of the CIS and Baltic countries Festival Kinoshok in Anapa. To keep abreast of the developments in the art of film in the neighbouring countries, each year the festival asks the experts from Lithuania for a piece of advice and includes Lithuanian production into the programme. Šarūnas Bartas and Algimantas Puipa have received the best direction prize, and Viktoras Radzevičius and Rimvydas Leipus, best cinematography prizes from the festival.

The awards by both the Western and Eastern countries festivals bear witness of high artistic quality of Lithuanian film and its unique voice. In the hands of a capable producer, the prestigious festival is a perfect start that lends impetus for further film exploitation. If an artistically successful film has a resourceful producer, after its first appearance on the programme of a famous festival, it continues to be screened by the festivals for three or two years, and with retrospectives, even longer. Good examples of such practice are all films by Šarūnas Bartas, the films by Valdas Navasaitis, Audrius Stonys or The Lease by Kristijonas Vildžiūnas, featured by over thirty festivals. It is important that experts of the international festivals make the selection not on the basis of formal, statistical information on the country, but look for an interesting artistic idiom and personal vision, a deeply artistic image of the country emerging in the film. The films by such filmmakers as Šarūnas Bartas, Valdas Navasaitis, Audrius Stonys, Arūnas Matelis, Janina Lapinskaitė, Diana and Kornelijus Matuzevičius perfectly meet such criteria. Today, the geography of Lithuanian cinema is wide: in fourteen years of independence it has become a true ambassador of Lithuanian culture.  (Cf. Lithuanian Film Geography).

Informing on and Promotion of Lithuanian Cinema in Lithuania Information on the National Cinema at Home

The local system of distribution and exhibition of domestic films is nothing similar to the aggressive presentation of Lithuanian production on the international scale. So far the national cinema has not succeeded gaining popularity or reputation as respectable form of art with the public at large.

To begin with, the information on Lithuanian films’ status on the international stage is insufficient and chaotic. It is largely for an individual production company to inform the public on its activity and achievement. No systemic accumulation of information is taking place. There is no central location to store such information and no institution (like national cinema centres in Latvia and Estonia) to keep the public updated on the international acclaim of domestic production, thus boosting the prestige of the national cinema in the public eye. The fourteen years of independence failed to generate a systematic cinema data basis and provide some critical analytical appraisal of the filmmaking of the period. A single and exceptional attempt to pull all the information together was publishing of the catalogue Lietuvių filmai (Lithuanian Films).

The use of information technologies in order to present information on Lithuanian cinema has been extremely sluggish. Only a couple of directors have their websites. The Lithuanian Film Studio’s website features the institution only as a provider of filmmaking services and a production company of animation films. However, it also produces some features, documentaries and newsreels. The information presented on the Lithuanian film on the website of Informacinė antena (Informational antenna) until 2003 was disorganized and discrepant. The film festival Kino pavasaris, which was transformed into Vilniaus pavasaris, is presented in greatest detail on the page.  

The creation of a centralised database and its continuous updating is the key task that should be solved by the joint efforts of all production companies and all filmmakers. The first step has already been made: a newly founded Lithuanian Film Centre, supported by the Ministry of Culture, has already embarked on activity of spreading the message in Lithuania on its cinema through seminars and festivals. 

Lithuanian Films on Lithuanian Screens

Until 2004, the only occasion to reap the harvest of Lithuanian cinema was the Film Festival Kino pavasaris. The festival has been featuring, in a rather systematic manner, all new releases by the production companies in between two events. Usually the films run for two or three nights. A part of the films reach the screen through the Short Film Festival Tinklai. Yet most widely spread form of exhibiting Lithuanian films is a single first running at the Skalvija and Lietuva cinemas. When the Skalvija film centre started expanding its activity, 70 Lithuanian feature films and documentaries were screened in 2002 (this includes premiere screenings, anniversary evenings, retrospectives, screenings organised on the initiative of the Baltic Films, student and amateur projects made at the Dogma Festival, initiated by students, student work screenings on occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Film and TV Department, a programme by young filmmakers Lithuanian Cinema Can Be Interesting, and so on.) It should be noted that Lithuanian films have been mostly running in Vilnius, but even in the capital town promotion campaigns were insufficient, the screenings lacked professional introduction and work with the audience. Several factors prevented local pictures from going outside the capital town. Firstly, producers grudge film copies, as they are expensive, and just one screening may ruin the quality of it. No copies are made for Lithuanian cinemas. Taking the picture to exhibit outside the capital costs money and takes time, also, mutual initiative by producers and cinemas is needed. Usually after its premiere, a new film embarks on travelling outside Lithuania.

Outside the capital audience is even less prepared to accept national film product. But neither a filmmaker nor producer can solve this task single-handedly: it is an issue of general lack of cultural education. Cinema in Lithuania, in contrast to Europe, has not yet been granted (even though it truly deserves it) a status as important part of culture. Of recently, the activity of cinema clubs across Lithuania has become very sluggish, and not a single festival is held in the periphery. The Festival Tinklai that features its programme in Vilnius and Klaipėda is one rare exception. The Polish Institute usually takes a part of its annual programme to Kaunas. In general, there is no cinema going community that perceives films as an important part of culture and a vehicle for the national identity, and if there is one, it has been very passive. 

It is possible that the middle generation directors, especially the ones who received positive critical acclaim abroad, encounter some psychological problems and feel frightened by the gap between their art and provincial community, this gap has been growing wider during fourteen years. The milieu that yielded cinema characters did not know them, and vice verse. Lithuanian filmmakers and cinema goers have got estranged and forgot each other in fourteen years. Maybe one happy exception could be Ukmergė town cinema fans and some individual pro-active cultural figures that invite to the periphery one or another film and the team. Yet these are individual initiatives that receive no encouragement.  

The 2004 Festival Trispalvis kinas (Three-Colour Cinema) turned out a groundbreaking event in the transformation of cinema and its audience relationship in Lithuania. Put together by the efforts of the Lithuanian Film Centre, the event offered a programme featuring the cream of the independence period work by the local filmmakers, selected by the critics. For the first time, an event like this spread from the capital across the country. The films toured Lithuania for two months. The sceptics were taken by surprise with the results. The interest the programme received was determined by a targeted promotion campaign, clever price policy and the timing of the festival: on the eve of Lithuania’s European Union accession, the question of who we are and how we look on the screen was in the air. This aspect comes to light when we think about encouraging the awareness of the national identity and the need to keep it up in the young people. The audience of the Festival Trispalvis kinas was dominated by young people, students. 

The event was still in its closing ceremony in Vilnius, the Lietuva cinema, when it was clear that it achieved its mission to destroy one of the most rooted myths in the public consciousness. It was the myth that Lithuanian cinema does not exist, well, even if some does, nobody takes any interest in it. With the numbers of people who came to the two cinema theatres in Vilnius, Lietuva and Skalvija, the myth could no longer persist.

The Festival Trispalvis kinas offered a panorama of Lithuanian cinema in 1990-2004, which included 13 feature and 10 documentary films, three short film and one animation film programmes. Also, several new releases and TV film night. Around 12 thousand people came to see the programme. The number of 10 thousand who came to the Lietuva can be compared to the audience of the European film Festival Kino pavasaris in 2002, according to its managing director Vida Ramaškienė. In 2002, the audience totalled at 22 thousand and there were thrice as many showings. Several years ago to see a full house on a premiere night of a Lithuanian full-length feature would have been unlikely. This time, the cinema could not hold everybody who wanted to see the newly released short features, Egzistencija (Existence) by Giedrė Beinoriūtė and Lengvas raganavimas (Mild Witchcraft) by Inesa Kurklietytė.

The numbers of the Trispalvis kinas audience speak for themselves, yet a parallel between the numbers that came to see the best-selling imported pictures running concurrently at the largest film venues in Vilnius might be enlightening. The historical drama Cold Mountain by Anthony Minghella with the stars Nicole Kidman, Jude Law and the Oscar winner Renée Zellweger gave in, on the first three days, to the festival. The first weekend of the running period, three thousand people bought tickets to the Cold Mountain at three cinemas (the Coca-cola Plaza and Akropolis in Vilnius, and the Planeta in Kaunas). Around four thousand came to the Lietuva cinema (the same number of screenings) to see Lithuanian films. At the Skalvija cinema, a new release by Almantas Grikevičius Bandymas išsiaiškinti (An Attempt to Figure Out) attracted the largest audience. The programmes of documentaries in film and video, short features, the night of the independents and the films Three days by Šarūnas Bartas and The Necklace of Wolf’s Teeth by Algimantas Puipa did not lack popularity either. Over a hundred people came to each screening (Skalvija holds 140 seats), in total around 1.5 thousand.

Currently, the European Union puts targeted efforts to create opportunities for the member states to learn more of each other through the art of film. The screenings of European films and promotion campaigns, including familiarisation seminars, are partially subsidised (based on the data from the Lietuva cinema, it totals to 10 thousand euros annually). Yet it is made clear that this money is not for national cinema promotion. The states are expected to support the road of the national product to the screen from the national budget.

Lithuanian Feature Films on TV

The Lithuanian National Television LRT and other television channels broadcast exclusively these films they have co-produced and have acquired the broadcasting right. The LTV2, the second National Television channel, embarked on a more consistent broadcasting of Lithuanian documentaries from their archives. Nobody even considers the possibility of systematic purchasing of Lithuanian films. Several exceptions in a decade just prove the fact of inconsistent broadcasting of Lithuanian films on TV, which is, of course, determined by the financial capabilities of TV channels and the specific character of Lithuanian auteur films.

Theatrical Releases of Lithuanian Films

Over fourteen years, only two Lithuanian full-length features have proved serious rivals to the distributor–brought films running for one or two weeks in the main venues in Lithuania. We can translate this fact as an experiment that proves that Lithuanian films can attract audience no smaller than imports. Thus, Else’s Life, released for theatre exhibition in 2002, attracted 21.9 thousand viewers – more than did European commercial films of the year Vatel (4.1 thousand), Dancer in the Dark (18.3 thousand) and Asterix et Obelix contre Cesar (18.3 thousand). Only the American Fight Club (21.1 thousand) equalled in popularity the Lithuanian Else’s Life.

In 2002, The Lease attracted 1.3 thousand-audience. The Lease is a non-commercial auteur film, in contrast to Else’s Life, yet in popularity it equalled the famous-that-year British Enigma (1.3 thousand) and took over the Storytelling by the American independents’ star, Todd Solondz (1.2 thousand), the Asian General Security Zone (0.5 thousand) and 6/9 (0.3 thousand). It is also important to note that in 2002, the audience of non-commercial films seldom exceeded the limit of 3 thousand. 

In 2004, the feature film by Jonas Vaitkus Vienui vieni (Utterly Alone) is having the highest box-office popularity, in the opinion of film critics, generated not exactly by the artistic quality of it, but a generally rekindled interest in Lithuanian cinema and the picture’s theme, the partisan resistance movement in post-war Lithuania. Beating the commercial feature films’ records, it has attracted 23 thousand viewers. Thus national cinema has no less popularity with the audiences than imports. General public’s interest in it should be growing, based on the response received from the festival screenings of the Lithuanian film and single individual showings. Yet, it is important to have something to show. One new release per year can hardly hold the audience’s interest – for that it takes at least one new product per quarter or a season. 

How Many and What Non-national Films Are Screened in Lithuania?

Over the last years Lithuania has been seeing around 120 film premieres yearly. Roughly 30 per cent of these can aspire to be discussed by the art criteria. In 1998 – 2003, around 240 such feature films were on Lithuanian cinema screens. Yet this is an umbrella number that includes more interesting products by American mega companies, European auteur films and Asian screen masters’ production, the latter making up the smallest share. Of the total number of foreign films on Lithuanian screen European films during the last five years constitute the following per cent:

2002 m. – 22.29

2001 m. – 21.36

2000 m. – 12.87

1999 m. – 30.04

1998 m. – 20.50

The most focused selection of such films in 2001- 2003 was offered by the former subdivision Kitoks kinas of the company ACME (now this team operates with the distributors Kino premjera). The Kitoks kinas distributed 27 feature films in three years, while no other distributors have been as consistent in their choice. Ingenious European works, Asian or the specimen of the so-called independent American film have been appearing on screen and competing under the same conditions with commercial American production. As free market is putting more pressure, this type of cinema finds it more difficult to survive. Neither distributors nor cinemas gain profit, so having such films on the repertoire is just the matter of prestige. Based on the data of the Kitoks kinas, the box-office of most European feature films ranges from 12 to 85 thousand litas. At the same time, a professional commercial promotion campaign costs up to 40 thousand, not to mention the distribution rights. Therefore in this situation it is natural to expect the government to support the exhibition of European cinema and unique productions by Asian and the Far East cinemas, as forms of artistic information on contemporary societies. This support is part of cultural policy and a commonly accepted practice in Europe.

Thus in 2004, the support by the Media Plus played a critical role in putting together the festival Kino pavasaris hosted by two Vilnius cinemas, Lietuva and Skalvija. The other half of funding came from the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture. The Kino pavasaris ’04 enjoyed the biggest success of all its predecessors for ten years, setting the visitor record at 30 thousand. One of the secrets of such popularity was a rational price policy, pre-tested already by the festival Trispalvis kinas, and the growing public interest in non-commercial European films. The festival revealed one more shift in the audience expectations – the growing taste for quality. An almost concurrent festival hosted in Vilnius by the Coca-Cola Plaza, Vilniaus pavasaris could not rival the Kino pavasaris in attendance, as its main programme was composed randomly and with no regard of artistic quality and the reputation of these films at the international festivals. Therefore the audience opted for the Lietuva cinema project, even though it was supported by much humbler amount by the state than the Vilniaus pavasaris: the latter received thrice as big amount of money to become almost a flop.

The yearly Polish Film Weeks, the days of the Living Russian Cinema, though this event was held with intermissions, and the retrospectives of individual artists have been contributing to the promotion of European cinema. Speaking of the film festivals, 2004 has been a year of change too: seven of such events were more or less financed with public money (through the Ministry of Culture and the Culture and Sport Support Foundation). Five of them that have taken place already (Vilniaus pavasaris, Kino pavasaris, Trispalvis kinas, Nebylaus kino (Silent Cinema Festival), Children Cinema Festival) and demonstrated that there is enough audience for quality cinema events. Lithuanians get more and more interested in learning about the life and ideas of their contemporaries in Europe that has become their home. One can hardly think of a better form of art to do so than cinema.

 

Why Lithuanian Film Art and Its Production Should Receive Higher State Financing?

 

Because Lithuanian cinema has proved it is worth it. If Lithuanian cinema’s financing stays the same, the present and future generations of filmmakers will be isolated from the new reality in the European Union. Even worse, the established Lithuanian cinema’s positions in the European realm are endangered exactly at the time when sending message of national identity and values becomes of paramount importance at home and in the states of the European Union.

  1. National cinema is a cultural property protected, supported and enhanced by all European countries. It mirrors national character and identity and is a medium for far-reaching artistic information on the existence of the country and its values. Promotion of national identity acquires a new value for Lithuania, now a member of the European Union. At the same time cinema is one of the most democratic, easiest to access and most mobile of the arts.

 

  1. One, two at the best, new feature films released for theatre exhibition a year do not suffice for Lithuanian cinema to establish itself on the European market. To produce films just for festival screening or internal market is an unaffordable luxury for such a small country as Lithuania. Lithuania could borrow Iceland’s model of mandatory co-production with foreign funds for absolutely all feature films, thus securing promotion strategy and participation at the prestigious festivals and international theatrical exhibition.

 

  1. In fourteen years Lithuanian cinema has proved its capacity to represent the country at the prestigious world festivals, even though this aspect of promoting national culture has not received state support. Today this happens mostly on the basis of private initiative. Wider and more effective promotion can be achieved with systematic state’s allocations for promotion activity, commensurate with production financing. 

 

  1. Lithuanian cinema has established itself not only at the European film forums.  In 2004, the year of Lithuania’s EU accession, the Lithuanian Film Centre launched the Festival Trispalvis kinas. The festival presented an overview of the national cinema production during the independence years and received some unpredicted audience numbers in the capital and other eight towns in Lithuania where it was possible to offer quality exhibition of Lithuanian films.

 

  1. In fourteen years Lithuanian cinema has proved its potential to attract foreign investor money and established itself as a viable employer. Lithuanian membership in the EU multiplies these possibilities and increases Lithuania’s responsibility for encouraging the art that has been recognized a priority by law. Currently local financing is a stumbling block for the exploitation of the opportunities provided by the international context and harms Lithuanian cinema’s, despite its creative potential, chances for equal partnership on European arena. All of the European cinema funds operate on the principle of subsidies – the funds provide up to half of the budget, the other half has to be provided by the national agencies. There is no reason to doubt in the ability of Lithuanian directors and producers to compete for the support of the European funds – Media Plus operating in Lithuania since 2003 has received a number of projects, of these, 90 per cent were supported by the international experts. In total, Lithuanian projects attracted from the programme 180 thousand euros.

 

  1. Insufficient financing of cinema threatens the change of generations in filmmaking: the new generation of professional filmmakers drifts to commercial sector as they fail to get jobs based on their education, provided to them on public money.

 

  1. Insufficient financing endangers the existence of professional filmmaking community. 

 

  1. Since 1994, it has been next to impossible to attract private funds into cinema, as the production costs, having nearly reached European ones, are too big a bite for local investor. LRT is also incapable of any substantial support for film production. All support is sporadic and insignificant, taking place more as barter trade.

 

  1. The exhibition and promotion of Lithuanian films has been the most neglected aspect of Lithuanian cinema at home. It is non-profitable to screen Lithuanian films, therefore promotion and distribution in the country has to be financed as well.

 

  1. Financial shortages have a paralysing effect on educational activity. The audience has to be educated to accept non-commercial European cinema (including Lithuanian), the more so that public has already proved its growing interest in European culture, as demonstrated the success of the Kino pavasaris. The need for the European production on the screen is growing. Supporting promotion of the European film art should become an integral part of Lithuania’s cultural policy.

 

References

The statistical data from the Baltic Film

Catalogue  Lietuvių filmai. 1990 – 2002. Lithuanian Films

Web pages:

www.efsa.ee (Estonian Film Foundation)

www.latfilma.lv (National Film Centre of Latvia)

Appreciation for contribution goes to: 

Jonas Lazauskas (Lithuanian Film Studio)

Rasa Miškinytė (LRT)

Ieva Skaržinskaitė (Media Plus)

Edvinas Pukšta (film reporter)

Inesa Kurklietytė (Film and TV Studio, Lithuanian Academy of Music)

Arūnas Stoškus (Litnek)

Uljana Kim (Uljana Kim studio)

Comments