Minister Jet Bussemaker's letter will keep tongues wagging for a long time to come. There are considerable gaps here and there between the Culture Council's advice and the minister's letter. Also in the field of film and media. A list of differences.
Bussemaker notes that the film sector is changing considerably. Media consumption is changing with the rapid rise of smartphones, tablets and high-speed internet. The media market is also changing significantly. For instance, the division between film and television is blurring, as is that between public-film and art film. The broadcasting system is on the upswing. Indeed, quite a lot is happening. Also in the financing of film. The minister is positive about the cash rebate system that allows foreign investors to get some of their money back. As a result, more international co-productions are being made such as those of Peter Greenaway and Mike van Diem.
And she endorses the council's concerns about the position of artistic film. Her solution for the time being is to have the Film Fund work with cinemas and film houses to research how to strengthen the screening of artistic film. That sounds non-committal, at least financially.
The council's advice argues for more space for artistic film, as that is where the Netherlands scores international prestige. Gooic Women 2 is nice for the domestic market, but it won't earn an Oscar nomination. However, Dutch artistic film is doing well on the international festival circuit. Unfortunately, this does not always translate into high attendance figures here in the Netherlands or outside the festival circuit. Because festival visitors do not count towards cinema attendance figures. Thus, a festival hit in Rotterdam may be out of circulation after only a few weeks. The council advocates formulating success differently: not by visitor numbers, but by quality.
The minister thinks that the distribution chain (cinema operators and film distributors) should now contribute to the Dutch audience film. The current system of agreements dates back to the 1990s. Time for a revision, she writes: "After several investments by the government to improve the Dutch film climate, the chain should now also take responsibility and increase their contribution to the production of the public film." New agreements will be made by mutual agreement. We will see soon.
The council notes that youth and animation film are areas in which the Netherlands excels. What a pity, then, that the Netherlands Institute for Animation Film, the postgraduate training programme, no longer receives a subsidy. The other postgraduate course, the Binger Filmlab, likewise no longer receives funding. It is problematic how on the one hand talent development is being hammered, but on the other, two sophisticated opportunities in the form of postgraduate education, are no longer getting funding. On a positive note, Bussemaker reports that the NPO plans to fund talent development. The NPO will do so in the manner currently followed by the Media Fund until its dissolution in 2017. Independently, she pledges 8 tonnes to the Film Fund for talent development.
The call for quality is clear with both the minister and the council and is repeated time and again. How quality should be measured is then still an issue. Because is it about buttocks in seats or artistic recognition at festivals and from connoisseurs? That interpretation varies. One would almost think that more money should go to it. It remains to be seen what the result will be.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
