Telling Stories: European Union cultural policies and institutional narratives in the audiovisual sector
Emily Munro (Theatre, Film and Television Studies: University of Glasgow)
| 1 | Culture was formally recognised as an aspect of European integration in the Maastricht Treaty (1991, also known as the Treaty on European Union), which simultaneously named the 'European Union' and officially stated the goal of a single market and currency. This in itself I believe is noteworthy. More striking, however, is the pattern whereby subsequent amendments of the Treaty on European Union and the Draft Constitution have placed further emphasis on the cultural dimension of EU activities as the EU's geographical influence expands. Now, allow me to take this observation further and suggest that the writing and implementation of cultural policy can be seen as a method by which the values of the European integration process are disseminated. And perhaps I have gone a step too far? |
| 2 | In a fundamental way, this is an essay on rhetoric. Not only because the sleight of phrase of European cultural policy is so suggestive as to demand some interpretation of its communicative form and purpose. But also because I am aware that interest in European affairs is such that I must convince audiences outwith my familiar academic arena (film and television studies) of the validity of my chosen approach to these materials. I have been thinking in particular of potential criticisms from such subject areas as politics, law and European studies, concerning issues of accuracy and relevance. Anticipating these, the theme of borders/boundaries now has resonance for me in a sense quite unforeseen when I began this research. |
| 3 | I have not policed the boundaries of this article to make it any more or less relevant to a 'non-film-studies' audience. I hope it stands by itself as a serious and direct approach to the way cultural policy is delivered in the EU, the reader's background notwithstanding. Regarding my credentials for squaring up to politics, I can only say that while securing subsidies remains the single most important factor in getting a feature film produced and marketed in Europe, cultural policies must be subject to some kind of scrutiny from people working in and around film and television. |
| 4 | The purpose of this article is to show how the basic principles of the EU are made visible in policy making, especially in the cultural field. I want to illustrate how, in European politics, the boundaries between the symbolic and the real can be negligible. In particular, I will examine the concept of unity in diversity, which has been prominent in the EU institutional narrative. The reasons for doing so relate to my interest in the way this idea has been used as a slogan for the EU's expansion and integration processes, and in its potentiality to encourage co-operative trends of cultural production and consumption in a heterogeneous 'single market' inhabited by 'European citizens', filmmakers and cinema-goers |
| 5 | I will discuss how the theme of unity in diversity might be deliberately employed as a means of negotiating the growing tensions in Europe between the local and the global and the internal and the external. I will also describe ways in which the concept's apparently contradictory formula works to support market principles and complement the EU's economic and citizenship ambitions. I hope to demonstrate these points by making special reference to the EU's directives in the audiovisual sector, chiefly the field of cinema. |
| 'European' Narratives | |
| 6 |
In this article I am proposing that European institutions, like all organisations, create narratives for themselves as a means of establishing points of identification for their current and potential members. Charlotte Linde discusses how narratives can both aid in the daily tasks of the organisation and provide material for an institutional memory. Specialised vocabulary may be generated by an organisation to compliment discourses which can 'deal with contested or contradictory versions of the past' and create a palpable vision of the future as envisaged by the organisation's management.
|
| 7 | In its cultural policies the EU emphasises themes of cultural heritage, linguistic diversity, citizenship and cultural exchange. These themes constitute central components of the European Commission's institutional narrative but are passed off as inherently 'European' cultural principles. The success of policy initiatives in promoting the institution's value system to the public depends on the effectiveness with which local organisations perform the cultural policies. Cinema has a role to play in this regard as it can mobilise the themes noted above, as I hope to illustrate here. |
| 8 | Andrew Higson notes how 'national cinema' is often justified via policy making in terms of cultural diversity and then enlisted as a marketing strategy for both domestic and international markets.[3] 'European cinema' also exists at a policy level, as does 'European identity', and both of these categories have important roles to play in the EU's promotion of itself to its citizens in order that its ambitions for European economic and social integration be realised. The EU's audiovisual policies are synthesised in the MEDIA programme which currently supports development, distribution and promotion of 'European audiovisual works' under MEDIA Plus (2001-2006). MEDIA Plus aims to dedicate almost 60% of its funds to distribution, which includes the objective to 'stimulate transnational distribution and exhibition of European films by encouraging co-ordinated marketing strategies'.[4] Yet, despite the emphasis on developing a shared international strategy for cinema, a dominant theme in European audiovisual policy is respect for diversity. Diversity is an important concept for cultural policy in Europe as it is the principle by which financial subsidy for cultural production, conservation and promotion is justified.[5] Subsequently, provision of support for culture may affirm the status of the funding institutions as beneficent and justify their legislative authority. |
| 9 | In semantic terms, 'diversity' seems far less unbridgeable than 'difference' and this is one reason why it is employed so widely in the contemporary construction of a European culture. But 'diversity' also supports market principles, placing the citizen in particular spheres of interest and consumption and seeing an individual's identity as a variety of complementary identifications. At the same time, the community, in the sense of a group of individuals with common interests and values, is a basic unit of the EU. So, while the principle of diversity is called upon to justify all major initiatives in the audiovisual sector, always implicit in its performance is the motivation of unity. |
| 10 | Although the concepts of unity and diversity may appear contradictory, their application enhances rather than impedes the economic and cultural goals of European integration and structures its narrative. Common to all EU Treaties and policy recommendations, for example, is the assurance that the Union's activities will normally complement rather than replace those of the member states. The so-called principle of subsidiarity ensures that the EU will not act on matters that should be effectively resolved at national, regional or local levels. However, at times, the decision may be taken that the Union's course of action would be more appropriate than that offered at a local level, and a process of negotiation must begin. With this in mind, Bo Stråth has described the European polity as 'the transformation of dissent into compromises by means of the symbolic co-ordination of norms and values'.[6] This pattern is, indeed, given value in the draft Constitution's statement that Europe is 'united in its diversity', 'unity in diversity' having long been a slogan for mobilising positive identification with European integration.[7] As I will illustrate in the next section, two major strands of the European cultural narrative are communicated in European Commission recommendations for cinema. These are best described as heritage and democracy, and notions of unity and diversity underpin both. |
| A democratic legacy | |
| 11 | Cinema was conceived in the EU in terms of a 'common cultural heritage'.[8] But, unlike some other forms of cultural heritage, which may emphasise unity through appeal to a pre-modern, and pre-citizen, past, cinema is described in European policy as a 'heritage' of and for citizens. While a full discussion of citizenship is beyond the reach of this essay, it is important to note that citizenship in Europe is complex. Alex Warleigh and Richard Bellamy explain how 'the EU both complements and interacts with the activities of the member states, making the possession of dual or even multiple citizenships of different kinds both necessary and coherent'.[9] For the purposes of this article, however, it is crucial to recognise how fundamentally 'citizenship refers to the identification of citizens with institutions'.[10] A loyal citizenry can only be created through citizens' positive induction into institutional narratives. |
| 12 | European citizens need to be convinced of the usefulness of the Union's cultural dimensions if they are fully to engage with the Commission's recommendations on how cultural products should be produced and consumed. The EU resolution on the first century of the cinema encourages citizens to engage with the, often contentious, role of European cinema as a bridge between art and enterprise. In describing cinematographic works as both artistic legacy and 'witness to the history of humankind', the resolution legitimates the preservation of cinematographic material in archives.[11] Films are cultural documents and, thus, heritage. Additionally, the resolution asks that the 'cultural, technical and economic exchange' made possible by cinema production in Europe be recognised as significant achievements and that enterprise be celebrated. |
| 13 | While the coming together of notions of 'art' and 'enterprise' is arguably common to acts of cinematographic production worldwide, or at least the discourses surrounding them, the aforementioned resolution does not recognise this. Instead it suggests that artistic enterprises embody a process that reflects a specifically European ethos of communality, integration and union-- no matter how anachronistic or ahistorical this may seem. Having said this, it is interesting to find a subsequent resolution on the preservation of cinematographic works framing cinema heritage as an inheritance, representing 'the richness and diversity of the European cultures'.[12] The central organising principle for cultural policies has shifted from a monolithic conception of history and culture to a notion of plurality, indicating that the European narrative has adapted to its expanding demographic. Indeed, the MEDIA Plus programme aims to improve the competitiveness of the European audiovisual sector through the creation of a varied market catering to consumers' demand for choice rather than homogeneity. MEDIA Plus now aims to preserve 'European audiovisual heritage' through the digitisation of films and the establishment of networks, suggesting increased public access to archival material, once notoriously difficult to permit.[13] |
| 14 | According to the EU Commissioner for Education and Culture, Viviane Reding, the principle of democracy is a valuable one to lead by in the audiovisual sector. Democracy ensures that producers are guaranteed freedom of expression[14] and that consumers are offered choices.[15] From the point of view of the European institutions, the 'democratic ideal' is reflected in the multiplicity of, and equality between, the European languages.[16] Linguistic variety is supported by MEDIA Plus in its resolution to 'support the linguistic diversity of European audiovisual and cinematographic works'.[17] This involves a commitment to offer subsidies for language translation ('dubbing, subtitling, multilingual production and international sound tracking') and to raise the level of funding from 50% to 60% for projects that are seen to 'contribute to the enhancement of European linguistic and cultural diversity'.[18] |
| 15 | Although the MEDIA programme offers support for interlingual dubbing, the European Commission favours subtitling as a method of language translation in the audiovisual domain. There are several reasons why the support of subtitling might be a sensible policy in the EU. Notions of what constitutes 'European cinema' are often predetermined by certain exhibition practices and critical discourses. In the cities especially, the practice of exhibiting subtitled foreign language films in 'art cinemas' has ensured that those European films travelling outwith their main country of production are marketed and distributed to an 'art house' audience. The place of exhibition can also determine the type of publicity a film attracts. Subsequently, the practice of subtitling can carry with it a reputation of prestige, particularly in countries like France, Germany and the U.K. where the subtitling of films and television programmes is uncommon.[19] |
| 16 | In Scandinavian countries, subtitling is usually employed for all but children's films recorded in a foreign language. In these countries, as with the 'art house' audiences, dubbed versions of films are somewhat objectionable given that the source language is obliterated and the voices of the onscreen actors are substituted. However, given the general popularity of revoiced (dubbed) films- often from Hollywood- in Germany, Spain, Italy and France, the favourability of audiences toward subtitles is surely not sufficient reason for the EU to support the practice. Indeed, the marginality of subtitled films in Europe is a more likely justification for their subsidy, especially once language difference enters debates on cultural preservation and democracy. For example, the MEDIA programme appears to allocate a similar cultural capital to language as it does to heritage in the audiovisual field. The EU recommends the reproduction on DVD of 'archival material with subtitles in the maximum number of languages of the European union'.[20] This is significant. Clearly the conservation of audiovisual material confirms its cultural value to the citizen-consumers, who are themselves varied with respect to language. But, by affirming the necessity of linguistic translation in creating a European audiovisual heritage, language itself is here regarded as an intrinsic part of cultural heritage in Europe. |
| 17 | The idea that subtitles are a more ethical mode of translation is another reason why the EU might wish to be seen to encourage subtitling. Subtitles preserve the source language rather than deny it. Not only do subtitles communicate speech, but they also communicate the position of the spectators requiring/reading subtitles as foreign and at work.[21] Subtitles question exactly who may be called foreign and in relation to whom as spectators must somehow negotiate a location for themselves in relation to the other (language) culture presented before them by listening, reading, and watching. While the ethical reputation of subtitling in Europe may be a good reason for the EU to support the practice, I would like to suggest that there is another, more practical, rationale for the EU to act in the subtitler's favour (excepting the common-sense argument that subtitling is cheap). |
| 18 | While linguistic diversity is seen to conserve the specificity of regions, enhancing the local, the learning of European foreign languages is now being promoted as essential for successful European integration because facilitating exchanges and co-operation within the single market. The EU named 2001 the European Year of Languages to instigate initiatives that would make language learning more visible and accessible. The Commission has since announced a new language policy of 'mother tongue plus two foreign languages' with the objective of making foreign language proficiency 'a basic skill for all European citizens'.[22] The special place of subtitled audiovisual material for facilitating language learning is echoed in the EU Action Plan for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity (2004-2006). The Action Plan conveys the importance of language skills for citizens wishing to develop freedom of movement and 'the entrepreneurial spirit' while reiterating the advantages offered by the Union's 'common home' in the form of the free mobility of citizens, capital and services. Language skills, it asserts, are essential for developing the competencies required 'to be effective in the global market place', particularly intercultural knowledge and awareness.[23] |
| 19 | Language learning has been described as 'a condition for cultural exchange'[24] by the EU and so has relevance for citizenship initiatives that encourage intercultural participation in European democratic life. However Euro-centric initiatives to support language difference in Europe are, they nonetheless help to sustain an image of European cultural intervention as benevolent, even altruistic. So long as Europe is seen to 'set globalisation within a moral framework anchored in solidarity and sustainable development,' European citizens' anxieties over the damaging effects of global capitalism can be a key area through which their loyalty to 'Europe' can be mobilised.[25] |
| 20 | The idea of an ethical political administration is nothing new; as Toby Miller and George Yudice explain, what Michel Foucault called 'governmentality' has long been central to the actions of Western states in the area of culture. They argue that modern capitalism's requirement for citizens 'fit to perform' expanded from the provision of health care by the nation state to include education and, by association, culture- including language regulation. While the state appears to be acting justly, in the best interests of citizens, it can foster a 'collective public subjectivity' and encourage productivity.[26] Culture and economics are, then, intertwined in the concept of 'unity in diversity'. Notions of diversity could be seen to counterbalance the potentially alienating effects of globalisation, while the concept of economic unity guarantees the viability of international capitalist enterprise and consumption. |
| Harmonised networking | |
| 21 | The idea of the network influences policy making as networks constitute the organising structure of the EU from the macro to the micro levels. Networks are established through and for processes of exchange and are an intrinsic part of globalisation, which is essentially a collection of actions involving encounters of centre/s and periphery/ies, connecting (and conflating) the local with the global. As Kevin Robins points out, 'local' need not necessarily refer to a geographical location as it is also 'a fluid and relational space, constituted only in and through its relation to the global'.[27] It is not irrelevant to envisage localities in terms of topographies, however, as what constitutes the local is often also the regional or even national in terms of European politics. |
| 22 | In European networks, cultural exchange is often conceived as a process of harmonisation, directing members of a network towards synchronising their common interests. This may happen because cultural exchange questions notions of history, heritage, language, cultural tastes and beliefs. Therefore, at times of high exchange a stabilising framework may be desired with the assumption that it will offer a common foundation for progress. 'Harmonisation' is the EU's term for preparing member states to agree on common policies including the single currency, foreign and security policy and, increasingly, educational and cultural policies. Institutional narratives have a key role to play in this process in that their visibility may encourage members of a network to integrate the narratives' messages into their own organisational discourses. |
| 23 | The introduction by the European institutions of a formalised conception of citizenship in various sorts of secondary legislation is the most obvious tactic for harmonising people's relationship to the notion of Europe.[28] For example, it has been noted that culture only became an area for attention in the EU with the introduction of the single currency.[29] The European narrative of 'unity in diversity' could be mobilised through culture and education to encourage citizens to invest in the importance of the Euro as a symbol of European integration, peace and equality, while reassuring them that the dissolution of national currencies would not entail a loss of cultural identity. |
| 24 | The EUROPA CINEMAS network, supported by the EU and the Council of Europe, was established to enable international initiatives in Europe in the field of cinema exhibition.[30] It has the objectives of increasing the programming of 'European non-national films' by establishing quotas and encouraging cinemas to create special initiatives for young audiences. 'European non-national films' are classified as being exhibited by a country that did not play the most significant role in producing them and are often, for the majority audience, in a foreign language. The EUROPA CINEMAS network was to become a major participant in Cinedays, a pan-European celebration of European films whose inception provides some evidence of efforts to harmonise the EUROPA CINEMAS network. |
| 25 | Cinedays was an initiative established by MEDIA with young audiences in mind. It was described in MEDIA reports as being 'built on partnerships- between countries, the Commission, MEDIA Desks and Antennae, TV channels, radio stations, cinemas, film institutes and festivals,' echoing the importance of networks in its publicity.[31] The EUROPA cinemas were expected to promote Cinedays for one week in 2002 (15-24 November) and a fortnight in 2003 (10-24 October). In 2002, Cinedays was also described as 'European Film Heritage Week' and had the explicit mandate 'to give the people of Europe and in particular young people, the chance to discover or rediscover masterpieces of European cinema and to become more familiar with their film culture'.[32] The 2002 event also had a contemporary twist, again linking heritage with enterprise, in that it incorporated publicity for another EU Education and Culture initiative- Netd@ys , established in 1997 as 'the multimedia bridge between education and culture'.[33] In 2002, Netd@ys had a 'theme of images' to complement the launch of Cinedays.[34] Cinedays 2003 was not advertised as a Heritage Week, but was to consolidate the focus given to film history in 2002 by 'remind[ing] Europeans of the richness of their cinema, while at the same time getting young people interested in the films, cultures and histories of their neighbours'.[35] Glossy publicity leaflets were provided for audiences at both years' events to be distributed in cinemas. Prominent in the 2003 publicity were endorsements by Viviane Reding and famous European directors. |
| 26 |
In an interview concerning the establishment of Cinedays 2002 and the appropriateness of the term 'European cinema', Jean-Michel Baer (EU Director of Audiovisual Policy & Culture) insisted that harmonisation was not a MEDIA aim. Yet he also stated that
Even without reference to Baer, I think it is clear that Cinedays is one example of an effort to harmonise the EUROPA CINEMAS network through the instigation of a project with strong 'European' and citizenship dimensions. |
| 27 | What Baer's statement reproduces are dominant EU discourses on cinema culture that support more general efforts by the Commission to encourage the mobility of skilled and supportive citizens and shift the European imaginary 'beyond the confines of the 'Nation State' to the concept of 'community'.[37] The many educational exchanges supported by the Socrates programme of the EU, such as Comenius (for schools) and Erasmus (for university students), subscribe to this notion that the intercultural (but also European) potential of Union members can be realised by promoting citizenship, foreign languages, and cultural proficiency. |
| Conclusion | |
| 28 | The new MEDIA programme, starting in 2007, will be part of the European Commission's new citizenship drive. Viviane Reding suggests the next phase of MEDIA will offer 'citizens real choice in an increasingly globalised and mono-cultural world' and thus support further democratisation of the audiovisual market.[38] The audiovisual directives and initiatives I have discussed already complement the aims of the European institutions by performing actions that value notions of artistic and social heritage, linguistic and cultural diversity and democratic citizenship. This trend is set to continue and I suspect that language and citizenship issues will become more prominent in the European audiovisual sector as the EU's cultural influence expands. Far from being contradictory, in the 'European' imaginary the concepts of unity and diversity, and heritage and democracy, are designated vocabularies for mapping out Europe's cultural borders and the civic responsibilities of those consumers supposedly contained within them. Cinemas, and subtitled films, have been offered roles in this latest European production, but it is ultimately down to the public as to whether they will appreciate the show. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Linde, Charlotte. 2001. 'Narrative in Institutions.' In eds. D. Schiffrin et al. 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford (Blackwell) (p518)
[2] I have purposefully placed Europe and European in inverted commas at intervals throughout this paper. This is in recognition of the fact that the growth in interest in so-called postcolonialist criticism (by writers such as Homi Bhabha, Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak) in European and American universities has made it difficult to justify the siphoning off of 'Europe' as a culturally or even geographically self-contained teleological reality. It is a welcome development that it is now difficult to avoid the increasingly pressing and dynamic problem of 'Europe' as an enterprise of ideological construction, performed historically by capitalist ideologues. I do not attempt a definition of 'Europe' in this paper as I believe that our relationship to the term requires defamiliarisation before we can attempt to address the question of classification.
[3] Higson, Andrew. 2000. 'The Limiting Imagination of National Cinema.' In (eds.) Mette Hjort & Scott MacKenzie 2000. Cinema and Nation. London (Routledge)
[4] European Commission. 2000. Corrigendum to Council Decision 2000/821/EC of 20 December 2000 on the implementation of a programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus- Development, Distribution and promotion) (2001-2005). Official Journal 336 30 December 2000. (Article 3b)
[5] See European Commission. 2000. Statement of Prague. Audiovisual policies and cultural diversity in an enlarged Europe. Prague 5-6 October 2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/exlern/prag-en.pdf
[6] Stråth, Bo. 2000. 'Europe as a Discourse.' In (ed.) Bo Stråth 2000. Europe and the Other and Europe as the Other. Brussels (P.I.E) (p17)
[7] European Commission. 2003. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (Draft). Official Journal of the European Communities C169 18 July 2003. (Preamble.)
[8] European Commission. 1994. Council Resolution of 5 November 1993 on the first century of the cinema. Official Journal of the European Communities C085 22 March 1994.
[9] Bellamy, Richard & Warleigh, Alex. 2001. 'The Puzzle of EU Citizenship.' In (eds.) R. Bellamy & A. Warleigh 2001. Citizenship and Governance in the European Union. London (Continuum) (p4)
[10] Edye, David. 2003. 'Attitudes towards European Union Citizenship.' In (eds.) C. Roland-Lévy & A. Ross 2003. Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Stoke on Trent (Trentham Books) (p94)
[11] European Commission. 1994
[12] European Commission. 2003. Council Resolution of 24 November 2003 on the deposit of Cinematographic Works in the European Union. Official Journal C 295. 5 December 2003
[13] European Commission. 2000. Corrigendum to Council Decision 2000/821/EC (Article 32)
[14] Reding, V. 2001. 'A new approach to the development of the audiovisual sector.' Informal meeting of Audiovisual ministers, 5 October 2001. SPEECH/01/435 http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/legis/speech_en.htm.
[15] Reding, V. 2004. 'The future of European Audiovisual policy.' Westminster Media Forum, London, 22 April 2004
[16] Genevieve Zarate in Byram, Mike. & Zarate, Genevieve. (eds.) 1997 (The Council of Europe Council for Cultural Co-operation Education Committee.) The Sociocultural and Intercultural Dimension of Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg (Council of Europe Publishing) (p7)
[17] European Commission. 2000. Corrigendum to Council Decision 2000/821/EC (Article 3)
[18] European Commission. 2000. Corrigendum to Council Decision 2000/821/EC (Annex)
[19] European Commission. 2004. Communication. Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on film heritage and the competitiveness of related industrial activities. COM (2004) 171 final. Brussels. 16 March 2004 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2004/com2004_0171en01.pdf (Article 14b)
[20] For more information on the prestige discourse surrounding subtitled films, see Danan, Martine. 1999 'Subtitling: Multiculturalism or Commodification of Culture?' In S. Tötösy de Zepetnek et al (eds) Comparative Literature Now. (Honoré Champion)
[21] This 'work' can be read positively, as a dialogic encounter with another language and its translation, or, more pessimistically, as a negative experience where subtitled films are perceived as boring or 'too much work'. However, both reactions are value judgements, and it might be useful to recognise that a person or institution articulating one of these opinions is expressing a particular taste preference.
[22] European Commission. 2003. COM(2003)449 Final. Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0449en01.pdf
[23] European Commission. 2003. Communication. Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. See also European Commission. 2002. Le Magazine Issue 17-2002 (The Fabulous Destiny of European Cinema). Luxembourg (European Communities) (p22)
[24] European Union: Culture 2000. http://europa.eu.int/com/culture/eac/culture2000/cult_2000_en.html.
[25] European Convention http://european-convention.eu.int.
[26] Miller, Toby & Yúdice, George. 2002. Cultural Policy. London (Sage) (p15)
[27] Robins, Kevin. 1991. 'Tradition and Translation: national culture in its global context.' In (eds.) John Corner & Sylvia Harvey. 1991. Enterprise and Heritage. Crosscurrents of National Culture. London (Routledge) (p35)
[28] See Warleigh, A. 2001. 'Purposeful Opportunists? EU Institutions and the Struggle over European Citizenship.' In (eds.) Richard Bellamy & Alex Warleigh 2001. Citizenship and Governance in the European Union. London (Continuum)
[29] Roland-Lévy, Christine. 2003. 'The introduction of the euro as a means to create a new feeling of territorial belonging.' In (eds.) C. Roland-Lévy & A. Ross 2003. Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Stoke on Trent (Trentham Books)
[30] For more information on the EUROPA CINEMAS network see Jäckel, Anne. 2003. European Film industries. London (BFI) and www.europa-cinemas.com
[31] UK MEDIA Desk 2003. MEDIA May 2003. (UK MEDIA Desk)
[32] UK MEDIA Desk 2002. MEDIA August 2002. (UK MEDIA Desk)
[33] European Commission. 2000. Le Magazine Issue 13-2000 (Netd@ys Europe)
[34] European Commission. 2002. Le Magazine Issue 17-2002 (The Fabulous Destiny of European Cinema). Luxembourg (European Communities)
[35] European Commission. 2003. Cinedays. European Cinema Fortnight 10-24 October 2003. Luxembourg (European Communities) (p9)
[36] Baer, Jean-Michel. 2002. Interview on Cinedays 2002. MEDIA November 2002 (UK MEDIA Desk)
[37] Council of Europe: Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC). http://www.coe.int/edc
[38] Reding, V. 2004. 'The future of European Audiovisual policy.'