10.54103/2036-461X/22436
application/pdf
2036-461X
22436
41
en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
European Cinema
Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum? Reflections on European Cinema in Digital Times
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
23
Introduction
2024-04-05
2024-02-01
2024-04-05
2024-04-05
9-20
Cinéma & Cie
Andrea Miconi
2023
10.54103/2036-461X/22436
9
IULM University, Milan
2036-461X
41
European Cinema
en
20
Vlassis, Antonios. 2021. “European Union and Online Platforms in Global Audiovisual Politics and Economy: Once Upon a Time in America?” International Communication Gazette 83 (6): 593–615.
Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum? Reflections on European Cinema in Digital Times
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/22436/20355
23
                                                                                       Quo Vadis,
                                                                                       Cinema Europaeum?
                                                                                       Reflections on European
                                                                                       Cinema in Digital Times
                                                                                       Daniel Biltereyst, Ghent University
                                                                                       Elena Gipponi, IULM University, Milan
                                                                                       Andrea Miconi, IULM University, Milan



                                                                                         On 24 November 2023, Ridley Scott’s Napoleon premiered in Paris at the                               Keywords
                                                                                       prestigious Salle Pleyel concert hall [Fig. 1]. “Where else could you begin the                 European Cinema
                                                                                       worldwide rollout of Napoleon than France?”, Sony’s motion picture group’s                   Streaming Platforms
                                                                                       chairman and CEO Tom Rothman said on the red carpet, adding that this                   Global Cinema Landscape
                                                                                                                                                                              Digital Audiovisual Policies
                                                                                       grandiose Hollywood biopic on the French emperor “is a big screen experience,
                                                                                                                                                                              Hollywood vs Europe Trope
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License




                                                                                       […] it’s epic and it’s large and it’s robust and it wants to play on a big screen”
                                                                                                                                                                                                      DOI
                                                                                       (Keslassy 2023). During the event, British director Ridley Scott thanked Apple                     https://doi.
                                                                                       Studios, which covered most of the movie’s production budget, estimated at                 org/10.54103/2036-
                                                                                       $200 million. For its worldwide distribution, Apple Inc.’s subsidiary film and                     461X/22436
                                                                                       television company (that was launched only in October 2019) partnered with
                                                                                       Sony Pictures, which released Napoleon under its Columbia Pictures banner.
                                                                                       Though Scott’s epic received mixed reviews, it quickly became one of the
                                                                                       season’s biggest box-office hits, after which it will be streamed globally via
                                                                                       Apple TV+. Due to France’s strict windowing rules, however, Apple Studios will
                                                                                       have to wait 17 months to release the film there.
                                                                                         Looking back on Napoleon’s world premiere in Paris and its global success, it
                                                                                       is difficult not to see the historical reference to, as well as the similarities and
                                                                                       differences with Abel Gance’s Napoléon (1927) [Fig. 2]. Like Scott’s film some
                                                                                       hundred years earlier, Gance’s mythic epic was launched not just as a film, but
                                                                                       rather as a major cultural event at the Paris opera at the Palais Garnier. At the
                                                                                       time, the French Napoléon was a megalomaniacal project, with Gance intending           Fig. 1 (next page)
                                                                                                                                                                              The global premiere of
                                                                                       to make several films about the life of the French emperor. The first film, which      Ridley Scott’s Napoleon
                                                                                       premiered on 7 April 1927, was a groundbreaking picture full of technological          on 24 November 2023 at
                                                                                       innovations, artistic experiments and complex storytelling, marking a departure        the Salle Pleyel in Paris.
                                                                                                                                                                              Source: https://
                                                                                       from traditional filmmaking (Cuff 2016). However, Gance’s Napoléon was also            www.reddit.com/r/
                                                                                       one of the most legendary failures in film history, due to financial constraints       joaquinphoenix/
                                                                                       and the difficulties of distributing and exhibiting an epic film that originally ran   comments/17vbhqk/
                                                                                                                                                                              vanessa_kirby_
                                                                                       over five hours.                                                                       ridley_scott_joaquin_
                                                                                         In contrast to Gance’s sophisticated narrative, Scott’s Napoleon was a               phoenix_attend/.



                                                                                       Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                               9
10   Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
mainstream Hollywood biopic, with an emphasis on spectacle, high production         Fig. 2.
                                                                                    Screening of Abel Gance’s
values, grand-scale sets, and the use of star power in order to attract large
                                                                                    Napoléon on May 1927 at
audiences. In Europe the film was heavily criticized, especially in France, where   the Apollo Cinema, with
Napoleon was perceived as a “very anti-French” caricatural portrayal of             a reduced length and
                                                                                    without triptych.
one of the most complex and influential historical figures in modern history        Source: https://www.
(Lorrain 2023). Scott didn’t care much for historical accuracy neither, offering,   cinematheque.fr/
according to the American Foreign Policy, a “lukewarm mélange of battle scenes      article/662.html.

and romantic vignettes” (Gady 2023). The film was also accused of cultural
appropriation, or the feeling that another culture is being disrespectfully
represented, with French film critic Yal Sadat of Cahiers du cinéma arguing that
“there is a sense of cultural superiority” about the movie, adding that there is
the “idea that we still need big Hollywood to tell us our history” (Roxborough
2023). Sadat’s bold statement on the state of European cinema and its inability
to attract large audiences echoed what French historian Pierre Sorlin already
wrote in his European Cinemas, European Societies 1939–1990, namely that “we
Europeans create and imagine the world through Hollywood’s lenses” (1991, 1).
  A central question running through this thematic issue on recent trends
in European cinema—a result of research done in the context of the Horizon
2020 framework: project “EUMEPLAT – European Media Platforms: Assessing
Positive and Negative Externalities for European Culture”—is whether we should


Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                      11
     subscribe to this pessimistic analysis. How has the US filmed entertainment
     industry succeeded in expanding its hegemony? Are US streamers, such as
     Netflix, now setting the standard, and what are the consequences for European
     cinema? Is it beneficial to respond to, or challenge, this hegemony? Should we
     not strive to overcome the antagonism between Hollywood and Europe, and
     acknowledge European cinema’s marginalized position while fully recognizing
     the richness of its hybrid and hyphenated identities? Other related questions in
     this issues deal with how European filmmakers and cultural institutions envision
     new realities and redefine socio-economic and cultural boundaries within and
     beyond Europe? What narratives does European cinema construct about the
     old continent, about inclusion and diversity, or about issues such as poverty,
     precarity, migration, and other pressing concerns? How do films navigate
     across borders? What is the role of language, and should European filmmakers
     consider moving away from Europe’s multilingualism to embrace English, the
     cinematic lingua franca? Are European co-productions viable strategies for
     overcoming cultural, linguistic, and other obstacles?



     OTHERNESS, NEW MARGINALITY
     AND OTHER TROPES
       Asked about how he looks at the state of cinema today, Paul Schrader
     recently argued in a candid interview with Le Monde that streaming platforms
     have become “the heart of the industry”, relegating theatrical releases to the
     status of a “niche, like opera” (“Paul Schrader, cinéaste” 2023). According to the
     esteemed American filmmaker and scriptwriter, US streaming giants such as
     Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ now “lead the dance”. In a relatively
     short time, they have been adopting, like Apple TV+ with Napoleon, a “hybrid
     model” wherein premiering in cinemas only serves as a crucial linchpin in
     determining the film’s subsequent trajectory for exploitation and marketability
     across an array of distribution channels, notably streaming.
       It appears that in this ever-evolving landscape each part of the chain,
     from production and the creative process of filmmaking to consumption and
     cinephile practices, has undergone a comprehensive transformation, so that
     cinema has become a niche, and films serve as a means to lead audiences to
     streaming platforms’ catalogues. Over the past decade, the influence of the
     streamers has been so transformative that numerous questions arise, not only
     about the current status of cinema and film but also, when viewed from Europe,
     about European cinema’s identity, its fragility, marginality, even periphery, and
     ultimately the state of its audiovisual industry.
       Besides more general discussions on the re-emergence of the “death of
     cinema” trope and the ambiguities linked to post-cinema in digital times (Denson
     and Leyda 2016), this special issue connects to more specific themes and tropes
     in the field of research and criticism on European cinema that took full shape



12                          Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
since the end of the 1980s. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with the growing
European integration process and intensified support policies for Europe’s
audiovisual industry (e.g., the launch of the Council of Europe’s Eurimages and
the European Union’s MEDIA Programme), a more consolidated field of research
emerged that went beyond the traditional focus on national cinema traditions in
Europe (for an overview of the literature, see, amongst others, Bergfelder 2005;
Meir 2019, 7–12).
   A key theme in this field is European cinema’s relation with Hollywood, with
the “Hollywood versus Europe” trope going back to the interwar period (Maltby
and Higson 1999) and reaching a highpoint in postwar framings of European
cinema as associated with art, modernism, authorship, critical prestige, and
social engagement. This antagonism, which was conceptualized by Elsaesser
(1994; 2005, 43) as a “founding myth” of film studies as a discipline, resulted
in European cinema often being “cast as the ‘good’ object, by comparison
with Hollywood” (2019, 1). It referred to the time when European cinema was
conceived as the epitome of modern art cinema, as reflected in the famous
Don DeLillo quote where the American writer in an interview for The New York
Times (May 19, 1991) said: “I think more than writers, the major influences on
me have been European movies, and jazz and Abstract Expressionism”.
   This trope of European cinema as the significant alternative “Other” for
Hollywood was evidently a skewed framing of film traditions on the old continent.
Firstly, it overlooked the fact that art cinema wasn’t always successful, neglecting
the rich traditions of national cinemas (Higson 1989), as well as of popular
filmmaking, often intertwined with distinct national and regional expressions
of stardom, genres and storytelling (Dyer and Vincendeau 1992). Secondly,
it failed to consider the more complex interrelationships and collaborations
between Hollywood and Europe, characterized by a longstanding tradition of
co-productions, or with actors, directors, and other creative personnel working
across the ocean. Similarly, as some articles in this theme issue discuss, the
trope overlooked pan-European cultural institutions, international film festivals,
co-productions, and other forms of mutuality within the European filmed
entertainment scene (Hammett-Jamart, Mitric, and Novrup Redvall 2019).
   In addition, over the last few decades, processes of globalization and the
opportunities created by digitization have profoundly transformed the global
cinema landscape. The proliferation of film production and cinema cultures in
various parts of the world has led to European cinema often being labelled in
streaming catalogues and elsewhere simply as one version of world cinema.
This “new marginalization” of Europe and its cinema (Elsaesser 2019, 7)
coincided with Hollywood’s expanding hegemony in the audiovisual field. In this
ever-changing world, where digital technologies enable major conglomerates
to compete for and monetize people’s attention and moods on a global scale,
it is interesting to note how some critical media scholars revert to old theories
about American cultural imperialism (e.g., Davis 2023). Spearheaded by Netflix,
contemporary platform imperialism refers to strategies by streamers and the
major corporations behind them to create monopolies on a transnational scale.


Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                      13
     This is mainly achieved by leveraging their economic and technological power
     and applying strategies of vertical integration of production and distribution
     centred around their platform.
        The “US imperialism” trope manifests in various forms. Alongside US streaming
     giants dominating subscription and audience reach in Europe, these platforms
     also function as major distributors of US-produced films, TV series, and original
     content. Despite European policies in the digital audiovisual economy aiming
     to promote European content through quotas and other regulations, European
     audiences now have unprecedented access to a vast library of American content.
     Audience choice is further technologically segmented, as manufacturers of
     streaming devices and smart TVs integrate dedicated buttons for Netflix,
     YouTube and/or Amazon Prime on their remote controls. The influence of major
     US platforms has additionally alienated European audiences from traditional
     linear television schedules, posing a significant challenge to European
     commercial and public service television networks and broadcasters—long-
     standing strongholds of the European audiovisual industries.
        The impact of streamers on the European audiovisual ecosystem might extend
     even further, possibly reaching its core, as suggested by a recent report on the
     streaming wars and public film funding in Europe. According to the report, owing
     to its co-production policies and the establishment of significant production hubs
     in Europe, Netflix now emerges as the largest commissioner of scripted content
     in Europe (Gubbins 2022, 3). This resulted not only in an enthusiastic buzz and
     a production boom, described by some as a “creative overload” (Mitchell 2022).
     However, as British media analyst Michael Gubbins (2022, 3) argued, it might
     also be interpreted as high-capitalist US-based multinational conglomerates
     strategically utilizing European public funds—systems that were once “partly
     created as bastions of European culture against the dominance of Hollywood”.
        Whether Hollywood studios now “have a free hand to wield the kind of
     monopolistic power of which the old Hollywood moguls could only dream”
     (Gubbins 2022, 5) remains to be seen. However, it is equally true that the
     European audiovisual sector is currently undergoing an intense “content boom”
     and that we are living in a “golden age of storytelling”, as observers continue
     to repeat. While doubts persist about the sustainability of the streamers’
     model, especially for the production of “single-off” content like feature films,
     this euphoric discourse is only partly a result of the streamers’ strategy and
     their decentralized production policies. Moreover, beyond the resilience
     demonstrated by the European film sector, it is crucial to emphasize the
     importance and robustness of European policies. Although audiovisual policies
     across Europe have been criticized for bureaucratic inefficiency and for shifting
     towards a liberal creative industries approach, they did try to impose limits on,
     and sought to mitigate prevalent capitalist norms of unregulated free trade,
     such as installing quotas (Vlassis 2021).
        This aligns with longstanding European policies that defend cultural values,
     placing a strong emphasis on cultural and language diversity. This alignment
     reflects broader discussions concerning the identity of European cinema. From



14                          Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
an external perspective, European cinema is often still perceived as a distinct
entity, characterized positively by diversity, multilingualism, government
support, and robust auteur and social realist traditions. Conversely, it is also
associated with challenges such as market fragmentation, limited budgets, and
language and cultural borders hindering cross-border circulation. This duality
reflects the idea that, from within, European cinema is not a monolithic entity;
rather, it thrives on its differences, hybridity, elasticity, and porosity. Contrasted
with the oligopolistic and highly concentrated network of “Hollywood”
conglomerates, the European audiovisual scene resembles an archipelago or
a Milky Way of companies and players varying greatly in size, shape, and color.
  In his insightful exploration of European cinema’s identity and the observation
that it is “artificially kept alive with government subsidies”, Elsaesser (2019, 7–8)
conceptualized its new marginality and “relative irrelevance” as “an opportunity
even more than seen as an occasion for nostalgia or regret”. Writing in a pre-
COVID pandemic era when the streamers’ hegemony did not yet glimmer on
the audiovisual horizon, Elsaesser emphasized that because “European films
have a special kind of freedom”, they can more freely explore new directions,
addressing urgent social issues with greater insistence.
  With streaming platforms in full swing and the illusion that the streaming
wars might benefit the European audiovisual sector, a key question arises
about the long-term viability of Europe’s cinema ecosystem. Another significant
challenge is tied to shifting political and ideological constellations. Across
Europe, there are major differences of opinion and dissenting views regarding
the role of the audiovisual sector—whether as commerce or culture. An even
more pressing challenge is posed by the electoral success of extreme right-
wing parties and their ascent to power. Will a European Union with a majority
of governments led by populist, extremist parties continue to view European
cinema as a cultural asset to be defended? Not only is there the danger of rising
nationalism or the fear of extreme right-wing factions playing out their anti-
Europe agenda and stimulating a nationalist or regional policy, but, as Hans
Kundnani argued (2023), right- and extreme-right parties tend to work well
together and are increasingly adhering to a pro-European attitude. This entails
a shift away from a cosmopolitan view of Europe with porous borders, favouring
instead “Eurowhiteness”, fixed borders, ideologies of exclusion, and an appeal
to defend a European “civilisation”. The implications of this ethnoregionalism
on a European scale for the filmed entertainment scene on the old continent
remain to be seen.



CRISIS, EXCEPTIONALITY,
UNITY IN DIVERSITY
  The first essay of this thematic issue, authored by Temenuga Trifonova,
delves into the ways filmmakers contemplate the harsh realities of poverty


Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                        15
     and precarity within European neoliberal societies. Trifonova argues that, over
     recent decades, film scholars have developed a critical vocabulary to dissect
     the cinematic portrayal of social relations. The article identifies a notable body
     of films addressing poverty and precarity across Europe, situating itself within
     the rich tradition of European social realist cinema. The emerging cinema of
     precarity (see also the book review section) is particularly intriguing for its
     nuanced exploration of the complexities inherent in Europe’s contemporary
     political, economic, and moral crisis.
        The subsequent essay shifts its focus to European film policies. In their
     contribution, Mariagrazia Fanchi and Massimo Locatelli deal with the tension
     between protectionist and liberal policies within the EU in connection to the
     cultural exception principle and theatrical release windows. Conducting a
     meticulous comparative analysis of the cinema aid systems in major Western
     European film markets, Fanchi and Locatelli pinpoint both similarities and
     notable differences in the public support for the audiovisual sector across these
     territories.
        Preserving linguistic diversity has been a focal point in Europe’s cultural
     policies. In their contribution Ann Vogel and Alan Shipman centre their focus on
     the role of language and the prevalence of English as a force in the international
     filmed entertainment market. Drawing from Abram de Swaan’s theory of the
     Global Language System, Vogel and Shipman delve into longitudinal datasets
     from UNESCO regarding national film production categorized by the language
     of the film. Asserting that the entrenched “high centrality” of English as a
     cinematic lingua franca is challenging to dismantle, Vogel and Shipman explore
     the potential of language as a tool to counteract Global Hollywood, particularly
     by championing the production and support of multilingual films and co-
     productions.
        Facilitating the internal circulation of films within Europe and endorsing
     coproductions have been central pillars of European audiovisual policies. The
     authors of the upcoming article argue that, in many instances, coproductions
     struggle to resonate with a broader audience. In their essay, Petar Mitrić and
     Tamara Kolarić deal with the intricacies of predicting the success and overall
     impact of coproductions. Focusing on Quo Vadis, Aida? (2020), a production of
     considerable complexity directed by Bosnian filmmaker Jasmila Žbanić, Mitrić
     and Kolarić present an impact-measuring model for coproductions. Employing
     a combination of interviews, audience analysis, and modelling, they endeavour
     to reflect on the concept of an “ideal” European co-production.
        In her essay, Annalisa Pellino reflects upon the role of national cultural
     institutions in debates on cinema as soft power, cinema policies and nation-
     building, and the role of cinema to enhance European identity/ies under the
     motto of “unity in diversity”. Pellino’s contribution involves a comprehensive
     analysis of film cultural policies implemented by several pivotal national
     institutes for culture, including the Institut Français, the British Council, the
     German Goethe-Institut, and the Spanish Instituto Cervantes. Despite numerous
     differences among these institutions, Pellino illuminates their intriguing role



16                          Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
in shaping a transnational European identity through the promotion of cinema
culture.
  In their dedicated essay on European cinema and the platform economy,
Valerio Coladonato, Dom Holdaway, and Arianna Vietina focus upon the impact
of platforms on the circulation of European cinema, specifically examining
popular European films on YouTube. The authors utilize various sources,
incorporating data from the European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) and
employing scraping methodologies on YouTube. Their sophisticated research
looks at the circulation of and interaction with successful European films. One
notable finding is the replication of many offline popularity patterns in the online
sphere. Key mediating factors influencing popularity continue to be linguistic
and cultural proximity, and the significance of stardom in constructing audience
engagement. Overall, the authors posit that platforms like YouTube serve as
fascinating arenas for disseminating popular European cinema.
  The concluding chapter is written by André Lange, an independent researcher,
publicist, and a significant observer of the European audiovisual landscape.
With a career spanning over two decades at the EAO, Lange is recognized for
his instrumental role in co-founding and elevating the Observatory to become
the paramount institution dedicated to collecting and analysing data about the
audiovisual industry in Europe. His insightful contribution traces the history
of institutional data collection on the filmed entertainment industry in both
the USA and Europe. Throughout the article, Lange elucidates how Hollywood
quickly grasped the strategic importance of systematic market data for the
development of export and other industrial audiovisual policies. In Europe,
the establishment of an integrated European statistical tool took considerably
longer, only coming to fruition in the 1990s with the creation of the Observatory
in Strasbourg.
  This thematic issue also features two book reviews focusing on recent
trends within European cinema. The first review explores cinema, migration,
and borderland experiences in Michael Gott’s Screen Borders: From Calais to
cinéma-monde, assessed by Massimiliano Coviello. The second review delves
into the edited volume Precarity in European Film: Depictions and Discourses,
edited by Elisa Cuter, Guido Kirsten, and Hanna Prenzel, and is examined by
Eduard Cuelenaere.
  In a world marked by a colossal “content boom” (Mitchell 2022, 3), and in an
era where “everything is changing all at once” (Koljonen 2023), reflecting on
recent developments poses a significant challenge. Altogether, this thematic
issue underlines both the obstacles and opportunities, as well as the fragility
and resilience of the European audiovisual scene. This thematic issue,
admittedly, did not comprehensively address all the significant recent trends and
challenges in Europe’s cinemascape and audiovisual industry. Considerations
span from the impact of artificial intelligence on filmmaking to the challenge
of engaging audiences and specific demographics like youngsters, the role of
cinema in matters of sustainability, the outlook for theatrical exhibition, or the
sustainability of the arthouse film model. Despite these unexplored facets, it is


Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                      17
     our hope that European cinema, although no longer cast as the great “Other”
     compared to mainstream commercial filmmaking, will continue to produce,
     distribute, and exhibit films that, as Elsaesser (2019, 3) expressed in his last
     monograph, refer “to the core philosophical principles and political values of
     European democracy, testing the appeal or traction that ideals such as liberty,
     fraternity and equality still have in today’s Europe”.




18                          Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
REFERENCE LIST
Bergfelder, Tim. 2005. “National, Transnational or Supranational Cinema? Rethinking European Film Studies.”
Media, Culture & Society 27 (3): 315–31.
Cuff, Paul. 2016. A Revolution for the Screen. Abel Gance’s Napoleon. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press.
Davis, Stuart. 2023. “What is Netflix imperialism?” Communication & Society 26 (6): 1143–58.
Denson, Shane, and Julia Leyda, eds. 2016. Post-Cinema. Falmer: REFRAME.
Dyer, Richard, and Ginette Vincendeau, eds. 1992. Popular European Cinema. London: Routledge.
Elsaesser, Thomas. 1994. “Putting on a Show: The European Art Movie.” Sight and Sound 4 (4): 22–27.
Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press.
Elsaesser, Thomas. 2019. European Cinema and Continental Philosophy: Film as Thought Experiment. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Gady, Franz-Stefan. 2023. “What Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’ Gets Wrong About War. The film’s ideas have
poisoned military thinking for centuries.” Foreign Policy, 2 December.
Gubbins, Michael. 2022. Streaming Giants and Public Film Funding. Göteborg: Film i Väst.
Hammett-Jamart, Julia, Petar Mitric, and Eva Novrup Redvall, eds. 2018. European Film and Television Co-
production. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Higson, Andrew. 1989. “The Concept of National Cinema.” Screen 30 (4): 36–47.
Keslassy, Elsa. 2023. “Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’ World Premieres in Paris with Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa
Kirby.” Variety, 14 November.
Koljonen, Johanna. 2023. Everything Changing All the Time. Göteborg: Göteborg Film Festival.
Kundnani, Hans. 2023. “A Far-right EU?” IPS, 18 July.
Lorrain, François-Guillaume. 2023. “Patrice Gueniffey: ‘“Napoléon”, c’est le film d’un Anglais… très antifrançais’.”
Le Point, 14 November.
Maltby, Richard, and Andrew Higson, eds. 1999. Film Europe and Film America. Exeter: University of Exeter
Press.
Meir, Christopher. 2019. Mass Producing European Cinema. New York-London: Bloomsbury.
Mitchell, Wendy. 2022. Creative Overload. Göteborg: Film i Väst.
“Paul Schrader, cinéaste: ‘La mort, voilà mon sujet. Et mieux vaut ne pas traîner!’” Le Monde. 29 December
2023.
Roxborough, Ralph. 2023. “Sacre Blue! European Critics Share Wrath for U.S. Actors in ‘Ferrari’ and ‘Napoleon’.”
The Hollywood Reporter, 12 December.



Cinéma & Cie vol. 23 no. 41 2023 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                             19
Sorlin, Pierre. 1991. European Cinemas, European Societies. London: Routledge.
Vlassis, Antonios. 2021. “European Union and Online Platforms in Global Audiovisual Politics and Economy:
Once Upon a Time in America?” International Communication Gazette 83 (6): 593–615.




20                                                Biltereyst, Gipponi, Miconi, Quo Vadis, Cinema Europaeum?
