What is the MEDICI training programme and what is its relevance for decision-makers in European film?

Edith Sepp: MEDICI is a rather unique programme because it brings together the people who make decisions about public film funding. We carry an enormous responsibility, not only for the future of our film industries, but also for the future of our film cultures. The pressure is enormous. And very often, we carry that responsibility alone.

For me, MEDICI’s value is that it gives us the opportunity to look beyond our everyday rush. European countries have very different film cultures, funding structures and political realities, but we do face many of the same challenges.

In everyday life, we spend a great deal of time discussing how to finance films, aiming for festivals and trophies, but we spend much less time asking whether our funding systems are still responding to the realities of the industry and changing audience behaviour.

MEDICI creates a safe space where decision-makers can question established practices, learn from one another and, hopefully, return home ready to change something.

We cannot expect European cinema to respond to change if the institutions supporting it are not prepared to evolve themselves. And I am afraid this is today’s world – one of turbulence and constant change. 

Why did this session take place in Estonia and why is it important for Estonia to host MEDICI?

Edith Sepp: Estonia is a small country with a small film industry, but that does not mean we should have a small voice in European film policy making. Actually, quite the opposite.

Small countries often understand particularly well why public support for film matters. For us, cinema is not only an industry. It is also about language, culture, identity and our ability to tell our own stories.

At the same time, we are part of a much larger European film ecosystem. Our future depends on co-production and the ability of our films to travel beyond national borders.

Hosting an event like this is important because it brings European decision-makers to Estonia and gives them a better understanding of our film industry.
But it is about much more than that. We took our guests to the Arvo Pärt Centre to experience his music, and the impact was extraordinary. It is rare to see people so deeply moved, some with tears in their eyes, simply listening to music. It was a profoundly humbling experience, especially as we had just been discussing the future
of European cinema.
It was a beautiful reminder of why we do what we do. Beyond funding systems, policies and institutions, there is art, and its extraordinary power to move us and connect us.

I have always believed that Estonia should not simply follow developments in Europe, but should be at the table where ideas are developed and decisions are shaped, while keeping film as an art form at the heart of it all.

Why was the focus on the circulation of European films and audience engagement?

Edith Sepp: This is one of the most important questions facing European cinema today.

We have spent decades developing sophisticated systems for supporting film production and we have achieved a great deal. European independent producers are making an extraordinary diversity of films, telling stories in many different languages.

But producing films is only half the job. We also need to ask what impact our films have on culture, society, young people, political discourse.

What happens to films after production? Who sees them? How do they reach audiences beyond their country of origin? And how do we make sure that younger generations continue to see European cinema as something relevant to their lives?

These questions are particularly important for smaller film cultures like Estonia.

We cannot measure the success of public film policy only by the number of films produced, the amount of money invested or the jobs created. We also need to understand the cultural impact of that investment.

We know how to support films in Europe. Now we need to be equally ambitious about making sure they are seen. Today, we are not ambitious enough.

For me, circulation of films and audience engagement are not secondary questions to be addressed. They should be part of how we think about film policy from the very beginning. And I think this is a responsibility we share across Europe.

What were the takeaways that participants brought home from the programme?

Edith Sepp: The most important takeaway is that we need to rethink how we define success in public film funding.

I was particularly taken by the Swedish idea that we should not measure the success of our national cinema only through market share, especially when the amount of content available keeps growing. We should also ask whether our national films are actually attracting more audiences, and by how much. It is a rather different and refreshing way of looking at success, and one that I think deserves more attention.

Traditionally, we have measured success through production volumes, festival selections, awards, admissions and economic results. All of these remain important. But they do not necessarily tell us enough about the artistic, cultural and social impact of the films we support. One of the interesting questions at MEDICI was how we can better understand that impact and use it when developing future funding policies.

Another important point is that reaching audiences cannot be the responsibility of distributors and exhibitors alone. Film funds, festivals, producers and policymakers all have a role to play.

And we need better cooperation and greater willingness to experiment. I would also emphasise something that is perhaps less tangible but equally valuable. When people responsible for national film policies spend several days together, they begin to understand one another's challenges differently. These conversations build trust at the highest level, and trust is essential for European cooperation.

I hope people went home not only with new ideas, but also with a few uncomfortable questions about their own funding systems, eager to make those systems work better for their filmmakers.

Are we going to see more summits of European film decision-makers in Estonia in the future, and what does this say about Estonia's place in Europe?

But I would like us to think beyond individual events.

Europe is entering a complicated period - public funding is under pressure, competition for audiences is increasing, the political environment is becoming totally unpredictable.

We need stronger European cooperation, not only between filmmakers, but also between the institutions responsible for policies. We need more dialogue.

I believe Estonia has something valuable to contribute - we are very much connected to European decision-making networks, we have extensive experience in Euroepan film policies and I personally would like us to use that position more actively. 

Estonia does not need to be one of Europe's largest film countries to be one of the places where the future of European film is discussed.