Recent quality film and the future of the republic of Europe

Studies in European Cinema ISSN: 1741-1548 (Print) 2040-0594 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rseu20 Recent quality film and the future of the republic of Europe Constantin Parvulescu & Francesco Pitassio To cite this article: Constantin Parvulescu & Francesco Pitassio (2018): Recent quality film and the future of the republic of Europe, Studies in European Cinema, DOI: 10.1080/17411548.2018.1470598 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2018.1470598 Published online: 14 May 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 120 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rseu20 STUDIES IN EUROPEAN CINEMA, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2018.1470598 INTRODUCTION Recent quality ilm and the future of the republic of Europe Constantin Parvulescua and Francesco Pitassiob a Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; bDipartimento di Studi Umanistici e del Patrimonio Culturale, University of Udine, Udine, Italy his special issue provides a glimpse into the way recent European quality ilm originally participates in renegotiations of the social and political Project Europe, with its generous democratization process and transnationally shared cultural and economic goals. he stimulation of quality ilm-making has been on the political agenda of the EU for a while and followed more or less explicitly, two priorities: integration and competitiveness. Taking this stimulation into account, our goal is deinitely not limited to showing how recent European cinema serviced EU priorities as sot-power controlled art. Animated by our own belief in the European project, we aim to reveal the way ilm-makers and their public art moved forward European concerns. We also try to trace the way ilms articulate deviation and excess of and within signiication—sometimes divergent or critical of EU priorities—which not only raises awareness of various issues independent of the EU or national states agenda, but also performs the counter-ideological work of gesturing towards the misleading questions and challenges that animate the quest for political, ethical, economic and aesthetic value in current-day Europe (Žižek 2006). Examples of EU support of the irst priority—to spur European identity and integration— are initiatives such as Europa Cinemas and the Council of Europe’s Eurimages, which support production, distribution and exhibition of European quality ilm across the continent. Another example is the European Commission’s (EC) Creative Europe programme. With a 201,4-mil. budget, it describes itself as ofering “grants for project (sic) which aims to foster the safeguarding and promotion of European cultural and linguistic diversity” and which supports all aspects of ilm creative culture, from content development and international coproductions to ilm education and organization of festivals.1 EU interest in strengthening the European brand of ilmmaking in terms of both box-ofice and geo-strategic service—the second priority—is exempliied by the EC’s MEDIA program, established back in 1987 and renewed in 1995 (Jäckel 2003). Its list of goals includes the training of media professionals to generate a ‘stronger European audiovisual sector’, as well as to develop, distribute, promote and exhibit projects and ‘new technologies’, which includes support for the cinematic output of countries with lower production rates.2 Emphasis on new technologies concerns the present and future adventures of European ilm in the apparently unpredictable waters of the forthcoming European single digital market and in the real-existing and multiple global one. It expresses the EC’s worry that the industry CONTACT Constantin Parvulescu ctparvulescu@gmail.com © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 C. PARVULESCU AND F. PITASSIO lacks ‘digital skills’, a predicament that, according to the EC, negatively impacts distribution and ‘the ability of potential audiences to access audiovisual works’.3 he monitoring, analysis and evaluation of the contributions of these ilms to European interests is undertaken, for a long time now, by national and European agencies, as well as by academics in both independent and EU-sponsored research actions. Accordingly, EU bureaus such as the Directorate-General for Education and Culture deliver studies with conspicuous policy titles such as How culture and the arts can promote intercultural dialogue in the context of the migratory and refugee crises.4 Similarly, the European Film Forum, describing itself as ‘platform for a structured dialogue between policy makers and the stakeholders in the audiovisual sector’, provides the public-relations actions necessary for policy implementation on issues concerning EU policy decisions; while the European Audiovisual Observatory crunches numbers to generate evaluations of economic indicators such as ilm marketability, productivity, internal and external (non-EU) circulation and distribution, as well as recycling value in teaching activities (as heritage).5 he EU also injects signiicant amounts of money into the pockets of consulting companies (mostly from Northern Europe) for ‘strategic studies’ that deliver recommendations on increasing the political and mostly economic proitability of European audiovisual creativity. hese studies monitor artistic production as a sub-sector of “creative industries” and advance policy-making suggestions on issues referring to ilm production and distribution and emerging digital markets.6 Academics are also called upon to complement the monitoring input of the EC’s personnel, committees, partners and preferred consulting agencies. heir subcontracting mixes general interest in ‘research excellence’ and ‘frontier investigation’ targeted by European Research Council funding,7 with the more pragmatic approaches to the humanities and social sciences engendered by the corporatization of EU research culture in a variety of other Horizon 2020 programmes.8 Academics are thus sponsored to investigate the EU-relevant concerns mentioned above (integration, digitization, competitiveness, etc.) through funding schemes that understand ilm as: (i) dispositif of European integration and democratic empowerment; and (ii) a sector of Europe’s ‘creative industries’, which, similar to a study of the human genome or qubits, is sponsored to generate inancial and geostrategic surplus value. In this sense, a topic that the EU successfully subcontracts to the academia and that services both these two pragmatic expectations is media literacy. As a multidisciplinary topic with high outreach potential, media literacy attracts the interest of ilm scholars because it exploits their cine- and mediaphilia, passion for teaching, media theory expertise and legitimate concern with existing deiciencies in the functioning of the European audiovisual and digital public sphere and its capacity to generate vigorous bottom-up critique of power. he EC’s prioritization of media literacy has culminated in its recent launch of a ‘pilot project’ bearing an apparently tautological heading Media Literacy for All – tautological because, habitually, literacy is expected to be for all.9 Arguments highlighting the pilot’s timeliness include ‘increasing citizens’ ability to think critically about content they receive through social [… and] traditional media’, and references to issues of European security such as the proliferation of fake news and civic echo chambers. he economic concern of the EU is not so clearly spelled out in the presentation of the pilot, but is revealed by the framing of the initiative in the broader efort to prepare European media and its consumers for the European digital single market. STUDIES IN EUROPEAN CINEMA 3 Another EU prioritized topic that attracts academic brainpower is European ilm heritage. Funding for it peaks in 2018, which has been declared European Year of Cultural Heritage. EU documents exploit heritage similarly to literacy and symptomatically of the post-political paradigm of contemporary capitalism and its substitution of idea- and changedriven politics with re-examinations of the past. As such, in relation to integration, heritage is valued as a tool to ‘reinforce a sense of belonging to a common European space’, while the economic interest in harnessing its creative potential is revealed by the choice of the action’s post-historical slogan: ‘Our heritage: where the past meets the future’.10 As EC publications put it, ilm heritage is worth looking ater because ‘cinematographic (sic) works provide a comprehensive record of the richness of Europe’s cultural identities’, while the ‘exploitation of ilm heritage can contribute to the competitiveness of European ilm industry and to the implementation of the Digital Single Market’.11 Funding for more independently articulated academic studies has also been supported mostly within the range of EU’s two priorities (political and economic); however, much more limited. Under the ERC funding scheme, the only recently awarded grant in ilm studies is presented on EU platforms as a research project that aims to contribute to the use of ilm heritage to increase European “competitiveness” on digital markets. Under another funding scheme, the HERA program, which gives some money to consistently underfunded humanities projects under other schemes (dominated by the more useful hard and social sciences), the EC has sponsored two actions that it both the creative industry paradigm as well as EU’s concern with integration and public dialogue deicit.12 While these projects are insightful and their beneiciaries outstanding scholars, one has the impression that independent scholarship is somehow forced to comply with the priorities that EC policies design for it. To put it in more radical terms, research programs provide applicants with the impression that funding is subject to acting as a mouthpiece for the priorities which politics and EU bureaucracy established for diferent reasons. Despite lack of cash incentives from the EU, ilm and media scholars have independently developed research projects that address European ilm’s participation in debates about European integration, democracy, quality of life, exploitation, gender discrimination, and other socially relevant topics not necessary on the EU agenda. hey were spurred, we assume, not by the desire to please EU leadership, but by their authors’ genuine passion for the European Project or at least for its cinematic creativity. Even though recent political developments since the inancial crisis of 2008 seem to question, counter, or inherently jeopardize the European project, within our ield of studies, books (Mazierska 2011, 2015; Halle 2014; Ravetto-Biagioli 2017), collections (Engeleen and Van Heuckelom 2013; Gott and Herzog 2015; Harrod, Liz, and Timoshkina 2015; Mazierska, Kristensen, and Näripea 2014; Ostrowska, Pitassio, and Varga 2017; Parvulescu and Turcus 2018; Szczepanik and Vonderau 2013), and many articles are devoted to European cinema and testify to a sincere engagement with a shared European identity and endeavour. In this abundant publication landscape, the task of articulating a distinct and independent message on European cinema, as we try to do in this special issue, represents a challenge. Fortunately, some variables deining the ield of European ilm studies are on our side. One of them is time. Our special issue focuses on recent European ilms (by which we mean of this century). European ilm-makers keep academics busy, as the number of ilms made or co-made in Europe has steadily risen in the last decade (by 47%, with 20,000 ilms made since 2007 and 2,124 made only in 2016).13 Another time-related variable that informs 4 C. PARVULESCU AND F. PITASSIO the ield is the rapidly changing economic and political context and the challenges for Europe that this context generates and to which ilms are increasingly faster to respond. he expectation that cinematic arts and their research address some of these challenges is acknowledged in EU documents and in the rationales of its funding. hey refer to the migrant crisis, online disinformation, nationalism, populism, Islamist terrorism, disempowered public dialogue, gender discrimination, as well as various aspects of working through violent pasts, relected for example in the recent generous funding for projects dealing with the memory of the World War. he contributions we are thrilled to line up here address some of these challenges as well as others, relecting on the shortcomings and solutions involving European citizens, their representatives and communities overall, as ilms describe them. To summarize, contributions to this issue tackle the way European narratives and imaginaries deal with controversies. Films seek contradictions or more frequently, as a hallmark of European quality ilm, they revolve around them and refuse to solve aporias within and through their narratives. While open endings are distinctive of modernist cinema, which European ilm production invented and openly embraced since the end of WW2 (Kovács 2007), when dealing with questions relating public and private spheres they are also performing a political function: they extend raised issues beyond the boundaries of individual texts. If we are to showcase one of the trademarks of contemporary European quality ilm, it is probably its close connection between an auteur-based artwork and individual or collective dilemmas (Schrader 1972; Elsaesser 2005). If we briely glance at the last two ilms awarded with the European Film Award, i.e. Toni Erdmann (Maren Ade, 2016) and he Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017), both ilms that the representatives of the European ilm professional community acknowledged as relecting at best European cinematic identity, we cannot underestimate the fact that they place at the heart of their stories tightly connected individual and collective issues. he former associates hegemonic turbo-capitalism predating on national communities and economies with the destruction of the private sphere, weakening of family bonds and solitude. he latter engages contradictions underpinning cultural initiatives between declaredly inclusive values and the need to generate proit on the cultural goods’ market, and accordingly exploit underprivileged classes as scapegoats for aluent, socially conscious and cultivated individuals. Both ilms tap into European contradictions by style-driven storytelling and morally opaque characters, and both ilms are open-ended and avoid moral closure. Both did fairly well at the box-oice, at home and abroad, proving that European quality ilm and its stylistic and thematic options ind their place under the sun within the European audiovisual market. Some articles in this issue indicate challenges that EU documents refer to. One such challenge is the representation of controversial issues of the past. hrough a historical inquiry, Malte Hagener explores the way German cinema shaped the public sphere and representations of migration. By selecting various moments in the development of German ilm, Hagener gestures toward the diiculties it experienced when portraying the national and ethnic Other until the recent wave of German diasporic cinema, which scholars discussed at length (e.g. Berghahn-Sternberg 2010). his development also testiies to the resigniication of migration. While ilms invest migration with traumatic meanings insofar as they refer to Germans themselves, they reframe their approach when it concerns ethnic others, as is the case with exiles under Nazism or 1960s migrants from Turkey and Southern Europe. European traumatic past, as read through gender diference lies at the core of Aida Vidan’s STUDIES IN EUROPEAN CINEMA 5 contribution. Vidan examines how women ilmmakers make a diference in rendering a controversial and brutal past—the Balkan wars and war rape—in ilms such as Esma’s Secret (Grbavica, Jasmila Žbanić, 2006), Children of Sarajevo (Djeca Sarajeva, Aida Begić, 2012), You Carry Me (Ti mene nosiš, Ivona Juka, 2015), Quit Staring at My Plate (Ne gledaj mi u pijat, Hana Jušić 2016), and A Good Wife (Dobra žena, Mirjana Karanović 2016). By relying on a phenomenological approach, in line with the scholarship of Vivian Sobchack and Laura Marks, Vidan enhances the close connection between cinematic body, haptic representation and ethics. Despite diferent national origins, all these South Slavic ilmmakers carry into their ilms a corporeal sensibility which deconstructs one-sided narratives, reframes patriarchal visions of the nation, and make room for new meanings of European ilm and identity. Among urgent European issues, we also think of the gap between egalitarian discourse, as a non-negotiable European value inherited from the Enlightenment and the permanence of major class divides. With the eye on this European contradiction, Hila Shachar closely scrutinizes Blue Is the Warmest Colour (Vie d’Adèle. Chapitres 1 & 2, Abdelatif Kechiche, 2013), which gained a Palme d’or at the Cannes Film Festival. Rather than discussing the ilm in terms of gender representation and same-sex love, as most of the ilm’s reviewers and scholars did, Shachar reframes this debate in terms of class. By drawing attention on visual style and storytelling, Shachar indicates the contradiction upon which the ilm elaborates at length: that between gender and sexual politics as European civil rights envision them, as well as access to these rights for the underprivileged. Another pressing issue, indeed, is new nationalism, in particular as a response to and Doppelgänger of the EU’s rising neoliberal mindset, and its rule by a techno-bureaucracy incapable of generating original political solutions and defending itself against lobbyists. Luis Saenz Erkiaga contributes to this debate with a close reading of he Hunt (Jagten, homas Vinterberg, 2012). According to Saenz Erkiaga, he Hunt disassembles self-reassuring representations of the nation, as rising nationalisms circulate them in Denmark and elsewhere. By scrutinizing cinematic constructions of space, characters’ interrelation and narratives, as well as by reading them against the grid of new nationalism and Danish cultural history, the author reveals Vinterberg’s contribution, as renowned quality ilmmaker, to the critique of increasingly combative nationalist politics in Europe. If we move from national imaginaries and their deconstruction to transnational contradictions, we reach the topics of inner discrimination and information asymmetries within the EU, including the perpetuation of the Schengen system. Michael Gott’s article addresses these discrepancies. Gott focuses on what he terms ‘airport cinema’, i.e. ilms whose plots take place in airports, and highlights how rigid national frames of interpellation as well as shiting identities coexist in these hybrid spaces. Whereas EU treaties and political discourse herald a Europe without borders and contemporary tourism and low-cost companies provide citizens with transnational mobility, ‘airport cinema’ acutely diagnoses the permanence of various walls and barriers hindering circulation across the continent and exposing individuals to rigid identiication practices, disrespectful of humanitarian ethics. his shows that European quality ilm provides an important public service function as it recurrently generates relections on the continent’s pitfalls and dilemmas. Since they are relections that the EU fosters and supports, either directly or indirectly, they act as indicators of the way European citizens and their communities, who pay the bill, deine crucial issues, tackle unsolved problems, and design collective solutions. Film commentary on the future of the republic of Europe is part of this public service, which is increasingly insuiciently 6 C. PARVULESCU AND F. PITASSIO performed by public broadcasting, as studies of European media show (Iosiidis 2010). his creates a niche for European quality ilm, which can draw attention to or even redeine European challenges. his niche also becomes indicative of the speciicity of quality ilm today, shiting expectations of value from the realm of the aesthetic towards the realm of the social and political. Furthermore, the public service of cinema afects the way reception is performed—turning movie theatres and ilm festivals into sites of awareness-raising on European and global economic and political concerns. Perhaps more than ever before since its invention, quality European ilm and its reception have become barometers of Europe’s political imaginary and sites of relection on the ideological production of social life. All the more so, they comment on how collective memories process events; challenge the ideological limits of the imaginable; provide a better sense of what is socially desirable, humanly enriching, ethically justiiable, intellectually inspiring and politically recommendable; and build transnational communities of concern. In their contribution, Valeria Camporesi and Jara Fernández Meneses approach cinema within this framework. hey situate the contemporary Spanish thriller at the crossroads of recent political and industrial changes. hey consider the rise of the Indignad@s movement, public policies fostering quality genre cinema and the creation of new production companies, as well as a recent drive to examine, in Spain, the foundation of the country’s democracy and its roots in dictatorship and civil war. By focusing on the widely praised work of director Alberto Rodríguez and his Atípica Film company, Camporesi and Fernández Meneses demonstrate how quality cinema is the result of changing attitudes toward genre ilm, institutional policies and a shared concern with the past and the historical experience determining contemporary communities. In their view, Rodríguez’s political thrillers respond to the calls of European and national programs, such as the aforementioned MEDIA, to deliver not only quality but also economically competitive and carefully scripted products. Camporesi and Fernández Meneses make the transition to another group of contributions to this special issue that examines contemporary European quality ilm in relation to production, distribution and exhibition policies. One object of such policies is the economic and technological infrastructure provided by transnational productions. In her contribution, Lydia Papadymitriou shows how transnationalism deines recent Greek post-2008 production. Moving beyond a merely aesthetic appreciation of ‘Greek Weird Wave’ ilms, which recently attracted critical acclaim, the author enlightens how this production strategy has becomes the obvious choice for a national ilm industry facing inancial crisis-induced cuts in institutional support. Papadymitriou claims that the work of ilmmakers such as Panos H. Koutras, Yannis Economides, Alexis Alexious, or Panos Karkavenatos does not simply stand as an example of successful absorption of European funding. It rather shows that reliance on EU funding responds to a growing need in ilmmaking to address foreign counterparts for carrying out successful projects. his procedure afects not only a national production culture, but also ilm content, storytelling and visuals. If we agree with Szczepanik and Vonderau (2013) that what tells apart European media production culture from Hollywood and major Asian industries is protective national policies and funding schemes, as well as the support of public service broadcasting, Papadymitriou’s article relects on what happens when inancial crisis jeopardizes the nation as a self-standing entity, its cultural policies and broadcasting system, suggesting that the Greek crisis-driven move beyond national support has had various positive and exemplary efects. STUDIES IN EUROPEAN CINEMA 7 A suitable case for discussing European ilm support strategies, as EU organisms so far fostered and promoted them, is the Lux Prize. he article of Stefano Baschiera and Francesco Di Chiara surveys it in detail. he award, which the European Parliament created in 2007, conlates artistic concerns with the political values which supranational EU policy advocates. Accordingly, it is bestowed on ilms with artistic merits in the spirit of the European art-house legacy, as well as on ilms that inspiringly address the issues that the European Parliament believe to be part and parcel of European moral, social, and communitarian values. However, the Lux Prize does not directly support productions, but rather contributes to their circulation. Which is a telling sign for the dominant notion of EU power as it acts today: setting values and rules, may these be cultural or social, and designing a common space for their manifestation. However, recent populist movements and political turmoil ravaging most of the national elections across Europe prompt many observers to think that this might not suice to substantiate and consolidate European identity. his is also why we use the term republic (of Europe). We aim to draw attention to the fact that Europe is or should be primarily an ethical and political project, a framework that allows for the enlightening, empowering and happy development of its citizens, and is not just a market or an economic and political superpower. Emphasizing the political and that the political is in the making as a continuous project shows also that our work as ilm scholars does not stop with a new publication relecting on the dialogue between cinema and this republic. Both shows—the political and its representation—must go on, and, as such, ilm content and style, as well as its programming, promotion and reception can trigger future analyses in this ield that address the way contemporary European cinema acts as civic instrument that raises awareness of the shortcomings of the European project and generates insights and progressive responses to real-life challenges facing it. he list of such challenges is long and perhaps necessarily endless. It will make future research investigate ilms with an eye that is more attentive to the way ilm culture reacts to new forms of human disenfranchisement and exploitation, as well as to particular issues that face the unity, security, well-being, and happiness of all Europeans: inner-European class and equal opportunity issues; unemployment; west-east and north-south discrepancies; marketization of life; high-level corruption; the crumbling of the embedded liberalism of the cold war era; the worth of the family and human procreation; and the political-economic origins of anxiety, suicide, and violent crime. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. https://w w w.welcomeurope.com/european-funds/creative-europe-808+708. html#tab=onglet_details http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/media/index_en.php https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/audiovisual-policies_en https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4943e7fc-316e-11e7-941201aa75ed71a1/language-en https://www.obs.coe.int/en/web/observatoire/industry/ilm https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/01c92f2a-45ad-11e7-aea801aa75ed71a1 https://erc.europa.eu/ For example, on such call that integrated ilm and media scholars formulated the following research hypothesis: ‘better understanding of Europe's cultural and social diversity and of its past will inform the relection about present problems and help to ind solutions for shaping 8 C. PARVULESCU AND F. PITASSIO 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Europe's future’. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/europechanging-world-inclusive-innovative-and-relective-societies he tautology is probably meant to highlight the Commission's democratic commitment, see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-proposals-pilot-project-medialiteracy-all https://europa.eu/cultural-heritage/about_en. See also note 9. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ilm-heritage http://heranet.info/funded-projects Film production in Europe – Production volume, co-production and worldwide circulation a publication of the European Audiovisual Observatory. https://www.obs.coe.int/en/web/ observatoire/home/-/asset_publisher/9iKCxBYgiO6S/content/ilm-production-boomingin-europe-up-by-47-over-the-last-10-years Disclosure statement No potential conlict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Constantin Parvulescu writes on the political cinema Europe, the audiovisual representation of inancial services, and ilm and history. He recently co-edited a special issue of Studies in Eastern European Cinema (2018) titled ‘Europeanization in East-Central European Fiction Film (1980–2000)’. He is also the editor of Global Finance on Screen: From Wall Street to Side Street (Routledge, 2017) and co-editor of A Companion to the Historical Film (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013/2015), as well as author of Orphans of the East: Postwar Eastern European Cinema and the Revolutionary Subject (Indiana University Press, 2015). Presently, he is research fellow at the Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra, Spain and guest lecturer at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland. Francesco Pitassio is an associate professor of Film Studies at the University of Udine. His research interests are ilm theory, ilm acting and stardom, Italian ilm history and culture, documentary cinema, Central-Eastern European cinema.He is part of the editorial board of NECSUS-European Journal of Media Studies, and of the steering committee of NECS. He edited with Leonardo Quaresima Multiple-language Versions (2005), with Tim Bergfelder and Vinzenz Hediger he Geopolitics of Cinema and the Study of Film (2013), and with Dorota Ostrowska and Zsuzsanna Varga Popular Cinemas in East Central Europe. Film Cultures and Histories (2017). Among his books are Ombre silenziose. Teoria dell’attore cinematograico negli anni Venti (2002), Maschere e marionette. Il cinema ceco e dintorni (2002), Attore/Divo (2003), and Il cinema neorealista (with Paolo Noto, 2010). Webpage: https://people.uniud.it/page/francesco.pitassio https://uniud.academia.edu/FrancescoPitassio References Berghahn, Daniela, and Claudia Sternberg,eds. 2010. European Cinema in Motion. Migrant and Diasporic Cinema in Contemporary Europe. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Elsaesser, homas. 2005. European Cinema Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Engelen, Leen, and Kris Van Heuckelom, eds. 2013. European Cinema ater the Wall: Screening EastWest Mobility. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Gott, Michael, and Todd Herzog, eds. 2015. East, West and Centre: Reframing post-1989 European Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. STUDIES IN EUROPEAN CINEMA 9 Halle, Randall. 2014. he Europeanization of Cinema: Interzones and Imaginative Communities. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Harrod, Mary, Mariana Liz, and Alissa Timoshkina, eds. 2015. he Europeanness of European Cinema: Identity, Meaning, Globalization. London: I.B. Tauris. Iosiidis, Petros, ed. 2010. Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and Beyond. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jäckel, Anne. 2003. European Film Industries. London: BFI. Kovács, András Bálint. 2007. Screening Modernism. European Art Cinema. London: University of Chicago Press. Mazierska, Ewa. 2011. European Cinema and Intertextuality: History, Memory and Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mazierska, Ewa. 2015. From Self-Fulillment to Survival of the Fittest. Work in European Cinemas from 1960s to the Present. Oxford: Berghahn. Mazierska, Ewa, Lars Kristensen, and Eva Näripea, eds. 2014. Postcolonial Approaches to Eastern European Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris. Ostrowska, Dorota, Francesco Pitassio, and Zsuzsanna Varga, eds. 2017. Popular Cinemas in East Central Europe. Film Cultures and Histories. London: I.B. Tauris. Parvulescu, Constantin, and Claudiu Turcus, eds. 2018. Europeanization in East-Central European Fiction Film (1980-2000). Special issue of Studies in Eastern European Cinema 9: 1 Ravetto-Biagioli, Kriss. 2017. Mythopoetic Cinema: On the Ruins of European Identity. New York: Columbia University Press. Schrader, Paul. 1972. Transcendental Style in Film: Dreyer, Ozu, Bresson. Berkeley: University of California Press. Szczepanik, Petr, and Patrick Vonderau. 2013. “Introduction”. In Behind the Screen. Inside European Production Cultures, edited by Petr Szczepanik and Patrick Vonderau, 1–9. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Žižek, Slavoj. 2006. Philosophy, he ‘Unknown Knowns’, and the Public Use of Reason. Topoi 25: 137–142.