Screening Literacy:

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1
 Contents

Foreword 3
1 Context 4

2 Terms of reference 7
2.1 Scope of the research 8

3 Methodology 9
3.1 Research team structure 10
3.2 Online Survey 10
3.3 Seminar on initial findings 11
3.4 Film Literacy Advisory Group 11
3.5 Supplementary Research 11

4 Main findings 12
4.1 Why film education? 13
4.2 What strategies are in place? 14
4.3 Where does film education happen? 15
4.4 Who provides film education? Who receives it? 17
4.5 What support is provided? 19
4.6 How is film education funded? 20

5 Recommendations 21
Appendix: list of survey respondents 23

Cover image: BFI Southbank, UK

RESEARCH TEAM Acknowledgements

Mark Reid, BFI The research team wish to thank a

Professor Andrew Burn, London University Institute of Education number of people for their contribution
Ian Wall, Film Education to the project:

The Steering Group at the European

Michelle Cannon
Commission MEDIA Unit: Dag
Kate Domaille
Asbjornsen, Susanne Ding, Helen
Wendy Earle
Parnham, Kjersti Sjaatil, Ilias Sotirchos,
Caren Willig
Bronagh Walton, Matteo Zacchetti

Our Experts’ Group: Vitor Reia-Batista;

Simone Moraldi; Irene Andriopoulou;
Sara Duve; and Laszlo Hartai

All of the respondents to the research

survey (listed separately in the Appendix)

Alice Guilluy and Alejandra de Leiva, our

two MA placement students
2
Screening Literacy: Film Education in Europe

Foreword
In July 2011, the European Commission
published an invitation to tender for a
European-scale Experts’ Study on film
literacy in Europe, covering all EU and EEA
nations, and asking for evidence-based
recommendations to inform policy making in
the forthcoming Creative Europe framework.
The tender was won by a consortium of UK
and wider European partners, led by the
British Film Institute. This report forms the
Executive Summary of a fuller report, to be
published in early 2013.

The Terms of Reference for the survey

included a definition of film literacy, later
amended, as follows:

‘The level of understanding of a film, the ability to be conscious and

curious in the choice of films; the competence to critically watch
a film and to analyse its content, cinematography and technical
aspects; and the ability to manipulate its language and technical
resources in creative moving image production’

The Tender specified coverage of the

formal, informal, and audio-visual
sectors in film education (but not including
Higher Education).

Our keynote throughout this research has

been a belief that core to film education
is an adaptability – across genres, national
cinemas, industrial contexts; across
platforms; across school subjects and
disciplines; and across education settings –
in the classroom, after school, and outside
school. We intend to make this adaptability
– its translatability – into its key strength, and
into a funding principle.

3
Station Next, Denmark

1
4
context
SCREENING LITERACY: CONTEXT

The context of film literacy in Europe is The ecologies of film culture are complex.
seen in this report from three perspectives: As has already been said, the various
the established practice of film educators film heritages of European countries are
across all sectors in the member states; the valued in certain ways, often supported by
wider arguments about film culture and its government or lottery funding, promoted
importance; and the relation between film in education where formal curricula exist
literacy and media literacy, especially in the (though as we shall see, national heritage
context of the EC’s media literacy initiative. is by no means the highest priority on
many film educators’ lists). However, the
Europe has a long tradition of moving concept of national heritage, while it still
image education. The abiding motivation has some purchase and will be respected
for this is the film cultures of Europe, and in the recommendations of this report, is
a longstanding desire in many countries to complex and contested, like any body of work
make this heritage accessible to children with canonical claims. All European states
and young people. As with other art-forms, have different language communities and
such as literature, music and art, this desire cultural traditions within them, often as a
is to some extent manifested in school result of historical inequalities of power or
curricula, in the work of independent economic status. Turkish films in Germany,
agencies, in institutes which are custodians Anglo-Hindi films in the UK, and Bosnian,
of national archives, and in a variety of Serbian and Croatian films exploring the
voluntary organisations. Balkans wars are all obvious examples of film
cultures whose representations of ethnicity,
In addition, the film industry itself has language, culture and nationhood resist any
supported educational work, motivated often easy attempts to homogenise national film
by the desire to develop future audiences, heritages. European culture is above all a
and we use this emphasis to draw attention culture of translation, and we aim in this
to two different conceptions of film report to make the cultural affordances of
education: as an entitlement for all, a social translation a core strength of European film
good (akin to the entitlement to universal education, rather than a potential obstacle.
literacy) and as an instrumental means to
developing film consumers, or audiences. Furthermore, it is often difficult to draw
We propose that a universal entitlement national boundaries around films. In an era
for all European citizens to be able to of global markets and production economies,
understand, appreciate, and participate films often involve international casts,
in the widest range of film cultures will crews, finance and location. By the same
have as one consequence among many token, the familiar distinction between
the development of more adventurous, independent and commercial cinema is
challenging, and informed audiences. But, difficult to maintain, either on aesthetic
like universal literacy, this entitlement to or economic grounds. In addition, in the
understand and enjoy a wide range of film, context of education, film educators must
and to master some of its language, is an grapple with the indisputable fact that young
important social and cultural end in itself. people’s experiences of and tastes in film are
often orientated to popular cinema. For all
Despite the best of intentions, it is fair to say these reasons, it makes no sense either in
that film education has always struggled to principle or practice to demonise Hollywood,
establish itself in school curricula. While the Bollywood or the commercial films of China
‘traditional’ arts, especially music, art and and Hong Kong. Rather, a tolerant approach
literature, have commonly been established to diverse tastes, genres and styles seems
as core elements of national curricula, film more likely to attract young people to less
(and media more generally) have typically familiar film traditions, including those of
been either absent or marginal. The findings their own country. For this reason, we asked
of this report will provide, for the first time, film educators in the EU member states
a confirmation of this picture in some detail. about the merits of including world cinema
and popular cinema alongside national
traditions; and the outcomes of these
questions will appear in the report.

5
SCREENING LITERACY: CONTEXT

The third context, the relationship between have the right for their media and film
film education/literacy and media education/ cultures to be respected, while also having
literacy raises several questions. One is the the right to be introduced to European films
relation between critical appreciation and they might be unaware of. It recognises
creative production, and the shift in recent that the aims of media education and film
years, with access to affordable filming education are virtually identical – to foster
and editing equipment, towards the latter. a wider literacy which incorporates broad
Another is the tension between film (often cultural experience, aesthetic appreciation,
conceived as an art form) and media more critical understanding and creative
generally (often conceived as entertainment production. And it recognises that, in an
and information). Yet another is the tension era of ‘convergence culture’, young people’s
between protectionist versions of both as engagement with powerful media fictions
opposed to more positive engagements with may range across books, comics, films,
young people’s cultural experience. While television dramas and videogames. In
media education has sometimes been seen this respect, film education is a subset of
as a protection against a range of social ills, media education, and the two work best
from meretricious content to misinformation hand-in-hand.
and moral debasement, film education has
sometimes been seen as a protection against In a more practical sense, film and media
Hollywood. Some of these questions are education are frequently connected in
directly addressed by those reporting from curriculum frameworks. This relationship
EU member states, and represented in the is, again, something we explored with the
report. In general, our position reflects recent member states, and the results can be found
versions of media education in Europe. in the report.
It recognises that children and young people

6
 School visit to the cinema, Lithuania
Photo: J. P. Pastukas

2 TERMS OF
REFERENCE

2
terms of reference
7
SCREENING LITERACY: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Scope of the research

The European Commission’s definition From 2014 the MEDIA programme will be
of film literacy from the original tender subsumed into Creative Europe, and the
specification was: ‘the level of understanding outcomes of this research project we hope
of a film, the ability to be conscious and will inform the shape of the media and film
curious in the choice of films and the literacy dimensions of Creative Europe.
competence to critically watch a film and
to analyse its content, cinematography and The Tender Specification requested ‘a report
technical aspects’. Following conversations mapping the current practices in film literacy
with the Steering Group, our revised in Europe…A European-scale experts’ study
definition is as follows: which identifies and analyses film literacy
provision in Europe – in formal and informal
‘The level of understanding of a film, the settings, and all age groups’:
ability to be conscious and curious in the
choice of films; the competence to critically + Film literacy and AV national policy;
watch a film and to analyse its content, film industry; broadcasters
cinematography and technical aspects;
and the ability to manipulate its language + National Curricula: single subject or
and technical resources in creative moving cross-curricular; learning objectives;
image production.’ film institutes and other organisations

The defined purpose behind film literacy + Informal sector: film institutes, NGOs,
is: ‘for young people, to provide awareness grassroots groups
and knowledge about our film heritage and
increasing interest in these films and in + Role of film industry and media
recent European films, the ultimate goal professionals in film literacy projects
being to build a long term audience for
European films.’ We would like to extend + Examples of good practice
this purpose to encompass a universal
entitlement on behalf of all citizens ‘to
be introduced to the fundamentals of the
moving image, and to be able to master
some of its language.’

8
 School cinema screening, Slovenia

3
methodology
9
SCREENING LITERACY: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research team structure

The core research team consisted of a (IOM, the Hellenic AudioVisual Institute),
consortium of BFI, London University Portugal (University of the Algarve), Germany
Institute of Education, and industry body Film (Vision Kino), Italy (University of Roma
Education. The three Research Directors were Tre), Ireland (Irish Film Institute), Denmark
Mark Reid (BFI), Professor Andrew Burn (IoE), (StationNext), Hungary (Hungarian Moving
and Ian Wall (Film Education). The research Image Media Education Association), Slovenia
programme was co-ordinated by Wendy (Slovenian Film Institute), Netherlands (EYE,
Earle, and the core researchers were Michelle the Dutch Film Institute), and the Czech
Cannon, Kate Domaille, and Caren Willig. We Republic (CR Film Education Board). We
were very ably assisted by MA students Alice created an Experts’ Group from this list:
Guilluy and Alejandra de Leiva. Vitor Reia-Batista; Simone Moraldi; Irene
Andriopoulou; Sara Duve; and Laszlo Hartai.
Our core research partners were drawn from The project had a Steering Group based in
Poland (PISF, the Polish Film Institute), Greece the MEDIA Unit of the European Commission.

3.2 Online Survey

Our major research instrument was a series The surveys were carried out in English, and
of questionnaires delivered by online survey we are grateful, as English people should
tool Survey Monkey, that were created, always be, for the patience and linguistic
trialled, and tested during January 2012. facility shown by partners in using their
We consulted our research partners on non-native tongue.
its suitability and ease of use, and on the
value of the data it produced. We invited the One logistical complication lay in the number
partners to look through the survey before of countries with federal political structures:
we asked them to fill it in, so that they could this makes it difficult to complete ‘national’,
familiarize themselves with it, and suggest as in ‘unified’, pictures of provision, and of
any last minute changes. educational and cultural structures. We were
able to complete ‘jigsaw’ national pictures for
The survey was structured into 5 parts: film some of these nations (Germany; Belgium;
literacy provision in formal education; in Spain; UK).
informal education; through the audio-visual
industries; through cultural organizations; The outcomes of each national survey
and professional development of film were compiled into a series of ‘national
educators. We had an additional section, pictures’ of film literacy, which are appended
inviting participants to create case studies, to this report. In addition, we compiled
one from each of the formal, informal, and a series of case studies of significant
audio-visual settings, with a set of questions practice, again drawn from the online
to structure the completion of each survey submissions. These include three
case study. significant ‘transnational’ programmes: the
Cinematheque Francaise programme Cinema
The surveys were completed by our 11 cent ans de jeunesse; Europa Cinemas;
partners, and 4 UK partners (one for each and the European Cultural Foundation’s
devolved nation), in February 2012, and DocNext programme.
by a further 20 partners, in June 2012. The
surveys for each nation were corroborated We commissioned specific reports on areas
by an additional correspondent. We received of film education that we felt merited more
no information from partners in Bulgaria or focused attention: the education activities of
Romania, but would be delighted to rectify film heritage organisations; cinema-based
that if we are approached following the education provision; and family-focused
publication of our full report. film education activity. We also listed film
festivals with youth or education dimensions.
All of these reports will be appended to the
main, full report.
10
3.3 Seminar on initial findings

On 26 and 27 March 2012, we hosted a to the creation of this ideal type; and to
seminar for the Phase 1 partners, in London. propose actions that might overcome
Our day followed an agenda: to respond to these barriers, with a special emphasis
our interim findings; to imagine an ‘ideal on actions that might be taken by the
model’ of film education; to discuss barriers European Commission.

3.4 Film Literacy Advisory Group

Out of the March seminar, we constituted partners from Phase 2, by the European
the Experts’ Group and our Phase 1 research Commission. The group has established
partners as a Film Literacy Advisory Group, an internal blog at:
and we now propose the formal adoption filmliteracyadvisorygroup.wordpress.com
of this group, expanded to include other

3.5 Supplementary Research

Two MA placements based at BFI in May programmes, such as Europa Cinemas, the
and June worked on supplementary European Cultural Foundation’s DocNext
research outcomes – gathering and collating programme, and the Cinematheque Francaise
data on film festival education profiles, programme ‘le Cinema cent ans de jeunesse.’
specific national and regional film literacy
programmes, and some transnational

11
Film workshop, EYE / Netherlands Film Institute
Photo: Hans Boddeke

12
4 main findings
 SCREENING LITERACY: MAIN FINDINGS

4.1 Why film education?

We summarised our findings in a series of and access to and understanding of

‘W’ questions, the Why, What, Where and Who popular cinema.
of film education.
In relation to the informal sector, the
The responses from national representatives priorities were broadly similar, with the
indicated a clear set of priorities. The exception of skills of textual analysis (ranked
highest priority in the formal curriculum bottom), audience development and choice,
(selected by most countries) was given and enjoyment (ranked higher). These are to
to the development of film language and be expected, perhaps; more surprising was
filmmaking skills, closely followed by the that social and civic participation was ranked
understanding of film as an art form, critical lower, in the bottom third.
viewing, and other categories referring to the
critical understanding and analysis of film What is salient overall is the highest priority
texts. Middle-ranking categories (selected by placed on understanding and appreciating
approximately half respondents) included film as an artform, when compared to
social and civic education, wider viewing, other instrumental purposes behind film
enjoyment, understanding of national and education. However, none of the categories
European film heritage, and access to world in either sector were selected by fewer than
cinema. Lower-ranking categories (selected 8 countries, suggesting that all categories
by approximately a third of respondents) should play a part in an ideal model of film
included audience development and choice, education in Europe, appropriately weighted.

Recommendation 1:
Develop a series of models of film education for Europe, that include
appreciation of film as an art form, critical understanding, access to
national heritage, world cinema and popular film, and creative film-
making skills. We also recommend the adoption by EC of the revised
definition of film education we use in this report:

‘The level of understanding of a film, the ability to be conscious and

curious in the choice of films; the competence to critically watch
a film and to analyse its content, cinematography and technical
aspects; and the ability to manipulate its language and technical
resources in creative moving image production’

Recommendation 2:
The EC should support the institution of a Film Literacy Advisory
Group (FLAG) to draft and circulate these models, and to advise on
initiatives in the other recommendations.

4.2 What strategies are in place?

The strongest models of provision are those strong. The Norwegian Film Institute (NFI –
with national strategies jointly devised/ Norsk Filminstitut) has been coordinating a
endorsed by both Culture and Education national film education strategy for several
ministries, with strong industry support, years and has published two online film
and we found few examples of this. Only websites around it. In Finland, although
Northern Ireland appears to have a fully there is no overall film strategy, there are
integrated national film education strategy. several agencies and non-governmental-
The Scandinavian countries are generally organisations highly active in the promotion

13
SCREENING LITERACY: MAIN FINDINGS

of film education. And in Denmark and competences’ in film literacy. Croatia: The
Sweden, each respective Film Institute has its Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of
own ‘national strategy.’ the Republic of Croatia, and also the Croatian
audiovisual Centre (HAVC) have a national
Elsewhere, France has strategies for national film education strategy.
delivery, while others were currently devising
strategies (UK, Czech Republic, Ireland). We found this question raised further ones:
Other nations have strategic approaches, what is the value of a national strategy? Who
without there being a national delivery plan: should own it? How should its impact be
The Netherlands and Poland have a high measured and evaluated? Members of the
degree of national co-ordination between Advisory Group were clear that where film
a range of agencies; Greece has statements education is under threat, or marginalized,
amounting to ‘national awareness’ of the a national strategy, owned by education as
value and opportunities around film literacy; well as cultural ministries, is a good way of
Germany has secured agreement amongst a protecting and promoting film literacy.
range of federal agencies to a ‘statement of

Recommendation 3:
We found a range of valuable strategic policies and instruments
which we believe member states would benefit from examining
and learning from. We propose a ‘Translation Fund’ which
supports national agencies in adapting strategic approaches from
other, similar nations and territories, and supports professional
development and exchange of key workers in those agencies in
meeting and learning from colleagues in other countries.

An ideal model of film education

After surveying the 30 countries included Learners, and learning, in informal

in this report, we are able to make some education will be valued as highly as in
judgements on the factors that support, formal settings, and recognised as operating
and the features which characterise, strong differently. There will be a commitment
national models of film education provision. to having provision in all sectors robustly
and independently evaluated; providers,
Typically in those countries the ecology of even at a national level, will have a clear
film education will feature a high degree commitment to improving their provision.
of co-ordination across sectors (education
and culture agencies in government; NGOs; These countries will feature high levels of
film and broadcast agencies) supported by a participation in film education, in activities
national strategic plan. There will be a range that are sustained across a period of time,
of purposes behind film education, covering with measured and recorded outcomes.
industrial concerns (adventurous audiences; Funding responsibilities will be distributed
a skilled workforce), but fundamentally across public, commercial, education and
underpinned by an entitlement on behalf of cultural sectors, and delivered around a
all people to become ‘literate’ in the moving shared national plan.
image. These purposes will be explicit,
shared, and valued by all participants in the The film education workforce, from trained
culture, with little special pleading or claims film teachers, to teachers of other subjects
to priority treatment. with an interest in film, to support workers
in schools, and then workers in the informal
It is likely that a strong film education sector (freelance educators, youth and
ecology is part of a wider culture in film, community workers, cultural workers) will
that supports education and access to film have recognisable and funded professional
for a range of people – children, older people, development opportunities that support
diverse and marginal groups – and public them from entry level to expert status,
funding of film culture will follow and with accreditation to validate
this commitment. their development.
14
4.3 Where does film education happen?

4.3.1 IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM

This question is of central concern to In terms of take-up, participation and

European policy, and to member states, since entitlement, a significant finding is that
it is the one area over which they have direct in most countries, no reliable statistics
control over provision for all (future) citizens. are available. We asked respondents to
The curriculum is the single most effective make a best guess, so these estimates
instrument for delivering an ‘entitlement should be treated with caution; and they
model’ of film literacy for all. The findings do not indicate the quality or quantity of
indicate where in the curriculum film film education received. At the very least
education is located; what form it takes; they indicate that no country offers film
whether it is an option for some students or education as an entitlement subject across
an entitlement for all students (and at which all age phases; and that the proportions
level); what kind of participation or take- of school children who receive any kind of
up is known or can be estimated; and what film education vary wildly from a majority
national recording of attainment takes place. of the school population to almost none at
all. The highest figures are Denmark (81%),
In relation to curriculum location, the results Ireland (80%), and Sweden (75%). Middle-
are unsurprising. Film education is most ranking estimates included Malta (60%);
likely to be integrated into other subjects (a Belgium (50%) and the Czech Republic (40%).
model which our respondents felt weakened Substantial minorities of the population were
specialist delivery at best, and at worst indicated by England (25%), France, Germany,
concealed what little production work was Hungary, Northern Ireland and Scotland,
found) – and this model applied across all Luxembourg, and Slovenia (all 10%). Those
age phases. The second most common model estimating 5% or less included Netherlands,
was for film education to be an optional Switzerland, Spain, Austria and Lithuania.
subject, though this mostly applied in middle These figures take no account of the depth or
and high school phases; or for it to be an quality of engagement: where a majority of
optional part of media education, which children receive some film education, it may
was more evenly distributed across the age just be a handful of lessons or a single visit to
phases. The least common model was for the cinema.
film education to be a discrete subject in the
core curriculum, which was only found in In formal education, then, the general pattern
one country at primary level, two at middle is of patchy and sometimes weak provision:
level, and four at high school level. no full core entitlement; few countries
where a majority of the school populations
In terms of curriculum clustering and receive film education; much evidence of
embedding, many models are in evidence. provision weakened by absorption into other
Most common is still the association of subjects or cross-curricular distribution;
film literacy with literacy and mother almost no national records of attainment or
tongue education (eg UK, Ireland, Germany, progression, except where film education
Norway, Sweden). However, it is increasingly becomes a formal examination subject
common for countries to specify a general in high schools in some countries. On
programme of media education, into which the positive side, there is good evidence
film education is integrated, and this is the of specialist provision in some countries,
case, for example, in Netherlands, Hungary, especially in the upper years of secondary
Cyprus, Finland, France, Malta, Croatia, schooling. Also, there is evidence that, where
Slovakia and Switzerland (though in some of film education is strongly-represented within
these cases, it is an optional component). media education programmes, it can benefit
from coherent conceptual frameworks
Less common combinations were with and specialist attention to creative
history (Latvia), ICT (Iceland – though also production work.
with mother tongue literacy); and the arts
(Italy and The Netherlands).

15
SCREENING LITERACY: MAIN FINDINGS

Recommendation 4:
Member states should be encouraged to provide core programmes
of film education, at both primary and secondary levels; to provide
annual figures of take-up in optional film education; and to provide
data on attainment and progression. EC might support individual
member states with research funding to determine levels and quality
of take up and engagement

Recommendation 5:
The EC should consider how to enable guidance on how to make
available effective curriculum models, levels of minimum provision,
and appropriate pedagogies, relating them to mother tongue
provision, arts education, and new media/ICT.

4.3.2 AFTER SCHOOL

We found few examples of nationally In a number of other countries, clubs are

co-ordinated after-school film education offered at regional or local levels: Finland,
activity. Film clubs are offered in several Iceland, Spain, Belgium, Sweden. In a small
countries. In England (with off-shoots in number of countries, no provision exists as
Northern Ireland and Wales), FilmClub runs yet: Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia.
a network of some 7,500 after-school film
clubs, with a well resourced website, and Where after-school provision exists, it rarely
access to free DVDs via provider LoveFilm. offers an integrated combination of critical
Also in England, provider Cineclub offers understanding, cultural access, and creative
film-making and film watching activity after practice. Provision is much more likely to
school in a number of areas around London, focus on one, not all, of these elements.
the south-east, and in Wales. Luxembourg, One exception is le Cinéma: cent ans de
Malta and Slovakia have national film club jeunesse, run by the Cinémathèque Française. It
programmes; while in Denmark, DABUF involves partners from 7 different countries,
(Danish Children’s Film Club) hold film clubs. 6 in Europe, in an innovative approach to
film aesthetics, with a strong professional
In France, UK and Czech Republic there are development component. It has been running
networks of film societies, providing access for 17 years and we believe is an exemplar
to world and heritage cinema for adults, and of transnational ‘translated’ film culture. We
then there are small, ad hoc programmes would like to see it developed further as a
offered by individual cinemas (in Athens, model, with EC support.
Cine Philip; in Dublin, from the IFI; in
Wales, the Chapter Young Film Academy).
MovieZone in The Netherlands is an online
network for young people to access film, and
share experiences – available in school, after
school, and outside school.

16
4.3.3 OUTSIDE SCHOOL

Only one country, France, has a formally Hungary). Film education in the informal
structured national programme of film sector would however benefit from more
education for young people outside school. substantial and sustained professional
Elsewhere, the organisations which provide development: for youth and community
film education outside school, and beyond workers, for freelance film professionals
school age, are fairly evenly spread across working in education; and for adult educators.
cinemas and film festivals, adult colleges, film We address this need in Recommendation 12.
societies, galleries and museums, film archive
centres and a variety of community spaces. The greatest challenges in film education
In the majority of countries, this provision is provision outside the formal curriculum seem
linked to national programmes (eg Cyprus, to be faced by the new member states. The
Poland, Italy, UK, the Netherlands, Finland, recommendations will reflect this finding.
Iceland). In others, it is more dependent on
local initiatives (eg Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia,

Recommendation 6:
The EC should consider ways of funding outreach schemes, on
a ‘translation’ model, in the new member states, modelled by
successful providers of informal film education in Europe.

We address specific pictures of cinema-based provision, and film

heritage education, in the Appendices to the full report.

4.4 Who provides film education? Who receives it?

4.4.1 PROVIDERS

In most countries, the Ministry of Education at young people (BUSTER in Denmark; 5

has some role to play, though as indicated festivals in UK; Olympia International Film
above, provision here ranges from relatively Festival for Children and Young People in
strong and coherent models such as Pyrgos, Greece), and the One World Festival for
Hungary’s to models where film education is young people in Czech Republic has a strong
represented tokenistically if at all. film element. [See the full report for a list of
film festivals with a child or youth focus)
Other providers which appear to be effective
are film institutes such as those in Sweden, We gathered many examples of film
Denmark, Norway, France and the UK, education projects that focus on both making,
though an important feature of successful and critically engaging with film. Film camps
work there is seen to be co-ordination are popular (StationNext in Denmark; Czech
with other networks and with a national Republic; Hungary; and in Poland at the
strategy. These networks include the Studio of Educational films and Programmes
other kinds of provider: jointly-funded in Lodz). We have also noted the benefits of
organisations such as Germany’s Vision Kino, transnational projects and their potential to
societies and associations such as Finland’s cascade creative practices at regional and
Mediakasvatusseura, film festivals such national level. Cinema En Curs in Catalunya,
as those provided by Belgium’s Brussels- Spain has established numerous film making
Wallonia Federation, or the children’s film workshops based on the Cinema cent ans de
festivals in Thessaloniki and Cyprus. We jeunesse programme referenced earlier.
found examples of film festivals aimed

17
SCREENING LITERACY: MAIN FINDINGS

PROVIDERS

In many countries, the film industry Film archives in Greece (National Film
supports film education initiatives such Archive, and Thessaloniki Film Museum),
as film museum work, study days, festival Poland (Filmoteka Szkolna), UK (Northern
programmes or free screenings. The majority Ireland, Scotland, BFI, regional archives) offer
of such support was directed at schools, education screenings and events. Those in
with some provision in some countries for France, UK and Hungary offer online access
children and families. The least provision to archive film and education resources. (See
was for adult learners, with the exception of the Appendix in the full report for a fuller
cinema screenings, and a couple of public picture of film education provision through
service broadcasters. film archive organisations.)

The major national cinema-based education A problem perceived by our expert panel was
programmes are in France, Germany the accessibility of film archives, both for
(VisionKino), UK (Film Education), and easy viewing by schools and other groups,
Denmark (organized by the DFI), and there and for more creative work such as
are smaller cinema education programmes re-editing, which raised considerable
around arthouse cinemas in Poland (but not copyright and IP questions.
nationally co-ordinated), and single cinemas
or Cinematheques in most countries.
Slovenia has a network of 25 arthouse
cinemas offering education programmes.

Recommendation 7:
Member states should promote partnerships between the film
industry, education agencies, and government departments. Such
partnerships should seek to ensure a return in educational benefit
from any investment of public money in film production. Support
should include the provision of materials to enhance learning, and
in particular: access to production materials (including production
rushes); involvement of industry talent at events; and waiving of
screening fees in a non-theatrical exhibition context.

Recommendation 8:
EC should provide guidelines on the use of material from national
and regional film archives’ clearance for classroom use, including
guidance on licensing and copyright clearance.

4.4.2 RECIPIENTS

In addition to young people and schools, we than screenings. We commissioned a fuller

asked about specialised provision for senior outline of provision for families, as we
citizens, local communities, cinephiles, and were conscious that this is an area of wider
families. Predictably, schools and universities cultural education in which there is exciting
were best catered for with published practice (in Reggio Emilia, for example. See
resources, online support and cinema the Appendix in the full report for our report
screenings; while senior citizens were least on film education for families.)
well catered for, with little provision other

Recommendation 9:
Consideration should be given to supporting education programmes
for both families, and for wider adult communities, focusing on
diverse, migrant, and older people, by funding ‘translations’ of such
programmes from one territory to another.

18
4.5 What support is provided?

4.5.1
FILM EDUCATION RESOURCES

In 14 countries we found provision of film ad hoc, or project-based cases. We found few

education resources, usually to support film examples of nationally available resources
education in schools, offered at a national for the informal sector - FilmClub in UK
level. In some (eg France, Sweden, Poland, Italy, has a website which reaches one in three
Hungary, Scotland, Austria) these resources after-school settings, and MovieZone in the
were mandated to some degree by national Netherlands has national scope.
education ministries. Other countries (eg Czech
Republic, Greece, Germany, Estonia) published The issue here is as much to do with the
nationally mandated guidelines on approaches quality and take-up of resources, as with the
and standards for film education in the formal provision itself, and neither was within the
sector. Spain and Belgium have regionally- scope of this study. However, the successful
approved resources or guidelines. Latvia and models of national provision on the one hand
Switzerland seem to have neither national and local provision on the other, where allied
guidelines nor resources. to providers of proven effectiveness, offer the
basis for a recommendation.
In the informal sector, we found it most likely
that resources were made available on local,

Recommendation 10:
The EC should sponsor, in tandem with the industry, a European
bank of exemplar online resources, for a wide range of audiences and
education settings, translated from good practice across the EU.

4.5.2 TEACHER/EDUCATOR TRAINING

We found nationwide training programmes As with media education more generally,

for teachers only in Poland (through the issue is with the lack of film education
Filmoteka Szkolna), UK (in Northern Ireland; provision in initial teacher education, the
in the mid 2000s in England) and Hungary patchiness of in-service provision to follow it
and Finland. Several countries have national up, and the more serious lack of systematic
in-service programmes with opt-in provision: training for educators in the informal sector.
eg France, Iceland, Malta, Austria. Otherwise, Thirteen countries offer HE accreditation
training for education professionals in film at Master’s level as part of their in-service
literacy is optional, ad hoc, and locally or provision, which in principle can improve
regionally co-ordinated – and then not by quality and status.
education ministries.

Recommendation 11:
Member states should be encouraged to incorporate a film education
component within initial teacher education programmes.

Recommendation 12:
The EC should provide online guidance on best practice in in-service
training provision across the EU.

Recommendation 13:
The EC should investigate models for the collaborative provision of
accredited training at M-level, for the widest range of film educators,
using existing collaborative HE structures.

19
SCREENING LITERACY: MAIN FINDINGS

4.6 How is film education funded?

As 80% of film education provision in in relation to agreed national or regional

this sector comes from the national film priorities is an issue. Government funding,
agency, where one exists, the majority of for example, is directed in some countries
funding comes from national government by education ministries, in others by culture
followed by regional government. However, ministries, and sometimes by both, thus
there are many variations and individual re-inforcing the need for coherent, single,
country observations. national strategies, with alliances of major
partners including the film industry.
The issues in the provision and distribution
of funding seem to be threefold, though Finally, these figures represent support for
the various national complexities will be tangible projects, events and resources,
addressed in the full report. Firstly, the rather than revenue costs for staff in schools.
degree of funding is an issue: in general, film A clearer picture of total funding in the film
education seems to be poorly-funded, though education sector is only possible where the
reliable figures are hard to obtain. Film allocation of resource made through the
education is given ‘just enough money to not school system is included.
do enough.’ Secondly, how funding is directed

Recommendation 14:
The EC should sponsor research into levels of funding for film
education, and funding in relation to outcomes, in order to provide
guidance on minimum provision, models of joint funding, and
strategies for effective direction of financial resources.

20
 Schul Kino Woche (Schools Film Week), Berlin
Photo: Kay Herschelmann

5
recommendations
21
SCREENING LITERACY: recommendations

Recommendation 1: Recommendation 7:
Draft a model of film education for Europe, Member states should promote partnerships
including appreciation of film as an art form, between the film industry, education
critical understanding, access to national agencies, and government departments.
heritage, world cinema and popular film, Such partnerships should seek to ensure
and creative film-making skills. We also a return in educational benefit from
recommend the adoption by EC of the any investment of public money in film
revised definition of film education we production. Support should include the
use in this report: provision of materials to enhance learning,
and in particular: access to production
‘The level of understanding of a film, the materials (including production rushes);
ability to be conscious and curious in the involvement of industry talent at events; and
choice of films; the competence to critically waiving of screening fees in a non-theatrical
watch a film and to analyse its content, exhibition context.
cinematography and technical aspects;
and the ability to manipulate its language Recommendation 8:
and technical resources in creative moving The EC should provide guidelines on the
image production’ use of material from national and regional
film archives’ clearance for classroom
Recommendation 2: use, including guidance on licensing and
The EC should support the institution of a copyright clearance.
film literacy advisory group (flag) to draft
such a model, and to advise on initiatives in Recommendation 9:
the other recommendations. Consideration should be given to supporting
education programmes for wider adult
Recommendation 3: communities, focusing on diverse, migrant,
We found a range of valuable strategic and older people, maybe by funding
policies and instruments which we ‘translations’ of such programmes from
believe member states would benefit from one territory to another
examining and learning from. We propose a
‘translation fund’ which supports national Recommendation 10:
agencies in adapting strategic approaches The EC should sponsor, in tandem with the
from other, similar nations and territories, industry, a European bank of exemplar online
and supports professional development of resources drawn from good practice across
key workers in those agencies in meeting and the EU.
learning from colleagues in other countries.
Recommendation 11:
Recommendation 4: Member states should incorporate media
Member states should ensure that core education, with a robust film education
programmes of media education, with a component, within initial teacher
robust film education element, are provided education programmes.
at both primary and secondary levels; to
provide annual figures of take-up in optional Recommendation 12:
film education; and to provide data on The EC should provide online guidance on best
attainment and progression. practice in in-service provision across the EU.

Recommendation 5: Recommendation 13:

The EC should provide guidance on effective The EC should investigate collaborative models
curriculum models levels of minimum for the collaborative provision of accredited
provision, and appropriate pedagogies, training at m-level, eg in association with the
relating them to mother tongue provision, Erasmus Mundus programme.
arts education, and new media/ICT
Recommendation 14:
Recommendation 6: The EC should sponsor research into levels
The EC should consider funding outreach of funding for media education and film
schemes to the new member states, education, in order to provide guidance on
modelled by successful providers of informal minimum provision, models of joint funding,
film education in Europe. and strategies for effective direction of
financial resources.
22
Country Respondent’s Name Role

Austria Gerhardt Ordnung FilmABC Institut für angewandte Medienbildung und Filmvermittlung
(Institute for applied media literacy and film education)
Alejandro Bachmann Head of Education, Austrian Film Museum

Belgium Harveng Gérard Project leader, Conseil supérieur de l’Education aux médias,(Higher Council for Media Education),
Belgium (Brussels - Wallonia Federation);
Elise Van Beurden Co-ordination educational departement, Jekino Education and Distribution, Belgium

Croatia Ivana Jakobović Alpeza, Head of Education Film Programme, “Kids Meet Art”

Cyprus Berangere Blondeau International Children’s Film Festival of Cyprus: ICFFCY

Czech Republic Pavel Bednarik, Independent film professional, National Film Archive (Narodni filmovy archiv) Prague;
Additional comments and
endorsement: Petr Platenik Independent educator and journalist

Denmark Ulrik Krapper CEO, Station Next

Endorsement:
Martin Brandt Pedersen, Danish Film Institut

Estonia Anu Krabo Project Manager, Tallinn University Baltic Film and Media School

Finland Marjo Kovanen Producer, Koulukino (School Cinema)

Rauna Rahja Coordinator, Mediakasvatusseura (Finnish Society on Media Education)

France Loïc Joffredo CLEMI - Centre de liaison de l’enseignement et des médias d’information
Pierre Laporte / Patrick Laudet Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la jeunesse et de la vie associative
Pierre Forni Centre national du cinéma et de l’Image animée (CNC), Chef du département de l’éducation artistique

Germany Sarah Duve Managing Director VISION KINO

Additional comments
and endorsement:
Prof. Dr. Markus Köster, Leiter des LWL-Medienzentrums für Westfalen

Greece Irene Andriopoulou, Media Researcher – Media & Film Literacy Consultant
Additional comments:
Menis Theodoridis Film director and media education specialist

Hungary László Hartai Chairman of the Hungarian Moving Picture and Media Education Association
Anette Hilbert Lecturer, Department of Film, King Sigismund College and Foreign Relations Officer,
Hungarian Moving Picture and Media Education Association
Additional commentary:
Dr. Imre Szijártó Head of the MA on Film Pedagogy, Eszterházy Károly University

Iceland Guðni Olgeirsson & Advisors, Dept of Education, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture
Þórunn Jóna Hauksdottir
Laufey Guðjónsdóttir Director, Icelandic Film Centre

Italy Simone Moraldi Coordinamento Universitario per la Didattica del Cinema e dell’Audiovisivo nei Nuovi Licei Artistici, Di.Co.Spe. -
Dipartimento Comunicazione e Spettacolo, Università degli Studi, Roma Tre
Endorsed by: Alessandra Guarino Fondazione Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia – Scuola Nazionale di Cinema, Roma

Latvia Zanda Dūdiņa International Relations, National Film Centre of Latvia

Lithuania Goda Sosnovskiene Head of Education Programmes at Cinema Center SKALVIJA (Vilnius) NGO Image Culture Studio (Vilnius)
Luxembourg Anne Schroeder Film Producer and Head of Educational department, Centre National de
l’audiovisuel (CAN). Union Luxembourgeoise des Producteurs de l’Audiovisuel (ULPA)

Malta Mario Azzapardi Director - Directorate for Lifelong Learning Ministry of Education and Employment

Norway Øystein Gilje Post-doctoral student, University of Oslo

Poland Agata Sotomska, Education Project Co-ordinator, Polish Film Institute (PISF) ,
Endorsement: Arkadiusz Walczak Director of the Warsaw Centre for Educational and Social Innovations and Trainings (WCIES).

Portugal Mirian Tavares &

Vítor Reia-Baptista CIAC (Research Centre in Arts and Communication) and Universidade do Algarve
Additional comments
and endorsement: Manuel Pinto, Communication & Society Research Centre Universidade do Minho

Republic of Ireland Alicia McGivern Irish Film Institute

Slovak Republic Natasa Slavikova Independent expert, EU Media Literacy Working Group; Director General of Department of Media, Audiovisual
and Copyright, Slovak Republic Ministry of Culture from 2007 to 2012
Lubica Bizikova School Education Expert, National Institute for Education, EU Media Literacy Working Group

Slovenia Jelka Sterrgel Slovenian Film Institute,

Petra Slatinšek Kinodvar Cinema

Spain Cristina Tresserres OETI – European Observatory on Children’s Television, Catalunya;

Nacho Andarias President of Fundación Proyecta

Sweden Per Eriksson Programme Officer Children & Youth, Swedish Film Institute

Switzerland Dr. Jan Sahli Lecturer Film Studies, University of Zurich – cineducation.ch

The Netherlands Victoria Breugem Head of Education, EYE Film Institute Netherlands;
Endorsed by: Eeke Wervers, Senior projectleider, Cultuurnetwerk Nederland

UK Mark Reid Head of Education British Film Institute

Bernard McCloskey, Head of Education, Northern Ireland Screen
Tom Barrance, Media Education Wales
Scott Donaldson, Creative Scotland

23
For the Final Report, Country Profiles
and Case Studies, go to:
bfi.org.uk/screeningliteracy
24