Podcast Summary: Petar Mitric, "The Co-production Landscape in Europe: From Eurimages to Netflix" (Springer Nature, 2025)

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Priyam Sinha
Guest: Dr. Petar Mitric
Date: October 15, 2025

Overview: Main Theme

This episode features Dr. Petar Mitric discussing his latest book, The Co-production Landscape in Europe: From Eurimages to Netflix. The conversation unpacks the evolving dynamics of European film and television co-productions, navigating the shift from traditional funding frameworks like Eurimages to the disruptive influence of global streaming platforms such as Netflix. Dr. Mitric delves into the impact of policy, funding mechanisms, audience engagement, and the constant negotiation between artistic vision and market realities—making the episode a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and industry practitioners invested in the future of European cinema.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal and Professional Motivation for Co-production Research

[04:22 – 05:56]

• Dr. Mitric shares his personal resonance with the concept of co-production, reflecting on his multicultural and bureaucratically complex professional journey across Europe:
  • "I myself feel like a co production, considering that I have lived in so many different countries and experienced a lot of administrative and bureaucratic problems... but at the same time felt so enriched by mixing so many different cultural experiences and identities." (Dr. Mitric, 04:28)
• He emphasizes co-productions as culturally enriching yet administratively complex, serving as both artistic endeavors and essential policy instruments.

2. Defining European Cinema and the Unique Nature of Co-productions

[06:28 – 09:21]

• The definition of European cinema is highly contested:
  • "Some people think that European cinema is linked to art, to creative autonomy... but then you have another discourse... that there are other European films that are genre oriented, audience oriented, that also should be counted as European cinema." (Dr. Mitric, 06:36)
• Co-production is positioned as a bridge between elitist, festival-oriented cinema and more accessible, mainstream works.
• Policy plays a pivotal role: “Co production is also an important policy tool. It's not just a business model in Europe... it's very policy driven, very regulated.” (Dr. Mitric, 08:08)
• Public funding and European policies allow balancing of market forces with cultural imperatives.

3. The Value of Practitioner Experience in Research

[10:02 – 12:20]

• Dr. Mitric underlines the importance—and rarity—of practice-based research in film/media studies:
  • “It is still a sort of experiment to build your data and your research on practice based methods. You face a lot of skepticism sometime.” (Dr. Mitric, 10:30)
• Being both a researcher and practitioner provided deeper understanding, particularly of underprivileged filmmakers struggling with industry access.

4. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Approaches

[12:53 – 14:53]

• While quantitative data is valuable for identifying industry problems, qualitative insights—through interviews and fieldwork—help propose solutions:
  • “Quantitative data tell us... how they function in the past... but it doesn't give us hints to how to solve the problem.” (Dr. Mitric, 13:01)
  • Multiple stakeholder perspectives generate richer, more actionable meta-narratives.

5. The Role of Audiences in Co-productions

[15:29 – 19:12]

• There’s a gap between co-productions’ ambitions and their audience reach. Market share for homegrown films is low across much of Europe.
• Despite audience financing via taxes and license fees, actual viewership is limited:
  • “When you talk to ordinary people about what they watch, when it comes to European cinema... you usually get very disappointed hearing that they don't watch it at all.” (Dr. Mitric, 16:58)
• Silent disconnect between the intended impact and real engagement; direct dialogue with audiences is needed to bridge this gap.

6. Distinguishing Co-production from Co-development, Co-financing, and Co-creation

[21:09 – 24:36]

• Dr. Mitric demarcates:
  • Co-production: Traditionally collaboration in production/financing;
  • Co-development: Begins in early script/preproduction, ideally involving multiple countries at story genesis;
  • Co-creation: Newer collaborative forms where audiences, especially youth, contribute narrative input—blurring creators and viewers:
    • “In Denmark... we have examples of content for children and young, where people would develop the scripts... by direct communication with their audiences.” (Dr. Mitric, 22:12)

7. Crowdfunding vs. European Co-production Cultures

[25:32 – 28:44]

• Unlike in Japan, India, or the UK where crowdfunding can shift creative power to the audience, Europe’s system relies on public funds and institutional gatekeepers:
  • “Audiences very often are people who are gatekeeping public funding... cater to the taste of dead audiences that are festival programmers or film fund selection committees.” (Dr. Mitric, 25:56)
• This can foster artistic experimentation, but distances average viewers, as actual audience preferences aren’t always directly known.
• The “best model” might balance direct audience engagement and artistic autonomy.

8. COVID-19’s Disruption & Methodological Challenges

[29:30 – 32:17]

• The pandemic forced a methodological pivot from immersive, in-person ethnography to online research:
  • “Covid just came and limited everything to zoom meetings and online communication. And that was difficult because in zoom meetings... you really miss the context.” (Dr. Mitric, 29:47)
• A key case study, the Egyptian-French-Danish "Brink of Dreams," required online strategy sessions—validating the need for in-person fieldwork, which resumed for final case validation.

9. Streaming Platforms and Shifting Industry Dynamics

[33:49 – 38:25]

• Arrival of Netflix and other streamers constitutes a “huge earthquake” for European audiovisual sectors:
  • Theatres have failed to recover post-pandemic; streamers command both viewers and top local talent.
  • Streamers often fund only large countries’ productions, undermining aims of cultural diversity and inclusion central to European co-productions.
• National broadcasters’ provincial focus inhibits transnational TV co-productions, despite their potential as future solutions.

10. Eurimages: Historical and Structural Context

[38:41 – 44:05]

• Eurimages (est. late 1980s) was pivotal in uniting European nations through cinema as a “driver of cultural and political integration.”
• Stakeholders include policymakers, policy implementers (administrators, gatekeepers), and practitioners.
• Many of the challenges faced in Eurimages’ early years persist—such as divergent national agendas and political exits (e.g., UK/Brexit parallels).

11. Policy Initiatives and Persistent Gaps

[44:53 – 48:43]

• Transnational labs, international development programs, and new regulations now compel global streaming services to invest locally.
• Television co-productions are emphasized for future growth, but audience-engagement policies remain underdeveloped:
  • “But somehow people still prefer watching streaming services and we still need a policy solution there.” (Dr. Mitric, 48:34)

12. Future Research Directions

[49:08 – 50:38]

• Dr. Mitric’s next focus: integrating audiences from day one in the creative process without compromising artistic freedom.
• Investigating whether a blend of strong public film financing and early audience input leads to both culturally significant and widely-watched European films.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "I myself feel like a co production..." (Dr. Mitric, 04:28)
• "What defines European cinema? That's a million dollar question." (Dr. Mitric, 06:29)
• "Practice-based research... provides better access when you learn by doing things. It's much more informative." (Dr. Mitric, 11:04)
• "People don't know who won the Golden Palm in Cannes last year, or what was the European film that won Oscar last year." (Dr. Mitric, 17:11)
• "The arrival of global streaming platforms was a huge earthquake." (Dr. Mitric, 34:34)
• "European co production has the role of not just giving to the audience what they want, but also challenging them, surprising them." (Dr. Mitric, 26:31)
• "COVID just came and limited everything to zoom meetings... you really miss the context." (Dr. Mitric, 29:47)
• "Audiences may be in the wrong place, not the general viewership." (Dr. Mitric, 26:14)
• "Eurimages created European co production as a brand..." (Dr. Mitric, 40:25)
• "We are still lacking policy initiatives on the audience levels..." (Dr. Mitric, 48:34)
• "I would really like to continue using practice based research in order to understand how audiences can be more integrated into making European films..." (Dr. Mitric, 49:19)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Personal motivation: 04:22 – 05:56
• What counts as European cinema: 06:28 – 09:21
• Importance of practitioner research: 10:02 – 12:20
• Qualitative vs. quantitative data approaches: 12:53 – 14:53
• Audience engagement problems: 15:29 – 19:12
• Co-production vs. co-development, co-creation: 21:09 – 24:36
• Crowdfunding comparison: 25:32 – 28:44
• COVID-19 research impacts: 29:30 – 32:17
• Global streamers and market changes: 33:49 – 38:25
• Eurimages as policy and production catalyst: 38:41 – 44:05
• Policy initiatives and challenges: 44:53 – 48:43
• Future research on audiences: 49:08 – 50:38

Conclusion

Dr. Petar Mitric offers a comprehensive, practice-informed, and critically nuanced analysis of how European cinema’s co-production model is adapting to new industrial, technological, and cultural realities. By tracing lines from Eurimages’ foundational policy aims to the arrival of global streamers and the shifting place of audiences, the episode offers both a retrospective and forward-looking perspective essential for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike.