Mike Downey on Stepping Down as EFA Chairman:

Mike Downey, producer, author and fierce defender of European cinema, stepped down as chairman of the European Film Academy last month, after a quarter century working with the institution. In that time, he’s been a powerful advocate and activist for European film and European filmmakers.

Among his many accomplishments was the launch of the International Coalition for Filmmakers at Risk (ICFR) to support filmmakers facing political persecution.

Ahead of the 38th European Film Awards in Berlin on Saturday, Downey spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about turning the EFA into a force for activism, overhauling the Academy’s structures and awards calendar, and why culture itself remains an act of resistance.

What will you miss most/what will you not miss at all in being EFA Chairman?

I’m not really a “misser.” I’m always about the next thing, and with me, it’s a slate choc-full of extraordinary films with some of the most original filmmakers working in the world today.  My last films have been done with some great female filmmakers – great artists like Agnieszka Holland (Franz, Green Border) and Vivian Qu (Girls on Wire), as well as the superb documentarist that is Jamillah van der Hulst (Where the Kids Have No Name). It will be great to work with them again. I’m in the process of a new film from Japan and a new one from Iran. Watch this space…

That having been said in a strange kind of way I will miss the more torturous aspects – the all-nighters/all-weekenders spent working on cases of the International Coalition for Film makers at Risk, the consuming of a few hundred European movies for the selection process, and the discipline of trying to keep a room of twenty plus people who all want to speak at the same time in some kind of democratic order. Perhaps I should consider a new career as a herder of cats? Seriously, though, it’s the people I will miss. But nobody’s really leaving the orbit. Our world is a very small, closed one.  One thing does occur to me.  For many years, I was part of a long-running double-deputy-chairman act with Antonio Saura.  Collectively, we were known as the “DowneySaurus” – I have missed that for a while now.  We need more contrarians in our orbit.

What was your original vision for the EFA when you took on the role — and how has that vision evolved over time?

I always had this vision: To transform the Academy from a strong industry membership organization celebrating European cinema’s excellence, diversity, and cultural significance into something far more powerful – a fierce force for activism that stands unflinchingly beside filmmakers and champions the causes that matter most to our artistic community. After we led the charge in the Oleg Sentsov campaign, I knew we couldn’t stop there. We had to channel that fire into something lasting – and so we forged the International Coalition for Film Makers at Risk (ICFR), dedicated to defending filmmakers and their sacred right to create in freedom and safety. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we didn’t hesitate. We expanded the ICFR’s mission immediately, launching the Emergency Fund for Ukrainian Filmmakers (EFF) to deliver micro-grants for desperate needs – relocation, medical aid, legal support. Over €500,000 ($580,000) poured directly into the hands of filmmakers fighting to survive.

This is what drives me: mobilizing the academy’s voice, its reputation, its resources as a catalyst for real change. I’m a political beast. Always have been. Over the years, with great colleagues like Agnieszka Holland, Marion Doering and latterly with Matthijs Wouter Knol we have stuck together and the vision has evolved over time into one unwavering conviction – to unite us behind a progressive vision that stands with the oppressed against the powerful, that defends freedom of expression without compromise, without apology.

Under your leadership, what specific initiatives do you feel have fundamentally changed the way the EFA operates?

Three of the things that have been key to me over the nigh on quarter of a century I have been on the board are education, education and education. The continued emphasis on education has always been a major cornerstone of my strategic goals for EFA hence the founding of the European Film Club, development of and investment in the Young Audience Award, as well as the European Universities Film Award. Add to that the special breaks we give to filmmakers under 36 means we have a 360-degree education policy. It is crucial that we promote film education through initiatives like masterclasses for young talent, supporting film literacy for broader audiences, and advocating for stronger European film education by encouraging national programs and funding for film accessibility and teacher training… If we don’t educate the future filmgoers, then European cinema could disappear.

Which reforms do you believe have made the most tangible difference and why?

I think the fact that EFA has implemented significant reforms to its selection process, board structure, and awards timeline starting from 2023–2024 to become more inclusive, representative, and aligned with modern European cinema. Key changes focus on regional representation, the integration of different film formats, and a newly created “European Award Season” have made a tangible difference and a more democratic way of handling the process. 

The other challenge is to defend the idea of excellence versus diversity. It is all very well to create a broad-based open and transparent body that would like to be totally inclusive.  Nevertheless, when we are looking for excellence in the film selection, it is patronizing and frankly fake to introduce ideas of positive discrimination in the pursuit of just making sure everyone is included. This is an issue which needs defending and in the current selection procedure, these tenets are enshrined in gold. I’d hate to see that undone. 

Whose voices are still missing from European film?

For me, as a working-class boy, the child of economic migrants, I’m still missing the real working-class perspective: the nuances of contemporary working-class life, particularly in the context of economic instability, are all too often missing, instead we see middle-class perspectives or stereotypical depictions. (I’m missing Ken [Loach] (and [his producer] Rebecca [O’Brien] already.

It’s clear that minority ethnic and racial groups are massively underrepresented. Disabled filmmakers and actors – individuals with physical or mental disabilities are notably missing, as indeed are voices from post-colonial communities: Stories exploring the complexities of Europe’s colonial history and its lasting impact on contemporary society are frequently overlooked or marginalized in favor of more traditional, nationalistic narratives. Stories told in regional, minority, or indigenous languages across Europe are rarely featured in mainstream, pan-European cinema. These all need to be addressed and EFA has to play its part.

What are the biggest industry challenges the Academy still needs to address?

Europe produces a huge number of films, exceeding the U.S. and China combined in some periods, there are many open debates going on right now, leading to debates about overproduction versus market saturation, with U.S. blockbusters dominating screens despite the high volume of European content, particularly documentaries. While production has boomed, driven by incentives and digital tech, a significant challenge remains in reaching wider audiences.

Obviously, one of the goals of EFA is to fight for space for European cinema in all distribution chains.  But this gets harder and harder as the number of films produced increases.  A rational debate is required at the highest levels as to how we address the disconnect between the number of films produced and spaces for their exploitation.  The significant output of the “Big Five” (U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy) also needs to be balanced with the growing contributions from other (smaller) nations.

How relevant is the EFA, and European cinema in general?

You just have to look at this year’s European Film Academy nominations to assess how relevant the organization is today. This powerful selection (echoed throughout the other academies and awards shows) demonstrates signal a strategic shift towards greater international visibility, emphasizing diversity, recognizing craft, and aligning with the global awards season by moving the ceremony to January 2026 – positioning European films as potential Oscar contenders, and introducing new categories to highlight diverse talents and filmmaking aspects, reflecting a more inclusive and modern Academy focused on showcasing the breadth and quality of European cinema. 

I also am convinced that European cinema has truly come of age as it brings to the fore compellingly authored films, very much the opposite of the Hollywood behemoths, who seem to have, for the most part has run out of ideas and got lost in the franticness of franchises, reboots and knock-offs.

The global industry is consolidating rapidly — Netflix (and Paramount) are looking to acquire Warner Bros. Studios.. How should European cinema respond to this shift?

In my time in the industry, I have seen many threats come and go over the years. Every one of them is a threat to European cinema.  A Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros. or Paramount threatens European cinema by potentially reducing film diversity, shortening theatrical windows (pushing more films straight to streaming), decreasing cinema screens, and causing job losses, as European exhibitors fear that Netflix will prioritize streaming over theatrical experience, leading to fewer, shorter cinema runs, and fewer local films getting prime slots, impacting cultural landscapes and economies.

European authorities, particularly the European Commission, should respond to a Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery with intense scrutiny, likely triggering a Phase II investigation. Equally, European film and filmmakers is positioned to endure, due to a shift in production, financial advantages, and a cultural focus on diverse storytelling. While Hollywood faces a crisis in local production with thousands of jobs lost in Los Angeles, Europe has become a dominant, booming production hub. 

Traditional distribution models are under severe pressure. Does a focus on theatrical release still make sense when that business is shrinking? What role should new technologies — from streaming to immersive media — play in European cinema’s future?

Cinemas and theatrical release remain the backbone of the European film industry. They provide the opportunity for the widest possible audience to discover and enjoy as broad a range of film content as possible, offering unique cultural and social experiences for audiences and creating unparalleled excitement around releases. Ultimately, cinema releases drive performance and audience awareness across all platforms and markets and contribute significantly to the financing and diversity of European works. For example, the success of a film on VOD is strongly correlated to the prior success of the film in cinemas, as value has already been created.

Of course, European cinema must move with the times and be flexible and inclusive with regard to all new developments and new technologies – they will all play a part in the future of European cinema.  Nevertheless, in a market characterized by cultural and linguistic differences, cinemas provide an opportunity for people to understand and express their sense of local, national and European identity, and seek to engage both young and old and those from different backgrounds, ultimately celebrating European diversity.

How do you see the threat of tariffs or protectionist cultural policies from the Trump government affecting European film?

The perfect example of TACO [Trump Always Chickens Out].  But let’s look at the worst case in which the U.S. does impose tariffs. Naturally, it would cause financial uncertainty and reduced investment. Threats create instability, making European studios hesitant to commit to projects, impacting soundstages, crew, and investment, especially for U.K. and Spanish production hubs reliant on US funding. Tariffs would significantly raise costs and complexity, especially for U.K.-U.S. co-productions, a vital funding source for European cinema. European films already in the U.S. or seeking distribution could face massively reduced profitability and viability. 

Should this situation come about, the EU will need to protect the various sector through directives like the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and streaming levies, which the U.S. views as barriers. In essence, U.S. protectionism would create a ripple effect, increasing costs, stifling collaboration, and threatening European cultural expression, prompting a pushback from Europe to safeguard its vital audiovisual sector. 

Within Europe, there’s a rising far-right movement — often critical of public spending on culture. What should cultural institutions like the EFA be doing to defend arts funding in the face of populist political pressure?

You’ve hit a very sensitive point for me. We need to be very much on the alert, because the world is changing. Current popular rhetoric, ideologies and narratives do not see culture and art as a crucial part of the health of a society. We must as defenders of culture and creativity remain on the front foot to be flexible and ready and as independent and self-sufficient as possible for when the AfD comes knocking at the door of the Berlin Senate as the various right-wing, populist, flag-waving nationalists get closer and closer to the centre of power in so many European democracies.

As we make our way toward an unknown future, culture has a crucial role to play in our survival. Culture gives us a foundation for trust. Culture and therefore cinema turn “the other” into “us.” The shared understanding that culture generates can, in these divisive times, bind us together as an Academy – and right now we are in a unique position to harness the potential of cinema. To harness the potential of culture for good – and to resist the negative forces that merely espouse philistinism.

Currently, the idea of global capitalism has created a society, which has become unsustainable and unhealthy for humans and other living beings.  For society to truly transform on both an individual and societal scale, art and politics must address the social issues within the institutions that run our society. And that can only be done by resistance. The only thing that can hold us back from creating the world we want to live in is the belief that we can’t change it. We must believe this change is possible. And this change can come about through using art, film, literature as a form of resistance.

What is distinct about European cinema? What is the value of European cinema for you?

I’ll leave it to Wim [Wenders] to reply for that one. He once said, “European art and language par excellence is cinema. There has been no better expression of European identity in this century than European cinema.” But Alan Parker also has a point:  “In the final scene of an American movie they always produce the rabbit from the magician’s top hat — to the sound of cheers and applause. European films always shoot the rabbit.”

As you prepare to step down, what advice would you give your successor?

Think originally. Think boldly. Don’t follow the herd mentality. Be fearless to speak out against injustice.  Treasure your management team and share your success with them – because they do all the hard work. Don’t seek to be popular. Leave your prejudices at the door. Sometimes, to find consensus someone needs to go out on a limb.  Sometimes there are things that can only be done by resistance. Listen. Keep listening. One is never the smartest person in the room. And finally (another) three things:  impartiality, impartiality, impartiality.