Cinema’s nine lives:

Fall and revival of the theatrical film

market in Iceland 1965–2000*

Ragnar Karlsson,
Statistics Iceland

Written for the European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg

January 2002
 –It has been reported that I was seriously ill – it was another man;
dying – it was another man; dead – the other man again.
As far as I can see, nothing remains to be reported.
Mark Twain, 1997 [1897].

–Those who are concerned only with the shadows on the screen and
not their source are judging ends and disregarding means, for how
something is done inevitably affects what is done.
Thomas H. Guback, 1979.

Introduction: Premature death of the cinema*

The film and the cinema have frequently been declared in an irreversible decline. The
evidence is there, manifested in dramatic fall in admissions since in the mid-of-the-
last century throughout the western world, at least; less variety of films screened;
decay of national film industries; and more generally the sense that the film has lost
its centrality to other media and cultural forms (see, e.g. Nowell-Smith, 1996; Sorlin,
1991). The villains and the foes responsible for this decay are readily at hand, as
asserted: television, cable and satellite TV, video, and now lastly, emerging forms of
multi-media, which are supposed to have made the cinema somehow inferior to other
forms of audio-visual mediation, if not obsolete. As predicted in the early-1980s in
the advent and spread of colour TV:
The strong shift of interest of the American public from the movie screen downtown to the
television screen at home is likely to continue as colour television achieves saturation, and as
TV moves toward codes concerning content which will eventually resemble those of
contemporary movies. … The most logical projection for the future would be that the decline
will continue, and that the movie theater as we know it will eventually disappear. (De Fleur et
al., 1982: 65)
Indeed, since the introduction and spread of television in the home almost every new
form of visual mediation is supposed to be the last nail in the coffin of the film and
the cinema.
Behind the regular doom assertions is the mistaken conviction that cinema and
television are compatible and recognised as competing with each other for people’s
attention and commercial and critical acclaim. True enough, there are some obvious
similarities between television and cinema: both combine sound and visual images;
both provide narrative fiction; the images of both are closely related to leisure,
entertainment and pleasure, rather than work, duty and compulsion. Moreover, there
is an overlap between the products and production processes of the two: films are
shown on TV; visual angles, narrative forms and sequences originally developed

*
This study is an updated and extended version of a paper presented at the 15th Nordic Conference on
Media and Communication Research held in Reykjavík 11–13 August 2001. The author owes thanks to
the participants in the conference’s Working Group of Structure and Economy of Media for stimulating
debates and suggestions, researcher Tuomo Sauri, Statistics Finland, for insightful comments, and
professor Thorbjörn Broddason, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Iceland, for much valued
help when most needed. All of them are absolved here of any responsibility for any and all of the
mistakes, – they are entirely the author’s.
Unless otherwise indicated, numerical data used in the main text below is referred to in Karlsson ed.,
1999 and 2002. All amounts in ISK and US$ are expressed in fixed average 2000 prices.

1
within the film industry have been exploited by television; the various genres of
content have easily crossed from one medium to the other (e.g. Ellis, 1982; Turner,
1993).
Apart from the more obvious similarities, the cinema and television and other audio-
visual media do not occupy the same space and do not serve the same social activities.
Unlike other media, which are mostly consumed within the home, the cinema is
consumed outside the private sphere. As film-going is most often a group-activity, the
cinema serves an important function as a meeting place, which offers its audiences a
distinctive set of shared pleasures, experiences and social practices. In times of a
multiple television channel environment and transferral of leisure activities into the
home with advent and spread of multi-media and information technology, the
importance of the cinema as a meeting place is more apparent than before (Lindholm
et al., 1999: 421; Turner, 1993: 109ff). Hence, the survival of the film is due to its
nature as a medium, and its social usefulness to its audiences. None of the competing
media are able to replicate these, notwithstanding development of high-definition and
wide-screen pictures and other technical perfections and elegancy. While television,
video and other forms of film visualising in the home ‘may supply narrative to its
audiences’, as Graeme Turner (1993: 97–8) argues, they do ‘not offer them the event
of cinema-going’, nor do they ‘replicate the experience of the darkened cinema with
its larger-than-life images and Dolby stereo sound.’
The cultural hegemony of the feature film and the cinema as the predominant form of
entertainment is surely over, but reports of their death are greatly exaggerated. ‘The
notion of the ‘decline of the cinema’ that has somehow infiltrated everywhere as an
established fact is’, as John Ellis (1982: 175–76) maintains, ‘far more complex than a
simple decline from a position of pure eminence to a subordinate position, or even
towards distinction.’ Television in its various forms of distribution has not destroyed
the cinema, not anymore than cinema was not capable of wiping out the theatre and
vaudeville and fairground entertainments, or radio destroying the music business, for
that matter. In spite of its direct audience loss, the film has acquired a certain ‘media
centrality’ (McQuail, 1987: 15). More people are now more frequently than ever
regularly exposed to feature films, through television, rental and sale videos and lately
to emerging online delivery of films (i.e. near-video-on demand and video-on-
demand).
Outnumbering most nations in terms of cinema admissions per capita, Icelanders go
to the cinema between five and a half time a year on average, or nearly three times
more frequently than people in the other Nordic countries, EU or Europe as a whole
do (EAO, 2001). Only the well-lubricated exhibition market in the US and Singapore
in the Far East are of equivalence in that respect, with 5.45 and 5.09 visits per a head
in 1999 (Screen Digest, Sept. 2000, p. 282). In some ways, this would indicate that
the cinema in Iceland is in a good shape. However, as in most countries, the
exhibition market has had serious setbacks over the last few decades, which have
affected all levels of the industry and reduced the relative importance of the cinema
sector in the audio-visual entertainment industry.
This paper details the main trends of development in the cinema audience, exhibition
and distribution market in Iceland since in the mid-1970s onwards, or from about the
time of introduction of television. Similar to in most countries the cinema sector in
Iceland has had to cope with a drastic fall in admissions for a long time. Whilst the
developmental path of the cinema sector shares certain features with in many other

2
countries, it is argued that it has certain particular features on its own, which can be
related to the more specific social and demographic circumstances in Iceland, as
revealed in an exceptionally high number of admissions per population. We argue
there are not any direct effects between spread and growing popularity of television
and falling cinema admissions, as is frequently stated, rather that declining demand
for the cinema is related to multiple societal changes, which has resulted in a changed
audience market by at large. In Iceland, likewise as elsewhere, shrinking admissions
have paved the way for fundamental changes in the supply side of the market. The
paper examines how the exhibition and distribution sector has responded and the
repercussions it has had for the film fare on the wide screen. We will also review
briefly the sudden birth of domestic filmmaking in the 1980s and discuss its main
characteristics and the reasons for its survival.

Long and winding road: Fall and revival

of the audience market in Iceland

–The recent decline in the cinema audience still leaves

a very large public…
Raymond Williams, 1976.

The watershed in cinema-going in most western countries happened in the 1950s after
admissions had reached its all-time heights a decade or so after the Second World
War. Declining public demand for the cinema became a common trait throughout the
entire western world for the next decades. The time frame, pace and severity of this
decline developed differently in individual countries. So has as well timing of recent
signs of stabilisation, if not resurgence of the cinema attendance, as observed in some
countries.

The national dimension

Iceland has for long consistently maintained average rate of cinema attendance per
head of population far above the European average, despite a long-term decline in
cinema-going by the public similar to that observed elsewhere. The decline developed
slower in Iceland than in most western markets, as exemplified in Figure 1. Annual
admissions per population in all the markets indicated in the figure did fall drastically
from in the 1960s and into the 1990s. Whilst average attendance per population in the
EU, the Nordic countries, the United States and Australia fell from 7.0 to 2.1, 5.2 and
9.0 in the year 1965 down to 1.6, 1,9, 4.5 and 2.5 in 1990, respectively, the
comparable figures for Iceland were 11.2 and 6.0. Since in the 1990s there has been a
resurgence of the public interest in the cinema and admissions have started to pick up
again in some of the markets indicated, especially in Australia where there has been
an appreciable growth in attendance per capita since in 1990, followed by a more
moderate growth in the EU and the United States. At same time, average visits per
capita in Iceland and the Nordic countries remained more and less stagnant over the
last decade.

3
 Figure 1. Cinema admissions per capita in Iceland and in selected
markets 1965–1999

14
1965
1970
12 1980
1990
1999
Number of admissions per capita

10

0
Iceland Nordic countries EU-15 USA Australia

Note: Figures for the Nordic countries refer to Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
Source: Deiss, 2001; EUROSTAT, 2001; Karlsson ed., 1999; Nordic Council (various years); Screen Digest,
Sept. 2000, p. 282; UN, 1968, 1972.

The drastic drop in admissions that occurred throughout the western world from 1950
or thereabout and lasted near uninterrupted until into the eighties, coincided with
introduction and fast growing popularity of television and later video. Contrary to the
experience of most countries the fall in admissions in Iceland has progressed
unevenly, as indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2, based on data unfortunately only
available since 1965. Admissions did fall drastically in the aftermath of introduction
of television by the end of the year 1966 and fast spread of television in homes.1 In a
five years period admissions dropped from 2.5 million in 1965 down to some 1.7
million in 1970, corresponding to a fall of 31 per cent. In per capita terms, visits to the
cinema plummeted from 12.8 down to 8.3.

1
Already in November 1970, four years after the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV)
commenced television transmissions, 85 per cent of the adult population had direct access to television
(Karlsson et al., 2000: 102). The origins of television broadcasting in Iceland can however be traced
back to 1955, when the American NATO forces, stationed at the Keflavík military air base in
Southwest Iceland commenced a television service intended for the military personals and their
families. From 1961, the signal could be enjoyed by a considerable part of the local population
(Broddason, 2000: 409). Despite claims of some cinema exhibitors of a marked decline in cinema
attendance in the aftermath (Tíminn. Sunnudagsblað, 1965, p. 729), the station’s impacts on cinema-
going should not be overstated keeping in mind that owing of TV-sets was not common prior to the
RÚV-TV.

4
 Table 1. Cinema admissions in Iceland 1965–2000 in thousands and per capita

Admissions in thousands Admissions per capita

Whole country Capital region Other regions Whole country Capital region Other regions
1965 2,471 1,611 860 12.8 16.0 9.3
1970 1,695 1,152 543 8.3 10.5 5.7
1975 2,600 1,784 816 11.9 15.1 8.1
1980 2,556 1,786 770 11.2 14.7 7.2
1985 1,771 1,417 354 7.3 10.7 3.2
1990 1,544 1,235 309 6.0 8.5 2.8
1995 1,268 1,113 155 5.1 7.6 1.4
1996 1,445 1,295 150 5.4 8.0 1.4
1997 1,481 1,334 147 5.4 8.1 1.4
1998 1,518 1,409 109 5.5 8.4 1.0
1999 1,557 1,399 161 5.6 8.2 1.5
2000 1,570 1,378 192 5.5 7.9 1.8

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002.

Figure 2. Cinema attendance in Iceland 1965–2000

3.000

2.500
Admissions in thousands

2.000

Whole country
1.500
Capital region

1.000

500
Other regions
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Note: Broken lines indicate estimates.

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002.

But, even though television caught people minds over the next years, the decline was
only temporary. Time on television was highly limited2 and perhaps hence admissions
started to crop up again and reached a historic maximum in the late-1970s with about
2.6 million tickets sold a year. Despite this resurgence in admissions, cinema-going
2
The average daily amount of hours on The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service–RÚV TV was
only four hours a day into the mid 1980s, as well as there were no broadcasts July until in 1983 and on
as well on Thursdays until in 1987.

5
per capita did not recover fully to its previous level of 1965 as coupled by fast
population growth. The resurgence was short-lived and admissions started to fall
again in the early-1980s. In 2000 admissions were nearly one million lower than in
1980, signifying a fall of 39 per cent, or more than double of that in the EU, showing
a downward trend of 18.7 per cent over the period (EUROSTAT, 2001: 39). The pace
of the decline was particularly fast in the 1980s, which coincided with fast increasing
amount of households with colour TV and video, and multiplied hours on television
after introduction of private television in 1986.3 Although the impact of video was
quite strong initially, the decline levelled out in the mid-1990s and the market has
even witnessed a slight upsurge in cinema-going in recent years, with stagnant annual
admissions per capita around 5.5 visits a year.

Centre and periphery:

Different developmental routes
Cinema-going in Iceland has become predominantly an urban leisure activity with an
ever increasing division between the cinema market in the capital region (Reykjavík
and surrounding towns) on one hand, and in other parts of the country on the other
hand. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 2, these two sub-markets have been unequally
hit by the recession in admissions. Whilst admissions in the capital region did fall 14
per cent over the period under review, or from 1.6 million in 1965 to about 1.4 million
in 2000, attendance in other parts of the country has declined enormously, or by
nearly 80 per cent, from 0.9 million to 0.2 million. Translated into visits per
population, admissions in the capital region more than halved, or from 16.0 visits a
year in 1965 to 7.9 visits in 2000, whilst comparable figures for other regions as a
whole were 9.3 and 1.8 for the respective years. In turn, this means that the exhibition
sector in the capital region increased its share of the total market from some 65 per
cent in 1965 to nearly 90 per cent at the present, far exceeding the region’s share of
the total population.4
Most of the decline in the capital region occurred in the 1980s, with a nearly 40 per
cent drop in admissions, after the market had enjoyed a temporary upsurge in
admissions in the late-1970s, far above the level of admissions in 1965. Following a
drop to an all-time-low of 1.1 million in 1988, admissions have cropped up again to
1.3–1.4 million in recent years, or comparable to that in the mid-1980s.
In contrast, admissions in other parts of the country did not recover fully after the
decline of the late-1960s, despite enjoying a significant growth in admissions in the
1970s. Since in 1980, admissions have declined almost without interruption. The
bottom line of roughly 0.1 million was reached in 1998. Admissions picked up rather
unexpectedly by no less than 45 per cent in 1999, followed by a more moderate
growth of nearly 20 per cent in 2000.

3
In 1985, only a decade after RÚV-TV started colour transmissions, nearly nine of every ten TV-
licenses were colour-TV licenses. –Video penetration grew particularly fast in the 1980s. In 1991, 71
per cent of households had access to video compared to some 35 per cent in 1985/1986. –Programme
hours on television more than tripled between 1980 and 1987, the first year after introduction of a
private television channel, or from 1,290 hours up to 5,800, in the respective years (Karlsson, 1999:
150, 167, 169, 171–72).
4
The share of the capital region of the total population was 52 per cent in 1965 compared to 62 per
cent in 2000, signifying a percentage margin of 13 and 26 of the region’s share in admissions compared
to share of population in the respective years.

6
Changed composition of
the cinema-going public
Parallel to falling frequency of attendance the composition of the cinema going-public
has changed. The family market which once sustained the film industry has now but
all gone, and in its place is a predominantly youthful market. In the early 1960s,
married couples in the capital Reykjavík of 25–50 years of age visited the cinemas
normally once a week, as accounted (Bernharðsson, 1999: 883), since they have
largely withdrawn from the cinema attending public. Nowadays the cinema’s
audience in Iceland is essentially made up of people aged between teens and the late-
twenties, in higher degree males than females, which is in line to that elsewhere in the
western world (e.g., see Andersen, 1995; Corrigan, 1983; London Economics, 1992:
37–39ff).
A narrow segment of the population as a whole, the group 12–29 years of age is over-
represented in the cinema-going population in Iceland, accounting in 1996 for four
out of every ten audiences. Another three of every ten among cinema attendants were
between 30 and 39 years of age. More than half of the population 50 years of age and
older never goes to the movies, compared to 20 per cent of people 30–49 years of age,
and five per cent of people 12–29 years of age (recounted from Bjarnason et al., 1997,
table p. 64). The core of the film audience is ‘avids’ who attend at least twice a
month, or amounting to some 12–14 per cent of the population in recent years,
whereas most are between 12–29 years of age. Crudely estimated, this group buys
some 40 per cent of all tickets and further up some 20–25 per cent are sold to those
who go monthly to every other month to the movies. Recent revival in admissions has
brought back some of the groups previously lost to the cinema. According to a
national survey in 1998, roughly 17 per cent of adolescents and adults never went to
the movies, compared to some 39 per cent a decade earlier.

The hen and the egg problem:

Before television and after
The causes for the drastic decline in cinema attendance, which occurred in most
countries in 1950s or thereabout have never been adequately explained. Explanations
range from demographic ideas (i.e. the fanciful baby boom idea that people started to
have children again after the war which kept parents at home looking after their
offspring), increased sub-urbanisation, general changes in consumption, leisure, and
culture patterns, to actions of the film industry itself (i.e. incrementing prices of
cinema tickets and negligence in the exhibition business). Most obtrusive though, of
course, is the idea that advent and fast spread of television into homes, transferred
later to video, contributed primarily to the crisis of the cinema.
Whilst declining public demand for the cinema in most western countries coincided
with development and of penetration television, it did not, however, have any
automatic effect for the cinema, contrary to an often held belief. ‘In some cases’,
Pierre Sorlin (1991: 91) maintains, ‘television strongly influenced frequency of
attendance but in others it was harmless.’ This is not to deny that television and later
video were not implicated in the fall of public demand for the cinema. Rather that
they were just among many things that ‘implicated in this complex of conditions that
produced this trend’ (Turner, 1993: 18).

7
In many western countries, part of the cinema-going public had already deserted the
cinema before television hit the market. Admissions in some countries were
artificially high by the end of the Second World War so it was almost inevitable that
they should drop to their pre-war level (Dale, 1997: 171). Cinema admissions had
already started to fall in the United States in the early 1940s, or some years before
television hit the market as a viable alternative to movie-going, – a trend that that was
to be accentuated further with fast spread of television into households in the 1950s.
Between 1948 and 1950 cinema admissions declined by 33 per cent, which
corresponds roughly to the rise in price of tickets from the box office clearly
indicating that it was not television which was initially responsible for declining
cinema admissions (Flichy, 1995: 157–58).
Television was slower to develop in Europe than in the United States allowing cinema
admissions to continue to grow in many countries throughout the 1950s. Neither in
Europe did television have any instant effect on the cinema, as is some countries
admissions continued to grow after inauguration of television while in others there
was already a notable crisis of the cinema before (see Table 2).

Table 2. Development of cinema admissions at the early stage of television in some

European countries

TV penetration
High-point in Year of reaches level of Change in Change in
cinema commence of 50 sets per admissions admissions
admissions regular television 1,000 pop. between cols. I between cols. I
(col. I) (col. II) (col. III) and II – % and III – %
Austria 1958 1957 1962 -1.8 -17.7
Belgium 1945 1953 1959 -3.6 -39.9
Denmark 1953 1953 1959 – -20.5
Finland 1955 1957 1962 -11.4 -42.6
France 1947 1948 1961 -5.2 -22.6
Iceland 1965 1966 1967 -0.6 -15.1
Italy 1955 1954 1961 +2.3 -9.6
Netherlands 1946 1951 1959 -28.4 -37.4
Norway 1956–1958 1960 1962 -0.0 -6.2
Portugal 1976 1957 1971 +53.5 +53.1
Spain 1965 1956 1965 +34.3 0.0
Sweden 1953 1956 1959 -4.3 -14.3
Switzerland 1959 1958 1962 +4.8 -9.1
UK 1950 1946 1952 N/A -21.4
W. Germany 1956 1952 1959 +33.0 -17.9

Note: N/A indicates data not available; – indicates not applicable. The penetration rate of 50 TV sets per 1,000
inhabitants roughly corresponds to 20–25 per cent of households, depending upon average size of households
in individual countries.
Source: EUROSTAT, 2000; Karlsson ed., 1999; MEDIA Salles, 1995; Mitchell 1992; Noam, 1991; Østergaard
ed., 1997.

In Netherlands and Finland particularly and to lesser extent in Austria, Belgium,

France, and Sweden admissions started to decline before regular television was
commenced. Conclusive and continuous data of the exhibition market in Iceland is
lacking prior to 1965 but available information, however patchy, seems to indicate
strongly symptoms of a noticeable crisis in demand for the cinema long before advent

8
of television in 1966. For instance, average attendance per a head in the capital alone
more than halved between 1950 and 1965, or from 24 visits down to 16 visits a year.5
In contrast, the decline in admissions Denmark and Italy, and Norway occurred nearly
at same time as television was introduced, still in others admissions continued to grow
some years after regular television started, like as in Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK
and West Germany. However, in nearly all the countries admissions started to fall to a
substantial degree before television had reached significant penetration levels, clearly
indicating that other factors may have contributed to the drop in cinema going even
more than competition from television.6
What all this would imply is that there were several reasons for this decline, such as
increased population shift from down town areas to the suburbs, competition form
other entertainment forms, changing leisure habits, and of course, television. As the
film historian David A. Cook summarizes the underlying reasons for the post-war
decline in cinema admissions in the United States:
As Americans turned from the business of war to a preoccupation with home and suburban
family life, the solitary and urban-centered experience of attending theatrical motion pictures
gave way to forms of entertainment – such as spectator sports, recreational travel, and, of
course, watching television – more symbolic of community and family. (quoted in Hanche,
1993: 232)
Internal factors often contributed to this trend as well. Negligence in the exhibition
business, contributed to a vicious circle for the cinema, which reduced audiences
further. Migration to the suburbs meant often there was a shortage of screens for
many customers, while at same the cinemas that remained in the centre of cities were
often left to decay, ‘as ‘flea pits’, turning film-going into a activity watched in slum
conditions’ (Dale, 1997: 172–73).
The impacts of the multiple societal changes that have happened in western societies
in the Post-war period are not easily verifiable in quantitative terms. In Iceland, as in
other countries, they have changed people’s habits and possibilities for entertainment
and undermined the previously unique status of the cinema as the predominant form
of popular entertainment.

Towards an explanation of high

cinema attendance in Iceland
Exceptionally high average attendance in Iceland compared to in most other countries
is yet something of a riddle. It is worth noting that Icelanders are not only remarkably
keen movie-goers, but they are as well in the top league among the world’s nations as
renting of videos per household is concerned (IVF, 2000).
High frequency of cinema-going in Iceland can to some degree probably be explained
due to composition of the population in terms of age, as young people are the most
enthusiastic cinemagoers. The Icelandic population is relatively young, whereas 40

5
There are as well indications of a similar trend in other towns in the immediate Post-war period (cf.
Akranes, 1948, p. 43).
6
Portugal is exceptional in this context. The peak in admissions that occurred in the mid-1970 is
attributed to the fall of Slalazar’s dictatorship in 1974 when the Portuguese rushed to the cinema,
mainly to see films that were previously prohibited. This interest in the cinema was short-lived
however, and in the late-1970s admissions started to fall at an unprecedented pace (Traquina, 1994).

9
per cent are 24 years of age and younger compared to 30 per cent in the EU as a
whole in 1998 (EUROSTAT, 2000). Most adolescents work for pay during summer
breaks from school and many of them work part-time with school. Presumably,
therefore they have more disposable money in their pockets to spend on the movies
than their contemporaries in Europe where past-time work with school and during
vacations is not as common. Moreover, promotion, marketing initiatives, and the
spread of ‘word of mouth’ is likely more effective in alerting people about films in
small societies than in larger and more dispersed markets. This related, it must be
noted that in the most populous market, the capital region, cinemas are relatively
centrally located, within 25 km distance of travel for those living at the outskirts of
the region.
Seen from a different perspective, Iceland is not exceptional in a European
comparison if viewing attendance per capita in cities with the highest frequency of
cinema-going (in all cases the most populated cities or urban regions in each country),
as shown in Figure 3. In all the countries indicated, frequency of attendance is
significantly higher in the largest cities than for the whole country, with Luxembourg
City and Paris in the lead. This suggests strongly that cinema-going is mainly an
urban activity, which is not surprising in itself, as the largest cities provide the
audiences with plenty of capacity, greater choice of films and first-run cinemas, than
can be expected in less populated cities and regions.
High cinema attendance per capita in Iceland is without doubt to some extent related
to exceptionally high concentration of the population in the capital region where
roughly 60 per cent of the population lives – far too greater share than in any other
European country.

10
 Figure 3. Cinema admissions per capita in some European countries in
1999 total and in the largest city

Austria Largest city

Whole country
Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norw ay

Portugal

Spain

Sw eden

Sw itzerland

UK

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Attendance per capita

Note: Largest city refers to the Greater London area in UK and the capital region in Iceland.
Source: MEDIA Salles, 2000.

In Figure 4, the share of population in the cities with highest frequency of attendance
is compared with admissions per capita in each country. The data clearly indicate that
there is a strong correlation between the share of the total population of the city with
highest attendance and average cinema visits per capita for the country as a whole,
whereas the coefficient of determination (R2) is .75, leaving 25 per cent of the
variance unaccounted for or unexplained.

11
 Figure 4. Population concentration and cinema admissions per capita in
some European countries 1999

70

IS
60
Largest city's share of total population - %

50

40

30 IRL
y = 11,703x - 14,108
R2 = 0,7539
20 AT
LU
UK
DK ES
FI SE NO
10 PT BE
NL DE CH FR
IT
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Admissions per capita in the w hole county

Note: Abbreviation for name of countries according to ISO. Admissions per capita and population figures for
1999. Largest city refers to the Greater London area in UK and the capital region in Iceland.
Source: MEDIA Salles, 2000.

This leaves us with the conclusion that exceptionally high cinema attendance per
capita in Iceland owes much to high concentration of the population in the capital
region. Because of this population concentration, and other things equal, the average
attendance is significantly higher for Iceland than in countries with as high or higher
admissions per capita in the highest attending city, but with lower share of the total
population.

One too many: Adjustment of

the exhibition market

–The Palladium was a woman growing old, and since all theatres are
coquettes, this was a tragedy. … Poor old coquette. Nobody would
spend any money on her, beyond a splash of cheap cosmetic on the
exterior. After being a highly-prized mistress she was now little better
than a common prostitute, and her owners were now interested only in
squeezing the last drops of revenue from her tired body.
David Lodge, 1993 [1960].

Although the former number of visitors to the cinema cannot be hoped for, there is
still a hope from the quality point of view. Current indicators show that fall in box
office throughout the western world has been stemmed, even reversed slightly since in

12
the 1980s, which is generally linked to upgrading of premises and opening of
multiplexes (cf. Deiss, 2001; Screen Digest, Sept. 2000). This in turn strongly
suggests, as Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (1996: 761) maintains, that ‘the decline in
cinema-going has been partly due, not to a lack of interest in films but to the fact that
theatres were badly situated and offered inadequate facilities’. In a like way, the
exhibition sector in Iceland has adjusted to falling demand in numerous ways by
closing of unprofitable sites in appreciable numbers, extensive refurbishment such as
improvements in sound and vision, multi-screen developments and intensive
marketing, which may be linked to rise in admissions in recent years.

Excess capacity and over-screening

Inevitable result of the reduction in admissions in the 1980s has been a closure of
sizeable number of cinemas, yet, Iceland surpasses the EU and the Nordic countries
with 0.18 screens for every thousand persons, compared to 0.07 and 0.09 respectively
(EUROSTAT, 2001: 42). After the number of cinemas had remained more and less
constant throughout the period from 1965 until in the late-1970, cinemas have
reduced in numbers from 47 down to 26. Most of the closed venues were second-run
cinemas, mostly located outside the capital region, in small towns and villages. From
in the late-1970s onwards, the number of cinemas outside the capital region has
dropped down to 18 from 36, whilst the number of cinemas in the capital region has
decreased from 12 at its highest in the early-1980s to eight at the present. More local
communities are now without cinema, whereas the number of municipalities with
cinemas has halved since in the late-1970s from 34 to 17 currently.
At same time, the actual number of cinema screens has increased slightly over the
same period, from 50 to 52 due to an increase in multi-screen cinemas, mostly
confined to the capital region.7 The eight cinemas operated in the capital region,
which all happen to be located in Reykjavík, are two to six screen cinemas, with 31
screens in total. None of these measure, however, up to the criteria of being
multiplexes, defined as cinemas with eight screens or more.8 The cinemas in the
capital region took 87 per cent of Iceland’s total gross box office in 2000, of a total
amount of ISK 992.3 million, equalising to US$ 12.5 million. All are first-run
cinemas, operated seven days a week, with over 700 showings in a week, or with four
to five daily screenings per a screen.
Of the 18 cinemas operated outside the capital region, 15 are single screen and three
are twin screen cinemas. The sheer number of sites outside the capital region does
however not tell the whole story. Most of the cinemas are open only a limited number
of days. In 2000, only three cinemas outside the capital region were operated more
than 300 days a year while more than one of every two were active for less than 80
days. The average number of weekly showing was only about 100. Municipalities or
other non-commercial bodies operate many of the rural and small community cinemas
for social reasons. Most are not purpose-built for film exhibition, and the sound and

7
The first multi screen cinema, the four screen cinema Regnboginn in Reykjavík, opened in 1978.
8
The definition used for a ‘multiplex’ is arbitrary. There is no official definition of the term, although
MEDIA Salles and other international bodies recommend the eight-screen limit. For definition of the
‘multiplex’ other criteria should as well been taken into account, e.g. parking facilities, stadium seating,
air conditioning, spacious foyers, quality of sound and projection, etc. (MEDIA Salles, 2000: 37,
105ff).

13
projection equipment of many needs badly upgrading, as operators are unwilling or
unable to find the required funds for modernisation.9
Seating capacity has at same time only slightly lowered in the country as whole, or
some nine per cent since 1965. The 52 sites that were operated in the year 2001 had a
seating capacity of nearly 11,000 seats, whereas about seven of every ten seats belong
to cinemas in the capital region.
Following an increase in sites over the past two decades, accompanied by sharp
decrease in admissions, screen utilisation decreased significantly, as readily measured
through admissions per screen. As presented in Figure 5, screen utilisation fell by 58
per cent from 1975 to 1995, or from 62,000 to 26,000 admissions per site. Improved
utilisation in recent years due to increase in admissions has not managed to reverse
this trend in any substantial degree. Despite large margin as number of cinema screens
per capita is concerned, and due to relatively high frequency in cinema-going, screen
utilisation of 33,000 in Iceland is comparable to that in the EU as a whole with 35,000
admissions per site, but significantly higher than in the Nordic countries with only
20,000 admissions per screen (EUROSTAT, 2001).

Figure 5. Screen utilisation in Iceland 1965–2000

180

160
Annual admissions per screen in thous.

140

120

100

80

60
Capital region
40
Whole country
20
Other regions
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Note: Broken lines indicate estimates.

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002.

Following the sharp drop in admissions in the 1980s, and an increase in the number of
screens from 10 in the mid-1970s to 26 at year-end 2000, screen utilisation in the
capital region has reduced from 174,000 spectators when at its peak in 1976 down to
53,000 in 2000, signifying a downward trend of nearly 70 per cent. Closure of
unprofitable sites outside the capital region over the last two decades has not been
sufficient to absorb the sharp fall in public demand in other regions with a loss of

9
Cinemas in Iceland do not receive official grants or subsidies in any form unlike in Denmark and
France, for instance, where smaller cinemas receive modernisation grants to support their continued
existence (Jauert et al., 1997: 20; London Economics, 1991: 135–37).

14
some 17,000 spectators per screen since in 1975, down to 9,000. The massive
reduction in screen utilization indicates clearly that the market has for some time been
largely over-screened.
This excess screen capacity can be further affirmed by viewing indices for admissions
and number of screens in the capital region, as presented for the capital region alone
in Figure 6. Both indices begin with 100 in 1965. The figure shows that since the late
1970s the screen capacity has increased tremendously, about 140 per cent since in
1965 compared to a 14.5 per cent fall in admissions measured by the same time
frame.

Figure 6. Index of admissions and screens in the capital region

1965–2000 (1965=100)

250 Screens

200

150

100
Admissions

50

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Note: Broken line indicates estimates.

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002.

Inflating cinema prices

Iceland has the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive markets in
Europe as cinema ticket prices are concerned (EAO, 2000: 91; EUROSTAT, 2001:
45). In simple economic terms, when demand for a product falls, and supply remains
unchanged or escalates, we expect to see the price of the product falling as firms
compete for more limited sources of revenues, not the opposite. In, fact, there has
been a considerable rise in the real price of cinema admissions in Iceland since in the
early 1980s, despite a long-term falling of demand for the cinema until more recently.
From 1967 until 1980, the price of single ticket for adults as listed from the box office
remained almost constant in real terms, leaving Iceland among the least expensive
cinema markets in Western Europe (EUROSTAT, 2001: 45). This is more interesting
when kept in mind that costs related to exhibitions accelerated during the period as
subtitling of foreign films became a standard procedure in the 1960s (Bernharðsson,
1999) and due to steadily rising level of consumption taxes on cinema tickets,
jumping from 7.5 per cent since in 1965 to 23.5 per cent in 1980. Since 1980

15
onwards, real price for tickets has almost doubled, while at same time, there has been
only a moderate increase in consumption taxes, or up to 24.5 per cent.
Presented in Table 3 are short-term changes in real prices changes in cinema
admissions from 1996 to 2000, or as far back as coherent data are available for the
whole country. The gross box receipts and the average ticket price (gross box office
receipts divided by number of admissions) have risen considerably above the general
inflation level of consumption prices. The increase has been more modest in the
capital region whilst the real prices in other regions have risen far above the general
inflation level.
Greatly inflated prices outside the capital region can be largely explained by an
exceptional growth in admissions in the last two years and the fact that many of the
more inexpensive cinemas have been closed down in recent years, whereas high
priced cinemas have largely increased their share in admissions as indicated by a
steep rise in average ticket prices. It should be kept in mind, however, that the rise in
the real price of cinema admissions indicated are gross values including taxes and
duties,10 and that exhibitors have to make payments for film rights, between 50–70
per cent out of the box office receipts shown.

Table 3. Development of real price of cinema admissions in Iceland 1996–2000

Gross box office % change Average ticket % change

receipts in ISK million over period price in ISK over period

Whole country
1996 827.3 • 573 •
1997 884.2 6.9 597 4.2
1998 878.4 6.2 579 1.0
1999 977.2 18.1 628 9.6
2000 992.3 19.9 632 10.3

Capital region
1996 759.0 • 591 •
1997 811.1 6.9 610 3,2
1998 808.5 6.5 575 -2,7
1999 872.6 15.0 636 7,6
2000 862.6 13.6 626 5.9

Other regions
1996 68.3 • 457 •
1997 73.1 7.1 496 8.6
1998 69.8 2.3 639 39.9
1999 104.6 53.2 661 44.8
2000 129.7 89.9 677 48.1

Note: All amounts are in fixed average 2000 prices.

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002; Statistics Iceland.

10
Included is 24.5 per cent VAT and 15 per cent entertainment tax until abolished in mid-year 1998
(domestic films exempted from both levies) and music rights as one per cent of GBO applying to all
films.

16
Seen from a more long-term perspective, the real price of cinema admissions have
been on almost a constant increase in the capital region over the past two decades. In
Figure 7 indices for average ticket price, gross box office receipts and admissions in
the capital region are shown for the years 1985–2000, where indices begin at 100 in
1980.
As the figure clearly demonstrates, the real price of the average ticket rose
substantially above the general level of price inflation in the late-1980s, but ticket
prices have since mostly stabilized in real terms. The real price of cinema tickets has
doubled since 1985, compared to a rise by 40 and 14 per cent from 1985 and 1990 and
onwards. Gross box office receipts in fixed prices have increased at slower rate
compared to general price inflation, or by 138 per cent since 1980 and by 38 and 29
per cent since in 1985 and 1990, respectively. At same time, admissions remained
relatively stable.

Figure 7. Index of admissions, GBO receipts and average ticket price in

the capital region 1985–2000 (1980=100)

350

Average ticket price

300

250
GBOs receipts

200

150

100
Admissions
50

0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Note: Average ticket price and gross box office receipts in fixed 2000 prices.
Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002; Statistics Iceland.

There is a notable discrepancy between the rise in gross box office receipts and the
average ticket price in the earlier years indicated, which has since evened out. This is
largely due to the taking up of promotionally priced tickets (e.g. two tickets for the
price of one), and until more recently lower ticket-prices to children, leading to a
slower growth rate of the gross box office, than of average ticket prices.
It is worth noting that at same time as real price of cinema tickets has risen
substantially, average price for video rental films has fallen some 40 per cent in real
terms since in 1985. Average cinema ticket price in 2000 was ISK 632 in fixed prices,
or amounting to US$ 8, while the average charge for rental video film was half of
that, or ISK 280–290, amounting to about US$ 4. Considered that the rental video is
allegedly one of the main competitors to the cinema, the real price increase in tickets
from the box office is even more interesting, suggesting strongly that demand for the
cinema is inelastic to changes in the video price.

17
Leaving here unanswered the possibility that exhibitors may have increased their net
returns, inflation in real price cinema admissions far above changes in general prices
is probably caused by a number of factors. While some have increased costs on the
supply side, others are related to comprehensive change in size and nature of the
demand for the cinema. Investments in new screens, refurbishment, higher sound
quality, upgrading of projection equipment, better seating, etc., have been reflected by
rising ticket prices. In addition to increment of expenses related to improved facilities
in response to the audience drain, this might as well be related to rising costs from the
supplier side and more expensive film supply (i.e. emphasis on recent releases, big
films and smash hits), and increasing marketing costs.11 As far as information is
available, higher distributor spending, notably on film advertising and promotion have
pushed up average rentals in Iceland likewise as in most countries (Screen Digest,
Sept. 2001, p. 283). Average rental payments to distributors for first-run release
increased some eight per cent between the years 1996–1997, as accounted (Screen
Digest, June 1999, p. 136).
Discussing reasons for staggering price inflation in the cinema in the EU since in the
1950s, the media consultancy London Economics (1991) argues that partly through
competition with television and other leisure activities the nature of the product has
changed. By offering a more expensive product, the cinema has moved away from the
low-cost position it occupied in the entertainment market. Instead of competing
directly with television and video as relatively inexpensive leisure media, the cinema
appeals for the young and the relatively affluent adults as a way for people to spend
their nigh out. ‘Cutting the price of admissions from the current level probably would
not be profitable for cinemas, because they would not attract sufficient consumers
away from television, and other cheaper forms of entertainment, to compensate for the
loss in revenue from their existing consumers’ (London Economics, 1991: 30).

Shuffling the cards: Concentration

and vertical integration
The fall in demand for the cinema and restructuring of the exhibition business over
the last decades has largely affected the exhibitor-distributor side of the market. The
structure of the Icelandic exhibition sector is now largely characterised by a high
concentration of ownership of screens and by vertical integration with the distribution
side of the industry. Four companies own all the cinemas in the capital region, besides
some operate as well cinemas in the largest towns outside the region. These large
exhibitors are active in film distribution as well, controlling over 90 per cent of new
releases. In addition, all are active in the distribution of videos, with approximately
85–90 per cent share of the rental and retail market. By at large the market shares all
main features of having become an oligopolistic market, where the ‘majors’ have
partitioned the market through increasingly ‘non-competitive co-existence’.
Unlike in many European countries, American films do not have any direct presence
in the Icelandic market such through distribution and exhibition. Instead, the domestic
exhibitors deal directly with Hollywood studios and other film suppliers. Until more

11
In recent years, cinema releases have been the most heavily advertised products and services in the
media, as measured by gross advertising expenditure, with a share of 6.6 per cent in the year 2000
(advertising in radio and online media excluded) (see Karlsson ed., 2002, rate card data from ÍM
Gallup).

18
recently the film distribution was done in an aligned way, with specific distributors
showing the films of specific studios and production companies, but now blockbusters
are commonly released through competing exhibitors’ cinemas.
Cross-media ownership and concentration has become one of the more obvious
characteristics of the mass media market in Iceland in recent years. Unlike in other
fields of media, where integration between companies in different fields of mediated
communication has been common, the cinema and the film market (exhibition and
distribution) is least affected by this trend. This reflects that the cinema exhibition
sector is not a growth sector anymore and its relative decline of importance in the
audio-visual entrainment industry (cf. Karlsson et al., 2000, 2001).
Samfilm, a family owned company, is the undisputed market leader, equally as the
exhibition and the distribution side of the market is regarded. The company operates
one of every three auditoria in the capital region, besides owing two two-screen
cinemas outside the region. Samfilm’s share in the total admissions was roughly 50
per cent in 1999 (MEDIA Salles, 2000: 150). The company has distributed on average
three to four of every ten new feature releases in recent years. Besides holding
interests in video distribution and apart from futile moves of the Samfilm in recent
years to break into broadcasting (television and radio), Skífan is the only exhibitor-
distributor that is interlocked within wider media interests as a division of the multi-
media concern Norðurljós (Northern Lights Corporation – NLC). The company is he
far largest of its kind in Iceland and occupies a dominant or central place in most
sectors of audio-visual media. Besides being active in cinema and film exhibition-
distribution, and video distribution, NLC has vested interests in a wide range of media
and related activities, such as music release and distribution, Pay-TV, radio
broadcasting, interactive media, and mobile telecommunication.
In an effort to increase the revenue stream from exhibitions, the market has begun to
consolidate itself as recently witnessed by acquisitions by and alliances between
distributors-exhibitors.12 The large exhibitors-distributors are also increasingly turning
their attention to the largest locations outside the capital region, underserved mainly
by part-time venues, resulting in substantial increase in admissions for the past two
years.13 Although the bigger operators can hope to capture extra revenues from this
source, the overall impact on the market will be limited, as hampered by small size of
the populations in the towns involved.
The grip of the large exhibitors-distributors of the market has been preserved further
by extensive advertising and promotion. ‘Advertising expenditure’, as Nicholas
Garnham (1990: 201) points out, ‘has always played an important role in the
oligopolistic control of markets.’ In the movie industry, it ‘increasingly serves to
defend the market against new entrants by raising the price of entry’ and ‘at same
time reinforcing tendencies to concentration of control.’ It is perhaps of some
relevance here that no newcomer has entered into the exhibition market in the capital

12
In 1999, Skífan acquired the small distributor Stjörnubíó and its two-screen cinema in Reykjavík.
More recently, Samfilm and the exhibitor-distributor Háskólabíó turned their backs on for an allied
partnership in film distribution.
13
In 1999, the distributors-exhibitors Skífan, Háskólabíó, Myndform and Stjörnubíó jointly took over
the operation of the two-screen cinema Borgarbíó in Akureyri, the country’s largest urban area outside
the capital region. Same year, Samfilm acquired the two-screen cinema Nýjabío in Akureyri and added
a new hall to its venue, the mono screen Nýjabíó, in Reykjanesbær, the country’s third largest urbanity.

19
region for past two decades or so, and attempts to break into the distribution side of
the market have been almost futile so far.

Times they are a-changin’:

Shrinking world on the wide screen

–He told me some extraordinary facts. For instance, we were talking

about the cinema, and he told me that the average Hollywood film
reaches a larger public than the Holy Scriptures. Did you know that?
Eleven times to be exact, she added…
David Lodge, 1993 [1960].

Disquieting phenomenon from a European and indeed world perspective is the

growing dominance of US films of the total film fare in exhibition venues. Of the 50
highest-ranking films distributed in Europe in 2000 in terms of admissions, only eight
films were European productions, thereof four co-produced with US, – the remaining
42 films were US productions (EAO, 2001: 106–7). In most countries in Europe, US
films have now captured some 70–80 per cent of the market, with the rest being taken
up by domestic films and only a negligible share of films from other European
countries and countries outside the continent (EAO, 2001: 92–7; Screen Digest, June
2000, p. 189). The major share of US film distribution revenues in Europe falls into
the pockets of members of the joint-venture organization of the so-called Hollywood
‘majors’ MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),14 or roughly 80 per cent of
the total. Numerous independent production and distribution companies within the
American Film Marketing Association (AFMA) share the remaining 20 per cent
(EAO, 2000: 115).
Exhibitors, distributors and audiences can make do without the national products, but
they can certainly not do without Hollywood. US films have become more rooted and
naturalized parts of the film culture in most countries than national productions,
indeed, and this situation is repeated in television drama and on video. The British
film producer, David Puttnam (who once enjoyed a brief stint as head of one of
Hollywood’s majors, the Columbia Pictures Corporation) describes this as ‘a
fundamental dislocation between the world of the imagination, created by the moving
image, and the everyday lives of people around the globe’ (quoted in Boyd-Barrett,
1998: 160).

The world is not enough:

US and the world film trade
The dominance of trade in films, video, and television domiciled in the United States
has been a worldwide concern in both communication and policy circles for a long,
indeed. However, a question mark can be put to the meaning of nationality of firms
and products in a world where capital, products, and technology flow now largely

14
Currently MPAA consists of the following production companies Walt Disney Company, Sony
Pictures Entertainment International Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., Paramount Pictures
Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal Studios Inc. and Warner Bros.

20
independent of political national boarders, and the leading media firms have activities
located around the world. Even Hollywood, is being reshaped by forces of
globalisation. Hollywood which ‘seems to have become steadily more powerful in the
world’ has in fact become ‘less American-owned’ (Tunstall et al., 1991: 209) as many
of the leading US media firms have significant foreign ownership, mainly with
Japanese and European interest involved. For the purpose of analyses of national
competitiveness, and to examine US dominance in the audio-visual trade, it is not
where the headquarters of the company are located or where a majority of its
shareholders are domiciled that matters. Rather it is where the ‘crucial decisions with
respect to budget, marketing and distribution occur, as well as the nationality of at
least some of the artistic talent’ (Hoskins et al., 1997: 37). In that respect, it still
makes sense to discuss of US advantage of trade in films and other audio-visual
products. As London Economics maintains in the case for films:
It is sometimes hard to give a film a country designation if the film is shot in Hong Kong, the
star is British and the finance was underwritten by a French bank. Yet such a film can easily be
recognised as a US production if the production was arranged through, or with, a major US
studio – even if no physical production took place in LA. (London Economics, 1992: 60)15
The US film industry’s overwhelming position is of course not a recent trend. The US
is the principal world’s exporter in films, video, television, and music. Her broader
entertainment industry is the second in only to aerospace in terms of trade balance of
imports vs. exports (Herman et al., 1997; Hoskins et al., 1997). According to the
European Audiovisual Observatory the EU ran an estimated audio-visual programmes
trade deficit with the States of US$ 7.26 billion in 1999 (EAO, 2001: 22), more than
tripling the media trade surplus between the United States and Europe for 1988, and
possibly growing up to US$ 10 billion by the year 2000, as predicted (Boyd-Barrett,
1998: 160). Moreover, the global market has increased in importance relative to the
domestic industry. Share of foreign sales of the US film and television industries
revenue stream in the second half of 1980s increased from 30 to 40 per cent (Herman
et al., 1997: 39).
There is a paucity of reliable statistics about the world trade in theatrical films, and it
is hard to pin down exact share of the US motion picture industry globally.
Notwithstanding notorious difficulty of obtaining accurate data on the US film
industry, it is accounted that foreign sales represent almost half of the revenue stream
of US films, or about the same amount as they earn from the box office at home
(Dale, 1997; Garnham, 1990; Hoskins et al., 1997). According to a conservative
estimate the Hollywood’s majors and ‘mini-majors’ in the late-1970s accounted for
over 70 per cent of the gross film rentals to the cinema in the non-‘socialist’ world, or
a similar to the position already achieved in the world market of the 1920s (Garnham,
1991: 176, 188). There is no indication of a lessening of the advantage of the US
market share. US productions have in recent years increased their market shares in
most markets, although local conditions vary. American films accounted for
approximately 70 per cent of the ticket sales in Europe in the late 1990s (EAO, 2001:

15
It must be admitted, however, that increasing use of international co-productions and co-ventures in
film and television production in recent years is blurring the national distinction (see, e.g. Kohvakka et
al., 1997, part II, for a discussion of problems concerned with definition of international co-
productions). In this context it can be mentioned, for instance, that the popular 1972 Ultimo Tango a
Parigi (Last Tango in Paris) and 1997 The Full Monty are credited as national productions, Italian-
French and UK respectively, even though they were produced and financed by American subsidiaries
(Guback, 1979: 365; Hancock, 1998).

21
97), compared to some 46 per cent around 1980 (Nowell-Smith, 1996: 760). In
contrast, imports of European films to the United States accounted to about four per
cent in terms of average share of total admissions in the period 1996-2000 (EAO,
2001: 99). US exports to the EU alone in 1992 were about ten times greater than
imports to the US for feature films for the cinema, equalising a trade surplus of some
US$ 2.3 billion (Hoskins et al., 1997: 28–9).
Considered US films accounted for less than two of every ten films of the 3,390 films
produced in the world in 1999 (Screen Digest, June 2000, pp. 182–83) the US global
dominance in sale of theatrical movies is even more interesting. Increased stronghold
of US films globally can be indicated further as measured in imports of theatrical
films by nationality. Of 80 countries reporting imports of foreign films around the
mid-1980s imports from US measured up to half or more of the imports in 36 per cent
of the countries, and over 70 per cent in four of them. The stronghold of the US
dominance was in Canada, Latin America, plus in some countries of Europe, Iceland
included (UNESCO, 1987, table 9.2). Comparable information a decade later, around
the mid-1990s, demonstrates clearly that US films have greatly increased their share,
virtually world wide over. Imports from US accounted for more than half of total
imports in three fourths of the countries imports are indicated, thereof over 70 per
cent in three of every ten. In India, the world’s most prolific film-producing country
and almost self-sufficient in terms of film supply with 764 features produced in 1999
(Screen Digest, June 2000, p. 182), over 70 per cent of all imported films in 1991
came from the US, or equalising nearly 10 per cent of all releases. Even in Cuba, who
has been kept at bay from the international community on behalf of the United States
for decades, US features overwhelmed imports in 1993 representing nearly every
other title (UNESCO, 1999: IV-188–94). Corresponding rate, a decade before, or so,
was one of every ten films (idem., 1987, table 9.2).
There are other principal film producing centres around the world that operate largely
within their respective geo-linguistic markets. Noteworthy, however, is the declining
position of some of these centres. Historically films from some European countries
(such as France, Spain and UK) and from other corners of the world as well (such as
Egypt and India) have had strong presence in many countries for cultural reasons, and
economic and political ties (i.e. in former colonies, shared language and cultural traits,
etc.) (cf. Tunstall, 1977). Films from these countries have given in to US imports in
many of their previous export markets. The vacuum left by imports from the former
Soviet Union to the Eastern block has been mainly filled by US products (UNESCO,
1999). Strangely enough, comparable data for the US are not available from official
statistics.

The winner takes it all: Competitive

advantage of the US in film trade
Mere figures do not, however, the reasons for the competitive advantage of the
Hollywood productions in individual markets and globally. The overwhelming
position of the US film industry in trade of mainstream films, television and video is
related to a number of intertwined factors. Among the more pertinent ones are size of
the domestic market, impacts of cultural discount and characteristics of the US film
industry and the Hollywood system.
Arguing from a microeconomic point of view Colin Hoskins et al. (1988; 1997: 36–
50ff), Steven S. Wildman (1994) amongst others, maintain that the size of the

22
domestic market is a critical determinant in international trade of symbolic goods,
such as films. In contrast to private goods symbolic goods are in nature public goods
as not being naturally excludable in consumption, i.e. what one person consumes does
not affect its availability and value to other consumers. The demand for symbolic
goods is largely determined by their public goods elements, such as quality and how
well the cultural and aesthetic preferences of the consumer are provided for.
Expenditures on the public goods elements of media products loom therefore large in
their total costs. The larger and more affluent the domestic market is increased
budgets on production of a film or a television programme makes sense for producers
so long as the audience appeal for a film or programme can be increased up to the
point of the law of diminishing return. Although higher budgets for production of
films does not guarantee greater quality and appeal to consumers, it is reasonable to
expect that they are positively related. Domestic market size is thus an important
element in flow of symbolic goods, which, in the absence of trade barriers and other
things equal, it is not for trade flows in private goods, where low cost producers have
a competitive advantage over high cost producers. Combination of the US market as
enjoying a large population and high GDP per capita, and sharing a common
language, gives the United States a competitive advantage as the most lucrative and
affluent exhibition market in the world. The US market accounts for 44 per cent of
total worldwide spending on theatrical films in dollar terms (Screen Digest, Oct.
2001, p. 313). It is about 1.6 times greater than of the EU, and nearly five times
greater than of Japan, and eight times greater than of UK, its two closest national
rivals, in terms of gross box office revenue (EUROSTAT, 2001: 35). This means that
products can recoup their costs on the home market and budgets are higher for
products and marketing. How else can we explain that the ‘most successful
international films are produced in Hollywood, a location noted for high production
costs’ (Wildman, 1994: 120).
The overwhelming size and wealth of the US market does not in itself, however,
explain why US dominates the international film trade. It is notable that most of
European films, unlike that of Hollywood, never leave their country of origin. This
can largely be attributed to language barriers and cultural specificity of the European
productions. Films, like other symbolic products, are not culturally neutral. Audiences
seek generally first pleasure of recognition of films and television programmes that
are most proximate to their own culture. A particular film, or television programme
rooted in one culture, and thus attractive in that environment, will have a diminished
appeal in other markets and make it difficult for audience elsewhere to identify with
its language, discourse, style, values, myths, history, and behavioural patterns, or what
has been coined as ‘cultural discount’. Language is an important component of the
cultural discount. If a film or a programme is produced in another language, and
leaving here aside other specific cultural factors, its appeal in another language
market will be reduced by the need of subtitling or dubbing. Even, though the
language is the same, accents can cause problems, such as revealed by generally
negative response of the American market towards British made films and television
programmes. As one of the characters in Mordecai Richler’s (1997: 178) novel
Barney’s Version states: ‘I never go to British movies: It’s their funny accents. Who
can understand how they speak English’ (Richler, 1997: 178).
For the better or the worse, English has achieved something near to a status of lingua
franca in our times, as the global language, of international business, politics and
diplomacy, science and technology, and communication (Crystal, 1997). Or as simply

23
accounted: ‘It is everywhere’ (The Economist, 22 Dec. 2001, p. 33). With a large
market in populous terms and the largest language market in the world in terms of
purchase power, English is as well the dominant audio-visual language. Films made
by English speaking producers enjoy relatively low cultural discount throughout the
Anglo-Saxon world compared to productions originated in some other language and
English language speaking films are arguably more generally acceptable in most
foreign markets than other foreign-language productions. This gives English-speaking
producers significant advantages in the international marketplace. They are able to
invest higher sums in image and sound than their counterparts ensuring their
productions achieve greater international circulation. In particular, this is to a
competitive advantage of the United States as the far largest single English language
market in the world.
This of course is not to imply that cultural discount does no apply to the reception of
US productions abroad. However, as size of the domestic market is imperative, and
given that cultural discount related to productions is the same from a large and from a
small market, a discount of comparable magnitude reduces the total revenue of
productions from the smaller market to a greater amount than that from the larger
market. But other things are not equal. Higher budgets for productions from larger
markets than from smaller linguistic markets add value and are an advantage to large
markets productions over lower budget productions from smaller markets. Seen in this
light it is not surprising that that viewers in smaller domestic markets ‘watch a mix of
foreign and domestic programmes and films, given that each has certain advantages
over each other’ as Wildman (1992: 123) argues ‘…while viewers in the large market
are not drawn in large numbers to films and programs from the smaller market.’
Moreover, building upon long and continuous history of filmmaking in the highly
competitive and significantly ethnic and diversified US market, the products of the
American film, and the entertainment industry in general, come closest to be a
‘universal art form’. As ‘claiming something close to a worldwide audience’, Hoskins
et al. (1997: 44) maintain, ‘US programmes, and especially films attract a relatively
small cultural discount in most foreign markets’. All this ensures that US productions
achieves greater circulation and gives her industry unprecedented advantage in the
international marketplace and explains as well the difficulties of producers from other
countries to break into the US market.16
It is not only on the international market that the Hollywood majors reign but on the
domestic market as well. The majors produce only 80–100 films a year, or less than
one third of total national output, yet they control about 65 per cent of the domestic
distribution market (Screen Digest, Aug. 2001, p. 256). The majors have the muscle to
control the market. They have the financial and organizational strength, and they deal
with relations between themselves in an aligned way, leaving only a fragment of the
film market to independent producers and distributors, which have either had to be
content with box office leftovers or to team up with the majors to avoid to be
squeezed out of the market (cf. Aksoy et al., 1992).

16
It is an indication here of relevance of the ‘thesis’ of cultural discount, at least in terms of effects of
language, that shares of released foreign films on the US market is negligible, except for films from the
UK which attained a 2.9 per cent share in 2000. Of the 22 most attended foreign films in the US in that
year 14 films were UK made, most of them co-productions with US interests involved (EAO, 2001:
99).

24
Hollywood’s film industry is a highly concentrated and integrated business.
Discussing the structural weakness of the European film production and distribution
as diversified and split up within the numerous national boarders, London Economics
(1992: 47–71ff) argues that the Hollywood film industry enjoys conversely advantage
of proximity, whereas all the necessary ingredients for filmmaking are clustered
almost in one location, Los Angeles. Such clustering offers advantages over time as
exhibited for other industries, like automobiles in Detroit, microelectronics in Silicon
Valley, or international financial centres in London and New York. A large cluster of
practitioners attracts supports industries and hangers-on as the ‘observed
concentration of prostitutes in the city of Strasbourg when the European parliament is
in session’ (London Economics, 1992: 62–3). Proximity of competing rivals spurs
innovation and efficiency, and a development of local knowledge as best practice
flows more easily from firm to firm in a tightly defined area. In the case of the film
industry, the advantages of economics of aggregation gives Hollywood producers
access to large enough pool to tap of in terms of artistic and financial resources (i.e.
stars, production skills and infrastructure, directors, financial and distribution
expertise, script writers, and etc.). All this means, that the US film industry is able to
offer a ‘hit parade’ at the box office on a regular basis, whilst producers elsewhere
have to struggle to match the regularity of blockbuster production of Hollywood.
The competitive advantage of Hollywood’s majors is further sustained by vast
activities overseas. At the dawn of the twenty first century, the major Hollywood
companies have really become global image conglomerates with vertical integration
into a set of new media markets. Already some of the Hollywood majors are now
among the biggest major global media companies (Aksoy et al., 1992; Herman et al.,
1997). They are directly involved in distribution and exhibition in the various national
markets, often favouring US productions at the expense of other productions, and
making it difficult for other producers to compete with US products, even on their
own home market. These overseas activities have been carried out, if not by overt
then by indirect backing of the US government.
Without paying tribute to conspiracy theory, support from Washington to ensure
interests of the US entertainment industries abroad should not be overlooked, however
not unique to these industries alone. Compared with most other nations US
government involvement with the media is comparatively small, however there is
‘inverse correlation’, as Jeremy Tunstall (1977: 222) noted some time ago, between
effectiveness and government involvement as the US external media activities are
concerned. Historically there has been a general tendency for the American media and
US government agencies to help each other. This is not a relationship of ‘marriage’
but rather of ‘intimacy at a distance’ (Tunstall, 1977: 225). Export of film and
meaning has been a perfectly conscious and explicit matter of American foreign
policy since in the Second World War, if not since in the 1920s, as ‘it is clearly
understood’ that films ‘are ‘ambassadors of goodwill’ and great assets to the US
‘propaganda program’, whilst ‘for the industry, however, the imperatives are
commercial’ (Guback, 1979: 364). The Washington government apparatus has been
especially keen on the notion of media exports, by favourable legislation, which has
provided useful commercial assistance or exempted the media from anti-trust
provisions, which obtained at home (Hoskins et al., 1997: 46–7). US companies are
for instance permitted to collude in foreign markets in ways that are illegal at home, to
fix prices, terms of trade and distribution practices such as block booking and blind-
bidding.

25
By diplomatic backing abroad in bilateral and international trade negotiations the US
administration has openly supported their film and later television industries justified
by the doctrine of ‘free flow of information’ and ‘free trade’ principles, such as
manifested around the GATT negations where US officials have promoted
Hollywood’s causes vigorously (Jarvie, 1998).17 Especially has the US diplomacy
backed the interest of the MPAA and its international arm MPEAA (Motion Picture
Export Association of America), whose duties and methods have sometimes been
parallel to a government agency as negotiating on its own with foreign governments.18
It is not without reason that MPEAA is sometimes called the ‘little State Department’,
whose deputies have ‘not hesitated to introduce themselves as official representatives
of the US government’ (Sorlin, 1991: 92–3).
Hollywood’s dominance in the world film trade should not be exaggerated, however,
as there are important nuances to the map of the global ‘one-way flow’. There has
been an increase of exports of audio-visual products from other countries in recent
years outside their geo-linguistic rim, not only from Europe, but from developing
countries as well. Apart from UK which has, in particular but not exclusively, long
retained a prestige internationally as film and television programme exporter,
telenovelas from Mexico and Brazil became in the 1980s a standard fare of television
in the West; Hong Kong action comedy movies travel widely; Japan has is in a
relatively short time established herself as a viable force in animation; Australian
films and television series and serials have enjoyed a significant export success. What
these examples seem to indicate is that these ‘new regional centres have managed to
build upon already existing centres of film production with characteristic popular
tradable ‘hybrid’ genres of their own’ with almost universal appeal (Cunningham, et
al., 1998: 180).
The endurance of export success of some of these regional centres is though
questionable. The sudden success of telenovelas in Europe seems to have been
temporary and related to specific historical situation in the aftermath of deregulation
of television in the 1980s. This very programme ‘genre’ seems to has been a mere
filler for the expanding broadcasting time at affordable prices, but has since largely
vanished from the programme fare of television stations which have turned their back
on more proven fiction programming (Biltereyst et al., 2000). Recently some of the
East Asian film producing centres have suffered serious setbacks on their internal
markets, signified by direct audience loss and decline in box office, as reported (cf.
Hancock, 1998).
Most recently, there have been reports of appreciable success of European films in
some European countries. This success has though been nearly almost confined to
their respective national markets, while their performance in other national European
markets has generally been much less successful (Screen Digest, June 2000; Sept.
2001). A few one-off successes of locally produced films do hardly provide
foundation to claims that the Hollywood commercial viability is called into question
at the advantage of national film industries. Such diagnosis is much too hasty and

17
In a like way the US government has overtly acted in the interests of the film industry abroad, such
as making it as a prerequisite for economic aid after the Second World War that any recipients of
economic aid ‘should accept films as well’ (Tunstall, 1977: 224).
18
As Jack Valenti the president of the MPAA/MPEAA (and a former White House aide to Lyndon B.
Johnson), stated in 1968: ‘To my knowledge, the motion picture is the only U.S. enterprise that
negotiates on its own with foreign governments’ (quoted in Guback, 1979: 364).

26
should not cause us to forget the endurance and strength of the Hollywood system lies
in the fact it is an industry, not only of a production of a single general films, but a
sequence of films capable of attracting mass attendance.
It is difficult to foresee any curtailing of the uncontested lead of Hollywood in the
movie trade, yet, the sustainability of the US competitive advantage is, of course, not
a state of nature. With growing strength and mobility of the Hollywood majors having
become global image empires, the question of survival and sustainability of national
film industries is once more at the fore. Perhaps there are only two options for local
and regional film industries to come to terms with the formidable power of
Hollywood in the film trade, as Asu Aksoy and Kevin Robins (1992: 19–20) suggest.
One is to concentrate on supplying medium-to-low-cost productions and try to find a
niche at cheaper end of the international market and leave the blockbusters to the
Hollywood majors; or alternatively to try to compete on equal terms. Whatever route
will be taken the outcome will be, the US competitive advantage in feature film is not
likely to suffer erosion. The most likely scenario for the future is that US film and
programme sales will increase with growing audio-visual markets, but its share will
nevertheless be smaller of the expanding market due to continuous emergence of
regional production centres (Hoskins et al., 1997: 47–50). ‘So even if the victorious
General Maximum does collapse at the end of his combat,’ as André Lange (2001: 6)
puts it, ‘United States supremacy over the international film market remains
undisputed.’

Seen through the lens of Hollywood

Concomitant to declining public demand for the cinema and restructuring of the
exhibition sector in Iceland, the film fare has largely changed over the past two
decades, or so, to the advantage of US films and at the expense of European films
mainly. Likewise, as relates to the foreign programme fare on television and video
(Karlsson et al., 2001), the cinema market is by at large overshadowed by presence of
US interests, indifferent of speaking of supply of films, or in terms of admissions and
box office receipts. This puts Iceland in the unenviable position of being among those
countries where US films retain highest share on the market, as far as European
comparison is concerned (EUROSTAT, 2001: 36).
Icelandic audiences have since long became accustomed to US movies. ‘If the radio is
different from American’, a foreign observant of Iceland’s cinema market in the
middle of the twentieth century noted (Rothery, 1952: 154), ‘there is no difference in
the movies. There are the selfsame Hollywood faces and figures, the selfsame sets, the
selfsame plots, in fact the selfsame films, given in English…’ One of the
consequences here is that, images of the American film culture have become
internalised far beyond the silver screen as almost to the extent that ‘the Yanks have
colonised our subconscious’, as Wim Wenders in his 1976 film Im Lauf der Zeit
(Kings of the Road) has one of the characters observe. Justly or wrongly, the writer
and social critic Halldór Laxness (1955: 119), the Nobel laureate in 1955, puts this
case in its strongest form for Iceland when he states as early as 1928 that ‘the
American film from Hollywood has become one of the greatest socializing force in
Iceland… The American film has more devotees than all the Icelandic arts together.’
Historical roots for this omnipresence of US films on the Icelandic market can be
traced all the way back to the First World War when exhibitors began to import films
from the United States after an embargo was put on Denmark by Germany. Film

27
imports through Denmark began again immediately after the war, but the films were
increasingly American, signifying the fact that Hollywood had taken the lead in the
world film trade. The US dominance accentuated further with and in the aftermath of
Second World War, which left the film industry in Europe in ruins, and Icelandic
exhibitors started to purchase films directly from the US studios.
Since in the mid-1960s onwards, US films have largely increased their share on the
Icelandic cinema exhibition market as indicated in Table 4, which is affirmed further
in Figure 8. This increase has mainly been at the expense of films from Europe. The
significant change in the film fare occurred in the 1980s, and coincided with fast
decline of cinema admissions. There has as well been a notable decrease in number of
cinema releases since 1990. Whilst the number of released features has oscillated
heavily, the general tendency points to a roughly 20 per cent decrease in film releases
since in the period before 1990.

Table 4. Origin of full-length feature releases in Iceland 1965–2000

Percentage share

Total no. of films Domestic Nordic UK Other Europe US Other

1965 280 – 4.3 12.9 16.1 65.4 1.4
1970 233 – 3.9 11.6 16.7 67.0 0.9
1975 246 – 5.7 12.6 14.2 65.9 1.6
1980 216 1.4 3.7 15.3 14.4 62.5 2.8
1985 233 1.3 1.3 8.6 6.4 81.1 1.3
1990 179 1.1 2.8 3.4 3.9 88.3 0.6
1995 189 3.7 2.6 7.9 7.9 74.1 3.7
1996 198 1.0 2.0 4.5 10.1 80.3 2.0
1997 188 2.1 3.7 10.6 2.1 79.3 2.1
1998 157 1.3 3.8 5.1 4.5 84.7 0.6
1999 193 1.0 3.1 6.2 4.7 81.9 3.1
2000 164 3.7 3.0 7.3 3.7 80.5 1.8

Note: No account is taken of co-productions, origin of films refer to principal producing country. Figures are
rounded to the nearest decimal and do not necessarily have to add up to the total.

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999: 117–18; 2002.

US films have retained average 80 per cent share of total number of releases since in
the mid-1980s, or some 140–150 films in a year. This is almost the same yearly
number of releases as in earlier years, when US films exceeded other films with about
65 per cent share of releases. The decline in number of releases has primarily
occurred at the expense of European films, now reduced to some four to six per cent
of releases, a significant fall from 14–16 per cent up until in the 1980s, and British
films, representing in recent years some five to seven per cent, compared to 12–15 per
cent 1965–1980. Relatively stable share of Nordic releases masks decline in total
number of releases over the period in question. The number of Nordic film releases
has nearly decreased about half, or from some 10–12 films a year before 1980
compared to five to six annual releases in recent years. Except for occasional
commercial releases, films originated from outside Europe and the United States are
not to be seen on the wide screen, except then on film festivals.

28
 Figure 8. US and other non-domestic full-length feature film releases in
Iceland 1965–2000 (five years intervals). Percentage share

100

US films
80
Percentage share

60

40

20
Other films

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Source: Karlsson ed., 1999: 117–18, 2002.

The share of American films in admissions and gross box office has even been higher
than their share of releases, or between 85 and 90 percent in the capital region in
recent years. Market share of US films outside the capital region is even higher, as
films originated from elsewhere generally do not travel widely.
In Figure 9 ‘demand curves’ are indicated for domestic, US and other films screened
in 2000, as measured in box office receipts (VAT excluded). The year chosen for an
example was exceptional, indeed, in the sense that nationally produced films ranked
high in terms of box office: three domestic productions were the most lucrative films
of the year, outweighing US blockbusters such as Toy Story 2, American Beauty and
My, Myself and Irene. Nonetheless, the figure exemplifies clearly enough elasticity of
demand in the market for US films. Whilst 17 US films and three nationally made
films achieved more than ISK 10 million in box office returns in 2000 fixed prices,
the highest film originated from elsewhere, the French-German-Italian Astérix et
Obélix contre César generated only ISK 6.4 million. The majority of other films than
US and domestic films had virtually zero box office. Of 32 foreign films originated
outside the United States, three of every four films achieved box office revenue of
ISK two million or less, compared to less than half of the US releases.

29
 Figure 9. Demand curve for full-length feature films in Iceland in 2000

70

60
5th highest
of each
Box office receipts in ISK million

50

10th highest
40 of each

30
25th highest
Domestic of each
films 50th highest
20 of US films

10 US films
Other films

0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Row of films according to box office receipts

Source: Statistics Iceland.

Growing share of US films of total releases can be seen as a response of exhibitors to

falling or stagnation in admissions. Similarly as noted for elsewhere (Hoskins et al.,
1997; Nowell-Smith, 1996), Icelandic exhibitors-distributors are relying more heavily
on films with large commercial potential and wide releases, a trend, which is often
accentuated further with advent of multi screen cinemas, in contrast to what might be
expected. Even though multi screen exhibitors may be tempted to experiment with
unknown films because of reduced overheads, this depends upon the extent to which
there is a sufficient stream of supply of US films, which can be passed down to
smaller screens as their audiences diminishes. If expected returns of an unknown film
are lower than the revenue of the least popular US film then exhibitors will not be
lured to take chance with unknown films (London Economics, 1991: 47).19
Keeping in mind that these wide releases are the most lucrative ones in number of
admissions and in stream of revenue, they are responsible for growing proportion of
the box office. It is of some indication of market concentration of these releases
(though not perfectly symmetrical) that the Top 20 films in recent years as measured
by the cumulative share of admissions have generated from 40 to 45 per cent of all
tickets sold in the years 1995–2000, or similar to that observed in Europe generally
(EAO, 2001: 75).

19
The impact of stream of supply of popular US films is fairly well exampled by a marked difference
of the film fare between the exhibitors-distributors in Iceland. For instance, the large exhibitor
Samfilm, which distributes films from many of the Hollywood’s majors, hardly ever releases European
films to its many screens, while its smaller competitors, who acquire films form independents, have to
rely on more diverse supply films.

30
While it can be asserted that English-language films have lesser cultural discount than
films from other language areas in the Icelandic market, the dominance of the US
productions, especially the blockbusters, is sustained further through heavy
advertising, especially on television and promotion with allowances from the studios.
Films from elsewhere, on the other hand, are mostly poorly marketed. Usually these
are released one screen at a time (Torfason, 1994), except they have already a history
of success behind them, or they are with a strong pan-Atlantic angle. When other than
US films rank high in the charts, it is usually of a surprise to exhibitors, rather than
something that was suspected beforehand, such as when Roberto Benigni’s, the Italian
La Vita è Bella, and Luc Besson’s, the French-US Léon, ranked number 13 and 17 as
the most seen films in 1999 and in 1995, respectively.
Seen in this respect it is perhaps no wonder that the top ranking films in recent years
are mostly US products. In Table 5 the Top 20 feature films are shown for the six last
years, 1995–2000, according to number of admissions. Of the 120 films indicated,
103 films are US productions, or some 86 per cent of the total, while 17 films are
from other countries, or 14 per cent, most of them either British or nationally made.
Only one film originated outside the United States and Europe, the Australian-French
P. J. Hogan’s Muriel’s Wedding, achieved to rank among the Top 20 twenty films in
the year 1995.

Table 5. Origin of Top 20 feature films in Iceland 1995–2000

Other
Iceland France UK European US Other
1995 – 1 1 – 17 1
1996 2 – 2 – 16 –
1997 – – 3 – 17 –
1998 1 – 1 – 18 –
1999 – – 1 1 18 –
2000 3 – – – 17 –

No. of films, total 6 1 8 1 103 1

% share of total
5.0 0.8 6.7 0.8 85.8 0.8
no. of Top 20 films
Note: According to number of admissions in the whole country. Figures are rounded to the nearest decimal
and do not necessarily add up to the total. No account is taken of co-productions. Origin of films refers to
principal producing country.
Source: Karlsson ed., 1999: 135–36, 2002.

The success of the US films is further affirmed when considered that they ordered
higher among the 20 highest attended films during these years. In the years 1995–
2000, US films were the most attended films in four years of six. Unsurprisingly, the
far most attended film in recent years is the James Cameron’s Titanic, seen by
124,000 spectators in 1997, or about one of every three of the country’s population, –
a record that is unlikely to be matched or surpassed in near future.

31
Icelandic films: Against all odds

–There are also strange pockets of micro-budget films such as

Iceland...
Martin Dale, 1997.

‘The origin and birth of any film … cannot be reduced to the writing of a script and
finding of the requisite amount of money,’ Sorlin (1991: 9–10) reminds us, rather it is
a complex process with ‘an intersection of various financial and ideological interests’
involved. Investments in film is not only of a concern of various entrepreneurs for
expect of profits, but politicians and governments alike are equally concerned because
of economic and industrial reasons, likewise as cultural and ideological motives. In
times where globalisation is profoundly transforming our apprehension of the world,
with interdependency between nations, economies and cultures, creating new senses
of places and placeless identities, there is a great surge of interest recently in local
cultures as a way of finding a place in otherwise increasingly de-territorialized world
(Morley et al., 1995: 115ff). Recognising that films serve important cultural functions
as ideological constructions and representations of nations (Turner, 1993: 134–37),
filmmaking has become almost ‘a badge of nationhood, a means of national
expression’ in recent times (Cook, 1989: 79). As a response to the one-way
international flow of dominant international cinemas (particularly but not exclusively
Hollywood cinema) in which the ‘West speaks and the Rest listen’ (Morley et al.,
1995: 126) countless nations have plunged into film production towards the end of the
last century – a domain hitherto mostly of the leading industrialized nations. Iceland is
not an exception to this trend. In spite of miniscule population – not exceeding
300,000 people – Iceland succeeds in having a film industry, managing to release
three full-length feature films on average every year.
Regular feature film production in Iceland dates back to the founding of the State’s
Icelandic Film Fund in 1979, whose objectives are to support production and
distribution of Iceland films. Following year, three domestic full-length feature films
were released.20 Since 1980 to end-of-year 2001, 66 full-length feature films have
been released, plus a number of short-films and documentaries, which are out of
scope of this article. Some 73 per cent, or 48 films, are based on original manuscript
while the remaining 18 films are literature adaptations. Eight films of the total can be
classified as children/family films. The feature-film production in Iceland is a male
dominated field at least as directing is concerned, whereas women have directed less
than one of every five films released.

20
A predecessor, Reynir Oddsson, had already demonstrated with his low-budget 1977 Morðsaga
(Murder Story) it was possible to make an Icelandic feature. Previously, only six full-length feature
films had been released since in 1926. Most of these early films were co-productions with
Scandinavian (Danish and Swedish) interests involved, both as financing and artistic responsibility is
concerned. Best known today perhaps is Salka Valka from 1954, by the Swedish director Arne
Mattsson, and two films by Danish directors, Erik Balling’s 79 af stöðinni (The Girl Gogo) from 1962,
and Gabriel Axel’s the 1967 Den røde kappe (The Red Mantle). Axel was later internationally renown
by his 1988 release Babettes Gæstebud (Babette’s Feast), which was to become the Oscar’s winner for
the best foreign language film in the 1989. –For an overview of the Icelandic film history and
discussion of individual films until more recently, see Åhlund (2000), Cowie (1995) and Widding
(1998).

32
In a national production as small the Icelandic one, it is without foundation to speak
about recognizable stylistic characteristics or a national film tradition. The diversity
among Icelandic directors is evident and the films are of various genres and styles,
including dramas, comedies, satires, thrillers, adventures, road-movies, musicals, film
noir, etc. From the point of view of foreigners, what is perhaps unique of these films
is that they tend to be epic and make frequently effective use of the contrasts of
mysticism and symbolism related to nature, which would seem to be an emblem of
Icelandic film making (cf. Cowie, 1995; Widding, 1998). As constructing Icelandic-
ness through landscape and history, it is not without foundation that Icelandic films
have been considered as ‘career diplomats’ and cultural flagships of national
expression by political circles and the tourist industry alike. With a new generation of
directors emerging to the scene, this is gradually changing with a more mundane and
robust films, presenting a more vulgar view of contemporary Icelandic society of sex,
drugs and rock and roll, firmly rooted in prevalent forms of international youth culture
of the time.
Many of the films released in the early-1980s, in the dawn of the so-called ‘Icelandic
film spring’, were extremely well received by the local population. Most popular of
these, and perhaps the all-time-ever most attended domestic films, are the Land og
synir (Land and Sons), released in 1980, and the 1982 musical comedy Með allt á
hreinu (On Top), each seen by up to half of the total population with 110,000–
120,000 guests, as asserted (Åhlund, 2000: 8, 11). Suddenly people went again to the
cinemas largely independent of age, gender and social position, which had hardly not
happened since the screening of the musical Sound of Music in the late-1960s.
Resounding reception of the early Icelandic films had without doubt much to do with
their novelty, as well as the generous coverage they got in the media and uncritical
and highly positive reviews of film critics. Almost every film was more and less
appraised as the masterpiece. Since then, a lot has changed. Icelandic filmmakers
cannot anymore expect their films beforehand to attract ‘mass’ attendance.
Cinemagoers have become more selective towards homemade films and so have film
critics in their reviews. Nowadays domestic films are evaluated mostly on same basis
as foreign films.
In Figure 10, total attendance to domestic films and average admissions per title is
shown from 1985–2000. The attendance has oscillated largely from year to year, with
exceptionally high number of admissions in the years 1996 and 2000. Over the period
under review, the market share of Icelandic films has been around three per cent
measured in admissions, whilst their share of gross box revenue has been somewhat
higher as related to higher ticket prices from the box office. While it was common for
individual titles to attract as high number of audiences as 60,000 or more in the early-
1980s (Widding, 1998: 98), the average admissions per title have been around
10,000–15,000 since in the mid-1980s.

33
 Figure 10. Released and screened domestic films and total and average
attendance 1985–2000

10 180

9 160
8
140
7

Admissions in thous.
120
Number of films

6
100
5
80
4
60
3
40
2

1 20

0 0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Released films Screened films Total attendance Average attendance

Note: Full-length feature films only, co-productions included. Admissions 1985–1995 refer to the capital region
only, otherwise the whole country.
Source: Karlsson ed., 1999, 2002.

Performance of individual domestic titles has been very uneven. Some titles have
almost totally flopped, with audience figures below the mark of 5,000; few have
enjoyed quite a significant success, with most titles somewhere there in-between. In
1996 the Djöflaeyjan (The Devils’ Island) and in the year 2000 Englar alheimsins
(Angels of the Universe) were the highest attended films, both made by the director
Friðrik Þór Friðriksson.21 The latter one is the most attended Icelandic film in recent
years, seen by 83,000 spectators in 2000. Moreover, the year 2000 was exceptional
indeed, as two other Icelandic releases ranked number seven and ten by share of
admissions, the Íslenski draumurinn (The Icelandic Dream) with 34,000 admissions,
and the 101 Reykjavík seen by 31,000.
Without playing down the impacts of internal factors, such as quality of the
filmmaker’s talent, it is pertinent to note here that many of the best-attended domestic
films are literary adaptations of popular Icelandic novels whose characters are
familiar and dear to many. That particular genre seems to have been able to reach a
wider audience in terms of age and to establish an important crossover into secondary
audience segment, which is not a primary target by the movie industry (i.e. middle
aged people and older).

21
Friðriksson is Iceland’s most internationally renowned as well as most productive director. His back-
catalogue can be told quite extensive. Since the release of his first full-length feature Skytturnar (White
Whales) in 1987 he has directed five features, plus a number of documentaries and short features for
cinema and TV, them among is perhaps best known the soft-core, or erotic if one rather prefers, On
Top; Down Under (Germany, 1999). His 1991 Börn náttúrunnar (Children of Nature) was nominated
for an Oscar in 1992 in the foreign language films category.

34
Contending with constraints
The domestic films are low budget productions. They are almost as made in a
‘Dogma’-like fashion, for minimum amount of time and money. Investments per
production in Iceland were the fourth lowest within the European Economic Area in
1998, just ahead of Luxembourg, Portugal, and Greece, or half of that in the other
Nordic countries. At same time, the average costs per production in the US were
about thirteen fold higher (Screen Digest, June 1999, p. 131), and more than 50 times
higher if the skyrocketing production budgets of the US majors are only taken into
account, standing at US$ 52.4 million in 1997 (Hancock, 1998).
The average production costs of the six films released in 2000 was about ISK 111
million, amounting to some US$ 1.4 million, while the overall film investment
amounted to ISK 665 million (US$ 8.4m). It is an alarming fact for Icelandic film
production that total investments have only slightly increased since in 1992, or some
13 per cent, measured in fixed prices. It must be pointed out however, that production
costs differs greatly among individual titles. The two most expensive films released in
2000, the children’s adventure Ikingut and the Angels of the Universe, did cost ISK
175 million each, corresponding to US$ 2.2 million. On the other side of the spectrum
as the least expensive was The Icelandic Dream with a budget of just about ISK 32
million, amounting to less than US$ 0.5 million.
Most domestic productions obtain funding through a combination of the Icelandic
Film Fund and by co-production with other countries. Of 43 full-length feature films
released in the years 1986–2000, eight of every ten were foreign co-productions, most
with Scandinavian and German interests involved. In 2000, the fund had a budget of
ISK 205 million, or US$ 2.6 million, of which ISK 128 million (US$ 1.6 million) was
allocated to film production (incl. short films and documentaries), thereof ISK 107.5
million (US$ 1.4 million) to full-length feature film production only (incl. grants to
pre-production. production. and promotion). According to government’s plans, the
annual budget of the fund will be increased to ISK 307 million (US$ 3.9 million) by
2002. Besides direct subsidization for film production, Icelandic films are exempted
from the 24.5 per cent VAT imposed on tickets to foreign films.
Normally domestic producers can expect about 20 per cent of their projects financed
by grants from the Icelandic Film Fund, but other domestic financing (own and
private financing) made up 25 per cent of the total production costs on average in the
1990s. The remaining 55 per cent are sought abroad, mostly to the Nordic Film and
TV-Fund and the European support fund for the co-production of cinematographic
works, Eurimages (in total some 20 per cent), and foreign co-producers (some 30 per
cent) (IBA, 1998: 12–13).
As well as having to contend with constraints imposed by necessarily low budgets, the
performance of Icelandic film producers is all the more creditable as they are obliged
to take further risks to have their films exhibited to the public by renting auditoriums
from exhibitors. A side effect of this is that tickets to Icelandic films generally cost up
30 per cent more than is charged for foreign movies in the box office. Common in
many countries is that nationally produced films have difficulties of securing a cinema
release (Hancock, 1998; Hill, 1999: 76, 83ff; Traquina, 1994: 299–301), or, as
estimated, one film in four produced in Western Europe is not commercially
distributed in theatre (EAO, 2001: 74). Whilst distributors and operators are often
reluctant of taking necessary risks in the light of unproven ‘marketability’ of domestic
films, so far Icelandic features have all managed to secure a cinema release.

35
Taking into account the fact that ticket prices are more expensive than for non-
domestic films and the country’s tiny population, domestic films are remarkably
successful. Claiming attendance of three to five per cent of the population would
surely make European film producers more than pleased. Nevertheless, this still
means that Icelandic film producers are almost at the verge of a financial catastrophe,
given the small size of the Icelandic market (Åhlund, 2000: 13; Widding, 1998: 98).
Domestic films cannot be expected to recoup but a fraction of their production costs
on the home market, meaning they are dependent upon international distribution and
sales, near almost confined to Scandinavia and Europe by sales of TV rights and art
house distribution. In effort to minimize economical risks is perhaps one reason that
many films have often been linguistically adapted for distribution abroad, using
minimal dialogue or by also recording the dialogue in an English version.22
Film production in Iceland, is characterized by small and mostly temporary
production companies. Discontinuity and irregular production is not confined to
Iceland alone, but to larger European countries as well (e.g. Dale, 1997: 168ff; Hill,
1999: 84–5; Kohvakka et al., 1997: 28–9ff). Presently, only one company is engaged
in production of feature films on an ongoing basis, the Íslenska
kvikmyndasamsteypan (The Icelandic Film Corporation), the production house of the
director Friðrik Þór Friðriksson. The company is in a leading role in film production
in Iceland, as producing/co-producing almost every other film released in recent
years, as well as increasingly participating in projects abroad.23
Were it not for State subsidies, in one form or another, there would hardly be any
theatrical feature film production in Iceland – not on a continual basis at least. State
support for film production has normally been justified with cultural reasoning and
domestic filmmaking has been seen as a part of the cultural patrimony of the nation.
This can be changing in advance of the industrial side of filmmaking. Recently the
government adopted special rules of sliding tax refunds based on the level of
investment for companies making films in Iceland (Law No. 43/1999; Regulation No.
131/2001). With no language or cast requirements, it is hoped for that the benefits will
attract foreign producers and so-called ‘runaway’ productions, one which delocates
the shooting and post-production processes outside the principle producer’s country.
Modelled upon the example of Ireland, which has successfully managed to attract
foreign film producers and investments due to favourable tax treatment, the objective
of offering foreign film companies incentives to spend time and money away from
home is to bring in technical know-how and to provide Icelandic filmmakers
assignments on more regular basis.
One of the characteristics of many of the domestic films is that they have aimed at
seeking audiences undifferentiated by social divisions, such as by sex and age. As
such, they have been speaking to the nation as a whole, rather than to special

22
The 1995 feature Á köldum klaka (Cold Fever), directed by Friðrik Þór Friðriksson, has perhaps
travelled most widely. The film got a distribution contracts outside Europe and it achieved something
of a cult status among film ‘aficionados’ in the US, seen by 84,000 in 1996 according to the EAO’s
The Lumiere Database. Much of the little dialogue in the film is in English.
23
The company has so far participated abroad in productions of three full-length features, the 1998
releases the Danish-Icelandic Vildspor (Wildside), directed by Simon Staho, and the Irish-German-
Icelandic The Tale of Sweety Barrett, directed by Stephen Bradley, and the 1999 release the Turkish-
French-Icelandic-Dutch The Split, directed by Canan Gerede (The Internet Movie Database; MEDIA
Salles, European On-line Cinema Database).

36
segments within the audience. Notwithstanding more regularity in outputs and
relatively good performance of many films on the domestic market recently, Icelandic
film production seems now to be standing at crossroads. Producers complain that it is
becoming ever more difficult to secure financing from abroad to their productions as
years go by. The Icelandic Film Fund has responded by allocating bigger grants to
fewer and ‘larger’ films in effort to make it easier for producers to find the additional
money required from abroad, and increase the export marketability of their films. The
most likely outcome of this is that Icelandic film production will become more
dualistic in structure. On the one side of the spectrum, there will be more expensive
and prestigious films produced with export marketability in mind, while on the other
side there will be ‘low budget’ productions made without almost any official support,
aimed at trying to find niche groups within the domestic market.

Conclusion: As good as it gets

–Going to see a film is still an event.
Graeme Turner, 1993.

Over the past few decades, the Icelandic cinema market, similarly as in other western
countries, has gone through drastic changes. Following a sharp fall in admissions in
the late 1960s and again throughout the 1980s, the market has since stabilized and
even shown signs of a slight recovery in recent years. The decline in cinema-going
has though not been without painful adjustment and restructuring of the exhibition
and distribution sector at the expense of small operators and in favour of the large
exhibitors-distributors. The exhibition sector outside the capital region was
particularly badly hit by falling public demand for the cinema, and is almost left in
ruins. Conversely, the large exhibitors-distributors in the capital region have managed
to retain exceptionally high admissions per capita, despite largely inflated real cinema
prises. This has been done by extensive refurbishing of premises and multi screen
developments, and at same time by relying on expensive blockbusters, whose releases
have been accompanied by extensive advertising and promotion. At same time, the
supply of films has changed in advance of US films, which have largely increased
their share of the market. Growing share of US productions has mainly been at the
expanse of European films, which have had almost a negligible presence on market in
recent years. Notwithstanding considerable success of nationally produced films in
the box office over the last two decades, the Icelandic market is too small to sustain a
prolific film industry that is able to counterweight the overwhelming position of US
films in the market.
Despite staggering loss of audiences to the cinema, going to the pictures is still a
popular pastime activity in Iceland as manifested in exceptionally high frequency of
attendance per population as compared to most countries. Long famed as Europe’s
most prolific film-going country, it seems as though most of the potential of the
Icelandic market may now be exhausted, notwithstanding a modest growth in
admissions since 1996. Despite the relatively high annual admissions per a head, the
market is over-screened, with some of the cinemas operating only at 12-13 per cent of
capacity, as reported (Grummitt et al., 1999: 35). This has not prevented the large

37
exhibitors-distributors from planning further expansion to increase the returns of the
overall market and to protect their market share.24
All things considered, it seems that the cinema market in Iceland has reached a
plateau. ‘While a smash hit local film could disrupt the prediction of flat admissions,
in the absence of such a surprise event the likelihood is, indeed, of some consolidation
as the only route to squeezing higher profits out of a static market’ (Grummitt et al.,
1999: 37).

References
Åhlund, Jannike (2000) En sagolik [film] historia – bilder från Island. Gothenburg: Filmkonst.
(Filmkonst, 65.)
Akranes (1948) ‘Rekstur Bíóhallarinnar – Bygging Sjúkrahússins’, 7(3–4): 43.
Aksoy, Asu and Kevin Robins (1992) ‘Hollywood for the 21st Century: Global Competition for
Critical Mass in Image Markets’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 16(1): 1–22.
Andersen, Ole E. (1995) ‘Medieudbud og medieforbrug i Danmark 1983–1994’ in Betekning om
medierne i demokratiet. Copenhagen: Medieudvalget/Statsministeriet. Betænkning. 1320
(available at http://imv.aau.dk/smu/on_line.html).
Bernharðsson, Eggert Þór (1999) ‘Íslenskur texti og erlendar kvikmyndir. Brot úr bíósögu’, pp.
874–85 in G. Elísson (ed.) Heimur kvikmyndanna. Reykjavík: art.is/Forlagið.
Biltereyst, Daniël and Philippe Meers (2000) ‘The International Telenovela Debate and the Contra-
flow Argument: a Reappraisal’, Media, Culture and Society 22(4): 393–413.
Bjarnason, Hilmar Thor and Thorbjörn Broddason (1997) ‘Mass Media in Iceland’, pp. 55–65 in U.
Carlsson et al. (eds.) Media Trends 1997 in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden:
Descriptive Analyses and Statistics. Gothenburg: Nordicom. (Nordic Media Trends, 3.)
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver (1998) ‘Media Imperialism Reformulated’, pp. 157–76 in D. K. Thussu (ed.)
Electronic Empires: Global Media and Local Resistance. London: Arnold.
Broddason, Thorbjörn (2000) ‘Das Rundfunksystems Islands’, pp. 407–13 in Hans-Bredow-Institut
(ed.) Internationales Handbuch für Hörfunk und Fernsehen 2000/2001. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Cook, David A. (1989) ‘Sound Film’, pp. 67–80 in E. Barnouw et al. (eds.) International
Encyclopedia of Communication, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.
Corrigan, Philip (1983) ‘Film Entertainment as Ideology and Pleasure: A Preliminary Approach to
History of Audiences’, pp. 24–35 in J. Curran et al. (eds.) British Cinema History. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Cowie, Peter (1995) Icelandic Films. Reykjavík: Icelandic Film Fund.
Crystal, David (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Cunningham, Stuart, Elizabeth Jacka and John Sinclair (1998) ‘Global and Regional Dynamics of
International Television Flows’, pp. 177–92 in D. K. Thussu (ed.) Electronic Empires: Global
Media and Local Resistance. London: Arnold.
Dale, Martin (1997) The Movie Game: The Film Business in Britain, Europe and America. London:
Cassell.
Deiss, Richard (2001) ‘Cinema Statistics: Strong Growth in Cinema-going’, Statistics in Focus:
Industry, Trade and Services, Theme 4 – 2/2001: 1–7.
EAO (2000, 2001) Statistical Yearbook 2000 and 2001: Film, Television, Video and New Media in
Europe. Ed. by A. Lange. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.
Economist, The (2001) ‘The Triumph of English: A World Empire by Other Means’, Dec. 22nd
2001–Janúary 4th 2002 (Special Christmas Issue): 33–5.
Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
EUROSTAT (2000) Demographic Statistics: Data 1960–99. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. (Theme 3: Population and Social Conditions).

24
The large distributor-exhibitor Skífan opened in fall 2001 a new five screen cinema in a suburban
shopping centre in the capital region, with a seating capacity of over 1,000 offering the supermarket
convenience of choice and parking facilities. Moreover, the market leader, Samfilm is planning to open
a new multi-screen cinema in a populous suburb in the capital region before the end-of-year 2002/early
2003.

38
EUROSTAT (2001) Statistics on Audiovisual Services: Data 1980–1999. Ed. by D. Koszerek et al.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
De Fleur, Melvin L. and Sandra Ball-Rokeach (1982) Theories of Mass Communication. 4th edn.
New York: Longman.
Flichy, Patrice (1995) Dynamics of Modern Communication: The Shaping and Impact of New
Communication Technologies. London: Sage.
Garnham, Nicholas (1990) ‘Economics of the US Motion Picture Industry’, pp. 169–209 in idem.
Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and the Economics of Information. Ed. by F.
Inglis. London: Sage.
Grummitt, Karsten-Peter and Katharine Couling (1999) Cinemagoing: Scandinavia and Finland.
Leicester: Dodona Research.
Guback, Thomas H. (1979) ‘Film as International Business’, pp. 359–67 in A. Mattelart et al. (eds.)
Communication and Class Struggle, vol. 1: Capitalism, Imperialism. New York: International
General.
Hanche, Øvind (1993) ‘Alt dette – og cinemascope også. Ny kinoteknikk og nye visningsformer på
50-tallet’, pp. 231–57 in K. Skretting (ed.) Kringkastning og kino. Oslo: Norges Forskningsråd.
(Levende Bilder, 2/93.)
Hancock, David (1998) ‘Global Film Production.’ Working document for Venice Conference held
by EURO-MEI 29-30 August 1998 (available at http://www.obs.coe.int/online_publication/index.
html.en).
Herman, Edward S. and Robert W. McChesney (1997) The Global Media: The New Missionaries of
Corporate Capitalism. London: Cassell.
Hill, John (1999) ‘Cinema’, pp. 74–87 in J. Stokes et al. (eds.) The Media in Britain: Current
Debates and Developments. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Hoskins, Colin and Rolf Mirus (1988) ‘Reasons for US Dominance of the International Trade in
Television Programmes’, Media, Culture and Society 10(4): 499–515.
Hoskins, Colin, Stuart McFadyen and Adam Finn (1997) Global Television and Film: An
Introduction to the Economics and Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IBA (1998) Kvikmyndaiðnaðurinn á Íslandi. Staða, horfur og möguleikar. Reykjavík: Institute of
Business Administration University of Iceland/Aflvaki, September 1998.
Internet Movie Database, The (available at http://us.imdb.com/).
IVF (2000) The European Video Yearbook 2000/2001. Ed. by H. Davis. London: International
Video Federation/Screen Digest.
Jarvie, Ian (1998) ‘Free Trade as Cultural Threat: American Film and TV Exports in the Post-war
Period’, pp. 34–46 in G. Nowell-Smith et al. (eds.) Hollywood and Europe: Economics, Culture,
National Identity 1945–95. London: British Film Institute.
Jauert, Per and Ole Prehn (1997) ‘Danish Mass Media: Recent Developments’, pp. 9–36 in U.
Carlsson et al. (eds.) Media Trends 1997 in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden:
Descriptive Analyses and Statistics. Gothenburg: Nordicom. (Nordic Media Trends, 3.)
Karlsson, Ragnar, Hilmar Thor Bjarnason and Thorbjörn Broddason (2001) ‘The Icelandic Media
Landscape: Structure, Economy and Consumption’, pp. 229–38 in U. Carlsson et al. (eds.) Media
Trends 2001 in Denmark. Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden: Statistics and Analyses.
Gothenburg: Nordicom. (Nordic Media Trends, 6.)
Karlsson, Ragnar, Hilmar Thor Bjarnason, Thorbjörn Broddason and Margrét L. Gudmundsdóttir
(2000) ‘Performance of Public and Private Television in Iceland 1993–1999: An Assessment’,
Nordicom Review 21(1): 101–42.
Karlsson, Ragnar (ed.) (1999) Fjölmiðlun og menning 1999 – Media and Culture 1999. Reykjavík:
Statistics Iceland (available at http://www.statice.is).
Karlsson, Ragnar (ed.) (2002, in press) Fjölmiðlun, fjarskipti og menning 2002 – Media,
Telecommunication and Culture 2002. Reykjavík: Statistics Iceland (available at
http://www.statice.is).
Kohvakka, Rauli and Markku Huttunen (1997) Audio-visual Production and International Co-
productions in Finland. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Lange, André (2001) Focus 2001: World Film Market Trends – Tendances du Marché Mondial du
Film. Cannes: Cannes Market/European Audiovisual Observatory.
Laxness, Halldór Kiljan (1955) ‘Kvikmyndin ameríska 1928’, pp. 119–41 in idem., Alþýðubókin.
4th edn. Reykjavík: Mál og menning.
Law No. 43/1999 (available at http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1999043.html).
Lindholm, Tommy and Bo Reimer (2000) ‘Film och biografer’, pp. 421–27 in U. Carlsson et al.
(eds.) Medie Sverige 1999/2000. Statistik och analys. Gothenburg: Nordicom-Sverige.

39
 Lodge, David (1993 [1960]) The Picturegoers. A novel. London: Penguin Books.
London Economics (1991) Retailing European Films: The Case of the European Exhibition
Industry. A Report for the Media Business School, Madrid.
London Economics (1992) The Competitive Position of the European and US Film Industries. A
Report for the Media Business School, Madrid.
Lumiere Database on Admissions of Films Released in Europe, The (available at
http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/EN/search.php).
MEDIA Salles (1995) ‘Historical Appendix’, pp. 149–249 in European Cinema Yearbook 1989–
1995. Milan: MEDIA Salles (available at http://www.mediasalles.it/ybkcent/ybk95_hi.htm).
MEDIA Salles (2000) European Cinema Yearbook 2000: Source Document. Milan: MEDIA Salles.
MEDIA Salles, European On-line Cinema Database (available at http://oliver.cilea.it/cgibin/-
msfilms/webdriver).
Mitchell, B. R. (1992) International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750–1988. 3rd edn. New York:
Stockton Press.
Morley, David and Kevin Robins (1995) Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes
and Cultural Boundaries. London: Routledge.
Noam, Eli (1991) Television in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nordic Council (various years) Yearbook of Nordic Statistics. Stockholm: Nordic Council.
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (1996) ‘The Resurgence of the Cinema’, pp. 759–66 in idem. (ed.) The
Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Østergaard, Bernt Stubbe (ed.) (1997) The Media in Western Europe: The Euromedia Handbook.
London: Sage.
Rasmussen, R. Kent (ed.) (1997) The Quotable Mark Twain: His Essential Aphorisms, Witticisms,
and Brief Opinions. Chicago: NTC Contemporary Books.
Regulation No. 131/2001 (available at http://www.stjr.is/interproIivr/ivr.nsf/pages/wpp 0071).
Richler, Mordecai (1997) Barney’s Version. A novel. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rothery, Agnes (1952) Iceland: Bastion of the North. London: Andrew Melrose.
Screen Digest, June 1999, June and September 2000, August, September and October 2001.
Sorlin, Pierre (1991) European Cinemas, European Societies 1939–1990. London: Routledge.
Statistics Iceland, unpublished data from the Media, Telecommunication and Culture Database.
Tíminn. Sunnudagsblað (1965) ‘‘Ég kann svo sem uppskriftina.’ Rætt við Helga Jónsson
kvikmyndahússtjóra í Hafnarfirði’ 4(31): 729–31.
Torfason, Ólafur H. (1994) ‘Bíó með boðlegum hætti’, Neytendablaðið 40(2): 28–30.
Traquina, Nelson (1994) ‘Portuguese Cinema: In the Doldrums of Neglect’, European Journal of
Communication 9(3): 291–309.
Tunstall, Jeremy (1977) The Media are American: Anglo-American Media in the World. London:
Constable.
Tunstall, Jeremy and Michael Palmer (1991) Media Moguls. London: Routledge.
Turner, Graeme (1993) Film as a Social Practice. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
UN (1968, 1972) Statistical Yearbook 1967 and 1971. New York: United Nations.
UNESCO (1987, 1999) Statistical Yearbook 1987 and 1999. Paris and Lanham. MD:
Unesco/Bernan Press.
Widding, Astrid Söderbergh (1998) ‘Iceland’, pp. 96–101 in T. Soila et al. (eds.) Nordic National
Cinemas. London. Routledge.
Wildman, Steven S. (1994) ‘One-way Flows and the Economics of Audiencemaking’, pp. 115–41
in J. Ettema et al. (eds.) Audiencemaking: How the Media Create the Audience. Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Williams, Raymond (1976) Communications. 3rd edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Ragnar Karlsson is researcher at Statistics Iceland.

Address: Statistics Iceland,
Media, Telecommunication and Culture,
Skuggasund 3, IS-150 Reykjavík
[email: ragnar.karlsson@statice.is]

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect the views
of Statistics Iceland.

40