3  How the Norwegian film industry works

What makes an industry?

It is only recently that the Norwegian film industry can be characterised as an industry. While there has been continuous film production in the country since 1917, it was not until the mid-1990s that it “developed from a cottage industry into a professional business” (Moseng 2017, 23).

Some blame for Norway’s struggle to establish a film industry can be placed on the small population, though neighbouring Denmark was a pioneering film nation despite similar population size¹. Denmark is both a significantly flatter and smaller, which would have made early film distribution a lot easier. However, Denmark - like Sweden, had something Norway did not. Denmark had Nordisk Film and Sweden had Svensk Filmindustri², both vertically integrated companies that performed all three cultural industries functions.

Around the time that these companies began establishing themselves, first as cinema owners, Norwegian cinemas became municipal. This system had initially been instated as a way to curb immorality by requiring a license to operate cinemas. Most municipalities awarded this license to themselves as a way to secure income (Asbjørnsen and Solum 2003). While it may be a stretch to blame the lack of a Norwegian film industries on municipal cinemas alone, there is no doubt that it removed the possibility of a vertically integrated studio (Iversen 2016).

As argued in Chapter 1, the dissemination function, cinemas in this case, has historically been an important starting point for companies that perform the commodification function. While there are no comprehensive studies of the history Norwegian film industry from an economic perspective, there are indications that until the 1990s the commodification function was only partially performed by local distributors. What role the Norwegian distributors actually performed in the Norwegian film industry before the 1990s is unclear; they are largely absent from Norwegian film histories, and in the distributors’ accounts of their own histories the focus is squarely on their role as sub-distributors of foreign movies. (Haddal and Hoenvoll 2015; Disen 1997).

Before 1990, it seems likely that parts of the commodification process, like marketing, were largely handled by production companies, and that distributors operated more like sub-distributors when it came to local movies as well. There are some indications that at least the two major production companies did a significant share of this work in-house. The dominant, government-owned production company, Norsk Film A/S had a marketing division (Helseth and Moseng 2020) and the most active private production company in the 1960s and 70s, Teamfilm, established their own distribution arm (Helseth and Jensen 2016; Disen 1997).

In the 1990s, this began to change with the establishment of distributors with ties to Norwegian production companies. Norsk Filmdistribusjon was established by spinning off the marketing division of Norsk Film A/S into a separate company in 1990 (Helseth and Moseng 2020). SF Studios³ was established in 1988 by acquiring Syncron film. One of Syncron’s employees was John M. Jacobsen, whose Filmkameratene was already on the path of becoming Norway’s most commercially successful production company with Hard Asfalt (Skagen 1986) and Ofelas (Gaup 1987). SF Norge would become the distributor for most of Filmkameratene’s movies (Engelstad and Moseng 2016). The 2000s saw more Norwegian movies being made and more stable private production companies, the need and the opportunities for distribution companies with a stronger commitment to local titles increased.

While the small size of the country might not have been the only factor that stopped an industry from developing in the early 20th century, it has certainly been a major factor. The domestic market is too small to be viable and Norwegian is not spoken outside the domestic market. Thus, there is no way to finance movies from the Norwegian market alone, and there has traditionally been very little export. This said, the small language group also serves as a protection, ensuring a demand for local language movies that foreign competition cannot satisfy. The Norwegian film industry is therefore, like so many other European culture industries, heavily dependent on cultural policy. A cultural policy push in the early 2000s was crucial in establishing the current industry, “sharing most of its characteristic and challenges with audio-visual industries elsewhere in Europe” (Moseng 2017, 23)

Since the early 2000s, Norwegian film policy has sought to increase the volume and popularity of Norwegian movies at home, improve their artistic merit and win awards at international festivals, all while trying to secure a financially stable industry (Gaustad et al. 2020). This policy has been largely successful. Attendance at Norwegian movies in the domestic market rose sharply in the early 2000s and has since 2008 remained stable at new record highs. While the most prestigious festival awards have remained elusive, it is also fair to say that several Norwegian directors, most notably Joachim Trier, have established themselves as contenders. The Norwegian film industry, like most cultural industries, remains economically unstable, but a number of companies have attained financial stability over the last few decades.

Just as Thompson (2013) and Hennig-Thurau and Houston (2019) have noted of larger and more commercial cultural industries, the Norwegian film industry remains split between companies that pursue either mainly artistic or mainly market-oriented strategies. However, since most market-oriented films also require public funding, both strategies rely heavily on symbolic capital. Producers in Norway, who lead projects’ public funding efforts, therefore have more sway than in larger and more market-oriented industries, and the influence of distributors is therefore lessened.

This chapter presents the current policy and main characteristic of the Norwegian film industry at the moment. Using the cultural industries framework I further analyse how the different parts of the local film industry has been impacted by digitalisation. Finally I present five “paths” to financing and discuss what role recent policy changes and the emergence of SVOD services play in future film financing.

Current policy

Norwegian film production has always been privately facilitated, but since 1969 it has been largely publicly financed (Iversen 2016). This reliance on public funding makes the Norwegian industry very policy sensitive, as policy changes can very quickly change the conditions for film production.

The current policy regimen was established in the early 2000s in an effort to boost the volume, popularity, and quality of the Norwegian film production. Government funding sharply increased at this time: from NOK 71M in 2001 to to NOK 371M in 2010 (Moseng 2016).

In 2006 it became official policy that Norwegian movies should aim for an annual 25% market share in the cinema window and 15% in the home entertainment market. During the 1990s, the cinema market share for local movies had only twice passed 10% (Kulturdepartementet 2007; Film og Kino 2017), and even the record breaking 1975 only saw 20.7% (Film og Kino 1979).

In 2008 this record was broken with 22.8%. The market share remained relatively stable at this level for the next ten years, before reaching the 25% target in 2018⁴. Although there are no annual or officially reported numbers for the market share in the home entertainment markets, a 2018 report suggest that this goal was reached by 2016 (Gaustad et al. 2018).

A 2001 reform established the first market-based scheme for public funding, adding to the already established support scheme based on artistic evaluation. In addition to these schemes that offered production funding, an ex post scheme had existed in various forms since 1955 (Iversen 2016). The ex post scheme has always been a market-reinforcement scheme, that semi-automatically awarded funds to producers based on admissions or revenue.

These three schemes, administered by NFI, have for the last two decades been the basis of three main paths to financing Norwegian films. The early 2000s also saw the establishment of regional film funds (Bjerkeland 2015). While these are generally awarded to movies that also receive support from NFI, some filmmakers have succeeded in financing movies with only regional support. In most cases, securing NFI production support has been the first step towards financing a developed project. Recent policy changes have in all likelihood closed the ex post path, but as SVOD services have begun financing Norwegian films, a new path appears to be emerging.

While the industry has called for national policy towards SVOD services since 2015 (Lismoen 2015), no policy has been enacted at the time of writing. There have been calls for both a tax, which was recently introduced in Denmark, and a minimum investment level, which a previous Norwegian culture minister announced in 2019. No details were provided, and her right-of-centre government has since been replaced by a Labour-led minority coalition.

Private financing

There are very few private investments in Norwegian movies outside producers’ own investments and investments from distributors through the purchase of distribution rights. These, and particularly the latter, have increased after the changes in the ex post scheme in 2010 that have stimulated private investments.

As the ex post scheme matches revenue from all sales in the first three years, producers can with relative confidence invest what they expect to receive in ex post support later. When distributors buy distribution rights, they offer a minimum guarantee (MG). The MG is paid out to the producer, regardless of the actual admissions. Since the MG is revenue from a sale, it will generate ex post support, again regardless of the actual admissions. Thus, securing a high MG is very valuable for a producer and often key to securing any financing beyond public support.

When the MG plus the distributor’s fee and marketing expenses are covered, the additional revenue is split between the producer and the distributor. In larger markets, this often done through a production financing distribution (PFD) deal in which the distributor enters into a project in an early phase and contributes the majority of the financing. In these deals, the revenue split is often 20/80 in the distributor’s favour (Crisp 2015; Cones 1996). In Norway, the production company brings in the majority of financing – through public funds – and the split is generally 80/20, favouring the producer (Gaustad et al. 2018).

However, in Norway distributors have first priority in the revenue stream until their investments are recouped. Given the small markets and relatively high MGs, it is therefore rare that Norwegian film producers see any revenue from admissions or home entertainment sales. As with independent producers in other countries, Norwegian production companies therefore make a living by staying in production (Moseng 2017; Engelstad 2017) and Norwegian film industry professionals are generally paid in salaries rather than royalties.

Creation

In Norway, the creation function is performed by a number of private production companies. Distribution companies are also involved through the financing of individual movies or through varying degrees of production company ownership. Film production companies usually have either Norwegian or Scandinavian owners, in sharp contrast to Norwegian television production companies, which are largely owned by global conglomerates (Moseng 2017).

Since a distribution deal is an essential part of financing, local distributors can have an impact on creation by suggesting edits, casting choices and so on. Gjerdrum (2016) describes how Tusen ganger god natt (Poppe 2013) lost its initial Norwegian distribution deal when Juliette Binoche was cast as lead instead of a Norwegian actor. However, as the producer brings in the majority of the financing, the production company makes the de facto green-light decision.

The policy changes of the early 2000s not only caused a dramatic increase in Norwegian movie production, the publicly owned production company Norsk Film AS was closed down. This paved the way for a new era with increasingly more stable private Norwegian production companies.

There nevertheless remains a high degree of turnover in the industry. Jo Sondre Moseng (2016, 2017) analyses Norwegian film production companies in the period 2004 to 2015. He found that 72 different production companies were involved in the production of a total of 240 Norwegian movies from 2004 to 2015. But only six companies averaged one or more movies each year, and 46 companies only made one movie. Furthermore, some 70 percent of all cinema admissions came from a core group of nine companies.

These nine are split between companies with high production volume and relatively low admissions per title and companies with low production volume and relatively high admissions per title. This split generally aligns with companies aligned with either artistic scheme funding or market scheme funding (plus, when it was an option, those companies that relied on ex post support alone). Further evidence that the creation function in the Norwegian film industry is split between those pursuing artistic strategies and those pursuing market strategies is discussed by Engelstad and Moseng (2014).

Moseng (2017, 24) notes that a handful of Norwegian film production companies have also begun making television series, but that the two industries remain separate. It is unsurprising, he argues, that Norwegian film producers are drawn to television, as this medium offers another way for a company to remain actively in production (2017, 61). As Norwegian production companies rarely see back end profits, the upfront payments from television and streaming services are likely also attractive.

There is little evidence that the massive changes in dissemination of movies in Norway have led to changes in the creation function. However, the emergence of the streaming path as a new way to finance Norwegian movies would introduce significant change in how the creation function is performed if it becomes viable.

Commodification

The commodification function in the Norwegian film industry is primarily performed by distributors, who purchase distribution rights, make and distribute copies to cinemas and home entertainment platforms, set release dates in the various formats, and market movies.

The degree to which Norwegian distributors invest in local movies varies strongly. For some distributors this is a key part of their business, for others Norwegian movies play no role at all. When investing in Norwegian movies they act as first run distributors. As first run distributors, they have considerable impact on how the movie is perceived as they create the movie’s marketing from scratch. In most cases, this happens in close collaboration with producers and often with outside services such as advertising agencies.

Almost all Norwegian distributors release foreign titles. When working with foreign titles, distributors perform a local commodification function. They adapt the commodity form of the film to the Norwegian market by adjusting marketing, making subtitles and Norwegian language versions, sometimes setting release dates, and making copies available for cinema and home entertainment.

While the split between the artistic and market strategies is less pronounced among distributors than among producers, it is also evident among distributors. However, this split is most evident in terms of the resources they have to invest in and market local movies.

Digitalisation of both cinemas and the home entertainment market brought challenges to the distributors. The decline in home entertainment revenue made them more reliant on cinemas (Gaustad 2019). At the same time distributors, interviewed in 2016, felt that the newly digitalised cinemas were over-booking and under-promoting releases. Distributors also wanted to compensate for the loss of home entertainment revenue by shortening theatrical windows, something the cinemas resisted. They were also struggling to close good deals with the many digital platforms, especially the smaller companies. With the loss of revenue several distributors reduce staff and some only employed one person. Even the local major distributors like Nordisk Filmdistribusjon only had 10 employees (Bakøy and Øfsti 2021).

The loss of revenue also contributed to a decline in willingness to invest in Norwegian movies (Gaustad et al. 2018). This, in turn contributed to the emergence of producer-owned distribution companies such as Mer Filmdistribusjon (Bakøy and Øfsti 2021). While digitalisation has made it possible to distribute movies in cinemas without an established distributor, it has not had a significant impact on the industry.

Distributors in general rely more directly on the market than producers, yet there are some NFI support schemes that target commodification as well. The Norwegian distributors and their responses to the massive changes in dissemination are discussed in detail in part two of this thesis.

Dissemination

The home entertainment market surpassed cinemas in terms of revenue in 1984 (Valle 2009, 112) and remained the main source of income for Norwegian distributors up until 2012 (Gaustad 2019). For Norwegian movies, however, the market shares in the home entertainment markets have generally been low. With the exception of a brief period when DVD sales were at their peak, cinemas most likely have consistently been the biggest earner for Norwegian movies⁵. Attempts at non-theatrical movie distribution are very rare⁶. As in other industries, it is in the dissemination of movies that the Norwegian industry has seen the biggest changes in the last decade. Many of these changes are a result of digitalisation, such as the rise of SVOD services and the decline of physical movie retail.

However, the country’s unique municipal cinema system has recently undergone significant privatisation. In the 1960s and 1970s cinema admissions fell as television grew, and as many municipal cinemas began losing money their justification evolved into “public service” (Asbjørnsen and Solum 2003). In the 1980s private cinemas slowly became more common, but municipal cinemas still dominated in the big cities and held the bulk of admissions. In 2014, the running of the municipal cinemas in Bergen and Oslo was handed over to private companies⁷, and public cinemas no longer had the majority of admissions.

The major private cinema chains are Nordisk Film Kino, owned by Danish Egmont, and Odeon, owned by the American cinema chain AMC. These accounted for 57% of all admissions in 2019 (Film og Kino 2020).

The physical home entertainment market was, until 2013, dominated by a combination of local video stores, record store chains, and sales in supermarket chains and big box chains (Øfsti 2019). Some of these had foreign owners, such as Free Record Shop and Elkjøp, but most were local chains. The last Norwegian video store closed in 2017, and in 2020 Norwegian record store chain Platekompaniet closed all but one of its locations, leaving Norway almost without specialised physical retail stores for movies (Berge 2017, 2020).

Since 2014, SVOD has dominated the digital home entertainment market in both consumer spend and attention (Gaustad et al. 2018). And since launch, Netflix has been the market leader among the commercial companies; by 2021, 66% of the Norwegian public had access to the service. That same year, HBO MAX reached 30% of the Norwegian public and Disney+ 21%. They were launched in 2021 and 2020 respectively. In 2021 Scandinavian service Viaplay reached 26% and the Norwegian service TV2 Play reached 27% (Schiro 2021).

Market shares for TVOD/EST services are not available. However, informants interviewed for this thesis agreed that iTunes was clearly the most popular EST service. Several other TVOD platforms often mentioned alongside iTunes – Viaplay, SF Anytime and Altibox – were more evenly matched.

The impact of the digitalisation of the home entertainment market was significant for the Norwegian film industry. Not only has the value of the home entertainment market fallen, the Norwegian share in these markets has fallen as well. In 2017, the market share for Norwegian movies and series in the remaining physical video market was 18%, compared to 11% in the EST/TVOD market and 5% in the SVOD market. Revenue generated for the Norwegian film industry that year was split among cinemas at 66.1%, DVD/BD at 11.1%, EST/TVOD at 13.4%, pay TV at 7.3% and SVOD at only 2.2% (Gaustad et al. 2018).

The film policy reforms of the early 2000s reduced the influence of Norwegian broadcasters in the film industry, as well as their incentives to invest (Engelstad 2005). NRK frequently buys screening rights for Norwegian movies, and often in pre-production, but the investments are not significant. In 2014 TV2 attempted to market its new streaming service with a pre-release of Jakten på Berlusconi (Endresen 2014). The movie, distributed by Euforia, was set to stream a week before the theatrical premiere, but this plan was met with boycott threats by cinemas, and the pre-release was ultimately scrapped. In 2019, however, TV2 made an output deal with Nordisk Film Distribusjon, making their movies available on TV2’s SVOD service about nine months after theatrical release (Rushprint 2019). While TV2 has since increased its TV series spending, it has not commissioned any movies directly.

A legacy from the municipal cinema system is that unlike many other markets there has traditionally been little or no divide between the artistic and the commercially oriented cinemas in Norway. Municipal cinemas have tended to operate in accordance with general public service media ideals, where both popular and artistic fare have been given space. The end of their dominance, at least in Oslo, seems to have contributed to an increased division between artistically oriented and market oriented cinemas. In fact, since 2016, Oslo has seen the establishment of three cinemas that show primarily arthouse movies.

Unlike municipal cinemas, home entertainment platforms are generally very commercially oriented, with the exception of a few specialised services with very low turnover. State broadcaster NRK continues to have a broader range of content than the commercial public service broadcaster TV2, but NRK too chooses to centre more commercial fare online compared to its broadcast schedule (Spilker and Colbjørnsen 2020).

The five paths to financing

While the financing of Norwegian movies is closely tied to policy, the various schemes are not suited as analytical categories. Their details can and have changed over the years, some of them can be combined but others not, and they can have significantly different importance in different projects. I have therefore elected to take a slightly elevated look and describe five paths to financing a Norwegian movie. These paths instead begin with the producers, and how they use the schemes and other sources of financing.

From 2001 to 2021 four distinct paths were employed, the artistic path, the market path, the regional path, and the ex post path. In 2021 NFI announced changes in the ex post scheme that for all practical purposes closed the ex post path. Around the same time a new path, the SVOD path, emerged.

Success in securing funds through three of these –the artistic path, the market path, and the regional path – is contingent largely on the producer’s track record. As each requires successful applications to NFI or regional funds, producers choosing these paths must have the necessary symbolic capital for an application to succeed. While some production companies have financed movies through several of these paths, most tend to specialise in one or the other.

The artistic path is in many cases not dependent on actual market performance; a producer’s past success can be measured in critical acclaim, festival selection, awards, and so on. The market path and the ex post path are dependent on market performance, both as a measure of artistic success and often financially. The ex post path, the regional path and the SVOD path do not rely on NFI funding to green-light production. The only purely market dependent path is the SVOD path, which has still to prove itself as a stable alternative.

The artistic path

Financing movies through the artistic path begins by applying for development or production funding from the NFI according to artistic evaluation. The main artistic evaluation scheme has co-existed with several variants in the last decades. One offered package funding, where producers and directors with very solid track records received funding for multiple projects. Another was aimed specifically at experimental and very low budget movies. Currently the main artistic scheme is complemented by a separate scheme for emerging talents. Funding for documentaries is also covered by the artistic schemes.

In all of these schemes funds are awarded by a film commissioner based on the artistic merits of the project and the track record of the producer. Most projects that eventually receive production funding have initially received development funding. While development funding might be offered several times, all current funds are awarded on a per project basis.

Since producers that specialise in the artistic path cannot depend on revenue from previous projects, it is crucial to stay in development or production at all times. Successful artistic path producers therefore have many NFI funded projects in development at all times, which secures activity even if production funding is ultimately refused.

Through the artistic scheme, up to NOK 35M or 80% of a movie’s total budget can be awarded, although in practice, sums are much lower. In 2017/2018 the average amount awarded through this scheme was NOK 6.5M and 37% of the total budget (Gaustad et al. 2018). Producers will generally secure the rest of the funds from European funding programmes, regional funds in Norway, sales of distribution rights, and private investments. Norwegian movies are often filmed in multiple European countries, both to exploit funding and investment schemes that require local spending and to reduce costs by shooting in lower-cost countries.

The artistic path is the most common. A total of 68 films released from 2011 to 2015 were funded by the various artistic schemes.

The market path

Financing movies through the market path begins by applying for production funding according to market criteria. To apply for the market scheme a project must have an estimated audience of 150,000 or more. The funding decision is made by a panel that evaluates the project’s commercial potential in competition with the other current applicants. If all other factors are equal, preference shall be given to projects where women occupy significant roles such as director, producer, or writer.

Some 17 films released between 2011 and 2015 were funded through the market scheme. This is a pure production scheme that does not offer development. Occasionally projects that are developed with funding from the artistic scheme end up with production funding from the market scheme, but most market scheme projects are developed in-house by the production companies using capital earned from previous projects.

At the time of writing, the market scheme can award NOK 8M for movies with an estimated audience of 150,000 or more and NOK 12M for movies with an estimated audience of 250,000 or more. While up to 50% of a movie’s total budget can be awarded, in practice grants are, again, usually much lower – in 2017/2018, for example, the average amount awarded in the market scheme was 27% of the total budget (Gaustad et al. 2018). For these projects, the remaining financing is typically secured in much the same manner as with artistic projects, although sales of distribution rights and private investments make up a larger share of the total funding.

The ex post path

Financing movies through the ex post path was prior to 2021 the only path that did not require any production funding from NFI. While all Norwegian movies can receive ex post support, the ex post path describes movies that were privately financed with the expectation that the producer/investors would receive ex post support after the movie was released. If the movie did not pass the admissions threshold for ex post support that investment would be lost.

Up to 2021 the ex post path was the only real path to financing Norwegian movies that did not require production funding from NFI. While all film financing in Norway calculates with the ex post support, the ex post path projects have been initiated without other sources of public funding. Some 51 films made without NFI support were released between 2011 and 2015⁸. Most projects that have attempted this path have failed economically. However, there have been some significant successes such as Filmkameratene’s Børning (Bræin 2014) and Børning 2 (Bræin 2014)⁹.

The ex post scheme matches revenue from all windows during the first three years after theatrical premiere, as long as a certain threshold of cinematic admissions is reached. From 2010¹⁰ to 2021, revenues were matched 200% for children’s movies and 100% for other movies. In 2021, this was reduced to 150% for children’s movies and 75% for other movies. The thresholds for eligibility have also been increased. Originally at 10,000 admissions, they are currently at 35,000 for films financed through the artistic scheme and 50,000 for films financed through the market scheme.

More significantly, only projects that have received NFI funding, or significant regional funding, are now eligible for ex post support. While this change is too recent to have had measurable effect at the time of writing, it will likely close the door for the ex post path.

The regional path

While all Norwegian movies can apply for regional funds, the regional path describes projects that use regional funds as their main source of production funding.

There are four regional film funds in Norway, all of which require a share of the production budget to be spent within the region. In most cases, regional funds come in addition to NFI funding, but in some cases films are financed primarily through regional funds. In some cases, producers can finance a movie by combining grants from several regional funds. Further finances in the same manner as above, though usually on low budgets.

Prior to 2021 the difference between the regional path and the ex post path was the degree of regional support. As such they were not mutually exclusive, and the regional path could be considered a variation of the ex post path. However, projects with significant regional support are still eligible for ex post support after 2021. Thus the regional path will be the only path to ex post support that does not require the pre-approval of NFI.

The SVOD path

At the time of writing, the SVOD path is still emerging, and while it is promising, it is too early to tell if it will become viable. In 2020 Kadaver (Herdal 2020) premiered on Netflix as the first Norwegian film fully financed by a streaming service. In 2022 Netflix followed with Blasted - Gutta vs. Aliens (Sofiedal 2022) and the high-profile and high-budget Troll (Uthaug 2022) premieres on the same service later this year. The Scandinavian streaming service Viaplay has financed Gulltransporten (Bræin 2022), which is also expected to be an exclusive release in 2022.

Streaming services might also become a significant source of additional financing for movies made with support from the artistic or market schemes. Netflix bought the first home entertainment window for Børning 3 (Bræin 2020) and I onde dager (Wirkola 2021) for what was likely a significant amount in a Norwegian home entertainment context (Skrede, Bjørhovde, and Kifle 2020). Viaplay has co-financed the documentary Vegg, Vegg, Vegg (Treimann and Gulliksen 2022), as well as Dag Johan Haugerud’s upcoming trilogy movie Sex, Drømmer og Kjærlighet (Haugerud 2024a, 2024b; haugerud2024b?), and will screen the movies after their cinematic runs.

If the SVOD path becomes a viable solo funding path, it will be the first time since the 1950s that Norwegian movies are made wholly without public funding. However, this shift will also involve significant changes to the producer’s role compared to the other paths because the SVOD service is both the main financier and has the power to initiate and green-light projects.

When dissemination of films had at least some physical component, such as an actual cinema, all three cultural industries functions were to some degree performed in Norway. When dissemination becomes entirely digital, these functions are increasingly performed by global companies, reducing the relative circulation power of the Norwegian industry.

This loss of circulation power is evident in the lower market share Norwegian movies have on digital platforms. In other words, it did matter for Norwegian movies that they were – once – sold by Norwegians in Norwegian stores.

References

Asbjørnsen, Dag, and Ove Solum. 2003. “‘The Best Cinema System in the World’.” Nordicom Review 24 (1): 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0301.

Bakøy, Eva, and Marius Øfsti. 2021. “Filmens grå eminenser: distributørene.” Norsk medietidsskrift 28 (02): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.0805-9535-2021-02-04.

Berge, John. 2017. “Siste Dag i En Av Landets Siste Videobutikker – VIDEOMAGASINET.” http://www.videomagasinet.no/artikkel/siste-dag-i-landets-siste-videobutikk/.

———. 2020. “Nå Er Det Bare én Platekompaniet-Butikk Igjen i Norge – VIDEOMAGASINET.” https://videomagasinet.no/artikkel/na-er-det-bare-en-platekompaniet-butikk-igjen-i-norge/.

Bjerkeland, Ingvild. 2015. “The Rise of the Regions - Norwegian film policy and the new regional cinema.” Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift 18 (01): 125–42. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN2000-8325-2015-01-08.

Bræin, Hallvard. 2014. “Børning.” Action, {{Comedy}}. Filmkameratene A/S, TMM Produksjon, Sweet Films. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3102440/.

———. 2020. “Børning 3.” Action, {{Comedy}}. Filmkameratene A/S/SF Studios. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6527456/.

———. 2022. “Gulltransporten.” Drama, {{Thriller}}, {{War}}. 74 Entertainment/Viaplay. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18092672.

Cones, John W. 1996. The Feature Film Distribution Deal: A Critical Analysis of the Single Most Important Film Industry Agreement. 1st Edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Crisp, Virginia. 2015. Film Distribution in the Digital Age: Pirates and Professionals. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137406613.

Disen, Ole H. P. 1997. Den store illusjonen: filmbyråenes historie. Oslo: Norske filmbyråers forening. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2010032307029.

Endresen, Ole. 2014. “Jakten på Berlusconi.” Comedy. 4 1/2 Film/Euforia. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3892654/?

Engelstad, Audun. 2005. “Bruddenes lange linje. Norsk filmforvaltning gjennom to tiår.” Nordicom Information 27 (2): 17–26.

———. 2017. “Staying Alive as an Indie: How Three UK Companies Build and Sustain Their Businesses.” In Building Successful and Sustainable Film and Television Businesses : A Cross-National Perspective, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Andrew Spicer. Intellect.

Engelstad, Audun, and Jo Sondre Moseng. 2014. “Mapping a Typology of the Film Producer – Or, Six Producers in Search of an Author.” In Beyond the Bottom Line: The Producer in Film and Television Studies, edited by Andrew Spicer, A. T. McKenna, and Christopher Meir, 45–63. Bloomsbury Publishing Inc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501300202.

———. 2016. “Filmbransjens grå eminense. En mikrohistorisk tilnærming til John M. Jacobsen.” In Bak kamera: norsk film og TV i et produksjonsperspektiv, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Tore Helseth, 177–96. Vardeserien. Vallset: Oplandske bokforl.

Film og Kino. 1979. Film & kino: Årboknummer 1979. {Oai:urn.nb.no:no-nb\_digitidsskrift\_2018030681249\_001, URN:NBN:no-nb\_digitidsskrift\_2018030681249\_001}. Vol. 5A. Oslo: Film & Kino. https://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digitidsskrift_2018030681249_001.

———. 2017. “Årbok 2016.” http://www.kino.no/incoming/article1312650.ece.

———. 2020. “Årboka Fra Film & Kino 2019.” Film & Kino. http://www.kino.no/incoming/article1423762.ece.

Gaup, Nils. 1987. “Ofelas.” Action, {{Adventure}}, {{Drama}}. Filmkameratene, Mayco, Norsk Film/Syncron-Film. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093668/.

Gaustad, Terje. 2019. “How Streaming Services Make Cinema More Important: Lessons from Norway.” Nordic Journal of Media Studies 1 (1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.2478/njms-2019-0005.

Gaustad, Terje, Peter Booth, Linnea E. Svensson, and Anne-Britt Gran. 2021. “Nordic Mission Possible: An Assessment of Covid 19’s Impact on the Nordic Audio Visual Industry and the Effectiveness of Government and Industry Measures.” 1/2021. Oslo: BI: Center for Creative Industries. https://www.bi.edu/globalassets/forskning/centre-for-creative-industries/nordic-mission-possible-digi-final.pdf.

Gaustad, Terje, Leo A Grünfeld, Audun Engelstad, Dombu, Siri Voll, Flesche, Bjørn I, and Lind, Lars Hallvar. 2020. “Evaluering Av Tilskuddsordninger på Filmområdet.” Kulturdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c9e4d8ed85874a7dab0c5a67ba1ec6a2/rapport---evaluering-filmpolitiske-ordninger-menon-2019.pdf.

Gaustad, Terje, Theie, Marcus Gjems, Irina Eidsvold-Tøien, Øyvind Torp, Anne-Britt Gran, and Anne Espelien. 2018. “Utredning Av Pengestrømmene i Verdikjeden for Norske Filmer Og Serier.” 5/2018. Oslo: BI: Center for Creative Industries. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fd6baf8f142b445eaf0b4be4ce53de3d/rapport-utredning-pengestrommer-i-verdikjeden-for-norske-filmer-og-serier-endelig-rev_2.pdf.

Gjerdrum, Finn. 2016. “Det eneste som er sikkert er at alt endrer seg. Betraktninger fra en produsent.” In Bak kamera: norsk film og TV i et produksjonsperspektiv, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Tore Helseth, 143–44. Vardeserien. Vallset: Oplandske bokforl.

Haddal, Per, and Bjørn Hoenvoll. 2015. Fra film til fil: filmbyråenes historie. Oslo: Norske filmbyråers forening.

Haugerud, Dag Johan. 2024a. “Sex.” Drama, {{Romance}}. Arthaus, Motlys, Viaplay. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26270862/.

———. 2024b. “Kjærlighet (Sex Drømmer Kjærlighet).” Drama. Motlys. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30810792.

Helseth, Tore, and Axel Holm Jensen. 2016. “Filmproduksjon mellom kunst og kommers. Eksempelet Teamfilm.” In Bak kamera: norsk film og TV i et produksjonsperspektiv, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Tore Helseth. Vardeserien. Vallset: Oplandske bokforl.

Helseth, Tore, and Jo Sondre Moseng. 2020. Norsk film A/S: en kulturhistorie. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, and Mark B Houston. 2019. Entertainment Science: Data Analytics and Practical Theory for Movies, Games, Books, and Music. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Herdal, Jarand. 2020. “Kadaver.” Drama, {{Horror}}, {{Thriller}}. Motion Blur/Netflix. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11284280/.

Iversen, Gunnar. 2016. “Norsk film begravet under monolitten? Norsk filmproduksjon og statens filmpolitikk.” In Bak kamera: norsk film og TV i et produksjonsperspektiv, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Tore Helseth, 65–76. Vardeserien. Vallset: Oplandske bokforl.

Kulturdepartementet. 2007. “St.meld. Nr. 22 (2006-2007) Veiviseren for Det Norske Filmløftet.” https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/Stmeld-nr-22-2006-2007-/id460716/sec1.

Lismoen, Kjetil. 2015. “Vil Etterhåndsstøtten Knekke de Små Filmene?” Rushprint. http://rushprint.no/2015/01/de-stores-rett/.

Moseng, Jo Sondre. 2016. “Produksjonslandskapet i Norsk Film.” In Bak Kamera: Norsk Film Og TV i Et Produksjonsperspektiv, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puik, and Tore Helseth.

———. 2017. “The Film and Television Industries in Norway.” In Building Successful and Sustainable Film and Television Businesses : A Cross-National Perspective, edited by Eva Bakøy, Roel Puijk, and Andrew Spicer. Intellect.

Nordseth, Pål. 2018. “Staten Snudde: Grønt Lys for Den Tredje <<Børning>>-Filmen.” Filter Film Og TV. https://filterfilmogtv.no/staten-snudde-gront-lys-for-den-tredje-borning-filmen/.

Øfsti, Marius. 2019. “Den norske videobutikken: 1979–2017.” Nordlit, no. 41 (March): 87-107-87-107. https://doi.org/10.7557/13.4623.

———. 2020. “Distributor Strategies in the Face of Closed Cinemas: Norwegian Responses to Covid-19.” Baltic Screen Media Review 8 (1): 54–66. https://doi.org/doi:10.2478/bsmr-2020-0006.

Poppe, Erik. 2013. “Tusen Ganger God Natt.” Drama, {{War}}. Paradox, Newgrange Pictures, Film i Väst. Tusen ganger god natt.

Rushprint. 2019. “Hundrevis Av Nordiske Filmer Gjøres Tilgjengelig på TV2.” Rushprint. https://rushprint.no/2019/11/hundrevis-av-nordiske-filmer-gjores-tilgjengelig-pa-tv2/.

Schiro, Emma Castillo. 2021. “Norsk mediebarometer 2021,” 128.

Skagen, Sølve. 1986. “Hard Asfalt.” Drama. Filmkameratene/Syncron-Film. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091171/.

Skrede, Mone Celin, Hilde Bjørhovde, and Mylena Kifle. 2020. “Kinoene Sliter. Høstens Store Norske Film Holdt på å Havne Rett på Netflix: – Vi Valgte Kino i Solidaritet.” Aftenposten, October. https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/aPwL42/besoeket-er-halvert-storfilmer-utsettes-stroemmetjenestene-ruster-opp.

Sofiedal, Martin. 2022. “Blasted: Gutta Vs Aliens.” Action, {{Comedy}}, {{Sci-Fi}}. Miso Film/Netflix. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14866710.

Spilker, Hendrik Storstein, and Terje Colbjørnsen. 2020. “The Dimensions of Streaming: Toward a Typology of an Evolving Concept.” Media, Culture & Society, 016344372090458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720904587.

Thompson, John B. 2013. Merchants of Culture: The Publishing Business in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Polity Press, Penguin Publishing Group.

Treimann, Erik, and Tommy Gulliksen. 2022. “Vegg Vegg Vegg.” Documentary. Oslo Pictures/Euforia. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20846404/.

Uthaug, Roar. 2022. “Troll.” Action, {{Adventure}}, {{Drama}}. Motion Blur Films/Netflix. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11116912.

Valle, Rune. 2009. “Spol Tilbake: Et Blikk på Den Norske Videobransjens Historie 1970-1995.” Masteroppgave i {{Filmvitenskap}}, Høgskolen i Lillehammer. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/145247.

Wirkola, Tommy. 2021. “I Onde Dager.” Action, {{Comedy}}, {{Horror}}. 74 Entertainment/SF Studios. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13109952/.

---

1. Norway had a population of 2.6 million in 1920 and 5.4 million in 2022. Denmark had a population of 3.3 million in 1921 and 5.8 million in 2022.

2. Now SF Studios

3. Then SF Norge

4. In 2020 and 2021 Norwegian movies reached an even higher market share as the pandemic led to a decrease in Hollywood titles. However, admissions were low as cinemas operated under heavy restrictions. See (Øfsti 2020) and (Gaustad et al. 2021).

5. Up to 2010 ex post support was based exclusively on cinema admissions, and could be reduced by revenue from home entertainment. While home entertainment was still important for distributors, it therefore mattered less to producers.

6. The only professional non-theatrical releases were in 2007 and 2008, when SF Studios released a total of six movies about the detective Varg Veum. Every other title was a straight-to-DVD release, while the others had theatrical releases. However, when the second set of six Varg Veum movies were released from 2010 to 2012 all were theatrical.

7. Oslo Kino was sold outright to Nordisk Film Kino. Bergen Municipality sold 49% of Bergen Kino to SF Kino who also took over the running of the cinema. SF Kino was later acquired by AMC and is currently operating as Odeon in Norway.

8. It is very likely that several of these received regional support, but the NFI data used does not include this.

9. Despite attracting large audiences, 382,000 and 440,000 respectively, producer John M. Jacobsen claimed the movies lost money and sought market scheme funding for Børning 3 (Nordseth 2018).

10. Prior to 2010 the support was only based on cinema admissions.