Until recently, the fate of Bulgarian auteur cinema was decided in a few rooms – commissions that distribute a limited budget, and festival selections that give a chance for the film to be noticed. Today, another player is added to this equation – the streaming platforms. The new model with the "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund and mandatory fees and investments from platforms changes the landscape. The question is whether it makes it more fair.
The Law on the Film Industry regulates state support for cinema – the main money goes through the National Film Center. According to the current rules, no less than 85% of the annual subsidy is directed to film production – feature, documentary and animated, and up to 15% go to distribution, screening and festivals. This seems like a strong focus on the "making" of cinema itself, but for years directors and producers have been repeating the same thing: "The film does not live just from being shot – it must reach people."
It is here that the idea for the "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund appears, financed not only by the budget, but also by the market – through fees and mandatory investments from streaming platforms that offer content in Bulgaria. The model, which the guilds insist on, is based on European logic: platforms that benefit from the local audience, to return a percentage of their revenue to local cinema – either through direct contributions to the fund, or through participation in the production of Bulgarian films.
In countries like France and Italy, similar schemes are already working: global services like "Netflix", "Amazon" or "Disney+" are obliged to invest part of their turnover in national productions. In Bulgaria, the idea is similar – not to rely only on the cultural budget, but also on the fact that streaming is the new "ticket office". Professional organizations remind that, according to the prepared changes, the platforms can be obliged to invest part of their after-tax revenues in Bulgarian content or in the "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund.
In theory, this sounds like a chance, especially for auteur cinema, which barely survives only with festival awards and limited cinema screenings. If part of the money goes to targeted schemes for low-budget, debut and art films, more directors will be able to work without thinking only about commercial success. The National Film Center already has separate lines for "small projects" and for festivals, but the resource there is limited and highly competitive.
Streaming adds something that festivals cannot give – sustainable access. A film that has been screened for a week in one hall can live for years on a platform. The appearance of specialized services like "gledam.bg" with a focus on Bulgarian cinema shows that there is an audience that wants to watch native titles at home, in the country and abroad. If catalogs with Bulgarian films are added to the large international platforms, the potential audience of an auteur film increases many times.
However, there is also a risk: the money from the platforms to go mainly to more easily marketable genres – series, comedies, genre cinema – at the expense of bolder, experimental and festival projects. As the filmmakers themselves admit, the "algorithm" has its preferences – for titles that are watched massively and quickly. If the criteria in the new fund are not clearly formulated, auteur cinema may remain in the periphery again.
The question of how exactly the funds will be distributed is also important. The current funding schemes provide for certain percentages for production, screening, distribution and festivals, and the goal is to have a balance across the entire chain. The "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund would make sense only if it adds flexibility – for example, more money for promotion, subtitles, work with the audience, participation in international festivals and marketing in a streaming environment, and not just an additional "kitchen" for funding.
Festivals remain a key territory for auteur cinema. It is there that Bulgarian films often receive their first recognition, foreign reviews and interest from distributors. The new model should not oppose the festival to the platform, but use them as consecutive steps: premiere and prestige on the big screen, then a long life online. If the "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund supports both stages, the chance for the film to "survive" increases.
Directors and producers summarize the dilemma like this: "We need not only more money, but more predictability and a clear path to the viewer". The fees from the platforms and the new funds can give financial oxygen, but the question of the rules remains – who decides, on what criteria, with what transparency. Without trust in the system, even the best law risks remaining a "good intention".
Bulgarian cinema stands at a crossroads between the festival red carpet and the home screen. The "Bulgarian Cinema" Fund and the mandatory investments from streaming platforms may turn out to be a chance for auteur cinema to finally stop surviving "from project to project" and start building an audience. But whether this will happen depends not only on the numbers in the law, but also on the will to see in the cinema not an expense, but an investment in culture, memory and a common language with our own viewer.