Returning from Precarity – Three Decades of Rebuilding Estonian Film Industry:

A Case of Film Education

Author

Elen Lotman

Abstract

Due to its idiosyncratic circumstances, the film industry of Estonia and its higher education system offers a compelling case study. Estonian language film education celebrated its 30^th anniversary in 2022. Three decades of its history are densely intertwined with the “second independence” period of the Estonian state. It is a period of a nation-state returning from the brink, the film industry rebuilding itself from an almost full collapse and the three-decade-long build-up of film education from non-existence to a highly specialised professional curriculum culminating with a student Academy Award-winning graduation film in 2020 (Minu kallid laibad/My dear corpses, German Golub, 2020, Estonia). In order to have a birds-eye view of the three decades of the growth of Estonian film education and its reciprocal relationship with the film industry, I used a unique data source – the Estonian film database (www.efis.ee), which was opened in 2012 and is one of the most comprehensive national film databases. For this article, the EFD database was combined with a new data corpus created specifically for researching Estonian language film education, consisting of all students who graduated between 1992-2016 (the cohorts of 2018, 2020 and 2022 were not included because these intakes had either graduated too recently or have not graduated yet). This data corpus was the basis of SQL queries to the EFD database. One of the tasks of the queries was to track changes over time and also look into the effect of specialisations within the curriculum. The key finding is that film education in the case of a small nation cinema that produces active filmmakers, in the size of the Estonian film industry, has to resolve two aspects of teaching – the length of study and the number of specialisations. Our data confirms that the duration of education is an important factor. Cohorts who were able to study for either four or five years have collectively achieved a stronger position in the industry than cohorts who studied under the three-year Bologna system BA and did not go on to an MA program. Also, professional specialisation within a comprehensive multi-disciplinary curriculum promotes rapid advancement into the film industry. Large-scale change is visible and connected to the introduction of a curriculum structure known in film schools as the “six-pack system”, i.e., where screenwriters, producers, directors, cinematographers, editors, and sound designers study together, the same number of students in each discipline, comprising a skeleton crew of HODs (heads of department) for their student films. Another key finding is that the career paths of graduate directors follow a similar pattern, but it is possible, through targeted interventions, to shorten the bridge between film school graduation and the first feature film. Directing entails tacit knowledge that can only be acquired through regular practice.

Keywords

Estonia, small nation film industry, film education, filmmaking educational practices, curriculum development

Estonian-Language Film Education

The film industry of Estonia offers a compelling case study due to its idiosyncratic historical circumstances. Over a century, it has faced one birth and two rebirths. Having been established by the first Estonian filmmaker Johannes Pääsuke in 1912, the film industry of the budding Estonian Republic had to endure a complete restart under the Soviet Union. During the Soviet years, it was built, financially fuelled by the propaganda machine from Moscow, into a large industry, with the state studio Tallinnfilm playing a central role. One of the most precarious periods that the Estonian film industry faced (as did all post-Soviet countries, including Russia) was during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Eva Näripea and Dirk Hoyer have described it as:

The sweeping changes of the transformation period essentially disintegrated the local film industry that had been tightly integrated with the Soviet circuits of funding and distribution. As a consequence, the corpus of Estonian narrative cinema of the first post-Soviet decade, i.e. roughly 1992–2002, is relatively modest, coming to circa 30 feature-length narrative films. While, metaphorically speaking, the darkest days of the industry in terms of output occurred between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, with not a single Estonian feature film premiering in 1996 and 2000, the production of the decade, in general, gravitates towards visual and narrative bleakness, cynicism and pessimism. (Näripea, Hoyer 2018)

Not only the Estonian film industry but also Estonia as a society went through a thorough transformation during the re-independence period, and the specificity of this transformation was that many systems were built without pre-existing structures. For example, the rudimentary banking system of the Soviet Union meant that the newly independent countries had to build the new capitalist banking systems mostly without any preceding structures – with the continuity too broken to successfully reintroduce banks that existed before Soviet times. This resulted in a situation described by Jaan Masso et al: “Since the 1990s, the Estonian banking sector has been considered technologically advanced, innovative and at the forefront of developing ICT applications and electronic banking services” (Masso et al. 2022: 60). Due to the fact that social structures had to begin anew in the early 90s, Estonia was able to jump on the digitalisation of the society without having to deal with a transition from analogue systems. A similar process happened in the Estonian film industry. For example, in the early 2000s, most of the global film industry was still analogue, with O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, 2000, USA), a film considered by many to be the first Digital Intermediate, released in 2000 (Belton 2008: 58). It was a period when DI was mostly considered for big-budget Hollywood films (ibid.). At the same time, in Estonia, the small film industry was already shooting digitally – its first digital feature film Vanad ja kobedad saavad jalad alla / Made in Estonia (Rando Pettai, 2002, Estonia), was shot in 2002. This process was sped up by the unfortunate side-effects of the collapse of the Soviet system: when the Tallinnfilm lab disappeared, the Estonian film industry had no option other than to embrace digital from the get-go.

Estonian language higher film education started in 1992 from a small film and video department under the Faculty of Culture of Tallinn Pedagogical University. It was established by Estonian filmmakers, a process led by cinematographers Arvo Iho and Rein Maran (who was the head of the Estonian Cinema Union at the time). During the Soviet period, most Estonian filmmakers studied in Moscow (at VGIK, the state film institute). Describing his motivations for opening a film school, Arvo Iho has recalled the preceding period:

When I came back to Estonia from America, the situation here was depressing. The streets were boarded, and soon I found myself at the barricades surrounding the Radio and Television House. During the three August nights when we were waiting for the Pskov paratroopers’ tanks, a conviction deepened in me that it is necessary to create Estonian own film school because from now on, no young Estonian will go to study in Russia anymore’ (Iho 2012; all translations by E.L. unless otherwise indicated – E.L.).

This concern of professional filmmakers about the future of filmmaking and how it is connected to education resembles the period of the first republic, where Estonian filmmakers also understood the importance of film education to its budding film industry.

In the fall of 1923, two film courses were founded in Tallinn (EFIS 2011). One of them bore the name of the Ukrainian film star Vira Kholodnaodnaia and did not leave a deep mark on the Estonian film scene, while the other gathered a circle of people, some of whom later formed the core of Estonian filmmakers (ibid.) That course, founded by Balduin Kusbock, was registered with the Ministry of Education as an educational institution on November 9, 1923, although teaching actually began on August 20 1923. Kusbock published an advertisement on September 20, 1928, with a description of the curriculum, which included: film technique, acting, stage technique, reading, miming, physiognomy, semiotics, dynamics, facial makeup, history of art and culture, fashion problems, aesthetic and ethical cinema requirements, movement, rhythm, fencing, photo-cinema technique, film script, improvisation, dance etc. (Päewaleht 1928a). On November 11, 1928, Päewaleht announced the merging of the Film Club (Filmi-Klubi), founded in 1925 (Kaja 1925) and the Kusbock studio. Among the teachers was, for example, Konstantin Märska, who offered classes on film technique (Päewaleht 1928b). Märska is widely considered one of the founders of Estonian film, who shot the first Estonian full-length feature ("Mineviku varjud" 1924, EFIS 2022) and other titles. The fact that Märska, a cinematographer, was an important contributor to the very first phase of formal film education in Estonia interestingly connects with Raimo Jõerand’s observation about cinematographers in Estonian film:

One after the other and forced by circumstances, they have gradually become directors and then, also forced by circumstances, teachers. In 1992, Arvo Iho founded the National Film School, after which Rein Maran took over the department, and then it was Jüri Sillart's turn. They had all trained as cinematographers. Currently, the film education is run by Rein Maran's student Elen Lotman, also a cinematographer. We see that cinematographers have become the heart and conscience of Estonian film in this context – its core. (Jõerand 2014).

Thus, the first attempts at Estonian film education during the First Republic era share similarities with the post-re-independence period in the 1990s: the local filmmakers considered film education crucial for the development of the domestic film industry. This is an important distinction, as there are plenty of schools in the world where the initiative to establish a film curriculum comes from the school itself.

Yvonne Fritze and colleagues underline the importance of the filmmakers’ community in shaping film education:

We see that policies regarding art and culture, the film professionals as well as higher education have high stake interests in shaping the curriculum of film education. Policies for the arts and culture, and film more specifically, change as does higher education policies; even more influential might be the role of the professional community of filmmakers (Fritze et al. 2016: 263).

Mette Hjort has even connected the ability for a small nation’s cinemas to appeal to its filmmakers’ sense of responsibility to the future of local filmmaking: “Small cinemas that thrive all have filmmakers who are able and willing to function as artistic leaders, and who understand just how important it is to take up tasks that go well beyond the mere making of films.” (Hjort 2011: 2)

In order to have a birds-eye view of the three decades of the development of Estonian film education and its reciprocal relationship with the industry, I used the Estonian Film Database. Indrek Ibrus and Maarja Ojamaa underline the uniqueness of the EFD: “In practical terms, however, it must be recognized that there are very few databases in the world that are as comprehensive as EFD and the few that exist […] do not give out their data for analysis.” (Ibrus, Ojamaa 2020: 548).

For this article, the EFD database was combined with a new database created specifically for researching Estonian language film education, consisting of all students who graduated from the cohorts admitted between 1992-2016 (the cohorts admitted in 2018, 2020 and 2022 were not included because these groups either graduated too recently or have not graduated yet). This data corpus was the basis of SQL (Structured Query Language) queries to the EFD database.

The database shows that during the 30 years since 1992, 242 people graduated from the film curriculum at the BA level and 31 people at the MA level in 2005-2009 (later, the MA transformed into an international curriculum taught in English).

• The first cohort, admitted in 1992, specialised in fiction film directing (later, this course was informally called "Iho-boys", because the head of the department was cinematographer and director Arvo Iho).

• The second cohort, 1996, specialised in documentary film directing. Cinematographer and nature filmmaker Rein Maran became the head of the department. There were four years between the first two cohorts, after which the admission became biannual.

• The third cohort, 1998, specialised in educating sound recordists.

• The fourth cohort, 2000, specialised in cinematography. It was the last course with a single specialisation, and this was also the last admission for the four-year curriculum for many years to come (a four-year curriculum was re-established in 2016).

• In the fifth cohort, admitted in 2002, the general film arts course. Cinematographer and director Jüri Sillart became the head of the department. Because the Bologna 3+2 system provided for more general study at the bachelor's level, the name of the curriculum changed to film arts, within which it was possible to combine electives to create a rudimentary specialisation (e.g., directing, editing, cinematography).

• The sixth cohort was admitted in 2004. The Baltic Film and Media School (BFM) was established in 2005, merging with the former Tallinn University film department and Concordia University’s media department (and its international media BA).

• The seventh cohort was admitted in 2006. Five specialisations were created (directing, cinematography, editing, production, sound), with separate pre-selection and entrance exams per each major track. A system of professional supervising teachers began to take shape, three of whom still teach – sound designer Tiina Andreas, cinematographer Mait Mäekivi, and producer Anneli Ahven.

• The eighth cohort was admitted in 2008. During this course, Jüri Sillart prepared a semi-open 3+2 combination of BA and MA courses, and a large number of students from this group entered the MA directly after graduation.

• The ninth cohort was admitted in 2010. The sixth major, screenwriting, was added that year. In 2011, Jüri Sillart died unexpectedly at the beginning of the school year, and Tiina Lokk became the head of the film department.

• The tenth cohort was admitted in 2012, and in 2013 Elen Lotman became the head of the film department.

• The eleventh cohort was admitted in 2014. Shortly before (in 2013), a nationwide higher education reform took place, and Estonian language education became exempt from paying tuition fees. As a result, the entire group of film students could study for free for the first time.

• The twelfth cohort was admitted in 2016. A four-year study program was restored, whereby the volume of internships and specialised subjects increased significantly.

• The thirteenth cohort was admitted in 2018. Veiko Vaatmann became the head of the film arts curriculum, and one more specialisation module was opened for production designers (it was part of another curriculum, but its study process was integrated with the film arts curriculum)

• The fourteenth cohort was admitted in 2020. There were no significant changes in the curriculum, but the huge challenge was how to maintain contact teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• The fifteenth cohort was admitted in 2022, and a seventh speciality, for production designers, officially became part of the curriculum, with the renowned production designer Eugen Tamberg as supervisor.

• By the time of the writing of the current article, the sixteenth cohort had been admitted in 2024.

The collective leadership of the current curriculum is formed from the supervisors who have joined the faculty over the years: Tiina Andreas (sound), Mait Mäekivi (cinematography), Anneli Ahven (production), Peeter Simm (directing), Madli Lääne-Metsalu (editing), Andris Feldmanis (scriptwriting), Eugen Tamberg (production design). It is worth mentioning that it is quite rare in the world that actively practising filmmakers also teach filmmaking on a regular basis. As both careers require commitment and time (and are opposites – teaching has a regular and rigid schedule, while filmmaking is seasonal and requires long periods of intensive work), few people are able to do both at the same time. Therefore, lecturers in film schools are often either filmmakers who have finished their active careers and are dedicated to teaching or, on the contrary, active filmmakers who attend workshops sporadically but do not tutor students constantly. In BFM film arts course, in addition to the aforementioned supervisors, the students are regularly taught by a host of guest lecturing filmmakers (Tanel Toom, Kaur Kokk, Katrin Kissa, etc.), and over the years, a large part of Estonian filmmakers have participated in the admission and graduation committees.

EFD data shows that since the first cohort was admitted, of 1,749 students who have completed the film curriculum have participated in making films; adding in student films, the number of participations is 5,446 (again, this is not the number of films or the number of participants, but the number of participations, meaning one film can have multiple different participations in case a student worked in different positions in the crew).

Key findings I. Film Industry and Film School are Intertwined

Figure 1. The share of student films from all films produced in Estonia (excluding amateur films) (Source: EFIS database).

Figure 1 shows the share of student films from all films produced in Estonia (excluding amateur films). The number of student films in relation to the rest of the film production is significant, even reaching 66% in 2014 (this table contains all student films produced in Estonia, including also those produced in other curriculums in Baltic Film and Media School and its precursors, e.g. audiovisual media BA and film MA). There has been a steady growth in the number of student films over the years, and a significant increase can be observed after the establishment of Tallinn University Baltic Film and Media School (BFM). From the period of 1912-1940, EFD had no student film entries, in 1940-1991, there were 34 and in 1992-2018, there were 1143. This shows that during Soviet times, despite the fact that Estonian filmmakers graduated from VGIK regularly, the number of actual student films produced in Estonia was insignificant (most of the films from VGIK were done with multinational student crews from all over the Soviet Union; the Estonian Film Database lists mostly the ones produced in Estonia and in Estonian language). The establishment of film education in Estonia exploded the production of student films to such a scale that they surpassed most other types of films: from the overall volume of Estonian film production in the period of 1991-2018, student films are the second largest number at 1144 (trailing 1470 documentary films).

Figure 2. Participation of the Estonian language film arts curriculum students and alumni in the Estonian film industry over 30 years (Source: EFIS database).

Figure 2 shows the proportionate participation of Estonian language film arts curriculum students and alumni in the Estonian film industry over 30 years ("film industry" means all films made in Estonia during the year, except for amateur and student films). Again, a significant increase can be seen around 2005. Since the mid-2000s, stably, approximately half of the films produced in Estonia have been made with the participation of film arts curriculum alumni.

Over these three decades, the number of graduates of the film arts curriculum has also been steadily rising, as can be seen in Figure 3. There are two causes for this increase: one reason is that more students were admitted as the number of specialisations that were taught was growing (thus also more students were able to graduate). The other reason is that out of those who were admitted, more students remained in the school and achieved graduation. By the mid-2000s the prestige of filmmaking as an occupation was growing, while Estonian society and film industry were stabilising, giving students more opportunities to do films and focus on studying. The stark reality of the early 1990s is truly characterised on this table, showing how the precarity of what the society was facing, was also in the core of the film education. It is a period of the almost complete disintegration of the film industry following Estonia regaining its independence from the Soviet Union, as summarised by Margit Tõnson:

At the beginning of the 90s […], the state-subsidised Tallinnfilm, a film studio that kept the entire Soviet Estonian film industry afloat, collapsed. What followed is well known – Tallinnfilm was "dispersed", everyone started to dabble on their own. Feature film production in Estonia did not wake up from its Sleeping Beauty slumber until the end of the 90s, thanks to the state funding starting to work […]. (Tõnson 2008).

Figure 3. Number of students who graduated from the Estonian-language film curriculum (Source: EFIS database).

The more general trend of the entire Estonian film industry (Figure 4) shows that the overall number of people engaged in the production of Estonian films during the last 30 years is also steadily rising (Source: EFIS database).

Figure 4. The overall number of people engaged in the production of Estonian films during the last 30 years (EFIS database).

These three graphs together (Figures 2, 3, and 4) show how intertwined and reciprocal the realities of the film industry and film school are. The film industry produces more films, allowing for the hiring of more people (both film school alumni and others); film school produces more graduates, allowing the film industry to grow.

Key findings II. Career Patterns to Debut Feature Films

Figure 5 shows the participation numbers of film curriculum graduates in film productions in the professional film industry (orange bars – all films produced in Estonia, except student films) and in film productions in general (blue bars – all films produced in Estonia).

Figure 5. The numbers of film curriculum graduates participating in different crew positions in film productions in the professional film industry (orange bars – all films produced in Estonia, except student films) and in film productions in general (blue bars – all films produced in Estonia) (EFIS database).

Looking at the orange line, i.e., the participation times of the professional film industry in Figure 5, the towering of the 1992 intake over subsequent cohorts stands out (more on this below). At the other end of the table, we see a steady rise. Although at first glance, it may seem that the 2012, 2014 and 2016 admission cohorts show a downward trend in terms of participation in the film industry, it is actually the opposite when considering the graduation year. For example, the 2016 intake that graduated in 2020 (only four years ago) has already reached the same level in terms of participation in all films, as the intake which was admitted ten years earlier (2006). If this trend continues, by the time two decades have passed from the graduation of the 2016 course, they will have surpassed the 2006 by approximately 1,5 times. The film industry participation rates of the 2012 and 2014 cohorts are almost equal, although they were two years apart (the cohort admitted in 2014 must also be understood in the general context of decolonisation – Estonia established free higher education to all Estonian language curricula in 2013. For film students this meant that they had to work less outside their studies in order to earn tuition fees and could focus more on the film school).

Figure 6. The number of participations (students and alumni) in the entire film production (EFIS database).

Figure 6, which features the participation times per person (which evens out the differences in course sizes on the previous figure), shows how the cohort admitted in 1992 dwarfs all the following. Film directors who are now in their prime – Rainer Sarnet, Jaak Kilmi, Marko Raat, Urmas E. Liiv, Erik Norkroos, Rene Vilbre etc. – are dominating the Estonian film scene. Although an important role is also played by the fact that the most time has passed since they studied (theirs was the only cohort that had four years in between their and subsequent admission before biannual admission was introduced), looking at the statistics of the following cohorts, the time of graduation is not the only determining factor. In 1992, although it was a time of intense financial and political precarity, there were still some resources available (as the remains of the former Soviet system were still around, including film cameras, stock, lab etc.), which dried up completely by the time the next three or four classes of students were admitted – in the late nineties and early noughts, the school essentially operated on amateur film technology for a while (Talpsep 2022). While the intake of 1992 only had directing students, the lack of crew members was compensated by including professional filmmakers in student films (names of established filmmakers, such as Lepo Sumera, Toomas Hõrak, Reet Sokmann, Mart Otsa etc. can be found in the credits of the student films of that course), then the next three cohorts – those who studied on one speciality curriculums (1996 documentary directors, 1998 sound recordists, 2000 cinematographers) – had to crew their own films or try to get work on real film productions as soon as possible to get any kind of filmmaking practice. Figure 5 exemplifies this period: for example, in the 1998 intake, the participation rates in the industry were almost the same as the participation rates in student films, which means that practically no student films were made. The film department’s struggle for survival and the abysmal state of the school’s technical resources created a situation in which, for example, filmmaking was essentially voluntary for the students admitted in 2002 (the school could not provide any technical or financial support), and many graduated with a theoretical thesis (which has a very different effect on their future careers than, for example, the students admitted in 2008, who during their BA program made as many as five short films).

The question arises, in parallel with the slow development of film education and the film industry returning from the brink, did the full potential of the 1996-2006 admissions remain untapped, with people disappearing from the film industry? Does the fact that the "Iho-boys" have dominated the Estonian film industry so successfully mean that there is a gap remaining for the next cohorts? This assumption is not confirmed by the list of graduates who do not have any credits in the EFD database (except for student films). These data confirm that in all admissions cohorts there have been both dropouts and those who stay in the industry. Additionally, there are names from the overall low 1996, 1998 and 2000 admissions cohorts that are present on the list of the most productive filmmakers in Estonia. The next conjecture would be – did the combination of precarious times and a very low increase of new talent create a situation where those who stayed in the industry stayed for a long time and those who disappeared, disappeared early? Or perhaps the pace at which directors arrive at their first full-length feature film means that the directors “mature” slowly? Among the filmmakers from the 1996-2004 cohorts, there are many who are still developing their first full-length feature film or whose careers are just gaining momentum after making their first or second feature film.

Figure 7. Feature films made by four directors from the 1992 admission cohort (EFIS, graph created by E.L.).

Figure 7 shows the full-length feature films made by four directors from the 1992 admission cohort, starting from the first feature film up to the seventh in the case of one (coloured lines mark the order of films from 1 to 7 and dots on the coloured lines mark the directors and years when they made respective films). It appears that all four of them made their first feature film about ten to thirteen years after entering the university.

In some ways, the extremely high number of 1992 admissions over the others is deceptive because the chronology of several subsequent admission cycles is still unfolding. Therefore, we should look for possible similarities between the career patterns of the 1992 directors and the directors from subsequent admissions cohorts. Janno Jürgens, a director admitted in 2006, made his first feature film Rain (Rain, Estonia) in 2020 (which was also approximately ten years after graduation), which was preceded by the internationally successful short film Distants / Distance (2012, Estonia), made shortly after the graduation. Priit Pääsuke, admitted in 2002, made his first feature film Keti Lõpp / The End of the Chain in 2017 (Estonia) after his successful short film Must Peeter/Black Peter (2008, Estonia). A similar pattern emerges in which a successful short film is released immediately after graduation but the first feature film not until twelve years later. Similar journeys (each with their own nuances) can be seen in several other admissions cohorts (2002, 2004, 2006): Tanel Toom (short film Pihtimus / Confession, UK, in 2010, first feature film Tõde ja Õigus / Truth and Justice, Estonia, in 2019), Rasmus Merivoo ( the short film Tulnukas / Alien, Estonia, in 2006 and the feature film Kratt / Kratt, Estonia, in 2022, which is his second full-length film) and Kaupo Kruusiauk (the short film Meister / Champion, Estonia, in 2005, followed by the first feature film Sandra saab tööd / Sandra gets a job, Estonia, in 2021), Margus Paju (the short film Konkurss / Audition, Estonia, in 2006, first feature film Supilinna Salaselts / Society of Souptown, Estonia, in 2015). In the interim years since the post-graduation short film, the directors have either made documentaries, TV series, commercials or short films. They all have continued to evolve, although with a differing volume of output.

Figure 8. Participation times of the admissions cohorts, ranked (EFIS database).

Returning to the filmmaking frequency of the different cohorts, now ranked (Figure 8), the 2008 group stands out even more strongly. This group is also significantly impressive in terms of student film awards when compared to different years (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Student film awards (EFIS database).

A similar pattern to Figure 5 can be observed – a high peak connected to the 2008 cohort in the middle as well as to an overall rising macro pattern throughout the 30 years. There is a distinction here, though – the awards table includes all alumni from different courses in BFM, as well as the international MA program and graduates whose films were not made in BFM. Thus, Tanel Toom’s Student Oscar-winning short film Pihtimus / Confession (2010, UK), which was produced as a National Film and TV School graduation film in the UK, is also included in the statistics. Nevertheless, most awards came from the 2006 and 2008 cohorts’ student films.

There are three specific distinctions of the 2008 admissions cohort compared to those preceding. (a) In this group, several students were convinced by the head of the film department and directing teacher Jüri Sillart personally to continue in a new MA programme directly after the BA graduation. Thus, the education of many filmmakers in this group effectively lasted 5 years, not 3; (b) It was the second time students were admitted to a curriculum that offered several specialisations, meaning the multiple-specialisation teaching system was taking root, allowing for the students to shoot their films in crews where the department head positions were covered. (c) In terms of the number of student films, this cohort surpassed several previous and subsequent admissions groups – under the strong leadership of Jüri Sillart, they made five short films during the three years of the BA program.

These three elements trickle down to the following careers of these filmmakers after graduation. Both Kaur Kokk and Triin Ruumet made their first feature films as further developments of ideas and experiments from films they made as students. The directors of 2008 reached the first full-length feature with the same pattern as described above for the 1992, but between the successful short film and the first full-length one, there was a shorter period of eight-nine years on average (Triin Ruumet, Vallo Toomla, and Kaur Kokk). When we compare this output to bigger film industries, like Australia, for example, the mean number of years from graduation to the first feature is 11.2 (Healy 2016: 90). A 2016 survey of the Australian film industry revealed that the median age of directors making their first feature film is 35-40 (ibid.). The same seems to be the case with the US directors (Slated 2016). In Estonia, for the 2008 admissions cohort, this number was significantly lower: while the average age of the first feature film for the 1992 cohort was 36.25, the average age of the directors who made their debut feature film from the 2008 cohort was 30.6.

Of course, age is not the most important factor (Clint Eastwood became a top-tier director after the age of 60 and received Oscars for the best director at the ages of 62 and 74), but the age by the time of making a debut feature can play a role in how many films directors manage to make during their careers. Todd Lubart and Robert Sternberg have studied the probability of making a truly successful top film during one’s career, concluding that “When people produce less, they have less probability of getting a creative ‘hit’.” (Lubart, Sternberg 1998). Also, it has been shown by Michael Jensen and Heeyon Kim that a “[Director’s] experience increases the likelihood of directing another movie significantly.” (Jensen, Kim 2020).

Thus, one aim of the national film funding policy should be the reduction of the length of the "liminal zone" when directors await the initiation rite of their first feature film. A debut feature can be good for the industry for multiple reasons. First, a debut feature can be beneficial for the industry more generally, as it frequently comes with a healthy cocktail of newcomers and veterans – often, the director brings in teammates who studied at the same time, while the producer, to ensure efficiency, staffs the rest of the team with more experienced ones. The entire industry benefits from it because, generally, diverse teams perform better (Rock, Grant 2016), and young people can learn from more experienced colleagues in real-life situations. Second, it can also work as a catapult for the careers of a large group of newcomers. For example, in the 2008 cohort-specific situation, the core of the filmmakers of Triin Ruumet's film Päevad mis ajasid segadusse / Days that confused (2016, Estonia) were the recent graduates who worked together in film school, with several of the rest of the team formed from junior year students. The line producer of Päevad mis ajasid segadusse / Days that confused (2016, Estonia), Karolina Veetamm, who entered film school in 2012, was still in film school during the production and subsequently went on to line produce a large body of work with impressive speed (five feature films as a line producer or production coordinator during five years). A debut feature film is something that the film industry at large will benefit from, even if the film itself may not do particularly well. For example, in analysing the French film industry, Patrick Messerlin and Isabelle Vanderschelden mention a high number of debut films as one of the signs of a “healthy” film industry (Messerlin, Vanderschelden 2018).

Pathways to the debut feature film are varied. For example, the Estonian Public Broadcasting’s ETV 50th anniversary television-themed financing scheme for low-budget TV films played an important role in the careers of both Jaak Kilmi and Rainer Sarnet from the 1992 admissions cohort. The anniversary competition saw Kilmi's second and Sarnet's first full-length film produced (in addition to Ilmar Raag's debut film August 1991 and Elmo Nüganen's second film Meeletu). Competitions held as part of nationally important celebrations, as it is extra money into the industry, have the potential to give a number of filmmakers the opportunity to make their first feature films (similar to the Estonian Republic’s 100-anniversary competition, which saw the unprecedented rise of first-time directors – Tanel Toom (Tõde ja Õigus/Truth and Justice, 2019), Moonika Siimets (Seltsimees Laps/The Little Comrade, 2018), Kaur Kokk (Põrgu Jaan/The riddle of Jaan Niemand, 2018) and Liina Triškina-Vanhatalo (Võta või jäta/Take it or leave it, 2018) – shooting their first feature).

Key finding III. Comparison with Theatre

It is important that directors get more professional work and practice. Directing entails the tacit knowledge that can only be acquired through regular practice. Due to the logic of how films are made, there is often an ‘inverted pyramid’ effect in the industry. During a period when the director makes one feature film, the cinematographer may make four, the first assistant eight, the second assistant twelve, and an assistant with the least responsibility may make twenty films. Therefore, the director (who is responsible for the entire project) is often the most inexperienced person on the set. Organising and controlling a large film crew is difficult if you last experienced the process ten years ago. Comparing Estonian film to Estonian theatre, which has enjoyed the audience’s loyalty for years, the volume of financial support is significantly different. This is also connected to the return from precarity because the film industry in the Soviet Union, unlike the rest of the culture, was exclusively centrally funded. Other cultural fields, including theatre, received their funding from the Republic’s state budgets. Thus, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the film industry suddenly had no money as no systematic regular financing precedents from the Estonian state budget had existed for years. Theatre, on the other hand, continued largely as before.

Comparing the statistics in 2019, Estonian theatre received a total of 38,533,666 euros in subsidies from the state and municipalities (ETA 2020a). In 2019, the Estonian film industry received a total of 14,282,60 Euros; if we subtract festivals, which are probably not included in the permanent funding of theatres, and Estonian Film Institute fixed costs, distribution subsidies, Film Estonia funding scheme, etc., amounts that do not go directly to film production, less than half of this budget remains (EIER 2021). Theatre subsidies include salary and administrative costs, while the state does not pay administrative costs for the production of Estonian films – the technology and other infrastructure necessary for the production of films comes from private companies, and the infrastructure necessary for showing films is also largely borne by private business (some art-house cinemas do receive subsidies for showing European films, but the entire administration is still based on a private business). This means that Estonian theatre productions receive almost six times more support from the Estonian state than the production of Estonian films. Based on EIER and ETA combined data, we can see that in 2019, a total of 56 films were produced in Estonia (including animated, short feature, and documentary films, a total of 12 full-length films were produced). In 2019, 222 new stage plays were released in Estonia’s theatres (and 610 reruns from the repertory). The comparison itself is problematic, as the place where a theatre piece is presented is generally the same as where it is produced (unlike a film), and theatres need resources to both produce new productions and keep old productions running, unlike film, which is generally produced only once. Estonian films compete with foreign films, including Hollywood films, in terms of screen time. There is no comparable situation on the stages of Estonian theatre, which are generally paid for by the state, and performances on these stages do not have to compete with top Broadway productions.

However, the main difference that arises from the funding differential between the two CCIs is the volume of the directors’ work. Looking at the number of new productions by the in-house directors of the two most visited drama theatres (Vanemuine and Draamateater) in 2019, the numbers are impressive: in the period of 2013-2020, Ain Mäeots directed sixteen; Priit Pedajas, sixteen; Hendrik Toompere, eighteen new stage plays. This represents an average of 2.3 shows per year over seven years. If we compare these numbers with the two most productive directors of the film curriculum alumni in the EFD list of the most prolific filmmakers, Jaak Kilmi and Andres Maimik (whose credits come not only from directing feature films but also from other professions such as producer and other genres such as short documentaries), Kilmi made three full-length feature films, and Maimik two during the same period. Thus, we arrive at one of the most telling differences between Estonian theatre and film: a theatre director in his or her prime directs an average of 2.3 stage plays a year, and a film director directs 0.35 full-length feature films a year. The difference in public funding to the theatre system allows the director to spend months rehearsing with the actors and crew while a film director barely meets the actor before the shooting period, even for this 0.35 film a year.

Recommendations

Looking at the EFD historical data of different genres’ rise and fall, in addition to the aforementioned increase of student films, there is one genre that has almost disappeared – that of TV fiction films.

Figure 10. Production of TV fiction films in Estonia (EFIS database).

The disappearance of TV films (Figure 10) is remarkable, and bringing the TV film genre back could be an important factor in ensuring a bridge to the industry through the first and second debut films.

The role of TV in helping to bridge precarious periods in the film industry is worth studying. In an assessment of the industrial and cultural impact of Channel 4 on the British film industry in 1982-1998, Laura Mayne studies the interdependence of film and television with an aim to bring together aspects of what have been considered separate disciplinary fields by examining how Channel 4’s funding methods led to new production practices:

Aside from the important role the Channel played in funding (predominantly low-budget) films during periods when the industry was in decline and film finance was scarce, this partnership had profound effects on British cinema in the 1980s and 1990s (Mayne 2014: 2).

Her study illustrates Channel 4’s commitment to new talent, noting that “around half of all of the commissioned Films on Four between 1982 and 1998 provided opportunities to writers and directors making their feature film debuts” (Mayne 2014: 36). Similarly, in an article titled “Successful transformation: what protected Polish cinema from extinction after 1989?” Elżbieta Durys demonstrates the importance of the Polish Television (as the network is named) in maintaining the influx of new talent in precarious times through funding debut films:

Additionally, productions of historical films were almost monopolized by the older generation of directors. As a result, the graduates of film schools had to wait for their debuts for several years. During this time, the situation was saved by public and private investors. Two of them – the Polish Television (Telewizja Polska SA) and the private cable TV station Canal+ Polska – came to be significant players. Thanks to its excellent financial situation (mainly because of the cash inflows from commercials), Telewizja Polska SA was, up until 2005, the most serious film producer. The amount of resources invested in the best periods of its activity even came to 60% per year. “Out of 15 debuts made in the years 1998-2000, 6 were 100% produced by Telewizja Polska”. (Durys 2016, p 27).

In Canada, in an “Evaluation of the Emerging Filmmaker Programs,” the role of Telefilm Canada played an important role when in 2013, it started an emerging filmmakers funding program of up to $120,000 that supports emerging writers, directors and producers trying to produce their first feature-length film (KELLYSEARS 2014). The evaluation also stressed the importance of the role of the National Film Board in supporting debuts:

Numerous studies have found that there are insufficient programs that bridge the gap between the educational system and a professional career. /…/ The CHRC’s Fast Forward report identified the NFB as a very important bridge between formal education and a career in the film industry and recommended that it be recognized and utilized to the fullest extent possible. (KELLYSEARS 2014).

So, a systematic approach for accelerating first and second debut films could be executed by a partnership between national film funding bodies and broadcasters. Giving opportunities for more debut films is central to the cultural sustainability of any national film industry, be it small or large. Even for industries of the size and distribution potential of Australia – in a Sandy George interview with Sally Caplan about Screen Australia’s criteria for funding,

Caplan refers to films that act as “talent escalators”. What she generally means by this term are debut features driven by directors who appear to have what it takes to build a long, fruitful career in film. They might have made several acclaimed shorts or television programs or directed theatre. (Caplan in George 2018; emphasis in the original).

Daniel Schultheis, in his report titled “Australia’s Microcinema: Building Capability through Development and Production Schemes”, stresses the importance of targeted use of films with lower budgets:

The last official Screen Australia survey showed that 50% of funded films have budgets of $1-6M, while only 22% of films had budgets of less than $1.2M. A microbudget approach is particularly recommended for debut or less experienced filmmakers whose careers cannot afford to be impacted by the commercial failure of early works, and given Australia’s smaller market size a lower budget improves the chances of recoupment and thus achieving a commercial success. (Schultheis 2015)

Debuts need not be considered only as collateral for the needs of the larger film industry. Slated (2016) research shows that younger directors are actually often more profitable, recommending for studios and independent film financiers to build a portfolio across a diverse range of talents that involves both newcomers and veterans.

Such a balanced investment strategy is not only backed by actual ROI figures, it also mirrors audience spending patterns across the years. […] This would not only be better for bottom lines but also for the long-term health of the film industry since cinema history tells us that fresh creative and executive voices have always been the industry’s lifeblood. (Slated 2016)

Conclusions

This article relied on the Estonian Film Database to analyse different aspects of rebuilding a small nation's film industry from immense precarity, focusing on the case of Estonian language film education and its reciprocal relationship with the industry.

The key findings of this study are that a small nation’s film education program that produces active filmmakers (given the size of the Estonian film industry) has to resolve two aspects of teaching – the length of the study period and the question of multiple specialisations. The data confirm that (a) the duration of education is an important factor. Admissions cohorts that were able to study for either four or five years have collectively achieved a stronger position in the industry than intakes who studied under the Bologna system BA and did not go on to study for an MA degree, effectively having a 3-year film school. The longer period must also include more student film productions, as just remaining enrolled without actual practice would probably not have any significant impact on career progression. (b) professional specialisation within a comprehensive multi-disciplinary curriculum promotes rapid advancement into the film industry. The biannual admissions system allows the senior and junior year to create strong bonds between each other and the lecturers, who are practising film professionals. Lecturers and senior alumni increase the students' access to the labour market – both by hiring alumni themselves and recommending them to colleagues and by referring them to internships through their contacts. An unpublished questionnaire conducted among Estonian film producers in 2020 confirms that, despite education, the most important factor in the film industry is still the reputation of a person – which is expressed in colleagues’ recommendations (based on their work, even if it is a student film) as well as in the fact that the heads of departments take good assistants with them to their next films.

Another key finding is that the career paths of graduate directors follow a similar pattern, but it is possible, through targeted interventions, to shorten the time between film school graduation and the first feature film. These targeted interventions involve the two key findings about educational paths and a systematic public funding approach towards more debut films, ideally together with a TV broadcaster, or in the new era of streamers, a streaming platform.

The story of Estonian-language film education is intertwined with the story of regaining national independence and regaining an independent national film culture. As such, it becomes an important aspect of decolonising the screen from Soviet control in order to create a new, specifically Estonian film language.

Elen Lotman

Tallinn University Baltic Film and Media School

elen@tlu.ee

Acknowledgments

Part of this work by Elen Lotman has been supported by Dr Pia Tikka’s team project "Cinematic minds behind-the-scenes” funded by the Estonian Research Institute (PRG2109 2024-2028).

Bio

Camerimage Golden Frog nominated and Black Nights Film Festival best cinematography winning cinematographer Elen Lotman has shot numerous feature, documentary and short films. She has filmed all over the world, including Japan, Tibet, China, India, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Albania, Finnish Lapland, the Russian Arctic Kola Peninsula and many other places and spaces. Her films have won awards and have been shown in competition programs of A-list festivals like IFFI Goa, Tallinn Black Nights and Moscow International Film Festival. Her cinematography has also been selected for the best of the specialised festivals, like Camerimage and Manaki Brothers, IDFA, Tampere Film Festival etc. The virtual exhibitions for the Tallinn Art Hall that she created in 2020 were selected among the ten world’s best virtual museums by the New York Times and Wallpaper magazine. She defended her PhD thesis titled “Experiential heuristics in feature film cinematography” with laudatur in 2021. Lotman’s research interests are neurocinematics and artistic research. She has served as the head of BNFF’s children and youth film festival, head of the film department at Tallinn University Baltic Film and Media School and co-president of the International Federation of Cinematographers IMAGO.

Bibliography

Belton, John. 2008. “Painting by the numbers: The digital intermediate”. Film Quarterly, 61(3): 58-65.

Durys, Elżbieta. 2016. “Successful transformation: what protected Polish cinema from extinction after 1989?” In Transformation Processes in Post-Socialist Screen Media. Edited by Jana Dudková and Katarina Mišíková, 21-36. Bratislava.

EFIS. 2022. Konstantin Märska. https://www.efis.ee/et/varamu/filmitegijate-leksikon/m/konstantin-marska May 25.

EFIS. 2011. Balduin Kusbock. https://www.efis.ee/et/inimesed/id/1264/biograafia May 25.

EIER. 2021. Eesti Loomemajanduse olukorra uuring ja kaardistus. https://eas.ee/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/3_eesti_loomemajanduse_olukorra_uuring_ja_kaardistus_2021_film_ja_video.pdf May 25.

ETA. 2020a. Toetus riigieelarvest ja omavalitsustelt 2023. https://statistika.teater.ee/stat/stat_filter/show/subsidiesFrom May 25.

ETA. 2020b. Eesti teatristatistika 2020. https://teater.ee/teatristatistika/aastate-luhiulevaated/eesti-teatristatistika-2020/ May 25.

Fritze, Yvonne, Haugsbakk, Geir and Nordkvelle, Yngve. 2016. ”Why a formal training for TV and Filmmaking?” In Medien–Wissen–Bildung: Medienbildung wozu?, Edited by Theo Hug, Tanja Kohn, Petra Missomelius, 257-272. Innsbruck.

George, Sandy. 2018. Why Screen Australia backs the films it does. https:// www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/screen-news/2018/02-14-why-screen- australia-backs-the-films-it-does/part-1-excellence-is-the-key-criteria. May 25.

Healy, Paul. 2016. Cinema: An invention without a future? The career prospects for first-time feature film directors in the Australian Film Industry. (Master of Arts in Humanities and Social Science dissertation). Macquarie University.

Hjort, Mette. 2011. ”Small cinemas: how they thrive and why they matter.“ Mediascape: UCLA’s Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, 29. PAGES OR DOI

Iho, Arvo. 2012. “Eestikeelse filmihariduse algusest.“ Teater. Muusika. Kino: 125.

Jensen, Michael and Kim, Heeyon. 2020. ”Reaching for the stars: The importance of reputational rank in creative career development.“ Poetics 80, p. 101396.

Jõerand, Raimo. 2014. Eesti filmi tüvi. https://www.sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/film/eesti-filmi-tuvi/ May 25.

Kaja. 1925. Kaja, nr. 253. https://dea.digar.ee/cgi-bin/dea?a=d&d=kaja19251016-1.2.60&e=-------et-25--1--txt-txIN%7ctxTI%7ctxAU%7ctxTA------------- .May 25.

KELLYSEARS. 2014. Final Evaluation of Emerging Filmmaker Programs. https:// www.canada.ca/content/dam/nfb-onf/documents/pdfs/general_publications/ evaluations/en/April2014_Final-Evaluation-of-Emerging-Filmmaker- Programs-ENG.pdf. May 25.

Lubart, Todd I. and Sternberg, Robert J. 1998. „Creativity across Time and Place: life span and cross‐cultural perspectives.“ High Ability Studies, 9(1): 59-74.

Masso, Jaan, Karma, Kadri and Pavlenkova, Ilona. 2022. “Chapter 5: Estonia” In The digital transformation of financial services markets and industrial relations. Edited by Bengt Larsson and Bertil Rolandsson, 59-74. Gothenburg.

Mayne, Laura. 2014. Channel 4 and British Film: An Assessment of Industrial and Cultural Impact, 1982-1998 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth).

Messerlin, Patrick, and Isabelle Vanderschelden. 2018. "France’s Protected and Subsidised Film Industry: Is the Subsidy Scheme Living Up to Its Promises?." Handbook of State Aid for Film: Finance, Industries and Regulation. Ed. by Paul Clemens Murschetz, Roland Teichmann, Matthias Karmasin, 311-332.

Näripea, Eva, Hoyer, Dirk. 2018. “Tales of a lost decade: Estonian film noir in the 1990s”, Studies in Eastern European Cinema 9:2: 163-178.

Päewaleht. 1928a. Päewaleht, nr. 256

https:// dea.digar.ee/cgi-bin/dea? a=d&d=paevalehtew19280920.2.37.1&e=-------et-25--1--txt- txIN%7ctxTI%7ctxAU%7ctxTA------------- . May 25.

Päewaleht. 1928b. Päewaleht, nr. 308

https:// dea.digar.ee/cgi-bin/dea? a=d&d=paevalehtew19281111.2.46.4&e=-------et-25--1--txt- txIN%7ctxTI%7ctxAU%7ctxTA------------- . May 25.

Rock, David and Grant, Heidi. 2016. “Why diverse teams are smarter.” Harvard Business Review 4(4): 2-5.

Schultheis, Daniel. 2015. Australia’s Microcinema: Building capability through development and production schemes. Melbourne.

Slated. 2016. Data Analysis Reveals Film Industry Age Bias & Blindspots. https://filmonomics.slated.com/film-careers-through-a-data-prism-infographic-c121e010818. May 25.

Talpsep, Tõnu. 2022. Teater. Muusika. Kino. Tallinn.

Tõnson, Margit. 2008. Eesti filmitööstus – uljas idee või tark investeering? https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/27677319/eesti-filmitoostus-uljas-idee-voi-tark-investeering. May 25.

Filmography

Coen, Ethan and Joel Coen. 2000. O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Touchstone Pictures.

Golub, German. 2020. Minu kallid laibad / My dear corpses. TLU-BFM.

Jürgens, Janno. 2020. Rain / Rain. Alasti Kino.

Jürgens, Janno. 2012. Distants / Distance. Alasti Kino.

Kokk, Kaur. 2018. Põrgu Jaan/The riddle of Jaan Niemand. Homeless Bob Production.

Kruusiauk, Kaupo. 2005. Meister / Champion. Exitfilm.

Kruusiauk, Kaupo. 2021. Sandra saab tööd / Sandra gets a job. Kopli Kinokompanii.

Merivoo, Rasmus. 2006. Tulnukas / Alien. TPU

Merivoo, Rasmus. 2022. Kratt / Kratt. Tallifornia.

Märska, Konstantin. 1924. Mineviku varjud / Shadows of the Past. Eesti National Film.

Pettai, Rando. 2002. Vanad ja kobedad saavad jalad alla / Made in Estonia. Ruut.

Pääsuke, Priit. 2017. Keti Lõpp / The End of the Chain. Luxfilm.

Pääsuke, Priit. 2008. Must Peeter / Black Peter. Luxfilm.

Paju, Margus. 2006. Konkurss / Audition. TPU.

Paju, Margus. 2015. Supilinna Salaselts / Society of Souptown. Nafta Films.

Ruumet, Triin. 2016. Päevad mis ajasid segadusse / Days that confused. Kinosaurus Film.

Siimets, Moonika. 2018. Seltsimees Laps/The Little Comrade. Amrion.

Toom, Tanel. 2010. Pihtimus / Confession. NFTS.

Toom, Tanel. 2019. Tõde ja Õigus / Truth and Justice. Allfilm.

Triškina-Vanhatalo, Liina. 2018. Võta või jäta/Take It or Leave It. Allfilm.

Suggested Citation

Lotman, Elen. 2024. Groundworks: “Returning from Precarity – Three Decades of Rebuilding Estonian Film Industry: A Case of Film Education”. Apparatus. Film, Media and Digital Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe 19. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17892/app.2024.00019.333.

URL: http://www.apparatusjournal.net/

Copyright: The text of this article has been published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This licence does not apply to the media referenced in the article, which are subject to the individual rights owner's terms