Continued…
- Mr. Drenchev, if your concerns prove to be justified and the site is built on, what will be the consequences for the Bulgarian film industry and for our country's ability to attract international productions?
- If the Bulgarian state allows the Boyana Cinema Center cease to function as a film studio, the consequences for the Bulgarian film industry will be extremely severe. Bulgaria would lose a significant part of its competitiveness as a destination for international film productions and risks falling off the map of European production centers.
This would have repercussions far beyond the fate of a single company. Thousands of specialists - actors, directors, cameramen, set designers, editors, technical teams and dozens of related businesses that rely on international film production - would be affected.
Such a development would also call into question the effect of the recent amendments to the Film Industry Act, with which the state created mechanisms to encourage foreign investment in the sector. These incentives only make sense if Bulgaria has a modern production base capable of servicing large international productions. Without such infrastructure, financial incentives alone are not enough.
The consequences will also be creative.
Bulgarian producers and directors will lose a significant part of their opportunities to participate as equal partners in international co-productions, and the professional capacity accumulated over decades will gradually begin to dissipate.
If I had to make a comparison, the Boyana Cinema Center is for the Bulgarian film industry what the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant is for the Bulgarian energy sector. This is not just a property or an enterprise. This is a strategic infrastructure around which an entire economic sector functions. The loss of such an asset would have consequences that can hardly be compensated for in the foreseeable future. That is why the question is not whether a private owner has the right to make a profit from his investment. The question is whether the state will fulfill its responsibility to protect the public interest when it comes to infrastructure of key importance for the development of Bulgarian culture, economy and the international competitiveness of the film industry.
- You propose that the state look for a new strategic investor. What should be the profile of such an investor and under what conditions do you think such a deal should be made?
- The state has the obligation to protect the national interest. If the current owner has decided to sell the “Boyana“ cinema center, he undoubtedly has the right to seek the best market price for his investment. However, this should not be done at the expense of the future of the Bulgarian film industry and Bulgarian culture.
This is not a simple commercial transaction with real estate. It is a strategic infrastructure that has been the basis for the development of Bulgarian cinema for more than half a century and which is important for attracting foreign investments, for the employment of thousands of specialists and for the international competitiveness of Bulgaria as a film destination.
The effect of a commercial transaction is measured in revenues that are significant within one financial year. However, the preservation or loss of strategic infrastructure has an impact for decades to come. The consequences for the development of an entire economic sector, for the cultural policy of the state and for our national film heritage cannot be measured solely in the market value of the land.
That is why the state should use all legal and contractual mechanisms at its disposal to protect the public interest.
If the Boyana Cinema Center is sold after November 2026, clear, legally binding guarantees should be agreed upon that the future owner will preserve the purpose of the complex as a film studio, continue to develop film production activities and invest in its modernization, and not in changing the purpose of the terrain. Such an approach is not a precedent. On the contrary - it is part of good European practices. Countries such as Hungary consistently protect and develop their film infrastructure, turning it into a tool for attracting international productions and investments. Bulgaria has no reason to follow a different model when it has the largest and most recognizable film studio in the country.
Such a position does not deprive the owner of the right to realize a fair market price for the business. It only sets a condition that the public goals that were set during privatization are preserved after the possible sale. After all, the privatizer himself voluntarily accepted these conditions when signing the privatization contract. Therefore, it is completely justified for the state to insist that they be observed in the future, when there is a risk of affecting a public interest of such importance.
- You often give the development of the Turkish film industry as an example. What lessons can Bulgaria learn from this model and why do you think it is applicable in our country?
- It is enough to look at the example of Turkey. Today, it is among the world leaders in the export of national film and television content. Turkish series and films reach hundreds of millions of viewers around the world. This is not only a successful business model - it is an instrument of state policy. Through cinema, Turkey promotes its language, culture, history, values, traditions and even its cuisine. Along with the enormous cultural effect, the industry brings the country hundreds of millions of euros in revenue from international sales every year.
Bulgaria also has traditions that it can be proud of.
Bulgarian cinema has a history of more than a century, the symbolic beginning of which was set back in 1915 with the film “A Bulgarian is a Gallant“. Over the past decade, the state and the film community have made serious efforts to improve the environment for film production. The Film Industry Act was amended, support for national cinema was expanded, the mechanism for financial stimulation of international productions was introduced and gradually improved, and since the beginning of this year, the maximum amount of state aid has also been increased. The results are already starting to be seen. Bulgarian cinema is once again reaching the general public, and the success of films such as “Gundi“, which attracted nearly 800,000 viewers, shows that the interest in domestic cinema is real. In addition, the country is gradually building a reputation as a place for international film productions.
However, all these policies have one mandatory prerequisite - the presence of a modern and competitive production infrastructure. Without it, financial incentives alone will not be enough to convince major international studios to choose Bulgaria.
That is why the Boyana Cinema Center has a significance that far exceeds the value of the land on which it is built. It is a strategic infrastructure for the entire Bulgarian film industry. If it were lost or its purpose were changed, the restoration of such a production complex would require investments of hundreds of millions of euros and years of design, construction and technological equipment. Realistically, such a process would take at least a decade. During this time, Bulgaria would lose a significant part of its competitive positions, and many international productions, specialists and investments would be directed to other countries in the region.
Therefore, the question is not only what will happen to a private property.
The question is whether Bulgaria will preserve the infrastructure necessary for the development of its own film industry,
or will it give up decades of accumulated potential at a time when the state has already invested significant public resources in building a competitive environment for cinema. If Bulgaria's strategic goal is to establish itself as a regional center for film production, the preservation and modernization of the Boyana Cinema Center is not just desirable - it is a necessary prerequisite for the success of this policy.
- Where has the state been in the last 20 years and why has it abdicated its policy towards Bulgarian cinema and the film industry? What are the biggest gaps?
- The state is indeed taking steps in the right direction for the development of the film industry. In recent years, important changes have been made to the Film Industry Act, financial incentives for international productions have been introduced and public support for the sector is gradually increasing. However, these are separate measures. What is still missing is a long-term national strategy for the development of the Bulgarian film industry.
Such a strategy should not be limited to the financing of films. It should encompass the entire ecosystem - human capital development, the international positioning of Bulgaria, the attraction of foreign productions and, last but not least - the construction and modernization of the film infrastructure.
This does not mean that the state should necessarily finance such investments alone.
There are various models of public-private partnership and other financial mechanisms that are successfully implemented in Europe. The point is for the state to have a clear vision and a consistent policy. The best example in the region is Hungary. For years, it has been purposefully investing in the construction of a modern film infrastructure, in financial incentives and in the international positioning of the country as a production center. The result is impressive - today, between 800 and 900 million euros are invested annually in the Hungarian film industry, and the country is among the preferred destinations for the world's largest studios.
Also indicative is the series "The Black Raven", dedicated to János Hunyadi - one of the most significant figures in Hungarian history. The project was realized with a budget of about 100 million euros and with the participation of international partners, including Netflix. This is not just a television series. This is an investment in national culture, in historical memory, in the international image of the country and in the development of the entire film industry.
Bulgaria has a history that is in no way inferior to that of other European countries.
Rulers such as Khan Tervel, Khan Krum, Prince Boris I or Tsar Simeon the Great have biographies and historical significance that can easily be the basis for world-class productions. The question is not whether we have stories that deserve to be told. The question is whether we will create the conditions for them to be realized by Bulgarian creators and producers with the necessary production infrastructure. If we want Bulgaria to be not just a place where foreign films are sometimes shot, but a country that creates and exports its own content like Turkey, for example, we must think strategically. This means a policy with a horizon of 20-30 years, and not decisions dictated solely by short-term economic interests and squared RZP. That is why the future of the “Boyana“ should be considered as part of the national strategy for the development of the Bulgarian film industry, and not as a simple real estate deal.
- Is there an option to develop a national strategy for the development of the Boyana Cinema Center?
- Definitely yes. I believe that this is mandatory. The Boyana Cinema Center was built with public funds on state land and has been developed for decades as a national infrastructure for the Bulgarian film industry. That is why the state has not only the right, but also the responsibility to ensure that it will be preserved as a film studio - both as an activity and as a complete production complex.
Preserving the cinema center does not necessarily mean that the state will acquire it back or finance its development itself. There are different working models. One of them is the public-private partnership, in which the state protects the public interest, and the private investor provides the capital, modernization and international management experience. Another option is to attract a strategic investor from the film industry, who would not simply acquire the studio, but would make a long-term commitment to its development and make it a natural partner for Bulgarian producers, directors and creators.
Today, the Executive Agency “National Film Center“ plays an important role as an administrator of state aid under the Film Industry Act.
However, this is not enough to guarantee the sustainable development of the sector. Financial incentives are only one element of a successful policy. Without a modern infrastructure and a strong production partner, Bulgaria can hardly compete with countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic or Greece.
A well-managed and modern film studio, working in sync with a national strategy for the development of the film industry, can become the second main driver for the development of Bulgarian cinema, along with state support. On the one hand, it will attract large international productions that will create jobs, investments and know-how. On the other hand, it will provide Bulgarian producers with access to a high-tech production base and opportunities for the implementation of ambitious projects in our country. This is exactly how successful models function in countries like Hungary. There, state policy is not limited to the granting of subsidies. It creates conditions for film infrastructure, private investments and public support to work as a single system. This is precisely the model that, in my opinion, Bulgaria should strive for.
The “Boyana“ Cinema Center should not be viewed solely as an asset that can be sold at the highest price. It should be considered as a strategic national resource that can bring economic, cultural and social value for decades to come, if managed with a clear vision for the development of the Bulgarian film industry.
- You define the case as a matter not only of ownership, but of national interest. Is it possible to reach a political consensus on the future of the Boyana Cinema Center, regardless of the differences between the parliamentary parties?
- It is possible and even imperative. Right after reading my declaration, I received a call from Evtim Miloshev's office that they will look into the case. We will also organize a hearing of producers and other professionals involved in cinema in the Culture Committee of the National Assembly. This case is entirely non-partisan, national and must be considered and resolved as such.