For much of the 20^th century in Ireland, cultural commentators and cinema enthusiasts spoke about an Irish film industry as a hypothetical. In 1946, Irish film historian Liam O Laoghaire claimed that visitors to the Irish Film School had “expressed their surprise at the ironical fact that other countries have film industries and no Film School while Ireland has a Film School and no Film Industry” (108). This is reflective of a neglect and demurral of effective film and media policy by the Irish state which would endure for decades. A 1942 Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Film Industry was completed but never published (Flynn 2007) and, in the case of the Film Industry Committee (1967-68), a recommendation for the founding of a national film board was not acted upon until more than a decade later, with the establishment of Bord Scannán na hÉireann (the Irish Film Board; now Screen Ireland) in 1981. In spite of these setbacks, Ireland’s audiovisual industries have undoubtedly progressed massively in those decades since the establishment of the Film Board, resulting in some of the recent global successes like An Cailín Ciúin (2022) and Kneecap (2024), as well as the work of Dublin-based Element Pictures on international co-productions like Room (2015), The Favourite (2018), and Poor Things (2023).

Given the conversation around these recent successes, the timing is certainly apt for the reflection and analysis proffered by this special issue on Audiovisual Cultural Policy in Ireland. As O’Brien suggests in her foreword, the scope of this issue goes beyond traditional audiovisual media and those interventions which relate to culture explicitly. Rather, this collection brings together diverse Irish scholarship in media and film studies, highlighting the impact of government policy on the media landscape, with articles addressing impact in relation to digital games, Irish language broadcasting, music, neurodiversity in screen industries, and audiovisual archiving.

Reviewing the issue in its entirety, it is fascinating to trace some of the overarching ideas and criticisms raised throughout what appear superficially to be nine quite distinct articles. One question this issue raises is whether the growth we have witnessed across Irish audiovisual industries in recent years is sustainable. In some respects, the contributions to this issue paint a troubling picture of a nation which is becoming increasingly dependent on multinational investment, with policies prioritising Ireland’s position in a global production marketplace, potentially to the detriment of indigenous talent and production. Another strong criticism which is evident in several of the articles presented here is regarding a lack of transparent, consistent data from agencies like Screen Ireland, which obstructs research and analysis of the results of those policies currently in place. In “Support for Film and Television Production in Small Nations”, Noonan reflects on the expanding economic and cultural remit of Screen Ireland and raises the issue of a lack of metrics for measuring the success of this institution resulting in its “[narrating] its success on its own terms” (23), warning of the potential for a breakdown in trust, particularly following recent controversies at RTÉ.

In “Digital transformation and the challenge for Ireland’s public service media”, Doyle reflects on the report of the Future of Media Commission (2022) and the state response to the Commission’s recommendations. While trust in public service media was found to be high among the Irish public (notwithstanding those aforementioned controversies), the issue of how we ensure the continued delivery of a reliable service is thwarted, according to Doyle, by the government’s subsequent refusal to reform the licensing fee model for a more sustainable approach. Doyle points to a trend of what she calls “policymaking through inaction” (15), a phrase which is reminiscent of the state strategy (or lack thereof) for much of the 20^th century, and something that is arguably echoed throughout the issue. In relation to policy around neurodiversity in Ireland’s screen industry, McSherry points out that while recognition of neurodiversity is fast-growing in some respects, data collection and policy have been slow to catch up and address the complexity of issues raised.

O’Connell’s piece on film preservation shares a similar theme of neglect, positioning Ireland’s lack of film preservation policy as very much out of step with broader EU policy and the long-established EU Film Heritage Recommendation (2005). To draw another parallel, and borrowing O’Brien’s phrasing in her article on digital gaming, the issue of “contested framing” is also applicable to film preservation and the Irish Film Archive’s position as outlined by O’Connell. O’Connell argues that the work of the Irish Film Archive does not fall under the auspices of any government department meaning that it does not receive state funding and is not linked with the Heritage Council, despite its assumed responsibility for preserving the nation’s film heritage. This is a “contested framing” which leaves the Archive in a precarious position regarding funding. In relation to digital games, O’Brien notes that as they fall outside of traditional definitions of cultural production, policies like 481A allow policymakers to frame and define digital games based entirely on their economic potential without regard for their cultural merit. That the tax relief provided by 481A requires a minimum spend of €100,000 is illustrative of who this incentive is targeted towards, and suggests a lack of regard for smaller, independent games producers.

Both Brodie and Rogers, in their respective contributions, outline the risks of depending on multinational media companies and overreliance on foreign direct investment to the integrity of local industry and to Irish screen-sector workers and their hopes of stable employment. In one of the issue’s more controversial entries, Denis Murphy’s motion for an all-Ireland screen policy suggests a potential solution to the overreliance issue. In line with Brodie and Rogers’ arguments, Murphy interrogates recent claims of job creation, citing a lack of supporting data about the standard of employment being provided. More North-South collaboration, he argues, could allow Ireland to weather volatility in the international market, providing more reliable sources of employment in screen industries and ultimately benefiting both.

Crosson’s contribution on Irish language film policy provides useful historical context for the history of Irish language film policy, even offering some praise for the “emergence of a more progressive state policy towards production” (46) since the 1990s, with particular credit to TG4. While there is some apparent frustration that the lack of a “focused and informed state policy was largely absent” (39), there is optimism here that the performance of recent Irish language productions may lead to some reflection and the development of more reliable policy in this area.

There is no shortage of criticism and provocation to be found here, but for the most part this special issue speaks to a desire to strike while the iron is hot, and to push for improved, future-proof audiovisual policy in Ireland while interest is at a high and the perceived cultural and economic dividends of recent successful productions appear to justify increased state spending in this area. It seems that Ireland is at an impasse and has the opportunity now to, as McSherry suggests, “be proactive rather than reactive and set standards for best practice” (125).