A Life Devoted to Art-House Cinema: A Conversation with Domenico Dinoia • CICAE

Interview with Domenico Dinoia by Pascal Cicchetti.

As newly released figures[1] reveal patterns both expected and unexpected across the Italian entertainment sector, one is reminded of how trends in cultural consumptions often follow a logic of their own. To make sense of—let alone predict—them requires a heady mix of economics, sociology, politics, and something closely resembling intuition.

The truth of this notion emerges clearly when talking to Domenico Dinoia, outgoing vice-president of CICAE and long-time president of the Italian federation of art-house cinemas FICE. I reach him remotely, in his Milanese house office, in-between meetings. He speaks assuredly, but kindly. For a man whose schedule is obviously busy, I am struck by how generous he is with his time and attention.

I begin by asking him about what he sees as the key achievements of his long career.

Domenico Dinoia: Ever since I have became involved with cinema, around forty years ago, the focus of my work has always been art-house, culturally-significant cinema—especially from Europe. I’d say that’s true for my programming work, but especially in regard to policy-making, both at the national and international level. It was this focus that brought me to FICE, the association of art-house Italian theatres, which I helped re-organise, and effectively brought back to life in the early 2000s. I’m particularly proud of how we relaunched Vivi il cinema, a professional magazine which played a key role in promoting high-quality cinema to theatre owners in Italy. The publication had gone more or less dormant when I took charge, but quickly it became a key tool in the relaunch of FICE, with up to 50.000 copies distributed for free to our affiliated exhibitors. We used it to inform theatre-owners and film-goers about what films would enter distribution in the upcoming months.

Pascal Cicchetti: I remember! It was a staple of the film clubs I attended in those years.

DD: Yes, there was a lot of momentum around FICE in that period. Another major achievement was the creation of the Giornate del Cinema d’Essai. I had noticed that in previous distribution events, which were all organised by major distributors, whenever art-house or independent films were presented most of the audience would simply leave the room. That made me realise we needed an alternative platform, an event meant for those with a specific interest in art-house films. So I decided we would hold annual gatherings in ‘cultural’ cities, like Ravenna or Mantua, and that we would show exhibitors full features, not just trailers, and give people a chance to appreciate the films that would enter the art-house exhibition circuit in the next six months or so. We wanted to push beyond the existing format of industry conventions, to reinforce the cultural value of this kind of cinema and its link to cities. We now host around 600 participants each year, and the programme includes an awards ceremony, as well as selections of shorts and documentaries!

PMC: How did you start collaborating with the CICAE?

DD: When I became president of FICE, I reached to then-CICAE-chief Pier Todeschini and we agreed that it was important for FICE to join. That’s because ours was the only association to represent both historic, art-house cinemas in city centres and smaller, provincial theatres that tried to pursue a more quality-oriented programming. This is a key detail, because at that time multiplex chains had effectively colonised the Italian exhibition market, so we needed to have initiatives in place to support those smaller cinemas who still wanted to pursue a less commercial programming. Membership of the CICAE, along with collaboration from the Italian Ministry of Culture, gave us a framework to support those theatre owners. For example, following a template developed in France, we managed to obtain a subsidy from the Ministry for those theatres that reserved a certain percentage of their programming to films recognised as culturally significant by a ministerial committee. Crucially, we tweaked the required percentage based on the location of the cinema. That allowed distributors of art-house films to expand their reach beyond traditional city-centre cinemas, and bring their titles to smaller and more provincial theatres, which had less stringent quotas to fulfil.

PMC: Was it all smooth sailing, or did you encounter any setbacks?

DD: There were some drawbacks. For example, CICAE gave us the chance to organise annual training courses for art-house theatre-owners in San Servolo, Venice, during the film festival. Those were a great success. It was a chance for young exhibitors to learn about what was happening in the sector, both theoretically and practically. We even had a bursaries available. I am proud to say that many of the best art-house exhibitors working in Italy today have gone through those training courses. Unfortunately the funding ran out, so we had to discontinue the initiative. Luckily CICAE is now running a similar project in Berlin.

PMC: Is there something about the Italian exhibition market that sets it apart from the wider European scene?

DD: I think one of the successes of CICAE has been the creation of European networks—Europa Cinemas comes to mind. But there are limitations when it comes to integrating national markets. For example, genre-based European films struggle more to cross national borders compared to auteur cinema: someone like Checco Zalone, or other representatives of contemporary ‘commedia all’italiana’, won’t travel as easily through the network as the latest Moretti or Sorrentino. This is true generally, but it’s especially acute in Italy, since the influence of the American model has produced a stark separations between multiplexes, which are often located outside of the cities, and art-house theatres, which are traditionally in the city centre. It’s a geographic separation as much as a cultural one, with little chance for overlapping, and a stark separation of audiences. As a result, a certain ‘median’, European product—neither auteurist nor entirely commercial—struggles to find its place in Italy.

PMC: Is it a problem of marketing, do you think?

DD: Well, it’s a complex situation and obviously not everything depends on exhibition—distributors play their part too. But generally speaking I do think we need to redouble our efforts to expand our offer, increase capacity, and allow theatre-owners to sustain a quality-driven programming throughout the entire year. Some countries, like France, do a great job already at promoting their films internationally. So did the UK, before Brexit. But there are still many films made in Europe each year that never cross their borders. And conversely, there are countries where it’s very difficult to see other European films unless they’ve really made a splash. In this sense I think it’s important to lobby relevant European institutions and make policy-makers aware of the fact that it is important to invest not just in production, but also in distribution and exhibition. What’s lacking is normative support and economic incentives, more than films.

PMC: This makes me think of the sad situation of the Filmhouse cinema in Edinburgh, where I live, which was allowed to go bankrupt and close down three years ago, despite widespread demands for public intervention.

DD: I think that’s why the work CICAE does at the European level is fundamental. There is a need for legislative support as well as subsidies. The key is to put pressure on institutions: to offer safeguards, but more importantly to open a cultural conversation. Mine isn’t a protectionist stance, as some have claimed. It’s about preserving the voice of cinema as a cultural priority in the audiovisual landscape.

PMC: This gives me a chance to touch upon another topic of conversation. In an interview two years ago, you defended the importance of theatres in preserving the cultural significance of cinema. Are you still of the same opinion?

DD: I believe theatres are fundamental if we want to continue talking about cinema. I have always fought to reaffirm the value of the theatre, not just in terms of programming, but as a place where culture is created through community. Without theatres there is no community, and without communities there can’t be movements or trends. I believe this is the great battle that needs fighting. I’ve had disagreements with festival directors who opted to programme Netflix productions in their evens. I defended the French choice to only consider titles destined for theatrical distribution. I believe that position allowed us to speed up the post-pandemic recovery. Incidentally, generalist cinema attendance today is at 70% of pre-pandemic values. But many art-house theatres have recovered their audience entirely. You see here the different relationship these theatres have with their audiences—a relationship based on trust and community: what drives film-goers back to these theatres is the sense of connection. Regardless of what is showing, they know they’ll be able to discuss it on their way out with staff members, or ask for advice on what to see next. When you have this type of trust, you can take risks, expose audiences to films that aren’t blockbusters or aren’t driven by large marketing campaign.

PMC: This makes me think of subscriptions models, which are becoming a emerging trend across art-house cinemas in Europe.

DD: Yes, we do something like that already, on a small scale, with the cinemas I run in the Milan area—but that’s definitely something that could be expanded further.

PMC: Do you see a role for archival cinema to play, in this overall strategy?



[1] Spettacolo intrattenimento e sport. Rapporto SIAE 2024, 89th ed. (2025), Rome. The popularity of jazz concerts, in particular, seems to have surprised commentators. Cf. the full text (in Italian) at https://www.siae.it/it/rapport....