Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 6 MAY 2003
MS PAT
TRUEMAN, MR
JOHN HOUGH,
MR ANDI
REISS, MR
JEFF ALLEN
AND MR
HUGH WHITTAKER
Q80 Michael Fabricant: Michael Kuhn
said last week that he thought we were a bit of a cottage industry.
Would you agree with that?
Mr Allen: No, I do not agree.
Q81 Michael Fabricant: They are my
words, not his, but that summarises it.
Mr Allen: No. A cottage industry
to me implies an industry that does not employ very many people
or is stagnating in terms of its employment potential. I think
it is fair to say that the creative industries as a whole, of
which the film industry is only part, are growing and are an ever
more evident part of our everyday life. Also something you need
to bear in mind is that somehow people think that our industry
is in neat little boxes called the film industry, commercials,
television, pop promos, computer interactive games. All of those
genres mix and intertwine with one another and are interdependent
on each other and we service more than one market place and all
of them are relevant and important to us. The same is true for
the whole of the infrastructure that is in the United Kingdom.
They cannot survive on any one market place for their livelihood,
so if we weaken our base in terms of our ability to compete on
feature films we can jeopardise ourselves for TV or for commercials.
The BBC get the benefit of cheap freelance package prices because
we have a film industry.
Q82 Michael Fabricant: But do you
have a film industry? The point that was being made and, in fact,
was made to this Committee in 1996 when we last looked at it,
is that there is no sustainable industry in the sense that individual
films are made, individually financed and they are separate operations
in themselves, whereas in the United States the film companies—well,
I do not know have 100 different ideas, maybe 20 will get a green
light, maybe two or three will be blockbusters but it is a continuing
flow process, a bit like a factory, and there is no factory here.
Mr Reiss: 1996 was probably in
the middle of quite an inspirational time, and through bitter
and volatile experience there were five or six big very successful
blockbuster movies that came out of this country, starting with
Shallow Grave moving through Trainspotting and ending
up with The Full Monty through to Lock Stock and Two
Smoking Barrels. All of those films were hugely successful,
all of them totally British apart from their funding, and unfortunately
a lot of the talent from those films has flown the nest to more
prosperous climes.
Q83 Michael Fabricant: Why is that,
do you think?
Mr Reiss: Because we have not
encouraged—the only director who has made a point of coming
back is Danny Boyle and he has come back for a number of reasons
but one is to come back and try and use his status that he had
within Hollywood after Trainspotting to do something, but
that is just one person.
Q84 Michael Fabricant: But another
big difference since 1996 was that in 1996 we made the recommendation
for the changes in tax law which then took place in 1997 in Gordon
Brown's first Budget, and I welcome that, but are you saying that
has had a negligible effect?
Mr Allen: Yes and no.
Mr Reiss: It has not had an enormous
effect to keep encouraging the talent to keep the momentum up.
Because the industry has become more and more accessible to more
and more film-makers, less and less money is being spent but there
is more opportunity to make these films. However, those tax breaks
are negligible, in a sense, to people who are at the lower end
of even the lower end of low budget film making.
Mr Allen: I would agree with that
last point. However, we were also discussing prior to coming in
here that we need the big budget American films, to name but a
few—obviously French money has been important coming into
the United Kingdom as well as German money recently as well—in
order for us to be able to help as facilities companies the likes
of my colleague here to get his film made. If we did not have
that sort of biodiversity of funds coming in from different countries,
whether they are attracted in because of different tax concessions
that we give or not, then we could not help British film makers
because we would not be here either. So there is this interdependency
on each other for our mutual survival, if you like. But film making
is completely international and has been for some time, and we
are not a separate island from that. We are part of that and I
think we are trying to protect two quite distinct things. We are
trying to protect our culture and our ability to make indigenous
films, on the one hand, and our ability to attract in foreign
money to help sustain our own industry on the other, and you cannot
dissociate the two because they are intrinsically linked to each
other. The Americans come here because they can get some tax incentives
but also they come here because they like to; it is a safe haven
for them to work in by comparison to some other countries in the
world. We had this told to us in those terms by Duncan Kenworthy,
who basically said, "When we decide where we are going to
make a film in Los Angeles, we first look at Los Angeles; then
Canada because it is cheaper; and then the United Kingdom because
you guys talk the same language", and because we have a past
reputation in making films in the United Kingdom, and that is
fundamentally important. We have a safe, reliable economy so that
helps, but if we did not have that input and that money coming
in from the US or France or Germany then we could not help or
have the infrastructure to sustain our own film industry.
Q85 Michael Fabricant: Would you
have a film industry without TV? Jeff Allen talked about dependence
on television; Pat Trueman in her introduction talked about training,
most of which appears to be in television—BBC television
in particular. Would there be a film industry in this country
if we did not have television too?
Mr Allen: Yes.
Ms Trueman: Yes. I do not think
you should feel too complacent about the BBC equalling training
either these days. That is not going on nearly as much as it used
to. Unfortunately, as we outlined in our basic submission, training
is not the thing you think it is. It was 10-15 years ago and it
is one of our huge concerns, and we would like to see far more
investment in emerging directors because we do have a real concern
about that, and the BBC is not doing half what it wants to do.
Mr Reiss: Financial initiatives
and commercially orientated projects are absolutely necessary
to bring in what we need in order to expand and move on and help
what we have as the next generation. Television and film to the
industry are two completely different mediums. There are an equal
number, if not ten times as many, film scripts that are coming
through the European Film Production Fund, etc, than there are
necessarily good television programmes. Television, unfortunately,
is a little bit persuaded just to carry on cloning and British
films are very different. Usually a British film is individual.
If you think of a decent British film of last year, Bend it
Like Beckham, it is quite unique and there are a lot more
there sitting on the shelf waiting to bring it out. The two things
have to be very different. The BBC need to initiate training;
the Directors' Guild I think should be given X amount of money
per year to initiate their own training schemes relying specifically
on that money to proactivate directors' enthusiasm, and then the
new Producers' Alliance, Skillset, PACT, etc, should also be given
bits and pieces of money, but there should be a definitive realisation
that TV and film are two different things.
Mr Allen: There used to be what
we called the studio system in years gone by which diminished
which had a training system attached to it—
Q86 Michael Fabricant: In the United
Kingdom as well as the US?
Mr Allen: Yes. That went away
so that channel disappeared in terms of training, and then when
the BBC and the commercial broadcasters divested themselves of
large parts of their organisations they almost became content
providers rather than programme makers per se in terms
of every level of making the programme. A lot of the training
remit went away that they performed before. Yes, the BBC does
have certain departments and aspects of it that still deal with
training, and they certainly are the best broadcaster in that
respect, but even so it is tiny by comparison to what it used
to be. They are not training the cameramen, for instance, of the
future; that is entirely done in the private sector now. It is
certainly not coming from the BBC or any other broadcaster for
that matter, and I think our collective view is that we think
that all of the broadcasters, the BBC included, are found wanting
in terms of their support of British film. Yes, the BBC do put
money still into British film; Channel 4 unfortunately as we all
know have contracted in that area; but if you look at what the
French broadcasters do by comparison with the British broadcasters,
then it is by no means enough and comprehensive enough. They could
certainly help in the area of distribution, for instance, which
is a very key weakness in the United Kingdom. They certainly have
the structure and the wherewithal to be able to do it. BBC Enterprises,
for instance, can successfully sell and distribute its products
to other countries, so why can it not distribute within the United
Kingdom? They have the expertise there but it is basically not
directed in all of the right ways.
Q87 Derek Wyatt: I wonder if I could
just entice Mr Hough to say something? If you were asked and you
were writing our report, what would be your top three recommendations
to try and enable the film industry of the United Kingdom—
Mr Hough:—To flourish? Just
as a preamble, I was here before at the previous meeting and I
thought it was earlier than 1996, but in my top three I would
like to see the recommending committee do something quite dramatic.
In the years that have gone by since I was last here the tax benefit
has been a helpful source, the formation of the Film Council has
also been a great help, but I think the film industry needs something
quite dramatic to reshape from its current situation. I am based
at Pinewood Studios and I have been there for 18 years, and I
have not seen the dramatic change that I would like to see in
the film industry and mainly it comes down to distribution. When
we are making films, it is not that difficult for an experienced
practitioner like me to raise the money; it is paying it back
that is difficult and it is what I have to comply with to do that.
There is very little speculative money or situations available
for speculative money here in this country. I would like to see
something really radical like a state-run distribution outfit.
I would like to see a studio state run that makes films, and in
this country we have the biggest film studio in the world which
is the BBC. It employs more people than Warner Bros, Fox and anybody
else in Hollywood, and it has the infrastructure, and I would
like us to do something really dramatic and form a film unit within
the BBC—I know they have one at the moment but I do not
consider it representative of what it could be—by experienced
film practitioners and producers, and revolutionise the way the
BBC makes films, using Lottery money. I would take the Lottery
money away from the existing outlets, put it into this outfit,
and I would make the BBC purchase a screen, one screen on every
multiplex in Great Britain, and show the British films they make
in these Multiplexes, and in that situation train people but learn
that you have to make films that have an audience and promote
the culture. That is what I would like to see happening.
Q88 Derek Wyatt: You have raised
some interesting issues there which I am sure my colleagues will
come back on but I have other things to ask. If you want to do
that sort of radical thinking, how often does the Directors' Guild
meet the BBC?
Ms Trueman: That varies.
Q89 Derek Wyatt: Do you have a formal
meeting where you see them once every quarter?
Ms Trueman: No, there is nothing
quite like that set up, but we do have a variety of meetings with
all the broadcasters where we will discuss any matters that have
arisen, though to be honest we have not met them to discuss that
kind of issue for quite some time.
Q90 Derek Wyatt: For instance, on
the issues raised where you want greater access and so on, have
you written to Greg Dyke; submitted papers? What is the relationship?
Ms Trueman: The relationship is
probably not as open as it should be. The Guild has avenues into
the BBC and, indeed, all the broadcasters, as I say, but we have
not discussed directly the role of the director and the things
that John has just outlined with them—not recently no.
Q91 Alan Keen: We have talked a little
bit about training. If you are a 14 year-old in school and you
are making one and a half minute films on video on your Mac Suite
at home, where would you go? Where would your teachers start to
recommend you go?
Mr Allen: It depends, I think—
Q92 Alan Keen: Where is the centre
of excellence?
Mr Allen:—On what discipline
they want to go into basically.
Q93 Alan Keen: Where are the centres
of excellence, then?
Mr Allen: In the United Kingdom.
There is not one centre of excellence.
Q94 Alan Keen: Why not?
Mr Allen: Pass. I do not know.
Q95 Alan Keen: Why is there not one?
You are in it. You are the lobbyists for this.
Mr Allen: Well, there are various
universities and colleges that are set up specifically to deal
with film that do certain tasks and, indeed, the industry itself
takes people on directly, a bit like the old apprenticeship-type
schemes in terms of people starting on the ground floor and working
their way up. That still does happen but it is very ad hoc and,
as I said, one of my other concerns in terms of training is that
I think the Film Council and Skillset together have tried to put
schemes in place to get new people into the industry but there
is still this yawning gap of vocational training for people within
the industry, particularly when you have this changing world into
this overly used word "digital" now. The BBC have created
this new platform for them to broadcast traditional programmes
on, and it is the Government's intention for us all to go digital.
That cannot happen without the private sector as well as the BBC.
It is one of the things I have found most frustrating about the
Communications Bill—that it did not seem to think about
the infrastructure outside of the broadcasters that support broadcasters.
We do have lots of debate with the BBC about training people,
about new technology—
Q96 Alan Keen: Why is it the BBC's
role to do that?
Mr Allen: I am just giving them
as one example, I am not saying they are the only people. The
British Society of Cinematographers, various bodies basically
that represent various elements of the industry have training
programmes, but they also have the limited resources to be able
to do that. Most of it relies on the industry itself putting some
money back into the industry. That, like any industry, works best
when the industry is doing very well and at its worst when the
industry is doing badly. People have less disposable income to
put into training schemes so it flows like an ebb and tide, basically.
Ms Trueman: With your original
question about the 14 year-old in the bedroom, if they have ambitions
to be a film director it is extremely difficult because most of
the courses are post-graduate level.
Q97 Alan Keen: Why is that?
Ms Trueman: You tell me.
Q98 Alan Keen: But you are in the
trade. Do not throw it at us. You should be lobbying and fighting.
Ms Trueman: Indeed, and that is
one of the messages we want to give you today as well.
Mr Reiss: Also, the reason why
further and higher education has to broaden itself out is that
there is not enough money and kids are coming out with £15,000
and £20,000 worth of debt so they need to be trained much
more broadly until they are 25, 26, where they have to go and
find either another bank loan to be more specific to go to a school
like the National Film School or the London International Film
School, and then have another year or possibly two years of intense
directing training. So the education system is not being specific
enough because there is not the money within that system.
Mr Allen: Giving you another example
at a slightly different level, and this is very individual to
our particular company that we work for, but when we built our
facility we built within it a theatre that we intended from day
one to be able to use as a training centre for people, and we
used that as our commitment to put some money back into the industry,
and various bodies do use that facility for training on a weekly
basis and we try to help them as much as we can to get people
through, but we are not educators: we are a business trying to
make money in a very competitive environment. We do not have people
who teach; we rely on others to do that. So we can provide a facility
for people to try and get hands on, but not necessarily for people
to do the teaching itself. Likewise trying to get funding for
additional equipment is impossible.
Ms Trueman: We run various mentoring
and observer schemes as well through the Guild.
Q99 Alan Keen: I am not sure the
Secretary of State for Culture would welcome the BBC putting up
funding for filming that did not wash its face, as it were, because
it is public money, it is our money, but let's just say there
is a movement afoot that perhaps the BBC does not retain 100%
of the licence fee. There is certainly a feeling that community
television and radio maybe has 5% of the licence fee. In other
words, if Ofcom were to take the money and only distribute 95%
over three years to the BBC, then 90%, then 85% or whatever, what
is it you would be bidding for to improve your lot or the lot
of the film industry in the United Kingdom?
Mr Allen: There already exist
various training bodies on a regional basis that engage and attract
young film makers. The biggest problem all of those regional training
schemes have is funding. It is not the capacity to do more: it
is the money to be able to do more—that is the stumbling
block. They have people willing to give time and effort but they
just do not have the funding to be able to do it.
| 
