Examination of Witnesses (Questions 601
- 619)
TUESDAY 24 JUNE 2003
SIR ALAN
PARKER, CBE, MR
JOHN WOODWARD,
MR STEVE
NORRIS AND
MS MARCIA
WILLIAMS
Q601 Chairman: Sir Alan, I would
like to welcome you and your colleagues. It is, in a sense, fitting
that you having been good enough to help us launch this inquiry
with a private briefing are now here for our last public session
of the inquiry. We understand that you would like to make some
opening remarks and we would be very happy to hear those.
Sir Alan Parker: Yes, Chairman.
I was in two minds really about what to do, I was not sure what
you wanted me to do with regard to opening remarks. I do not really
want to do a litany of everything the Film Council has done because
it is very clearly expressed, I think you will agree, in our written
evidence. No doubt the Film Council has come up a number of times
with all of your witnesses. I would just like to say that it is
a pleasure to be here once again. I say it is a pleasure, except
that Margaret Thatcher on the wall over there is staring at me,
which is bit disconcerting. She is looking straight at me. Everybody
else probably feels the same way. I will try and tell the truth
with her looking at me. The last time I was here in front of the
Committee I think was eight years ago. I was here with Ken Loach
and Mike Leigh in a very different capacity. You wrote in the
Evening Standard that I snarled and was rude to all of
you. Now I have a proper job and am in a more mature position
I will try and be more polite to everybody. The Film Council was
not formed when we had the last Committee inquiry. As I said,
I am happy to do the litany of everything the Film Council have
done in the three years we have been going, it is a very long
list, which you can see from our written evidence. There is not
an aspect in film that we do not touch. If I may be so presumptuous,
because I can imagine all of you are exhausted, and it is a very
hot room, I will cut to the chase a bit. You can absolutely backtrack
and correct me, but I have looked at all of the evidence which
has been given to you since your inquiry started and it seems
to me that it could be broken down to three main issues. Before
I begin I should introduce my colleagues. We have Marcia Williams,
who is the Head of Diversity at the Film Council, we have Steve
Norris, who is in charge of the international division, once known
as the British Film Commission. He is in charge of inward investment
and responsible for the inward investment in the last few years,
which you heard a great deal about when you were on you trip to
Los Angeles, and John Woodward, who is the Chief Executive Officer.
Chairman, it seems to me with regard to your original question
to the film industry, and all of the evidence that you have heard
can be divided into three main areas. Again you have just heard
from the bfi and archives. This does not necessarily follow
from that, in so much as there is so much evidence in so many
disparate areas that you have heard evidence from, but it seems
to me there are three areas that keep coming up. These are the
three areas I feel that you as a Committee could help our industry
on: the first is the huge number of conversations there have been
about tax incentives with regard to section 42 and section 48,
particularly section 48 because it is due to end in July 2005.
We, like most of the people who have given evidence , are absolutely
of the belief that without it, you could see the collapse of the
indigenous British film. However, it is not enough just to renew
it. I know that you were, if not instrumental, you were hugely
helpful with regard to Section 48 being put there in the first
place in Gordon Brown's first Budget. Section 48 is not perfect
and it ought to be revised. We have worked very hard on how to
do that. What one of your witnesses said is what is needed is
a son of Section 48. We would like to address that a little later
if you would not mind. I think it is probably singularly the most
important thing we have to do. The second important area with
regard to the protection and survival of an indigenous film industry,
is television support for that industry and the lamentable support
that the British film industry gets from television broadcasters.
We feel that ought to be debated further, because it is hugely
important. The third area that seems to be discussed a great deal,
and probably particularly since your visit to Los Angeles, is
inward investment into this country. Inward investment is relevant
to the skills base and the skills base and the future of the skills
base is relevant to training. We feel very strongly about Training.
This is presumptuous of me because I am isolating three areas
that I feel have been discussed with almost all your witnesses
and therefore probably ultimately when you have your deliberations
without us, could possibly be the areas which you give the maximum
thrust. Chairman, do you agree with those three things? Am I being
presumptuous? How would you like me to proceed with regard to
those three issues?
Chairman: I personally do but we are
only going to begin drafting the report and we will derive from
all evidence sessions and all the other information we have been
involved in. What I find very interesting about a useful select
committee inquiry, and I believe this has been a useful select
committee inquiry, is that the inquiry takes over, it sends you
in directions you may not have anticipated at the beginning and
it sends you to conclusions which you may not have known you were
going to arrive at or which were even there to be conclusions.
When we did our last inquiry we went, as it were, on spec, to
Los Angeles, we thought it was right to do so. In Los Angeles
we picked up the information and the evidence which I think perhaps
more than anything else helped convince Gordon Brown to bring
in section 48 and to do the other incentives which Mr Minghella
and others have referred to and which were referred to almost
perpetually at almost every studio that we went to in Los Angeles.
Indeed Mr Gareth Wigan at Columbia—who gave us a very nice
lunch—told us we were only getting a very nice lunch because
of our role in getting the tax incentives, otherwise we would
have got sandwiches. We regarded it as right to go again two weeks
ago and never, in my view, was a decision more justified in terms
of what is likely that we shall recommend when we start compiling
our report. What you have done now in your introductory remarks
is to provide colleagues here with a very useful agenda for the
questions they are going to put to you and, of course, what you
said is on the record for us to derive from. There are already
a couple of remarks you have made, I think you may be able to
guess what they are, which would be of great value to us when
we are compiling our report. I will call John Thurso first.
Q602 John Thurso: Thank you, Chairman.
Can I just echo the Chairman's remarks, I knew very little about
the film industry and going to Los Angeles was one of the greatest
learning curves I have ever been on. I learned a phenomenal amount
about what is germane to this inquiry. In that regard can I come
to your third point, which is the question of inward investment,
perhaps this is something for Mr Norris, whose name came up often
with great plaudits in many areas that we visited. I was completely
unaware of the work that you and your team over there are actually
doing. I think you have funding of about £1 million a year
which generates something like £234 million of inward investment.
Mr Norris: It will be substantially
more this year.
Q603 John Thurso: Which is a record
that any other inward investment body would be proud of. Can you
tell me what the barriers are you face? If one had a magic wand
what are the things that you would like to see changed, either
by Government or any of the people you work with in order to be
able to do your job more effectively?
Mr Norris: I think in terms of
marketing the United Kingdom and making the United Kingdom a place
to come and make films I think we are blessed with a number of
natural advantages. We have a skills force which is the envy of
the world, from our actors to our technicians, our cameramen,
our dancers and our designers. One of the key areas for us is
to ensure that we maintain that quality base. Much discussion
has been given to the competition we face from the Eastern Bloc
and from our friends in Canada and Australia with their infinitely
better tax breaks than our own. I think we must never lose sight
of the fact that we are making a particular kind of product, not
a massed produced widget of some form but indeed an enterprise
that requires a great deal of creative endeavour as well as economic
enterprise. The important thing for us in terms of marketing in
the United Kingdom, which is a premium product, and where we have
been able to secure many major feature films, is on the back of
that talent base. We have indeed been fortunate to have had the
talent base that we do. I think the Film Council is now beginning
to embrace the concept of a serious attempt to review and support
training into the future as our industry becomes more technological.
I think beyond that the nature of film production is such that
it can be sited anywhere. We have just had a major Jackie Chan
film taking place entirely in Victorian London but shot entirely
in Prague. In fact our own geniuses from the CGI industry here
in London put St Paul's and Tower Bridge in afterwards just to
make sure that you are completely fooled. It is a global business.
Many of the ways that we have looked at working in the future
bring along the need to work in tandem with many of our competitor
countries. Again I point to Mr Minghella's film, Cold Mountain,
which is a United Kingdom/Romanian co-production and despite the
fact that none of the film was shot here in the United Kingdom
over 50% of the entire cost of the film was expended on British
talent, British labour, British facilities and British expertise
and our future lies in embracing the global concept of working
with it. To return to your earlier point, the key essence is our
talent and the ability to be able to maintain that.
Q604 John Thurso: When we were over
there I was asking various studio bosses why did they come to
London, how easy is it to come and clearly the Section 48 tax
breaks are a big driver and clearly the pool of talent is something
that is very much taken on board and the ability to use the quality
of sound stages that we have but interestingly enough the barriers
were perceived to be the complexity surrounding the system. If
you had somebody, a one-stop-shop that you could ring up who would
be centred round your organisation, who would be known to have
access to the appropriate people in the right ministries to get
help, would that be helpful? The view was that it would be helpful.
I put this point to the Secretary of State when she was here and
she was just a little bit defensive about it and sort of said,
"yes, I had not really thought it through". Do you think
you could use more help from specific sponsoring departments like
DCMS and an ability to talk to officials at the Treasury so that
you can pull together and rather than the producer telling them
who to ring you could make the call for them and present them
with a basket.
Mr Norris: We are always looking
at different ways we can improve and make the issues easier and
Section 42, which is the tax relief break we use primarily for
the larger budget inward investment films, is one which is a product
of our own tax system, it exists. I feel very grateful and happy
that there is key tool in us securing the way in which it works.
It does not seem to have been a problem with the many, many companies
that have accessed it, particularly across the US majors. In terms
of film that we work on, remember we have probably now done 15
to 20 films in the last five years with budgets in excess of $100
million each. Normally there is a level of financial sophistication
that is able to deal with the issue. I think the DCMS have been
very, very supportive and I would also pay tribute to the Revenue
who have also been extremely supportive, particularly in producing
the new statement of practice which went on-line in the last month
or so, which will bring a lot of clarity to those that do not
understand it. We could make it easier.
Mr Woodward: Just a point of information,
I think the Secretary of State would be aware that we are setting
up a series of bilateral meetings, in which the DCMS officials
have been very helpful at pulling together, to try and better
connect us through the DCMS, which is our sponsoring department,
to other government departments like DTI, the Foreign Office and
DfES in the context of the educational and cultural work that
Mr Minghella was talking about. Separate to that we met with the
Paymaster General directly before Christmas and we are engaged
in discussions with the Inland Revenue and Treasury round the
long-term implications of tax relief.
Chairman: Frank Doran.
Q605 Mr Doran: I would like to talk
to you about broadcasters and training. You have been quite outspoken
in your submission on the failure of the broadcasting industry
in this country to properly support the film industry in two major
respects, one is obviously the direct investment and the other
is the showing of British films, recent films in particular. The
floor is yours, do you want to expand on that and say what you
would like to see? I notice in the brief that you tabled you promoted
an amendment to the Communications Bill, I must be honest I am
not sure what has happened to that, so it would be helpful to
get that on the record.
Mr Woodward: At its crudest I
think when you get to a position where only 2.8% of the films
shown on the five main terrestrial channels, all of which have
public service remits attached to them in 2002, were recent, ie
less than eight year old British films, I think you have to ask
what is the role of the British broadcasting industry and its
public service remit in that context in terms of working with
and supporting, not in a mindless way but in a way which benefits
both parties, the British film industry? If the British film industry
is struggling, and I would suggest there is an industry but it
is struggling, one of the key pieces of the value chain in the
United Kingdom that is missing is input from television broadcasters
in a way which is remarkably different to every other country
in Europe. Part of that problem resides round, as you have already
pointed out, the lack of consistent and systematic investment
in the films themselves by the broadcasters and what is watched.
Channel 4 retrenched in the last year, Granada Films closed down,
and so on and so forth. As Ofcom picks up and gets running I guess
Ofcom will be in a position where they will be asking for the
statement of programme promises going through in future to contain
a clear and discrete element round film and film policy. Our hope
and expectation is that going forward broadcasters will be asked
to put a clear film policy on the table. I think it is the Film
Council's intention that there is a right and proper role for
British television broadcasters to play in working with the film
industry but unfortunately we are in a position where they have
not stepped up to the plate. I have to say in addition to that
in the three years that the Film Council has been in existence
there have consistently been allegations made to us by the independent
film distributors in the United Kingdom that Sky Television in
particular is a broadcaster which has not provided a sensible
buy-in policy and acquisition policy for British films. The piecemeal
way which the finance of British films is put together means that
key chunk of money that film distributors, financiers and producers
would expect to derive from television in any other European country
is missing in the United Kingdom and it is something that is debilitating
and holding back the growth, not of the inward investment pictures
that Steve was talking about but certainly in the context of indigenous
British films. Yes, we think there is a serious problem there.
Q606 Mr Doran: What you are saying
is if Ofcom completes on stages with your provision in it Ofcom
will have a power to look at it but what action can they take,
particularly against Sky, who are pretty slippery on these issues?
Mr Woodward: We are compiling
research on Sky at the moment. We met with the Chief Executive
of Ofcom a week or two ago, which was an introductory meeting
to raise a whole set of issues relating to film and broadcasting.
We will be putting forward a submission to Ofcom later on this
year. The next step for us is to talk directly to Sky and present
the problems as represented to us by the independent distributors.
Q607 Mr Doran: Presumably at some
stage this would become a licence or a charter condition or would
it be something a bit loser than that, something in a note of
guidance about our interpretation of what public sector broadcasting
responsibility actually means.
Mr Woodward: In terms of public
sector broadcasting responsibilities as I understand it Ofcom
is about to embark on a major review of public service television
we would hope and expect that that review would take film into
the review in a serious and meaningful way.
Q608 Mr Doran: Let me move on to
the other area of training, one of the things that struck me about
the evidence we have heard throughout the inquiry, the written
and the oral evidence that we have heard, is that it is a very,
very disparate industry. Making films is a collaborative process
but it is run by individuals and individual groups. We have heard
from writers, directors and technical people and it strikes me
that it is potentially a powerful industry but it does not punch
its weight because there is not any focus to it. The Film Council
is a relatively new body and some of us are hoping that you will
help to provide the focus and bring the industry together. That
is certainly my own view and I hope to see that. When we were
in Los Angeles we visited USC and we saw a fabulous training facility.
We did hear some criticism of it later but it was geared mainly
to the majors and the big studios and UCLA was where to go if
you wanted to be an independent and a free spirit. What we saw
were technical facilities which were way beyond what we find in
some of the studios here in the United Kingdom. A link in with
the technical side of it, the people who produce the machines,
the cameras, the mixing decks, all of the rest of it, a lot of
stuff pioneered on digital because the camera makers want their
products to be something which the new generation is familiar
with. In terms of training here I know that we have the National
Film and Television School and every university and college seems
to be developing a course on film studies and all sorts of things
but we do not seem to have a centre of excellence and there does
not seem to be champion for that type of facility here in this
country.
Sir Alan Parker: I would like
John to answer that. Having read a lot of the evidence you have
heard you were not really that well informed, to be quite frank.
I was getting irritable at times with regard to people's answers
by the fact we do have a centre of excellence and we have some
extraordinarily important plans in that regard which were not
articulated to you. I briefly mentioned that we do have the National
Film and Television School, which a lot of people think is far
superior to anything at USC, even though Mr Fabricant knows very
rich people usually go to USC to be able to use their facilities.
We have a very, very important skills initiative which I think
John should articulate to you, it is very thorough and has been
going on for some time and you have not been given the correct
information with regard to how people answered the question when
you asked it.
Mr Woodward: Very simply your
contention is absolutely accurate. The training in the British
film industry since the end of the traditional studio system,
when television started to come on and film became essentially
a freelance production activity training, has been ad hoc
and relatively disorganised. There has never been a clear, coherent,
training plan and training strategy for the film industry. What
we have been doing for the last six months is working in partnership
with Skillset, which is the sector skills council, as most of
you will be aware, covering film, television and broadcasting.
We have a Skills Action Group which is being chaired by Stewart
Till, who is the Chairman and Chief Executive of UIP. I believe
he gave evidence to you. The Group comprises of all of the stakeholders
from the neighbouring sectors of the industry, from production,
distribution, exhibition, and digital post-production and what
we will be publishing in July for consultation with the industry
and with Government is the first ever skill strategy for the film
industry to think about ways of financing a proper industry training
programme that meets the needs of the industry going into the
21st century to carry us through for the next four or five years.
The plan is to do that by asking the industry to step up to the
plate and to contribute towards financing a proper training plan.
We are also going to be asking the Government and DfES to think
about what we are proposing in the grain of the new government
White Paper on training and education and higher education because
we believe that the plan that we will put forward will play neatly
into the developing policies round further and higher education
and training for the work force. Hopefully a solution is at hand.
It is going to be quite an ambitious plan we publish and hopefully
we should be able to get a draft of it to the Committee.
Q609 Mr Doran: That would be extremely
important because I think our report is likely to be published
after the publication of your document. That would be helpful.
The answer to my question is as a champion the Film Council have
put itself in that position.
Sir Alan Parker: We identified
that with regards to our phase two objective and with regard to
the speech I made last year. The whole of training is a priority
and we are going to put in as much of our resources into it as
we are able. When I made the announcement last year I said that
everybody talks about training but no one asks what it is that
the film industry needs. You have lots of media study courses
all over this country that are all disparate, nothing plugs into
anything. We do have a wonderful school in the National Film and
Television School in Beaconsfield but it has none of the toys
they have at USC, mind you at the NYU film school in New York,
which is the best American school, they do not have the toys either.
I once went to Budapest many years ago with Lord Putnam and I
said, "How is it that you have been able to produce so many
Academy Award winning cinematographers?" If you walked round
that film school you would see nothing, no digital toys, nothing,
and I was told, "We cannot afford the Panavision cameras,
we teach them to use their eyes". I always remember that.
Although I will argue and argue and argue that we have better
schools, the centre of excellence is there but we require more
centres of excellence that will plug into the National Film and
Television School. They should be all over the country. There
was never any overall strategy relevant to what the industry needs
other than what higher education thinks that they should teach
people, we brought that together for the very first time. With
regard to not just the Film Council it is also Skillset who have
to deliver this, with regard to the work that has been put in,
particularly by Stewart Till, Deputy Chair of the Film Council,
also Vice-Chairman of Skillset and the Chairman of the Skills
Action Committee and Group. We have made really serious progress.
If you asked that question a year ago we would be very embarrassed
as an industry because we were not addressing that very serious
problem but I happen to believe that we have now. I think that
the plans that are being brought forward in September will be
radical and comprehensive and of great importance to the future
Q610 Mr Bryant: One of the things
you point out in your excellent submission is that 46.6% of people
in the industry are not employees they are self-employed. There
is obviously a danger there that it is not so much what you know
as who you know that gets you a job in the industry. I wonder
whether you worry that that makes it more difficult for women
to get work, it makes it more difficult for black people to get
work and ethnic minorities generally, is that fair or not?
Ms Williams: I think you have
hit the nail on the head as far our diversity agenda is concerned.
Yes, there is a high proportion of the production workforce which
is freelance but generally speaking in all sectors of the industry
we are identifying under representation of not just women but
of people from minority ethnic groups and of disabled people.
Naturally that is of concern to us. Largely the industry that
we are talking about is a collection of micro-businesses, most
people working in the film industry are working in firms of one
to ten people. There are particular challenges in terms up opening
up access and ensuring that there is equality in terms of access
to work. That is certainly the challenge that we are going to
try and tackle head-on working with the unions, guilds and associations
and the industry to try and improve working practice and improve
recruitment methods. One of the very stark findings from the Developing
UK Film Talent Report, which is a joint Film Council and Skill
Set training report, is that nepotism still plays a huge role
in terms of how people fare in developing their careers within
the industry, indeed in entering the industry in the first place.
Q611 Mr Bryant: That is not just
about being dogmatic and saying that you have to have diversity,
it is about the creative process, if you can release more talent
from wherever it comes into the industry you are going to enhance
the movies that we make?
Ms Williams: Indeed. There is
a very strong business case underpinning our positive diversity
agenda. When you look at where the film industry is still based,
largely in London and the South East, and you look at the proportion
of people from black and minority ethnic groups, for example,
that live in those areas there is considerable under representation
in the film industry work force. Just under 50% of the audio visual
industries' work force is based in London, about one third of
the United Kingdom's black and ethnic minority population live
in London, however when you look at the research and the figures
in terms of who is working in the industry from minority ethnic
groups it comes out at about 12%.
Q612 Mr Bryant: This seems to be
true in every industry that is based on freelance. If you look
at sport instructors and things like that vast majority of them
are freelance. That is exactly the same. You also refer in your
submission to the fact that a United Kingdom film that does well
else where, abroad, is probably more use than the British Council
in terms of portraying Britain in a positive light. I guess you
might also say that it might be more use than the World Service
as well, does the British Council have any direct relationship
with you in terms of making sure that films are seen abroad?
Mr Woodward: Yes, it does. This
goes back to the previous question about joining up within Government.
What we have done over the last six months is to work together
with a film export group, essentially what we have done is try
to bring together all of the different bits of Government that
one way or another are charged with promoting the UK and directly
or indirectly have a relationship with film. The British Council
has a film department and it subsidises things like the provision
of prints to go to particular film festivals. However, the British
Council's priorities at the end of day revolve round public diplomacy,
if you like, and that is not the remit of the Film Council but
by bringing the British Council into the room with the Film Council,
which has its own export promotion budget, Trade Partners UK,
and others parts of the DTI we are starting to come up with a
unified plan so that we all play together rather than go off in
different directions.
Q613 Mr Bryant: The BBC has BBC Prime
as its version of the World Service on television, as it were,
which has to be done on a commercial basis. I have never seen
a British film on BBC Prime, do you think there would be a role
to boosting that element, after all this is a channel which is
seen in hotels all round Europe?
Sir Alan Parker: Exactly. How
about the BBC in this country? I have just come back from Tokyo
and there was not a British film on British Airways either. It
is right across, it is a big problem wherever.
Mr Woodward: The other point is
there is something in the financing of independent pictures which
predominates in the United Kingdom which in a sense mitigates
against that. Normally producers and financiers are in the business
of selling off rights in particular territories in order to raise
the money for the film, they are often sold on a territory-by-territory
basis. If your proposition is for a channel that is a global channel
that would clearly necessitate some kind of global buy-out of
rights by the BBC to enable the film to be shown on a television
channel right across the world, so there might be a structural
issue round that. In the end it comes back to asking the BBC what
their policy is to do with investment in British films and their
commitment to broadcasting them both at home and abroad.
Q614 Mr Bryant: You say again in
your report that the film industry is a substantial exporter.
I guess Britain is a net importer rather than exporter.
Mr Norris: No, we are a net exporter,
we have a trade surplus.
Q615 Mr Bryant: Do you have figures
for that?
Mr Norris: I do not have them
with me, I believe our net balance is somewhere in the region
of about £250 million.
Q616 Mr Bryant: Since 1995 the figures
have gone down, it has varied from your own report between £650
million and £888 million over the period from 1995 to 2001,
in essence it has gone down by about 100 million, why is that?
Mr Woodward: We would have to
get back to you in more detail, which we are happy to do for the
Committee, but my immediate response would be that one of the
issues is round the import of films and television and paid television,
where there has been an increase on paying movie channels, and
I suspect that is skewing the figures downwards.
Q617 Mr Bryant: I would be grateful
if you could get back so we have the figures for the report. Finally,
a distribution based tax break, is that a good idea?
Sir Alan Parker: Very much so.
Mr Woodward: To be clear what
is not being proposed or promoted by the Film Council is a notion
of taking tax breaks away from the production sector and providing
them to the distribution sector. It goes back to my Chairman's
point, what we are looking for is a way of stimulating and ensuring
that British production and the production sector thrives and
prospers. However, the fact of the matter is that section 48 focuses
entirely on production, it is the Film Council's stated policy
to try and create a better connection between the production of
films and distribution. I imagine when you spent time in Los Angeles
you spent time with the studios who essentially are distributors.
I am not suggesting that Britain is necessarily about to replicate
the Hollywood structure but at the end of the day it seems to
me quite difficult to make an argument for public intervention,
whether it is through tax or subsidy, to generate new British
films if there is not at least a reasonable expectation that those
films are going to be put in front of paying customers in the
United Kingdom and increasingly abroad, because if we want a thriving
British film industry we also have to bear in mind that the majority
of the potential revenue for British films are going to come from
overseas, because that is where the bulk of the market and the
earning opportunity is globally. Film, if nothing else, is a global
business. I think the Film Council's line that Sir Alan set out
in his presentation to the industry last year was, yes, keep a
tax break that promotes production but for God's sake let us make
sure that production is properly harnessed to distribution.
Q618 Mr Flook: We heard on our trip
to the States that DVD domestic penetration is 41%, we heard that
film-going is more and more popular in America, for decades it
is the highest number of people going to films. We have seen that
the large number of films produced in American is going to go
one way, if you are at Universal or Paramount you are going to
say, there is a good market for making films, so there are going
to be more and more big expensive US films, is that a fair guess?
Of course is that going to impact on the space—what is over
there is going to come over here—that we can show British
films, in other words indigenous British films are going to have
greater problems trying to fight for space, does that mean there
is going to have to be greater subsidy to making indigenous films
in Britain going forward?
Sir Alan Parker: I do not necessarily
think there has to be greater subsidy, I do not think that the
indigenous industry would ever be able to survive in this country,
as it cannot survive in any European country, without subsidy.
The juggernaut of American cinema is total. What has happened
recently is not just about where those little British films might
sit, it is where a whole area of cinema, even if it is American
movies, have disappeared, because it has been polarised completely
in that what you are seeing is a demographic of the audiences
getting narrower and narrower, younger and younger. The kind of
films that Hollywood is making are becoming more and more expensive,
they are replications of successes that have gone before, the
middle area of cinema in the United States has disappeared—I
say that because it is the area where I work. The more thoughtful
film is more difficult to make even within the American system,
and, yes, that makes it so much more difficult with regards to
indigenous British film. As you know, what we have put in action—again
the difficulty here is there is such a short time to talk about
so many different things, and you are probably putting your finger
on the most important—is that the biggest single initiative
the Film Council has put forward with regard to specialised distribution
and exhibition in this country, is making great use of digital
projection. The word "digital" is a very boring word
because everyone sees it as a panacea for everybody's problems,
and it is not, it is also an area we have to make sure is exactly
right, because we are dealing with public money, in what we are
about to do. We do have a very comprehensive plan for 250 screens
in 150 locations with regard to specialised distribution and exhibition,
that is world cinema, British cinema and cinema of historic importance.
That has never, ever been done before. We will be able to do that
because of the advantages of digital projection and, most importantly,
with regard to the fact that you do not have to put an enormous
amount of money into the cost of prints. That is a very important
initiative which we have agreed to do in the Film Council and
we will be announcing the more thorough plans in October. That
will be hugely helpful with regards to this country, but it does
not solve the problem of British films being shown elsewhere around
the world, that is why we would like to incentivise distribution.
We would like to see in very simple terms section 48 or whatever
the son of 48 should be because in the end it is a decision of
the Treasury, obviously, it is not to take away from production,
as John says, but it has to be linked to distribution, because
there has been a dislocation between distribution and production,
it is to incentivise distribution as well as help production,
that is what we feel should be a major change. It should be fool
proof with regards to abuse because Section 48, as you know, was
widely abused and it absolutely should only be for the use of
the film industry. If there was some formula that could be put
forward that was acceptable to the Treasury, that it would make
a colossal difference to the British film industry.
Q619 Mr Flook: Your three points,
tax incentives, which you just referred to, I am sure the Chancellor
will hear us, I agree with that. Inward investment, relying on
the skills bank and internal training, it is very obvious and
something that does need pressing but you also referred to the
lamentable support from TV broadcasters, would that juggernaut,
seemingly heading this way, can you understand how the TV companies
are going to do everything they can to shy away from putting more
money into film?
Sir Alan Parker: I am sure they
would, that is why we need your help. The statistics are very
clear, the statistics are quite alarming with regard to British
films on both pay and free television in this country. The amount
of investment in film is lamentable, lamentable is probably too
nice a word.
Michael Fabricant: My apologies for missing
the first 15 minutes, I had to go to another meeting. To some
degree a lot of what I wanted to ask about has already been asked,
which is this question of distribution and tax breaks, given that
in my assessment Gordon Brown does not want to give any more money
away and he might not want to give it away to the film industry
might a suitable mechanism be some form of prime pumping as a
tax relief? What I mean by that, I am thinking out loud, a system
whereby there might be a tax relief given when someone invests
in producing 1,000 copies of a movie rather than just the 70,
which I gather is the average for a British movie compared to
1,000 for American blockbusters shown in the UK, but then if the
movie were a success the money could then be clawed back, do you
think that would be an attractive or an unattractive proposition?
Chairman: A no win, no fee?
|
