House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Sixth Report

5 LOOKING AHEAD

95. Digital techniques in film-making, distribution and exhibition — as in other sectors and activities — have long been suggested to herald as significant a revolution in film as the advent of sound, colour and CinemaScope combined. While in the US we were, however, struck by significant reining back in relation to the pace of development in this area; in contrast to the enthusiasm some members heard during inquiries by our predecessor committees during the past seven years. There are four commercial digital cinema screens in the UK out of a total of 125 in the world. [157] Clearly digital technology is well-entrenched in the film-making process but it is largely corralled between principal photography (shooting the movie) and exhibition (showing it in cinemas) in the post-production processes of editing, visual and special effects, and sound.

96. This area, however, is constantly experiencing new developments. George Lucas has been a pioneer in the digital field with Star Wars: Episode I being shown digitally in four cinemas in the US in 1999,[158] and in 2002 Star Wars: Episode II being claimed as the first big feature film shot in its entirety with high definition digital cameras. In addition, the film was distributed via satellite to a number of cinemas with digital projection; including in the UK.[159] On 5 September this year the first 'e-premiere' took place, the film This Is Not A Love Song (a low budget British film written by Simon Beaufoy, financed by the Film Council amongst others) was released on the Internet at 5pm.[160]

97. However, despite the obvious attractions of not hopping from 35mm film to digital and back again, moves to digital cameras (at least by most mainstream film-makers) and to digital projectors (at least by most exhibitors) were said to be some years away. Nonetheless, the UK Film Council has announced a £13 million investment in setting up 250 digital screens around the country with the explicit aim of developing a new and cost-effective way of making a broader range of films available to the public. In return for this investment the Council states "it is looking to earmark a certain proportion of screening time for showing specialised films, which to date have had limited opportunity to be seen outside London and other major cities".[161]

98. The Committee heard that digital cinema had the potential at least to transform the distribution and exhibition sectors in a number of ways including a reduction of costs (by obviating the need to distribute bulky celluloid prints each costing about £1,200 to manufacture);[162] and increasing flexibility (by enabling faster and more responsive changes of films being shown) including switching between the latest releases and older films, including classics.

99. The barriers or unresolved issues related to digital cinema include the following:

Costs

b) Standards: given the huge size of the investment envisaged, the industry clearly needs to settle the question of the technical standards to be adopted for the technology;

c) Reliability and training: as with any new technology there are issues of confidence in the robustness of the technology and a need to retrain personnel to operate the new systems;

d) Longevity: existing projectors have a life of about 30 years and it is extremely unlikely that novel technology will be able to match this because of both further developments and more complicated construction;

e) Demand: CinemaScope was introduced to combat competition from television but it is unclear what demand from customers will be satisfied by conversion to digital projection. Some within the industry have qualms about the quality of digital projection compared with the traditional approach (although it is likely that, whatever the baseline quality, digital projection would be much more resilient than celluloid over time);

f) Control: it seems likely that significant debate will arise over whether the distributor or the exhibitor should have control over the 'tap' of e-distribution should networked delivery become a reality and switching films in response to perceived demand become, therefore, very much easier; and

g) Security: a move to digital distribution, whether through a network or on physical disks, obviously increases risks of 'unauthorised parallel distribution' i.e. piracy — an issue of no little preoccupation to the film industry especially in the US.

Broadcasters

100. The UK Film Council regard the lack of contribution of the UK broadcasters as the single biggest 'hole' in an effective film strategy and their current support for the film industry in financial terms as "lamentable — lamentable is probably too nice a word.".[163] Many in the film industry support this view[164] — including Stewart Till[165] and Anthony Minghella[166] — criticising the broadcasters for lack of activity and investment in British films. The UK Film Council believes "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",[167] and so this means that the UK film-makers are at a serious disadvantage compared to their US and European competitors/counterparts. The UK Film Council wrote that: "In Europe the picture is very different — German broadcasters have doubled their contribution to the German Federal Film Board, Spanish law has been amended to provide obligations to Spanish television to invest in film productions, and in France Canal Plus was obliged to invest 136 million Euro in film in 2001".

101. Broadcasters' current involvement in film is a controversial issue and the amount of investment varies between broadcasters. With regard to production, the BBC and Channel 4 are both prepared and willing to invest in British film and do so to the tune of around £10 million a year each.[168] But ITV is explicitly not willing and does not invest in British film production.[169]

102. The other role for the broadcasters is as exhibitors of British film. Here too, the terrestrial broadcasters seem to be sadly lacking in their support for British film. This can be seen in Table 5 on page 26 of this report. The UK Film Council commented that:

170

103. An additional problem for film-makers is that payment for television rights has significantly decreased compared to the days when, as we were told, "Goldcrest was around. They would get 10% of their budget … from the BBC on a licence. So if you were looking at a $20 million film like The Mission, that would be $2 million on licence. Now the BBC and Channel 4, the most they will pay is around £500,000, for which they want television rights in perpetuity."[171] However, Mr Elstein from BSAC believes that "Films attract the licence fees, US films, UK films, that they justify in terms of their significance to the schedule, no more no less"[172] and therefore, the current payments for films are justified.

104. With regard to training Working Title expressed some concern over the levels of training and opportunities to gain a 'big break', that the broadcasters offered in comparison to in the past, saying:

173

THE BBC

105. The BBC feel that their role in film production is to make films that would not necessarily have been made for commercial reasons but, nonetheless have real cultural worth and should be made.[174] As far as exhibition is concerned, the BBC claim that important British films have been seen on TV[175] and that they invest in a number of films for exhibition including Shakespeare features.[176]

106. The Secretary of State said that "there is a role, but there will never be, in my view, a primary role for the BBC as a funder of British film"[177] and told the Committee that in relation to exhibition "The Charter Review will look at a wide range of issues in relation to the BBC and seek, I hope, to achieve some definition of the BBC's role".[178] However, she also warned that "that if you burdened the licence fee with an expectation that it was going to make substantial investment in film, then you would have licence payers in revolt at the loss of quality on their televisions at home".[179] The BBC told the Committee that "The very best British films have been seen on British television".[180]

CHANNEL 4

107. Channel 4 have a history of prolonged support for the British film industry in both production and exhibition[181] but this has diminished recently with levels of funding being reduced to about £10 million per annum.[182] This is, as a proportion of their budget, a significantly larger commitment to British film than that of the BBC[183] but they are returning to lower budget productions with genre more in tone with the channel's general feel.[184] In relation to exhibition, Channel 4 are committed to showing British film and developing British talent (although more through their productions),[185] especially through FilmFour Ltd.[186]

ITV

108. ITV firmly believe that they do not have a role in supporting the production or necessarily the exhibition of indigenous films. They expressed this to the Committee clearly and justified it by their investment of

"over £350 million a year into the top end of drama — Dr Zhivago, Bloody Sunday — some of these things are shown on theatrical release in the UK, and TF1 is paying nothing like that. You will not find a lot of American product or a lot of acquired product in peak time on ITV, you will find original production, original British programming."[

187

Mr Clive Jones, Joint Managing Director of ITV Network, also claimed to be investing in film through the purchase of films (US and UK) for television viewers "on the basis of their success at the box office so I am investing in film, I am just investing at the back end"[188] justified by the fact that only "3.7% of the top 1,000 programmes shown on ITV last year were films".[189] However, Ms Gurinder Chadha, director of Bend it Like Beckham, told the Committee a different story saying:

190

She believed that the investment by ITV is not producing quality television and so some of that budget should be spent on encouraging talented filmmakers to produce films to better entertain British television audiences.

109. ITV themselves argue that they make a significant contribution to film through their training.[191] The workforces for film and television are greatly over-lapped, meaning that many are trained by the broadcasters and move into or work part-time for the film industry. ITV sees itself and other broadcasters as a training ground for those who work in film and count this as their contribution to the British film industry.[192]

110. The UK Film Council was instrumental in the development of a relevant amendment to the Communications Bill (now Communications Act 2003). Sub-section 6 of Clause 260 of the Communications Act is concerned with the fulfilment of the purposes of public service television broadcasting in United Kingdom. The amendment inserted the word "feature film" in the sub-section of this clause which specifies:

"that a manner of fulfilling the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom is compatible with this subsection if it ensures…(b) that cultural activity in the United Kingdom, and its diversity, are reflected, supported and stimulated by the representation in those services (taken together) of drama, comedy and music, by the inclusion of feature films in those services and by the treatment of other visual and performing arts"

The Council states that it is now for Ofcom to interpret how this provision should impact on broadcasters and its own actions in pursuing implementation.

BSKYB

111. The Committee heard criticisms of BSkyB's approach.[193] Mr Jeremy Thomas told the Committee that:

194

Mr Woodward from the UK Film Council backed this up with the statement that "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."[195]

112. Supplementary evidence from the Council referred to complaints from independent film distributors about problems with licensing the UK pay-TV rights to films which they have acquired for UK distribution because the overwhelmingly dominant market player, BSkyB, had exclusive output deals with US studios and was unwilling to deal in any significant way with other parties. The UK Film Council argued that the only way an independent distributor can therefore gain access to a pay-TV window is by putting its film through one of the deals between BSkyB and the US studios. This results in the realisation of a lower price than if BSkyB were willing to deal direct. It also means that, unless a US studio agrees to put the film through its deal, then the distributor cannot sell UK pay-TV rights to their film. As a consequence, there was a potential detriment to the consumer since the available choice of films is diminished.[196]

113. BSkyB responded to the UK Film Council's supplementary evidence by refuting a lot of the allegations made within it. They argued that they have in the past and still do, deal with suppliers other than the Hollywood studios, an example being the renewal of the contract with independent UK distributors, Entertainment Film Distributors (EFD). BSkyB also said that independent producers can, in fact, gain access to pay-TV through specialist film channels (such as FilmFour and TCM) and also through pay-per-view via services such as Front Row (provided by Telewest and ntl).Sky claimed that, therefore, it is not forcing independents through one of the deals between Sky and the US Studios (as the UK Film Council alleged) and that films can be sold and exhibited elsewhere.[197]

Potential measures to encourage further contributions to sector

114. We would like to see increased levels of support for film production and exhibition of British product from the public service broadcasters. We recommend that this be done in co-operation with the broadcasters in the first instance.

115. It is unclear to us how BSkyB can be required to pay equal prices for Hollywood blockbusters and smaller British films as they represent different commercial prospects. We would, however, welcome support for the British film industry from BSkyB as a wise long-term investment in content which must be in that company's interests.

116. In evidence to the Committee on the BBC's annual report and accounts, the Director General, Mr Greg Dyke, was almost cursory about the BBC's approach to investment in British films. There was little to suggest that the BBC had a serious strategy. Mr Dyke could not even decide whether the £10 million put aside for film investment was the subject of serious discussion or simply as much as Mr Alan Yentob could extract from the BBC budget.[198] We urge the BBC to review its approach and level of commitment to feature film production, in consultation with the UK Film Council, given the significant comity of interests in this area.

117. The Secretary of State described the amendment of the Communications Bill as designed to "to provide encouragement or expectation of broadcasters to collaborate in maximising potential investment in film."[199] This raises expectations of developments in this area, with the UK Film Council expecting 'serious and meaningful' review of the situation by Ofcom.[200] We hope and expect that these hopes will not be disappointed and that Ofcom will be able to take meaningful action to improve the relationship between the British film industry and the public service broadcasters to the benefit of the British people's enjoyment of, and access to, film. One avenue will be through the Statements of Programme Policy required from the broadcasters.

Training and development

Importance and current situation

118. Formal training and development have not historically made a significant contribution to the British film industry. This is changing but the situation needs attention to make sure that problems are dealt with. Mr Charles Harris from the New Producers' Alliance told the Committee that: "We are very good at making films. I am not so sure that we have the infrastructure for training, development and distribution and exhibition."[201] Mr John Woodward from the UK Film Council believes that

202

119. One of the current problems facing the industry is that skill levels need to be maintained. The Committee have been told throughout this inquiry that the UK workforce is extremely proficient. John McVay from PACT believes that

203

There appears to be an ageing workforce who need to pass on their skills to a younger generation that are willing and keen to work in the film industry. However, at present they are not properly trained in the skills required, Ms Pat Trueman from the Directors' Guild told the Committee that "we simply do not have enough younger, well-trained film-makers ready to leap in and take up the challenges."[204]

120. We believe that the emphasis in the last statement should be on the phrase 'well-trained' because there are certainly enough keen young people anxious to work in film (which can be seen by the numbers taking media or film courses at universities and colleges around the country[205]). However, they may not be able to because of the lack of adequate training as well as the obvious limited size of the industry. Mr Stewart Till, Chairman and CEO of UIP, and Vice-Chairman of the UK Film Council, agreed that education and skills development are important:

206

121. Another issue, about which the Committee heard a great deal, is the lack of funding available for development in the film industry. We were told by the Scriptwriters' Guild and Working Title that development in this area was crucial to the success of a film but was badly under-funded in the UK. Mr Dawson said "I do not think there is enough development money filtered down to writers at grass roots level to enable them to spend time writing feature films."[207]

APPRENTICESHIP/WORK EXPERIENCE VERSUS COLLEGE COURSES

122. We received mixed evidence from the industry with regard to whether training is best received through apprenticeships and on the job experience or through college courses which give a more theoretical education before entering the job. We have heard the pros and cons for both methods/styles of training, which are outlined below, and we think that the both systems merit support from the Government to ensure an integrated approach to education and skills in the film industry.

123. Apprenticeships ensure the passage of skills from one generation to the next, allow trainees to earn whilst learning and also provide them with on the job experience which many in the industry value, including the Scriptwriters' Guild who said the following about trainee scriptwriters:

"They need experience, which you do not learn in university, you do not learn at film school, you do not learn by going to short courses. You learn by having your work put through the process of being script edited, of having a director come in and make changes or suggest changes, of having actors read it and then you hear how bad some of the dialogue is, and you see what actually happens to it."[

208

This is echoed by those struggling to get into the industry. In a discussion about the training requirements for developing film directors, Mr Reiss from the Directors' Guild of Great Britain, said "I think that nothing beats hands-on experience,"[209] and, "there is no special ticket once you come out of a film school"[210] suggesting that on the job experience is as vital, if not more, so than post-graduate courses for obtaining the skills needed to be in the industry.

124. It is also regrettable that "One of the very startling findings from the developing United Kingdom Film Talent 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."[211] This is a negative trait that would be likely to continue if the apprenticeship system were continued without a proper structure. This point also displays some of the advantages of a college structure, which include the open access of courses to all (thus reducing nepotism and increased numbers of people being trained) and the structure that is inherent to such a system. However, this structure must feed into the industry needs through the provision of appropriate training that will help on the job and forestall the trap where "lots of media study courses all over this country that are all disparate, nothing plugs into anything."[212] Accessibility of college also relies on students being able to afford to invest in their education. Although some courses are supported by the Government, others, like those at the National Film and TV School, are not and this poses difficulty to some and means that talent is not being harnessed into the British industry.[213]

TECHNICAL SKILLS VERSUS BUSINESS SKILLS

125. Development and education need to be focused on many areas of the industry. One area, which receives less attention than technical skill enhancement, is the business skills needed for producers to do their job effectively. The New Producers' Alliance told us that they spent a large amount of their yearly turnover providing training courses for developing producers, most of which were about gaining practical business skills. They felt this need was not effectively dealt with by Government initiatives for the sector's training.[214] We recommend that Skillset, in co-ordination with the Department for Education and Skills, look specifically at the business skills training that is provided and fill the gaps in the system where necessary.

CO-OPERATION WITH THE INDUSTRY/CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

126. There is a need within British film for industry needs and training provided to be married up, David Castro from the New Producers' Alliance told us that there "needs to be a more cohesive training"[215] for people entering the industry. The UK Film Council and Skillset both told us that they were aware of the dislocation between the needs of the industry and the training currently available and that the training strategy, which will be published in September, will begin tackling this problem.[216] One suggested solution to this problem was the establishment of a number of centres of excellence around the country (similar to those in US including NYC, UCLA etc) which gave courses that the industry sponsored.[217] Progress is already being made as Ms Caine from Skillset pointed out to the Committee:

218

INTER-RELATIONSHIP WITH BROADCASTERS

127. Training for the film industry heavily overlaps with training needed for the broadcasting sector. With a similarly overlapping workforce, it is logical to try and integrate the training within the audio-visual sector. Skillset is the skill sector council for the audio-visual industry and does this to a certain extent already. We believe that it could be done to an increased degree with even more co-operation between film and television. The BBC told the Committee that they "are as committed as ever to training and to making a significant contribution to broadcast skills"[219] and that their training budget "has gone up from £4.8 million to £6.1 million in the last three years".[220] Others thought that the BBC does not do enough for training, commenting that "the BBC, should be obliged to have specific funds for directors and/or writers, not just producers, to come into"[221]. Looking at the UK Film Council support for producers Mr Reiss thinks that

222

STRATEGY AND RESOURCES

128. The UK Film Council have published a report, produced with Skillset, which details their strategy and action plan for training the film industry and is committed to targeting investment into the areas of need and priority that have been identified.[223] The UK Film Council have allocated £6.3 million for the training needs of the industry. Mr Bloore from the New Producers' Alliance was cautious about the new approach:

224

PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE

129. Skillset set out the thinking behind the strategy as about: "not one centre of excellence but a network of centres of excellence that either are placed around the UK so that we ensure access to training of the highest quality, but also we cover the bases in terms of the skills required and the different job requirements in the industry. We might need to look at, for example, a business centre of excellence or we might need to have a centre of excellence that is specialising in some more of the craft and technical roles as opposed to some of the more creative roles. We are now looking exactly at that concept of establishing centres of excellence where there are real economies of scale in terms of funding and targeting support, but it is plural rather than singular."[225]

130. 'A Bigger Future: The UK Film Skills Strategy' recently published seeks to identify the training needs of the British film industry and provides a number of solutions to ensure effective training of the current workforce and new entrants. In order to maintain a highly skilled workforce, the UK film industry needs:

b) a future strategy that reflects the realities of the industry and manages people's expectations of what constitutes the film industry and the opportunities, or lack of them, it can offer;

c) careers resources about the film industry that are linked with national careers services giving consistency throughout the UK;

d) equal access for all those who want to enter the industry.

131. In order to achieve the above, Skillset's careers advice service 'skillsformedia' will be enhanced to provide a 'one-stop shop' for the film industry. It will be charged with:

b) developing and supporting a network of careers advisors in Further and Higher Education;

c) Providing advice and guidance to new entrants and the existing workforce through one-to-one advice sessions, answering email inquiries, and careers advice in schools.

132. The report also identifies the need to match the skill demands of the industry with the training being supplied. There need to be stronger links between education and industry so that the industry can attract the brightest and best talent to the workforce. The report proposes to tackle this mismatch by creating:

b) 'Screen Academies': a mixture of Higher and Post-Graduate education spread throughout the UK;

c) an increased role for the National Film and Television School (NFTS) providing a dedicated centre for post-graduate education and training in production and a much needed co-ordination role for the range of approved courses and Academies; and

d) a 'Film Business Academy': a world class central resource of all the information and expertise necessary to support the film industry to achieve a high level of management and business skills.

133. The training and development strategy set out by Skillset and the UK Film Council is an impressive wishlist of welcome developments. We believe that it strikes the right notes, particularly on equal access, business skills and cooperation with the industry. We look forward to receiving regular reports regarding progress with its implementation.

157 Odeon Leicester Square, London; UCI Film Works, Manchester; Warner Village, West End, London; Warner Village, Star City, Birmingham. Back

158 AMC Burbank 14 and Pacific's Winnetka Theater in the Los Angeles area, and Loews' Route 4 Paramus in the New York area and at Loews' Meadows 6 in Secaucus, New Jersey. http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/news/1999/06/news19990618.html Back

159 See for example The Guardian, 20 May 2002, Lucas Films, 2003 and http://www.wral.com/technology/1458953/detail.html Back

160 The Daily Telegraph 6 September 2003, p13 and UK Film Council News, 12 August 2003 Back

161 UK Film Council News, 22 July 2003 Back

162 QQ 203, 204 and 266 Back

163 Q 619 Back

164 Q 86; Ev 34 Vol III Back

165 Q 415 Back

166 Q 589 Back

167 Q 605 Back

168 Q 554 Back