SUBMISSION 3
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Mo Heard
1. THE MUSEUM
OF THE
MOVING IMAGE
1.1 MoMI won 18 national and international
awards. It was built without government funding—an astonishing
feat. It was closed by the British Film Institute (bfi).
It is hugely important for those who wish to celebrate Britain's
film and television heritage as well as to study the wider history
of the moving image, that a new museum is created, re-conceptualised
for the twenty-first century. It should stand once again as a
beacon of excellence: "the best film museum in the world".
1.2 A new group such as a Moving Image Trust,
external to the Film Council or bfi, should be given the
task of discussing the feasibility and funding of a new museum
of the moving image, to be housed in the original MoMI building
underneath Waterloo Bridge. This would consist of people brought
together from various fields—film education, design, international
moving image history, museums, and the local community.
A film education department would be housed
in the museum. MoMI's disbanded Education Department was extremely
successful. It makes sense to have lifelong learning activities
on the same site as a museum.
1.3 The bfi should not be allowed
to install its library in the MoMI building as presently indicated.
(indeed, would not permission have to be sought from all the many
original donors for a change of use—after they have been
informed, by an independent body, of the true situation concerning
MoMI's closure?) Does the bfi really own the building?
Is this issue lost in the mists of time, from the LCC and the
GLC through to the South Bank board? This matter should be checked.
2. FUNDING FOR
A NEW
MUSEUM
2.1 How would a new museum of the moving image
be funded?
The bfi Imax cinema should be sold (it
is operated and staffed by a commercial organisation—the
trading arm of the Science Museum), and the money returned to
the Arts Council; ACE could then transfer the capital income to
a Moving Image Trust for the creation of a re-conceptualised museum
in MoMI's original building. With this initiative, a new MoMI
could be up and running within three to four years, and probably
without the need for immediate government subsidy.
3. REASONS WHY
THE BRITISH
FILM INSTITUTE
AND FILM
COUNCIL SHOULD
HAVE NOTHING
TO DO
WITH THE
CREATION AND
OPERATION OF
A NEW
MUSEUM
3.1 The destruction of MoMI
Closing MoMI was an act of cultural vandalism.
There are those currently in senior management at the bfi
and Film Council who have demonstrated that they have no interest
at all in a museum as part of the Institute's core activities.
The proposed plans for a huge film centre with all the Institute's
operations in one building comprise only temporary displays, and
paying "blockbuster" exhibitions based on current films
aimed at the mass market. These plans do not even begin to fulfil
the requirements of a permanent museum dedicated to the history
of the moving image, which is what London has lost. No certainty
exists that the bfi will even obtain funding to build a
film centre.
It has been proven that the bfi in its
current formation cannot operate a museum, marketing or updating
it with integrity, and therefore it would be inappropriate to
allow the Institute to have anything to do with a new version.
The bfi irresponsibly closed MoMI without careful
forward planning, and now they are unable to give assurances that
they are capable of opening another museum of equal importance.
The bfi's widely heralded plans for a national touring
"major" exhibition have been a disaster, with the opening
show at the Sheffield Millennium Galleries in February 2002 receiving
poor reviews and thought to be "shockingly bad" by many
visitors. The plans to tour to other venues appear to have been
abandoned.
3.2 The bfi continues to state that
it has superb "collections"; it does have very significant
collections of film, posters and stills, and a unique book library.
But it has only an undisciplined accumulation of "solid"
artefacts, 95% of which were assembled specifically to display
in MoMI. Most of the items from MoMI (a Registered Museum) have
been claimed by the original lenders. Replicas, models, sets and
useful information text panels have been destroyed, so in all
respects, the museum no longer exists. Another museum will now
have to be started from scratch with new acquisitions and loans.
The bfi Registrar should account for all artefacts which
remain in storage, and verify publicly which items have been destroyed.
(Registered Museums are bound to offer any items for disposal
to other museums. To my knowledge this has not been done.)
3.3 The bfi Directorate has made
every attempt to denigrate the efforts of those opposing MoMI's
closure and destruction (and promoting the idea of a new separate
museum), as the carping of a few "ex-staff members"
(bfi Chair of Governors, Joan Bakewell in The Guardian
14 October 2002), rather than recognising the real and widespread
anger in the international museums and educational world at the
unnecessary closure, and the inadequacy of the suggested "film
centre" replacement.
4. THE BFI IMAX
4.1 "The Imax is central to the expansion
of MoMI". (A Bigger Vision p55.) The bfi
Imax cinema at Waterloo was opened in 1999, just before MoMI closed.
The Institute received £15,250,000 of Lottery funding through
the Arts Council to create an attraction supporting the museum.
(Dates of awards: 13 September 1995; 23 July 1996; 13 November
1996).
The bfi has not fulfilled two aspects
so prominently stressed in the Imax submission (A Bigger Vision
May 1996). [Extracts given in Appendix 1 below] Firstly, that
National Film Archive films would be printed up on the Imax-70mm
for spectacular large-screen presentations, and secondly, that
the Imax would support MoMI's visitor numbers as well as its financial
position. Does it matter that the bfi received Lottery
funding for a proposal which spelt out cultural benefits, but
has not, after three years, made any attempt to honour these promises?
There remains no longer a cultural justification for a publicly-funded
bfi Imax.
4.2 The bfi should justify the £20
million Imax cinema as a substitute for a museum—£5
million match funding, it seems was used from a contingency originally
intended to assist MoMI in future years. A small part of this
£5 million bfi "Major Projects Fund" could
have been used to refurbish the museum in 1998-99—certainly
£500,000 would have kept the museum open for two years until
the likely future of the South Bank site was better known, leaving
the bfi to raise the shortfall for the Imax, thereby saving
MoMI. Jon Teckman has stated that the bfi tried to stop
the Imax from being built, but the project "had gone too
far". Another example of the Institute's mismanagement and
lack of rigorous forward planning.
The Imax has negligible cultural and educational
value; the same operator runs the Imax at the Science Museum.
There is no justification for two publicly-funded Imax cinemas
in London. By using money from the sale of the Imax, a new MoMI
could be instated. [minutes available] (not printed
here)
5. THE FILM
COUNCIL AND
EDUCATION
5.1 Whatever the Film Council contributes
to education and access to the moving image can only be through
educational materials, books, film, and talks within the education
field. The wider community, including tourists to London and the
south east, has no popular access to the story of the moving image
through artefacts, displays, or live interpretation—ie a
museum.
5.2 The Film Council should have nothing to
do with a museum of the moving image
The CEO of the Council is John Woodward. In
1998 he was appointed bfi director by the DCMS. He closed
MoMI in August 1999, and immediately left (October) to take up
his new post at the newly-formed Film Council. Although at the
time, the bfi and the Culture Secretary, Chris Smith stated
that a "bigger, better" museum would be created, those
people who had been responsible for the museum's original success,
were absolutely convinced that this was a fiction, and that there
was no-one of calibre or enthusiasm appointed to create another
MoMI (which had been built with £14 million private and corporate
donations). The actions of Woodward indicate that he has no commitment
to a permanent museum.
In September 2002, bfi director Jon Teckman
confided in a meeting [minutes available] (not printed here)
that closing MoMI was not the only option for the bfi to
save money in 1999, thereby providing that the closure, without
the required careful forward planning, was a cynical management
decision, leading inevitably to the destruction of an international
highly-regarded institution.
The arguments put forward by John Woodward for
"temporarily" closing MoMI in 1999, and the subsequent
permanent closure in 2002, can all be challenged; but there have
been no channels for opponents of the closure to refute bfi
spin and misinformation. [Transcription of South Bank staff meeting
in May 1999 available] (not printed here)
I wish to reiterate that it is hugely important
for those who would celebrate Britain's film and television heritage,
as well as to study the wider history of the moving image, that
a new museum is created, re-conceptualised for the twenty-first
century. It should stand once again as a beacon of excellence:
"the best film museum in the world".
| 
