SUBMISSION 11
Memorandum submitted by Mr Stephen Herbert
IS THERE A BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY?
"What has the Council contributed to education
about, and access to, the moving image? What should the Council
do with the bfi and the Museum of the Moving Image?"
This evidence relates to the Museum of the Moving
Image.
Stephen Herbert, Deputy (then) Head of Technical
Services bfi South Bank (including MoMI), 1989-96. Member
of MoMI Curatoral team 1989-96. Co-Curator of two exhibitions
at MoMI 1990 and 1993. bfi Visual Technology Consultant
1996-99. Independent museum consultant/publisher 1999 to the present.
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) In order to consider what needs to happen
to the Museum of the Moving Image, we need to examine briefly
some of the reasons for the Museum's closure and dispersal, and
we need to ask whether either the Film Council or the British
Film Institute are appropriate bodies to move forward with planning
for a suitable replacement museum, which I believe is a proven
requirement for the London region.
2. INVESTMENT
(a) Contrary to suggestions that "no
money" had been spent on the Museum after it opened, there
was a major technology replacement investment in 1995. The replacement
machines would have had a life of some seven years (had not the
Museum closed in 1999). But this investment was partially wasted
by not being supported by a later development phase.
(b) Whatever the redesign involved, the
next generation of technical replacements would have been significantly
cheaper when required again in 2002, as inexpensive image technology
such as DVD players have now replaced expensive laser-disc players.
A relatively small sum wisely spent on renovation would have kept
the museum open for at least a further two years, during which
time the final decision on the future of the building would have
been made.
3. BUILDING SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED AS
A MUSEUM
(a) The MoMI building was designed specifically
for a technology-based museum. This technical design—including
expensive accessible underfloor for AV cable routing—is
wasted on other uses, such as a proposed book library. This function
has a lifespan of decades and is still entirely suitable for a
museum display function and will remain serviceable into the forseeable
future.
4. SUCCESS OF
MOMI'S
ORIGINAL CONCEPTS
(a) The innovative concept of: original
artefact/working model or recreated environment/text panels, supported
by live interpretation, was proven by MoMI. I spent over 2,000
days in the museum, and each day saw evidence of the highly successful
way in which visitors engaged with the exhibits. This success
would inform future development, which would nevertheless need
to be guided by more recent concepts concerning the place of the
moving image in society today.
5. REASONS FOR
THE MUSEUM'S
PROBLEMS BEFORE
CLOSURE
(a) The bfi's policy decision to
push for "collections-based" promotion (because it was
perceived that that was where the government funding was most
likely to be found), was misguided. MoMI was never about displaying
the bfi's collections. Indeed, of all of the temporary
exhibitions in the Museum over 11 years, not one was based mainly
on the bfi's collections. Of course bfi items were
used in the displays, but the displays were not designed to show
off bfi collections. That would have been conceptually
unacceptable. And although uniquely strong in film, stills and
posters, the bfi had no "solid" artefact collection
at all prior to the planning of MoMI. The items that were then
acquired were obtained specifically to help tell the story of
the moving image in the Museum.
(b) Telling that story, is what MoMI was
about. Changing to an "objects-based" policy was cynical,
and the bfi's suggestion that MoMI was originally conceived
as a way to display the bfi's collections is untrue. Originating
in the Directorate, who seemed not to understand the function
of the museum, this retrograde policy was actively pursued by
the Curator then in post, leading to the eventual inevitable decline,
and finally to the destruction of the museum.
(c) Arguably, poor marketing was as much
to blame for reduced visitor numbers as any other factor. As just
one example, the marketing department's insistence on dropping
the useful acronym MoMI, during the period when it was fashionable
for inappropriate re-naming, and enforcing that decision on all
departments, was a major factor in publicity and promotion problems.
6. DISINGENUOUS
PRESENTATION OF
THE MUSEUM'S
CLOSURE
(a) The original public notices concerning
the museum's closure stated that this was for "Refurbishment".
Within weeks the term "Refurbishment" had disappeared,
replaced with the phrase "a bigger and better" museum.
Then, nothing. Finally, after pressure from concerned museum professionals
it was disclosed that the plans for a new museum had been dropped,
with no formal announcement. Instead, there was an entirely different
proposal for display galleries for temporary exhibitions, within
a proposed film centre.
7. OPTIONS NOT
TAKEN; DECISIONS
PREMATURE
(a) Conceptual re-development would have
been possible, with the museum evolving gradually, without permanent
closure. It appears that no efforts were made to find private
funding. The decision to close was supposedly taken because further
funding for the museum could not be justified as it was to be
demolished in 2001. In fact, as we have since discovered, no decision
had been made to demolish the building due to South Bank re-development
plans. The building is still there today, and could have been
developed. It is extraordinary that the museum was permanently
closed and the displays destroyed before South Bank Scheme was
finalised and the exact legal situation established.
(b) Was there an independent report on the
feasibility of keeping the museum open pending the final decision
on the future of the building?
(c) Did the bfi governors agree to
closure because they were told that the building was to be demolished
for site redevelopment in 2001? (This was the "fact"
given to staff by Director John Woodward).
8. THE BRITISH
FILM INSTITUTE
HAS FAILED
TO RE-CONCEPTUALISE
(a) The "timeline" framework used
by MoMI was only one possibility for arranging the displays. Since
the announcement of the museum's closure, the bfi has failed
to make any serious attempt to develop ideas for a newly conceived
museum.
(b) The bfi refuted its reported
lack of interest in a moving image museum by stating that the
touring exhibition, supposedly a stopgap until a new museum was
built, would introduce innovative displays and would be evidence
of the Institute's commitment. The exhibition, based on old ideas
presented without a hint of innovation or conceptual development,
received a dismal critical response and failed to impress visitors.
It was withdrawn after its first showing.
9. CONCLUSION
(a) I would suggest that the bfi
failed the public when it chose the easy way out of a problem,
and closed and then destroyed the Museum of the Moving Image.
At an extended meeting with the then Director Jon Teckman in October
2002 it became clear to me that the bfi has subsequently
failed to accept the proven and continuing need for a world-class
museum that attempts to place today's international film and television
media within a framework of earlier moving image techniques, and
future moving image possibilities.
(b) To develop a new museum, a panel of
specialists would need to devise a new concept that retained the
energy, integrity, authority and engagement of the original displays,
with a new ideological conceptualization using current multi-media
design methods.
(c) With our increasingly visual culture,
the need for a new museum in the South of England, covering all
aspects of the moving image, is greater than ever. A committee
should be set up to investigate the feasibility of establishing
a new museum in the original building, which could be cleared
for this purpose. Funding could be obtained by selling the Imax
(which is of very little cultural value), or by investigating
other private and public options. This new committee should be
independent of the Film Council/British Film Institute.
February 2003
| 
