SUBMISSION 15
Memorandum submitted by Mr Michael Open
THE BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY
This submission refers solely to the two questions
being addressed in which I have considerable expertise. I have
fairly well-formed views on the other questions, but am confining
my evidence to the following . . .
How can the production, distribution and exhibition
of British films be improved in the UK? Is the right balance being
struck between these elements of the industry? What should the
Council do with the bfi and the Museum of the Moving Image?
SUMMARY OF
EVIDENCE
On the question relating to exhibition and distribution
of British Films the conclusion is that:
1. Public funding of British films should
be restricted to films that are made by individuals whose main
commitment is to the art of the cinema, and specifically not films
which demean their makers and the cinema by elevating clichéd
sociological issues to the raison d'être of the film.
2. A quota of European films is the best
way to ensure that British films are more widely exhibited.
3. Senior public figures, including politicians,
should publicly demonstrate their support for British films by
regularly attending premieres and film industry gatherings. The
additional publicity gained will guarantee a public awareness
of British cinema at a level much closer to that enjoyed by, for
example, the cinemas of USA and France.
"Doubtless the circuits would kick and scream,
but the benefit (of a quota) to British films would be immense
and there could be an exchange between the less powerful independents
which could get greater access to the films that would make them
profitable, while the multiplexes would be forced to give British
film a greater opportunity to be profitable."
On the question relating to the future of the
British Film Institute the conclusion is that:
1. The British Film Institute has, due to
decades of bad management and weak policy, become a total disgrace
and an insult to the great art that it is charged with encouraging.
2. As a cohesive organisation it is beyond
redemption and should be broken up into a series of independent
units charged with very specific, aesthetically based remits.
3. The sociological functions that the Institute
have embraced should be given to a single body—Council for
Sociological Cinema.
"Required by its Royal Charter to "encourage
the art of the film", the Institute has descended to a situation
where most of its senior management, under the influence of the
nonsense taught about film in most parts of higher education,
deny that the cinema is an art at all."
DISTRIBUTION OF
BRITISH FILMS
All films that are exhibited in cinemas have
to submit themselves to the market. In film distribution, there
is a double submission, first to the "cinema exhibition market"
which is dominated by multiplexes and a Hollywood-centred view
of cinema, and then to the public as a whole.
The hurdles that need to be overcome in these
markets are largely:
1. In the film exhibition market, the prejudice
of senior executives or cinema chains in favour of US culture
and against British culture (I use culture in its non art-specific
sense).
2. In the eyes of the public, the low media
profile afforded to most British films compared with roughly equivalent
American ones.
It is probably evident that the second of these
hurdles is one of the causes of the first.
There is a recent example that illustrates the
situation. Last year, an independently-made film called Living
in Hope was released in Britain. It was a British student
caper film by a first-time director/writer team and was no great
masterpiece. But it was approachable and reasonably enjoyable.
It showed in, at a guess, less than a dozen small cinemas and
was not a success in any of them. In the same year there was a
film called Van Wilder: Party Liaison that was released
in virtually every multiplex in the country. It was an American
student caper movie of the no-brainer variety. It took almost
£2 million at the box office.
The British film was, in my view, only marginally
less "entertaining" than the American one, in spite
of the massive discrepancies in their budgets. Both were decidedly
naff at an aesthetic level. But Living in Hope was consigned
to the trash heap and the American one used the power of its American-owned
distributor to occupy hundreds of screens across the country.
Living in Hope died because neither cinemas, nor public
had heard about it, but just spending more money on promoting
films such as this is not the answer, because British films need
to have a PR buzz about them in order to overcome the "sub-Hollywood"
image that British films have, due largely to the lower "production
values" under which they are made. British films as a whole
(as opposed to individual British films) will only get that PR
buzz if the media are made aware of the pathetically inadequate
position that British films occupy within the media.
As many people attend cinemas as they do football
matches, and more people watch films at home than watch football
at home, and yet most newspapers devote a page per day, on average
throughout the year to football, but less than a page per week
to cinema.
The only way that I can see that the Government
can influence this lamentable situation is for politicians to
stand up and be counted on a regular basis in terms of their support
for British films—by regularly attending premieres and film
industry events. And by local MPs regularly attending their local
cinema and seeking photo opportunities in their local newspapers
in this context. Then, perhaps, the British media, and the popular
media in particular would treat British films with the respect
that they deserve. This is, generally the way that indigenous
film industries are regarded in the rest of Europe.
PUBLIC FUNDING
OF FILMS
Since the creation of the National Lottery,
the results of public funding of British film production and distribution
have been something of a curate's egg. The following remarks are
my general response to the results. These have great relevance
to the possibility of expanding exposure of British films.
1. Taking a "long view" of British
film culture, there seems to be three times that public funding
seems appropriate in film production and distribution . . .
(a) To help young first-time film-makers
to establish themselves with first feature films, and ensure that
such films are given adequate promotional resources.
(b) To enable established and respected British
film-makers to complete funding on ambitious projects that stretch
the possibilities of conventional private financial investment
beyond that which is achievable.
(c) To support the promotion of a privately
financed British film that is perceived to have potential beyond
the expectation of its existing promotional budget.
2. All too often the films which benefit
from public funding are didactic and stylistically inept. Justifying
public investment on the basis of aesthetics seems, in all but
the rarest cases, to be beyond anyone who has ever been charged
with that responsibility. It is so much easier to justify investing
in a film because it is saying something that is a Good Thing.
But what is consistently ignored is that the British public, and
that of most of the developed world, is bombarded with exhortations
to be good citizens morning noon and night, and most frequently
they regard a cinema as a place of escape, not least from the
machinations of the Ministry of Good Thoughts.
I call such films "sociological cinema"—an
extremely pejorative term. Even the claimed didactic value of
these films is completely illusory. Can anyone imagine a person
with racist tendencies going to see a second rate film in which
racism is mono-dimensionally condemned? But a film that thrilled
anyone who saw it by its cinematic virtuosity could cause someone
with such tendencies to question their attitudes.
3. Such films demean their makers, they
demean the issue that they address by their cinematic incompetence
and, worst of all, they demean the art of the cinema. No government
should encourage their production.
EXHIBITION OF
BRITISH FILMS
I have been engaged in film exhibition in the
UK throughout my entire working life—and before. Exhibition
is the point where that magical spark occurs between the film
and its audience. Unless a film is exhibited, there is little
point in it being made at all. But the film exhibition industry
is structured such that close to the minimum number of films is
exhibited each year. This is because all of the power in the exhibition
industry resides with a very few companies which seek to monopolise
the screening of all of those films that are perceived to be most
popular.
Exhibitors outside of that élite "club"
are forced to fight over the crumbs that are left after the lion's
share has gone. Companies will, obviously act in their commercial
interest, and it would be a very bold step to seek to regulate
the industry in any significant way. However, since there are
manifest inefficiencies in the current situation, it might be
worthwhile conducting a major survey of film exhibition practices
and to consider providing some regulatory framework that might
ensure that
(a) Circuits do not engage in "spoiling"—that
is the screening of films beyond their profitable life—in
order to harm their competitors.
(b) Hollywood-based distributors do not have
a disproportionate power.
(c) European films (ie primarily British
and Irish, as foreign language films seem to present a massive
challenge to the popular British audience) have a guaranteed place
in the system.
Doubtless the circuits would kick and scream,
but the benefit to British films would be immense and there could
be an exchange between the less powerful independents which could
get greater access to the films that would make them profitable,
while the multiplexes would be forced to give British film a greater
opportunity to be profitable.
Such a regulatory framework would only slightly
reduce the massive advantage that the circuits have, and would
substantially benefit independent cinemas (commercial and cultural),
which still make up a very significant proportion of the number
of cinemas in the country, if not the admissions.
It is with something close to incredulity, therefore,
that those involved in cultural film exhibition have greeted the
draft plans of the Film Council to allocate much or all of the
recent increase in funding for film exhibition, to schemes involving
encouraging financially strong multiplexes to compete with financially
weak cultural cinemas by screening of that very small number of
films that actually contribute a positive financial benefit to
them.
The results of such a policy would be first
the closure of the cultural cinema, then the financial disaffection
of the multiplex with the results of the policy, that would, almost
inevitably, be less beneficial than those resulting from the previous
laissez faire situation.
BRITISH FILM
INSTITUTE
The Origins of the Problem
From the time of its founding in the early 1930s
until the early 1970s, the British Film Institute was a beacon
for the art of the cinema, much admired throughout the world and
a valuable contribution to British cultural life. It was primarily
London-based until Jenny Lee encouraged the Institute to support
the screening of the great filmic works "Outside London".
The next decade saw an enormous expansion of the Institute's operations
and corresponding increase in staff. However, in the mid-60s the
Institute had decided to launch an initiative aimed at getting
film taught in British universities.
The "natural" place for film is in
the arts faculty, rubbing shoulders with literature and drama.
However most traditional universities wouldn't accept film in
that way, but bracketed it with sociology. Hence most undergraduates
were taught that films had little or no value in themselves, but
only had relevance in terms of the reciprocal relationship that
they had with society and changes within it. Apart from being
abject nonsense, this view of cinema is diametrically opposed
to the most fundamental aim of the bfi—"to encourage
the art of the film".
Unfortunately, when the major expansion of the
Institute in the 1970s took place, many of the people appointed
to positions of influence within the organisation had been taught,
and had swallowed that very abject nonsense. This led to the Institute
being an organisation divided against itself. I have personally
been to meetings in the bfi's boardroom where heads of
department wouldn't speak to each other in the presence of those,
like me, from outside the organisation.
These incidents reflected the fact that, from
the time that Stanley Reed left as director, the chief executive
of the organisation either had little or no clue about the cinema
as an art, or was beholden to some group of academics which resisted
returning the Institute to its true purpose. Most were weak, either
personally or did not have the confidence of powerful groups on
the board. Eventually the "sociologists" became the
dominant group and the Institute became, effectively, a joke,
which is best explained in relation to a particular incident in
the 1980s.
One of the best examples of commercial sponsorship
benefiting film was the Piper Heidsieck show print scheme where
£500,000 was contributed by both the champagne company and
the Institute to make 200 new prints of "the world's finest
films". However, well before the figure of copies of 200
had been reached, the initiative was brought to an end. Why? Because
some officers within the Institute had demanded a group of African
films to be included in the scheme (finest films???). No big deal,
one may think, but the companies owning the films demanded that
the rights of the films be bought with the prints—and they
charged around £150,000 for the "privilege". As
far as I know, these films have never been shown in the UK outside
the National Film Theatre—if even there.
The same pathetic ideas permeated the National
Film Theatre as well. The philosophy of quality that characterised
it when Richard Roud was programmer in the 1960s was replaced
by one of quantity whereby they only boast about the number of
films shown. This nonsense reached its apogee in 1995-96 in the
Centenary of Cinema. This was the most important cultural anniversary
that the human race has witnessed—the first time it has
been possible to celebrate the first century of an autonomous
art. What did Britain's national cinema do to celebrate? They
showed 100 films made by women!!!
In this regard it should be mentioned that in
the last two years, the programming has been much better, occasioned
doubtless by the relinquishing of influence over programming by
the Institute's current acting director.
The Current Situation
Since the creation of the Film Council, the
bfi has become barely relevant. It operates the NFT, but
is not necessary to the operation of it. It controls a very fine
film library, but there is little or no interface between that
and any other aspect of the Institute's work. It maintains the
National Film and Television Archive, but there is no interface
between the archive and its users—its acquisitions policy
is opaque and absolutely not user-driven. Its publishing arm produces
one reasonable series (bfi Film Classics) but other titles
are largely irrelevant to precisely the audience that the Institute
was established to serve—those who regard the cinema as
an art. This is most evident in its formerly glorious magazine,
Sight and Sound, that would currently be better referred
to as "Sight and Sodomy" so obsessed is it with unconventional
sexuality.
So dominant has the sociological view of cinema
become within the "organisation" (I use the term loosely)
that, even though required by its Royal Charter to "encourage
the art of the film", the Institute has descended to a situation
where most of its senior management, under the influence of the
nonsense taught about film in most parts of higher education,
deny that the cinema is an art at all. Instead of exhorting cultural
cinemas to boldly show the art of the cinema from whatever source
it may come, they pathetically cling to the notion of "specialised
cinema" which they twist themselves into verbal knots trying
to define without mention of the word "art".
As someone who has been intimately involved
with the Institute ever since my 18th birthday when I first became
elegible to join as a member, and who has seen managements come
and go over the past 37 years, I am sad to come to the unmistakable
conclusion that it has become a total fiasco, not serving the
art of the cinema at all, but actually working against everything
that makes the cinema the greatest achievement in human creativity.
The following, taken directly from the Institute's
website demonstrates my thesis. Under policies and strategies,
the Institute manages to come up with only the following . . .
Disability consultation document
The second phase of the bfi's Cultural
Diversity plan focuses on disability issues. Many changes need
to take place, improving access to our services and inclusivity
in our workforce. This consultation document outlines our plans.
A Commitment to Cultural Diversity
Details a selection of specific measures we
are taking in the current year, to establish cultural diversity
as a core value across the bfi.
Towards Visibility
Focuses on our plans to more effectively engage
with ethnic minority communities. This strategy is the result
of extensive consultation, within the bfi, with our existing
partners and minority ethnic organisations and practitioners UK-wide.
Education Strategy
We want everyone who uses or contacts the bfi
to be able to take one more step to find out more about film and
television. We offer a wide range of learning experiences for
all ages in both formal and informal education. Our Education
Strategy document explains how we go about this.
Where, one might ask, is "the art of the
film"? There is no question; the bfi is simply a disgrace
that is an insult to the greatest art that our species has created.
A Suggested Solution
As far as I can see, the only solution to the
mess that masquerades as the British Film Institute is to dismantle
it into its constituent parts—National Film Theatre, National
Film and TV Archive, bfi Film Library, bfi Publishing
and bfi Education. The sociological side of it operations
should be handled by a new body called the Council for Sociological
Cinema.
The National Film Theatre (plus the Waterloo
Imax) is a stand-alone operation that could usefully be run by
a trust consisting of people whose main interest and expertise
was in the art of the cinema. It should be rigidly controlled
in terms of its staffing which, the last time I looked, was of
the order of 150—about three times the optimum number to
operate a three-screen cinematheque.
The Archive could have the same treatment, with
the part of the collection that is in London expanding to take
up the space that would be created by dismantling the bureaucratic
monolith of the Institute in Stephen Street. Its constitution
should specifically indicate that its prime responsibility was
to preserve and make available the works that have been most influential
in developing the art of the cinema, and if they say they don't
know what those are, there are plenty of books that will tell
them.
The Film Library is a valuable resource that
should be able to make a small profit annually, especially as
the individuals responsible for release policy actually understood
the value of the films in the library to the art of the cinema.
I do not think anything much would be lost if
bfi Publishing simply ceased to exist, and perhaps half
of the net cost of that department were made available via the
Film Council as grants to some publisher to create a magazine
more relevant than Sight and Sound but one that actually
focused on the art of the cinema.
bfi Education could be usefully merged
with the British Universities Film Council to become the British
Film Education Council, and given additional resources from the
millions that would be saved.
In order to allow for the continuation of sociologically
valuable work that has become mixed up with the bfi's real
work, a Council for Sociological Cinema should be created with
a budget of perhaps 10% of the bfi's current budget.
I had considered the possibility that the Institute
should simply be merged with the Film Council, but it is evident
that that would not achieve anything, as both the Director and
Chairman of the Film Council had, formerly, the same position
in the Institute, and they showed no signs of tackling this running
sore when they had the opportunity.
I have not done the sums, but I would estimate
that such a plan would annually save a matter of around £3
million (especially as the cost of the NFT could be capped). I
believe that the proper place for that money is to allow the National
Film Archive to address the scandal that sees, for example, none
of Nicolas Roeg's first three films available on 35mm to British
cinemas, Lawrence of Arabia not available except on 70mm
and numerous other glaring holes in access to our cultural film
heritage. The great achievements of British Cinema must be made
available in the form that they were made if a new generation
of film-makers is to be inspired to follow in the footsteps of
Hitchcock and Chaplin.
A PEN PICTURE
OF THE
CONTRIBUTOR
Michael Open was born in Sevenoaks, Kent in
1947. After being educated in a secondary modern school, he went
on to study mathematics and physics at the University of East
Anglia. He fell in love with the cinema a year or so prior to
this, and spent most of his time at university watching films,
very much to the detriment of his studies. He learned about the
cinema through the programmes of Richard Roud at the National
Film Theatre and Henri Langlois at the Cinematheque Franc"aise,
and private study. During this time, in the summers of 1966 and
1967, he worked for the British Film Institute in Dean Street
as a general assistant covering for junior staff while they were
on holiday.
After graduating in 1968, he worked in advertising,
briefly, before being appointed to the post of Administrator of
Queen's Film Theatre, Belfast (QFT). In 1974 he left to become
Film Officer of Northern Arts in Newcastle upon Tyne. Three years
later he was effectively head-hunted to return to QFT as both
Administrator and Film Officer of the Arts Council of Northern
Ireland. He has remained in the former post ever since and is
the longest-serving director of a cultural cinema in the UK.
He edited two magazines (Cinephile, 1971
and Film Directions, 1977-87), both of which were indexed
by FIAF. He wrote a book entitled Fading Lights, Silver Screens—a
history of the cinema in Belfast that was published in 1983.
In 1984 he returned to part-time study and obtained
an MBA from Queen's University.
In 1996, he presented the largest film season
in Western Europe devoted to the Centenary of Cinema consisting
of over 250 classic international films arranged in a complex
tapestry that, each week, represented the history of the cinema
from the silent era to the present day.
28 February 2003
| 
