Annex A
LOW BUDGET FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION—A
VIEW FROM BECTU
1. INTRODUCTION
To start on a positive note: congratulations
to the Film Council for sparking off the current debate on the
future of the British film industry.
This paper is an initial formal contribution
from BECTU to that debate. It takes note of the "Relph Report"
on low-budget films. But it is not intended simply as a line-by-line
reply to Relph. Instead it uses his contribution as a point of
departure for a summary of our view of the current state of UK
film production—mainly, though not exclusively, focusing
on the low-budget end.
BECTU's members include many thousands who work
in the film industry, or across film and TV, in just about every
grade from Producer to Runner. Union membership is not compulsory,
but many film industry workers nevertheless choose to join and
to remain in membership. The experience of these members gives
us a unique perspective on many of the things that are right,
and wrong, about the industry as a whole.
The starting point for the Relph Report is that
there is no single model for making successful films, and that
low-budget films will never succeed if their production practices
simply mimic those of high-budget films.
We agree. We want to see a range of UK films
produced, from high-budget productions aimed at the international
market, to innovative lower-budget works exploring aspects of
British life and culture, and aimed at British audiences. As a
union we are proud of our record of supporting new structures
and new ways of working—such as the Film Workshops cited
approvingly by Relph.
But as a union, we also deal day-to-day with
the reality that film production is casualised, its workforce
almost entirely freelance, living an often precarious existence
from one job to the next. And yet without the constant availability
of these freelance workers—the ultimate flexible labour
market—there can be no film industry.
Relph's priority is to make it possible for
film Producers to survive and build their businesses. Our priority
is to make it possible for freelance film workers to survive and
build successful careers. Both are necessary if the industry is
to prosper.
This paper focuses very much on production,
as opposed to script development, or finance, or distribution.
Of course film production without distribution is a nonsense:
film is a cultural product, its purpose is to be seen, to engage
with audiences. But within the overall cycle—from script
to development to pre-production, through production and post-production,
to marketing and distribution and exhibition—the moment
of production is uniquely privileged. It represents a bottleneck,
an intense period often lasting only a few weeks which can make
or break the project as a whole.
This moment of production is where BECTU's expertise
lies, and the present paper reflects this.
2. LOW-BUDGET
FILM-MAKING
"British producers tend to throw lots of
people at a short schedule with bought out overtime" (Relph
2)
This is Relph's summary of the British approach
to film-making. He argues that while it may work for big-budget
productions, it does not work for low-budget films—films
in the £2 to £4 million range. In effect he is saying
that there is a deeply conservative culture infecting the British
film industry, in which it is assumed that the only way to make
a film is by hiring a big crew and lots of expensive kit and then
working long hours over a short shooting schedule.
So far we agree. But where does this conservative
culture come from?
Relph implies that it comes largely from the
crew. He paints a picture of a sullen workforce, where individuals
focus on their own narrow craft rather than on the film, where
crews are large because of demarcation (especially in the Art
Department and Construction), and where workers insist on receiving
" . . . guaranteed payment for overtime
that will not necessarily be worked" (Relph 2).
At BECTU, we simply do not recognise this as
an accurate picture of the industry.
Contracts are not written by the crew. Budgets
and production schedules are not set by the crew. Decisions on
crew-size and equipment hire are not made by the crew. These key
parameters of a production are put in place not by the crew, but
by the Producer.
A shallow reading of the Relph Report may therefore
suggest that it is throwing down a challenge to crews, to film
workers. In fact, it is a challenge to Producers, and to the model
of film-making which they have put in place over the last 10 or
more years.
We will explore this by taking in turn the three
factors referred to by Relph in the quotation above: "lots
of people", "short schedules" and "bought
out overtime".
"Lots of people"
One of the main themes of Relph's analysis is
that British films engage large crews. He highlights certain departments
where he believes this is especially true—above all the
Art Department.
The 25 UK low-budget films analysed by Relph
had crew-sizes ranging from about 45 to about 55. This is within
the range of what we recognise as a standard crew complement.
The tendency to work with crews around this size has emerged from
many years of experience. This doesn't mean that it can never
change. But it does mean that given the technology, and given
a typically intense shooting schedule, and given an average range
of exposure to risk and unforeseen circumstance, a crew of this
size normally allows a feature or TV drama production to deliver
the goods.
Of course if any of the parameters are changed—by
shooting on DV rather than 35mm; or by going for a more relaxed
and extended schedule; or by reducing exposure to risk by reducing
the number of locations—then it may be possible to look
again at the size of the crew. But simply to call for "smaller
crews" in the abstract is to miss the point.
This is as true in the Art Department and Construction
as anywhere else. Relph believes UK Art Departments are large
because of demarcation. He advocates instead:
". . . two or three people . . . trained
to handle all the floor functions from standby art director to
painter to carpenter to rigger to prop man . . ." (24).
His aim is not just to reduce the size of the
Art Department, but to introduce:
"a wholly different philosophy and organisation"
(49)
This is a classic case of calling for change
in the abstract. Once again it needs to be stated: decisions on
crew-size in any Department are made not by the crew itself, but
by the Producer. In the case of the Art Department, its size and
mix of skills should flow from the demands of the script, from
strategic and aesthetic decisions about the look of the film,
from the balance between studio and location work, and so on.
Dogme chose to reduce or eliminate the use of design as part of
its aesthetic. Fine, so long as the decision flows from the aesthetic,
and not from an abstract drive to reduce crew size. (Incidentally,
Dogme as a school of film-making was driven by Directors rather
than Producers. Is this significant?)
Meanwhile the question of multi-skilled stand-bys
is inseparable from wider crew dynamics. When a film crew grows
beyond a certain point it becomes uneconomic not to have specialists
available if their presence can avoid even minor delays. For instance,
if it costs £20,000 to keep a crew plus their gear on the
road for a 10-hour shooting day, then it makes sense to engage
one extra crew member at £200 per day if his or her presence
can avoid even a six-minute delay in the schedule. But this only
makes sense if he or she is sufficiently knowledgeable to avoid
the delay. It may not make sense if he or she is a multi-skilled
standby with only shallow knowledge across a range of complex
disciplines.
Quite separately, Relph's proposal is hair-raising
in its implications for health and safety. Riggers in particular
perform high-risk work. For this precise reason, BECTU and PACT
jointly run a special grading scheme—SITAC—to provide
the industry with a pool of experienced and qualified Riggers.
The idea that film industry rigging should now be undertaken by
multi-skilled operatives who also do art direction, painting,
carpentry and props would be a massively retrograde step.
"Short schedules"
BECTU has been campaigning for civilised working
hours and a better work-life balance in the film industry for
many years. It is not exaggerating to say that this is the single
issue which comes up most frequently from our freelance members
working in film and TV. This is why we took the British Government
to the European Court to challenge their implementation of the
Working Time Directive. This is why we have run numerous Employment
Tribunal cases on behalf of freelance members.
We unreservedly welcome the proposal for a new
approach in the low-budget film sector, moving away from long
working days packed into short schedules. We believe that thinking
more creatively about scheduling will open up the possibility
of creative thinking in other areas.
In particular, re-thinking the schedule allows
a re-thinking of crew size and the size of particular departments.
The UK "standard complement" of 45-55 crew members reflects
the UK tradition of long working days packed into short schedules.
In effect, the size of the crew is a form of insurance against
risks which the schedule itself creates. Reduce the intensity
of the schedule, and you reduce the risks.
"Bought out overtime"
It may be instructive to enter the vexed area
of pay and financial rewards via Relph's discussion of the dilemma
facing UK film Producers.
Most UK Producers—and certainly all Producers
in the low-budget sector—move from one stand-alone project
to the next. They are chronically under-capitalised, unable to
spread their risks across a slate of projects. This is the heart
of the problem which Relph wants to solve: he wants to create
the conditions for Producers to survive and build their businesses
rather than start each new project with no money and a clean sheet
of paper.
Because they are under-capitalised, Producers
are in a weak bargaining position with financiers, investors,
sales agents and distributors. They are under pressure to give
away rights as a precondition for getting the film made. So it
makes sense for them to maximise their fee income at the front-end
because the possibility of earning from the back-end is precarious
or non-existent. Since Producers' fees are more or less linked
to overall budget size, there is therefore an incentive for Producers
to seek the maximum achievable budget. Sales agents also have
an interest in colluding in this.
If production budgets end up being unrealistically
inflated, it is therefore as a direct result of the under-capitalisation
and fragmentation of UK production companies.
Relph shows great sympathy towards Producers
facing this dilemma. He argues that they are, after all, simply
trying to survive within a financial and distribution system which
is beyond their control. And he believes that:
"Driving producers fees down damages the
industry . . . " (Relph 12)
We believe that exactly the same logic applies
to the crew.
Individual freelance technicians and other film
workers are also trying to survive in an industry whose overall
structure is beyond their control. When after three months without
work a freelance is offered a job based on a 60-hour-week over
eight weeks, he or she will naturally want a guarantee that those
60 hours will be paid for. Freelances are in exactly the same
position as Producers: faced with an uncertain future, they must
seek to secure their income here and now.
There is also another sense in which individual
freelances are in an equivalent position to Producers. Just as
Producers seek security and control over their destinies by building
their businesses, so freelances seek security and control over
their destinies by building meaningful careers in the industry.
They want to make progress, to achieve recognition for their accumulated
experience and skills, and to improve their earning power. And
to the extent that they succeed in this, the industry's stock
of skills and experience increases and the industry benefits.
But right now, for many freelance workers, it
simply isn't possible to build a career. The constant availability
of large numbers of "fresh and hungry" newcomers attracted
to a glamorous industry, willing to work for low—or no—wages,
means that in some Departments there is relentless competition
in the junior grades which undermines everyone's ability to make
progress. Sadly, Relph seems to believe that this is a good thing.
He actively encourages low-budget Producers to "look for
fresh and hungry talent" (48) because it comes cheap and
helps to keep budget down.
Encouraging the employment of inexperienced
newcomers simply as a way of under-cutting the wages of more established
freelances is the worst sort of short-termism. It is not part
of the solution, but part of the problem. It contributes to the
chronic insecurity, and inability to build coherent careers, which
now threatens the industry's workforce.
There is in any case little need to "look
for" new talent. It is spilling out of media courses in quantities
which the industry cannot possibly absorb. The issue is not to
"look for" it, but to provide a proper framework of
work experience, training and career progression so that over
time, raw enthusiasm becomes a real asset for the industry.
The individual freelance's ability to earn a
decent living, and thus build a coherent career, is a crucial
element of the film industry's survival plan. Right now we are
losing talented, experienced people from the industry because
of its chronic insecurity, and because the only sort of working
life it seems to offer is one which see-saws between manic overwork
and unemployment.
This takes us to the question of pay and financial
reward. Part of the package proposed by Relph, to reduce the up-front
costs of low-budget production, is partial deferment of crew wages.
He is careful to spell out that his "meaningful deferrals"
should not be confused with the rip-off deferrals which we have
seen in the industry in recent years.
There are certain key principles here. Firstly
film workers must receive at least the agreed basic rate of pay
for their work at the time when that work is performed. This is
non-negotiable. Freelance film-workers live (like the rest of
us) in an expensive country, where rents or mortgages and food
bills and clothing bills need to be paid every week or every month.
These costs can't be "deferred".
However BECTU is prepared to consider proposals
for film-workers to have additional entitlements arising from
their work. For instance, IF an agreed rate is paid, and IF a
project meets an agreed definition of a low-budget film, and IF
a civilised schedule of working hours is in place, then we might
consider some form of additional equity stake in the project.
This might involve Relph's "revenue corridor" giving
a claim on box-office take, pari passu with all other investors.
It could not involve the "back-end" or "in-profit"
arrangements which continue to plague the grubbier corners of
the industry. Certified film industry accountants or other professionals
may have a role to play here to audit and approve the financial
details.
We are prepared to discuss these possibilities
but only as part of a wider set of changes. We believe a win-win
outcome is possible: an outcome where lower-budget films have
a greater chance of commercial success leading to a greater overall
volume of work; and film-workers benefit from more civilised hours
and conditions leading to an enhancement of the industry's stock
of skills and experience. But the devil, as always, will be in
the detail.
3. DO FILM
WORKERS CARE
ABOUT FILM?
On the culture of film-making in this country,
Relph says:
"Many UK technicians . . . tend to be more
focused on their jobs than they are on the end product" (Relph
2)
This is an interesting comment. It is expressed
from a Producer's point of view and it presumably reflects Relph's
experience. But what lies behind it? We believe that what lies
behind it is the decline of a spirit of partnership, and of respect
for the work of others, in the industry.
In recent years, apart from the invaluable efforts
of a few organisations such as FT2, structured training and apprenticeships
have largely disappeared from the film industry. The Production
Department in particular—which as Relph points out has grown
in size—has tended to fast-track young, bright, but inexperienced
newcomers who have little working experience in the industry and
little knowledge of what workers in other Departments do. Because
of their strategic location, these individuals should be in a
position to "set the tone" across the production. But
their inexperience or ignorance means that they are ill equipped
to do this.
The result is often a sullen stand-off between
Production and other Departments. From the point of view of Production,
it looks as if technicians and other workers don't care about
the film. From the point of view of those technicians and other
workers, it feels as if Production doesn't care about, understand
or respect the work that they are doing.
Two possible answers suggest themselves. Firstly,
recruits to the Production Department should be required to acquaint
themselves with the work of other Departments, whether by placements
or some other method. And secondly, individual film productions
should take the time to show some appreciation of the work of
their crews. Simple gestures like pre-production parties or wrap
parties where everyone is invited could make a big difference.
4. SUMMARY
We share the aim of encouraging a range of production
practices appropriate to different scripts, visions and aspirations:
— We see Relph's criticisms—many
of which are valid—as a challenge first and foremost to
Producers. Producers have created the current, failing production
model.
— Questions of crew size and balance
are inseparable from questions of scheduling and organisation.
A new approach to scheduling is the best way to tackle this complex
area.
— It follows that attempts to reduce
crew size as an end in itself will fail.
— If other appropriate conditions are
in place—including, crucially, payment of an agreed basic
rate for work done—we would consider proposals for film-workers
to participate in other financial arrangements, such as some form
of equity stake with a claim on box-office take pari passu
with all other investors.
— Producers are entitled to seek the
security necessary to build their businesses. And by the same
token, freelance film-workers are entitled to seek the security
necessary to build their careers. Both are necessary if the industry
as a whole is to prosper.
28 February 2003
| 
