SUBMISSION 23
Memorandum submitted by Julia Toppin,
FilmDaze
What direct and indirect contribution does the
film industry make to the UK?
Film is one of the most important mediums of
the twenty-first century. The ability of the medium to inform,
educate and entertain singularly or simultaneously makes it a
powerful tool for communication as well as capitalism.
The film industry contributes to the UK on many
levels.
The direct contributions are largely financial;
1. The creation of a myriad of jobs; from
the compositors of the special effects houses to the popcorn vendors
in a local cinema.
2. Local economy boosts for areas used as
film locations.
3. Income derived from intellectual property
rights and or assets.
Income is also derived indirectly from product
placement, location tourism or a highlighted cultural aspect,
ie the Bollywood Effect. There is also the lucrative potential
for merchandising, soundtrack sale and computer game adaptations
which generates income for the toy, music and video game industries
amongst others.
Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity
to make British films about Britain in the UK?
British films about British people, particularly
those that are wholly accepted across the class strata of society,
instil a sense of national pride. Our cultural identity and heritage
must be preserved along with "the best of that which is thought
and said" (Matthew Arnold) for present and future generations.
A British film industry that accurately reflects
the unique and somewhat exceptional multiculturalism of British
society would go a long way to establishing an image of Britain
as what it could be; cultural hothouse of creativity, instead
of an image of a former empire desperately trying to perpetuate
a false patriarchal image for fear of losing it's own identity.
Being British means something different to almost
everyone, whether they are educated, illiterate, affluent, aspirational,
from an ethnic minority or regional. All these cultures should
be documented in order that we may understand each other better
and that other nations should better understand us.
What is the relationship between the film industry
and the rest of the creative industries including the broadcasters?
The relationship between the film industry and
the rest of the creative industries excluding the broadcasters,
ie publishing, music, technological and the press appears to be
adequate. The broadcasters, with the exception of Channel 4, could
be perceived as not being wholly supportive of the British film
industry.
What should the relationship be between British
broadcasters and the film industry?
The relationship between the British broadcasters
and the film industry should effectively be one of mutual support.
As Britain is lacking the kind of vertical integration that most
of the American film industry has, a destructive "each to
their own" mentality appears to have emerged. Through the
provision of the licence fee, Britain has produced many hours
of world-class, award winning television. As no similar funding
formula exists for its film industry, effective development has
been hindered by a dependence on the broadcasting industry for
both revenue to distribute a film and cost effective advertising
slots to promote it.
As some distributors find the cost of television
advertising prohibitive (many do not advertise on television at
all), some kind of incentive should be provided for broadcasters
that can offer a more accessible economic model for advertising
British film.
Also part payment from the acquisition of terrestrial
broadcasting rights for less commercial films which could include
British film, was previously an effective way for distributors
to acquire the funds necessary to effectively market and release
their films. Broadcasters should be required to acquire and broadcast
a quota of British films as part of their remit.
Does the film industry merit support from the
Government, if so, how can existing support be improved?
Unequivocally, yes.
A portion of appropriated funds from generated
broadcasting licence fee income in conjunction with some kind
of levy on non-British theatrical, DVD and video releases, a levy
for exhibitors who fail to meet a stated screen space quota for
British film exhibition, a levy for private broadcasters who fall
below a stated quota of acquired British films and realistic tax
incentives to encourage international co-production.
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?
The cultural hegemony of the American film studios,
which has been in operation in the UK since the end of the Second
World War, has had a profound effect on the British film industry.
If the balance between the distributors, exhibitors
and producers was currently correct, there would be no problem.
New economic models need to be devised in order to attempt to
make the release of films with smaller production and marketing
budget economically viable.
The redistribution of profits generated from
a theatrical film release is a complex and highly sensitive issue
that must be addressed if an effective long-term solution is to
be found.
The implementation of digital projection is
a possible solution to economies of scale. A unit should be set
up to effectively monitor and calculate the effects this technology
could have on the industry and to promote it to all relevant personnel.
How effectively has the Film Council contributed
to a sustainable film industry since 2000? Does the council have
the right strategy and approach?
Since it's inception, the Film Council has effectively
scrutinised and restructured the systems and organisations that
it inherited in early 2000.
There is a tendency in this country to think
short term, although the Film Council has produced some very positive
outcomes in the last two years, we need to give it room to breathe
and bed in.
This era of technological industrialisation
has been like no other. Technologies are extinct before they are
born. In order to contribute to a sustainable film industry, the
Film Council will need to be a much more fluid than your average
institution and sometimes think with abstraction.
Although the six key strategies outlined by
the Film Council in response to the 13 goals that the Government
had set would appear to be the appropriate strategy and response,
greater advances could be mage in probity and accessibility.
The absence of a cultural diversity strategy
and any perceived effort to effectively cognise the complicated
and highly sensitive nature of social exclusion in an industry
well known for its unbridled prejudice, nepotism and preferential
treatment is extremely disappointing. However it must be taken
into account that foundations must be laid before a house can
be built. The recent appointment of a cultural diversity executive
in conjunction with some exciting new initiatives in training,
distribution, exhibition and marketing is potentially an extremely
positive step in the right direction albeit one that will require
careful monitoring.
As film is an immensely powerful medium which
helps us to shape and understand the way that we see the world.
There is hope that the Film Council will be a beacon for creative
industries in this area.
It is no small irony that the person who is
currently heading up the cultural diversity policy group is responsible
for some of the most exclusionary films of recent years. Imagine
making a film set in one of the most celebrated culturally diverse
vibrant areas of London with its own internationally famous carnival
and then instigating some kind of visual ethnic cleansing.
That said, we must learn from our mistakes as
well as our successes. The phenomenal breakout success of films
like Bend it Like Beckham, The Warrior and East
is East should have us looking outward not inward. How can
we tap into the lucrative African straight to video film industry?
How can we work with the film, DVD and video distributors so that
we can lift African American and Caribbean cinema out of the underground
piracy market that provides us with no income? What are our newly
based fellow British citizens from Eastern Europe doing for their
visual entertainment? Are more disabled people going to the cinema
than before and how are they finding it? How truly successful
are the Senior Citizen cinema attendance incentives across the
country?
In conclusion, the Film Council has already
made a contribution to a sustainable film industry, its current
strategy and approach indicate a strong step in the right direction
but the road is long and the journey has only just begun. We must
have faith.
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?
The Film Council's contribution to education
about, and access to, the moving image has largely been provided
by the bfi. Let us for a moment look at the small area
of education outside of the bfi.
From my personal experience gaining information
about and gaining access to the activities and opportunities that
are provided by the Film Council is arduous. There are many that
would not go to the same lengths in order to gain access and quite
frankly they shouldn't have to. These talented people are being
lost and make no mistake it is a loss on both sides. These same
disillusioned people who have become weary of the invisible barriers
placed in their way by those who would confuse élitism
with expertise are the ones who also turn their backs on a traditional
film culture.
Why fund an industry that doesn't represent
you? Not only is it now cheaper to buy a bootleg/illegal copy
on DVD or VHS of most films than it is to go to the cinema, but
you can see that film before it is released into cinemas in the
UK. It should also be noted that this is not just "inner-city"
behaviour, it is happening all over the country.
This is the same problem that the BBC faces.
After years of cultural tyranny, the BBC is slowly beginning to
realise that it is becoming more and more irrelevant in modern
multicultural Britain. The cultural minority that it largely serves
will not sustain it forever and the multicultural majority is
beginning to question why it should have to pay for something
that does not adequately service its needs.
The impact of global capitalism has been severe.
The advertising industry has eroded our privacy barriers and is
now everywhere. This has produced a kind of "want it now"
and "what's the next thing" mentality in our society,
which is quite frankly dangerous to our film industry. This is
important, because those "want it now" people will spend
up to £10 a week on these titles; this income is neither
taxed nor circulated back into the film industry.
What we need to stem this great loss is the
rebuilding of a film culture. This can only be done with an extensive
programme of work that spans across all the institutions of society;
the family, the church, our education system, the mass media and
our government.
There is one major problem with this and that
is that institutions are by and large "institutionally racist"
and its servants have a propensity to "confuse the superiority
of the tradition which has been made available to them with their
own superiority" and to confer status on those who would
agree with their misguided philosophy.
Which leads us onto the question of the British
Film Institute. As someone who has been a non-remunerated advisor
to the bfi for three years in areas of youth and diversity
I can honestly say that six years of constant campaigning for
more cultural diversity at the British Film Institute have left
me feeling dispossessed, dejected and disheartened.
The gains have been few although some quite
spectacular like the Imagine Asia season and the incredible enthusiasm
shown by the video and DVD publishing departments headed up by
Heather Stewart and the library and information personnel have
been great. However these small triumphs have done little to change
a deep-seated "Ivory Tower" ideology that is totally
patronising and exclusionary. A National Film Theatre that doesn't
represent the interests of our nation and a London Film Festival
poorly serves the multicultural citizens of a city where 50% of
all ethnic minorities reside.
Access to information that could assist in the
schools system is limited. For parents who may not have had the
same opportunities in education that their children now have,
film education could be a rewarding way to engage with their children's
education and develop a lasting film culture. Relevant information
is tied up in bureaucracy and an attempt to generate income from
the education system, which financially excludes potentially enthusiastic
parents or mentors.
The general attitude to change at the bfi
is one of strong resistance; the budget is wheeled out as an excuse
of inertia time and time again. Lack of economic opportunity has
always provided a great creative stimulus for the more financially
challenged and the British Film Institute would do well to learn
from this adage.
Like the Film Council the British Film Institute
requires more transparency, accountability and accessibility.
It also needs a period of stability as the constant restructuring
over the last five years has left it lacking in focus.
With regard to the Museum of the Moving Image,
the appointment of Amanda Nevill from the acclaimed National Museum
of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford, which is the
most visited museum outside of London, should be instrumental
in providing an effective solution to this issue.
CONCLUSION/EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Film Council appears to be implementing
the correct strategies in order to contribute to a sustainable
British film industry. There are concerns, however careful monitoring
coupled with an agreeable level of transparency should allay them.
The British Film Institute displays several
of the problems associated with the élitist attitude of
an institution. These challenges must be faced head on with tough
cultural diversity targets and accessibility of education targets
that must be met or the effects could be detrimental to the very
fabric of society.
5 March 2003
| 
