SUBMISSION 39
Memorandum submitted by Ms Mia Bays
IS THERE A BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY?
What direct and indirect contribution does the
film industry make to the UK economy?
In direct economic terms, the film industry
had a gross value of £2.6 billion in 2001. Theatrical garnered
£711 million, Video £2 billion (with 65-70% of that
theatrically released product) and TV sales an estimated £400-500
million including satellite and digital platforms. The Film Council
has also pitched aggressively for inward investment, largely from
the US, which has input over £1 billion into the UK film
economy. (Figures—RSU Research)
Cinema admissions have grown year on year for
the last five years, admissions reaching approximately 174 million
in 2002, a peak not reached for decades and a 12% increase on
2001 alone. DVD is the fastest growing consumer electronic product
of all time, the market for which is showing no signs of slowing.
Film is also arguably the strongest force we
have in representing our diverse national culture to populations
across the globe. It is a means to highlight cross-cultural similarity
as well as difference. Undoubtedly our perceptions of other nations
and cultures are massively informed by film. How great would our
understanding of the incredible social changes afoot in 1970s
America without films such as Easy Rider and The Deerhunter?
How much of our perception of France is flavoured by great film-makers
such as Truffaut, Renoir and Malle? How elaborate would our understanding
of the cultural psyche of Spain be without Almodovar, or of Sweden's
without Bergman?
Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity
to make British films about Britain in the UK?
Without question.
Film contributes dramatically to the cultural
climate of the UK in terms of reflecting societal changes and
shifts, as well as contributing hugely to the perception that
the world has of Britain. Films as diverse as Billy Elliot,
Trainspotting, Bend it Like Beckham and Four
Weddings and a Funeral contribute to the widely accepted fact
that Britain is one of the world leaders in film-making talent;
but they also allow us to reflect on and transform our own notions
of a national identity. British film also celebrates other art
forms: how much of a worldwide audience has now been introduced
to the writing of Virginia Woolf by The Hours, to the writings
and sufferings of national treasure Iris Murdoch without the film
Iris? At the same time, a British take on historical events
is particularly important in a world dominated by what are distinctly
American readings of history (eg U571, The Patriot)—witness
films as diverse as Enigma, Bloody Sunday or the
celebratory Chariots of Fire.
These wide-ranging but distinctly British reflections
on cultural and historical forces, so important to the re-negotiation
and replenishment of our identity both within and outside the
UK, can only be compromised by a reduced capacity to finance and
produce our own films. It is possible, even easy, to imagine our
output to dwindle to nothing except British-only-in-setting Hollywood-lite,
but without the advantage of gigantic distribution machines hungry
for any product whatsoever. Instead, we need to attract those
studios to invest in more British films, which will in turn encourage
further investment from elsewhere, and will promote a focus on
shaping British stories for international audiences. There is
a tradition for British-made US-financed literary adaptations
(The Hours, Emma, Nicholas Nickleby etc)
but how great it would be to reach beyond that and encourage further
investment in all types of cinema, and create incentives for the
studios to do so (only Universal—through their deal with
Working Title—and Buena Vista, via Miramax and their own
new European production arm—meaningfully invest at present).
Today, the UK population's cinematic viewing
appetite is largely met by representations, both fantastical and
literal, of American life. As well as turning away from our own
culture in cinematic terms, there has been a turning away from
others in terms of the tiny number of foreign language films shown
anywhere except at very specialist cinema circuits. We need to
continue to readdress that balance and in so doing maintain a
pride and support for our own culture, whilst also continuing
to be open to all others. By the same token, a healthy pride in,
and criticism of, our own culture is also what feeds original
voices in the arts. One feeds off the other.
The striking originality, consistent world-class
film-making and massive home popularity of Danish cinema right
now is another particularly good and shining example. Here, a
few original voices, with state support, created great work that
plays on the world stage, which then creates national pride, which
then develops a committed audience, which then encourages new
voices and a consistency of quality that is extraordinary and
showing no signs of abating. It has positioned them as one of
the world's lead arbiters of edgy and vital cinema that consistently
platforms at A-list film festivals and wins prizes the world over,
and their top film-makers are now working with A-List Hollywood
talent, but surprisingly, on their terms it seems. One would assume
that investments are being returned regularly otherwise output
would have been affected, so this seems to be a very healthy model
to study.
British film-makers such as Ken Loach and Mike
Leigh have made careers from representing the working classes
in powerful and meaningful films, and it is vital that they and
the original voices of the new generation (such as Michael Winterbottom
and Lynne Ramsay) continue to be supported in doing so (subsidies
being particularly important to such film-makers). Ironically,
these film-makers have mostly garnered bigger audiences in France
than in the UK. I don't want to detract from the pride we should
feel at their success, but it's an awkward irony that must be
addressed through continued support and audience development.
Meanwhile, encouraging a relaxation of the rules
and, as I understand it, unwieldy processes governing the "nationality"
of films could promote foreign investment—a crucial means
of growth.
What is the relationship between the film industry
and the rest of the creative industries including the broadcasters?
The film industry is very often where those
in other industries aspire to be—eg song-writers and singers
commonly aspire to do soundtracks and consider that the zenith
of their career, or many top advertising directors aspire to direct
features—and these do often feed in to each other, and generally
a symbiotic relationship exists with the music and advertising
industries (although we often don't speak the same language, interestingly,
and again, encouraging more cross-fertilization between our industries
could help this).
The broadcaster relationship of late, however,
yields a different story.
Just a couple of years ago, the BBC, Channel
4 and Granada TV were all major investors in the development and
production of British films, and most films went into production
with at least a pre-sale to one or other broadcaster, or an all-rights
UK deal with a distributor who had an output deal with one. Today,
only the BBC remains in any significant force, since the closure
of Granada and Channel 4's film arms last year—which was
a considerable body blow to the industry in both financial and
psychological terms. Channel 4 still has a small committed fund,
but it has yet to make any impact or make many significant investments.
Channel 5's film programming earns significant audience numbers—but
as far as I'm aware, the number of British or even foreign language
films shown there can be counted on the finger of one hand. Sky
is the same. Clearly they are currently all getting away with
murder.
The BBC has an excellent track record as developers
of some of the key voices in British film and their remit, determinedly
eclectic and creative, is a major contribution to our industry.
Sadly however, their budget purportedly represents less than 1%
of the BBC's annual budget, and the yield of six to eight films
on average per year should arguably be larger—so long, of
course, as there is good creative and commercially viable projects
to invest in (I would never argue for investment solely for sustainability's
sake—we need only look to mistakes of the recent past, such
as the administration of Lottery funds for film by the Arts Council,
for that).
But a sole supporter in the broadcast community
is not enough to maintain a creative and financially healthy industry.
This is an area of grave concern and consternation to the whole
industry—producers who can no longer source finance from
them, distributors and investors who can no longer count on them
to buy. A once-guaranteed recoupment stream has been severed to
the detriment of the entire industry. The same goes for investment
and rights purchase of foreign language films—only the sure-fire
prize-winners get bought, as distributors can no longer guarantee
that they'll get a TV sale, as they once could, and therefore
can take fewer risks.
Thus hundreds of foreign language films, often
prominent award winners, remain on the shelf and never get to
UK audiences.
What should the relationship be between British
broadcasters and the film industry?
It is beyond argument that television is a major
mass medium par excellence with the power to influence audience
tastes. It is widely accepted that theatrical releasing is often
a loss leader, but establishes a profile for a film that reaps
dividends in the video and tele-visual markets. British films
currently have a largely marginalized profile and reach tiny audiences,
and public perception is thus that we don't really have a British
film industry. How else will the British public, in significant
numbers, see British films, if they do not have a more forceful
presence on the small screen? If and when the British public are
polled, I don't think there would be any doubt that made-for-TV
programmes such as EastEnders or Queer as Folk are
seen as real representations of, and contributors to, our culture.
Yet I doubt there isn't a person working in the industry without
experiences, like me, of talking to varied members of the public—the
fundamental lack of awareness of British films and the common
confirmation that actually, many would love to see more but never
hear about them. If they don't go to the cinema, nor comb the
newspapers, TV or cinema listings with a microscope to seek them
out, how possibly can that person change their viewing habits?
The amount of times I meet such individuals is too numerous to
mention and I know I'm not alone in this experience.
Another issue is the kind of deals offered by
the broadcasters, if indeed one is lucky enough to get one, at
the production stage. For some years now, broadcasters have set
a "glass ceiling" in terms of fee, for which also a
producer is expected to assign copyright, and for that fee, give
up, at the very least, all TV rights, if not all rights, period.
This then means that production companies are caught in an extreme
struggle to finance their films at the expense of holding on to
some rights, which is the only way that producers can build sustainable
companies that then have library value and some gravitas (see
The Relph Report—Film Council).
A mutually beneficial virtuous circle is what
is needed to be worked towards, so that it is understood that
for the industry to flourish, we need greater financial and meaningful
programming support from all our broadcasters, who must transmit
British films regularly, at great variety (ie. not just the mega
hits such as Bridget Jones Diary or Notting Hill)
and in good slots. This then encourages the audience to become
more cine-literate by giving them a greater choice, which then
potentially opens up the theatrical and video markets for indigenous
films, which then encourages greater profit potential, thus more
investment. This has got to be beneficial for everyone.
We are all in this together, so mutual support
and encouragement is the only way forward. Technology means that
interesting and relevant stories can be told relatively cheaply,
and broadcasters should be encouraging film-makers in this area,
sharing the risk. Instead all we see is the equivalent of visual
fast-food padding out the schedules (any more reality TV shows
or house/garden makeover programmes, anyone?)—is this something
we can be proud of? Would it be watched in such numbers if there
were more alternative choices? I have my doubts.
But if the broadcasters aren't prepared to take
this risk, they should be forced to. It really has to be legally
defined, in that every broadcaster has to show a certain percentage
of new British films and foreign language films every year, and
to show certain percentages of them before midnight (in the same
way that they are currently forced to show a certain percentage
of multi-cultural and regional programming each year).
Channel 4's remit was to show a number of foreign
language films before midnight every year. But this number gets
smaller each year (I know, I've friends who work there and are
in a state of despair about the quality of programming now) and
it just isn't rigorously enforced.
Surely this is an issue to be fore-grounded
on Ofcom's agenda? Broadcasters provide a public service, and
the idea that such a powerful medium is only ever solely allowed
to act, as a business is surely an anathema to our culture. The
law already provides that all channels have a public service element,
so surely an extension of this is natural?
Does the film industry merit support from the
Government, if so, how can existing support be improved?
The Film Council have made a significant contribution
to the UK landscape and their continued support and attention
to problem areas is vital in turning around our fortunes, as is
Government's continuing support for them. Without it, particularly
at present, we won't have an industry.
One need only look to France for a fine example
in both creative, cultural and fiscal terms, of an industry that
has for many years been a significant force to the French economy
and cultural identity by virtue of a backbone of governmental
support in all areas, from production finance through to distribution
support through to broadcast quotas. Support for their film-makers
in building and maintaining financially healthy companies, in
taking a protective stance towards their culture and their culture
of cinema has helped maintain huge audience support and national
pride.
Existing support here could be improved by a
greater impetus being placed on opening up the channels through
which British films can be seen by the British public (see above)
and working to turn around public perception (often perpetuated
by the press) that we don't have an industry and that we lose
our considerable talent pool to the US as soon as success beckons.
Yes, it is sad that some of Hollywood's top directors (Ridley
Scott, Sam Mendes, even Alan Parker) are British yet work in Hollywood
but we still have plenty here to celebrate, and who knows, maybe
we can attract those lost back, if we can work to change the future?
With greater financial weight but the promise of greater creative
freedom (a dirty word in Hollywood mainly) could go a long way
to prompting a return for those who quit us long ago?
Plus with a greater onus on education, we can
nurture more new talent who don't see a reason to need to go to
Hollywood, as all the provisions they need should and could be
here. Interestingly, I'm not aware of that many French directors
who try Hollywood, and that is not just because of the language
issue—and often if they do, eg Jeunet, it is to return to
his roots triumphant, as he did with Amelie.
Another issue is that we have a number of extremely
experienced producers who are significant suppliers of good films
who still, for each film, have to begin all over again, fighting
for fees and holding on to little of value. Which means that there
will continue to be few powerful production companies (unlike
the US), as they cannot create companies with library value and
some financial muscle, as they constantly have to accept just
taking fees upfront and rarely seeing returns beyond that.
And this is because it is so hard for investors
to recoup their money, so they require all rights to give them
the best shot at doing so—and then even if a film is a considerable
success, the film-makers don't benefit. The examples are too innumerable
to mention.
Another area in need of development is our outreach
across Europe—I understand that recently it has come to
light that there seem to be countless EU schemes that mainly French
and Continental European film-related companies benefit from,
that are just not known about or accessible to UK companies. It
seems largely that the French industry are benefiting from them—now
how can that be?
It would appear this needs to be investigated
in depth, as well as a greater global outreach, encouraging more
foreign investors into British films, perhaps with more co-production
treaties and incentives that encourage more investment in UK talent.
We also need to bring down the costs of shooting films here—not
just for ourselves but for other investors—and encouraging
a code of practice and perhaps a register of those willing to
work on lower budget films (as so eloquently suggested in the
Relph report) is a step in the right direction.
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?
Production financing can mainly be improved
by looking at the areas I've already discussed which will have
knock-on effects—eg implementing changes to broadcaster
practices could go a long way to freeing up considerably more
investment.
Production could be improved by taking a step
back into the area of education, by improving our film schools
and film-related education (see last question hereunder for full
inquiry into this area). Also encouraging producers to be more
mindful and aware of the market, with more training programmes
perhaps, will go a long way to tailoring films according to their
market worth at the development stage.
Encouraging the US studios and other foreign
investors with significant UK presence to invest in more British
films with fiscal incentives is also a must, as every area could
then benefit from increased production. Incentives lessen risk,
making it easier to recoup investment, which in turn promotes
further investment.
The proposals the Film Council have made as
regards fiscal incentives for distributors when purchasing British
films, and the creation of the prints and advertising fund for
British films is seeking to address this area, and time will tell
as to how much this expands the horizons for the British films
that gain such support. There is little doubt in my mind that
this will improve matters enormously as it's widely accepted now
that this is a distribution-led business—as the studio models
clearly illustrate—but will it be enough?
Most keenly in need of development is the area
of exhibition. Some of that can be addressed by the proposed augmentation
of marketing funds for British films, which will make them more
attractive programming opportunities for the cinema chains. We
have a strong network of independent circuits that continue to
support specialised films, but the market only reaches as far
as a few key cities. Surely a key way to open the market place
up meaningfully is for the major cinema circuits to have to earmark
screens across the whole of the UK to British and foreign language
films, and to look at ways to grow the audience using marketing
and promotional schemes that incentivise the public to expand
their choices.
The Film Council is addressing Creation of a
"virtual circuit", but all the major cinema chains have
to be encouraged to welcome, support and contribute to such a
plan, and I hope this is the intention. It is a vicious cycle:
most British films do limited business, therefore distributors
are less willing to contribute significant marketing spends to
support them, thus cinema chains are very loathe to book them.
But a distribution plan lives and dies on the number and quality
of screens one can earmark. And it's a fiercely competitive world
out there were films are made or broken on their first weekend,
and may not survive more than a week if they don't work—so
no film is allowed to breathe, as no-one can afford to risk an
empty house, and films that could have stood a chance get crushed
in the onslaught.
I really think the multiplexes have to be forced
to open up just one screen at least to alternative programming,
to give "alternative" films more room and longer life.
They are then encouraged to grow a "specialised" audience
with ticket offers and loyalty schemes, and perhaps looking at
areas of the audience that should come to the cinema more (we
have one of the lowest annual visit rates per capita of the major
markets at around two films seen per capita per year, vs
average of four in US).
A film like Gosford Park proved that
there was an audience that was uncatered for—the 35 plus—who
will go to see the cinema if the right film is on, and then the
same audience (usually known only to go once per year) turned
out again, just a few weeks later, to see Iris, because
again, they were catered to. Perhaps this is the audience who
might also see more British films if it were easy for them to
do so? Especially if price incentives are offered—which
is known to work well with this age range.
We have as many reasons as the French to protect
our industry—so why don't we?
The greatest issue is that, unfortunately, we
speak English, which seems to make us lazy and uninterested in
being protective of our own cultural heritage and future.
We are protectionist in other areas, eg putting
levies on imports, subsidising local production to weaken foreign
competition. So we see protectionism working elsewhere, and why
not in the film industry too?
I'm proud of what I do for a living, having
always worked on mainly European and largely British films, and
I want to continue to do so. But it needs to be in a climate where
I am encouraged and protected, so that my peers and I can build
a healthy future.
How effectively has the Film Council contributed
to a sustainable film industry since 2000? Does the Council have
the right strategy and approach?
The Film Council has implemented a number of
very significant plans and changes, the fruits of which are just
starting to show. In 2002, two British films won the top prize
at two out of the four major international film festivals—Bloody
Sunday at Berlin and Magdalene Sisters at Venice, both
of which would not have been made with Film Council support. This
is a significant achievement. The earlier film, because it had
been financed mainly by television, only got a tiny release just
prior to broadcast—again an illustration of the way a film's
life is limited by virtue of the way the "system" works.
But this should not detract from the fact that such high profile
festival successes again confirm that our new generation of film-making
talent are amongst the world leaders.
I really think the Film Council have looked
at every aspect of the industry and seem to be trying to address
all areas of concern, from providing a significant development
fund (a vital contribution in sustaining and growing ideas into
fully fledged projects) to addressing industry training and education.
I myself benefited enormously in personal and professional terms
from one of their schemes—I completed the Inside Pictures
course in it's first year, 2002, and cannot speak highly enough
of what it gave to myself and my 12 other course-mates as regards
resources and professional tutoring.
I think they have done an enormous amount in
the three years they have been operating and believe this will
continue as they grow and hone their strategy.
But as Sir Alan Parker said in his key note
speech of last November, they cannot do it alone, otherwise the
industry will continue in the boom and bust cycle in which we
seem to be forever caught. The demand is there, probably stronger
than ever before, but without capital and investment, the cycle
will continue.
They were initially formed to turn around the
mess that was the Arts Council and it cannot be argued that they
haven't done so but they were only ever supposed to be a support
mechanism, and now at this moment, they are the industry. With
the closure of FilmFour and Granada Film most prominently, major
financing sources have been lost, and now the Film Council are
in the uncomfortable position of having to fill this gap. And
without encouraging other investors to step into the breach, they
will continue to have to fill this rather large gulf, and I'm
sure this is not the way anyone wants it to be.
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?
They run a significant number of programmes
both for people in the industry, children of school age and for
students, which are all vital areas in need of support and promotion.
There is First Light, introducing film-making skills to children
across the UK and I think many more such schemes that give film
a higher profile and accessibility must be encouraged and implemented.
Opening up future generations eyes as to the possibilities that
could lie ahead in this industry can only be a good thing, and
could also contribute dramatically to ensure future generations
are amenable to more than just standard Hollywood fare.
Our film schools really should be able to compete
on a global level and are in dire need of more investment and
care to broaden their scope and the abilities of their students
by modernisation.
We need more of them. Again, look at Denmark:
they have several good ones yet a population much smaller than
ours. A friend recently made me aware that the UK's National Film
and TV School here can only offer six—yes, six—places
on the directors course per year, and he learnt that half of them
often go to foreign students as they need to higher fees. That
is not good enough. We need a more formalised training structure
in all areas of the industry in order that skilled technicians
who continue to uphold the reputation of being some of the world's
finest can meet future demand.
Their help could also be enlisted in broadening
the school curriculum to include more film related studies, both
theory and practical, as if we leave it as is, future audiences
will continue to have been largely drip-fed with Hollywood fare
and little else. Watching a film in class gets children's attention
and provides a focal point around which to build lessons on many
subjects and is a serious exercise and an evocative and exciting
educational tool. I was lucky enough to have a history teacher
who commonly used film in our lessons and seeing the work of Eisenstein
in relation to Russian history or Riefenstahl as regards study
of Germany during the Second World War has stuck with me ever
since.
The bfi provides meaningful and important
services such as an enormous film archive, the London Film Festival
and a cinema circuit, and I'm sure all are in need of greater
investment in order to modernize and broaden their reach to the
wider public. Their running of the NFT and regional cinema circuit
is one of the foremost arbiters of "alternative programming"
and thus an essential service, plus they are one of the foremost
promoters of alternative film forms—ie large format Imax
films and the 3D form, which really would not have much of a presence
here in the UK without their essential investment.
MoMI should surely be a major attraction if
investment is made to modernize and promote it widely and aggressively.
Film has and will always be a very important medium to the Capital
and surely this must be reflected in a publicly accessible tribute
to that. Perhaps a move to a new venue, or extensive refitting
and re-branding is vital to stop this site gathering even more
dust.
6 June 2003
| 
