SUBMISSION 41
Memorandum submitted by Alex Cox
BRITISH FILM POLICY AND THE FILM COUNCIL
1. What direct and indirect contribution does
the film industry make to the UK economy?
As a direct contribution, films that are popular
at home or sold to distributors abroad generate profits and tax
revenue. In an indirect way, the film industry is an employer
mostly in London, but increasingly in certain other cities, and
location shooting contributes to the economy via hotels, the catering
and travel industries.
2. Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity
to make British films about Britain in the UK?
It is crucial. Our culture is not the same as
that of the USA. The great British film successes—whether
Billy Elliot, The Full Monty, Trainspotting, Women in Love,
The Devils, If, Women in Love, Kes, Brighton Rock, or Brief
Encounter—talk about our own unique experiences. They
cannot be replicated in the USA or in Prague. Nor are these stories
even set in London! These films are our cultural patrimony, and
the—often regionally based—creative people who made
them its custodians.
To lose our capacity to make British films about
Britain in the UK is like losing our capacity to paint, or to
write poetry. It is impossible; to contemplate it is a cultural
crime.
3. What is the relationship between the film
industry and the rest of the creative industries including the
broadcasters?
The industry is less dependant on the broadcasters
now than ever. Films are being made without TV sales or TV deals.
I think the link between other creative areas such as the Internet
will become much stronger, and new forms of culture and entertainment
involving both film and Internet will emerge.
4. What should the relationship be between
British broadcasters and the film industry?
Broadcasters should definitely be expected to
support British films—as Canal Plus supports the French
film industry. Broadcasters should not put money into American-financed
studio films, nor pay excessive prices for such products.
5. Does the film industry merit support from
Government, if so, how can existing support be improved?
Yes (see answer 2). The Film Council can be
improved by splitting it into two bodies—one which makes
policy, one which distributes money to produce British films.
These are different functions. It should move certain of its activities
out of London—say, script development and distribution—to
a major city such as Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester, to reflect
the need for devolution and the reality of film production. The
Government should close the three Lottery film franchises, which
have failed, and direct that money to a national (not London-centric)
production fund.
6. 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?
More production should be encouraged, especially
outside London where costs are cheaper. Producers and directors
should be encouraged to work locally, not to migrate inevitably
to London or LA. A regional distribution network should be created—based
outside London. Exhibitors such as the Cornerhouse, Manchester,
FACT in London, Broadway in Nottingham, and City Screen Cinemas,
should be prioritised as a cultural counterweight to the big chains.
The big exhibition chains should not receive any Lottery or state
subsidy.
7. How effectively has the Film Council contributed
to a sustainable film industry since 2000? Does the Council have
the right strategy and approach?
Its strategy is too London-centric, and too
big. One hundred full time staff and 100 consultants is a waste
of money and creates a lack of focus. Sir Alan Parker's 5th November
proposals were ill-thought out, destabilising, and have not been
supported or explained by the Film Council. As a foreign resident,
Parker is probably not the best head for the Film Council, and
should be replaced by a producer who lives and works in Britain—Margaret
Matheson, Ken Loach, Steven Frears, there are a number of good
candidates.
8. 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?
Film Education should be better funded and supported.
Perhaps this should be the remit of the bfi, not the Film
Council. The Museum of the Moving Image in Bradford is excellent.
I don't know if one is needed in London as well. The London Film
Festival is not highly regarded and could shut down—fund
Birmingham's lively and multi-ethnic festival instead!
4 May 2003
| 
