SUBMISSION 55
Memorandum submitted by Phoenix Cinema
REVIEWING THE FILM COUNCIL
The Phoenix is a small community cinema of two
hundred and fifty seats which has been showing films on the same
site since its construction late in 1910, making us one of the
oldest continually operating cinemas in the country. We are now
a charitable trust, founded after the GLC bought the freehold
for us in the 1980s consequent on a local campaign to save the
cinema from closure. In consequence, the trust has taken very
seriously its role as a "community" cinema serving the
cultural interests of its locality, broadly interpreted!
We have enclosed information about our building
(which is listed) and our work.
There are three parts to this submission: an
introduction, general comments and Phoenix-specific comments.
INTRODUCTION
As a small community cinema of two hundred and
fifty seats with a committed Board of Trustees and competent management
we have modest but solid connexions with the wider independent
cinema scene. We welcome the commitment of the Film Council (and
Film London) to support and fund specialised cinema and film exhibition
and distribution and to work for their improvement. We wish to
support their efforts effectively since they share most of our
aims and objectives.
As a London cinema, we are very conscious of
a prevalent view that our city is well provided with screens by
comparison with other UK districts. In central London this is
so. However, in the densely populated and socially and ethnically
diverse northern suburbs where we are located we are the furthest
outpost in a swathe of boroughs with no independent cinema—a
situation that has been deteriorating over the last 20 years as
North London's former repertory cinemas have closed down.
We continue to show a range of British, European
and world films to highly appreciative audiences and to cater
for a public whose interests and tastes are neglected by the major
distributors and exhibitors. There is a wide age range reflected
in our audience; additionally we have a specific service to children
through the "Phoenix Freddies" Saturday morning films
and summer youth projects to view films and workshops to make
them. There is a loyal local following but we also provide for
a niche market from a wider catchment—in part because we
are favoured by an Underground service. We believe we have a responsibility
to sustain a broad film culture and to deal with the specific
concerns of our more immediate communities. In fact, our education
programmes and work in schools are possible because we are a local
community facility.
Festivals
Over the past five years we have annually held
Jewish Film Festivals. Last year we held an Asian Film Festival
and next year will be a base for the African Film Festival.
Yet we receive no external revenue support from
either local authority or Film Council resources. However, we
are keen to develop both building and programmes and are not afraid
to be independent after some success in fundraising. We have assembled
a group of patrons who help us and who feel as passionate as we
do about our place in the local community and the wider film world.
We made a second stage bid for development of our facilities two
years ago but this has disappeared into the Arts Council system.
We receive no local authority funding, although our provision
of non-mainstream films in the south of the borough of Barnet
nevertheless serves to complement the council's general cultural
provision in the area. Nor does the borough of Haringey contribute
though it has no independent cinema, we abut its western order
and their people come to us.
Consequently, we lead the characteristic hand-to-mouth
existence of the independent cinema not part of a commercial chain.
GENERAL COMMENTS
ON THE
UK FILM COUNCIL
Most of our comments are structured around the
Film Council's Annual Review 2001-02. We were not sent this document
by the Council and it is not immediately clear how the review's
distribution was organised. Since it is clearly an influential
document we feel that perhaps we should not have had to seek it
out for ourselves. We are surprised that distribution did not
include the full range of exhibitors. We have referred to the
Report for policy and implementation relevant to us. As an independent
cinema, we have been in contact with LFVDA-now Film London-the
Film Council's regional organisation. We also have an interest
in the work of bfi where it touches us, ie the Programme
Unit and Education Department.
The UK Film Council has the opportunity to play
a valuable part as industry informant and co-ordinator as well
as key developer of policy and conduit for funds.
Presumably the Council is expected to represent
the interests of cinema with and through other agencies, yet we
note that the long-awaited London Mayor's Cultural Strategy (June
2003) while emphasising improvements to access and cultural industries
in its comparative measures for London's excellence/achievement
mentions film locations and production revenue (p23) but doesn't
count London's poverty of screens (independent in particular )
until para 87 and then it is West End screens; surely this is
an important omission the UK Film Council might have questioned?
Perhaps the Council might yet play a significant
part in developing that full scope and richness which we and others
believe is possible in the world of British cinema—but at
the moment we feel this is a question rather than a certainty.
1. COMMUNICATIONS
(a) We referred above to the unclear process
by which the Annual Review was distributed. This may also apply
to their other documents which will shape the future development
of film exhibition and distribution. How does the UK Film Council
communicate with stakeholders in the various sectors? We feel
disadvantaged because the Council has no regular paper or e-mail
bulletin posted out to which we can refer for information on:
— distribution and exhibition issues,
policy and activity. We would find it helpful to know what is
happening or is predicted in exhibition and distribution as those
sectors develop and change, and as other agents intervene. Even
after two or three years the Council appears to be remote from
grass roots exhibitors with independent programming policies like
ourselves. To suggest a different practice, Film London inherited
the East London Moving Image Initiative e-bulletin published monthly
on 20 or 30 pages which proves very enlightening on a regional
level—a national monthly review might be equally helpful.
Both the Council and their constituency may be the poorer for
not having this channel.
(b) Will substantial Council publications
be sent to all stakeholders in future to ensure their fullest
use in the field?
(c) We remember that our regional organisation
used to organise workshops for managers in exhibition to review
issues. These are currently in abeyance. We would like to see
them revived and invitations extended to the trustees of cinemas,
whose role is to monitor management and help develop policy. These
would provide opportunities for exchange of best practice and
networking.
(d) We observe that in most public discussion
of exhibition and distribution issues the representatives of the
production sector present are usually not too aware of the processes
downstream of their activity. Is there a need for the Council
to suggest specific education here?
(e) Should not the Council also be addressing
the near-stranglehold the big distributors have on exhibition
practices? We don't have space to develop this.
2. CONSULTATION
How do public bodies dealing with film exhibition
and distribution consult with stakeholders, including audiences?
We are not fully aware that they do. A recent example arose at
the related organisation, bfi, where the Programming Unit,
a fund of professional knowledge available to cinemas, was recently
broken up and "restructured". Prior to this the Unit
programmed eighteen cinemas and was available for consultation
to one hundred and fifty others. We were not asked to contribute
to the decision yet we might well in the future have had an interest
in alternative provision. Were other cinemas asked? Were the past
users of the service involved? To our knowledge no consultation
took place with anyone in the field before radical changes were
made.
Is it fair to assume that this process of centralised
decision making where there are external consequences is characteristic
of public bodies serving the cinema in Britain?
If the UK Film Council could proceed in more
consultative mode this might reduce the perceived remoteness of
its operations from its constituency—particularly those
parts of the exhibition sector supportive of a lively British
cinema who are working hard to expand audiences open to a broader
film culture than that provided by the multiplexes.
3. THE DISTRIBUTION
AND EXHIBITION
STRATEGY AND
FUND
(a) This strategy is intended (p60 Annual
Review) to alleviate the problems in these two areas. We have
recently become aware of the strategy and the fund and its broad
intentions. Since we have a bid for development funding pending
for two years we must ask why we were not invited to reapply under
the new scheme? Multiplication of the multiplex and their provision
of modern standards of comfort widens the difference between them
and us perceived by our audience. One feature of our "antiquity"
they do not appreciate is our seating, and we are seeking sponsors
to help replace them. The cost will be £35-40k and revenue
will not pay for them. We wish to escape the "flea-pit"
image. We welcome the new fund and look forward to its rapid implementation.
(b) The Council claims to have consulted
on the fund in April 2002 from which came the Distribution and
Exhibition Fund proposal. We do not recollect being approached.
(c) The "Digital Fund" seems to
be regarded as addressing the key problem area but it is not immediately
most useful to cinemas with one auditorium. Instead, our bid (above)
included a plan to build a new space for video, DVD and digital
projection for another specialised audience; this is unlikely
to have a place within the multiplexes but it may foster future
development not only of audience but also film-makers. We are
very conscious that funds go to independent makers of short and
experimental movies which are then rarely shown except at festivals
of short films! Our space might also cater for this interest.
4. BFI ARCHIVE—RESTRICTED
DISTRIBUTION OF
ARCHIVE RESTORATION
PRINTS:
— very skilled restoration of classic
film prints is undertaken by bfi under the Film Council's
aegis. These prints then have very restricted availability. Specialised
cinemas with competent projectionists would be grateful to share
the benefits of these restorations with their audiences. The recent
wider distribution of The Leopard and currently, The
Great Dictator, is a fairer exercise.
THE PHOENIX
CINEMA'S
CONCERNS
Many of our major concerns are already reflected
in what has gone before.
We provide a rare service in North London for
those who feel dissatisfied with the standard multiplex provision.
Yet we receive neither revenue support to tide us over the inevitable
difficulties which attend small independent (listed!) cinemas,
nor capital assistance for development projects which were approved
by the relevant institutions two years ago. The consultants KPMG
were quoted as of the view that "independent cinema is unable
to survive in a purely market-based situation—there will
be a need for public funding to ensure its provision"(2002).
We are embarking on a fundraising campaign to replace very old
seats, in part because our audience complains to us, but also
because our earlier spending on a new foyer and disabled access
disappointed them because it didn't include new seats! Our next
stage bid for development—a new smaller space (3b above)
is still not aimed at upgrading comfort for audiences, but at
modernising projection and flexibility of programming.
The Distribution and Exhibition Strategy and
Fund raises hopes for independent cinemas, but the assumption
that "The Digital Fund" is a prior need does not recognise
the problems of the single auditorium cinema:
— The Fund should consider securing
and improving independent screen access in areas of London studded
with multiplexes.
— Three years after the foundation
of the Council, there is no agreement on an exhibition or distribution
policy for the London region which might allow the disbursement
of funds. We need to be informed when this policy is decided.
— We will not receive funding from
our local authority which has not included us in its new Cultural
Strategy required by Government.
By contrast, in the recently published and highly
informative bfi manual for starting an independent cinema
(At a Cinema Near You: 2002) case studies reveal that the Edinburgh
Filmhouse receives money from the City Council, Scottish Screen
and a European source. The Watershed Bristol receives funding
from South West Screen, South West Arts, the City Council and
"is one of the very best cinemas in Britain". Clearly
we are lagging in our capacity to attract such funding but this
may be because we are a London screen. We have emphasised that
in our locality we are an outpost of independence with commitment
to community and diversity—but we need more help than we
have received to date.
— we are in touch with a diverse audience
for which we provide a different cinematic experience;
— this audience and a small group of
patrons help us raise funds for the cinema;
— a revenue flow, not solely project
based, from public funds would make us more secure and free up
time to spend on programme and technical development.
Communications
— we have had to search out the UKFC
publications for ourselves; this is unhelpful;
— a small independent cinema depends
on good up-to-date information on policy and development—e-bulletins
and inclusion on the Film Council's mailing list for documents
might help;
— centrally organised workshops help
management and trustees to benefit from opportunities to share
"best practice" and network with other independent operators;
— we might all benefit if creators
of film were better informed of the realities of distribution
and exhibition in UK—is this a role for the UKFC?
Consultation:
— we are unaware of public consultation
by the UKFC;
— closer consultation with practitioners
will bring reciprocal benefits to the Council and the exhibitors—we
feel this is self-evident;
— we are concerned that, for example,
a recent decision to restructure the bfi Programming Unit
was taken without any reference to stakeholders, current and potential;
— the Archive's restorations of classic
films might be more widely distributed.
If the Film Council can proceed in more consultative
mode this might reduce the perceived remoteness of its operations
from its public—especially those parts of the exhibition
sector supportive of a lively British cinema and working hard
to expand audiences open to a broader film culture than that provided
by the multiplexes.
If our contribution has been critical of the
UK Film Council from the perspective of a small independent community
cinema in North London this is a product of our lack of service
from this public body in matters we feel to be simple; funding
support, communication and consultation. The importance of this
body and its regional organisation to independent cinema is impossible
to over-estimate. The Council has the finance and organisation
to transform access to a greater variety of film, where currently,
the proliferation of multiplexes is standardising the availability
of the Hollywood product and restricting choice more and more.
We are one among a small minority of organisations, most in commercial
chains, but some independent community cinemas, who feel passionately
that our cinemas and their programmes are vital to the survival
and development of appreciation of the greatest art form and entertainment
of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, internationally,
reflecting the diversity of our many worlds, not merely the Californian
"cornucopia".
8 September 2003
| 
